In 2019, during his first term in office, Donald Trump floated an idea that ricocheted around European political circles as a punchline: the United States, he suggested, should consider buying Greenland.

Editorial cartoons followed. Diplomats rolled their eyes. The Danish government politely but firmly reminded Washington that Greenland was not for sale. In most European capitals, the episode was filed away as another example of Trumpian provocation – loud, unserious, and ultimately disposable.

Fast forward to today. Following the capture of Venezuela President, Nicolás Maduro and renewed statements from the US administration stressing Greenland’s strategic importance for Arctic security, rare earth minerals, and missile defence, the laughter has evaporated. The idea itself has not materially changed. The context has.

What shifted was not the proposal, but the boundaries of what feels discussable. This is the essence of the Overton Window, and it offers business leaders and business schools a powerful lens for understanding how agendas move from fringe to feasible.

This article is not about endorsing any political position. Instead, it explores how the Overton Window operates as a strategic mechanism, how it is used – sometimes clumsily, sometimes masterfully – and how business schools could better equip future leaders to recognise and ethically deploy it in strategy and negotiation.

What is the Overton Window (without the jargon)

The Overton Window describes the range of ideas that are considered socially and politically acceptable at a given moment. Policies or proposals inside the window feel “reasonable”; those outside it are dismissed as radical, unthinkable, or absurd.

Examples include women’s suffrage, the move towards same-sex-marriage and the legalisation of cannabis.

Crucially, the window is not fixed. It can shift over time through repetition, crisis, reframing, or the introduction of more extreme alternatives that make previously unthinkable ideas appear moderate by comparison.

In plain terms: you don’t persuade people by jumping straight to the destination. You move the boundaries of what they are willing to consider.

Greenland as a case study in window-shifting

Six years ago, the notion of US control over Greenland sat firmly outside the European Overton Window. It clashed with norms of sovereignty, post-colonial sensitivity, and alliance etiquette. The messenger didn’t help either.

Yet several underlying conditions were already present:

• Greenland’s geographic position makes it critical for Arctic surveillance.
• Climate change is opening new shipping routes and resource access.
• Great power competition in the Arctic is intensifying, particularly with Russia and China.

What changed was the salience of these conditions. Security shocks, geopolitical escalation, and renewed emphasis on strategic resilience reframed Greenland not as a diplomatic curiosity, but as an asset in a contested system.

The original proposal no longer sounds like satire. It now sounds like an extreme version of a conversation that is already happening.

That is the Overton Window at work.

Why this matters for business (far beyond politics)

Business leaders often assume that influence works through logic, data, and rational persuasion. In practice, many strategic breakthroughs occur because someone first changes what others believe is appropriate to discuss.

Consider a few familiar examples:

• Remote work was once seen as a perk for freelancers. COVID-19 didn’t invent the technology, it smashed the window.
• Price transparency in industries like healthcare was long resisted as “impossible.” Consumer platforms shifted expectations first.
• Hostile takeovers that once seemed taboo in certain markets are now routine, after repeated boundary testing by activist investors.

In each case, the winning move wasn’t the final decision. It was the gradual normalisation of a previously uncomfortable idea.

Extreme anchors and strategic contrast

One of the most common Overton tactics is the use of an extreme anchor. By proposing something deliberately bold – sometimes even implausible – you make less radical alternatives feel reasonable. In negotiation theory, this is often discussed as anchoring. The Overton Window extends that logic to collective perception.

A classic corporate example might be the CEO publicly floating the idea of shutting down an entire division. Employees and unions react with alarm, and a subsequent proposal to cut 20% of roles and restructure operations now feels like a compromise.

The initial shock redefines the midpoint.

The MBA teaches anchoring in strategy classes, perhaps using the purchase of a cup of coffee as an example. When you consider the options at Starbucks, the small cup feels insufficient while the large cup feels indulgent or overpriced. 

So the medium cup feels reasonable, even if it costs more than you originally planned. The large cup acts as a price anchor, and its presence reframes the middle option as sensible value. 

Behavioural economists sometimes call this asymmetric dominance or the decoy effect. No one is forcing you. The choice just feels obvious.

Business schools also teach anchoring in negotiation courses. Far fewer teach how repeated exposure, media framing, and timing shift what stakeholders perceive as legitimate in the first place.

Teaching the Overton Window in the business school classroom

Most strategy curricula focus on competitive advantage, positioning, and capabilities. The Overton Window belongs in this conversation because it explains how the rules of the game themselves change.

MBA students are taught to choose between cost leadership or differentiation. But real strategic power often lies in redefining what choices are even on the table.

Case discussions could ask:

• Which options were initially unthinkable?
• Who benefited from shifting the debate?
• What risks did early movers take?

Harvard students stay up late to prepare cases on industry transformation. Think of ride-hailing, fintech, or generative AI. Early entrants didn’t just compete, they reframed legitimacy. Business schools could explicitly map how the Overton Window moved for regulators, customers, and incumbents.

And as schools like INSEAD focus on ethically responsible leadership, MiM students can consider the power and danger of shifting the window. Teaching should address:

• When does reframing become manipulation?
• How do leaders distinguish persuasion from coercion?
• What happens when extreme ideas backfire and polarise stakeholders?

This is where ethics courses could intersect more meaningfully with strategy.

Negotiation: why “unreasonable” first moves often win

In negotiation classrooms, students are often advised to be “reasonable” to preserve relationships. Yet many high-stakes negotiations are won by those willing to appear unreasonable, at least initially.

Consider mergers, labour negotiations, or sovereign debt restructurings. The side that defines the acceptable range early shapes the outcome. Concessions then feel generous only relative to the initial position.

The Overton Window explains why. Negotiation isn’t just about exchanging offers; it’s about shaping the psychological space in which offers are evaluated.

The example of Trump and Greenland gives business schools the chance to move beyond BATNA mechanics and explicitly discuss how negotiators shift norms, expectations, and perceived legitimacy over time.

When the window doesn’t move, and why that matters

Not every attempt succeeds. Some proposals remain permanently outside the window and the backlash can be severe.

Corporate examples include:

• Executive compensation structures that trigger shareholder revolts.
• Cultural change initiatives perceived as performative or insincere.
• Aggressive automation announcements that ignore social context.

In these cases, leaders misread the window. They assumed readiness that wasn’t there.

Teaching failure cases is essential. The Overton Window is not a hack; it’s a diagnostic tool. Misuse reveals poor contextual intelligence.

And for every shareholder revolt, there is an Elon Musk $1 trillion pay deal approved by Tesla shareholders. So expect classroom discussion to be lively.

Back to Greenland: intent versus effect

Whether Trump understood the Overton Window explicitly is almost beside the point. His proposal functioned as a boundary test. It forced a conversation that would otherwise have remained muted.

Years later, in a changed geopolitical environment, the idea no longer sounds unserious. That doesn’t make it right or wrong, but it does make it possible.

For business leaders, this is the key lesson. You may not control outcomes, but you can influence what people believe is discussable.

The Overton Window is neither good nor bad. It is a force. Like leverage, it amplifies intent. Business schools that ignore it risk producing leaders who are analytically sharp but politically naïve – leaders who mistake resistance for impossibility, and consensus for inevitability.

Teaching students how windows move – slowly, unevenly, and often uncomfortably – better prepares them for a world where strategy is not just about markets, but about meaning.

And sometimes, what sounds laughable today is simply tomorrow’s opening move.

Enjoyed this article? You might also like…