Organizational Network
Alignment
Kent Myers, PhD
Science Applications International Corp.
High
Slack Robust
Potential
Low
Aligned
Alert
Agile
Adaptive
Directed
Alert
Agile
Adaptive
Weak Brittle
Low
High
Performance
Three reflections
ENVIRONMENT
0
1
STRATEGY
Others
(influence)
Wholes
(appreciation)
2b
2a
CRITICAL
TASKS
3
5
4
6
PEOPLE
7
CULTURE
8
FORMAL
ORGANIZATION
Self
(control)
(repeat for each network pair)
B
1t
Strategy
A
Critical tasks
Strategy
0t
Critical tasks
Unpacking the Network Link: Sub-Links
• 0t – Accurate
perception of and
support for other’s
intention
• 1t – Effective
incorporation of
partner role and
transactions
Unpacking the Network Link: Forces
Change
Forces
Global change
Three classes of expectations define:
- a containment region for an organization
- a position of maximum alignment
Local change
Leadin
g
The network’s
state
Global roleLocal role Movin
g
Movin
g
Away
Towar
Lagging d
A partner’s state
Role
Forces
Contribution
Relationship
Interaction
Forces
Measuring the Network Link: Questions
Am I aligning
with B?
Am I aligning
with the
network?
A
Do I think B is
aligning with me?
Am I aligning
with A?
Is the
relationship
aligned?
B
Do I think A is
aligning with me?
Am I aligning
with the
network?
Measuring the Network Relationship: Indexes
Network
Index
Overall score for
the network
Overall score for
one organization
Node
Index
Positional
Index
Reputation in
network
Change
Index
Relationship
Index
Achievement level
(in view of each partner)
Contribution
Index
Effort level (each partner
views other and self)
Capacity & motivation
for change
Measuring the Network Relationship: Criteria
• Appropriate tension, not ‘maximum’ alignment
• Non-discrepant viewpoints of situation
• Weakness not concentrated in a factor
• Weakness not excessive in an indicator
• Alignment seeking
• Better on weighted factors
Issue
schedule and
expectations
Incorporate
results
Tasker
Action Memo
Acknowledge
& grant
sanction
Organization
Stakeholders
Organization
Executive
Group
Navy Project
Leadership
A Network Alignment Assessment Project
Participate in
issues
workshop
Complete
survey
Grant
Interview
Context & Valuation
Discussion
Questions
Consulting Staff
Survey and
Interview Staff
Email
Issue survey
invitation &
link
Introduce
project &
obtain
sanction
Schedule
supplemental
interviews
Consultant
Conclusions
Gather data
Compendium
Sensing
Arrive at
decision
package
Prepare
hypotheses
and models
Prepare
recommendations
& grounded
models
Interpretation
Decision
A Surface Enterprise domain,
recast as 6 nodes of an organizational network
Logistics
NAVAIR
NAVMAC
Ships
Manning
OPNAV
BUPERS
Support
Nodes
Training
NAVSEA
NAVSUP
Maint.
SPAWAR
CNSF
Pillars
Factors
Directed
Alert
Relationship
(interpretation & indicators)
The relationship is orderly and
governed.
 There is mutual understanding of
how our relationship is managed.
(j4)
 There are people in charge on both
sides who can govern the
relationship and solve problems.
(j5)
 Neither party attempts to perform
work that the other should be
performing. (j6)
Both parties are aware of what is going
on and what to do.
 The two parties have a common
operating picture of the domain. (j1)
 Both parties agree on facts and
status concerning shared work. (j2)
 The necessary expertise exists on
both sides. (j3)
Node Contribution
(interpretation & indicators)
A is responsible and ordered.




A's contribution to the relationship with my
organization is of good quality. (p1)
A doesn't neglect its part of the work or
leave it unfinished. (p2)
A seldom disrupts work processes, beyond
what may be necessary. (p3)
A doesn't impose excessive bureaucracy or
supervision. (p4)
A is aware of self, others, shared situations.




A clearly understands its obligations to the
relationship. (p5)
A appears to be encouraged and rewarded
for working well with my organization. (p6)
A keeps us informed; they rarely create
surprises and misunderstandings. (p8)
A understands our perspective on situations.
(p9)
Factors
Agile
Adaptive
Relationship
(interpretation & indicators)
In the normal course of business, both
parties adjust to each other and to the
shared situation.
 Neither party neglects or avoids
tasks that are important to the shared
effort. (j7)
 Both parties resolve disagreements
and misunderstandings before they
become chronic or repetitive. (j8)
 Individuals form the two
organizations know each other and
have developed trust. (j9)
Successful change and innovation
occurs within shared areas of
responsibility.
 The relationship between the two
organizations changes over time and
is not stuck in ways that no longer
make sense. (j10)
 Both parties learn and create new
opportunities by participating in this
relationship. (j11)
Node Contribution
(interpretation & indicators)
A responds when needed.




A values our opinions about their
performance. (p10)
A takes initiative when needed; we don't
have to push them. (p11)
When A makes a mistake, I am confident in
their ability to fix it. (p12)
A is able to make ad hoc adjustments when
needed or requested. (p13)
A changes as needed.


A has adapted over time in ways the benefit
us and keep pace with our own changes.
(p14)
When A initiates changes that affect us,
they keep us informed and work with us to
adjust. (p15)
Web survey
Interview strategies
START WITH PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF SUCCESS
Often, nobody has ever asked. Establishes an open, creative, participative posture.
Examples:
- When have you felt most energized in your role, here or elsewhere?
- What is the most significant change, innovation, or transition you were a part of.
- What relationships or project teams have worked especially well together, in terms of serving,
adapting well, leading others in needed change.
WHAT’S WORKING TODAY
Ask about strengths; they will supply the constraints
Consider what somebody else said that you are genuinely uncertain about
Ask about what they know, and you can often connect it back to broader alignment issues
Focus on cycles, evolutions, innovations they can discuss in the form of a story
Old timers have useful perspectives on larger external factors
POSITIVE POSSIBILITIES
Examples:
- What are the major opportunities.
- Assume you have transformed in a way that makes sense, and tell the story
- If you could change your network in any way three ways, what do you do, what’s the impact.
Shore's View
Ship contribution Relationship
Agree? Indicator Factor Indicator Factor
Directed
x
4.0
3.60 3.7 3.67
3.5
3.7
3.4
3.6
3.5
Alert
3.6
3.43 3.7 3.70
↓
3.5
3.6
3.2
3.8
3.4
Agile
3.6
3.65 3.6 3.63
3.4
3.7
3.8
3.6
3.8
Adaptive
3.6
3.60 3.6 3.65
3.6
3.7
Ship's View
Relationship
Shore contribution
Factor Indicator
Factor Indicator Agree?
3.43 3.1 managed
3.33
3.7  quality
3.9 people to govern
3.5
no neglect
3.3 poaching
3.1
no disruption
3.0
no bureaucracy
3.07 2.8 common picture 3.13
3.2
obligations
2.9 agree on facts
2.9  encouraged
3.5 expertise
3.4
keeps us informed
3.0
understands us
3.40 3.5 no neglect
3.10
2.9
value feeback
3.4 resolve disputes
2.9
has initiative
3.3 trusted persons
3.3
fixes mistakes
3.3
↓ adjusts
3.20 3.3 not stuck
3.30
3.3
paces with us
3.1 learn
3.3
helps us change
Relation-to-the-whole indexes
(Change Index )
Leading
Leading
(Enterprise
Position Index )
Engaged
Disengaged
Engaged
Disengaged
Lagging
Shore
DRAFT
Lagging
Ship
7 conclusions located in ‘alignment space’
Network
as a whole
Relationship
pairs
Node
alone
Directed
Delivery works
Alert
Unrewarded network contribution
Uncertain awareness of intent
Poor situational awareness
Agile
Lack of initiative
Fix after the fact
Adaptive
Complacency about options
Conclusion #4: Good network behavior is unrewarded
Factor: Alert
•
Data
•
•
Implications
•
•
Extent: Community
All of Shore’s partners scored the Encouragement/Reward item lower,
some their lowest item (2.9). Shore’s self-assessment is consistent, though
not strongly so.
A telling story: “Nobody asked me to it or gives me any credit for it, but I
guess that I am spending time to educate people in other organizations on
how the system works.”
Shore may be complacent in advancing its Enterprise relationships:
– Fewer Shore respondents are interested in improving their
relationships, compared to the other partners (50% compared with 70%
– Only 50% (including Shore) would reconstitute Shore as is if it were
eliminated
The network needs to change the way its participants are evaluated and
rewarded. Shift from inward emphasis to an emphasis on balance with
outward Enterprise interests.
No-cost incentives are an under-utilized lever for implementing any change
#1: Help staff learn how manning roles and processes interact
and where there is tension
Action s
Resources, Timing
- Establish a working group under training leadership
- Name processes associated with nodes; specify intersections
only
- Overlay basic four budgetary processes and schedules
- Develop role profiles, external distractors, remaining game
elements
- Identify instances of misunderstanding, disagreement, surprise,
and ignorance that are often experienced by newcomers
- Devise scenarios for use in tabletop simulation
- Pilot tabletop simulation with 1-year staff and revise scenarios
- Rerun for newcomers
- Revise as single-user interactive simulation, also text version with
some reference materials (suitable for inclusion in start-up
pack)
- Invite comments concerning improvements and updates
Resources: Part
time work
group, expert
assistance for
simulation
training
Timing: 4 mo initial
development,
use as module
in new course,
create single
user version
after revision
Outcomes / Benefits
•
•
•
A memorable, compact experience of network interaction that accelerates job learning
Understand sources of conflict, including different motivations, roles, criteria,
schedules
Greater readiness to cooperate with other nodes and to change together
Some personal findings
• The network perspective is a distinctively
different -- and increasingly important -- way to
look at organizations
• Organizational potential is crucial, yet it is rarely
isolated from performance or managed
comprehensively
• Government and military organizations may
have thought about it early this time, but
commercial organizations are on the move.
back up
Labovitz Model
STRATEGY
External
Environment?
PROCESSES
CUSTOMERS
Culture?
PEOPLE
Leadership?
“Main Thing”?
Tushman & O’Reilly Model
CRITICAL
TASKS
Environment
PEOPLE
CULTURE
Strategy
FORMAL
ORGANIZATION
Enterprise Position Index
Recognition as a player within the enterprise community.
Component
Factor
Domain
Leadership
Enterprise
Leadership
Maintenance of
Relationships
Priority of
Relationships
Description
Whether considered advanced or
lagging as a player in the domain
community
Whether considered advanced or
lagging as a player in the broader
enterprise community
Tendency to be proactive in tending to
relationships
Tendency to place relationships above
requirements
Change Index
Capability and readiness for change in network
relationships.
Component
Factor
Description
Accommodation Mutual adjustment
Learning
Mutual innovation and updating
Responsiveness Individual attentiveness and
adjustment
Evolution
Individual updating and leadership
Redesign
Orientation
Willingness and interest in modifying
relationships, to be either more or less
complex
Node Index
Extent to which the node tends to be a successful player
within its primary network.
Component Index
Self assessment of
relationships
Description
Our expectation of success with ongoing
transactions under changing conditions
Partners’ assessment Partner’s expectation of success with ongoing
of relationships
transactions under changing conditions
Self assessment of
our contributions
In our judgment, the extent to which our
organization increases the likelihood of successful
ongoing transactions
Partner’s
assessment of our
contributions
In the judgment of our partners, the extent to which
our organization increases the likelihood of
successful ongoing transactions
Enterprise Standing
Recognition as an important player within the
enterprise community
Network Index
Network has well aligned partners, relative to other
networks.
Component Factor
Average Node Index
for Facilitators
Average Node Index
for Regulators
Average Node Index
for End Nodes
Description
Highly connected
Highly influential
Less connected