- Add CSS components: .page-meta badges, .domain-header, .install-banner - Fix invisible tab navigation (explicit color for light/dark modes) - Rewrite generate-docs.py with design system templates - Domain indexes: centered headers with icons, install banners, grid cards - Skill pages: pill badges (domain, skill ID, source), install commands - Agent/command pages: type badges with domain icons - Regenerate all 210 pages (180 skills + 15 agents + 15 commands) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
197 lines
9.1 KiB
Markdown
197 lines
9.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
title: "Strategic Alignment Engine"
|
||
description: "Strategic Alignment Engine - Claude Code skill from the C-Level Advisory domain."
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
# Strategic Alignment Engine
|
||
|
||
<div class="page-meta" markdown>
|
||
<span class="meta-badge">:material-account-tie: C-Level Advisory</span>
|
||
<span class="meta-badge">:material-identifier: `strategic-alignment`</span>
|
||
<span class="meta-badge">:material-github: <a href="https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/c-level-advisor/strategic-alignment/SKILL.md">Source</a></span>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<div class="install-banner" markdown>
|
||
<span class="install-label">Install:</span> <code>claude /plugin install c-level-skills</code>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
|
||
Strategy fails at the cascade, not the boardroom. This skill detects misalignment before it becomes dysfunction and builds systems that keep strategy connected from CEO to individual contributor.
|
||
|
||
## Keywords
|
||
strategic alignment, strategy cascade, OKR alignment, orphan OKRs, conflicting goals, silos, communication gap, department alignment, alignment checker, strategy articulation, cross-functional, goal cascade, misalignment, alignment score
|
||
|
||
## Quick Start
|
||
|
||
```bash
|
||
python scripts/alignment_checker.py # Check OKR alignment: orphans, conflicts, coverage gaps
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
## Core Framework
|
||
|
||
The alignment problem: **The further a goal gets from the strategy that created it, the less likely it reflects the original intent.** This is the organizational telephone game. It happens at every stage. The question is how bad it is and how to fix it.
|
||
|
||
### Step 1: Strategy Articulation Test
|
||
|
||
Before checking cascade, check the source. Ask five people from five different teams:
|
||
**"What is the company's most important strategic priority right now?"**
|
||
|
||
**Scoring:**
|
||
- All five give the same answer: ✅ Articulation is clear
|
||
- 3–4 give similar answers: 🟡 Loose alignment — clarify and communicate
|
||
- < 3 agree: 🔴 Strategy isn't clear enough to cascade. Fix this before fixing cascade.
|
||
|
||
**Format test:** The strategy should be statable in one sentence. If leadership needs a paragraph, teams won't internalize it.
|
||
- ❌ "We focus on product-led growth while maintaining enterprise relationships and expanding our international presence and investing in platform capabilities"
|
||
- ✅ "Win the mid-market healthcare segment in DACH before Series B"
|
||
|
||
### Step 2: Cascade Mapping
|
||
|
||
Map the flow from company strategy → each level of the organization.
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
Company level: OKR-1, OKR-2, OKR-3
|
||
↓
|
||
Dept level: Sales OKRs, Eng OKRs, Product OKRs, CS OKRs
|
||
↓
|
||
Team level: Team A OKRs, Team B OKRs...
|
||
↓
|
||
Individual: Personal goals / rocks
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**For each goal at every level, ask:**
|
||
- Which company-level goal does this support?
|
||
- If this goal is 100% achieved, how much does it move the company goal?
|
||
- Is the connection direct or theoretical?
|
||
|
||
### Step 3: Alignment Detection
|
||
|
||
Three failure patterns:
|
||
|
||
**Orphan goals:** Team or individual goals that don't connect to any company goal.
|
||
- Symptom: "We've been working on this for a quarter and nobody above us seems to care"
|
||
- Root cause: Goals set bottom-up or from last quarter's priorities without reconciling to current company OKRs
|
||
- Fix: Connect or cut. Every goal needs a parent.
|
||
|
||
**Conflicting goals:** Two teams' goals, when both succeed, create a worse outcome.
|
||
- Classic example: Sales commits to volume contracts (revenue), CS is measured on satisfaction scores. Sales closes bad-fit customers; CS scores tank.
|
||
- Fix: Cross-functional OKR review before quarter begins. Shared metrics where teams interact.
|
||
|
||
**Coverage gaps:** Company has 3 OKRs. 5 teams support OKR-1, 2 support OKR-2, 0 support OKR-3.
|
||
- Symptom: Company OKR-3 consistently misses; nobody owns it
|
||
- Fix: Explicit ownership assignment. If no team owns a company OKR, it won't happen.
|
||
|
||
See `scripts/alignment_checker.py` for automated detection against your JSON-formatted OKRs.
|
||
|
||
### Step 4: Silo Identification
|
||
|
||
Silos exist when teams optimize for local metrics at the expense of company metrics.
|
||
|
||
**Silo signals:**
|
||
- A department consistently hits their goals while the company misses
|
||
- Teams don't know what other teams are working on
|
||
- "That's not our problem" is a common phrase
|
||
- Escalations only flow up; coordination never flows sideways
|
||
- Data isn't shared between teams that depend on each other
|
||
|
||
**Silo root causes:**
|
||
1. **Incentive misalignment:** Teams rewarded for local metrics don't optimize for company metrics
|
||
2. **No shared goals:** When teams share a goal, they coordinate. When they don't, they drift.
|
||
3. **No shared language:** Engineering doesn't understand sales metrics; sales doesn't understand technical debt
|
||
4. **Geography or time zones:** Silos accelerate when teams don't interact organically
|
||
|
||
**Silo measurement:**
|
||
- How often do teams request something from each other vs. proceed independently?
|
||
- How much time does it take to resolve a cross-functional issue?
|
||
- Can a team member describe the current priorities of an adjacent team?
|
||
|
||
### Step 5: Communication Gap Analysis
|
||
|
||
What the CEO says ≠ what teams hear. The gap grows with company size.
|
||
|
||
**The message decay model:**
|
||
- CEO communicates strategy at all-hands → managers filter through their lens → teams receive modified version → individuals interpret further
|
||
|
||
**Gap sources:**
|
||
- **Ambiguity:** Strategy stated at too high a level ("grow the business") lets each team fill in their own interpretation
|
||
- **Frequency:** One all-hands per quarter isn't enough repetition to change behavior
|
||
- **Medium mismatch:** Long written strategy doc for teams that respond to visual communication
|
||
- **Trust deficit:** Teams don't believe the strategy is real ("we've heard this before")
|
||
|
||
**Gap detection:**
|
||
- Run the Step 1 articulation test across all levels
|
||
- Compare what leadership thinks they communicated vs. what teams say they heard
|
||
- Survey: "What changed about how you work since the last strategy update?"
|
||
|
||
### Step 6: Realignment Protocol
|
||
|
||
How to fix misalignment without calling it a "realignment" (which creates fear).
|
||
|
||
**Step 6a: Don't start with what's wrong**
|
||
Starting with "here's our misalignment" creates defensiveness. Start with "here's where we're heading and I want to make sure we're connected."
|
||
|
||
**Step 6b: Re-cascade in a workshop, not a memo**
|
||
Alignment workshops are more effective than documents. Get company-level OKR owners and department leads in a room. Map connections. Find gaps together.
|
||
|
||
**Step 6c: Fix incentives before fixing goals**
|
||
If department heads are rewarded for local metrics that conflict with company goals, no amount of goal-setting fixes the problem. The incentive structure must change first.
|
||
|
||
**Step 6d: Install a quarterly alignment check**
|
||
After fixing, prevent recurrence. See `references/alignment-playbook.md` for quarterly cadence.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Alignment Score
|
||
|
||
A quick health check. Score each area 0–10:
|
||
|
||
| Area | Question | Score |
|
||
|------|----------|-------|
|
||
| Strategy clarity | Can 5 people from different teams state the strategy consistently? | /10 |
|
||
| Cascade completeness | Do all team goals connect to company goals? | /10 |
|
||
| Conflict detection | Have cross-team OKR conflicts been reviewed and resolved? | /10 |
|
||
| Coverage | Does each company OKR have explicit team ownership? | /10 |
|
||
| Communication | Do teams' behaviors reflect the strategy (not just their stated understanding)? | /10 |
|
||
|
||
**Total: __ / 50**
|
||
|
||
| Score | Status |
|
||
|-------|--------|
|
||
| 45–50 | Excellent. Maintain the system. |
|
||
| 35–44 | Good. Address specific weak areas. |
|
||
| 20–34 | Misalignment is costing you. Immediate attention required. |
|
||
| < 20 | Strategic drift. Treat as crisis. |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Key Questions for Alignment
|
||
|
||
- "Ask your newest team member: what is the most important thing the company is trying to achieve right now?"
|
||
- "Which company OKR does your team's top priority support? Can you trace the connection?"
|
||
- "When Team A and Team B both hit their goals, does the company always win? Are there scenarios where they don't?"
|
||
- "What changed in how your team works since the last strategy update?"
|
||
- "Name a decision made last week that was influenced by the company strategy."
|
||
|
||
## Red Flags
|
||
|
||
- Teams consistently hit goals while company misses targets
|
||
- Cross-functional projects take 3x longer than expected (coordination failure)
|
||
- Strategy updated quarterly but team priorities don't change
|
||
- "That's a leadership problem, not our problem" attitude at the team level
|
||
- New initiatives announced without connecting them to existing OKRs
|
||
- Department heads optimize for headcount or budget rather than company outcomes
|
||
|
||
## Integration with Other C-Suite Roles
|
||
|
||
| When... | Work with... | To... |
|
||
|---------|-------------|-------|
|
||
| New strategy is set | CEO + COO | Cascade into quarterly rocks before announcing |
|
||
| OKR cycle starts | COO | Run cross-team conflict check before finalizing |
|
||
| Team consistently misses goals | CHRO | Diagnose: capability gap or alignment gap? |
|
||
| Silo identified | COO | Design shared metrics or cross-functional OKRs |
|
||
| Post-M&A | CEO + Culture Architect | Detect strategy conflicts between merged entities |
|
||
|
||
## Detailed References
|
||
- `scripts/alignment_checker.py` — Automated OKR alignment analysis (orphans, conflicts, coverage)
|
||
- `references/alignment-playbook.md` — Cascade techniques, quarterly alignment check, common patterns
|