Alignment is another big business buzzword these days. Departments need to align their goals with the organization’s goals. Individuals need to align their personal goals with departmental goals (and therefore organizational goals). With all of this alignment, I wonder whether organizations are seeing a difference. The answer depends on whether you look at alignment as a means or an end.
Being aligned doesn’t guarantee success. Alignment is only the first step. The second and more important step is determining whether you are having impact on the broader, organizational goal.
Too often, managers align their goals with the organization’s goals and then forget about the broader goal. This is especially challenging for internal support organizations as they often do not have direct P & L responsibility at the business level.
The purpose for aligning is to ensure that your actions have impact on the organization. By maintaining a focus on the broader goal, you will know whether to proceed with your current goals or revise them. Remember, your organization’s success isn’t based on how well your goals align. It is dependent on whether those goals achieve results.
Chief: Lots of esoteric corporate language in these past few posts! It’s a fascinating glimpse into a world I know nothing about. Thanks for edifying me. I have almost no idea what’s going on with issues like alignment, but as ever that doesn’t mean I’ll shut my mouth 🙂 Alignment sounds to me like a term you Captains Of Industry would use for good old fashioned coercion, or in a more gentle environment, corporate hegemonic practices. Isn’t “alignment” a top down strategy for securing a well regulated workforce? And, how does this notion “align” with your expressed desire to unleash your people’s potential?
I think you might be looking at alignment a little differently. This isn’t as much about keeping people in line as I think you are maybe referencing.
I am talking about the alignment of goals and actions. For example, at one time, departments would establish their own unique goals often without regard for the broader organizational context. So each department would hit their goals but the organization wouldn’t achieve its overall goals because the departments were working discretely. By algining your goals with those of the organization you ensure that the work you do contributes not only to your part of the business, but the larger business strategy.
That’s the best way to unleash someone as it ensures that their effort is having the greatest impact on the organization.
I don’t have any great insights to add here but I find the give and take meaningful! I do appreciate the questions introduced by “anonymous” and the perspective of Brad’s response. All of it is excellent. I have a feeling that at some point in some place I’ll be quoting both of you. Thanks for your discussion.
Hey Chief, thanks for responding, and for taking my rants seriously. I guess I’m just goading you to call a spade a spade.
For instance, maybe you shouldn’t use the term “unleash” if you’re talking about cultivating an effective workforce, one that would have “impact”. Can you honestly say that “unleashing” people’s potential is always a good thing for an organization? I imagine that the unleashing has to be done within certain narrow parameters that ensure or at least anticipate corporate profits. (So would that be “unleashing”, really, or did your slick PR rep want you to use the term to appeal the senior executives you hang out with,to make them feel like good guys?) Isn’t that what alignment is all about? (You didn’t think I would let you off the hook that easily, didja? 🙂 especially after Rhonda’s comment ) Moreover, aren’t “goals” always, ultimately, made in the service of the corporate bottom line?
Feel free to ignore this comment if it’s too much marxist theory for you to handle ;x Okay, they need to lock me in my tower now. .. .
I thought you were my slick pr rep!
Actually, I think that a lot of execs might raise your concern that unleashing people could be a dangerous thing. I actually had a senior executive once tell me that we should not provide innovation training to entry level staff or offshore staff because it might get them to think about and question the direction they were given. Yikes!
I do agree that the organization’s goals are what you are ultmately trying to achieve. However, I’d disgree with you as to whether that implies that you need to unleash people in a very narrow way.
Google is a great example. They have a bunch of very smart, highly motivated people trying stuff out. People will work on a new widget or idea. Some of them become productized for Google and some don’t. However, few of them are driven by a corporate agenda. Most are things that individuals think up and explore.
Ultimately some of those ideas help google. But there are probably hundreds that don’t but they do provide a mechanism for people to develop their skills and improve themselves. It also maximizes their potential. When you are fully tapping in to someone’s talents and passion, your organization is going to be better, even if you didn’t have a plan ahead of time.
On the other hand, organizations do need to continue to exist. So, if I work for Google and my pasion is in making pizza, I think it’s reasonable for the company to expect that I am not “unleashing” myself on finding a better way to bake a pie. But, I don’t want to limit you so much that you miss the opportunity to think of a great desktop widget that will quickly and effectively help a user find the most tasty thin crust cheese pizza in the area.
So, I do believe that unleashing people is a good thing for companies. I think it should be in service of the organization’s mission but “service” should be defined as broadly as possible.
I recently read a story about a man who worked for a radio company and suggested that the company consider a radio that could show pictures. They weren’t interested. So, he went to work for another company, RCA, and invented the television. That’s what unleashing is all about.
Chief: As usual, I’ll let you have the last word. I’d just like to add that if I were slick about PR, I would have had Kolar-Ass. bid on this– imagine your logo on a bridesmaid’s dress! All the free publicity!
On eBay, Bride Finds Sponsor for a Wedding
By KATIE ZEZIMA
Published: June 27, 2008
The eBay auction to be a bridesmaid in Kelly Gray’s wedding is officially over, but the surprises keep coming.
The winning bid of $5,700 was by the Dr Pepper Snapple Group.
“We heard about the contest and thought it was an amazing thing she came up with,” said Nick Rangone, a spokesman for the beverage company who introduced himself to Ms. Gray on the phone as “Nick from New Jersey.”
Initially shocked that a beverage company had won the right to march down the aisle with her, Ms. Gray, 23, a Virginia Beach hairdresser, received another surprise when the company decided to give her $10,000, rather than the $5,700 it had bid.
“I’m very shocked,” she said. “I’m very grateful. It’s way more than I could have asked for or imagined.”
There is one hitch, though; Ms. Gray still does not know who is going to be in her wedding next April. Mr. Rangone said the company was thinking about having a contest to determine the bridesmaid, or perhaps asking a celebrity.
Ms. Gray might have a few more guests than she bargained for. “I absolutely want to go to the wedding,” said Mr. Rangone, who put in the best of dozens of bids just before the auction ended Wednesday.
Ms. Gray said her wedding to Karl Gau would still be a simple affair.
“I don’t want it to be extravagant, but now I can get that wonderful D.J. who has the lights; I can do that,” she said. “Now I’m thinking of a honeymoon.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us/27bridesmaid.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
I find that the way Brad is thinking about business is very impressive and also very productive. Didier