The law of requisite variety is widely employed in management theorizing, and is linked with core strategy themes such as contingency and fit. We reflect upon requisite variety as an archetypal borrowed concept. We contrast its premises with insights from institutional and commitment literatures, draw propositions that set boundaries to its applicability, and review the ramifications of what we term "complexity misalignment." In this way, we contradict foundational assumptions of the law, problematize adaptation- and survival-centric views of strategizing, and theorize the role of human agency in variously complex regimes.