Horizontal alignment is hard, but it is a far cry easier to achieve than vertical alignment. I have facilitated hundreds of strategic planning retreats with leaders of companies and associations for the purpose of creating stronger horizontal alignment. Within a week – and sometimes over the course of a single day – these events generate a well‐articulated core ideology that reflects the executive team's understanding of the market and how to exist within it to generate the desired measures of success. While there have been a few exceptions over the years, most of these retreats have ended with team unity on this core ideology, enthusiasm for what it means for the organization, and a renewed vigor for the future. Yet within weeks of the event, much of this work will have been for naught due to a lack of vertical alignment.

Vertical alignment is much more complicated and time consuming than horizontal alignment. While horizontal alignment is a sort of leadership epistemology, vertical alignment is more akin to a leadership methodology. It is more tactical than strategic, though its origins are in the latter. Unlike horizontal alignment, vertical alignment is never static. Rather, it is a continuous process of identifying, adjusting, eliminating, and adding policies, procedures, and practices – starting with the most visible and influential and continuing through the subtle and innocuous. Vertical alignment requires tenacity, patience, attention to detail, stubbornness on matters of minutiae, and many other characteristics that rarely exist among senior leadership, and that executives do not often value in others. Horizontal alignment is about vision, concepts, and broad strategies. Vertical alignment is about initiatives and action plans. It involves tasks, assignments, deadlines, deliverables, and measurables.

You could say that horizontal alignment is deciding where you want to go on vacation, and vertical alignment is making the myriad arrangements necessary to take time off, vacate your house, and travel to and from a destination. The logistics can often suck the fun out of the idea. This is more evidence of the importance of passion to peak performance culture. Whereas horizontal alignment involves broad business issues like market analysis and trends and pertinent fiscal considerations like profitability, efficiency, and stakeholder satisfaction – topics that appeal to executives and can be addressed within a finite time period – vertical alignment deals with human resources policies, customer service techniques, experience mapping, merchandising, advertising campaigns, policy development, evaluation of practices, and the like. Some of these considerations may be of interest to specific executives, but most of the tasks will create what the Rolling Stones refer to as “Far Away Eyes” around the boardroom inhabitants. If you want to see a CEO's eyes glaze over in five seconds, start a sentence with “Let's talk about our attendance policy.”

What makes this all so alarming is knowing how imperative vertical alignment is to generating peak performance. In fact, vertical alignment determines the organization's success or failure far more often than horizontal alignment. Horizontal alignment is the “talk.” Vertical alignment is the “walk.” Accomplishing both would be “walking the talk.” Even the most mediocre executive leadership teams can arrive at a workable core ideology. However, that talk, without the walk, will be detrimental to peak performance. In fact, not “walking the talk” will be detrimental to operational excellence as the employees and customers discover that the core ideology is merely words and not actions. Conversely, vertically aligned companies, even with mediocre horizontal alignment, will continue to produce results.

Think of it like this. If you are a race car driver who is of average talent competing against other drivers with more talent, then you want to make sure that your car is the best it can be and remains that way throughout the race. Then you stay on the track, keep the car running at its best, and hope other cars break down or crash. You may not win the race, but you will finish ahead of most of your competitors because of a healthy car. A more talented driver with that same car will beat you, but a more talented driver with a defective car won't. In this analogy, horizontal alignment is the driver's talent; vertical alignment is the car. You can win a race occasionally by having enough talent and a good car. You won't win a race by having superior talent and a bad car. Of course, what you should aspire to is having the best driver in the best car! That is when horizontal alignment is coupled with vertical alignment.

Executives get excited about horizontal alignment. They order posters, create branding messages, hold employee meetings – all designed to promote their core ideology. A few months later, the excitement fades and we are left with the operational processes to propel the core ideology through the organization and into the market. Without these processes – the vertical alignment – the core ideology becomes an empty promise to the stakeholders. The only thing worse than a lack of horizontal alignment is having an expressed core ideology that is not reflected in the actual business approach displayed by the organization. And, truth be told, this is common. Of the five metrics of peak performance culture, vertical alignment is the least interesting, most challenging, most often overlooked, and – arguably – the most important. “Arguably” only because passion provides the foundation of peak performance culture, so it is hard to understate its importance. But even a passionate culture will have a difficult time overcoming an insufficient infrastructure.

VERTICAL ALIGNMENT SHOULDN'T BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT

A large reason for why vertical alignment is so difficult is that it is rarely considered until later in an organization's existence. As it relates to horizontal alignment, many new organizations recognize the need to arrive at a core ideology that resonates with the market and produces the desired success scoreboard. Of course, some don't, but if I were to ask the owner of a new company, “Have you thought about what makes your business better than the competition?” I would be surprised if they did not have an answer (even if it's not true). However, if I asked that owner, “How do your operational processes, principles, and practices support that competitive advantage?” I would expect a long, silent, melancholy gaze. Or just a shrug.

Policies are often established as a matter of necessity, legal guidance, or simply because “it seemed like something that we should have.” They are often reactionary, installed after something bad has happened. They are not generally implemented as a strategic tool to drive our operation in alignment with our core ideology. They should be, but they are not. Most organizations approach policies and procedures as if they are completing a checklist rather than devising the tactical and strategic components of our core ideology.

A common evolution of the employee handbook is a great example of ineffective vertical alignment. Most employee handbooks began as a realization there was a problem with an employee that needed to be addressed – say a problem like attendance. One employee was calling in sick more frequently and/or at more inopportune moments than their co‐workers. This leads to a conversation about a formal attendance policy. Then we arrive at an attendance policy. Then we have all employees read and sign the attendance policy. Then we realize we have several other issues for which we should have a policy. So we write policies for all these issues. We have the employees read and sign each of these policies. Over time, we identify other issues and we revise old policies that are ineffective, illegal, or silly. Then we decide to put all these policies in one handbook so all new employees can read and sign them. This process can take years, and not one time did we ask ourselves if any of these policies support the core ideology of the organization. What we have is a handbook (check) that addresses attendance (check), dress code (check), performance reviews (check), employee discipline (check), promotions (check), compensation and benefits (check), personal days (check), and so on. The checklist is complete, and the employee handbook is done. And yet, we are not vertically aligned with our core ideology.

After years of adding policies without consideration of their impact on our core ideology, we also have the variable of well‐meaning, mid‐level leaders who are applying these policies in their own unique way. After all, humans perceive things uniquely based on their experiences – ambiguous policies are ripe for varied interpretations. We also have executives who exist outside the influence of these policies. In many organizations, executive leadership members behave in ways outside the organization's policies. And we have many more company practices that are not reflected by expressed policies but that have a huge impact on the employee and/or customer experience. All these factors are now conspiring to misalign the organization, short circuit the vehicle of peak performance, and undermine the core ideology. Even the most talented race car driver can't coax a Ford Pinto into the winner's circle. (All apologies to any Ford Pinto owners.)

By the time an organization realizes that they are not vertically aligned, the job of correcting this misalignment can seem hopelessly daunting. “Where do we begin?” I often hear from clients with more than a subtle amount of desperation in their tone. Good news! I have a suggestion and it involves the unintended consequences of a federal civil rights law and that dusty three‐ring binder that sits in every department.

THE INCREDIBLE VALUE OF A WELL‐DESIGNED JOB DESCRIPTION

When the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 became a law, it introduced some important new requirements for employers, including “reasonable accommodations.” Reasonable accommodations became a legal term referring to the adjustments (and costs) that an employer must consider and incur to allow an otherwise qualified disabled candidate to perform the essential functions of a job. As employers navigated the legal requirements of this law, they were encouraged to revisit that archaic form in each department – the job description. These job descriptions were enhanced to include a list of the essential functions, job responsibilities that could be accommodated and how, and any specific physical, mental, and emotional capabilities required to do the job. At the time, this was a colossal project for companies, and most approached it like the creation of the employee handbook – another checklist item.

The peak performance organization saw this as an opportunity. Think about what a job description really is. It is not just a list of the work that is required in a specific job title. The job description is a document that provides the reason and evidence for why this position exists within the organization and how it supports the core ideology. It links every single job within the organization to the core ideology. There is no better single document in a company to propel vertical alignment.

As such, the job description should contain the following:

• What is the job title?
• Why is this job title necessary to support our core ideology?
• What education, skills, and experience are needed to perform this job at the entry level?
• Where will this job title exist within the organization (depiction on organizational chart)?
• How will this job title interact with others within the organization?
• What tasks are required within this job title and how do they relate to core ideology?
• How well must one perform these tasks to meet the expected standard?
• What skills are required to perform each of these tasks?
• What behaviors are expected related to the organizational handbook?
• What level of authority/decision making is allowed?
• When and with whom does this job title need to report?

With each of these components identified for the job title, you can now use this description to generate the following:

• Talent recruiting and acquisition strategies
• Targeted employment interview questions for talent selection
• Organizational orientation for new hires
• New hire skill training programs
• Performance feedback processes
• Employee coaching and counseling plans
• Professional development and career path planning
• Merit increase philosophies
• Succession planning strategies

That's a lot of alignment generated by one well‐designed document. Unfortunately, many organizations don't even know where their job descriptions are and haven't referred to them since, well, 1990. Organizations under 20 people may not need to comply with the ADA and therefore have never developed job descriptions at all. At least for these companies, the project of creating job descriptions isn't so large. For larger firms that have not updated the job descriptions in thirty years, the thought of digging them up and starting virtually from scratch is far from appealing, hence why vertical alignment is so difficult. The temptation is to try to patch it rather than fix it. This approach is counterproductive in that the patch only adds more complexity to an already needlessly complicated system. This leads to further inefficiency, which steers us away from another critical component of our success scoreboard. Vertically misaligned organizations experience the negative consequences in all elements of the success scoreboard: profitability, efficiency, and stakeholder satisfaction.

A MISALIGNED BRAND

After completing the massive undertaking of enhancing every job description in the organization so it reflects the approach listed above, then comes the only slightly less overwhelming project of evaluating the consistent execution of all policies, procedures, and practices in the organization to assess their vertical alignment to the core ideology. To accomplish this, it is essential to consider how your organization is structured and where misalignment can occur. Consider Figure 3.1, which incorporates vertical alignment with horizontal alignment.

The most damaging misalignment would occur at the organizational level. This means that you are applying a policy, procedure, or practice across the breadth of the entire company that is not aligned with the core ideology of the organization. This sounds difficult to imagine, but it is quite common. Let me give you an example.

Imagine that you are a client of an organization that states that customer satisfaction is their top priority. That sounds familiar, right? Many companies express a core ideology that claims to elevate the customer's needs to the center of their attention – customer centricity is their mantra. However, let's also imagine that you have purchased a product from this company that has failed to meet your expectations. It's not defective, just not exactly what you were looking for.

Unfortunately, between your recent vacation and a bit of chaos upon your return, you didn't discover the product shortcomings for a few weeks. It happens, no problem; you will simply contact the company on their convenient toll‐free customer service hotline. You listen to the automated voice explain the six alternatives you can select to more effectively route your call. None sound like the exact fit for your needs, so you select 0 to speak to a customer service representative.

After a less than reassuring 10‐minute wait on hold for that customer service representative, during which you were repeatedly serenaded by a bad rendition of “The Girl from Ipanema,” you are grilled for all the necessary information related to your purchase. You know, that whole “order number, product, date of purchase, nature of concern” inquisition? Sadly, it turns out you are two days beyond the return allowance. Darn the luck. But stay on the line for the brief customer satisfaction survey and special offer. You will never get those 30 minutes back.

Most readers can relate to this story. This is a classic example of vertical misalignment at the organizational level. In fact, we have a few: the automated phone service that doesn't quite fit the customer needs; the long wait on hold to speak to a customer service representative; the denial of the return due to an arbitrary time frame; the lack of recourse when the outcome isn't satisfactory. All these policies are contrary to the core ideology of customer centricity. It would almost be easier for the company to change the core ideology from “Your satisfaction is our top priority” to something more like “We hope you like what you bought because things get complicated otherwise.” Or maybe, “Your satisfaction is occasionally our top priority.” That seems fair, and more accurate.

DIGGING DEEPER INTO ALIGNMENT

It's important to evaluate not just an organization's expressed policies and procedures, but their practices, too. Practices refer to what employees are doing within the organization regardless of the actual policy and procedure. It is especially common when evaluating divisional/departmental differences (which can extend across cultures and geographies as well as functional responsibilities) and even more so among individuals within the organization. While organizational misalignment has a wide impact on the organization, divisional/departmental and individual misalignment will alienate customers and employees, too. And these can be even harder to uncover. One misaligned employee can create a lot of performance damage for the organization before they are identified. This is particularly true if the entire organization is misaligned. On the other hand, the more vertically aligned the organization becomes, the more obvious any form of misalignment becomes.

Here are a couple of examples for departmental and individual misalignment that I have experienced. The first involves the use of personal time (paid days off for vacation, illness, or other approved reasons). I find this policy to be consistently well defined and communicated at the organizational level. It usually involves the identification of a specific number of days allotted each year depending on the employee's length of employment. For example, the company may provide 10 days of personal time after one year of employment. The policy will likely outline the procedure for requesting those days and/or using the personal time for an absence. If an employee wishes to take vacation, for example, they may need to request time off one month in advance. If an employee misses work due to an illness, they may be required to bring a doctor's note upon return or to have notified work before the start of their shift or some other stipulation outlined in the policy. Whatever the details, the key is that the company has designed a specific approach to accumulating and using personal time.

So far, so good. We have a well‐defined policy and procedure at the organization level. However, what if one department within the company becomes lax in their enforcement of that policy? Let's say the sales department has a habit of allowing their sales representatives to leave at noon on Friday if they have reached their sales goal. Further, let's say that this half day off is still paid without dipping into employees' personal time accrual. This creates a misalignment in the organization, since some employees now benefit by a different application of a policy than others. If you think this doesn't impact employee satisfaction, I can assure you it does. I spent countless hours in my human resources roles trying to defend the differences in policy practices between departments. Inequities in the employee experience – a topic we will explore in more detail later – always lead to dissatisfaction. This in turn impacts the customer experience and. . .well, you see the problem.

Individual behaviors are the most common form of misalignment and easiest to address if leadership remains committed to good coaching and performance feedback practices. Misaligned individual behavior is reflected in any situation during which the employee engages in an activity or policy practice that is contrary to the organization's procedure. For example, using the customer‐centric example from above, the employee who summarily dismissed the return because it fell outside the time limit for product refunds was displaying a misaligned behavior. In that example, the behavior may have been created by misaligned policies at the department or organizational level. If the company or department policy was that all returns must be completed within 30 days to receive a full refund with no recourse for customers at all, I would argue that the policy is not customercentric. If, on the other hand, there was no such policy or one that stated that exceptions can be made by involving a supervisor, then the employee's behavior was misaligned. If it is simply an individual employee behavior, coaching or counseling should fix the problem. But if it is a department practice misalignment, changes must be made at that level and all employees within that department retrained. If the organizational policy is misaligned, the entire company would need retraining on a more customercentric procedure. That's why it is so important to work top down on vertical alignment and with an abundance of passion to sustain the effort.

There is good news. Your continued efforts at vertical alignment will create momentum. As things align around your core ideology, it's easier to identify which practices and policies are not aligned. It is almost as if vertical misalignment provides a cloaking effect on poor performance. Once you start removing the misalignment, performance inhibitors become easier to detect and correct. It all revolves around evaluating every policy, procedure, practice, and behavior relative to how they impact the core ideology of the organization.

But what if the misalignment begins before your customer even experiences your policies and procedures? Is that possible? Unfortunately, it is not just possible, but common.

THE MISALIGNED SALES PROCESS

I teach selling skills. Wait, let me correct that statement. I teach a specific approach to business development called consultative selling. Consultative selling is a form of sales that works well within a customer centric core ideology. At least as I define consultative selling, this form of business development requires that the sales professional understand two distinct things about their consumer before they recommend products and/or services to them.

First, it is important to understand what type of communication/relationship/rapport the customer wants from their sales professional. Do they want a friend, a problem solver, a product specialist, an idea person? All of these may sound good, but the reality is the consumer is most comfortable with just one of these types as partners. Understanding that about the consumer will allow the sales professional to tailor their conversations and recommendations appropriately. For more information on this topic, please pick up a copy of my book The Power of Understanding People. I also touch on this in the chapter on customer experience.

Once the nature of the relationship has been identified, the successful consultative sales professional will ask the appropriate questions to uncover the client's expressed and unexpressed needs. Expressed needs are the ones that the customer articulates to the sales professional. For example, when buying a refrigerator, a customer may express the need for a specific size, color, and style (freezer and refrigerator side by side, for instance). The unexpressed needs are the ones that the customer may not realize they have but that the sales professional uncovers based on their knowledge of the products/services they provide and familiarity with the field in which they work. Continuing the refrigerator example, the salesperson may identify the importance of an in‐the‐door ice and water dispenser and wine chilling drawer because the customer frequently entertains others. Once the sales professional understands both the relationship needs of their customer and the critical needs for products/services based on their situation, they are now able to offer the appropriate solutions to the client for addressing these needs.

My point here is not to educate you on how consultative selling works, but rather to establish the foundation for what a misaligned sales process looks like. Let's just say that, on more than one occasion over the last 25 years or so, I have conducted consultative sales training at the request of an organization's executive leadership. This sometimes involved several days' worth of education and practice to ensure the attendees understand how to successfully identify client communication styles, how to establish rapport with those various styles, and what questions to ask to identify critical needs. We focus on bridging the client's critical needs to the company's capabilities– a process I call “framing the value.” We even spend significant time on maintaining a collaborative relationship while addressing customer concerns. It is a rigorous, but ultimately fulfilling, vocational education experience.

And then after my training the marketing department unveils the new 50 slide PowerPoint sales deck to be presented as is to each client: a deck that begins with “Our History” introduces the products/services on slides 10–40, addresses “Common Concerns” for 5 slides, and closes with a generic slide that says “Questions?” What the fork, man?

There is nothing remotely consultative about having a one‐size‐fits‐all PowerPoint sales presentation deck that attempts to address all types of consumers, explains all our products and services, reduces individual concerns to common concerns, and only allows for questions after the 60 minute “death by PPT.”

Now, my point here isn't that I think a consultative selling approach is a better business model (I do); but why in the world would you claim a core ideology of customercentricity, spend several days training your business development team on consultative selling, and then provide them with a sales tool that is distinctively product/services centric? Either you need to change your core ideology and sales training or burn the sales presentation PowerPoint deck. I think you know my vote.

The most common customer complaint I have heard as it relates to a company's vertical alignment is that the way the company was represented by the sales professional has little resemblance to the actual customer experience. We will examine the role of customer experience in a future chapter, but if the organization is vertically aligned around a core ideology that is not reflected in the business development process, then the whole thing gets wonky real fast. Essentially, you have misrepresented the organization to the consumer. And when that happens, good luck achieving customer satisfaction (and forget about retention).

The most successful organizations not only have well‐aligned business development processes; they also make sure the sales professionals stay actively involved in the client experience as they move through the operation. If you want to know how well aligned you are vertically as an organization, ask your customer. And who usually finds out first if you are not aligned? The sales professional. Peak performing organizations have business development teams that also serve as organizational development consultants, because they are the ones who get the call from the unhappy customer.

BRAND STATEMENT AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT

I enjoy working with marketing professionals. Heck, my daughter is a marketing professional. They are often among the most positive, creative, and immediately likable people I meet within organizations. They have a very important role in organizational success. And it is this fact – that marketing is so important to our success as an organization – that results in the pressure to construct a brand story that may not reflect the true capabilities of the organization.

I know this is not a malicious endeavor – it's not like the marketing department has a weekly “How Do We Make False Promises That Resonate with Our Customers” meeting on Tuesdays (although that does sound like a funny Saturday Night Live bit). There exist tremendous demands to distinguish ourselves in a crowded market. Sometimes this results in the creation of brand statements that are based far more on how they poll with customers rather than how accurately they reflect the organization's true capabilities and strengths.

If your organization is representing capabilities or experiences that it cannot deliver on, you are misaligned vertically.

The best organizations – the peak performers – make a brand promise that accurately reflects the deliverables to the customer. One of the easiest ways to assess an organization's commitment to vertical alignment is to look at the customer feedback process. First, do they have one? Many don't. Second, what are you asking your customer to rate? And are the things they are rating really that important to them? Later, in the chapter on customer experience, we will examine the importance of knowing what will retain your clients, not just satisfy them. Your core ideology, when vertically aligned throughout the organization, must deliver those elements to your customer.

Major corporations are certainly capable of identifying and delivering on a brand promise. One of my favorite clients is Allstate Insurance. “You're in good hands with Allstate” goes the brand slogan. Having worked with several of their claim centers over the course of many years, I can confirm that they are populated by employees who are emotionally sensitive, tactful, self‐sacrificing, and genuinely driven by a desire to help others. There is clear evidence that the company policies are designed to identify, hire, and train people who will contribute to a policyholder experience that reflects their brand slogan. That is an example of vertical alignment.

Customer satisfaction as a metric is about delivering on your brand promise. The brand promise should be a source of competitive advantage and a direct extension of the core ideology and horizontal alignment. Vertical alignment ensures that your brand promise is reflected in the policies, procedures, and practices at every level of the organization. We will revisit this again in the chapter on customer experience.

THE FALLACY OF “DISRUPTION”

One of the recurring challenges that I have witnessed in organizations around the world is the sudden urge to alter the organization's core ideology (horizontal alignment) without considering the accompanying changes required in vertical alignment. Over the last handful of years, the term “disruption” has become a popular buzz word in business. An evolution of the 1990s business concept known as disruptive technology, the more generic “disruption” approach is simpler and more straightforward. Many executives who embrace the creation of disruption are trying to avoid organizational complacency. They believe it is necessary to shake up the company with new core ideologies that will reinvigorate performance, generate enthusiasm among stakeholders, and recapture the excitement and commitment associated with the early stages of an organization's existence. All these things may happen. It is also possible that the disruption will cause what disruptions often cause: confusion. Successful disruption requires vertically aligned leadership. In other words, truly effective disruption is thoughtful, strategic, tactical, well planned. and executed. But that just doesn't sound like fun to the disruptor, who may be exhibiting one of the leadership toxins I discuss in Chapter 4.

It's not that changes are not ever necessary at a horizontal alignment level, because they are. It's just that these changes must be justified based on the market environment and then accompanied by the necessary adjustments in vertical alignment. They cannot simply be changes for the sake of “disrupting.”

SMALL CHANGES IN HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT CREATE BIG CHANGES IN VERTICAL ALIGNMENT

Recently, I was consulting with a global pharmaceutical company that had experienced a five‐year run of revenue growth due in part to a new core ideology of customer centricity. The CEO believed that reaching a new level of success would require another change to the core ideology. In my experiences, most CEOs lead with a style I label as Adventurer (Mastermind/Warrior) or Power Broker (Warrior/Mastermind). You can refer to my two previous books for more information on interactive styles. I also discuss this briefly in the chapter that follows this one, “Leadership Ideology.” But to sum up here: Masterminds, by nature, grow bored with the status quo and seek change even if there is no indication it is necessary. Warriors are competitive and are always seeking an advantage. When you combine those two preferences, you create a mindset that requires a new idea to give yourself a competitive edge. The CEO of this organization was exactly this style of leader.

The company provides drug discovery, development, and manufacturing services to other pharmaceutical companies on a contractual basis. In a nutshell, pharma companies outsource parts of their work to my client. Their customer‐centric ideology meant that they continually consider the client company's perspective, needs, and expectations as they provide the contracted services. The CEO proposed a change to this ideology from customercentric to patientcentric. This meant that the company would shift from a consultative relationship with their clients to a collaborative one. It was a subtle change – at least in the CEO's mind. These can be the most dangerous situations – the belief that the small change at the very top of the horizontal alignment requires only a tiny adjustment of vertical alignment throughout the company. However, anyone who has navigated a boat, built a house, or even tried to draw two parallel lines has come to appreciate how a slight adjustment at one end of an alignment can create a large movement at the other end.

Once the new core ideology had been articulated, it was important to quantify the exact impact this shift in the client relationship would have on the operation. The organization comprised several sites scattered around North America, Europe, and India. Each of these facilities was led by a site director and a leadership team. As is common in pharma, many of these facilities had been parts of different companies in the past and had been acquired by the current company. In a perfect world, each facility would have the exact same capabilities and expertise. This is not a perfect world. Each site had its own strengths and vulnerabilities. This, of course, created challenges to vertical alignment.

The business development (BD) team was trained to work with all the facilities. Given that BD was the first point of contact with the client and communicated this information to operations, it made sense to clearly define how the new patient centricity core ideology would affect their approach to the market. Of note was the fact that this organization was driven by a high‐performing business development team. We decided to drive the core ideology shift through BD. A major hurdle to implementing the new core ideology was the success of the old core ideology. Since the customer centric approach had resulted in record revenue gains, why the need for a shift to patient centricity, they asked. Nothing alienates sales professionals as much as changing something that was making them money.

The vertical alignment efforts for this project began with a daylong examination of exactly what this shift from customer (pharma company) to patient (end user) centricity would mean relative to the efforts of BD. Herein lies the value of having these conversations deeper within the organization than just the C suite. After spirited discussion – and dissent – we achieved a breakthrough. If our customers are focused on the patient, and we profess to be customer centric, wouldn't that mean that we too must be patient centric? Was this really a shift in ideology or, more accurately, a sharpening of our focus? As we talk with our clients, shouldn't we know about their customers – the patient? The answers to these questions allowed the team to align around the revised core ideology. Patient centricity is simply a more refined version of customer centricity.

The breakthrough happened when we produced a visual that illustrated the change graphically. The company had visually represented their customer‐centric approach by showing all the various business functions surrounding the customer. Realizing that the customer's customer was the patient, that placed the patient in the center of the customer's focus (reflected by the additional oval within the customer centricity graphic in Figure 3.2). The BD team was satisfied that this “sharper focus” of our core ideology would not negatively impact their relationships with clients. With that, we were ready to drive the ideology deeper in the organization.

Simultaneous to this, all C‐suite leaders needed to clearly understand the impact of patient centricity in their disciplines. Each organization‐wide policy and practice would need to be evaluated for its impact on patient centricity. Divisional and departmental practice would then need to be addressed – BD and site operations needed to understand how this new collaborative relationship would work between clients and the organization, and between BD and operations. Once they determined this, each department within the global sites needed to adjust their policies and practices accordingly to integrate this sharper focus. For example, cross‐functional Patient Awareness Councils were formed at each site to reflect this new ideology (customer awareness councils are discussed in Chapter 5, “The Customer Experience”). Finally, policies and practices impacting individual employees – things like job descriptions, training, appraisal criteria – would require modification to reflect this “subtle change.”

The point here is that any change to the organization's core ideology, no matter how small it may seem, will have dramatic impact on vertical alignment at all levels of the company. When it comes to vertical alignment, all changes are disruptive!

Here's the thing: vertical alignment is hard work and it is not the hard work that you do every day. Few organizations fully realize the immense effort required to align the entire company around a core ideology. Combine that with the possibility that leadership changes these ideologies without considering the trickle‐down impact of their decisions, and you come to understand why so few companies are vertically aligned. But the best organizations are either vertically aligned or continually in the process of achieving it. Peak‐performing cultures walk the talk of their expressed core ideology.

VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AT THE DIVISIONAL/DEPARTMENTAL LEVEL

Not all vertical alignment efforts start at the organization‐wide level. In fact, many of the performance enhancement and strategic planning events that I have worked on with clients have been at the department level. The most common departmental level vertical alignment project revolves around communication. In the famous words of Strother Martin in the movie Cool Hand Luke, “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” It is hard to achieve vertical alignment in a perfect situation, and impossible if the communication systems within a department are faulty.

There is good news, though. As vertical alignment efforts move deeper into the operation, from organizational to departmental, the misalignment often becomes more obvious, easier to define, and less complicated. Take communication, for example. Organization‐wide communication problems are much harder to identify, define, and fix than a communication problem in one department. Once you identify a misalignment, the specific process that I have found to be beneficial for returning to alignment mirrors the approach we used to achieve horizontal alignment.

PASSION IS THE FOUNDATION, ALIGNMENT IS THE INFRASTRUCTURE

Both horizontal and vertical alignment are ongoing efforts that require constant monitoring and corrective actions. It is important not to get frustrated by the never‐ending effort that it takes. No organization is perfectly aligned. However, the best organizations are continuously engaged in the pursuit of alignment. They realize it is the cornerstone of organizational development. It is the infrastructure of peak performance culture and for that reason, it is impossible to achieve the full potential of an organization without it. Passion provides the foundation on which alignment builds the frame. Yet despite the importance of both passion and alignment, the metric that is most immediately noticeable in an organization, particularly for the employee population, is its leadership ideology. (More to come on that in Chapter 4.)

Key Considerations