This document discusses organization alignment and the process of achieving it. It defines organization alignment as a state where everyone in the organization understands their role in delivering the strategy. It describes the two types of alignment as horizontal, resolving role overlaps within and between teams, and vertical, ensuring outputs are accounted for throughout the organization. It outlines an eight-step process for cascading alignment throughout an organization, from defining effectiveness areas and success metrics for leadership to aligning individual roles and activities. When done effectively, organization alignment leads to employees committed to the vision and maximizing organizational effectiveness.

1. S D W P U B L I C A T I O N S
Building Results-Focused Organizations
WHAT SHOULD YOU CHANGE?
Strategic Development Worldwide • San Diego, California • sdwnet.com
Don Zillioux, Ph.D.

2. May
not
be
duplicated
without
permission.

3. What Should You Change?
By
Don
Zillioux,
Ph.D.
Chief
Scientist
and
CEO,
SDW
On
Organizational
Alignment
Many
CEOs
perceive
organization
alignment
as
a
tough,
daunting
challenge
and
it
can
be
if
the
process
is
not
well
defined
and
accepted
by
everyone
in
the
organization.
What
is
organization
alignment?
It’s
a
state
in
which
every
person
in
the
organization
has
a
clear
and
agreed-­‐upon
understanding
of
his
role
in
delivering
the
organization’s
strategy.
It’s
obtained
through
a
process
of
numerous
(and
often
heated)
discussions
leading
to
consensus
on
what
results
each
team
in
the
organization
and
each
member
of
each
team
are
accountable
to
deliver
in
support
of
the
overall
strategy.
There
are
two
types
of
alignment
–
horizontal
and
vertical.
Horizontal
alignment
refers
to
the
resolution
of
all
role
overlaps
within
the
team
and
between
teams
so
that
waste
and
conflict
are
minimized.
Vertical
alignment
refers
to
the
sufficiency
of
output
through
all
the
parts
of
the
organization
so
that
the
results
that
need
to
be
produced
are
accounted
for
within
the
organization
(i.e.,
nothing
falls
between
the
cracks).
Organization
alignment
starts
with
the
leadership
team
having
clarity
and
agreement
on
the
top-­‐level
outputs
of
the
organization.
We
call
these
effectiveness
areas.
They
describe
the
important
results
the
organization
must
deliver
to
achieve
their
long-­‐term
strategies.
To
make
these
results
tangible
and
manageable,
key
success
metrics
must
be
developed
for
each
one
and
there
must
be
agreement
amongst
all
members
of
the
team
that
these
are
the
collective
success
indicators
for
the
organization.
The
next
step
in
the
alignment
process
is
that
each
member
of
the
team
must
reach
agreement
with
all
other
members
of
the
team
on
his
individual
effectiveness
areas
and
success
measures
which
again
must
align
both
horizontally
and
vertically
with
the
team
overall.
To
fully
align
the
organization,
this
process
is
repeated
in
a
cascading
fashion
throughout
the
organization.
This
will
ensure
your
people
at
all
levels
are
doing
the
right
things
for
the
right
reasons
and
that
your
teams
are
reaching
their
maximum
potential.
We’ve
spoken
of
the
alignment
of
results
which
is
an
extremely
important
aspect
of
alignment,
but
effective
organization
alignment
encompasses
a
broader
scope:
• alignment
of
activities
in
support
of
results,
• alignment
of
decision-­‐making
authorities,
• alignment
of
process
accountabilities
and
• even
alignment
of
the
team
leaders’
roles
with
the
needs
of
their
respective
teams.

4.
What
Should
You
Change?
Copyright
©
2005-­‐2015,
Strategic
Development
Worldwide.
All
rights
reserved.
Page
2
of
5
In
other
words,
effective
organization
alignment
is
a
broad
set
of
concepts
and
processes
that
need
to
be
approached
systematically
and
with
discipline
and
continuously
maintained
and
adjusted
as
situations
evolve
and
new
opportunities
arise.
With
effective
organization
alignment,
employees
are
committed
to
the
CEO’s
vision
and
direction.
They
understand
the
strategy,
understand
their
roles
within
the
overall
plan
and
are
dedicated
to
getting
it
done.
Each
team
also
understands
the
impact
of
its
efforts
on
the
organization
and
the
customer.
The
net
result
is
that
the
whole
organization
becomes
stronger
and
more
effective
than
the
sum
of
its
parts;
the
whole
company
is
working
on
the
right
things
at
the
right
time.
Eight
types
of
change
objectives
1. Structural
objectives
deal
with
reorganization.
This
might
be
moving
power
around
by
clarifying
roles
or
simply
reorganizing.
2. Effectiveness
objectives
deal
with
outputs
of
individuals
or
the
organization.
This
might
relate
to
improved
corporate
strategy
or
very
broadly,
to
improved
organizational
effectiveness.
3. Decision-­‐making
objectives
are
critical
in
any
firm.
Should
decision-­‐making
be
more
centralized
or
more
decentralized;
should
power
be
moved?
4. Interface
objectives
deal
with
relationships
between
organization
parts.
The
most
obvious
one
is
between
production
and
marketing,
which
sometimes
do
not
cooperate
as
much
as
they
might.
5. Communication
objectives
must
have
everyone’s
agreement
not
only
that
it
needs
to
be
improved
but
also
exactly
what
that
means.
6. Flexibility
objectives
deal
with
changes
in
power
and
resources
of
members
of
the
top
team
and
with
overcoming
the
resistance
of
managers.
7. Individual
objectives
relate
generally
to
personal
or
interpersonal
needs,
such
as
job
satisfaction
and
improved
candor.
8. Style
objectives
deal
with
the
choice
of
managerial
and
organizational
style.
Should
the
organization
have
a
bureaucratic,
separated
kind
of
style
or
should
the
organization
be
a
more
dedicated,
production-­‐oriented
type?
The
five
structural
change
objectives
1. Clarify
roles:
Define
authority
and
therefore,
responsibility.
2. Reorganize:
Essentially,
move
the
various
positions
around
somehow.
3. Flatten
pyramid:
Increase
the
span
of
control
and
thus
remove
one
or
more
layers
of
management.
4. Add
layer
of
management:
This
objective
is
often
necessary
when
a
company
has
grown
by
acquisition
and
the
CEO
finds
20
units
reporting
directly
to
the
position.
Clearly,
there
is
a
need
for
an
assistant
CEO
level.
5. Remove
layer
of
management:
As
organizations
grow,
layers
of
management
are
often
added
quite
unconsciously.
Removing
a
layer
of
management
does
not
apply

5.
What
Should
You
Change?
Copyright
©
2005-­‐2015,
Strategic
Development
Worldwide.
All
rights
reserved.
Page
3
of
5
simply
to
CEO
and
assistant
CEO;
it
can
apply
equally
well
to
supervisor
and
assistant
supervisor.
The
five
effectiveness
change
objectives
1. Improve
organizational
effectiveness:
This
broad
objective
can
easily
be
measured
by
lower
costs
or
improved
service
to
clients.
2. Improve
managerial
effectiveness:
Sometimes
the
change
should
be
based
on
the
individual
manager
rather
than
the
organization
as
a
whole.
3. Improve
profit
planning:
If
the
organization
is
well
structured
and
the
managers
reasonably
motivated,
the
problem
may
be
that
they
do
not
have
a
good
planning
cycle
and
that
they
do
not
have
sharp
pencils
or
spend
time
planning.
4. Introduce
or
improve
management
by
objectives
(EMBO):
This
objective
requires
a
well-­‐planned
introduction
or
a
regeneration
of
an
MBO
that
did
not
work
as
well
as
was
expected.
5. Improve
corporate
strategy:
Ask
the
fundamental
question:
what
business
are
we
in?
This
is
more
than
sales
plans
for
one
or
two
years.
The
five
decision-­‐making
change
objectives
1. Improve
teamwork:
Make
more
decisions
on
a
group
basis
and
emphasize
the
quality
of
the
decision
and
the
team
commitment
to
it.
This
means
more
than
improving
relationships
orientation.
2. Introduce
participative
management:
This
objective
is
problematic
because
some
people
think
it
means
lower
levels
getting
more
involved
in
their
work
directly,
while
others
think
it
means
lower
levels
getting
involved
more
in
the
senior
levels
of
work.
3. Move
decision-­‐making
downward:
Many
organizations
talk
about
the
desirability
of
doing
this,
but
use
such
general
terms
as
“decentralize,”
“participation”
and
“delegation.”
However,
“move
decision
making
downward”
is
probably
better
than
all
of
these
because
it
states
quite
clearly
what
is
intended.
4. Centralize:
This
broad
objective
can
be
made
specific
by
the
measurement
methods
attached
to
it.
One
can
centralize
some
things,
while
leaving
many
other
things
not
centralized.
5. Improve
problem-­‐solving
climate:
Improve
the
quality
of
decisions
and
the
commitment
to
them
solely
by
using
more
group
methods
and
a
greater
degree
of
candor.
The
five
interface-­‐change
objectives
1. Optimize
the
system:
Organizations
consist
of
units
or
positions
and
aggregates
of
positions.
Sometimes
the
units
do
not
connect
well
with
each
other.
In
short,
the
interfaces
do
not
run.
Optimizing
the
system
means
getting
the
organization
to
work

6.
What
Should
You
Change?
Copyright
©
2005-­‐2015,
Strategic
Development
Worldwide.
All
rights
reserved.
Page
4
of
5
as
a
whole
rather
than
getting
the
individual
units
or
positions
to
improve
their
own
effectiveness
alone.
2. Improve
horizontal
communication:
The
most
important
communication
problems
can
be
horizontal,
rather
than
the
more
commonly
perceived
vertical
ones.
3. Improve
inter-­‐functional
cooperation:
There
may
be
some
specific
functions,
often
production
or
marketing,
that
do
not
cooperate
as
well
as
they
might.
4. Improve
HQ-­‐field
relationships:
Sometimes
level
A
does
not
work
well
with
level
B.
5. Facilitate
a
merger:
Address
not
only
the
financial
problems
but
also
the
human
ones.
Often
a
merger
results
in
a
combined
balance
sheet
but
no
real
combination
of
effort.
The
five
communication
change
objectives
1. Improve
upward
communication:
Sometimes
those
at
the
top
are
not
listening
enough
to
those
at
the
bottom.
2. Improve
downward
communication:
Some
senior
managers
think
that
this
is
always
the
problem.
3. Increase
output
of
new
ideas:
Essentially,
this
is
creativity
but
it
leads
to
better
measurement
methods
than
the
term
creativity
might.
4. Increase
use
of
new
ideas:
Many
organizations
have
a
very
high
output
of
new
ideas
but
for
one
reason
or
another
they
do
not
seem
to
be
able
to
apply
them.
In
that
case
this
objective
would
be
better
than
increasing
the
number
of
ideas;
it
would
be
much
better
to
use
the
ones
they
have
already.
5. Create
greater
autonomy:
This
means
less
inter-­‐unit
communication.
Sometimes
organizations
are
composed
of
parts
that
should
not
be
together.
Then
great
effort
is
spent
on
making
the
parts
all
work
together,
when
in
fact
a
different
organizational
structure
should
be
created.
The
five
flexibility
change
objectives
1. Improve
organizational
flexibility:
Make
the
organization
respond
better
to
external
forces
such
as
competition,
government
legislation,
or
new
technology.
Some
organizations
grow
old
too
soon.
They
lose
their
power
to
adapt.
2. Improve
manager
flexibility:
In
some
organizations
particularly
at
middle
management
level,
managers
tend
to
increase
their
resistance
and
lower
their
flexibility.
Top
management
wants
to
introduce
a
change
but
finds
it
is
resisted.
The
easiest
way
to
unfreeze
middle
managers
is
to
send
them
to
a
one-­‐week
seminar.
3. Revitalize
management:
Get
managers
to
rethink
what
they
are
doing.
4. Improve
marketing
orientation:
Get
the
organization
to
think
more
of
the
market
than
of
their
own
production
system.

7.
What
Should
You
Change?
Copyright
©
2005-­‐2015,
Strategic
Development
Worldwide.
All
rights
reserved.
Page
5
of
5
5. Facilitate
system
introduction:
It
is
quite
common
for
a
new
budgeting
system,
a
new
management
information
system
or
a
new
computer
system
to
be
introduced
with
little
thought
of
the
human
side.
The
five
individual
change
objectives
1. Improve
climate:
Each
organization
has
a
climate
or
culture.
It
amounts
to
“the
way
we
do
things
around
here.”
2. Improve
candor:
In
some
organizations
people
do
not
talk
to
other
people
about
the
right
things
often
enough.
3. Improve
job
satisfaction:
Arrange
the
situation
so
the
individual
whistles
on
the
way
to
work
rather
than
on
the
way
home.
4. Serve
individual
needs:
Some
organizations
want
to
do
a
better
job
of
integrating
the
needs
of
the
individual
with
the
needs
of
the
organization.
Sometimes
this
is
very
difficult
but
sometimes
it
can
be
done.
5. Increase
individual
autonomy:
This
can
relate
to
such
things
as
job
enrichment.
In
essence
it
means
letting
the
individual
get
on
with
it
without
being
told
as
much
as
before.
The
five
style
change
objectives
1. Increase
separated
managing:
Increase
emphasis
on
systems
orientation
and
procedures.
2. Increase
related
managing:
Increase
emphasis
on
people.
3. Increase
dedicated
managing:
Increase
emphasis
on
getting
the
work
done
with
reference
to
cost
and
quality.
4. Increase
integrated
managing:
Increase
emphasis
on
both
people
and
work.
5. Increase
matrix
managing:
Increase
emphasis
on
designing
the
organization
around
project
teams
rather
than
around
strict
functional
areas.
Characteristics
of
the
Results-­‐Focused
Organization
There
are
seven
characteristics
of
the
results-­‐focused
organization,
which
we
consider:
1. An
organization
output
statement.
2. An
organization
design,
which
will
achieve
the
organization,
output
statement.
3. A
clear
understanding
by
all
managers
of
the
meaning
of
outputs
and
effectiveness.
4. Integration
of
key
systems
with
the
concept
of
outputs.
5. Linking
of
organization,
unit
and
manager
outputs.
6. A
flexible
response
to
achieve
outputs.
7. Creation
of
one’s
own
approach
to
outputs,
not
copying
those
of
others.

8. Other articles from SDW Publications:
Any Manager’s Clear Responsibility
Brief on Organizational Development
Building the Self-Sustaining Firm
Change as a Strategic Weapon
Enhancing Managerial Effectiveness
Establishing the Organization’s Direction
Hitting the Wall
How to Defeat Organizational Sclerosis
Is Your Company Frozen?
Managing by Business Evidence
New Execution Advantage
Notes on the Effective Organization
Turnaround Strategies
For ordering information, please email info@sdwnet.com or call 619-269-7338. For a complete and
updated list of available articles and other publications, visit our website: www.sdwnet.com.
About the Author
Don Zillioux,
Chief Scientist and CEO, SDW
Don is an expert in large-systems change management and a guiding contributor to SDW’s
Advisory practice. For over twenty years, Don has advised a diverse variety of businesses,
such as SKF-Germany, NCR, Mexicana Airlines, Advanced Tissue Sciences and many others,
large and small, throughout the Americas, Europe and Russia. He has worked with various
Native American organizations and played a founding role in the creation of HANU
University working with the IPFDC to conceive and create the first Native American
University for New Mexico.
Don’s writings and consulting work focus on planned change, organizational development,
managerial effectiveness, sustainable performance, leadership and managing change with
measurable results. He is the author of The Results-Focused Organization and, with Darrell
Luery, a soon to be published series of results-focused field guides, the first of which is The
Field Guide for Managers and Supervisors.
SDW 4134 Adams Ave #L-4
San Diego, CA 92116
619 -269-7338 𝄀 sd wnet.com