The only way to cultivate focus is to have an alignment of what does and doesn’t deserve attention. Shared attention is both the cause and result of a cohesive community—and the reason why it’s true that “culture eats strategy for lunch.”
That paragraph you quote taken alone is open to being interpreted as exactly the opposite of what the larger article seems to be espousing.
The paragraph immediately following the one you quote above goes on to say:
“If a company truly wants to disrupt and adapt, it will create space for more perspectives. That will eventually create conflict—not regarding what the company must achieve, but only on the method to achieve it.”
So it is important that any collective contain many perspectives, and many attentions looking in many different directions for the threats (and opportunities) that may emerge from those directions.
If the group is aligned on their objectives, then the methods can adapt as new contexts emerge, new threats require mitigation strategies be implemented.
That is part of any system working in a complex environment – there must be an iterative aspect to working with complexity that is constantly looking for how the system responds to our probes and adjusts our actions accordingly (as we amplify or dampen emergent responses of the system as appropriate).
Thus we may agree on core values, like individual life and individual liberty, and the necessity of those values requiring responsible choices by all individuals as liberty must be constrained to actions within the class of the survivable, and the class that generally tends to expand the class of options available (the phenotypic expression of liberty). And in truly complex systems, that will always be complex and constantly evolving sets of constraints, as new forms emerge, and all forms by definition require boundaries and constraints to maintain existence.
So it is a constantly evolving journey (as the number of dimensions present constantly grows), rather than any sort of reachable destination.