Strategic Planning: Pros and Cons

“Time is the scarcest resource; and unless it is managed, nothing else can be managed.”— Peter Drucker

Strategic Planning (SP) is hardly a new concept. Over the years, numerous articles have been written on its theory and practical application. Fortunately, many Russian companies are now actively adopting long-term SP methods and can vouch for their effectiveness. However, despite these successes, a large segment of companies continues to avoid SP—often because the perceived drawbacks seem just as compelling as the benefits.

This tension leads to hesitation and skepticism about whether launching a long-term planning process is worth the effort. Surprisingly, this reluctance persists even among industry leaders. So what tips the scales? In this article, I’d like to go beyond the obvious and focus on the indirect dividends of SP—its deeper, long-term influence on internal efficiency, organizational resilience, and the subtle methods that ensure these dividends materialize.

Weighing the Pros and Cons

Let’s start with the obvious: when the SP process is professionally designed, direct dividends are nearly guaranteed. Here are the compelling arguments in favor of Strategic Planning:

🌀 Vision to Reality – SP provides a practical path to turn aspirations into actionable plans.

📍 Navigating Change – In a world where change is inevitable, SP becomes not just helpful but vital.

🎯 Focused Effort – Resources—time, talent, and finances—are channeled toward the most rewarding areas.

🌿 Cultural Insight – The internal corporate environment is evaluated for its influence on performance.

📊 Environmental Awareness – SP helps companies acknowledge and adapt to a rapidly changing business context.

🔍 Identifying Potential – Strengths and weaknesses come into focus, illuminating future pathways.

🧭 Strategic Redirection – Can inspire meaningful shifts in the organization’s course.

👥 Engaged Leadership – Puts vital strategic questions on the top management agenda.

🌍 Global Standards – An established norm among Western firms and a growing number of Russian ones.

💰 Financial Leverage – Often a prerequisite for credit access or funding.

🧱 Mission Alignment – Encourages re-examination of the company’s mission and direction.

📐 External Perspective – Offers a valuable, outsider’s view of operational effectiveness.

📈 Market Analysis – Helps decipher trends and competitive positioning.

🗂️ Organizational Clarity – Forces the consolidation of fragmented corporate knowledge.

... and more.

These points clearly load one side of the scale. But the reality of human nature and lived experience complicates things.

The Reservations

For every compelling reason to embrace SP, there are grounded concerns, especially when companies have had poor experiences with so-called "consultants."

Let’s consider the common arguments against:

·        The process is time-intensive and resource-draining.

·        It pulls key staff away from urgent, day-to-day operations.

·        It demands simultaneous involvement from multiple departments.

·        It can be expensive.

·        The outcome heavily depends on the facilitator's choice—and that’s a gamble.

·        Strategic success is never guaranteed.

·        In low-motivation environments, responsibilities often remain unevenly distributed.

·        Long-term planning in volatile environments can feel speculative or unrealistic.

·        Companies are planning anyway—so why formalize it?

These objections are reasonable, and the list isn’t exhaustive. So what’s the verdict? Delay Strategic Planning until some mythical “better time” arises—when resources are abundant and the team is fully aligned?

Let's discuss this in the upcoming article.