'Strategy Does Not Exist': A Radical Critique of the Classical Strategic Paradigm and the Emergence of Adaptive Approaches in Complex Organisations
Strategy occupies a central place in management theory and practice. It is generally defined as a set of decisions enabling an organisation to position itself within its environment, allocate its resources and construct a durable competitive advantage. In this perspective, the function of Chief Strategy Officer appears essential — tasked with conceiving and steering the strategic trajectory of the organisation.
Yet this conception rests on a series of rarely interrogated assumptions. It supposes, in particular, that the environment is analysable, that causal relationships are identifiable and that strategic decisions can produce predictable effects. These assumptions are increasingly contested by contemporary management science research.
This article proposes a radical critique of the classical strategic paradigm, arguing that strategy — understood as rational, intentional planning — constitutes a largely theoretical construction inadequate to contemporary organisational realities. The challenge is to reconfigure the strategic function around an adaptive approach founded on complexity, emergence and learning.
I. The Classical Paradigm: Strategy as Rational Planning
The dominant strategic paradigm was structured around the idea that organisations can define and implement coherent strategic plans founded on a rigorous analysis of their environment. Porter's work contributed substantially to formalising this approach, proposing analytical tools such as the five competitive forces and value chain analysis.
In this framework, strategy is conceived as a deliberate process resting on a logical sequence: analysis, formulation, implementation. The CSO's role is to coordinate this process, ensuring the coherence of decisions and the alignment of actions.
This approach rests on a relatively stable conception of the environment in which relevant variables can be identified and analysed, and in which organisations possess sufficient control capacity to implement their decisions. These assumptions, however, appear increasingly fragile in contexts marked by uncertainty and complexity.
II. The Critique of Strategic Planning: The Contribution of Emergent Strategy
Mintzberg's work constituted a first major challenge to the strategic planning paradigm. By introducing the distinction between deliberate and emergent strategy, Mintzberg demonstrated that the strategies actually implemented by organisations often diverge significantly from initially formulated plans.
Emergent strategy results from the actions and decisions taken daily by organisational actors in response to concrete situations. It is not the product of a centralised plan but of a process of continuous adjustment.
This perspective highlights the limitations of strategic planning. It demonstrates that organisations cannot anticipate all environmental developments and that they must be capable of adapting permanently. Strategy can no longer be conceived as a fixed plan but must be understood as a dynamic process in which initial intentions are constantly revised.
III. Deconstructing a Dominant Belief: 'Strategy Precedes Action'
A widespread belief in organisations holds that strategy precedes action — that strategic decisions are made upstream and subsequently guide operational activities. This linear conception is, however, extensively challenged by organisational research.
Studies show that in many cases, actions precede strategy. Organisations experiment, test different approaches and adjust their trajectory in response to results obtained. Strategy then appears as a post-hoc rationalisation of actions already taken.
This inversion of the relationship between strategy and action has important implications. It challenges the traditional role of the CSO as planner and suggests that the strategic function must be reconceived as a function of interpretation and coordination rather than prescription.
IV. Complexity as a Structural Limit of Strategy
Contemporary organisations evolve in environments characterised by growing complexity — manifested by the interdependence of actors, the speed of developments and the multiplicity of variables at play.
In such contexts, causal relationships become difficult to identify. Actions can produce unexpected effects and results depend on factors that partially escape organisational control. Complex systems theory demonstrates that system behaviours emerge from interactions between their elements and cannot be entirely predicted from their components.
Strategy, understood as rational planning, therefore appears as an excessive simplification of organisational reality — a simplification that may be not only intellectually inadequate but actively misleading to those tasked with guiding an organisation through uncertainty.
V. Strategy as Narrative Construction and Legitimation Tool
Beyond its instrumental dimension, strategy also fulfils a symbolic function. It constitutes a narrative, enabling organisations to give meaning to collective action and to legitimate decisions before their stakeholders.
Strategic discourses participate in the construction of organisational identity and in the mobilisation of actors. They enable the structuring of representations and the orientation of behaviours, even when actions do not strictly correspond to formulated plans.
In this perspective, strategy appears less as a steering tool than as a communication and legitimation device. The CSO plays a role in producing and disseminating these narratives, contributing to the symbolic coherence of the organisation — a recognition that does not diminish the importance of strategic thinking but reframes what it actually does and how it functions.
VI. Towards a Reconfiguration of the Strategic Function: From Planning to Orchestration
In the face of these transformations, the CSO function must be reconceived. It can no longer be limited to planning and control but must integrate complexity and uncertainty.
The CSO becomes an "orchestrator" of strategic processes, charged with facilitating the emergence of adapted solutions. They must be capable of coordinating different initiatives, fostering organisational learning and creating spaces for collective reflection.
This function implies a different posture, founded on listening, flexibility and the capacity to manage ambiguous situations — as well as the ability to articulate different temporalities, reconciling short-term and long-term objectives in ways that serve the organisation's ongoing capacity for renewal.
Strategy, as traditionally conceived, is proving increasingly inadequate to the realities of contemporary organisations. The rational planning paradigm — founded on predictability and control — cannot account for the complexity and uncertainty of current environments.
Strategy must be reconceived as an emergent, dynamic and adaptive process. The role of the Chief Strategy Officer evolves accordingly, towards a function of orchestration and facilitation centred on learning and coordination.
The question is no longer how to define an optimal strategy, but how to create the conditions that allow the organisation to adapt and construct its trajectory in an uncertain environment.
Advance Your Executive Career
Explore our Oxford-based programmes