Navigating Reinvention: Insights from New Balance

When we think of reinvention, we often imagine scrappy startups pivoting to survive. But for mature companies with legacy reputations, reinvention is more complex. It’s less about radical change, more about careful recalibration. A recent segment on Bloomberg’s Wall Street Week offered a timely look into how one such business, New Balance, is managing this ongoing challenge. Featuring insights from CEO Joe Preston and Harvard Business School’s Ryan L. Raffaelli, the discussion provides a framework that many established firms would do well to study.

Preston outlined how New Balance has adapted without discarding what makes it unique. Rather than abandoning its roots, the company has leaned into them, using its longstanding reputation in performance footwear to inform its move into lifestyle, basketball and baseball categories. These shifts didn’t happen overnight, and they weren’t reactionary. Instead, they reflect a deliberate strategy of expanding the brand’s relevance while remaining anchored in its original purpose.

This kind of evolution requires more than clever marketing. It demands structure, discipline, and a willingness to confront internal friction. Raffaelli, who has studied the reinvention of legacy organisations, introduced three common pitfalls that often block progress: the identity trap, the architecture trap, and the collaboration trap.

Identity Trap

Organisations sometimes hold so tightly to their traditional identity that they fail to spot new opportunities. They equate consistency with preservation, even if the market has moved on. New Balance has taken a different approach. It has modernised its product lines by integrating current technologies and aesthetics into heritage silhouettes, allowing the brand to stay fresh without feeling inauthentic. This has allowed the business to speak simultaneously to long-time loyalists and new consumers. Striking that balance isn’t easy, but for companies willing to rethink how they present their values, it’s a powerful lever.

Architecture Trap

This is the problem of structure. Many organisations apply a one-size-fits-all model across different business units. What works for a mature product may be entirely unsuitable for a newer venture. Preston acknowledged that New Balance has avoided this trap by tailoring processes and systems based on the needs of each area. Innovation-led divisions, for example, are given more flexibility, different KPIs, and localised autonomy. These decisions reflect a company that understands the need to build support structures that reflect reality, not idealised uniformity.

Collaboration Trap

The third trap Raffaelli identifies is a cultural one. Too often, business units become protective of their turf, which breeds resentment and isolates ideas. Innovation gets stifled not by lack of creativity but by a lack of alignment. At New Balance, leadership has worked to create a culture where cross-functional teams are the norm. Design, marketing and production work in tandem—not just on paper, but in practice. The business also brings external partners into the fold—suppliers, retailers, even customers—viewing them as contributors to innovation rather than passive recipients.

Raffaelli also draws attention to the concept of managing multiple "S-curves"—the idea that organisations must maintain existing products in their maturity phase while investing in emerging ones. It’s a framework that forces companies to live in two time zones at once: one focused on short-term performance, the other on long-term relevance. New Balance does this well. While its core running line continues to anchor the business, the brand has invested in new categories that offer future growth potential. That balance, between defending existing ground and exploring new terrain, is what makes its current trajectory noteworthy.

But managing multiple S-curves isn’t just about strategic intent. It requires resource allocation, leadership bandwidth, and a tolerance for ambiguity. Investments in early-stage opportunities often lack immediate payoff. Yet without them, organisations risk stagnation. What New Balance shows is that this tension can be managed. With clear-eyed leadership and an appetite for disciplined experimentation, the risks become calculated rather than chaotic.

There are lessons here for other firms facing their own reinvention journeys. First, identity doesn’t have to be a constraint; used correctly, it becomes an asset. Second, structures should reflect the diversity of a company’s portfolio, not standardised efficiency. And third, collaboration isn’t a buzzword; it’s a business imperative.

New Balance’s path is not one of transformation for its own sake. It is thoughtful, measured, and built on an understanding that staying still is not an option. For companies seeking to remain relevant in a world that won’t wait, it’s a case study worth reflecting on.

Additional Resources:

Bloomberg Video: New Balance-ing Act – How Companies Reinvent Themselves

Ryan Raffaelli on the Three Traps of Reinvention – MIT Sloan Management Review

Managing Your Organisation as a Portfolio of Learning Curves – Harvard Business Review