When strategy meets reality: the moment decisions become difficult
Why certain strategic decisions become complex arbitrages for family-owned SMEs leaders.
- 04/05/2026
Share
There is a precise moment every leader knows, even if they rarely name it.
The strategic plan has been validated. The experts are mobilized. The analyses are finalized.
And then reality strikes – abruptly, rarely at the right moment – and everything that had been anticipated collides with constraints that no one had truly integrated together.
This moment is not a failure of strategy. It is the very nature of decision-making in a complex environment.
It is also, precisely, the moment when leaders of family-owned SMEs find themselves most alone.
The end of the five-year plan
For decades, the five-year strategic plan was the reference tool for organizations. It structured ambitions, guided resource allocation, and provided visibility to teams and investors.
That horizon now largely belongs to the past.
As McKinsey highlights, the acceleration of economic, technological, and geopolitical cycles is leading many companies to shorten their strategic planning horizons to two or three years, acknowledging that uncertainty beyond that threshold has become too high to plan for in a linear way [1].
This compression has intensified in recent years.
According to BCG, uncertainty has become one of the dominant themes in exchanges between leaders and investors, with a significant increase in references to economic and geopolitical unpredictability in corporate communications[2].
In response, planning practices are transforming profoundly. More and more organizations are reallocating resources on much shorter cycles – sometimes quarterly or semi-annually – in order to maintain alignment between strategic objectives and the evolving operational context[3].
This shift is not trivial.
It means that strategy is no longer a fixed trajectory to rely upon. It is a permanently moving framework – one that must be continuously reassessed and arbitrated, as events unfold, often under pressure and within compressed timeframes.
This reality is often captured by a well-known formula in strategic circles:
“Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” Mike Tyson.
In other words, planning rarely fails because it is poorly designed. It fails because reality always ends up deviating from the anticipated scenario.
For leaders of family-owned SMEs operating in international, industrial, or regulated environments, this is a daily reality.
When a well-prepared decision becomes a crisis: the Marks & Spencer case
The Marks & Spencer case, which unfolded in April 2025, illustrates with rare precision this tipping point between strategy and reality.
M&S had made a deliberate and economically rational strategic choice: outsourcing the management of part of its IT infrastructure to specialized providers. It was through one of these third-party providers that the DragonForce group orchestrated a cyberattack that forced the company to suspend online orders and temporarily revert to manual processes for stock management.
According to analyses published in Cyber Magazine, BlackFog Cybersecurity, and Riddle Compliance, the incident severely disrupted the group’s logistics operations and generated losses estimated at several hundred million pounds sterling.
What makes this case particularly instructive is not the attack itself. It is the structural impossibility of the options available to leadership at that moment.
Communicate immediately on the nature and extent of the incident? At the risk of amplifying customer panic and delivering exploitable information to the attackers.
Wait for a complete picture? At the risk of being perceived as opaque and losing the confidence of partners and markets.
Maintain operations in degraded mode to limit losses? At an estimated cost of approximately £26 million in weekly losses for certain activities.
Suspend operations entirely to secure the systems? At the risk of ceding market share to competitors better positioned to absorb the disruption.
Every option had a cost. None was satisfactory.
And the decision had to be made under the simultaneous pressure of teams, partners, clients, and media – with information still incomplete, in a window where every hour counted.
In the end, losses linked to the incident were estimated at over £400 million, not counting the potential reputational impact.
The lesson for family-owned SMEs leaders is not in the technical management of the event.
It lies in this reality: a strategically well-prepared decision can, at the moment reality strikes it, generate arbitrages whose full scope no single area of expertise can fully grasp.
When traditional expertise is no longer enough to arbitrate
Faced with this type of situation, the natural reflex is to mobilize traditional experts: legal counsel to ensure compliance, finance experts to quantify the impact, communication advisors to anticipate reactions. These contributions are necessary. But they are not sufficient.
As BCG highlights, traditional risk management and strategic planning approaches have long served organizations, but today’s environment – more volatile, more interconnected, faster – now demands more dynamic and integrated decision-making approaches[4].
This is why BCG recommends that leaders adopt approaches based on multiple simultaneous scenarios, in order to test the robustness of decisions against different possible futures [5].
This capacity for systemic integration is precisely what is lacking in most family-owned SMEs.
Each expert brings a valid perspective within their own scope – but a partial one within the overall picture.
No one connects all these dimensions at the moment the decision must be made.
It is this structural gap – not a lack of competence – that explains why so many strategically prepared decisions become crises once confronted with reality.
Working through the decision before it becomes irreversible
The value of rigorous support is not measured at the moment a crisis erupts.
It is measured upstream – when it is still possible to:
- examine what has not been seen,
- name the implicit tensions,
- test the robustness of the arbitrage before it becomes irreversible.
This preparatory work does not aim to eliminate uncertainty – it is irreducible.
It aims to ensure that the decision has been worked through in its full complexity, that the options have been examined from every angle, and that the leader can fully own it – whatever happens.
Conclusion
What distinguishes the most resilient organizations is not the absence of these difficult moments. It is the quality with which they have been anticipated.
In a complex and exposed environment, it is no longer strategy alone that makes the difference – it is the quality of the arbitrage that makes strategy possible.
BEL PARTNER supports leaders of family-owned SMEs ahead of their most consequential decisions – to work through each arbitrage in its entirety, with independence, rigor, and confidentiality.
If this article resonates with your reality, we would welcome the conversation.