Every annual plan is a set of strategic planning assumptions dressed up as targets.
Revenue will grow because customers will keep buying the way they did last year. Margins will hold because costs will stay predictable. The leadership team will deliver because the people in key roles are ready for what's coming.
Most strategic planning assumptions were reasonable when the plan was drafted. The risk is that some of them will quietly stop being true while the plan is still running.
By the time the gap shows up in quarterly results, the cheapest moment to adjust has already passed.
Plans rarely fail because leaders made a careless forecast. They fail because an assumption that was true in October stops being true by May, and no one was assigned to notice.
Planning cycles reward commitment. Once a number is agreed, questioning the assumption underneath it can feel like disloyalty or weakness. So the assumption becomes a fact, and the fact goes unchecked.
Not every assumption deserves the same attention. RAND's Assumption-Based Planning method gives leadership teams a useful filter. Look for assumptions that are:
Load-bearing: If this assumption is wrong, the plan needs significant change.
Vulnerable: Plausible events in the next 12–18 months could make this assumption wrong.
The assumptions that are both deserve a leadership conversation now, not at the mid-year review.
One practical way to find them: read your plan and highlight every sentence that says something will happen. Each "will" is a hidden assumption (Project Management South Africa review of Dewar).
Are we assuming customers will buy, decide, and stay loyal the way they did when this strategy was built?
Are we assuming that what works at headquarters, or in our largest market, will work the same way everywhere? This is where Global Mindset matters. An assumption that holds in Seoul, Frankfurt, or Chicago may not hold in Jakarta or São Paulo.
Are we assuming the people who delivered 2026 are ready to lead 2027? Plans often assume leadership capacity that hasn't been tested yet.
Are we assuming AI and automation will change our competitors' work faster than ours, or later than they actually will?
Are we assuming the decision speed, escalation patterns, and meeting rhythms that worked this year will be fast enough next year?
Testing an assumption once in November isn't enough. For each critical assumption, agree on a signpost: an observable signal that would tell you it's weakening.
| Assumption | Signpost | Who watches it |
| Our top three customers will renew at current volume | A change in who attends renewal discussions, or slower decision cycles | Commercial lead |
| Our regional leader is ready for expanded scope | Decisions keep escalating to HQ after 90 days | CHRO and CEO |
| Our cost base will stay stable | Supplier lead times or pricing shift two quarters in a row | COO |
Then agree in advance what you'll do if the signpost appears. That turns a surprise into a decision you've already rehearsed.
The goal isn't a perfect forecast. It's a leadership team that knows what its plan depends on, watches the right signals, and acts before the results force it to.
McKinney Consulting works with leadership teams and senior executives to stress-test plans, strengthen decision-making, and prepare leaders for the conditions ahead. For a Q1 kickoff or planning offsite, Steve McKinney's Proactive Agility keynote and workshop gives the whole team a shared way to do this work.
