2026 Conflict Management: A New Playbook on the Art and Practice of Business Wars

While governments, analysts, and media outlets devote increasing energy to preparing for a hypothetical World War III or managing what is often described as a Cold War 2.0, a different form of conflict is already well underway. It is quieter, less dramatic, but far more pervasive. By 2026, the most consequential arena of confrontation is not primarily military. It is economical. We have entered the age of new business wars.

From metaphor to operating system

David Brown anticipated much of this shift in The Art of Business Wars. His core argument was that competition resembles conflict more than cooperation: companies attack, defend, exploit asymmetries, form alliances and seek psychological dominance over rivals. At the time, this framing challenged comfortable assumptions about rational markets and orderly competition. By 2026, it no longer challenges them — it describes them. What Brown could not fully foresee was how dramatically the battlefield would expand.

Since the financial crisis of 2008, the global system has moved into a state of permacrisis. Pandemic, war, sanctions, energy shocks, inflation, supply-chain disruption, technological acceleration and now artificial intelligence as a systemic force have collapsed the idea of “normal times.” Volatility is no longer episodic; it is structural. In such an environment, business wars are not an exception. They are the baseline condition.

Competition today unfolds between ecosystems, not isolated firms. Companies are embedded in states, families, financial structures, regulatory regimes and geopolitical blocs. Markets are no longer neutral spaces governed mainly by efficiency. They are contested arenas shaped by power, security concerns and political choice. Strategy, in this world, is inseparable from geopolitics.

Permacrisis, capital and escalation

Permacrisis accelerates conflict. When uncertainty is permanent, waiting becomes dangerous. This explains the intensity of consolidation across energy, defense, infrastructure, technology and data. Mergers and acquisitions are no longer about scale alone; they are about controlling chokepoints, denying access to rivals and reshaping ecosystems before competitors can react. Coalition-building and confrontation advance in parallel. Stability is provisional. Alignment is conditional. The growing role of the state reinforces this logic. Industrial policy, once taboo in liberal economies, is now mainstream. Export controls, subsidies, investment screening and regulatory asymmetries are accepted tools of competition. Regulation is no longer just a constraint to manage; it is a terrain to navigate and, where possible, shape. Capital itself becomes a strategic instrument.

It is in this context that hostile takeovers return to the center of strategic thinking. In 2026, hostile bids are rarely just financial opportunism. They are deliberate attempts to alter the balance of power — to eliminate competitors, secure strategic assets, lock in technology or block rivals. They flourish in moments of fatigue, undervaluation and strategic drift. Hostile takeovers are powerful because they compress time. They bypass negotiation and coalition-building in favor of decisive action. This is why they increasingly trigger political and security reactions. They are no longer perceived as “just business,” but as moves with systemic consequences.

For leadership teams, the lesson is uncomfortable but unavoidable: hostile takeovers should rarely come as a surprise. Surprise usually reflects a failure of strategic awareness. Understanding why an organization matters — and to whom — is now a core leadership responsibility. Governance, shareholder alignment, capital discipline and narrative coherence are not technicalities. They are defensive capabilities.

At the same time, the most sophisticated actors understand escalation. Aggression is not always optimal. Hostility can provoke regulatory backlash, reputational damage and long-term integration risks. Business wars, like geopolitical ones, reward those who know when to pressure, when to negotiate and when to strike.

A playbook for leadership teams, boards and family councils

Another evolution Brown could only partially anticipate is the resurgence of family capitalism. In a world of permacrisis, family-controlled enterprises often outperform in speed, cohesion and resilience. Free from quarterly pressure, they think in generational terms. Across Europe, the Gulf, Asia and Latin America, next-generation family leaders are consolidating sectors, partnering with states and positioning themselves as anchors of stability. For them — and for younger C-suites in listed companies — the logic of business wars is unavoidable. But it must be adapted. Tactical aggression without legitimacy is self-defeating. Speed without alignment creates fragility. Power without alliances erodes quickly.

This leads to the most important shift for 2026: business wars are not fought by CEOs alone. They are a team sport. In the coming decade, success will depend less on individual brilliance and more on collective strategic discipline. Boards, family councils and executive teams must operate as a single strategic organism. Fragmentation at the top is one of the most exploitable vulnerabilities in business wars.

Boards can no longer limit themselves to retrospective oversight. They must engage with geopolitics, regulation, ownership risk and systemic exposure. Family councils must align values, capital and long-term intent, reducing internal ambiguity that external actors can exploit. Executive teams must translate strategy into coordinated action across markets, regulators and narratives. Solidarity at the top is not about unanimity. It is about clarity of direction, speed of response and credibility under pressure. In contested environments, incoherence is an invitation.

This is the essence of the new playbook for 2026. Strategy can no longer be siloed. Geopolitics, capital, regulation, alliances and narrative must be treated as a single system. Optionality matters more than optimization. Coalitions are assets that require constant care. Legitimacy is a form of power. David Brown was right: business resembles war more than polite competition. What has changed is not the logic, but the scale and the participants. Business wars now involve states, families, financial systems and societies. They are fought with balance sheets and bylaws as much as with products and prices.

For boards, family councils and leadership teams, the choice is clear. One can hope for a return to stability that is unlikely to come, or one can accept that business has become a form of strategy in a contested world — and organize accordingly. Those who do will not merely survive the next decade. They will shape it. Those who do not may only realize, too late, that the war was already underway.