The Politics of KPIs: Why Metrics Are Never Truly Neutral
If you present two experienced chief executive officers with precisely the same digital dashboard, one will zero in on cash flow and return on investment.
The other will bypass them and ask to know customer retention, employee engagement, and product penetration rates. Both will be right, and both might even become brilliant leaders, but before they make any decisions, the CEOs will have implicitly expressed what success will look like for them.
It is an issue that organizations seldom concede. Organizations want to pretend that the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) on any dashboard are impartial, that they are simply observers of what is really going on. People put their faith in dashboards because numbers are perceived to be objective.
However, KPIs do not exist to be discovered. They were invented. Someone had to choose what mattered most; someone defined success, agreed on thresholds for it, frequency of assessment, and selection of appropriate measures. Long before any of these figures had been generated, human beings had to decide how a compelling narrative might unfold for these numbers.
This should not discredit the utility of the KPI; rather, it should humanize it. The more organizations grasp the reality that the KPI is a deliberate fabrication, the more successful they will be in designing performance management that aligns with strategic intent rather than covert assumptions.
The Myth of “Letting the Data Decide“
Modern organizations commonly describe themselves as data-driven. It is a buzzword you’ll find in strategy documents & presentations from a wide range of industries. Underlying all of these instances is the notion that data ought to inform decisions instead of instinct.
From a general perspective, it is the perfect path. From a narrow perspective, problems start to creep in, though, when data is automatically presumed to be objective. Data rarely makes its journey to us in a void. Any dataset exists for the simple reason that someone thought that it would be valuable. Any KPI exists because someone has decided that it represents a significant area of performance.
Take, for example, a company that has decided to quantify customer service performance.
A first step might be fairly easy to determine. Develop some KPI’s, for example.Yet, which one to select?
To be able to respond within a few moments?
Achieve first-contact resolution?
CSAT?
NPS?
Reduce the number of customers lost?
Reduce the number of complaints received?
Each data set offers a different perspective; it supports a distinct way of working and motivates employees to focus on a unique perspective within customer support. The data alone is not the most important priority. It is the people who comprise the organization. Even to opt not to make a measurement constitutes a decision in its own right.
By omitting the monitoring of employee happiness from the leadership dashboard, the company has subtly signaled to staff what needs more focus and consideration. Therefore, in this respect, the dashboard is not only a descriptor of the actual organizational state, but it also creates the organization itself.
Every KPI Reflects A Worldview
The single biggest misunderstanding about performance measurement is the idea that KPIs exist in a vacuum, devoid of the people who build them. KPI “1” doesn’t just describe reality; it defines it. Consider two almost identical manufacturers:
Company 1. A CEO who spent 20 years in finance leads them.
Everything in the quarterly board report is financial: Opex, Inventory Turnover, EBITDA, Working Capital. Conversations naturally center around efficiency and the bottom line.
Company 2. An operations engineer leads them.
The dashboard’s a completely different beast.
Quality, uptime, scrap rates, Overall Equipment Effectiveness – because in their eyes, quality is what drives the company forward. Two similar companies, two different roles, but one set of dashboards tells a completely different story about what’s worth talking about, purely as a consequence of the personal histories of the leaders.
It’s a pattern that repeats everywhere. An operations person in a hospital might focus on utilization rates and lengths of stay to better predict capacity requirements, while a clinician with a patient focus might emphasize read rates and post-treatment outcomes. It’s not about which is “right.”
Both have value. Both obscure other important things, because the difficult but useful reality is this: KPIs don’t just measure your priorities, they display them.
Measurement Is Also An Exercise In Omission
When organizations talk KPIs, there’s a lot of discussion about what we should measure. There’s very little discussion about what we’re not going to measure.
Every dashboard has limited real estate. Every organization has finite analytical resources. Selecting one KPI often means leaving another behind. That act of omission defines behaviour just as much as what lands on the dashboard.
Consider a software company focused on frequent feature releases. They emphasize deployment frequency, development speed, feature usage time, and release cadence. This company becomes an expert at pushing features out the door, yet if it doesn’t emphasize measuring feature adoption with similar prominence, it might find itself continuing to crank out features with no clear signal of whether anyone is using them. The KPI’s they picked are perfectly fine, just incomplete.
This applies well outside of software.
Retailers may perfect sales efficiency and miss out on customer lifetime value.
Universities can increase graduation rates at the expense of the actual quality of education.
Healthcare providers may decrease patient wait times, but at the expense of staff burnout.
Manufacturing may maximize production output, but at the expense of product quality and defect rates.
Customer support teams may reduce average handling time, but at the expense of customer satisfaction and first-contact resolution.
Logistics companies may optimize delivery speed, but at the expense of delivery accuracy and package condition.
Marketing agencies may increase campaign volume, but at the expense of campaign effectiveness and client ROI.
Hospitality businesses may maximize room occupancy at the expense of the guest experience and repeat bookings.
Call centers may focus on the number of calls handled, but at the expense of actually resolving customer issues.
Construction firms may prioritize finishing projects on schedule, but at the expense of workmanship quality and long-term durability.
Organizations don’t disregard these outcomes because they don’t want to. Typically, they simply aren’t being measured with equal visibility. Whatever we’re paying attention to gets better. Whatever we’re not tends to atrophy when competing for attention and resources. That’s why KPI design is a strategic exercise, even though many companies treat it as a math exercise.
KPIs Shape Organizations Long Before They Measure Them
Maybe the most fundamental transformation executives need to make in their approach to KPIs is understanding that they aren’t just retrofitting performance to evaluate what has already occurred. They are prospectively influencing what occurs. When an organization rolls out a new KPI, the company’s behaviour shifts almost immediately:
Managers start deploying resources differently.
Employees prioritize differently.
Different departments redefine what constitutes success.
Investment decisions shift.
Performance evaluations change.
The language used in internal meeting rooms shifts.
In short, KPIs do not just observe an organization from afar. They are involved in building an organization, and this is precisely why discussions of performance metrics can sometimes turn emotional.
Outwardly, business leaders appear to be arguing over numbers. Internally, what they’re actually arguing over is something more fundamental:
What kind of organization are we aspiring to be?
One finance executive might argue that, given the economic environment, profitability must be given greater visibility.
An HR executive might emphasize that employee retention provides an early signal of long-term viability.
A third executive overseeing customer experience might contend that retention needs to be emphasized just as much because losing today’s most loyal customers will cause problems for tomorrow’s financials.
Each executive can generate persuasive data and can construct a well-reasoned business case. However, under each case, there lies an underlying question no scorecard can answer directly:
Which version of the organization’s success should we endeavour to achieve?
That is why discussions about performance measurement seldom stop at purely technical questions about methodology. Instead, they are discussions about priorities, strategy, goals, objectives, vision, and identity.
That makes them inherently political (though not necessarily in the partisan sense of the term, but rather in the political sense of negotiation and compromise among stakeholders). Acknowledging this is not a weakness in performance management, but the first prerequisite for more mindful use of KPIs.
Who Defines Success?
If every KPI is rooted in a human choice, a much larger question arises:
Who gets to make that choice?
On its surface, it may seem simple. Leadership sets out the organizational strategy and KPIs, then monitors progress toward those goals. However, that rarely pans out in practice.
Companies are divided into departments with different competencies, skills, values, and views of what success looks like. Finance, Operations, HR, Marketing, Sales, Customer Success, IT: each looks at the business from a distinct vantage point. None is correct, none is wrong, yet most importantly, none is sufficient alone.
It’s not so much that leaders lack consensus on what may be the best path for performance management; it is much more so that they lack consensus on which performance metrics matter most.
At that point, KPIs become subtle tools of governance. Choosing a metric becomes about who we want to have in leadership conversations, which projects are funded, and which team members are celebrated. Ultimately, each KPI is a person’s priority amplified.
Different Backgrounds create Different Dashboards
One might be inclined to think that executives in identical positions build similar performance dashboards, but our experience with real-world examples suggests otherwise. Two leaders can arrive to manage the same organization, with the same market dynamics and strategic ambitions, yet still focus on completely different sets of key performance indicators.
What influences them most is often shaped long before the executive suite was within reach.
Scenario 1
Suppose a retail company appoints a new CEO.
One candidate had twenty years as a Chief Financial Officer. Unsurprisingly, the dashboard the executive team reviews focuses on gross margins, operating costs, inventory turns, and the cash cycle. The conversations always start with financial discipline, simply because the executive has been speaking that language for their entire career.
Scenario 2
The company promotes the former Chief Customer Officer.
Suddenly, the dashboard is dramatically reframed. The customer lifetime value (CLV), the customer repeat purchase rate, the Net Promoter Score (NPS), and the customer retention rate are the focus of the top portion of all reports. Financial metrics matter, sure, but they are now a consequence of customer experience.
Neither CEO is being obtuse – they are just asking different first questions, and this is the pattern we see across many different kinds of companies.
Let’s say a manufacturing organization promoted an engineering executive who has great rigour in monitoring the defect rate, equipment reliability, production throughput, on-time delivery performance, and OEE.
Now, change the chief executive to a commercial executive, and one begins to see a shift in the focus of reports towards the delivery performance, market share, customer demand, and revenues. Both individuals want the organization to do well, but they have different visions of how to achieve that.
KPI Ownership Isn’t About Control – It’s About Influence
The politics of KPIs seldom originates from people fudging their numbers. More frequently, the politics are generated because all functions honestly believe that their numbers need a higher profile than everyone else’s numbers. Picture a leadership discussion where next year’s executive dashboard is being developed.
Finance will argue that increasing cash conversion and profit is more important than any other objective during economic instability.
Sales will argue that pipeline value and revenue growth need greater focus, since future profits depend upon present revenue.
HR will claim that employee turnover is high and that replacing talented staff is becoming extremely expensive.
Customer support will show that reducing churn delivers far greater lifetime value than acquiring new business.
Operations will insist on focus and delivery – the ultimate success factor.
Everyone has credible evidence and data to present. Everyone has good reasons to make their case. No one is trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes; rather, each party is conducting a negotiation based on diverse viewpoints.
This is why it can be so hard for some companies to construct a dashboard that represents the whole organization – there are distinct differences in perspective shaped by individual professional experience. The end product of all this discussion is, in effect, a collection of priorities.
The Same Role Doesn’t Always Produce The Same Priorities
The clearest evidence that KPIs are far from neutral becomes apparent when leaders with almost identical roles and completely contrasting career backgrounds are considered.
Healthcare
– On the one hand, a hospital CEO, who was formerly a doctor, is prone to prioritizing indicators such as patient outcomes, hospital readmission rates, quality of treatment, clinical safety, etc. Hence, the quality of care to the patient would naturally be the most obvious indicator of how well the organization is doing.
– On the other hand, a CEO who has risen through the ranks in operations within the hospital may be more concerned with ED wait times, bed occupancy rates, resource utilization, patient throughput, and similar measures that help ensure more patients are treated at the earliest possible moment.
Of course, this doesn’t mean they have ignored the other aspect; rather, they will attain the same objective through different pathways.
Education
– In the sphere of higher education, a president of the university who was an academic before taking on the administrative role will place maximum importance on indicators of research productivity, faculty career growth, scholarly publications, and university reputation.
– Conversely, if the president came from a background of business or financial administration, then greater significance would be given to indicators of student retention, enrollment growth, student graduation rate, and institutional financial viability.
While both care for a high-quality education, there would be differing views regarding which parameters would truly signify the accomplishment of this goal.
Technology
– In the arena of growing technology ventures, a CEO-founder with an engineering background would focus primarily on system availability, product robustness, deployment speed, and system stability as performance indicators.
– Alternatively, if the founder has a background in marketing, then parameters such as customer acquisition cost (CAC), conversion rates, brand visibility, and market presence will receive equal and immediate attention.
There is no one viewpoint that is more correct than the others; they simply demonstrate how one interprets the areas that demand attention earliest in any given organization.
Why These Differences Matter More Than We Think
These examples may seem like just leadership personal preferences, but these actions have powerful consequences throughout an entire organization. What a leader chooses to measure shapes what his managers focus on. What the managers focus on shapes how their teams choose to spend their time. Over time, the patterns of decision-making based on these priorities create a corporate culture.
Think of two organizations in the same business, with nearly the same model.
In one company, excellence is defined by efficient operations. Employees come to see that improving productivity, cutting costs, and eliminating waste are a fast track to success and promotions.
In the other company, excellence is defined by a drive for innovation. Employees are recognized and promoted for learning rapidly from failures and for innovation.
These organizations aren’t giving out explicit instructions about what employees should think about the nature of the organization. They’re telling their employees that through the metrics they display.
This is why companies tend to resemble the scorecards that they create. Employees are not merely reacting to incentives. People learn what the organization truly cares about from the metrics executives most often refer to.
Your mission statement may claim your organization stands for several values: innovation, collaboration, sustainability, and customer satisfaction. However, the numbers on a scorecard tell the story of your true priorities in brutally honest terms. If there’s a metric you see repeated again and again in executive committee meetings, influencing bonuses and being factored into strategic decisions, it gradually becomes very important to employees. Other metrics can begin to seem less so.
This is why a discussion of who owns the company dashboard can never be a conversation simply about accounting software and spreadsheets. That conversation always evolves into one about the core of the organization’s identity because deciding what to measure, in the end, is another way of asking what winning looks like.
When Metrics Become Power: How KPIs Shape Organizational Behaviour
By the time a KPI lands on an executive dashboard, it has endured endless discussions. Someone proposed it. Someone challenged it. Someone defended it. Finally, it becomes part of the organization’s definition of success. Yet the journey is far from over.
When the KPI is tied to performance reviews, incentives, promotions, budgets, or strategic decisions, it ceases to be an innocent indicator of an organization’s health. It becomes an incentive, and people do have an outrageously uncanny ability to respond to incentives.
This natural predilection has nothing to do with 200-IQ deceitfulness, but rather with the fact that any organization inherently sets its employees up for success through the rules it puts in place. People will, predictably, focus on metrics they are being judged by. The question remains whether they are improving what they said they were improving by driving the metric.
From Measuring Behaviour to Driving Behaviour
Businesses often view KPIs like rear-view mirrors: they only provide a snapshot of what the business did, when in fact they’re a lot more like steering wheels – after you set an organization on the road with any particular metric, everyone begins to steer by it.
Think of your customer support organization with average ticket resolution time as its leading indicator of success.
On the face of it, a logical target, customers prefer quicker support. Nevertheless, what happens when they all start steering toward that target? Well, over time, things begin to get murky and odd incentives sprout up. Your support team begins to know that they’re being rewarded for quickly closing tickets. They pass on the tougher tickets to the next available team; they begin closing tickets before customers feel resolved, and their post-support phone calls and emails become more concise. They all look like they’re performing well, but the customer experience continues to deteriorate as the focus shifts from quality to speed.
Nothing is being falsified, and nobody is breaking the law. Everyone’s just doing what they’re incentivized to do. The metric is doing what it was built to do: driving behaviour, but everyone assumed the metric was the behaviour itself.
When the Measure becomes the Target
This effect has been seen across industries for years and can often be boiled down to a well-worn observation: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
What that means is that when people know their performance will be judged based on a particular number, their incentives are immediately aligned to achieve that number. That behaviour is not always aligned with the leaders’ expectations for why they implemented that measurement in the first place.
Just ask teachers or healthcare providers, for example.
If educational performance hinges solely on standardized tests, then those teachers are likely to spend a large chunk of their precious time training students to beat those tests.
If hospital management puts tremendous pressure to reduce ED wait times, departments will likely find ways to shorten wait times without increasing throughput or improving patient health.
The KPI improves, but what about the actual outcome? What comes out at the end of the entire process?
It is important to note that we are not recommending against setting and measuring performance targets in the first place. However, we should be aware that every indicator of success will drive behaviour in unintended ways.
Something we don’t talk enough about when it comes to performance management is the fact that the KPIs themselves are typically negotiated. KPIs seldom spring fully formed out of some vacuum. Instead, they’re born from a series of debates: between departments on what’s achievable, between executives on the relative merits of optimism and pragmatism, between finance on the financial case for making some improvement, between operations on practical constraints, between managers on what’s realistic for their people.
At a macro level, these debates are about numbers, but at a micro level, they’re debates about risk and accountability, expectations and aspirations.
The sales director suggests that the department should aim for 25% revenue growth next year.
The marketing director argues that brand awareness can’t deliver that without more investment in brand building.
The operations director points out that capacity constraints might emerge.
Finance expresses doubt whether the forecasts could hold up given the prevailing market conditions.
Through several meetings, a figure between 15 and 20% is eventually agreed upon.
Was politics the issue in determining the KPI?
Yes, yes it was.
Should it have been a problem?
No. A certain level of politicization is necessary in business to enable us to accommodate the various conflicting, yet valid, points of view we have to wrestle with. We risk deluding ourselves about how our systems work by denying that these exchanges exist. That’s where the problem lies, not in the exchanges themselves.
The KPIs That Get Attention Usually Get Resources
At the end of the day, organizations spend money, talent, and time in ways that leadership consistently prioritizes.
Think about two organizations dealing with exactly the same challenges.
At Company A, sustainability is a topic of every executive meeting. Financials and carbon emissions are both represented on board meeting agendas, as are renewable energy and suppliers.
In Company B, sustainability is addressed annually.
Who do you think will be investing more in the environment? Who do you think will be drilling down into those numbers in leadership meetings? Who do you think will feel that their remit includes managing this initiative rather than just reacting to a mandate?
It’s got less to do with values than visibility. Ultimately, on the outside, any leader or organization will invest resources in the things their senior leaders talk about and pay close attention to.
The same is true on the inside. If the leadership team shows new product revenue on their dashboards, experimentation metrics for product teams, and measures related to idea generation or the marketing pipeline, people quickly understand that innovation is not just an aspiration; it’s a priority. The same is not true if the topic comes up during a leader’s quarterly inspirational talk but not during any other type of review meeting or dashboard report.
It has become almost a cliché that experienced executives tell people that organizations become incredibly good at whatever it is they measure. It has little to do with other aspects being irrelevant; rather, it’s more about the fact that everyone’s attention span is limited, especially nowadays.
Metrics Also Shape Organizational Narratives
Beyond incentives and resource allocation, in some environments, KPIs can have an even more insidious effect. They dictate the narratives a company tells itself.
Consider a firm with decelerating revenue growth. For a CEO who is solely obsessed with profitability, flat performance can be cast as evidence of fiscal prudence: margins are expanding, the cost structure is well contained, free cash flow is improving, and cash reserves are strengthening. The narrative is one of resilience.
Now, let us behold a similar firm, but helmed by a CEO with a penchant for tracking customers. A similar result – growth sputtering – might be spun as a signal that it’s time for urgency, highlighting fading customer momentum and the increasing threat from rivals.
The same result but different interpretation, and therein lies the critical point about performance management: KPIs don’t simply convey information; they shape perception.
While executives may have the best intentions, most aren’t actively seeking to mislead their organization when constructing executive dashboards. Rather, they generally do genuinely want to point to the most significant signs of organizational progress.
Still, all dashboards, however well-intentioned, carry narratives, and each begins by making choices about what matters most. That’s why the debates over a particular metric or target can sometimes become so emotionally charged. They’re not just arguing over numbers but over the story of where they’re going – the future that begins to take shape once the figures enter the conversation. KPIs reflect reality in so much as they also make it.
Better KPI Governance Starts With Better Questions
You may be inclined to arrive at an uncomfortable conclusion if you have read up to this point: if every KPI represents a human choice, organizational bias, or a competing perspective, do truly objective measurements even exist?
Well, no, and in fact, embracing this fact is one of the most beneficial mental models for an organization to adopt. Human judgment being present in KPI formulas is not the issue. The issue is that it pretends not to exist in the first place.
Organizations spend an enormous amount of time fussing over formulas, fiddling with calculations, optimizing data quality, and investing in increasingly complex dashboard infrastructure. These are valuable pursuits but may mask the illusion that better analytics invariably yield better decisions.
An impeccably precise KPI might still measure the wrong thing. A well-designed dashboard may reinforce old habits of organizational thinking. In reality, the real task at hand is not to eradicate subjectivity; it is to expose it.
Organizations that are at the forefront of the analytics field understand that their KPIs aren’t sacred scriptures. They understand that KPIs represent a decision to measure something, a choice that must change as the business context changes. This outlook changes the dialogue at leadership levels entirely.
Rather than asking “Is this KPI accurate?”, leaders ask far more pragmatic questions: “What am I measuring this for? What are its downstream impacts on behaviour? What crucial outcome may be getting missed?”
The Best Dashboards invite Discussion, not Blind Agreement
Perhaps the most damaging fallacy regarding executive dashboards is that they should somehow negate debate. Actually, great dashboards inspire much better debates. Picture showing the same performance metrics report to a group of executives from finance, operations, HR, product management, and customer service.
If they don’t even argue the numbers in front of them, it may be a cause for concern.
People come at things from different angles for good reasons in an organization; organizations are complex systems.
The CFO sees declining margins as a clear risk
The CHRO may detect employee burnout lurking below deceptively positive productivity figures
The head of operations is aware of production capacity constraints before they show up on financial statements
The customer service executive notes the first whispers of declining satisfaction before customer revenue has been negatively affected
Healthy companies view these different lenses not as conflicting interpretations of truth but rather as complementary observations that together yield a far richer view of reality. There isn’t a single “right” way to measure a company’s health; rather, a high-performing system must measure many facets that determine a system’s health.
Just as a doctor doesn’t look only at a patient’s blood pressure, nor does an airline pilot fly a plane only by watching the fuel gauge, an organization can’t monitor only one dimension to determine overall health.
Good KPI Governance Means Challenging Your Own Assumptions
Perhaps the best leadership habit an executive team can build is to occasionally challenge the KPIs to which they’ve become so accustomed, because they have realized that the very essence of their business has changed.
The market changes.
The expectations of the customers change.
Technology disrupts industries.
The strategy changes.
Yet somehow, too many businesses will go on reporting on the same KPIs as last year, or the year before that, simply because that’s what they’ve always done. Dashboards simply become a habit.
Organizations start asking whether they are measuring what is important and begin talking about whether they hit last year’s target, leaving out the fact that some of the most important leadership conversations aren’t about performance – they’re about whether they are even asking the right question.
Think of a business that has long since learned that office space usage, in-person collaboration, physical footprint, and building occupancy are metrics. Those numbers may have seemed to make sense until remote and hybrid work totally upended the way that we collaborate.
This organization now needs a new way to conceptualize performance altogether. The business that survived didn’t necessarily have the best-looking metrics. They simply weren’t afraid to ask whether their assumptions about what constitutes performance were out of sync with market reality.
Transparency Builds Stronger KPIs
If KPIs are truly strategic choices, organizations should disclose them. This doesn’t mean offering an executive summary of each KPI – it simply means being able to articulate, clearly, why a particular KPI exists in the first place.
Who asked for it?
What strategic goal does it serve?
Why this metric over other potential measures?
What shortcomings should the decision-maker consider?
These dialogues might seem shockingly mundane, but they’re profound at a human level.
Just picture a new exec joining a company. Instead of receiving a dashboard of meaningless numbers, they may have a conversation with leadership about why KPIs such as customer retention, investment in employee development, and innovation play such a central role in current operations. This conversation turns the dashboard into a mirror of the organization’s underlying strategy. Even more importantly, the practice of transparency helps with subsequent evolution.
Once the rationale behind a KPI is clear, the organizational decision process shifts to the question of whether that metric still applies or if a different measure might serve the organization’s goals more effectively. The distinction between defending an individual metric and defending a KPI’s intent may be subtle and unimportant to the inexperienced, but vital to those with many winters over their brows.
Final Thoughts
Organizations have spent decades trying to refine how they measure performance.
✔️ We’ve improved the richness of dashboards. ✔️ We’ve elucidated data so that it is more readily available. ✔️ We’ve made analytics quicker and richer. ✔️ We’ve enhanced the systems to be more intelligent through artificial intelligence.
Yet there’s one factor that’s remained constant: the human decision-making power behind every KPI. Humans decide what needs to be considered, what needs to be celebrated, which numbers make it to the boardroom, and which ones never even make the dashboard. This is a natural outcome of leading human beings with varied experiences, areas of expertise, priorities, and roles.
KPIs being a thing isn’t an error – we as a species have loved numbers, measurements, comparisons, and benchmarks since we had the mental capacity to engage with these matters. The error lies in the expectation that all of these things we love are entirely objective.
Great organizations accept, confront, and consciously bring other points of view to the discussion because effective conversations about performance indicators usually start with a question, not a spreadsheet: Why are we even tracking this?
Companies rarely achieve what they declare is important to them; they reflect what they measure. The truest measure of an organization’s ability to govern its work, lead with conviction, nurture with care, and innovate for impact is not a KPI on its dashboard; it is its commitment to challenging its time-honored metrics.
**********
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.
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.
Organizations seldom fail because they don’t have an actual strategy in place – most do have some form of strategy in place.
They fail because the strategy, even if well-conceived and meticulously documented or hap-hazardly strewn together and poorly executed, is rarely acted upon with the required rigor and intent.
After a glossy presentation ends and the strategy is launched, what is truly required is for the responsibility for executing the plan to percolate through various departments and teams.
What most leadership teams fail to appreciate is the delicate nature of strategic alignment: a strategy that seems utterly clear in the boardroom can quickly become contradictory once responsibility is shared with those charged with bringing it to life.
Somewhere in between executive vision and operational reality, the signal degrades. Workflows and priorities shift, messages become unclear, managers become overwhelmed, and ultimately, teams disengage from plans they can no longer grasp.
The outcome doesn’t necessarily lead to explosive, grand failure; actually, it’s insidious organizational drift efforts that everyone is expounding on, but likely not toward the same outcome.
Several recurring patterns are common here. Executive assumptions, communication failures, bottlenecks at the middle-management level, inconsistency, and the ever-present temptation to make constant pivots all chip away at effective execution. For any organization that truly wants to turn strategy into action, recognizing and addressing these patterns is the critical first step.
Executive Assumptions About Understanding Strategy That They Don’t
The most pervasive executive blind spot is equating communication with understanding.
Leaders spend months doting over strategic objectives, perfecting presentation materials, aligning budget priorities, and devising rollout plans.
By the time the strategy is shared internally during a gathering, leaders understand it better than anyone, knowing every single minutiae and detail. However, everyone else only learns about the strategy at that meeting.
Having been immersed in the strategy for months, executives vastly overestimate its clarity to their team members. What seems obvious in the executive suite often seems rather nebulous on the ground floor. Concepts like “customer-centric innovation,” “digital transformation,” or “operational excellence” may ring true during an executive offsite, but become ambiguous when employees have to interpret them in terms of daily tasks and responsibilities.
This misalignment is amplified when the primary strategy communication channel is a top-down, single broadcast. Leadership presents the plan at an all-hands meeting and assumes that the organization is aligned. The reality is that hearing a message doesn’t automatically mean it’s understood or that it can be translated effectively and consistently by teams across the organization.
In fact, employees often nod along to strategic slogans without the faintest idea what those priorities mean for their own day-to-day decisions. The strategy may exist conceptually, but fails operationally.
A similar factor that leads to the communications vacuum is the physical distance between leaders and the everyday work of employees. When leaders are many layers removed from the operational challenges employees face, strategic priorities that appear to make sense at the top of the organization can represent competing pressures or constraints that immediately impact employees’ day-to-day lives.
The outcome is a hidden, often unacknowledged, alignment gap. The leadership team thinks the message has been sent; the employees are trying to operationalize on the basis of various assumptions and local departmental concerns. Over time, this divergence causes the organization to veer off track, subtly (and not so subtly).
The Communication Illusion
Inseparably linked to this point is what experts sometimes call the “communication illusion.” This illusion occurs when the process of transmitting information is mistaken for genuine communication.
In many organizations, communication about strategy feels like a transactional process: emails are sent out, presentations are made, meetings are convened, and documents are distributed. When these actions have been completed, leadership feels a sense of accomplishment and confidence that the organization is now informed.
The problem is that communication in a company, especially when it concerns strategy or planning, requires more than simply delivering information in a clear pattern. That information has to be interpreted properly.
Employees interpret incoming information through their own frame of reference: their day-to-day workloads, anxieties, preconceived notions, prior assumptions about strategy, and personal interpretation of leadership messages. An announcement that appears transparent to leaders can create questions or ambiguities for teams trying to make sense of how a new strategy affects their existing jobs.
The communication illusion is often exacerbated when leaders focus on what’s changing rather than why it matters or how employees should adapt their behaviour. This results in fragmenting information instead of clearly articulating what employees need to do.
Moreover, while it might seem that repeating a strategic message over and over should strengthen it, overexposure to an unchanging message can result in noise fatigue, and the strategic communication is largely ignored because it is not grounded in operational reality.
True strategic communication is not a one-time information download. It requires continuous clarification and dialogue across all levels of the organization so that individuals can have their questions answered and connect the strategy to their immediate reality effectively.
The Middle Management Bottleneck
Middle managers have the unenviable task of ensuring that strategy translates from executive directives to operational execution, and of managing their team members’ day-to-day performance & deadlines.
In theory, middle managers serve as the vital bridge between strategic vision and tactical reality; in practice, they too often become the dreaded bottleneck.
For middle managers, the core problem is overwhelming work.
In periods of organizational change and strategic refocus, they are expected to digest the new priorities while keeping the rest of the organization functioning. In essence, they are on the hook to translate murky directives, reconcile inconsistent messages, patch up wobbly goal patterns, and protect their teams from disruption at a time when the organization is anything but stable. The immediate, pressing deadlines facing their teams become an all-consuming focus, overshadowing the strategic priorities set in more distant leadership circles.
This situation is perpetuated because middle managers, much like other employees, are not always as strategically clear as their leadership teams assume. They receive high-level messages that lack clarity or support, and then are expected to deliver a coherent, motivating message to their teams. When managers are unclear or uncertain, this inconsistency will inevitably permeate their departments and teams, seeping through the cracks of understanding and creating a pool of misinformation that everyone eventually dips their toes into.
Middle managers also become the recipients of much of the frustration and confusion generated by strategic changes. They must absorb employees’ anxieties and criticisms before mediating them to leadership. Without sufficient support from above, middle managers quickly become demotivated and disengaged (a fact that is rarely recognized by many organizations). Middle management may arguably be the most crucial element for strategic execution, yet they often receive the least strategic investment.
The Trouble with Inconsistent Leadership and Changing Goals
Even the best communication strategies break down when leadership behaviours are inconsistent. People don’t just hear what leaders say; they also hear what leaders value over time.
1) Frequent, rapid shifts in leadership priorities undermine trust.
Organizations often create confusion by introducing new initiatives before existing ones are settled or their goals are clearly achieved. One quarter focuses on innovation, the next on efficiency, the next on the customer, then costs are paramount, followed by innovation again. The cycle often continues before the impact of prior change can be truly measured or experienced.
While the leader may see these moves as the ability to respond to a dynamic marketplace, for employees, they simply feel chaotic.
Problems arise because teams are confused about what’s important, always waiting for the next shift, and never really owning a goal. This undermines the sense of strategic urgency, as employees expect the initiative to be replaced at some point.
2) It also undermines accountability.
Leadership can’t be surprised or disappointed when team members don’t stick with or finish objectives that, within a quarter, are no longer considered strategically relevant. The result can be organizations that celebrate the start of initiatives, but rarely finish them.
3) Finally, this causes fatigue.
Employees are tired of adapting to change only to find the rules shifting. They are emotionally disengaging from new directives, believing they will not endure, and will quickly revert to business as usual as soon as possible.
Inconsistency also shows up in smaller gestures. You might encourage collaboration while rewarding individual performance, tell employees it’s okay to fail when introducing innovation, or tell employees you expect long-term thinking but also require immediate results.
Employees notice this in a heartbeat, and when a leader’s actions are not aligned with their message, trust begins to wither. People eventually look to leadership to tell them what they’re interested in through actions rather than words, making a coherent strategy impossible.
Strategic Fatigue Caused by Endless Pivots
While agility is clearly needed to operate in today’s marketplace, it is different than continuous organizational pivoting. Frequent organizational pivoting causes what is termed strategic fatigue, the mental and emotional exhaustion many employees feel due to endless, incessant change.
Strategic fatigue doesn’t normally start immediately. Often, a change effort begins with an air of excitement and optimism as employees are drawn to ambitious new targets. However, over time, as change becomes perpetual, the novelty wears off, and weariness takes hold.
A common cause of strategic fatigue is that organizations launch new transformation initiatives without ensuring old ones are implemented and evaluated thoroughly. Employees are expected to adopt new processes, new priorities, new systems, and new performance expectations, all within very compressed time frames. With time spent re-evaluating old ways of working and integrating new ways, the employees get lost in translation.
Over time, this can push employees to withdraw from new initiatives psychologically. They will begin investing less of themselves in the change effort because their prior experience with continuous change has taught them not to expect results. Productivity can fall, and innovation capacity can decline due to a lack of the mental bandwidth required for rapid, continuous change. In essence, organizations are too tired and too focused on doing to really get any better.
When these constant pivots lead to burnout, some leaders attribute it to general resistance to change, when in reality, employees are willing to change if it is done purposefully and is coherent and sustainable.
The true killer of change isinconsistency.
Sustainable, effective change relies on both adaptability and stability. Without it, organizations may quickly burn out the people tasked with implementing the strategy.
Final Thoughts
As much as we are led to believe, most organizations don’t have difficulty coming up with a strategy and availing themselves of intelligent leadership.
Those aspects are plentiful; however, what is not plentiful is execution and human alignment.
Most executives underestimate how tenuous alignment is, while many overestimate the importance of an intelligent strategy or detailed communication, and underestimate the effect of overwhelming middle management and too-rapid, frequent change.
When all of these factors combine, it creates a state where employees no longer know where the team stands, managers are overburdened, objectives & goals get muddied and lobbed together in a mish-mash fashion, and strategy can disconnect from the organization, without anyone really noticing until it’s too late. The solution, curiously, isn’t more communication, but more intent.
The most successful organizations are those whose clarity makes their strategy meaningful and achievable, consistency prevents it from eroding, and reinforcement sustains the learning necessary to apply it. This requires patience and alignment among people across the entire organization, and without this, even the best-laid strategy can fail unnoticed.
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.
Meta To Roll Out Changes to Performance Review System in 2026
Tech giant Meta is redesigning the way it reviews employee performance in 2026, according to a report by Business Insider.
The revamp will incorporate a review platform dubbed Checkpoint, which will be used to re-examine employee performance biannually to determine if there are any changes. Checkpoint will hone in on identifying both top and bottom performers, rewarding the former with bonuses that could amount to up to 300% of their pay.
“While our employees have always been held to a high-performance, impact-based culture, this new direction allows for more frequent feedback and recognition in a more efficient way,” a Meta spokesperson said.
Meta is set to implement the changes in the middle of 2026.
Amazon Now Requiring Proof of Productivity for Performance Evaluations
Amazon’s annual review process, known internally as Forte, now reportedly requires employees to list three to five primary accomplishments for the year as proof of their performance. This information was gleaned from internal guidelines acquired by Business Insider.
The guidelines define accomplishments as “specific projects, goals, initiatives, or process improvements that show the impact of your work.”
Amazon’s mandate for employees to provide proof of productivity during performance reviews appears to be part of a larger cultural shift in the corporate sector. In September 2025, xAI employees were also asked to list their responsibilities and accomplishments to determine their future in the company.
AI Layoffs Continue to Impact Tech Sector
The technology sector has been hit with another round of layoffs. Quarterly reports indicate that one of India’s prominent IT services firms, TCS, has laid off around 30,000 employees over the span of six months. This massive downsizing was reportedly driven by widespread artificial intelligence (AI) adoption within the tech industry.
These layoffs are not localized phenomena. On the other side of the world, Silicon Valley has faced similar circumstances, as 2025 also saw several AI-driven layoffs.
The layoffs appear indicative of a trend, something many experts expected. In 2025, Goldman Sachs published a report predicting AI-driven layoffs to continue. .
Study Shows Employees Find Narrative-Based Performance Reviews Most Fair
A study conducted by researchers at Cornell University found that narrative-only feedback is considered by employees as the most fair form of feedback in the context of performance reviews. Published in December 2025, the study compared responses from 1,600 employees to performance feedback organized in three formats—numerical-only, narrative-only, or mixed.
The researchers attribute the study’s findings to the employees’ perception and interpretation of data. “We guess that the presence of a numeric component in the combined feedback may have been interpreted as evaluative or accountability focused [sic], rather than developmental. Employees may view feedback with numerical ratings as highlighting their weaknesses,” they wrote in the report.
Despite the findings, the researchers are hesitant to recommend exclusively using narrative-only performance assessments, stating, “…if you don’t have numbers, there can be some other disadvantages when you are trying to do things like administer bonuses or promotions.”
