Why Your Three - Year Strategy Cycle Needs a Reboot
Hook
Opening reflection
I once reviewed a three-year strategic plan where the middle year’s assumptions had already cracked within six months. Yet there it was, framed as if time stood still. That’s the trap of rigid cycles in volatile contexts.
In modern dynamics, the idea that you can set a static plan and hold it for three years feels quaint. Instead, we need cycles built for adaptation. That means shorter horizons, rolling revisions, and a mindset that treats strategy as hypothesis, not destination.
Why the classic 3 - year model fails
- Assumptions decay before implementation.
- Markets shift faster than quarterly reviews.
- Execution itself changes the landscape you are planning for.
Toward a responsive cycle
- Anchor long-term vision, but break it into short-term, testable bets.
- Review every quarter: what’s working, what’s false, what’s urgent.
- Adopt mini experiments – test one idea this quarter, adapt or discard.
- Resist the “sunk cost” anchor don’t lock yourself to inertia.
- Ask real questions: What did I assume this time last year that feels wrong now?
Reflection
“To maintain strategic relevance is to swim in motion – the only steady boat is the one that adjusts midstream.”
I’ve coached organisations where shorter strategic cycles daily gave them power: they stopped defending earlier assumptions and started releasing new versions faster.
Prompt / question for you
What’s the one assumption in your current strategy you believe least, and if you dropped it this quarter, what might emerge?
Conclusion
A three-year strategy isn’t dead – it just needs a living skeleton, not a tombstone. Make your plans generative, not fossilised.
