Organizational Alignment
Donald Tosti
INTRODUCTION
The business press and academic literature are full of models for analyzing organizations and
improving their performance. (Sis Sigma, Business Process Management, Culture Change,
and Internal Branding are just a few examples) It is probably fair to say that all of these models
can be useful for some purposes and that none of them is comprehensive. The difficulty that
organizational theorists face is that an organization is a dynamic system, with multiple factors
influencing performance and complex interactions between the organization and its
environment as well as among components within the organization.
This difficulty is analogous in some ways to the one faced by health care theorists and
diagnosticians in dealing with the health of individuals. A single framework is inadequate
to the task of description, diagnosis and prescription, and medical professionals use a series
of models in their work. This paper takes a similar approach to organizational
description, looking first at the organization as a whole and then examining it as a system
with components. The result is an approach to organizational management that is
comprehensive and that recognizes the need for alignment of components, both internally
and with the environment.
The Organization as a Whole
The over-riding purpose of any organization Ð whether private or public, commercial or
charitable, profit or non-profit Ð is to create value for the people who are its stakeholders. And
one key to the long-term success of an organization is recognizing that its stakeholders are
typically many and varied Ð e.g., owners, customers, members, employees, the community,
and society at large. The first and fundamental step in organizational planning, then, is to
determine what outcomes its stakeholders will value and translate these into a statement of
mission and intended results that is within the organization’s scope.
MISSION
RESULTS
©2003-Tosti&Amarant
1
In this paper we will examine a model that improves understanding of the complexity of an
organization. It is an integrated model of organizational performance that incorporates the
following principles:
Focuses on results and contributions to value
Takes a full organizational view
Provides a guiding structure to determine where improvement is need and what
kinds of interventions may be most
.
Many people in the field of Organizational Performance use a systems model. It can be used to
analyze strategy and process. It can also be used as a base for analyzing for overall
organizational performance. We do this by looking at three major organizational sub systems:
Organizationa l / The Management and Administration
Operational / The Work
People / The Job
A MODEL TO LINK THE LEVELS
In many ways a business organization is an ideal environment for developing a technology of
performance. It is relatively self-contained; it has relatively easily measured outcomes ; it is
complex enough to support the application and d evelopment of a sophisticated
performance technology; and it is self -sustaining. Performance professionals quickly
learned that their models which focused solely on individual performance were insufficient to
permit them to improve organizational performance.
An organization is a complex system. It is at its most basic level a human performance system
but one which operates somewhat differently at different levels. Alignment logic allows us to
analyze the relationships of components across levels. Alignment is critical to optimum
performance of any complex system – an organization, the human body, or an automobile. If
system components are not aligned, they cannot work together to produce optimum results. A
primary management function, then, is to ensure ali gnment across levels.
The Strategy Factor; aligning processes
Managers often see their job as making sure that the three levels of organizational complexity
are vertically aligned in the execution of a process. They do so by aligning goals and
objectives with the organization’s mission statement, aligning processes with those goals in
order to produce the required services/products, and finally by aligning the tasks that people
perform with the pro cesses to produce results. This form of alignment is common and typically
represented by the figure below.
©2003-Tosti&Amarant
2
Level
Alignment
Mission
Organizational
Goals
Operational
Processes
Job
Tasks
Result
Clearly then one way to improve performance is to work on any of these factors. Much
progress has been made in improving processes using techniques like six sigma and BPE
but those approaches still do not even come close to addressing the whole organization.
When we are looking at how to strengthen performance, or solve performance problems, it is
critical to consider all three levels. A large part of our analysis and intervention,
however, occurs at the operational level –just as physicians focus much of their effort on the
body’s functions and systems, rather than at the cell level of the body or the person as a whole.
The Culture Factor: aligning practices
When we look more closely at performance at the operational level, it becomes clear that
results depend not just on what we do (the processes people follow) but also on how we
behave as we do things (the practices people demonstrate). Even with well-designed
processes, the behavioral practices of groups and individuals can make the difference
between merely adequate results and outstanding results. In the worst case, poor practices can
destroy good processes.
Thus, what people do can sometimes be less important than how they do it, especially over the
long term? Products, services and technology – even unique, first-class ones – often give
organizations a short-lived edge over their competition. Sustained success depends on how an
organization’s people deliver those products and services. When reengineering was first
introduced as a performance intervention, many organizations spent a lot of time and money
only to achieve little in the way of improved results. Follow-up studies found that in almost
every case, the reason was a failure to recognize that the change in process required a
re-alignment of practices for the new process to be effective. Despite this, it is only in
relatively recent years that managers and performance consultants have given serious
attention to practices. There appear to be at least two reasons for this:
©2003-Tosti&Amarant
3
Practices are often company -wide. In performing their jobs, most people in the
organization exhibit behavior patterns that make up the “company practices.” There are
prevailing norms, expectations and rewards that support these practices Ð and people whose
behavior does not fit those norms and expectations may find themselves quite
uncomfortable. This makes it difficult for people to change their practices unless the behavior
of others around them changes at the same time and/or the environment changes in a way that
clearly supports new behavior.
The relationship to results may not be obvious. People usually know how their
task/process behavior affects the results of their work. A good deal of effort often goes into
designing processes and tasks. Practices typically develop over time, without the same kind of
planning that went into process development, and may become virtually unnoticed habits.
People may not see how the practices that define their approach to the work or their treatment of
their co-workers affect results.
For example, in some organizations a high degree of competitiveness develops that affects the
way people work with other departments, as well as the w ay they view external
competitors. In almost every case, the resulting working relationships are far less effective than
those guided by practices that foster cooperation or partnering. But that connection is not
always visible to people in the organization who are simply behaving “the same way everyone
else does.”
Thus if someone is asked to change task-related behaviors Ð e.g., organize information in a
business case differently, or assemble equipment in a new sequence Ð the change will not usually
fly in the face of prevailing norms. If someone is asked to work differently with others Ð e.g.,
consult widely in preparing a business case, or share equipment assembly tasks Ð it may
violate expectations about how things have “always been done.” Practices can be viewed
in the context of an alignment framework similar to that for processes:
Level
Alignment
Mission
Organizational
Values
Operational
Practices
Job
Behaviors
Results
©2003-Tosti&Amarant
4
Putting those two alignment frameworks together allows us to create a balanced model
LEVEL
ALIGNMENT
STRATEGY/MISSION
ORGANIZATIONAL
GOALS
VALUES
OPERATIONAL
PROCESSES
PRACTICES
JOB
TASKS
BEHAVIORS
RESULTS
©2003-Tosti&Amarant
5
Determining Desired Strategic Processes and Cultural Practices
If we are going to create a desired process we would first examine our strategy and mission to
determine what results we want. Then working back from results we would define the processes
that would best produce that result. The various processes would be linked to form the
operations.
A similar methodology would be used in determining the desired cultural practices
We first examine and get agreement on desired results. Then working backs from results we
would define a set of practices which would support the production of that result. These practices
could then be grouped together under value labels.
Let’s see how that would work
Suppose we defined a desired result as “increasing customer loyalty” Then we would gather
data from company employees and perhaps customers on how we should behave to deliver this
result. This could be done in many ways; Surveys, card sorts, interviews, focus groups,
observations etc. Now it is quite likely this research effort would indicate some practices like
the following
..Always be honest: never pass on inaccurate information
..Always met your commitments
..Make sure you advice is based on fact not just your personal agenda
These practices could easily be grouped under a value of “trustworthy” and then be
positioned as an operational value
This method is often referred to as a “criterion referenced” approach since it begins with a
specific criterion; that is the desired business result and uses that as a reference point to
determine what actions we should take
The Power of Cultural Alignment
Operational values are not just nice to have their absolutely critical if we are to deliver the
desired results. This fact can also provide a strong motivation for change. The one thing we know
from research on culture change is that it is most likely to occur when people in the culture see a
clear advantage for that change; the most powerful advantage being to survive and/ or to thrive as
a community.
Since the practices are directly linked to the results of the business operational values can
more easily be described as those things we must demonstrate as a company in order to
survive and thrive. What's more operational values as they are derived from data from a
©2003-Tosti&Amarant
6
cross-section of employees at all levels are easier to buy into them those generated by
managers at some retreat
The other advantage is that operational values are derived from clustering of practices. The
practices “audit in turn were derived from what was necessary to deliver results. Thus a clear
trail” exists from results to practices to values.
Another important factor in culture change is the ability to measure it. Since in the process of
creating operational values we defined the practices; these can provide opportunities to measure
present level of demonstration by the culture. Therefore the extent to which the culture is
aligned with the strategy can be objectively assessed: and the “cultural gap”
determined. This is a powerful tool for culture change it allows us to justifiably claim that our
value alignment is not being driven by dictates of management but by dictates of the business.
There are many cultural assessments instruments available in the marketplace. But virtually all
of these are “norm referenced” rather than “criterion referenced”. A criterion referenced
assessment is derived from an analysis of the business requirements consistent with the
company’s own strategy. A norm referenced assessment is derived from a statistical analysis
of some cultural dimensional theory across a wide variety of organizations with widely different
strategies. Furthermore the dimensions derived from norm referenced instruments are seldom
congruent with the operational values of the organization making it even harder for people to
make the linkages.
THE MANAGEMENT/LEADERSHIP FACTOR: Aligning Power
Creating and maintaining a balanced and aligned organization requires decisions about
organizational direction and intent – what the organization is in business to do, and what is
important about the way it conducts its business. In addition the organization has only so much
in the way of resources and those resources ideally should be allocated to maximize the
success of the organization so both the leadership and the governance of the organization
must be aligned to the results This is the power dimension i.e. the capacity to achieve desired
results
How the managers lead and govern the organization constitute another critical set of factors that
must be considered in efforts to achieve results are also necessary to consider. In fact many
people believe that leadership and management are the most critical influence on performance,
because they have the widest impact on the organization. They represent the primary source of
power in organizations. In an organizational context power can be defined as “the capacity
to accomplish desired results.” Power is a positive concept when it is aligned and linked to
the organizations results. Power is negative where the accomplishment only benefits a small
group of people and\or is detrimental to the “health” of the organization. Although the terms of
©2003-Tosti&Amarant
7
management and leadership are far broader and richer than the definitions we have given here;
in alignment we are primarily with concern with only their power aspects
In alignment terms Management/ Governance Power is clearly a set of processes While
Leadership Power is based on a set of practices Integration of the
leadership/management function in the organizational alignment model allows us to create a
comprehensive picture of organizational alignment as shown on as follows.
Understanding that every organization is whole Performance System is critical for the success
of virtually any attempt to improve or maintain performance. It is as important for every
manager and every consultant to management to grasp this reality as it is for a medical
doctor to recognize that the human body is at its basic level a biological system. Too many so
called “solutions” have either failed or are short lived precisely because they have focused on
process and failed to adequately address the “people and power” issues with this
understanding.
Using the Organizational Alignment Approach, we can develop a full systems view that
allows us to identify the inter-dependency between levels of organization. It also allows us to
integrate our analytical methods with our interventions This model has the potential to serve as
a base that will provide a foundation for all forms of organizational consulting. The future is
unlimited.
REFERENCES
©2003-Tosti&Amarant
8
Brethower, D. (1972) Behavior Analysis in Business and Industry: A Total Performance
System. Kalamazoo, MI: Behaviordelia Press.
Gilbert, Thomas F. (1996). Human Competence, Engineering Worthy Performance.
Washington, D. C.: Tribute Edition, ISPI & HRD Press.
Mager, R. F. and Pipe, P. (1970). Analyzing Performance Problems. Belmont, CA: Fearon.
Miller, James Grier (1978). Living Systems, New York: McGraw-Hill
Rummler, Geary A. (2004). Serious Performance Consulting, According to Rummler,
Silver Spring, MD: ISPI & ASTD.
Tosti, D. T. and Jackson, S. F. (1994). OrganizationalAlignment: How it Works and Why it
Matters. Training Magazine, April, 5 8-64.
Tosti, D.T. (2009) Governance Power: Vanguard Working Paper 22
©2003-Tosti&Amarant
9