Is Alignment Just A Concept?

Horizontal alignment coordinates the major components of the company, from mission to management systems. Strategy answers the question "how?" It is the arrangement of actions and resources. Operational capacity includes structure and equipment. The first details the roles, responsibilities and relationships between functions, decision-making processes and collaboration mechanisms. Equipment mainly lists information and production systems. Resources here symbolize financial flows and human capital. Finally, the management system includes incentives that set remuneration and recognition of efforts by monitoring objectives and evaluating performance. In the same set, there is human resources management. It maintains / develops the capacity of the actors: recruitment, management, skills development. How does alignment come together? For example, if a carrier's mission is: "We provide air transport solutions to customers". Its strategy could be formulated as follows: "we choose the affordable offers niche and we address a large volume of customers". If we assume that each business/business leader has understood the strategy, each aligns and formulates its own strategic objectives. The Purchasing department could thus contribute: "Reduce the costs of the various on-board services". The Technical Maintenance department: "Increase aircraft turnover rates". The CFO: "Manage cash flow." This objective helps to free up more cash to purchase new aircraft that use less kerosene. By declining this example, we understand that it is not the strategy that makes the difference but the alignment of objectives with the strategy. When a component is not aligned with the others, the company's performance suffers. For example 1, if the strategy itself is not clear to everyone, each business will be tempted to operate according to its own logic. Result: a company that pulls in all directions. For example 2, if the incentive systems are not aligned, the company can reward activities that contribute little to achieving its objectives. Let's imagine that you put the customer at the heart of your objectives but that the reward system remains compartmentalized at the level of individual performance. You destroy the necessary solidarity around customer satisfaction. Alignment is therefore vital. It is no less difficult to obtain. All companies undergo a process of differentiation - that is to say, of fragmentation - as they grow, whether it is the division of labor, functionalization, diversification. They inevitably create smaller units that begin a process of forming a subculture: the experiences lived by the actors of these different units produce shared beliefs. Which determine their perceptions of reality and therefore, their behaviors, therefore their decisions and actions. Each unit thus generates a different interpretation of the same problem. If that were not enough, we are in a VICA world. Complex and ambiguous questions generate political conflicts - that is to say, legitimate disagreements on what is best for the company and therefore, involve compromises. All things being equal, these political conflicts increase with interdependence (one person's decision changes the other's work context) and the scarcity of resources. Add teleworking, which is even less conducive to the homogenization of perceptions because there are fewer informal exchanges. Horizontal alignment is only possible if it is based, beyond differences, on shared values, which help reduce the extent of conflicts and misunderstandings.

What happens when we go down from strategy to business lines? Ideally, of course, beyond the managers, all employees understand the company's strategy and objectives, as well as how their contribution fits into them. This is vertical alignment or the famous cascade of objectives. The challenge is not to lose sight of the alignment during the cascade and transformation of the objective.

Two alignment models have emerged: the first, the best known, is people-centered. It has often been promoted by software publishers (ERP or HRIS). In this Command&Control vision, alignment begins, for managers, after the decision has been made. Stakeholders are then "aligned" by "selling" the relevance of the decision. In this top-down model, objectives are first set by the CEO. His direct subordinates deduce their own objectives, each linked to one or several objectives of the CEO. This process is repeated (in cascade) throughout the hierarchy with an inversion of the proposal: the lower we go, the more it is the N +1 manager who proposes/imposes objectives to the N - 1. Alignment is limited to a mechanical variation of the higher level. It's a bit dated. We have already seen here (link) that the employee was increased and that consequently, he needed an improved manager. In a changing world where even a field actor determines himself according to a particular context, alignment is above all a process of continuous translation of strategy into business objectives and professional actions. Rather than an execution problem, it is a problem of understanding, involvement and development of the actors. The model centered on the organization seems more appropriate. We also start from the strategic objectives. The cascade remains necessary to distribute them. But the logic here is that employees are active in understanding how their contribution fits into a strategic objective which - suddenly - makes sense. This is a good opportunity to align because it allows stakeholders to talk to each other, listen to each other and question themselves. Alignment is richer because the translation of people in the field is broader and creates more added value a priori. For this model to work, two conditions are necessary:

Manage a strategy-implementation continuum. The manager is able to act in a continuum that integrates strategy, skills development and performance management. The "Corporate Strategy" department and HR are aligned. The former provides the ideal work configurations to execute the strategy. HR, for its part, goes beyond the usual expertise in setting objectives, supervising and evaluating results as well as the compensation strategy. It takes into account the learning dimension of the company, that is to say an examination of organizational capacities as well as those of employees: the Learning & Development department ensures the availability of the necessary human capacities. It analyzes the essential skills required by the key roles, projects or initiatives outlined in the strategy and ensures that learning plans are in place to develop them.

Having managers with a leadership dimension. It is no coincidence that interest in leadership continues to grow; it is an essential mechanism for managing increased diversity and interdependence in companies. A leader therefore knows what he wants but only communicates his intentions: alignment is the opposite of micron-management! He is aware that alignment consists of translating strategic objectives into business objectives, into professional actions, by the hierarchical line and the employees of this profession or activity. This leader directs employees in the right direction, motivates them and empowers them since the "last mile" of alignment is the employee's work. To align, a leader needs empathy, credibility in the direction he gives, and the ability to communicate with stakeholders from different professions. A leader literally spends his time creating alignment: eliminating misinterpretations - his own and those of his teams, defining mutual expectations, rules of collaboration with the contributor, providing measures to evaluate performance; clarifying boundaries. Feedback maintains alignment by addressing unexpected changes and developments. How do you recognize a leader in this alignment exercise? When he has finished speaking, his problem is no longer his own but yours ;)

When we go into detail, we realize that alignment is far from being a simple managerial formula. It is an approach that gives meaning and sometimes also greases the wheels…