Many have withered. And he missed others. But the value of his thinking is not in the accuracy of his predictions, but in how he suggests firms should prepare for the future. A firm relying on a single world view may flourish if that future is realised. But this will be down to luck, not prescience. And the firm will most likely be even more susceptible to a fall, as success inevitably breeds contempt. Instead, Schwartz suggests firms should imagine a number of different possible futures. These do not have to be probable, just possible. In fact, thinking about likelihood is poisonous to effective development of specific scenarios. It narrows perspective and distracts managers from developing a narrative for the specific future in question. This is because assigning probabilities requires managers to compare and rank scenarios, anchoring thinking in the most likely ones. Schwartz likes to label his scenarios with pithy and evocative names. Three examples in his book are: • “New empires”: a win-lose scenario in which the trend to globalisation degenerates to regionalism, with a number of protectionist trading blocs.

Progress is inhibited by giant bureaucracies, both government and corporate. This is a bleak and conflictprone world. I am happy to say it has not eventuated, but I do worry about a pervasive complacency that does not recognise the fragility of current practices and institutions that promote international cooperation and trade. • “Market World”: a win-win scenario in which a multicultural world is full of entrepreneurialism, hope and harshness – a smart form of capitalism where international institutions set rules and standards, enabling meritocracy to survive across the world. There is nowhere to hide from what economist Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction”. There will be losers, especially those who had been cosseted from market forces. But overall the pie is much larger, and billions of people will have been lifted from poverty. This scenario has not been realised. It does not include the mercantilist policies of many large emerging countries.

And the regulators forgot their important role. But many of the attributes of such a future have come to pass. Planning for such a future would have paid off. • “Change without progress”: this is the dark side of “Market World” – full of chaos and crisis. The self-interest of capitalism is not adequately controlled by regulators. International institutions are undermined by nationalistic rivalry. The divide between rich and poor deteriorates, currencies fluctuate wildly and Europe disintegrates. This too has not eventuated, but some of the features of the global financial crisis resonate in this scenario. Armed with such narratives, firms plan and rehearse for the set of future scenarios. As the world evolves these plans evolve to reflect differences between the emerging reality and the most prescient scenario. Firms using this approach can quickly adjust previously considered plans, putting them at a significant advantage to competitors who are surprised by a changing world.