Wow, the responses from my earlier blog on the demise of the Bahama Breeze restaurant chain have been really interesting. I didn’t realize people liked it so much, and I am very happy to receive all the positive feedback about the business acumen learning lessons. For full transparency, I wrote a much longer version of the first blog, and, as I often do when that happens, I created a “white paper” that we hand out as additional readings and follow-ups for Advantexe’s Business Acumen training sessions. As it would have made the blog too long, I archived some of the writing for another day, but since there has been such positive buzz, I am thrilled to share a “part two” and continue the dialogue with more business acumen lessons from the demise of Bahama Breeze.

Burger Chef (1960s Failure) vs Bahama Breeze (2026 Failure)

The failure of the Burger Chef chain is another fascinating iconic example that provides deep insights into strategy, finance, and business acumen. If you have never heard of Burger Chef, here is a quick background: Burger Chef was once one of the fastest-growing and most innovative fast-food restaurant chains in the United States. Founded in 1954 and expanding rapidly through the 1960s and early 1970s, Burger Chef peaked at more than 1,000 locations nationwide. At its height, it was a serious competitor to McDonald’s and Burger King and was widely seen as a legitimate long-term player in the emerging fast-food industry.

What made Burger Chef successful early on was its willingness to innovate. It introduced flame-broiled burgers, offered menu customization through its “Build Your Own Burger” concept years before customization became standard, and experimented with family-friendly dining features that differentiated it from its peers. The company was eventually acquired by General Foods, which provided capital, scale, and corporate backing. However, as competitors improved speed, consistency, and unit economics, Burger Chef struggled to keep pace. By the early 1980s, the brand had lost momentum; locations were converted or closed, and Burger Chef quietly disappeared, leaving a powerful lesson in how even early category leaders can fade when differentiation erodes, and reinvention comes too late.

There’s an interesting cultural footnote to the Burger Chef story that reinforces this lesson. In the TV show, Mad Men, Don Draper famously pitches the Burger Chef account by reframing the brand not as fast food, but as a symbol of family, connection, and togetherness in a rapidly changing America. It’s widely regarded as one of the most emotionally powerful pitches in the series, and a reminder that Burger Chef once had real cultural relevance and a compelling brand story. Yet even the most brilliant positioning and storytelling couldn’t ultimately overcome eroding unit economics, rising competition, and a failure to adapt the operating model. Marketing can buy time. It can’t fix fundamentals.

I read with a mixture of sadness and interest at the announcementthat the owners of the Bahama Breeze restaurant chain were going to close all of their remaining locations. 

My first reaction was, “I am surprised it lasted this long,” followed by questions and potential insights from a business acumen perspective.

A Quick History

The Bahama Breeze concept was created by Darden Restaurants, which also owns the Olive Garden and Longhorn Steakhouse chains. The first Bahama Breeze opened in Orlando, Florida, on International Drive in 1996, in the same area as the Disney World parks. It was designed by Darden to offer a"vacation-like" escape through island-inspired decor and food.

By 2014, the chain had expanded to 43 locations across theUnited States, primarily in suburban retail districts and tourist hubs. I can remember the lines to enter the King of Prussia Mall in Pennsylvania, where people would wait up to two hours to get in.

The restaurant was known for its "island getaway" atmosphere, featuring Caribbean architecture with corrugated metal roofs, high-vaulted ceilings, and large outdoor patios with fire pits. A hallmark of thebrand was live Caribbean soul and contemporary music performed every evening to maintain a high-energy environment, and the menu blended Caribbean flavors with American favorites, including their “signature” dishes such as Coconut Shrimp, Jerk Chicken Pasta, Seafood Paella, and Jamaican jerk wings. The wings werevery good!

In addition, it served large, expensive, high-margin,  hand crafted Cocktails such as the “Bahamarita,” the Painkiller, and the Goombay Smash, all of which helped build a strong brand and fanbase.

It’s that time of year when everything feels like it’s changing.

Budgets are resetting. Territories are shifting. Supply chains are still messy. Costs are up. People are leaving. And sales professionals everywhere are finding themselves in conversations they didn’t ask for but can’t avoid.

These are not “product pitch” conversations.
They’re not about features, benefits, or closing techniques.

They’re relationship-defining conversations.

I’ve been spending a lot of time lately designing and producing AI-driven role-playing exercises for clients using ourStrategic Business Selling™ curriculum. In these simulations, participants practice some of the most uncomfortable conversations imaginable—and get immediate, blunt feedback.

A significant portion of leadership books, articles, and training programs today focus on creating safe environments.

Safe to give feedback. Safe to make mistakes. Safe to have uncomfortable conversations without hurting feelings or demotivating people.

On the surface, that sounds noble, and in many cases, it is. But there’s a subtle and dangerous side effect to this well-intended approach: leaders end up spending more time managing the process of mistakes than eliminating the conditions that create mistakes in the first place.

One of the classic leadership frameworks often cited in this space is The Ladder of Accountability. It visually maps the journey from a victim mindset (blame, excuses, denial, waiting) to an empowered one (owning it, finding solutions, taking action). The message is clear: help people climb the ladder, avoid blame, and reinforce accountability without fear.

It’s new leadership model season.

You know the one. The time of year when organizations quietly escort the leadership model they spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing out the back door, after years of training, posters, laminated wallet cards, and town halls, and replace it with something bold, modern, and urgently necessary.

Over the past few weeks of the new year, it seems like half the conversations I’m in are about “refreshing,” “reimagining,” or “reinventing” leadership development.

But why?

The cynic in me says this: with all the turnover in talent development and HR leadership, the safest path to job security is to declare whatever exists as “outdated,” hire a consulting firm, spend a year (or two) designing a new leadership model, and then launch a massive training initiative to roll it out.

Mission accomplished. Rinse and repeat.

But that’s not the whole story. And it’s not even the most important part.

The real reason leadership models are getting blown up is that the world leaders are operating in has fundamentally changed; economically, politically, socially, technologically, and operationally. The gap between what leaders are trained to do and what they are actually required to do has become painfully obvious.

So yes, companies do need new leadership models in 2026, but not for the reasons most decks suggest.

Here are five practical reasons that actually matter.