Strategy in an Age of Radical Uncertainty

Judgement, Foresight, & the Spectrum Between Planning & Emergence

Introduction

In recent years, business leaders, policymakers, and strategists have faced unprecedented levels of disruption and complexity. From global pandemics to geopolitical instability, from climate change to technological acceleration, the foundations of traditional strategic thinking have been shaken. We are now operating in what many describe as a state of radical uncertainty, a condition in which not only are outcomes unpredictable, but the very nature of the problems we face is ill-defined.

The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, illustrated the profound limits of probabilistic risk models. Few could specify when and where the next pandemic would emerge, even though experts widely agreed one was likely. This kind of event exemplifies what economists John Kay and Mervyn King call “radical uncertainty,” a state of affairs in which it is impossible to enumerate all possible outcomes, let alone assign meaningful probabilities to them.

Against this backdrop, long-standing assumptions about strategy are being challenged. The traditional idea that strategy involves setting a clear long-term goal, analysing the environment, and designing a step-by-step plan to achieve it is increasingly out of step with reality.

“We have been living in the age of strategic planning,” says Henry Mintzberg, “but the world doesn’t unfold according to plan.” So how should we think about strategy in an age of radical uncertainty? Is it about planning, or emergence? Prediction, or resilience? The answer, according to a new generation of thinkers is, “it’s both”. But to get there, we need to reframe how we think about strategy altogether.

This article draws on interviews with John Kay, Henry Mintzberg, and Paul Barnett, each of whom has spent decades challenging mainstream thinking about strategy and management. It proposes a new synthesis: that strategy should be understood as a spectrum, ranging from predictable conditions that allow for planning, to radical uncertainty that demands emergent responses. It also argues for a new leadership capability: the judgment to know where a given challenge lies along that spectrum, and to act accordingly.

A Special Event: The Prelude to a Series of Dialogues

The Enlightened Enterprise Academy’s series of Dialogues for the Salon, titled Strategy in the Age of Radical Uncertainty, will bring together some of the most influential voices in contemporary strategic and systems thinking.

In a special launch event on June 10^th 2025, Paul Barnett, Founder of the Enlightened Enterprise, will facilitate a dialogue between Henry Mintzberg and John Kay, two renowned thinkers who challenge traditional strategic planning paradigms. Joining them will be Mike C Jacson, author of Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity, and two senior strategists, Andrew Firth and Jason Poole of Aperture Strategy.

Registration & Dial-In Details

Through this event and the dialogue series that follows key insights will emerge about how leaders can navigate radical uncertainty, integrate systems thinking, and reconceive strategy not as prediction but as adaptation.

Subscribe to the Salon for details of the series that follows the event.

About this Article

This article is a summary of the views expressed in-depth interviews Paul conducted - one with Henry, and one with John - to generate this stimulus text for the special launch event. The aim is provoke your thinking in advance of the event so you get the most out of it.

Topics covered in the interviews included strategic planning, emergent strategy, scenario planning, predictability, related capabilities, and use of the Three Horizons model. And the interviews drew attention to a shared recognition of the limits of foresight whist acknowledging the necessity of it, plus the need for judgment and synthesis.

1. Strategic Planning and Planning

Henry Mintzberg: Mintzberg has long been a vocal critic of strategic planning. For him, planning reflects a misunderstanding of what strategy truly is. “Nobody in the history of the earth has ever created a strategy through an analytical technique,” he says. “Strategy is about synthesis, not analysis.” Mintzberg criticizes what he calls “hyper-analytic” management and the overemphasis on prediction, efficiency, and cost control. Planning, in his view, often reduces strategy to spreadsheet-driven exercises detached from reality, where tick-box performance takes precedence over strategic insight.

John Kay: Kay shares this scepticism and critiques the assumption that strategy can rely on predictive certainty. “Strategies are often formed in a world in which people imagine they know more about the future than they actually do,” he says. He emphasizes that while structured thinking and analysis have their place, the idea that managers can forecast their way to success is deeply flawed. “Good strategy is not about foretelling the future better than anyone else,” Kay states. “It’s about building organizations that are robust and resilient to events you can't anticipate.”

Paul Barnett: Barnett proposes a more nuanced synthesis of planning and emergence. “Perhaps it’s not all about emergence or all about planning,” he suggests, “but rather a combination of the two.” He introduces the concept of a spectrum of predictability, where strategic decisions range from highly predictable contexts suitable for planning to highly uncertain environments demanding adaptability. Barnett argues that the capability to recognize which type of environment one is operating in is missing in many leaders: “It’s a capability that is urgently needed, so that decision-making can be improved.”

Comparison: All three reject rigid planning models. Mintzberg critiques their disconnect from operational reality, Kay critiques the flawed assumption that the future is knowable, and Barnett highlights the risks of oversimplification. Kay introduced the term “spectrum of predictability” in response to Barnett’s observation that planning is possible only when prediction is feasible, whereas in conditions of deep uncertainty, where prediction is impossible, emergent strategy becomes the only viable approach. Paul emphasized that the real issue is not whether to plan or not, but knowing when planning is appropriate. He pointed out that leaders often lack the ability to determine where on this spectrum a given situation lies, describing this as a critical capability gap. Mintzberg also acknowledged that some elements of the future are more predictable than others, agreeing with Barnett’s example of the UK’s likely demographic profile in 15 years. Barnett’s emphasis on developing this judgment capability gives the discussion a practical dimension for improving leadership decision-making in uncertain environments.