If I could change one thing about corporate culture, I think it might be this attitude of "success necessarily produces growth". There is nothing wrong with reaching a successful size and staying there.
A good company charges money to solve a problem. The company only needs to be as big as the problem. Anything beyond that is just an exercise for investors. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it should not be viewed as the only way to be successful.
Having said all that, I don't think Charan's assertion is "controversial" at all. In fact it seems to be the default assumption in virtually every publicly traded company.
Not weighing in on either side of this debate, but from a systems perspective it can be incredibly difficult to keep a complex system in a fixed state. Businesses are no different, so if something is working to get you "up" to the local maxima (let's say this is the "right" size) it's really hard to predict when & how to keep you there, and instead keep doing the same thing that seems to be working. It's hard to find examples of companies that are static, outside of the largest public or government enterprises; most are cycling between growing and shrinking.
I agree with you, but it might be worth noting that a business which is not increasing profits in absolute terms is shrinking due to inflation. In other words if their costs increase 5% and their revenue increases 5% then a 5% increase in profits is expected.
Luckily in the supposed alternatives, like the middle east (which has lending+interest, they just lie about it for religious reasons. "It's not interest, it's just a administrative fee per dollar lent. Not Interest! No sir!"), or China. Or China's efforts in Africa, for example. Luckily there nature is doing well!
A good company charges money to solve a problem. The company only needs to be as big as the problem. Anything beyond that is just an exercise for investors. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it should not be viewed as the only way to be successful.
Having said all that, I don't think Charan's assertion is "controversial" at all. In fact it seems to be the default assumption in virtually every publicly traded company.