Business planning has always been about balancing vision with execution, but the rhythm of planning cycles is now under scrutiny. For years, annual planning was the standard approach, offering companies a sense of stability and clear goals for the year ahead. Yet, in fast-changing markets, many leaders question whether waiting a full year to revisit strategy leaves businesses too rigid. Gregory Hold, CEO and founder of Hold Brothers Capital, observes that small businesses cannot afford to lock themselves into annual plans, without room for revision. His perspective mirrors a growing shift toward quarterly reviews that emphasize agility and responsiveness.
The debate is not simply about timelines. It reflects two different approaches to how businesses align strategy with uncertainty. Annual planning offers predictability and structure, while quarterly reviews prioritize adaptability. Both approaches have merit, but choosing which delivers better results depends on the organization’s size, industry and culture. Startups and established firms often take quite different stances, but lessons can be drawn from both sides.
The Case for Annual Planning
Annual planning has long been seen as the backbone of organizational discipline. By setting goals for the year, leaders provide employees with a sense of direction and a framework for measuring progress. Annual budgets, staffing plans and product roadmaps often align with this structure, making it easier to track financial and operational results over time.
For established firms, the annual cycle offers stability. Public companies, for example, report earnings quarterly, but often build strategies on a yearly horizon. It allows them to communicate a consistent vision to investors, employees and stakeholders. Annual planning also supports long-term initiatives, such as capital investments or multi-year product development, which cannot be revised every few months, without creating confusion.
The Case for Quarterly Reviews
Quarterly planning cycles reflect the growing need for speed and agility. In industries shaped by rapid technological change, customer demands can shift dramatically in a matter of weeks. Quarterly reviews give organizations a structured opportunity to assess progress, adjust priorities and redirect resources.
Startups rely on quarterly planning because it mirrors the pace of their environment. A new product might need frequent updates based on user feedback, or funding rounds may require revisiting hiring and growth strategies. Quarterly reviews allow leaders to pivot quickly, without losing sight of broader goals. By narrowing the planning window, organizations gain agility, encouraging both adaptability and innovation.
Comparing the Two Approaches
Annual and quarterly planning should not be seen as mutually exclusive. In practice, many companies combine them by setting annual goals, while using quarterly reviews to track and adjust. This hybrid model offers the best of both worlds: a long-term vision paired with short-term agility.
The emphasis, however, often shifts depending on company size and industry. Larger, established firms may lean on annual cycles because they align financial reporting and investor expectations. Smaller or more innovative firms may prioritize quarterly reviews to stay nimble in competitive markets. The real question is not which system is universally better, but how each business, like Hold Brothers Capital, integrates planning cycles into its strategy.
Lessons from Startups
Startups are known for their ability to move fast, and quarterly planning plays a vital role in that agility. Rather than committing to fixed goals for an entire year, startups often set broad annual objectives and then use quarterly reviews to test, measure, and adapt. It allows them to respond quickly to feedback and external changes.
For example, a startup launching a new solution or service might plan an annual growth target but break that goal into quarterly sprints. Each review provides an opportunity to evaluate user feedback, refine marketing strategies and prioritize offerings. This iterative approach not only reduces the risk of failure but also creates a culture of continuous learning and improvement.
Lessons from Established Firms
Established companies may appear slower to adapt, but many are experimenting with quarterly reviews to inject agility into their planning. While they cannot abandon annual cycles altogether, they are finding ways to complement them with shorter review periods.
Large retailers often conduct quarterly assessments of consumer trends and supply chain performance. It allows them to adapt product assortments, adjust pricing or reallocate resources mid-year, without disrupting the annual budget. Even in industries with long product cycles, quarterly reviews help firms remain relevant by incorporating new data into ongoing strategies.
Cultural Impact of Planning Cycles
Planning cycles are not just about timelines; they shape organizational culture. Annual planning can create a mindset of “set and forget,” where employees focus on meeting targets, without questioning whether they remain relevant. Quarterly reviews, by contrast, promote a culture of curiosity and accountability, encouraging teams to reflect and adjust regularly.
Quarterly reviews can also lead to short-term thinking if not managed carefully. Leaders must balance agility with long-term purpose, ensuring that rapid adjustments do not undermine strategic consistency. This balance is particularly important in small businesses, where resources are limited and every decision carries significant weight.
Finding the Right Balance
The most effective approach often combines annual planning for direction with quarterly reviews for adaptability. Annual plans serve as the compass, while quarterly reviews function as the checkpoints. This integration ensures that businesses stay grounded in their vision, but remain open to course corrections.
Leaders who embrace this model must set clear expectations with their teams. Employees should understand that quarterly reviews serve to align with current conditions, rather than to constantly reset goals. Such clarity limits confusion and strengthens confidence in the organization’s stability and adaptability.
Planning as a Driver of Resilience
The debate between annual and quarterly planning comes down to resilience. Businesses that rely solely on annual planning risk being blindsided by unexpected shifts. Those who only focus on quarterly reviews may struggle to maintain consistency. The strength lies in combining long-term stability with short-term adaptability.
Gregory Hold notes that leaders who integrate both approaches equip their businesses to thrive in uncertainty. He stresses that annual plans create a framework for discipline, while quarterly reviews inject the agility needed to stay relevant. By pairing the two, companies build resilience that allows them to endure challenges and capitalize on opportunities.
Hold Brothers Capital is a group of affiliated companies, founded by Gregory Hold.
Leave a Reply