Today I had a discussion with my colleagues about strategic alignment.  Typically in organizations there is some heirarchical structure.  Strategy must bridge this structure.

Overriding strategies start at the institutional level and cascade down.  The overall strategy is by its very nature more indicative or directional than specific.

For example, the three year strategy institutional strategy could be to reduce costs while maintaining a constant revenue.  Although this can be simply stated, of course, the execution plan is more complex.

Reaching All Levels

A litmus test for organizational alignment lies with results.  Strong alignment throughout the organization is far more likely to contribute to the overall strategic objective.

Defining strategies within any section of the organization that will contribute to the overall organization goals can be difficult because there is some subjectivity inolved.

For example, cutting staff in one department might appear to support a cost reduction strategy, and is easily measured at that level ( staff were reduced or they were not).

The rub is, the staff reductions could seriuosly impact revenue, which maintaining flat was the other part of the strategy.  Simply put, aligning the strategies of parts to the whole is not easy.

Thinking Strategically

A potential assist to the pitfalls of strategic alignment is to expect everyone to think strategically with the institutional high level goals in mind.

Years ago I attended a seminar where the speaker highlighted what this kind of thinking looks like.  He was doing an organizational assessment at Boeing, probing employees about their work.

He asked a janitor he interviewed what his job was.  The janitor replied, “I build planes”.  Hard to argue that employee was not thinking about the companies strategy and didn’t get at.

At there very core in every aspect of the company, in fact, as simply put by the janitor, ultimately the employees build planes.