The Power of Strategic Centering

Harvard Business Review · article · 2026-07-01 source ↗ Reader 🖥️

Hands-On Leadership & the Pendulum Strategic Centering Strategy & Direction-Setting Team Autonomy

In a 'dematerializing' economy where corporate value has shifted decisively from physical assets to intangibles, executives should replace industry-position-based strategy frameworks with a single, deliberately chosen 'strategic center' (mission, customer, technology, ecosystem, or friction erasure) that the whole organization orients its resource allocation, opportunity selection, and identity around — because a clear center bounds the opportunity set without closing it, resolves capital-allocation conflicts, and licenses fast 'permissionless' action without requiring hierarchical approval.

practical · mixed (expository definitional framing + argumentative thesis + a chain of narrative case exemplars) — Written by a Columbia Business School professor for an executive HBR audience: it opens with a decision-relevant dilemma (a capital-allocation choice), argues for a normative prescription ('choose one of five centers'), and supports the argument almost entirely through curated company narratives rather than data analysis, comparative testing, or falsifiable predictions. Structurally closer to a consulting framework pitch (cf. McKinsey/BCG two-by-two matrices) than to an empirical strategy-research paper, despite the academic byline.

Structure

Part	Role
Opening dilemma: Novartis capital-allocation committee choosing between a safe factory investment and a risky radioligand-therapy acquisition	hook / motivating puzzle
Narasimhan/Novartis outcome data (valuation roughly doubling post-split)	evidence
'The End of the Stuff Economy': tangible-to-intangible asset-share statistic (83% to ~90%), Carlota Perez's technological-revolution cycle, the music dematerialization example	premise-building / historical framing
'What Strategic Centering Is—and Isn't': explicit contrast with purpose, vision, and core competence; three functions of a center (bounds opportunity, resolves capital allocation, enables permissionless action)	definitional core
Five Ways to Find Your Center: mission, customer, technology, ecosystem, friction-erasure — each with core question / best-when / risk, illustrated by company narratives	taxonomy + inductive evidence
Matching centering type to an industry's dematerialization stage (construction/mining vs. healthcare/education vs. financial services/media vs. software/AI)	practical decision heuristic
'Leading the Centered Organization': the surprising finding that centered-org leaders are highly engaged and visible, not servant-leaders	qualifying finding
Conclusion restating urgency ('the most important strategic decision a leader can make today')	closing exhortation

Key terms

strategic centering / strategic center
A single, deliberately chosen organizing principle — one of five types (mission, customer, technology, ecosystem, friction erasure) — that governs a company's resource allocation, opportunity selection, and organizational identity, replacing 'defensible position in a stable industry' as the strategic anchor.
dematerializing economy / dematerialization
A macro-historical shift (framed via Carlota Perez's technological-revolution cycle) in which the composition of corporate value moves from tangible assets (factories, inventory, equipment) to intangibles (software, data, brands, capabilities), cited at roughly 83% tangible in 1975 versus ~90% intangible today.
permissionless action Strategic Centering
Decisions and actions taken by employees at any organizational level without seeking hierarchical approval, made viable specifically because a shared center gives everyone a common criterion for judging whether an action fits.
friction erasure (fifth centering type)
Organizing a company around the systematic identification and removal of unnecessary difficulty in a domain, without anchoring to a mission, customer segment, technology, or ecosystem — treated as a peer category equal in status to the other four.

Propositions

explicitApproximately 90% of corporate value today is held in intangible assets, versus roughly 83% tangible assets on Fortune 500 books in 1975 — a near-total inversion.conf: medium
explicitA company without a clear strategic center faces recurring capital-allocation conflict, because every investment decision becomes a contest between competing internal logics.conf: medium
explicitdevelopedA clear strategic center enables 'permissionless' action throughout an organization, increasing decision speed and reducing the payoff to internal political maneuvering.conf: medium
supportsHow Fast-Growing Companies Can Make Better Decisions · p4 — Both propositions describe the same underlying mechanism — a shared organizing reference point (a 'center', or a curated-options-plus-outcome-accountability system) that lets decentralized actors act coherently without case-by-case hierarchical approval — from strategy and org-design angles respectively.
extends ←A Leading Restaurateur on What It Takes to Scale a Winning Culture · p4 — Enlightened hospitality functions as Meyer's strategic center: a fixed stakeholder-ordering rule that gives frontline staff a decision rule ("who am I on the side of") enabling permissionless action without direct sign-off, the same mechanism extract-hbr-strategic-centering attributes to a clear strategic center generally.
explicitThere are five viable types of strategic center (mission, customer, technology, ecosystem, friction erasure); organizations with the clearest strategy have one dominant center and subordinate other considerations to it.conf: high
implicitNovartis's roughly 2x aggregate valuation increase since 2018 (across the parent company and its Alcon/Sandoz spinoffs, versus Haleon) is substantially attributable to Narasimhan's decision to center the company on innovative medicines.conf: low
explicitLeaders of the most successful centered organizations are deeply engaged, highly visible, and intensely present — the opposite of the delegate-and-step-back 'servant leader' archetype celebrated in prior management literature — and provide direction without dictating methods.conf: medium
extends12) Greger Teigre Wedel: Når sjefen har svaret, tier resten · p5 — McGrath's finding that centered-org leaders 'provide direction without dictating methods' converges, from a strategy-leadership context, on the heis podcast's claim that inspiration about the vision is the leader's job while inspiration about how to reach it comes better from the team — the same direction/method distinction surfacing independently in engineering leadership.
implicitStrategic centering is a cause of superior organizational performance and coherence, not merely a narrative pattern that can be retroactively identified in companies that succeeded for other reasons.conf: low
explicitStrategic centering is conceptually distinct from, and more decision-useful than, 'purpose,' 'vision,' or 'core competence.'conf: medium
explicitThe type of centering an organization should adopt should be matched to how far its industry has progressed through dematerialization (physical-output industries suit ecosystem/technology centering; already-dematerialized industries suit mission/customer centering; industries with dematerialized value but legacy physical-era complexity suit friction-erasure centering).conf: medium
implicitAn organization can sustain only one dominant strategic center at a time; attempting to hold multiple centers simultaneously degrades strategic coherence.conf: low

Arguments

Executives should abandon industry-position-based strategy frameworks (Porter's five forces, the resource-based view, Blue Ocean strategy) in favor of choosing one of five non-positional strategic centers. strength: medium

Explicit premises:

Traditional strategy frameworks assume stable industry boundaries, well-defined competitive roles, and durable physical/tangible assets.
Corporate value has shifted from roughly 83% tangible (1975) to roughly 90% intangible (today), and industry boundaries are dissolving under digital-technology pressure.
A strategic center — unlike an industry position — bounds the opportunity set, resolves capital-allocation conflict, and enables permissionless action even as industry boundaries dissolve.

Implicit premises:

The five listed centering types are jointly sufficient (no viable sixth type exists, or unlisted alternatives are inferior) for organizations across all industries.
What is claimed to have worked for the featured companies (Novartis, Fujifilm, TSMC, Toss, etc.) is generalizable to organizations with different resources, regulatory environments, and competitive starting positions.

Inferences:

A
r
g
u
m
e
n
t
b
y
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
-
r
e
g
i
m
e
d
i
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
t
y
:
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
a
s
s
e
t
c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
e
c
o
n
o
m
y
h
a
s
f
u
n
d
a
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
,
a
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
b
u
i
l
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
o
l
d
r
e
g
i
m
e
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
n
e
w
o
n
e
,
a
n
d
o
n
l
y
a
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
(
n
o
n
-
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
)
a
n
c
h
o
r
c
a
n
f
i
l
l
t
h
e
g
a
p
.

Strategic centering causes the claimed benefits (bounded opportunity, resolved capital allocation, permissionless speed, superior valuation outcomes) rather than merely correlating with firms that already had other advantages. strength: low