Why Many Leaders Still Rely on “Old Playbooks”
Many current executives rose through the ranks during periods that, in hindsight, were relatively stable – for example, the 1985–2005 Great Moderation when recessions were rare and markets mostly predictable.
Their management education often emphasized classic strategy models (like Porter’s industry analysis or long-range planning) that assume industries evolve incrementally and competitive advantages can be sustained for long periods. These “control and predict” playbooks stress efficiency*, careful five-year plans, and optimizing an established business model.
During earlier decades, the intervals between major disruptions were long enough that firms could rely on static strategies and hierarchies for years without catastrophe. This fostered a managerial belief that stability was the norm, and change was the exception – a belief many seasoned leaders still hold (consciously or not).
Today, such thinking can be dangerous. A recent World Economic Forum/Bain analysis noted that “It’s now clear the rules of long-term planning are being rewritten” in an era of rolling disruptions.
Yet some companies still default to annual or 5-year planning cycles optimized for stable conditions. Similarly, leadership consultants observe that traditional management habits – top-down directives, rigid plans, a focus on maintaining the status quo – persist in many organizations even as their effectiveness wanes.
The result of using old playbooks in a volatile world can be missed opportunities and heightened risk. Leaders might wait too long to adapt because in the past, patience paid off. But “in this environment, the instinct to ‘wait and see’ is the riskiest move of all”, note strategy experts.
Complacency has killed many once-dominant firms, from Kodak (which clung to its film business in the face of digital cameras) to Nokia (which missed the smartphone shift). These examples underscore how sticking to past formulas in a fast-changing landscape can lead to decline.
*Definition (in this context) - Efficiency means using resources as productively and cost-effectively as possible within an established business model. In other words, scaling what already works (rather than reinventing it) by streamlining operations to lower unit costs, improving margins through cost discipline, optimising supply chains and workflows and driving incremental performance improvements. A clean contrast you might find useful:
Strategy in stable environments: “How do we run this model better?”
Strategy in volatile environments: “Is this still the right model at all?”
References
Davis, S.J. and Kahn, J.A. (2008) Interpreting the Great Moderation: Changes in the Volatility of Economic Activity at the Macro and Micro Levels. Staff Report No. 334. New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Available at: https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr334.html (Accessed: 15 May 2026).
McNamara, G., Vaaler, P.M. and Devers, C. (2003) ‘Same as It Ever Was: The Search for Evidence of Increasing Hypercompetition’, Strategic Management Journal, 24(3), pp. 261–278.
World Economic Forum (2026) How corporate strategy is changing in a world of constant shocks. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/03/how-corporate-strategy-is-changing-in-a-world-of-constant-shocks/ (Accessed: 15 May 2026).