Modern organizations are obsessed with measurement. Pop into virtually any executive meeting, and you’re likely to find glowing dashboards, reports, infographics, charts, and scorecards packed with performance metrics.
Revenue growth, customer satisfaction, engagement, productivity, utilization, retention, cycle time: if it can be quantified, it’s probably being tracked.
This is the Official Market, or what organizations buy and sell in an attempt to take the inherent complexity of business and turn it into something understandable: reports, scorecards, dashboards, intelligence platforms, and Balanced Scorecards.
Business needs complexity to transform into something manageable. Leadership must see into what happens everywhere in the organization, and metrics give teams a common language to express how they perform. Formal metrics are the right tool for holding employees accountable and for allowing leaders to assess the performance of individuals or teams against others over time.
Yet the potential harms of overreliance on formal measurement systems aren’t merely abstract or as far-fetched as many make them out to be.
Natlia Cuguer-Escofet, a researcher at the University of Pompeu Fabra, and Josep M. Rosanas at Universitat de Barcelona analyzed a set of cases in which performance management systems, when implemented rigidly, led to unintended outcomes, including cases from Spanish banks in the period leading up to the 2008 crisis.
In one such instance, a manager who was resistant to escalating loan-making practices was moved out of a position where loan decisions could be made, despite being given a promotion (in the form of an increased salary and improved office space).
In another instance, a board member who was hesitant about an asset’s value was reluctant to express his reservations because the organization’s incentive systems largely tied everyone’s performance to profit. The performance systems were working as they were designed to, but their output was discouraging decision-makers from making professional decisions when they were most needed.
The takeaway from these scenarios isn’t that measurement is itself flawed; it’s that every organization’s performance system will eventually hit a ceiling where it can’t foresee every contingency. When they become overly committed to using objective indicators, organizations risk inhibiting the human intelligence that might warn them of a problem before it shows up in the results.
The crux of the problem isn’t so much a reliance on measuring performance; it’s the assumption that measurable equals significant.
Organizations are often obsessed with measuring metrics, even though those same metrics sometimes do not truly matter to an organization’s success. These metrics aren’t designed to provide a clear picture of why something is or isn’t working; rather, they simply demonstrate what is going on.
They aren’t about showing how frustrated customers are; instead, they show that the satisfaction level has fallen. They aren’t about the employee turnover going up but about what has led to employee discontentment over time. An organization’s ability to identify the causes of declining numbers is critically important, yet metrics cannot illustrate the complexities driving performance from the bottom up.
This weakness is exacerbated, in many cases, by the fact that metrics are, by their very nature, selective. Each KPI necessarily prioritizes some aspects of performance while overlooking others. Organizations use metrics to measure performance based on what they perceive as critical, yet the business environment and consumer expectations require new perspectives. The KPIs organizations rely on may therefore cease to align with the reality on the ground.
It is simply a matter of fact that metrics are better indicators than drivers. When the system measures certain behaviours and outcomes, employees quickly adapt by doing what the system wants them to do. When employees are measured on customer service call time, for example, they learn to hang up with customers as quickly as possible rather than solve their problem. Metrics lead us to manipulate an organization’s output through what we measure, even if what we measure isn’t indicative of success.
“The problem isn’t a measurement one; it’s a knowledge one. You can know the velocity; you just don’t know where you’re headed, and therefore you just don’t know what to do, which makes managing impossible.” – Jeff Bezos
This system of performance relies upon measurement for decision and action-taking but neglects the human aspect; instead, it relies on information that is already visible or reportable. The challenge is that all of this is usually evident on a dashboard if it is tracked or measured.
With that said, not all aspects of the performance in the workplace are quantifiable:
Trust is hard to measure
Honesty cannot be quantified
Creativity or foresight doesn’t have to be demonstrated on a chart
These are not all reflected in The Official Market, as every metric, KPI, report or business scorecard makes choices about what’s relevant and what isn’t.
Sadly, by focusing solely on what we can readily identify as critical and important, many organizations inadvertently start to devalue or even ignore areas they cannot easily quantify. That, it has been said, means the information in their reporting systems may be missing valuable pieces or even be flat-out misleading.
One example is a business intelligence system that tells people how busy employees were in the office (measured by time spent at the desk, use of specific tools, etc.) but does not measure the outcomes of that work. This system has become completely removed from the actual outcomes that would determine whether employees were actually working effectively or not.
In such instances, organizations become overly dependent on such formally measured criteria and risk suppressing human judgment or observation that would otherwise point them toward a problem early on.
The Black Market
There’s one in every organization.
It might not show up in your year-end results. It might not be mentioned in a quarterly review. It definitely will not be in your executive dashboard, but nearly everyone in the company knows it.
This is the KPI Black Market; this is where you would go when your formal measures do not tell the same story. The name is controversial, but it should not be when people search for additional data to navigate a complex business. If an organization goes to great lengths, many beneficial ideas may fall outside measurement standards.
The Conversations That Never Make the Dashboard
Companies have invested significant resources over the past few years in business intelligence tools that afford a live view of operations. However, much of an organization’s most useful intelligence still travels via conversation.
A sales leader hears multiple account managers mention the same customer pain point.
A product leader notices an increase in “what is that for?” type questions about a new feature.
A team lead finds conversation in their team’s hushed post-all-hands meeting.
A customer success manager starts hearing unusually similar wording in otherwise unrelated client calls, hinting at a shared frustration that hasn’t been logged anywhere yet.
A regional manager notices that high performers are suddenly asking more “confirmation” questions instead of making autonomous decisions.
A project lead observes that status updates remain technically positive, but the tone of delivery shifts: shorter messages, fewer details, less narrative confidence.
An HR partner hears recurring “soft exits” in development conversations – people talking more about uncertainty, optionality, or “keeping an eye on things” rather than commitment.
Those aren’t standard metrics, but they often show trouble before it hits the Profit & Loss (P&L).
That’s partly why leaders place so much importance on informal conversation – it’s where emerging signals like doubt, disappointment, enthusiasm, and apprehension get aired while they’re still in their most formative (and useful) stage.
Once a signal is a metric, it’s already past the critical inflection point. That is due to the fact that dashboards chronicle what happened, while conversations signal what’s about to happen.
We write down and archive at an unforeseen speed, yet much of our knowledge is often contained…elsewhere. That knowledge often moves through the Black Market, with almost blinding celerity.
The Mental Dashboard
Try asking an experienced sales leader what will make the quarter miss your target. They often start with “I have a feeling.” It’s the kind of thing a data scientist will probably break out maniacally in a feverish rash at the sound of it.
How can they predict they might miss when the company invests millions in data and analytics to give you objectivity?!
However, the data science in judgment and forecasting actually supports this kind of intuitive forecasting: experts use intuition often not at random but rather to detect patterns that may not show up explicitly and may even be unable to be easily and systematically articulated, due to experience (e.g., having interacted with customers, products, markets, negotiations, and company stakeholders), which can be more sensitive to some cues than others.
You might experience it as a feeling or a sense:
A salesperson feeling the heat because customer engagement seems “off” but has not yet been captured by metrics.
A regional manager in your organization who believes they sense unusual nervousness in the sales reps during customer interactions.
Customer success may note that the typical post-demo and pilot behaviour among clients has changed slightly, but it is not yet affecting metrics such as engagement and churn. In these kinds of instances, they are not officially being recognized by your data platform.
Yet these sorts of signals often influence forecast judgments, however indirectly. Leaders, in essence, operate with two dashboards: one that they see on their screen and another that resides in their head.
One is evidence of what is happening. The other is the interpretation of what’s happening. Neither works well without the other.
The Spreadsheet Nobody Talks About
Perhaps one of the most unaddressed elements of organizational life is the presence of shadow forecasting mechanisms.
Officially, there’s an organization’s forecast. Unofficially, there often exists a second forecast, which may exist in the form of an individual’s private spreadsheet, in an individual’s notebook, or through individual or team discussion.
It is likely, in some form, that this meeting has been heard in every organization where one exists.
The company forecast is presented.
The numbers look perfectly healthy.
Then inevitably someone pipes up, “OK, but what do we actually think?”
The line dividing the Official and Black markets is drawn with that phrase. The Official forecast might be the organization’s most formal assessment, but the Black Market forecast often represents a compilation of individual experience, customer issues, the news and anything else that doesn’t easily lend itself to tabulation.
It’s curious that shadow forecasts don’t necessarily always compete directly against official outputs. Indeed, they can arise as employees try to circumvent gaps they see in the official mechanisms. The fact of there being a spreadsheet doesn’t necessarily matter, since it is the quest for a depiction of reality that people believe in.
Tribal Knowledge and Unofficial Indicators
Arguably the hottest currency in the KPI Black Market is tribe experience. Most organizations have individuals who seem to be aware of certain things well before the rest of the population becomes aware of them. Those individuals understand which projects are real and which generate polished-looking status charts. They can usually predict the top truly unserved and unhappy customer base even before official complaints surface.
Such employees know which operational hazards warrant attention, even when they do not appear in risk analyses. What’s truly fascinating is that these fellows often don’t even have access to data; however, they have contextual gut feelings. By virtue of experience or informed hunches, they understand and see patterns that systems simply can’t capture.
These people remember what happened last time. They recall the anger, the shouts, the boasts, the merriment, or the frustration. They are living archives, in a sense. As such, organizations often defer significantly to individuals who cannot effectively translate the value of their insights into metrics, yet that value is very much there.
This then creates an interesting paradox.
On the one hand, companies may champion objectivity; on the other hand, in uncertain environments, they often turn to sources of experience who, by their nature, are not subject to objective measurement systems. Similar principles are evidenced in how folks make decisions in the informal universe on a day-to-day basis.
Managers observe how quickly answers are transmitted for questions and inquiries.
Account teams pick up on the customer’s emotional tone rather than on official customer satisfaction reports.
Product team leaders keep their eyes on the number of surprises.
Executive team members will note when the “unhappy camper” stops raising their objections.
These signals often aren’t included on charts but have a tremendous impact on decision-making, at times having a significantly greater impact than the official scores themselves.
Why the Black Market Exists
It may be tempting to see these informal arrangements as proof of the ultimate failure of formal measurement. This is a faulty assumption that relies on a complete misunderstanding of the very premise. The existence of the KPI Black Market signals that organizations are, ultimately, human systems operating in contexts far more complex than can ever be fully captured by numbers.
Dashboards cannot account for every variable. KPIs cannot enumerate every risk. Reports cannot portray trust, morale, judgment, intuition, confidence, or culture. When people and groups try to find order in increasingly chaotic surroundings, it is natural that they create complementary information systems – the KPI Black Market – that support and backstop formal systems. The KPI Black Market is thus not a conspiracy against data, but a very reasonable response to its ultimate shortcomings. It is a natural evolution of a most logical process.
Perhaps the most important irony is that most organizations already rely upon the inputs of this unrecorded channel: they simply do so informally and under the table.
The highest-trusted and most timely signals usually originate elsewhere – between peers, during hallway discussions, through personal observation, or based on embodied tacit knowledge. The KPI Black Market is more prevalent in complex environments where reality is perennially richer than our metrics, and, more generally, in organizations that have simply done too poor a job of creating formal indicators.
What Should Leaders Do About the KPI Black Market?
The existence of the KPI Black Market does not, of course, suggest that companies should discard their dashboards, scorecards, or formal reports. Au contraire!
Formal measurement is crucial if organizational performance is to be consistent and comparable, and if accountability is to be meaningful rather than arbitrary, and so much so that the Official Market is an essential part of organizational life.
The problem isn’t that organizations formally measure performance; it’s that they treat formal measurements as complete representations of reality rather than partial ones.
Great leaders recognize that the best dashboard or scorecard cannot do their thinking for them, but can help them think, and that, in addition to the question “What does this metric say?”, a second question needs to be asked.
“What’s missing from this metric?”
A necessary shift in focus leads to the treatment of signals and the observations of employees as information & value, not noise. The aim here isn’t the wholesale abandonment of measurement, but the supplementation of metrics by insight.
A similar approach can be found in the management literature, and the argument has long been made that formal management controls necessarily contain gaps that must be filled by managerial judgment, a concept of “informal justice”.
In essence, such judgments may allow us to question the validity of a metric because it has not kept pace with changing circumstances. Perhaps the easiest way in which to undertake a measure of diagnosis is for a team of leaders to take the time to ask management to list all of the things that management considers important, and then see what doesn’t appear on the board.
Final Thoughts
It is increasingly common to portray organizations as rational, analytical, almost-organic beings in which decisions are data-driven, and metrics are king.
To a certain extent, this is true. Most of them are, indeed, social entities – powered by the experience, intuition, confidence, and understanding coming from their members. Such a sentiment would be historically true as well, as it was the case well before dashboards existed – managers trusted their intuition and vision. Long before business intelligence platforms were born, people discussed and understood their environment to proceed forward, even when uncertainty loomed like an overcast sky.
Although our reporting tools now offer unprecedented visibility, this doesn’t deny the need for those implicit ways of leading teams to progress. Frankly speaking, they simply shouldn’t impede this.
It would be a naive mistake to assume all critical variables can be measured, as the key predictors of an organization’s success are sometimes elusive to quantification. These signals originate from talks, gut feelings, interactions, observations, and events, which never exactly translate onto a metric dashboard.
However, leading companies leverage both, sometimes in equal measure, and often to great success. A dashboard illustrates the past, while those close to the business can provide current-state insights and often foresight.
This is the key takeaway one should derive from the KPI Black Market. The real value is found where the most trustworthy predictors remain off the official dashboard.
**********
Looking to strengthen your expertise in KPI design and performance measurement? Gain practical knowledge, proven methodologies, and globally recognized certification through The KPI Institute’s Online Certified KPI Professional.
It is generally accepted within most organizations that strategy is filtered through structure: a group of executives defines priorities, these executives delegate to leaders, department heads manage their reports, and then people at lower levels of the hierarchy do the work.
That, at least, is the story told by the organizational chart. However, work does not flow smoothly through a company in the same way it does along an organizational chart in the boardroom.
Strategy flows through invisible networks. It moves through trust, it relies on reputation, friendship, alliances, credibility, influence, and memory. Employees are actually dependent on those specific individuals who offer reliability in the midst of political and chaotic organizational circumstances.
These hidden networks are what is called the informal organization.
For many organizations, the informal structure plays a more significant role than the formal one.
A leader may be officially responsible for a particular transformation project, but the individual whom everyone in the company recognizes as the real leader responsible for it might actually be another person. A strategic task may be implemented not because formal procedures were followed for approval but because a key trusted contact used informal connections to move it forward behind the scenes, and another project with impeccable governance procedures might completely collapse because the informal network never really backed it.
This is the hidden dimension that many strategy models seem to ignore.
While the organizational chart clarifies accountability, the informal organization illustrates behaviour. Where & when the two are at odds, the strategic execution of the task succeeds or fails.
According to researchers Alberto F. De Toni and Fabio Nonino, the informal organization is “the real central nervous system” of companies, and operational coordination is managed primarily through informal connections rather than organizational structures.
These assumptions revolutionize the perspective from which execution needs to be addressed.
If strategy execution is achieved through human interaction, it is crucial to focus on whom each individual actually looks to for guidance and help, rather than to whom they officially report.
Why Organizational Charts Rarely Reflect Reality
Organizational charts rarely represent reality because two companies are present in reality simultaneously: the formal and the informal organizations.
A) The formal organization is structured hierarchically through a complex web of reporting lines, departments, roles, and decision-making procedures.
B) The informal organization is a social web of non-work-related connections that develop over time.
As a result, in many organizations, people look to specific individuals within the company regardless of the organization chart; this may be because of a specific skill, expertise, empathy, or political acumen these individuals possess. Such individuals act as unofficial decision-makers, the people one goes to before making a formal decision, the people who possess the expertise or social power to navigate through difficult organizational dynamics and push forward projects.
There is usually a significant gap between what is expected within the formal organization and what people actually do, and these unseen decision-makers in every company are the informal leaders.
Whether they may or may not occupy high-level executive positions is irrelevant, for employees approach them for guidance before making decisions; they understand how the real system operates and have the political agility to remove obstacles and make stalled projects run smoothly. They also understand the organization’s politics and history, enabling them to negotiate effectively without alienating others.
Although they may sometimes appear to lead initiatives, their authority is not granted but is derived from the credibility, expertise, emotional intelligence, and positive social influence they command from others within the company. Essentially, they earn the right to lead by demonstrating competence and building trust with others over time.
De Toni and Nonino identified several recurrent informal roles within organizations, including opinion leaders, central connectors, bottlenecks, consultants, experts, and “helpful people”. The influence these roles have varies.
For example, opinion leaders impact how people react to change and are closely watched by the workforce. Central connectors are critical to effective internal communications. These people serve as an infrastructure within the organization, facilitating informal communication and connections across functions and departments.
Such networks become strategically important because, generally, strategy execution relies less on the command-and-control structure than on the socially constructed legitimacy of what one is trying to accomplish. People might comply with an authority, but commit themselves to it through trust.
How Informal Networks Empower or Sabotage Strategy Execution
One important fact that many people get wrong about organizational dynamics is that there is no direct, mechanistic implementation of strategy; rather, strategy is interpreted and executed socially. It is through the informal organization that an initiative might be perceived positively or negatively by employees, depending on their interpretation.
They don’t make their assessment of a transformation process solely on formal data but look to people in other departments to see how they react. The internal strategy debate takes place in private meetings, casual hallway chats, e-mail groups, and lunches. If people in influential positions secretly mistrust a transformation project, then the initiative itself might be in danger.
It may seem mysterious from the outside, but people within the organization often know what is happening. This means the informal leaders will have agreed, and the organization’s internal decision-makers will align informally.
Conversely, a strategy might fail not because its objectives are faulty, but because the people responsible for its execution did not feel any personal connection or investment in the idea. They might not even fully trust the people in charge of leading the change. If this happens, the formal objectives must take a back seat, and social legitimization becomes the priority.
When the Trusted Operators Become Bottlenecks in an Organization
Having said all that, it is important to note that informal influence also has a sinister downside. The very same people who make organizations work can quietly become execution bottlenecks.
One of the case studies examined in de Toni and Nonino’s study was that of an executive named Andrea, who had become overwhelmingly important to the flow of information within his business unit. The organization became so reliant on him that removing him from the communication network would result in a dramatic drop in information flow, leaving numerous individuals isolated.
This is extremely common, and every organization has the “go-to person”: the reliable fixer/operator who always knows the answer. These people initially expedite execution since people trust them.
Over time, organizations implicitly build themselves around them, waiting for their response. Projects are put on hold, waiting for the individuals’ input. Teams refrain from making any moves without consulting them. Information gets funneled to and from these individuals rather than being disseminated. It is almost ironic that the most trusted people within organizations can be hidden scalability bottlenecks, not due to poor execution but because they become integral to too much of the organization’s functionality.
Formally, the organization may seem healthy. Reporting lines exist; governance structures remain intact, and processes are in place. Operationally, the company may be held together by only a handful of informal influencers.
When these individuals burn out, leave, are let go, or face internal political isolation, they can significantly weaken the organization’s execution systems. This is one of the underlying reasons why so many organizations can’t scale despite complex formal structures.
The Hidden Politics of Organizational Influence
A major misconception within organizations is that they operate on logic alone. In reality and proven practice, interpretation, emotions, identity, trust, and influence drive organizations. This is where workplace politics come in.
Politics can sometimes have a negative connotation, but in its simplest sense, politics is simply the circulation of influence within systems that have an uneven distribution of authority, resources, and priorities, and every organization has an unequal distribution of influence. The interesting aspect is that influence does not always travel downwards. Influence can travel horizontally, upward, or, at times, completely outside the organizational hierarchy.
According to researchers of informal organizations, there are three ways in which influence is gained:
by positional authority
by expertise
by relational credibility
The former formal structures in organizations can take advantage of hierarchy and authority, whereas the latter systems favor expertise and trust.
This is extremely significant because, despite employees verbally following formal leaders, they may actually look to others for validation, instruction, guidance, and explanation. The outcome is shadow leadership in many organizations. These people officially have no leadership titles, yet they informally coordinate teams, affect and mold company culture, mentor junior staff, influence hiring, and direct operational behaviour. They are the emotional glue of the organization, and organizations usually realize their impact only once they depart; communication breaks down, teamwork falters, trust erodes, confidence corrodes, and morale plummets.
Often, leadership takes the path of believing the issue is operational and cannot pinpoint why it is failing, even though the true culprit is the loss of a central node of relationships.
Shadow Leadership, Institutional Memory, and Cultural Gatekeepers
Informal influence is even stronger when backed by institutional memory. People who possess institutional memory remember failed transformations, lost systems, failed restructuring processes, and broken promises of leaders. They are the cultural gatekeepers.
While these individuals sometimes save organizations from repeated mistakes, other times they preserve antiquated thinking, which impedes necessary change. Their influence, however, is not captured in formal strategies. Regardless of the direction of influence, this individual heavily dictates organizational behaviour. Though a newly-hired executive may have formal authority, a lack of access to their deep trust networks could hinder execution; conversely, long-tenured individuals without executive titles may wield much more influence because of their greater understanding of the organization’s emotional and political history.
This is why external consultants who offer excellent frameworks often fail: they have analyzed the visible organization and ignored the invisible part. The formal structure indicates authority, while the informal structure indicates credibility; the two may not always be the same.
Why Organizational Change Fails Invisibly First
One of the critical takeaways from studying informal organizations is that while technical systems fail visibly, social systems fail invisibly, first through hesitation, withdrawal, silence, and avoidance. This is characterized as passivity disguised as caution.
1) The first signal of change is relational.
Collaboration becomes strictly transactional, people stop sharing information freely, and departments isolate themselves politically rather than coordinating toward a common goal.
2) Then, the second signal of change is control.
The immediate, and often incorrect, reaction of organizations at this point is to add layers of control. More committees, more reporting structures, and more oversight mechanisms are put in place.
3) These first two signals inevitably lead to the third signal of change, which is dilution.
All of these initiatives negatively impact organizations by watering down the trust that is essential for rapid adaptation and change.
Truly successful companies learn to leverage their informal structures rather than ignore them. Instead of asking who holds authority, they learn who influences behaviour. Their strategies focus on communication flows, trust networks, and relational systems rather than solely on reporting lines.
Social Network Analysis and the Rise of Informal Leaders
Today, many organizations utilize social network analysis to uncover the invisible relational dynamics at play within the company.
In the case of the Euris Group, network analysis identified communication networks, expertise, problem-solving collaborations, and hidden organizational relationships within the company. It turned out that the most influential individuals in the organization were not necessarily the highest-ranking personnel, but instead were those who possessed three traits: expertise, problem-solving ability, and accessibility.
The researchers referred to them as “primus pilus” (named after the Roman soldier who directly supported and guided soldiers into battle). It seems an apt modern analogy because often in today’s organizations, the people who lead and truly drive execution are not those who deliver the strategic presentations but rather those who come to the fore when situations become tough: the operators who turn abstract concepts into practical actions, those who can bridge the gap of expertise and relatability, those that act as liaison between information and understanding, and those who reduce system friction.
These individuals are often the de facto stabilizers between high-level vision and practical operations, and failing to acknowledge them has created enormous strategic blind spots for some organizations.
Final Thoughts
The informal organization, as a subset of the main organization, provides a critical insight into the nature of strategy: execution is not only based on structure but is deeply human.
Companies move not simply through reporting lines but through relationships, trust, credibility, memory, identity, and influence. While the organizational chart outlines who has authority, the informal network explains how things actually get done and with what degree of haste.
There are several lessons to keep in mind, but perhaps the most important concerns strategy: namely, that the most powerful systems in organizations are not necessarily those intentionally designed by anyone, but those that develop organically.
Many companies end up in a failure state because people believe it is due to poorly formulated strategies, when in fact many already possess decent-to-good strategies, yet fail to move the needle beyond the predispositions, processes, and priorities that served their past incarnation.
For example, a company may shift its strategic focus, but its KPIs reward old behaviour; its leaders declare transformation, but its middle managers still receive rewards based on old targets; it adopts new technologies while utilizing processes established for non-existent markets.
These contradictions slowly and imperceptibly build up over time, forming a phenomenon known as strategy debt.
In many ways, it is the equivalent of technical debt in software: the price organizations pay for the impact of previous, now-obsolete strategic decisions, inherited assumptions, legacy priorities, and previously resolved choices that continue to exert influence on their present state.
However, unlike the clearly identifiable problems in operations, strategy debt can lie hidden for many years. It may even happen that a business might encounter strange misgivings when implementing its new strategy because the old one simply never left the room.
As markets evolve and accelerate, strategy debt has emerged as one of the most significant and unrecognized hurdles to progress and execution. While businesses are unlikely to fall at a single catastrophic misstep, many suffer over time as their ability to adapt declines, even while they continue to optimize for the realities of the past.
Think of it like a car that slowly accrues one too many fittings & components that grind against each other. Just one won’t cause a crash; one hundred, however, start to become a significant livelihood problem. This is eerily similar for businesses, too!
This reality can be unsettlingly mundane: the staff are so accustomed to the competing priorities, overlapping processes, interminable alignment meetings, and initiatives no one seems to question anymore that it feels completely normal within the business.
The business still moves; it just moves slowly, weighed down by sluggish decision-making and languid initiatives, to the point where its very livelihood is endangered.
This introduces decision debt.
Every strategic decision is associated with assumptions made when it was initiated. As markets speed up, this timeframe shortens and assumptions quickly become obsolete, continuing to impact new realities in unintended ways unless reconsidered.
This results not in immediate collapse but incremental strategic dragging, and by the time the organization recognizes the issue, the debt has already compounded tenfold.
How Organizations Build Strategy Debt Over Time
Organizations do not normally set out to build strategy debt; quite the opposite, in many cases. Companies often attempt to foster stability and predictability by adhering to established procedures and objectives.
Traditional business strategy was once based on stable conditions. 5-year plans, annual forecasts, hierarchical structures, and fixed performance systems seemed logical in periods when market shifts were predictable and gradual.
Now, the business environment is drastically different.
Consumer behaviour changes rapidly, technologies can reshape entire industries overnight, competitive advantages erode at unprecedented speed, pivots can introduce completely new competitors where there were few before, yet many businesses still operate under strategies built for a more gradual, incremental landscape.
This marks the first noticeable layer of strategy debt: outdated assumptions and conditions become permanently embedded in an organization’s structure.
A KPI implemented three years prior, for instance, might still dictate behaviour today, despite significant shifts in the company’s business model. Similarly, a customer profile crafted earlier in development may continue to inform research, product iteration, sales, and marketing efforts, even though it no longer reflects the ideal target audience.
These inherited strategic choices gradually become ingrained in an organization’s DNA, amplifying decision debt.
Decision debt is the accumulation of past choices whose context is no longer relevant. The decisions themselves may have been sound at the time, but the organizational process for evaluating or challenging them has not evolved, leaving them in place beyond their useful lifecycle.
This can explain why some organizations appear highly dynamic and engaged yet produce minimal tangible progress. They are not failing to execute the strategy; however, the strategy they are executing may be obsolete.
The irony is that, more often than not, a company’s success makes it particularly susceptible to strategy debt. When a strategy is proven to be effective, companies naturally build systems around it: processes are optimized and standardized, key metrics are deeply ingrained, silos are segmented as expected, and entire departments are built to replicate success.
The more successful a company has been historically, the harder it is to challenge its underlying assumptions, particularly when it tries to transform. The barrier is not just implementing a new strategy; it is dismantling the influence of the old one, which is a far more difficult challenge.
The Silent Costs of Strategy Debt
One of the biggest misconceptions about strategy debt is that it’s limited to long-term, strategic discussions.
In reality, it can quickly become an operational problem: employees feel overwhelmed by competing priorities; managers can’t translate strategic intent into concrete actions; departments are unknowingly at cross-purposes while pursuing the same goals.
The organization is busy, but progress is slow, and strategy debt creates friction across the business.
1) One common symptom is initiative overload.
Companies accumulate more and more projects, frameworks, priorities, and transformation programs without retiring old ones. In other words, new strategic directions are piled on top of existing ones instead of replacing them. Employees are forced to build tomorrow’s company while also keeping yesterday’s business alive.
The result is a chronic strategic gridlock that functions in an unbalanced state.
2) A second symptom is decision paralysis.
When assumptions are no longer retired, organizations find themselves constantly complicating decision-making.
Employees spend a great deal of time seeking consensus on strategy because each department operates on a different strategic foundation. Sales might focus on revenue growth, product teams on retention, operations on efficiency, and leadership on innovation. Nothing here is wrong per se, at face value.
However, we now run into the problem that the organization has never explicitly identified which goals are most important in today’s environment and which are not.
As a result, we sit in a state of simulated agreement.
Middle managers feel this pressure the most. They are caught between dynamic leadership expectations and immobile operational systems tied to outdated strategies, and it’s often their job to deliver organizational change while maintaining expectations built on old strategies. The cumulative result is employee burnout.
Now, to be clear, this doesn’t happen because employees don’t want to change, but because they’re trying to balance many competing strategic identities.
3) A third symptom is quite an insidious problem: reinvention work.
We find ourselves rebuilding old processes, decisions, initiatives, methodologies, techniques, and systems because the original intent isn’t well-documented. Employees leave, institutional memory fades, procedures become bogged down in a muck of paperwork, and the organization is forced to play archeologist to recall why this system exists in the first place.
A surprisingly significant part of operational inefficiency comes from this.
Meetings take longer; action plans now sprawl over several months instead of weeks; decision-making requires more scrutiny; teams avoid risky actions because the underlying strategy is unclear.
Now the organization loses another critical factor: decision velocity, and in today’s markets, slow adaptation is more dangerous than an imperfect decision. A flawed decision can be recovered with agility; an organization slowed by accumulated strategy debt can’t.
Warning Signs Of An Organization Optimized For Yesterday’s Market
Strategy debt usually doesn’t reveal itself through dramatic pronouncements; instead, it’s a subtle process that becomes normal over time.
A) A clear indicator is repeated strategic discussions that don’t result in definitive decisions.
Leadership meetings are consistently stuck with the same questions and topics each quarter. Discussions don’t lead to clarity; they just keep going because the organization is stuck between its past assumptions and current realities.
B) “Zombie projects” are another warning sign.
These are projects that aren’t truly abandoned, nor are they properly completed; what’s more, they seldom truly become formally canceled. They linger in organizational consciousness and continue to drain time and resources because no one wants to be the one to finally pull the plug finally.
Companies with heavy strategy debt almost invariably suffer from an abundance of such projects.
C) Strategic language bloat becomes commonplace.
As strategy becomes less concrete, words like “digital transformation“, “customer-centricity,” and “innovation acceleration” become ubiquitous while being progressively less aligned with real work.
The more vague the actual strategy becomes, the more words people use to fake alignment. Employees are usually aware of this long before management.
D) A heavy reliance on historical best practices is yet another indicator.
The organization insists on evaluating new business opportunities against the conditions that applied in the past. Leaders still measure new opportunities against the same customer profiles and old assumptions that were effective in the past.
Rather than adapting its strategy to the market, the organization unconsciously tries to fit the market into its strategy. This is often where growth grinds to a halt.
E) Cultural implications also apply to strategy debt.
Risk-averse cultures often persist despite the organization’s claims to foster innovation. Employees become hesitant to challenge old processes because they are directly linked to historical success. “It’s always been done this way” becomes more than a bad habit. It becomes an instinct for self-preservation.
This can happen within companies that still claim to be agile and adaptive. The organization outwardly embodies the concept of change but structurally resembles stagnation.
F) A truly dangerous portent is when the strategy planning process itself becomes a performance.
Employees attend workshops without any real expectation of meaningful change. Strategy is observed as a ritual rather than enacted as a plan.
At that stage, strategy debt is no longer just a drain on execution. It is an erosion of trust, and once employees no longer believe that strategic change is possible, the organization’s ability to adapt will collapse from within.
How Organizations Can Cut Down Strategy Debt Before It Strangles Growth
This doesn’t mean organizations should stop thinking about the long term.
The company still needs direction, priorities, planning, and strategic intent. However, modern strategy demands an approach different from the rigid strategic planning models most organizations have inherited from a bygone era. The best-run organizations treat strategy as an iterative concept rather than a perpetual one.
Instead of presuming the original strategy will hold true in the long term, they establish mechanisms to continually reassess assumptions and update priorities as the business environment evolves. In other words, they actively manage down strategy debt.
One method is to conduct regular “strategy debt audits“.
I) The purpose is to examine all the major strategic decisions taken in the previous twelve to twenty-four months and pose one seemingly obvious question: “If I were taking this decision today, would I still do so?“
Few organizations take time to re-examine old decisions, unless an immediate crisis necessitates their review. This is a mistake that many managers simply glide over.
II) Another essential aspect is the segregation of actual strategy and inherited inertia.
Companies must identify which activities, reports, KPIs, and operational models continue to support current objectives, rather than those that persist because no one ever bothered to examine them. This, however, demands knowledgeable & charismatic leadership.
Letting go of past objectives can be difficult because organizations tend to imbue past strategies with emotional significance (especially if they were once effective). It makes sense – organizations are made of people, and people are emotional beings first and foremost who look to latch onto security reasons before speculative efforts.
However, failing to replace outdated systems generally incurs higher future costs.
III) Organizations should also normalize “kill lists” for strategies.
Just as businesses create roadmaps for launching new ventures, they should create specific lists of priorities that they will actively stop pursuing. Strategic subtraction can be as important as strategic addition.
IV) Preserving context is another crucial improvement.
Most organizations simply don’t document decisions sufficiently. They record outputs, not insights. Their successors end up inheriting conclusions without understanding how they were reached.
Understanding why a decision was made can often be more important than understanding what the decision was. After all, circumstances will eventually change, and organizations must retain the ability to challenge past logic rather than mindlessly follow past decisions.
V) Finally, organizations must embrace adaptive strategy execution.
The most resilient businesses today are not those that perfectly predicted the distant future. They are those who can adjust rapidly without causing organizational confusion. This means creating operational and mental flexibility.
Modern strategy is less about rigidly defined plans and more about building organizations that learn constantly. After all, the biggest strategic risk in today’s environment is not making the wrong decision; it is optimizing for decisions that have long since become ineffective.
Final Thoughts
The biggest danger of strategy debt is that it is usually not created by error.
The majority of strategy debt originates from perfectly logical, even effective and successful, decisions made in the past. That is what makes them dangerous. Companies tend to become emotionally attached to the strategies that made them succeed.
However, business markets change far more quickly than organizational inertia. In time, past strengths will inevitably turn into present weaknesses.
The most adaptive companies will not be those that were the most foresightful; they will be the companies most willing to challenge outdated assumptions and priorities, and to re-evaluate decisions when they no longer serve the purpose.
This requires a shift in the company culture. It involves a transition away from a fixed, immutable conception of strategy towards a more fluid, iterative learning process. It requires acknowledging that every strategy decision has a life span. Some expire rapidly; others last much longer. None should be permanently exempted from reassessment. After all, strategy debt compounds silently.
Initially, this appears as minor operational disruptions, shifting priorities, or a decline in velocity. Ultimately, it can evolve into a more pervasive issue, one in which the company can no longer adapt as quickly as its environment demands.
In today’s environment, the ability to adapt is not just a strategy; it is strategy itself.
Bridging the gap between strategy and execution requires more than intent—it requires the right frameworks and capabilities. Enroll in the Certified Strategy and Business Planning Professional and Practitioner program by The KPI Institute to learn how to align strategy, planning, and performance for meaningful organizational results.
Most organizations love the idea that strategy happens at the top: executives develop it, and employees on the ground execute it. Things somewhere in the middle just work. We wave our hands, and like magic, processes fall into place.
Well, that’s not exactly true. Somewhere in the middle is exactly where most strategies succeed or fail.
Across all industries and studies, one pattern rears its head again and again: well-designed strategy rarely translates into actual output. It isn’t so much that the vision is wrong, per se; it is simply a matter of losing it along the way, of it being diluted or misunderstood.
That gap between intent and output lies where middle managers work. Enabling or neglecting them often dictates whether change will take hold or fade under its own weight.
In this article, we delve into this critical role by drawing on diverse views on change management, strategy execution, and leadership behaviours. Each section looks at this issue from a different angle; all reflect the same truth: middle managers aren’t merely intermediaries-they are the mechanism by which strategy takes shape in organizations.
The Strategic Translation Layer: How Middle Managers Turn Vision into Action
While an organization’s strategy defines what it wishes to achieve, it is middle managers who help transform that vision into something understandable and executable.
They occupy a unique position in organizations: positioned above are executives focused on strategy and priority-setting; below them, employees face the challenges of day-to-day operations. It is this dual orientation that grants them the detail executives often lack: context.
They are attuned to what leadership wants and what employees can realistically achieve.
Their ability to both translate strategy into executable plans and adjust plans to the realities of the work lies in their interpretation and adaptation of information from above and below. It is quite akin to alchemical transformation.
Studies and research consistently cite the translation role as critical. Employees’ understanding and belief in strategy correlates with performance gains, whether measured by revenue, engagement, job satisfaction, or customer experience. However, almost every time, without fail, understanding tends to stem not from the top but from above.
The irony is that strategy often never reaches the middle clearly. Managers often say they are not entirely confident in communicating strategy because they don’t fully understand it themselves. This deficit can ripple outward; the entire organization becomes unclear when the middle is unclear.
In sum, strategy fails not at the design stage, but at the translation stage, and this translation layer usually resides with middle managers.
From Resistance to Alignment: How Change Spreads Organically Inside Organizations
Despite having a strategy at the top, people will rarely fall in line spontaneously. Change within organizations is not a rational, top-down endeavor; rather, it is inherently social and emotional.
Initially, there is likely a division among middle managers. Some champion the new strategy, others defend established procedures. Each response is a common feature of this stage. However, with time, a subtle change occurs.
Initially reluctant middle managers may come to realize that even deeply cherished practices and systems will not persist in their current form without adaptation; innovation may actually be the means of preservation. As this occurs at the individual level, influence begins to be driven by credibility rather than by authority alone.
When a well-respected middle manager adopts a new perspective, it serves as an influential model, drawing followers and shaping the organization’s discourse around the strategy. The transformation begins to gain organic momentum, spreading not through directives, but through personal relationships and evolving consensus.
Eventually, the organization may realize that innovation and tradition are not necessarily antithetical and that alignment can provide the foundation for bridging them.
Organizational change is an emergent phenomenon rather than an announced decision. It evolves in the middle layers of leadership. As a result, organizational change rarely occurs rapidly; however, it is usually the long, slow process within middle management that results in the enduring transformation of an organization’s overall culture.
Why Strategy Fails: The Under-Discussed Problem of Alignment
Executives tend to view strategy execution as a technical problem – a matter of disciplined execution. In reality, it is almost always an alignment issue.
A) Vast studies have consistently shown that many of a strategy’s failed initiatives were not based on flawed ideas but on an inability to ensure consistent implementation. The literature frequently reports strategy implementation failure rates ranging from 50% to 90%, although these estimates are debated and vary across pieces of research.
This metric doesn’t reflect intellect or diligence; it reflects a breakdown in alignment and clarity.
Often, leaders see the strategy as transparent, while employees, and particularly middle managers, experience it as ambiguous or fragmented. This disconnect, a wide chasm between top-level confidence and the reality below, renders the strategy powerless. Instead of directing action, it becomes abstract material in presentation slides.
B) Another factor leading to failure is prioritization: where strategy is unclear, every initiative appears vital. Where all initiatives are vital, no single effort receives the attention it deserves.
It is middle managers who, day in and day out, must navigate this contradiction; they are the individuals making real-time choices about where effort and resources will be directed. They don’t merely execute strategy, but adapt and interpret it.
Indeed, alignment matters far more than planning. No strategy, however ingenious, can survive long-term failure to align the organization. Strategy fails not because of popular opposition, but because of differential experience with it across different parts of an organization.
The Reality of the Middle Manager’s Role: Pressure, Ambiguity, and Overload
It’s a lot more comfortable to use words like “bridge” to describe middle managers than to be comfortable with what this feels like.
Middle managers operate in two directions at once:
They are recipients of directives on strategy, mandates for transformation, and performance targets.
They are also simultaneously dealing with team members’ issues, capacity constraints, execution realities, and their own team’s morale.
That combination creates a structural tension that is difficult to resolve.
A primary factor in this challenge is role ambiguity. How much autonomy middle managers actually possess often becomes unclear.
Are they strictly implementation-focused, or is the implementation adaptable to the reality of the work? How accountable should middle managers be for things beyond their direct control?
Lack of clarity about how much discretion they have inevitably leads to overload. Without clear boundaries, it becomes impossible for middle managers to distinguish between urgent and important, leading to more reactive rather than strategic prioritization of activities.
The capability gap is another widely overlooked issue. Moving from operational leader to translator of strategy requires a fundamentally different skill set. This mental shift is rarely formally part of a middle manager’s promotion and development plan. Middle managers are frequently promoted based on their ability to execute and are expected to become capable strategic communicators and leaders of change immediately.
The result is the expected: stress, fatigue, strain, burnout, and disengagement.
It does not just affect individual middle managers. Lower productivity, scattered priorities, increased staff turnover, and a weaker alignment between middle management and the overall strategy are all byproducts of middle manager overload within an organization.
In other words, the pressure on the middle layer is a systemic challenge, not just for individual managers.
Making Strategy Work: Enabling Middle Managers
Given the importance of the middle manager layer, the question arises: why do organizations underinvest in it?
In most cases, the answer is a combination of inertia and an overemphasis on strategy design, with a laissez-faire approach to execution, assuming it will happen automatically.
However, nothing could be further from the truth.
The most effective method to improve strategy execution isn’t more strategy – it’s stronger enablement for those who translate it into reality.
1) The first crucial step is clarity of role and expectations.
Managers need to understand precisely what will be asked of them, which decisions they own, which must be escalated, and what successful execution looks like in practical terms.
Uncertainty and ambiguity lead to either constant over-escalation or boundary overstepping.
2) Second, capabilities must be developed.
Strategic execution requires much more than the ability to complete tasks. It relies on strong coaching and change management skills, so investment in development in these areas cannot remain just a nice-to-have option if consistent execution is the objective. It is mandatory, if one cares for the success of their business, that is.
3) Third, leadership alignment is critical.
If, on the one hand, middle managers are viewed as merely messengers, they cannot provide valuable feedback to those who designed the strategy, and their engagement in the process will be low.
If, on the other hand, they are valued for the insights they can provide on the ground, they will provide valuable input to the strategic planning process.
4) Fourth, the organization needs feedback loops that work in both directions.
Managers need to effectively communicate execution challenges upwards, while leadership needs to clearly articulate the strategic rationale downwards.
Without an effective two-way feedback structure, a series of distortions emerges, leading each successive level to hear a modified version of the intended strategy.
5) Finally, rewards are important.
Organizations signal to their employees what is valued by reinforcing both operational execution and transformation. Recognition for change leadership rather than just task completion ensures that the challenging work of strategy implementation is integrated into everyday performance.
With these conditions, middle managers transform from overburdened intermediaries into powerful drivers of organizational direction.
Final Thoughts
When reviewing the research and evidence, one theme consistently emerges: the middle management layer is not an auxiliary level in the organization but rather the engine through which strategy actually takes effect.
Middle managers take high-level direction and transform it into tangible actions, process ambiguity into decisions, resist resistance, and disseminate understanding throughout the organization through relationships rather than purely by authority.
Strategy becomes stuck when this layer is not supported. When enabled properly and with a clear understanding, strategy advances with great celerity.
Most successful organizations prioritize investing in the enablement of their middle managers-the people who bring their strategy to life every day-rather than focusing solely on better strategic design.
This is because, in the final analysis, at the end of it all, strategy failure does not occur in the boardroom but in the middle.
Bridging the gap between strategy and execution requires more than intent—it requires the right frameworks and capabilities. Enroll in the Certified Strategy and Business Planning Professional and Practitioner program by The KPI Institute to learn how to align strategy, planning, and performance for meaningful organizational results.
Many organizations believe that employees who disengage lack motivation or discipline. However, most of the time, people disengage for less obvious reasons, such as a lack of clarity.
When people are not fully aware of what matters, why it matters, how urgent it is, or how success is defined, a gradual shift in performance begins. Teams keep working, meetings keep happening, deadlines are being met, and dashboards are being updated, but truly productive momentum is fading.
The organization, while busy on the outside, is subtly becoming misaligned beneath the surface.
This disconnect rarely happens because employees lose interest. More often, it occurs when strategy gets fuzzy, or performance systems overwhelm rather than guide. In these instances, humans intuitively start to optimize for predictability rather than for impact.
The net result is an organization that is busy but lacks momentum.
Recognizing the psychological and operational impacts of vague objectives is critical for organizations striving to link strategy with execution. When goals lack clarity, the highest-performing teams will inevitably lose focus, ownership, and engagement over the longer term.
Why Employee Engagement Fades When Goals Feel Vague
Employees are more likely to remain engaged when they have a clear understanding of the purpose and meaning that their efforts will ultimately generate. When organizational objectives feel distant, intangible, inscrutable, or disconnected from daily actions, a sense of purpose dwindles.
Most organizations have their strategy documented in broad strokes. Common strategy descriptions are “become more innovative”, “focus on the customer”, “lead the transformation”, or “drive greater growth”. While appealing at the leadership level, these aspirations provide little direct guidance for employees.
This begins to create psychological dissonance between effort and outcome.
People naturally seek validation of their efforts and will readily respond to goals that provide evidence of what they are working towards. When individuals don’t have that direct visibility and connection to business outcomes, work becomes functional rather than purposeful.
Emotional investment then begins to decline with celerity.
Employees start to emphasize the accomplishment of immediate, tactical tasks over those that lead to meaningful organizational outcomes because the former offer clearer feedback and more predictable results.
Abstract goals also create divergent interpretations across the organization. Different parts of the organization define success using their own unique frame of reference rather than by overarching organizational goals.
Fragmentation ultimately weakens alignment as it expands throughout departments and teams.
This impact is exacerbated in larger, geographically diverse, or hybrid organizations.
Engagement doesn’t come from being assigned work; it comes from a clear understanding of what it represents.
The Psychological Impact of Unclear Priorities
In addition to reducing operational efficiency, undefined priorities induce psychological stress.
When individuals face competing demands, constantly shifting expectations, or inconsistent direction, they live with perpetual uncertainty about where to direct their efforts.
Humans crave clarity and predictability. When organizational priorities are murky, employees enter a continuous evaluation cycle, questioning their own decisions and seeking clarification from managers.
Stress levels increase
Employees may grow fearful that they are focusing on the wrong tasks or failing to meet expectations.
Cognitive efficiency decreases
Employees divert their attention to several perceived urgencies instead of focusing on tasks that generate strategic value.
This inevitably drives reactive, rather than strategic, decision-making.
Organizations rarely appreciate the compounding impact that this situation has on employee performance.
Conflicts arise, priorities must be constantly re-negotiated, and employees often give up trying to anticipate future work and simply manage the current uncertainty.
Overloading the Employee’s Mind with KPIs
Performance measurement is crucial for establishing and maintaining alignment across an organization; however, organizations often undermine performance when they measure too much.
As businesses become increasingly data-driven, organizations tend to develop more sophisticated KPI-based measurement systems and dashboards. Ironically, when overused, they can cause cognitive overload.
You can only keep a couple of metrics truly in focus. The moment you start asking people to juggle fifty metrics, attention becomes diffused.
This causes three distinct problems:
1. Paralysis
People cannot decide which metrics truly matter and either spread their effort thinly across all of them or focus only on the easiest metrics to influence.
2. Reduced Strategic Focus
Instead of focusing on organizational outcomes, individuals and teams focus on individual metrics.
You end up rewarding people for managing dashboards instead of solving problems.
3. Increased Mental Fatigue
People are forced to keep switching tasks, and the cost of switching accumulates.
The result is that the measurement system itself becomes demotivating.
The most effective organizations succeed because they know that using too many metrics creates more complexity and less clarity.
How Ambiguity Produces “Safe” Instead of Effective Work
An unclear environment can often lead employees to produce “safe” work.
“Safe” work implies completing tasks in a way that minimizes individual risk or visibility.
Ambiguous organizations tend to foster environments where risk-taking is discouraged.
The organization starts to become performance-oriented toward easily defensible activities.
The culture of innovation, as a result, becomes greatly hindered.
Employees are encouraged to maintain the status quo even if it isn’t delivering true organizational value.
By reducing the psychological costs of taking action, organizations increase motivation to do meaningful work.
The Distinction Between Compliance and Commitment
Compliance: employees work to do what they are told.
Commitment: employees work to achieve desired results in ways they believe add value.
These may appear similar on the surface, but what happens underneath is fundamentally different.
Compliant employees focus on doing enough to satisfy expectations.
Committed employees proactively solve problems, collaborate effectively, and adapt more willingly to change.
The gap between compliance and commitment is fundamentally a problem of unclear purpose, low trust, and lack of meaning.
Companies driven by commitment outperform those that rely solely on compliance.
Final Thoughts
The most fundamental reason companies fail isn’t that their people don’t work hard enough; it is that the work they do does not add sufficient value because they cannot clearly see the point.
Unclear priorities, complex systems, and undefined success measures dilute people’s focus, create psychological stress, and diminish initiative.
Strategic alignment is a psychological discipline as much as a tactical or operational one.
Without clear alignment, people can put in a lot of effort without ever having a significant impact because the connection between their work and intended results is too weak.
