Have you encountered this familiar scenario in your company: highly capable, sharp-minded employees who are becoming increasingly "difficult to manage"? They question decisions, refuse blind compliance, and frequently challenge authority in meetings. Managers often privately complain, "They're talented, but too disobedient." On the surface, solutions might be sought through HR management—promotions, salary adjustments, reporting structure changes, or role reassignments. However, according to Cai Shuheng, Associate Professor of Strategy and International Business at CEIBS, this "unmanageability" is often not a personnel issue but an early warning signal from the company's strategic system, indicating that the organization may be losing its sense of direction—a state termed "strategic defocusing."

When top performers start becoming "unmanageable," the problem may not lie with them but with the company's strategy—blurred prioritization criteria, imbalanced resource allocation, or misaligned departmental objectives. Strategic defocusing doesn’t mean the company lacks a strategy; in fact, the opposite may be true. More alarmingly, this defocusing often creeps in silently, like a chronic illness infiltrating daily decisions. First, capable individuals begin questioning and doubting, then the confusion spreads to decision-makers, resource allocation, and cultural layers, until the entire organization loses its judgment amid busyness. Strategic defocusing is not a singular management issue but a systemic symptom.

**1. What Problems Arise When a Company Faces "Strategic Defocusing"?** Strategic defocusing is never sudden but a gradual "incremental drift." The first casualty is the organization’s "perceptiveness." When this drift becomes the norm, three deep-seated issues emerge: vanishing boundaries, coordination inefficiencies, and innovation stagnation. While these may seem independent, they stem from the same root cause.

**1.1 Vanishing Boundaries: From Core Focus to Blind Expansion** What are strategic boundaries? They define where the company aims to win and what it should or shouldn’t pursue. But when strategic anchors loosen, decision logic subtly shifts: from "Should we do this?" to "Can we do this?" and from "Does this align with our strategy?" to "Is there an opportunity here?" Companies start saying "yes" to every possibility—a new "trendy" sector, a client’s "potential growth area," or a label that enhances external narratives. On the surface, these moves seem smart. But as "could-do" tasks accumulate, the "main path" blurs.

Practically, annual strategy meetings devolve into "wish lists": pursue innovation while staying stable, explore new markets while strengthening the core. Resources are spread thinly, with budgets allocated evenly across departments—no one is truly prioritized or deprioritized. Organizational language becomes littered with vague terms like "ecosystem," "platform," and "synergy," which increasingly lack real focus.

The danger of vanishing boundaries appears benign—operations continue, growth momentum persists, but energy disperses, and paths diverge. True defocusing isn’t about choosing the wrong strategy but having too many; it’s not about abandoning priorities but losing sight of what truly matters.

**1.2 Organizational Inefficiencies: From Collaboration to "Silos"** As companies scale, the first casualty isn’t product quality but collaboration. Decision chains lengthen, coordination costs rise, and once-tightly meshed gears start spinning independently. Seemingly rational divisions evolve into isolated "silos," each with its own logic, goals, and success metrics.

The hallmark of inefficiency is "busyness without results": more meetings, slower decisions, finer metrics, yet the drivers of growth grow murkier. Time is wasted on process confirmations, attention drained by alignment efforts. Projects advance, but direction doesn’t.

In this environment, systems replace judgment, and processes substitute strategy. While the machinery keeps turning, the organization’s discernment and willingness to collaborate erode. Here, truly capable individuals—those who see the core issues—become the "outsiders." Their reluctance to follow orders, willingness to challenge authority, and frequent skip-level communication aren’t disobedience but attempts to compensate for systemic ambiguity. Their rebellion isn’t the problem; it’s a signal—strategic energy can no longer penetrate organizational layers.

The insidiousness of inefficiency lies in its gradual erosion. Everyone completes tasks, yet the whole slides toward ineffectiveness; every unit "proves itself right," while the system loses its purpose.

**1.3 Innovation Stagnation: From Boldness to "Playing It Safe"** When strategic defocusing and organizational dysfunction compound, innovation suffers most. This decline isn’t abrupt but a slow boil: products iterate but converge, marketing persists but grows conservative, reporting continues but fresh ideas dwindle.

Deeper still, mindsets shift. Strategic defocusing saps leadership’s confidence in the future, while organizational dysfunction isolates innovators. As Jeff Bezos noted, "Uncertainty isn’t risk; rigidity is." The real peril emerges when "stability" replaces "progress"—risks don’t vanish; they’re deferred. Rigidity isn’t stasis but a slow decay. Outsiders see active products and campaigns; insiders know—the company ages even as it updates.

These three issues trace back to one root: the absence of strategic direction. Ultimately, organizational "defocusing" manifests as employee "unmanageability." Only when strategy reinstates clarity, purpose, and boundaries can energy realign, and employees willingly follow.

**2. Rebuilding Strategic Focus: Restoring Direction’s Constraining Power** Strategic focus isn’t about restriction but choice. Richard Rumelt, a strategy scholar, views strategy as a triad: "diagnosis—guiding policy—coherent action." Without shared diagnosis, consistent policy is impossible; without decisive policy, actions dissipate in fragmentation.

The key to focus is restoring direction’s constraining power—not as a manifesto but as an order that penetrates structures, curbs impulses, and sparks creativity. To rebuild this order, companies must complete four cycles: convergence, transmission, boundaries, and feedback.

**2.1 Strategic Convergence: The Courage to Choose** Rumelt states, "Without diagnosing the problem, there’s no real strategy." Many companies defocus not from wrong directions but indecisive choices—accumulating "good-enough opportunities" while few dare prune "growth without compound returns."

True focus begins by subtracting complexity. P&G’s turnaround exemplifies this. Once a multi-brand titan spanning household categories, it stalled when brand sprawl blurred priorities. From 2014, P&G shed ~100 brands, focusing on 70–80. As then-CEO A.G. Lafley said, "Less will be much more." This wasn’t tactics but structural focus—rebuilding a diagnostic framework: what’s valuable, what’s a trap.

Convergence revives scarcity. When organizations embrace "limited," judgment sharpens.

**2.2 Strategic Transmission: Penetrating Direction** Convergence reclaims direction, but energy won’t coalesce automatically. Strategy often dies in "transmission breaks": visions at the top, metrics in the middle, tasks at the front lines. Kaplan and Norton’s "strategy maps" remind us: strategy lives only when understood and translated.

Schneider Electric China exemplifies this. With diverse units (power, automation, data centers, etc.), it faced blurring boundaries and overlaps. Its "China Hub" strategy shifted from product- to customer-scenario focus, restructuring teams around solutions and decentralizing decisions to China. This wasn’t just reorganization but a "language revolution"—when each layer connects daily work to strategic wins, direction gains penetration.

**2.3 Strategic Boundaries: Balancing Freedom and Order** Boundaries—the third pillar—give freedom shape. Henry Mintzberg wrote, "Strategy isn’t the outcome of planning but its starting point." Boundaries are lines where planning and emergence coexist—curbing impulses while protecting exploration, maintaining order while sparking creativity.

Geely is redrawing these lines. Its multi-brand auto empire (Geely, Lynk & Co., Zeekr, etc.) brought speed but complexity. As EV and smart-tech competition intensified, Geely recognized over-diversification blunted innovation. In 2024, its "Taizhou Manifesto" outlined five moves: focus, integration, synergy, stability, and talent—consolidating equity, procurement, and brand boundaries to concentrate on high-potential brands.

When a company actively defines "what not to do," it redefines "where freedom lies." Clear boundaries don’t stifle innovation; they provide coordinates, guiding explorers and pacing the organization. In focus, freedom isn’t "anything goes" but "dense creation within bounds."

**2.4 Strategic Feedback: Learning in Action** Even the clearest strategy collides with reality, needing adjustment. James March’s "explore/exploit" model notes two learnings: stable-structure experience ("exploit") and experimental-deviation insights ("explore"). To stay alive, strategy must institutionalize feedback, making action a learning ground.

Airbnb’s pandemic response illustrates this. When COVID hit, bookings plunged 80%, Q2 revenue fell 72%, yet annual revenue dropped only 30%. Why? Leadership asked, "What’s our core?" They axed non-core projects (transport, media, luxury stays), refocusing on "unique stays" and local living. Amid chaos, they converged inward, rebuilding strategic loops—monthly reviews tested assumptions with data and customer stories. Within a year, Airbnb rebounded profitably, its leaner structure regaining trust.

Feedback isn’t error correction but discovery—adjusting direction amid uncertainty, finding rhythm, uncovering future opportunities. This dynamic process keeps strategy vibrant and aligns individual motivation with exploration outcomes.

Once focus is achieved, organizational energy shifts from mechanisms to belief. Direction is clear, but how to align hearts? Moving from "system-driven" to "meaning-driven" determines whether focused strategy truly takes hold.

**3. From Incentives to Meaning: External Drive to Internal Resonance** True focus requires not just aligned direction but shared meaning. Employees follow not for rewards but belief—answering "Why am I here?" Meaning alignment becomes strategy’s linchpin.

This alignment unfolds in three layers: direction visualization, path transparency, and resonance embodiment.

**3.1 Direction: Visualizing "Winning Goals"** Direction’s core is defining "where we’ll win." This isn’t an executive slogan but must translate—via tools and mechanisms—into tangible goals all can sense.

Uniqlo exemplifies this. Its China growth engine isn’t about "selling clothes" but "enabling quality daily life." This abstract vision materializes in store metrics: customer dwell time, repurchase rates, outfit satisfaction—concrete proxies for "life quality." Critically, Uniqlo’s management language aligns. As founder Tadashi Yanai stresses, "Uniqlo isn’t a clothing firm but a lifestyle enabler." When direction is "seen" and "spoken," it becomes a mental anchor.

**3.2 Path: Transparent Execution Logic** Clear paths answer "how we’ll get there." Middle managers must act as "strategy translators," cascading company focus into departmental tasks and personal workflows.

L’Oréal China’s "5-Power Model" (brand, innovation, digital, ops, sustainability) operationalizes this. Each dimension is both a strategic metric and organizational language, decomposed across teams. For "innovation": - China as a global hub; - 2024’s $5B investment (30% for Shanghai R&D); - Product cycles slashed from 18–24 to 6–9 months (even 59 days for co-launches).

When paths are concretized, each layer sees "how strategy happens through me." Actions auto-align because employees know "why this, not that."

**3.3 Resonance: Embodying "Why Effort Matters"** Strategy’s final landing is making people feel "my work has meaning." Without inner resonance, organizations can’t cohere. Resonance answers "why my effort counts," forging personal-organizational value bonds.

Hikvision’s engineer culture illustrates this. Its strength lies in rational, systematic tech work, but engineers risk "code isolation"—losing sight of how their programs impact real-world security, traffic, or fire safety. To bridge this, Hikvision brings clients to share stories of products solving problems. Concrete users become windows for engineers to see their code’s societal value.

This is embodiment’s power. When employees know "who benefits from my work," motivation shifts from external rewards to internal drive.

Direction, path, and resonance form a loop, not a line. Meaning alignment must institutionalize—e.g., via "meaning audits" assessing strategic understanding, path clarity, and value alignment quarterly.

**4. Conclusion** Strategic focus’s endgame isn’t "doing less" but "doing sharper." When companies redefine direction and boundaries, they rebuild discernment and purpose. Discernment teaches what to reject; purpose shows why to persist.

True management doesn’t control complexity but returns energy to simple order. Strategy’s value isn’t painting distant visions but giving every action coordinates. Great companies aren’t always right but always recalibrating—returning to core when direction blurs, to goals when inefficiencies arise, to meaning when innovation dulls.

In an uncertain era, the scarcest resource isn’t ideas but resolve. When direction focuses and meaning resonates, organizations self-renew. Then, "unmanageable" talent ceases to be a risk, becoming catalysts for evolution—not constrained but guided to build new orders.

Real strategy doesn’t bind people; it offers a future worth following.

**Professor Bio** Cai Shuheng is Associate Professor of Strategy and International Business at CEIBS, doctoral advisor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and former visiting professor at National Taiwan University, Dalian University of Technology, and others. Prior to CEIBS, he served as Acting Associate Provost (Postgraduate Studies) at CUHK, Director of Case Research, and Acting MBA Director. He has held faculty positions at Ivey Business School and Cambridge Judge Business School.

**References** 1. Rumelt, R. P. (2011). *Good Strategy, Bad Strategy*. 2. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. 3. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). *Strategy Maps*. 4. Mintzberg, H. (1994). *The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning*. 5. Bezos, J. (2004). HBR Interview. 6. P&G. (2014). Portfolio Streamlining Press Release. 7. Airbnb. (2020). S-1 Filing. 8. Schneider Electric. (2023). China Hub Strategy. 9. L’Oréal China. (2022). Five Power Model. 10. Hikvision. (2023). Customer Success Stories.