Strategic planning is increasingly shaped by uncertainty, technology investment, resource constraints, and the gap between agreeing on a direction and delivering measurable results. Recent CEO surveys, project-management research, and nonprofit studies show that planning quality depends on more than a written plan: organizations also need feedback, governance, scenario thinking, and benefits measurement.
Contents
- Strategic priorities and growth outlook
- From strategic plans to day-to-day execution
- Strategic alignment, PMOs, and project governance
- Scenario planning, risk, and capital allocation
- Strategic planning in nonprofit organizations
- Measurement, benefits realization, and planning capability
Strategic priorities and growth outlook
PwC’s 29th Global CEO Survey: Leading through uncertainty in the age of AI places strategic planning in a difficult environment: leaders are pursuing new growth while many investments have not yet produced measurable returns. In the 2025 survey, 30% of global CEOs reported increased revenue from AI during the previous 12 months, while 26% reported lower costs. At the same time, 56% said their companies had realized neither revenue nor cost benefits from AI over that period. These are survey responses, not independently verified financial results. PwC’s 29th Global CEO Survey
Growth planning is also extending beyond existing market boundaries. In the same 2025 survey, 42% of global CEOs said their companies had started competing in new sectors or industries during the previous five years. Among CEOs planning at least one major acquisition in the next three years, 44% expected a deal outside their existing sector or industry.
Confidence in near-term revenue growth was lower in the 2025 survey than in the two comparison periods reported by PwC:
| Survey period | Global CEOs very or extremely confident about revenue growth in the next 12 months |
|---|---|
| 2022 | 56% |
| 2024 | 38% |
| 2025 | 30% |
The figures describe expectations at each survey date, not realized growth. The 2025 survey also found that 29% of global CEOs expected tariffs to reduce their company’s net profit margin over the next 12 months, while 60% expected tariffs to have little or no effect.
From strategic plans to day-to-day execution
Execution during uncertainty often requires a planning process that can be revisited. A PwC pulse survey conducted May 1–8, 2025 found that 58% of CEOs were gathering diverse executive perspectives and encouraging internal debate during macroeconomic turmoil. Half were inviting external advisors to challenge their thinking about strategy and assumptions. Forty-eight percent were building more feedback loops into strategic decision-making, and the same share said they were revisiting strategic decisions more often. PwC, “CEOs 100 days in: What’s next for business”
The survey also shows a distinction between agreement and implementation. Ninety-four percent of surveyed CEOs reported executive consensus on their company’s long-term growth plans. Yet 42% ranked resource constraints among the top three barriers to delivering corporate strategy. Consensus can therefore be a starting condition rather than evidence that the organization has enough capacity, funding, or talent to execute.
Some organizations had already moved from discussion to action. Fifty-three percent of surveyed companies had moved beyond planning and were actively adjusting forecasts, reducing costs, or diversifying suppliers. Sixty percent of CEOs expected policy and financial-market volatility to subside in less than one year; that is a forecast horizon, not a confirmed outcome.
For decision makers, these figures support a practical planning rhythm: establish the long-term direction, identify the assumptions that could change, and define the feedback signals that trigger a forecast revision, cost response, or portfolio change.
Strategic alignment, PMOs, and project governance
Project governance can connect strategic intent with the work that consumes organizational resources. PMI’s Pulse of the Profession® 2026: Steering Organizations Through Complexity reports several differences between organizations with a project management office (PMO) and those without one. The results are associations reported in the survey; they do not by themselves establish that a PMO caused the difference. PMI, Pulse of the Profession® 2026
| Reported practice or outcome | With a PMO | Without a PMO |
|---|---|---|
| Recognized complexity in projects | 58% | 53% |
| Very or extremely successful at managing complexity | 63% | 57% |
| Used frameworks | 71% | 55% |
| Sponsor alignment at project initiation | 38% | 30% |
| Projects supported larger business goals or the mission | 42% | 37% |
The same 2026 survey reported that organizations with a PMO were more likely to celebrate project wins and milestones, at 41% versus 34% without a PMO, and to use phased stakeholder engagement, at 49% versus 44%. Scenario-planning exercises were used by 23% of organizations with a PMO and 21% of organizations without one.
Reported outcomes followed a similar pattern. Risk mitigation was identified as an outcome by 40% of organizations with a PMO, compared with 35% without one. Stakeholder alignment was reported by 39% with a PMO and 34% without one. These comparisons suggest that governance mechanisms may help make strategic connections visible, but the modest differences in some practices also show that having a PMO is not a substitute for disciplined decision rights and clear objectives.
Scenario planning, risk, and capital allocation
Strategic planning often becomes most consequential when leaders allocate capital across countries, technologies, suppliers, and risk controls. PwC’s 2025 global CEO survey found that 51% of global CEOs planned to make international investments in the following year. Among CEOs planning international investments, 35% placed the United States among their top three destination countries. The United Kingdom and Germany were each selected by 13%, the Chinese Mainland by 11%, and India by 13%. India’s figure was up from 7% in the prior survey. These are planned destinations, not completed investments. PwC’s 29th Global CEO Survey
Risk planning is similarly tied to financial exposure. Thirty-one percent of global CEOs said their companies were highly or extremely exposed to significant financial loss from cyber threats in the following year. In response to geopolitical risk, 84% planned to improve enterprise-wide cybersecurity practices. Twenty percent said their companies were highly or extremely exposed to significant financial loss from tariffs over the following 12 months.
These results support separating a strategic plan into at least two layers: the intended allocation of resources and the conditions that would cause leaders to change it. A scenario process can make those conditions explicit, such as a change in exposure, a shift in investment attractiveness, or a new threat to expected returns. The supplied survey figures do not quantify the financial value of those responses, so they should be used to frame questions rather than to estimate returns.
Strategic planning in nonprofit organizations
Nonprofit organizations use strategic planning alongside evaluation, performance improvement, and other management tools. Bridgespan’s Nonprofit Management Tools and Trends 2015 Full Report found that 70% of surveyed nonprofits used strategic planning in 2014. Program evaluation was used by 69%, and performance measurement and improvement by 66%. These findings describe the 2014 survey period and should not be treated as a current estimate. Bridgespan, Nonprofit Management Tools and Trends 2015 Full Report
Tool use varied by organization size. Knowledge-management systems were used by 55% of the largest nonprofits, compared with 26% of smaller nonprofits. Ninety-one percent of respondents planned to use at least 11 management tools in 2015. The smallest nonprofits expected average management-tool use to rise from 9 tools in 2014 to 18 in 2015. Organizations with $1 million to $50 million in revenue expected to use 19 tools on average in 2015, while the largest nonprofits expected 21.
More tools do not automatically mean stronger strategic leadership. A Stanford Survey on Leadership and Management in the Nonprofit Sector, published in 2018, found that only 11% of nonprofits were strong across all seven foundational elements of strategic leadership. More than 80% struggled with at least one element, and 38% struggled with strategy, defined as a planned set of actions to achieve the mission. Bridgespan, “Most Nonprofits Aren’t Ready for the Coming Impact Era”
Measurement, benefits realization, and planning capability
The final test of a strategic plan is whether initiatives deliver their intended results. PMI’s The High Cost of Low Performance reported in its 2014 Pulse of the Profession survey that only 9% of organizations rated themselves excellent at executing initiatives to deliver strategic results. Just 56% of strategic initiatives met their original goals and business intent. PMI, The High Cost of Low Performance
Performance varied sharply across organizations. High-performing organizations successfully completed 89% of their projects, compared with 36% among low-performing organizations. The survey also reported an average loss of US$109 million for every US$1 billion spent on projects. This is a historical survey finding from 2014, not a current universal cost estimate.
The value of project management was associated with strategic initiative results: strategic initiatives were successful at 63% of organizations that fully understood project management’s value, versus 47% at organizations that did not. Only 17% of organizations reported high benefits-realization maturity, while 69% reported having a project management office.
Together, these figures point to a measurement gap. A PMO can exist without high benefits-realization maturity, and an initiative can be approved without a reliable mechanism for checking whether its original business intent remains valid. Strategic planning is stronger when each major initiative has a defined outcome, an owner, a review point, and a decision rule for continuing, changing, or stopping the work.