Core Insights - The article discusses the phenomenon of "strategic misalignment" within organizations, where capable employees begin to resist management due to unclear strategic direction [1][2][3] - Strategic misalignment is characterized by three main issues: disappearing boundaries, internal organizational friction, and innovation stagnation, all stemming from a lack of clear strategic direction [4][13] Disappearing Boundaries - Strategic boundaries define where a company should compete and what it should avoid, but when these boundaries blur, decision-making shifts from "should we do this" to "can we do this" [5][6] - This shift leads to a proliferation of initiatives that dilute focus, resulting in a situation where the organization becomes busy but lacks clear priorities [7][8] Internal Organizational Friction - As organizations grow, the collaboration between departments often deteriorates, leading to silos where each department operates independently, resulting in inefficiencies [9][10] - This internal friction manifests as increased meetings, slower decision-making, and a lack of clarity on what drives growth, ultimately eroding the organization's judgment and collaborative spirit [11][12] Innovation Stagnation - Continuous strategic misalignment and organizational dysfunction lead to a decline in innovation, where new ideas become scarce and the organization becomes risk-averse [11][12] - The focus shifts from bold experimentation to merely maintaining stability, which can result in long-term decline despite outward appearances of activity [12][13] Rebuilding Strategic Focus - To address strategic misalignment, organizations must re-establish clear strategic direction, which involves making tough choices about priorities and resource allocation [14][15] - The process of strategic focus includes four key cycles: convergence, transmission, boundaries, and feedback, which help to clarify direction and ensure alignment across the organization [17][30] Case Studies - Procter & Gamble's transformation involved shedding around 100 brands to focus on 70-80 core brands, demonstrating the importance of strategic convergence [19][20] - Schneider Electric's "China Hub" strategy illustrates how clear communication and local empowerment can enhance strategic transmission and execution [24][25] - Airbnb's response to the COVID-19 pandemic showcases the importance of strategic feedback, as the company refocused on its core offerings to navigate through crisis [32][33] Conclusion - The article emphasizes that true strategic focus is not about doing less but about doing the right things more effectively, which requires a clear understanding of direction and boundaries [44][45] - Organizations that can align their strategic focus with employee motivation will foster a culture where capable individuals are not seen as disruptive but as catalysts for evolution [47][48]

Core Insights - The concept of "big company disease" refers to large, once-successful enterprises that gradually lose vitality and competitiveness, leading to stagnation or decline [2][14] - The article discusses the symptoms of "big company disease," including strategic misalignment, organizational dysfunction, and innovation stagnation [2][11] Strategic Misalignment - The first symptom of "big company disease" is strategic misalignment, where companies lose focus on their core mission and begin to expand into unrelated markets without a unified strategy [2][5] - Frequent changes in strategic direction can lead to confusion and resource misallocation, as seen in companies like HTC and Meituan [3][5] - Companies that maintain a clear strategic focus, like Nintendo, are more likely to succeed [2][5] Organizational Dysfunction - The second symptom is organizational dysfunction, characterized by slow decision-making processes and a lack of effective communication within the organization [7][8] - As companies grow, their decision-making structures can become cumbersome, leading to missed opportunities, as illustrated by Giordano's slow response to e-commerce challenges [7][8] - Internal competition for resources can create inefficiencies, as seen in companies like Vanke and Wang An Computer, where departments operate in silos [8][9] Innovation Stagnation - The third symptom is a decline in innovation capabilities, where companies become risk-averse and fail to pursue groundbreaking ideas [11][12] - Companies may continue to release new products, but these often lack true innovation and merely extend existing lines, as demonstrated by Blackberry and Sony [11][12] - The article emphasizes that true innovation requires a willingness to explore new possibilities rather than relying solely on past successes [16][21] Underlying Mechanisms - The article identifies three interrelated mechanisms that contribute to "big company disease": success traps, internal drive imbalance, and short-termism [14][18][21] - Success traps occur when companies become overly reliant on past successful strategies, leading to a decline in adaptability [15][16] - Internal drive imbalance arises from bureaucratic structures that prioritize risk avoidance over value creation, resulting in a lack of responsiveness to market changes [18][19] - Short-termism manifests as a focus on immediate financial performance at the expense of long-term strategic goals, stifling innovation and growth [21][23] Conclusion - The article concludes that while "big company disease" is a real phenomenon, it is not insurmountable. Companies can still become great by embracing self-renewal, maintaining customer sensitivity, and fostering a culture of innovation [23][24]