Most strategies ignore the forces that determine whether they succeed.
I don’t mean they acknowledge these forces and then deprioritise them. I mean, they operate as if these forces don’t exist.
Leaders build strategies around what they want to achieve. Double revenue. Enter new markets. Become the leader in X. They translate these ambitions into objectives and initiatives. They assume execution determines outcomes.
This is wrong.
External forces, such as technology, regulation, economics, and society, determine which strategies remain viable and which become irrelevant. Execution matters only once strategy is aligned with those forces.
This article focuses on one: societal change.
Not because it’s more important than the others. Because it’s harder to diagnose. Technology forces you to react (e.g. AI disrupts overnight). Economics forces you to react (e.g. recession hits revenue).
Society doesn’t force anything. It quietly reshapes demand and legitimacy slowly enough that most organisations don’t register the shift until repositioning is too late.
For example, Toys R Us spent years improving stores, merchandise, and pricing. The execution was competent. The strategy was misaligned. Culture had reconfigured childhood around screens and experiences rather than physical toys. Parents shifted spending away from toy purchases entirely. No amount of operational improvement fixed that disconnect.
The company kept optimising a strategy for a society that no longer existed.
The question is: does your strategy account for how society has changed?
Three Drivers of Societal Change
Society reshapes markets through three forces: culture, human development, and demographics.
Culture shapes what people value and reject. When culture shifts from ownership to access, business models built on selling products become misaligned. Netflix positioned itself around this shift. Blockbuster didn’t.
Human development shapes what people can do. When camera phones put photographic capability in everyone’s pocket, Kodak’s business model, selling film and processing, became obsolete. Instagram positioned around distribution and social validation. Kodak kept selling film.
Demographics change slowly but irreversibly. When populations shrink, domestic growth assumptions collapse. Uniqlo repositioned toward international expansion. Traditional Japanese retailers kept optimising for a declining market.
These forces move independently of what any firm decides. They alter behaviour at scale. They determine which business models remain viable.
The skill is diagnosing which ones are reshaping your industry before performance forces you to notice.
Test One: Can You Identify the Societal Misalignment in Your Business Model?
Most organisations discover societal misalignment through declining performance. Revenue drops. Customer acquisition costs rise. Talent becomes harder to retain.
These are symptoms. The misalignment happened earlier.
Here is how to find it before performance declines:
Look at where customer behaviour has diverged from what your business model assumes. You built a retail experience assuming customers valued in-store browsing. They now research online and purchase for convenience. You built a service model assuming customers would pay for expertise. They now expect free information and only pay for execution.
Look at where your talent strategy can’t find the workforce you need. You designed roles assuming candidates with specific degrees would apply. The education system produces different credentials now. You built career paths assuming employees would stay for decades. Workers change jobs every three years.
Look at where product categories decline despite improvements. You keep making better versions of something people want less of. Not because your product is bad. Because what people value has shifted.
These divergences are evidence of societal misalignment.
Now trace them back to the driver:
Is this cultural? What people value has changed. Status used to come from ownership. Now it comes from access or values alignment. Mass identity used to support broad-market positioning. Now micro-communities want specific cultural alignment.
Is this human development? What people can do has changed. Tasks that required specialists are now self-service. Capabilities that required expensive equipment are now available on phones. Skills that education systems provided are no longer taught, or skills being taught are no longer needed.
Is this demographic? Who exists and where they are has changed. Your addressable market is shrinking in one region and growing in another. The age structure of your customer base has shifted. The social demographics (income, education, location) have diverged.
Here is the test: can you name one specific place where your business model assumes a societal condition that no longer exists?
If you cannot, you are not looking closely enough.
Test Two: Does Your Strategy Force Choices Based on This Reality?
Identifying the misalignment is necessary but insufficient.
Most organisations acknowledge societal change, then build strategies that ignore it. They keep every option open. Every customer segment. Every market. Every initiative.
Strategy exists only when it eliminates options based on external reality.
If culture has fragmented mass identity, you cannot serve every micro-community. Choosing which identity groups to position around means explicitly stating which you will not pursue. Nike chose to align with identity groups that valued brands taking social stances. Traditional sports brands tried to serve everyone. Nike captured a segment. Competitors competed for the shrinking middle ground.
If human development has shifted capability structures, you cannot assume traditional education supplies the skills you need. This means deciding: do we build alternative training programmes, hire for different attributes, or restructure work to match available capability? Each choice eliminates other options.
If demographics are shrinking your addressable market, incremental optimisation will not maintain revenue. This means choosing: do we reposition toward different geographies, different segments, or different business models? Each requires retiring assets built for the old structure.
Here is how to run this test:
List your current strategic initiatives. For each one, ask: which societal assumption makes this initiative viable?
Then ask: is that assumption still true?
If culture has shifted from status to values signalling, initiatives built on premium pricing for luxury goods may no longer work. If demographics have aged your market, initiatives targeting young consumers won’t deliver expected returns. If human development has made certain skills self-service, initiatives building professional service businesses around those skills face structural decline.
Here is the test: does your strategy explicitly eliminate options because societal reality makes them unviable?
If every initiative remains on the table regardless of how society has changed, you don’t have a strategy. You have a wish list.
Test Three: Can You Trace Decisions Back to Societal Drivers?
Most strategic decisions are justified by internal logic.
We are entering this market because it offers growth potential. We are investing in this capability because competitors have it. We are launching this initiative because leadership believes it’s important.
These are not strategic reasons. These are internally motivated decisions.
A strategic decision positions the firm around external forces in ways that create differentiation.
Here is how to test whether your decisions are strategic:
Take your three most significant strategic decisions from the last two years. For each one, answer: which external force made this decision necessary, and which societal driver makes it differentiated?
Apple’s design philosophy is strategic. Culture had moved from status signalling to values signalling. People didn’t buy iPhones for processors. They bought them to signal identity. Competitors kept competing on features. Apple competed on identity.
If you cannot trace your decisions back to specific societal drivers, they are internally motivated. You wanted to grow, so you entered a market. You saw competitors move, so you copied them. Leadership believed something, so you resourced it.
Here is the diagnostic:
Cultural driver: Which cultural shift, in what people value, how identity is constructed, or how legitimacy is conferred, makes this decision create competitive advantage?
Human development driver: Which shift in capability, participation structures, or educational systems makes this decision necessary or differentiated?
Demographic driver: Which change in population size, composition, or distribution makes this decision aligned with future market structure?
If the answer to all three is “none,” the decision is not strategic. It is an internal preference.
Here is the test: can you trace your major decisions back to societal drivers, or are they justified by internal ambition?
If internal ambition is the reason, execution may be good, but positioning is weak.
Test Four: Do You Know Which Assets to Retire?
Strategy is not just about what to build. It is about what to stop doing.
Most organisations accumulate assets (products, capabilities, processes, relationships) that made sense under previous societal conditions. When society shifts, these assets become constraints.
Kodak invented the digital camera but couldn’t retire its film business. The asset that generated decades of profit became the anchor that prevented repositioning.
Here is how to identify which assets to retire:
List the capabilities, products, processes, or relationships that drive current revenue or operational efficiency. For each one, ask: which societal assumption makes this asset valuable?
Then ask: is that assumption still true?
Cultural assets: Brand positioning built on mass identity doesn’t work when culture fragments. Distribution models built on ownership don’t work when culture shifts to access. Marketing approaches built on institutional authority don’t work when trust moves to peer networks.
Human development assets: Training programmes built on specific educational backgrounds don’t work when education systems produce different credentials. Service models built on proprietary expertise don’t work when capability becomes self-service. Career structures built on decades-long tenure don’t work when workers change jobs every few years.
Demographic assets: Store networks built on population density don’t work when populations shrink or relocate. Product lines built on specific age cohorts don’t work when age structure shifts. Pricing models built on rising incomes don’t work when income growth stalls or reverses.
The hard question is not whether these assets were valuable. They were. The question is whether the societal conditions that made them valuable still exist.
Here is the test: can you name three assets your organisation should retire because society has changed in ways that make them obsolete?
If you cannot identify assets to retire, you are accumulating legacy infrastructure that constrains repositioning.
Test Five: Does Your Planning Process Account for Societal Dynamics?
The most common failure is treating societal change as a planning input rather than an ongoing constraint.
Organisations conduct environmental scans. They note demographic trends and cultural shifts. They incorporate observations into three-year plans. Then they execute as if society will remain static.
Society doesn’t wait for planning cycles.
Here is the problem with this approach:
Culture can fragment in 18 months. A mass-market brand positioned for broad appeal can become misaligned before the strategy review happens. Consumer backlash against inauthenticity can emerge and spread through platforms faster than marketing campaigns can adapt.
Human development shifts accumulate gradually but cross tipping points suddenly. The education system slowly produces different credentials until suddenly the talent pipeline doesn’t supply the workforce you designed roles for. Remote work capability builds slowly until suddenly geographic constraints on hiring disappear and your talent strategy is obsolete.
Demographics move slowly but irreversibly. Population decline is forecastable but most organisations wait until revenue drops to reposition. By then, competitors already captured growth markets.
Here is how to test whether your planning process accounts for this:
Ask: does our strategy assume societal conditions are stable for the planning horizon, or does it build in mechanisms to detect and respond to societal shifts?
Most three-year plans assume the cultural, human development, and demographic conditions observed today will persist for three years. This is false.
A better approach:
Identify which societal assumptions your strategy depends on. Make them explicit. Culture assumes X. Human development assumes Y. Demographics assumes Z.
Then ask: what would we observe if these assumptions were becoming false? Design indicators that would surface misalignment before performance declines.
If culture is fragmenting, indicators might be: declining brand sentiment in certain demographics, rising customer acquisition costs for specific segments, or increased variance in how different groups respond to messaging.
If human development is shifting, indicators might be: declining application rates from traditional recruitment channels, increasing time-to-productivity for new hires, or rising investment required to build capabilities that used to be available in the labour market.
If demographics are changing, indicators might be: changing age distribution of customer base, shifting geographic concentration of demand, or changing price sensitivity patterns.
Build these indicators into quarterly reviews. Not annual planning cycles. Quarterly.
Here is the test: does your planning process assume societal stability, or does it monitor for societal shifts that would invalidate strategic assumptions?
If your strategy locks in three-year commitments based on current conditions, it will be misaligned before execution completes.
What This Means for You
If your strategy fails these tests, you are not alone.
Most organisations build strategies around internal ambition. They treat societal change as background context. They discover misalignment only after performance declines.
By then, repositioning is significantly harder.
Your advantage as an emerging executive is seeing this before senior leadership does. You are closer to operational reality. You see where processes assume social structures that no longer exist. You see where customer behaviour has shifted away from what the strategy assumes. You see where talent strategies hire for a workforce that isn’t available.
The skill is connecting those observations to societal drivers.
When you notice declining engagement with a product category, you are not seeing execution failure. You are seeing evidence that culture has shifted what people value.
The question is whether you can diagnose the societal driver and make the case for repositioning.
Most organisations will not listen until revenue declines. Your opportunity is to identify the misalignment earlier, while repositioning is still viable.
Start by running these five tests on your own organisation’s strategy. Not to criticise leadership. To understand where the gaps are between what the strategy assumes and what societal reality demands.
Then ask: if I had authority to reposition, what would I change?
You may not have that authority yet. But understanding what needs to change positions you to act when the opportunity arises.
Society is reshaping your industry right now. The question is not whether your strategy will need to account for this. The question is whether you can see it before declining performance forces everyone else to notice.
