Leaders: Do You Align Yourself Before You Try to Align Everyone Else?

Organizational Alignment is now appearing at a "bullet-points-of-life" business presentation near you. Check your conference room for time and listings.

Who's going to argue with getting people lined up, in sync, focused, efficient, and performing as one?

Not me.

It makes a lot of sense to you, too, doesn't it?

Then why the angst over alignment?

Alignment Starts With An Individual

We're all pretty willing to line up once we can see where the line has been drawn. But without someone carving out a clear, visible, straight line, we can be committed to alignment but the results won't look that way. So what may be misdiagnosed as "lack of engagement" is actually "lack of clear direction."

Which means this:

Whoever has decided to initiate "alignment" has to be clearly aligned on a personal level.

Peter Vajda always provides thoughtful comments here at All Things Workplace. Yesterday's post on "You Want An Organizational Change...?" drew this comment from Peter:

"All too often change is hard to come by when folks are not in harmony, that is, where there is a misalignment among what one says, feels, thinks and does...and when such misalignment occurs, one often makes unwise and incongruent choices and bad decisions and becomes less passionate, less heart-felt and less committed because they are internally conflicted."

A manager at any level who tries to initiate "alignment" as a program before aligning the clarity of his or her own thinking is heading toward more misalignment than the status quo. Conflicted thinking causes conflicted organizations.

Think About "Creating Alignment" as a "Transition"

Kent Blumberg just attended a New Leaders Panel Discussion. Click on the link to read the panelists comments. But the approach that each took is a good lesson in real-life alignment. Here's Kent's synopsis:

When you are preparing to move into a new role, remember the keys of a successful start:

• Before Day One, identify and meet with all key stakeholders.  Get your hands on the reports and documents that will tell you the story of your part of the business to date.  If possible, take care of all the administrative stuff (getting a desk, signing forms, and so on).

• Control the agenda for Day One. Don't just show up and wander around.  Clearly plan what you will say to whom, where and when.

• In your first month, pull your team off-site to get aligned on mission, vision, objectives, goals, strategies and values.

• Be sure to set clear milestones and put tracking systems in place.

• By the end of your second month, identify one or two early wins, and then over-invest in them to ensure delivery by the end of the sixth month.

These leaders focused on becoming crystal clear--personally-- about their situations, were equally directive about where they were "drawing their lines." They recognized that this is the first critical step in aligning the organization to perform in a specific way.

Thought for Today: Start your organizational alignment with  your own "aligned mind." 

Do add your own alignment or misalignment stories and weigh in with a comment.

Photo Source:wikimedia.org

Comments

[Kent Blumberg]

Steve,

Great point.

My best not-aligned story goes back 15 years to my first factory leadership role. The first six months of my tenure were a total disaster. Rather than improving, almost everything we measured got steadily worse. I didn't know why until Rod Brown, one of the best mentors in my career, came out west for a visit.

Rod explained to me that until I was clear where I wanted to take the place, no one else would be clear. Until I aligned my own priorities, everyone else would simply muddle along.

Rod left, I licked my wounds a bit, then started thinking. I boiled my long to-do list down to three priorities and started talking and acting on just those three things. I lived and breathed those three things for months.

At the end of my second six months, plant performance was on the mend. And over the next year we set records across a broad range of measures.

Peter is soooo right.

Kent

[Phyllis Roteman]

Great post, Steve. Just like in the world of fashion, "what's old is new" again in the world of business. Companies have talked about the importance of organizational alignment ("breaking down silos") for years. So why hasn't it worked at so many companies? Maybe you're right - the people who are leading the charge for alignment often don't have a clear personal vision for what alignment would look like in their organizations, or what they're willing to do to make alignment happen.

The word "alignment" implies that people are heading toward a common place. But if leaders can't clearly articulate what that place looks like, how can anyone else follow? It becomes another company initiative that everyone knows is good, but never really works the way it's supposed to.

[steveroesler]

Kent:

I think you're teaching a real "life lesson" when you talk about boiling down your list of "to-dos" into a a few non-negotiable priorities. And it's clear that that helped focus your factory's success.

Phyllis:

Good to see you out and about again!

Ya know, I have absolutely no scientific evidence for this. But the more I see companies trot out cleverly-named programs and initiatives, the less I am seeing good management and direction. I believe the reason for that is the bestowing of some mystical power on the buzzword-based program instead of pulling people together and saying "Hey, we gotta get _____done." (Hmmm...my Philly is showing in the grammar).

Your fashion analogy is a good one. Heck, bell-bottoms didn't look that great the first time around; who thought they'd look any better now?!

Both you and Kent are very, very experienced people. So here's a real question that's been nagging at me: When was the practice of management handed over to "programs du jour" as a way of running organizations?

Is there accuracy in that question or is my evil cynical twin at the keyboard?

[Kent Blumberg]

My first memory of a "program du jour" dates back to 1982. The CEO of our company read "In Search of Excellence" and announced to all of us (about 1000 employees at the time) that we were going to "do" the book. You can guess how far that went.

The fad of the day is a refuge for lazy thinkers. Sounds pretty judgmental, but that's my opinion. It's easy to pick up the latest book or hire the latest consultant and "do" whatever is currently sexy. Looks good to outsiders and looks good on the resume. Unfortunately, I don't think such an approach often succeeds.

It's harder to take a fact-based approach to leadership, beginning with small experiments, and then spreading what works. It's harder to look for carefully researched business scholarship than it is to read the latest best-seller by your favorite management guru. It's harder to do a thousand little things really well than it is to put on one big, splashy change "event."

In this regard, running organizations is like trying to lose weight. It's easy to pick up the latest diet book and follow the latest crazy fad diet for awhile, but this approach never works long term. The weight eventually comes back with a vengeance. (Yes, I speak from personal experience.) The only way to get the weight off and keep it off is to permanently change the balance between calories in and calories out.

There are no shortcuts in weight loss and there are none in leadership.

Kent

[Valeria Maltoni]

Steve:

You have already all said important things about leadership and organizations. Kent's analogy works well. Phyllis hits on the word "alignment", and that was going to be my first response in this forum.

While the term is correct in describing a falling into line and adjusting, esp. as respects a mechanism, I do wonder out loud if we're thinking about organizations properly these days.

You were the one who pointed out to me that the future of work is project-based. In a recent post I provided some food for thought around "Why Systems Thinking is not the Answer" [http://conversationagent.typepad.com/conversation_agent/2007/03/why_systems_thi.html ]

Do we intend the proper relationship and condition as an outcome in the meaning of alignment? Often the confusion is in the translation of what *we* mean; the clarity could start from there.

[Wally Bock]

Great post Steve. I featured it in today's mid-week review of business blogs
http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2007/04/05/4507-midweek-look-at-the-business-blogs.aspx

I've always seen the program du jour or initiative of the month to be ways to avoid accountability, much like most mergers, acquisitions and re-organizations. Interestingly, in Jack Welch's two decades plus as CEO, he only had four or five major initiatives. He says you need to take the time for the initiative to take hold throughout the organization and modify the support systems.

[steveroesler]

Kent, Valeria, and Wally,

Please forgive the single response; am writing this on one of those "how-did-all-of-this-happen-at-one-time" days. . .

The In Search of Excellence time frame rings true for me, too, Kent. Wally was active then, too, and might have the same sense or another significant event.

It turned out to be something of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, people became excited about what might be possible and began to think bigger thoughts about business. On the other hand, "Excellence" became--and still is--a buzzword that shows up on posters and presentations but often without the kind of specificity needed to manage and measure it. It's almost as if by proclaiming Excellence one is proclaiming victory.

And the weight-loss analogy is a good one.

Valeria alludes to a conversation she and I had, as well as a post that she referenced. One of the things that we have in common is the attention to the impact of language and the meanings that can be produced. For example, the notion of Alignment or Excellence can only hope to be implemented on the basis of a clear and commonly understood definition of what that specifically means to "our" company based on "our" situation. Absent the definition, how do we proceed?

And Valeria, your total recall is scary. Yes, I do observe that organizations--dues to rapid changes regardless of cause--might be better served by seeing themselves as the overseers of projects. This is more consistent with what is actually happening. While organizations may strategize for the long run:

1. They aren't hiring and retaining for the long run

2. People aren't joining them for the long run

3. Publicly held companies (in the U.S.) aren't being supported by by many Wall Street analysts past the next quarter

Wally, thanks very much for the mid-week feature; greatly appreciated.

Your idea of programs-du-jour getting in the way of accountability rings true much too often.

The Jack Welch reference says a lot in its simplicity:

1. Stick to a few important things

2. Give them time to be done well across the organization

In a world focused on speed, he was focused on the need for time if you really want a timeless organization.

Thanks to all...

[Phyllis Roteman]

Hi Steve,

OK, first...I confess. As a consultant, I'm totally aware that I design and implement what is likely perceived as "programs du jour" in companies. Now that I've got that off my chest...

There are way too many flavor-of-the-month programs that come and go. I don't think the problem is with the "programs" themselves. For example, reengineering was a way to make companies run more efficiently. Same with Six Sigma. Who would argue that efficiency is bad? Marcus Buckinham has a cult-like following in some companies who now sing the mantra, "Focus on strengths!" Sounds good to me!

I think the problem with "programs du jour" is the "du jour" part. Why do they come and go? It's:

- Poor execution. As Kent says, it's like dieting. Anyone can talk about dieting, lots of people start diets, but few people stick with them long-term because they aren't executed properly. (You can't live the rest of your life on boiled grapefruit and Slim-Fast shakes.)

- Lack of clarity around the goal and the strategy on the front-end. This goes back to Steve's original post, and Valeria's follow-up comments about defining language. What is "ALIGNMENT"? And do we really want - in today's fast-paced, technology-driven world - formal lock-step alignment of employees marching like sheep down the same path? My guess is that alignment in organizations today is just as important as ever, but what alignment looks like in today's business environment is much different than what we wanted a few years ago.

[steveroesler]

Phyllis,

I would have responded more quickly but I was washing down my boiled grapefruit with a Slim-Fast shake and couldn't use the keyboard.

I'm with you wholeheartedly on this. When I wrote the post and the comments, I was aware that I've probably been viewed by some, too, as "one of those program crazies" by virtue of the consulting role. It does come with the turf. At the same time, I left a large corporation because it is actually easier to influence some of the important things from the "outside." During the "employee empowerment" era I found it bizarre that some of the client companies were rife with external consultants and trainers. So empowerment became and intellectual activity.

But I really don't want this thread to turn into a rant by any means. So let's focus on your two points in reverse order:

1. Clarity breeds Familiarity (feeling a little Johnnie Cochran/Muhammed Ali-ish at the moment). Defining the goals so people don't have to guess makes it a lot easier to hop on board and line up in the right way, whatever that means to a given group.

2. Making "it" happen over the long run means sticking with "it" over the long run.

It doesn't sound very thrilling--until you realize you're finally accomplishing what you set out to do.

And your comment accomplished what it set out to do. Thanks for taking time to make a difference.

[Alexander Kjerulf]

What a great thought. And I would add that reaching alignment is not about brainwashing yourself to the point where you agree 100% with the change in front of you.

It's about being clear about:
* What you agree with
* What you don't agree with
* How you can contribute
* Which parts you need to stay out of :o)
* How you can have fun working on this

And then your job as a leader is to help your people to find their answers to these same questions. Though many seem to think so, a leader's job is NOT to sell the change to people and convince them it's the best thing ever.

[steveroesler]

Alex,thanks,

I hadn't thought about the last part before in that way before.

There's always some aspect of a change that isn't going to be great for each group involved. Yet if people discover that the over-arching goals contribute to a better organization in the long run, people of good will can get behind the effort. That's something you can't sell; you can put the vision and goals out there and allow people to come up with the best ways to make it happen. It's that process that builds commitment.

Stay happy!

[Viji]

A great post Steve. Viji