Effective organisational management and growth/success requires more than just a dream or a mission. And more than just corporate level goals, OKRs or KPIs. We vision set to achieve something and we only achieve things once it is flowed down and then some structure exists to execute aligned to that vision. A well-crafted strategic plan is insufficient on its own; its true power is unlocked only through a robust process of strategic alignment and execution.

I was discussing business goals with someone recently. Not a client but someone who is working on their own startup. They had been discussing growth and direction with their marketing/social media manager and gained some value in using a marketing plan as the basis for providing their business more tangible direction. Now I’m a firm believer in using what makes sense, what fits and applying only what you need from frameworks and methodologies, however it did highlight to me that perhaps we make things fit that aren’t really fit for purpose.

In this article I cover Strategic Planning and how to cascade that direction throughout your organisation. In future articles I will dive into other plans that exist across our businesses, why you may want to develop them and how they relate.

The Strategic Apex: Defining the Organizational Compass

The Corporate Strategic Plan: The Master Blueprint

The journey from a broad organisational vision to tangible operational outcomes begins with the top-level strategic plan. This document is the master blueprint, articulating not only what the organization aims to achieve but also its fundamental purpose and guiding principles. A robust strategic plan is far more than a simple list of objectives; it is a foundational reference that provides context, direction, and a framework for decision-making for every level of the company.

The structure of an effective strategic plan includes several essential components. It begins with a clear statement of

• the organization’s mission, vision, and values, which defines its purpose, its aspirational future, and its core beliefs.
• a detailed strategic assessment that analyzes the current state. This assessment is a critical, introspective exercise that includes an analysis of assets, challenges, and vulnerabilities, as well as a thorough market analysis and a competitive assessment.  

From this assessment, the plan must articulate a clear set of goals and core strategies. These goals should include both long-term aspirations and shorter-term, yearly objectives that are measurable and tied to high-level Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The core strategies then outline the specific approach the organization will take to achieve these goals, detailing cross-functional initiatives and metrics for success. Financial considerations are paramount, with the plan incorporating a financial forecast and a clear resource allocation strategy. A mature strategic plan also addresses uncertainties by including a section on key planning assumptions and identified risks, along with mitigation recommendations. Finally, the plan must include a mechanism for formal commitment and approval from key leaders, such as the board or leadership team, to ensure buy-in and signal its importance across the organization.  

The mission and vision statements at the heart of the plan serve as the primary filtering mechanism for all future opportunities and challenges. By addressing the question, “Is this for us?” leaders can quickly determine if an emerging opportunity or market shift aligns with the organization’s core purpose. This demonstrates that the strategic plan is not merely a list of actions to take, but a philosophical compass that dictates what the organization will and will not do, thereby focusing resources and preventing the kind of fragmentation that can dilute a company’s efforts.

While this strategic plan was traditionally (and still can be) a document, we commonly find these broken out into a collection of artefacts and activities that can be revisited together and separately. One value of this approach is that you can add depth and focus on goal setting as an example. Scaling Up for example puts a lot of emphasis on goal setting over weeks, quarters and years that reach to every level of an organisation in their day to day.

The other areas that I suggest you work through in Strategic Planning are

1. Process and Functional Ownership: Who does or will own certain roles/functions (e.g. CRO, HR). Looking for bottlenecks, conflicts of interest, capability and that you actually have coverage and clear assignment.
2. Organisational Structure: What structure does the organisation need to achieve the strategy. Often this view shines a different light on ownership and cascading of goals and accountabilities.

The Crucial Bridge: Cascading Strategy and Ensuring Alignment

The Principle of Strategic Cascading

A strategic plan, no matter how brilliant in its conception, is rendered inert if it remains confined to the board or leadership team. Or worse, that it is done once and rarely referenced by anyone (far to common). We need to connect the high-level vision to the tactical day-to-day work of every team and individual. Everyone’s work needs to be in context of these goals, with ownerships. This provides clarity, fosters accountability, and aligns every part of the organization around a shared purpose, preventing fragmented efforts and duplicated work. 

How goals are cascaded can differ slightly from ‘direct’ to ‘indirect’ and my guidance is you should probably have a mix of both in your rhythm. Direct goals tend to be more specific, like revenue targets which are divided between departments who each take part of the overall goal. An indirect goal would be broken down and appear differently depending on the department. e.g. reducing environmental impact can look quite different across a company. The value of indirect goals is the ability to foster a joint sense of purpose and achievement across varied departments while giving them each some freedom in the specific goal they choose to align and contribute upwards.

Why can’t you Achieve your Strategic Goals

Here are my top three contributions to companies not progressing against their targets or strategies

1. Poor Executive Sponsorship or Focus: It was a wonderful planning session and we all came away inspired and ready to hit the goals, but nobody took ownership and it was never made part of our day-to-day rhythms.
2. Poor delegation or accountability: Success is so much more than choosing a Revenue or Margin target. The hard part is getting leaders engaged and driving them, and motivating their teams to hit them.
3. Poorly defined or cascaded goals: When you get into the thick of it there are a lot of goals, a lot of competing needs and limited time, money and resources. Goals are also very powerful in shaping culture and it’s important to think about the narrative your goals will carry; also supporting your managers derive and message goals into their teams.

Frameworks for Alignment: Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) vs. Balanced Scorecard (BSC)

Once you move out of the informal approach, organisations often employ formal frameworks to define and track their goals. Two of the most prominent are the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and Objectives and Key Results (OKRs). While both aim to align departmental work with a central strategy, they differ significantly in their structure and approach. These aren’t suggestions necessarily, but worth exploring as they demonstrate two quite different approaches.

The Balanced Scorecard framework is a top-down approach that relies on a “holistic strategy map” to craft objectives across four distinct but related aspects of performance: Financial, Customer, Internal Processes, and Learning and Growth. The financial aspect is considered the most critical, serving as the basis for crafting measurement parameters in the other three areas. BSC emphasizes “lagging measures,” which are output-oriented goals like financial benchmarks that confirm past performance. It is a system that stresses accountability to a pre-planned set of activities, and its objectives are typically set for a minimum of one year and reviewed annually.  

In contrast, Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) is a more agile framework that cascades and ladders, focusing on a few ambitious objectives with measurable, “leading” key results. OKRs do not use predetermined parameters; instead, teams decide on their own priorities, which encourages risk-taking and innovation. The focus on “leading measures” represents a predictive, forward-looking view, as these are inputs, such as expanding a product offering to a new region, that guide future actions. OKRs are designed for frequent review, often on a quarterly or monthly cadence, to allow for continuous adjustments as teams learn and adapt.  

These two frameworks are not mutually exclusive; they can be used in a complementary fashion, particularly at the senior leadership level. An executive team can use the BSC’s holistic strategy map to craft high-level, long-term goals for the organization. They can then use OKRs to break those goals down into agile, quarterly, and measurable actions for individual teams, ensuring that the work of each department is directly contributing to the overarching strategic goals. This integrated approach leverages the long-term, output-oriented benefits of the Balanced Scorecard with the short-term, input-oriented agility of OKRs.  

Look to be deliberate in the use of ‘lagging’ and ‘leading’ measures regardless of what you do. And this concept can be tied into ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ approach to overall direction setting. Lagging indicators provide a historical view, confirming past performance, while leading indicators are predictive, guiding future actions and enabling adaptability to change. An effective strategic management system incorporates both to create a holistic view of the organization’s performance and trajectory.

Category	Objectives and Key Results (OKRs)	Balanced Scorecard (BSC)
Primary Focus	Leading measures (inputs), e.g., expanding a product offering.	Lagging measures (outputs), e.g., financial benchmarks.
Structure	Objectives and Key Results. Highly flexible; teams set priorities.	Objectives, Measures, Initiatives, and Indicators. Structured around 4 perspectives: Financial, Customer, Internal Processes, and Learning & Growth.
Number of Objectives	Recommended maximum of 2-3 Objectives at a time.	Can have 10-15 Objectives.
Number of Measures	3-5 Key Results per Objective.	1-2 Measures per Objective.
Cadence	Agile; typically reviewed monthly or quarterly.	Typically set for a minimum of one year.
Direction	Cascades and ladders; both top-down and bottom-up.	Top-down approach.
Risk-Taking	Encouraged, as compensation is not typically tied to OKR achievement.	Stresses accountability to a pre-planned set of activities; less emphasis on risk-taking.

Overcoming Challenges to Cross-Functional Cohesion

Even with a clear strategic plan and a chosen alignment framework, a number of challenges can prevent a business from achieving true cross-functional cohesion. Functional teams often struggle to align their day-to-day work with broader strategic goals due to limited visibility into the top-level objectives. This lack of context can lead to disengagement and missed opportunities. Furthermore, day-to-day responsibilities often take precedence over strategic projects, creating an imbalance that hampers progress on long-term initiatives.  

A significant challenge lies in the human element of collaboration. The diversity of skills and perspectives within cross-functional teams, while a bedrock of innovation, can also lead to miscommunication and disagreements. Departments may become siloed, with competing priorities and a lack of shared accountability for overall goals.  

The solution to these challenges is not simply a new process or tool, but a fundamental shift in organisational culture. The root problem is often not a structural one, but a human one, requiring a move away from a command-and-control model. Instead, leaders must act as facilitators, not dictators, to harmonize different perspectives and empower teams. This requires fostering a culture of transparency, open communication, and shared values. Communication must be consistent and transparent, reinforcing the link between individual efforts and the corporate strategy. A robust performance management system that allows for the real-time tracking of KPIs at all levels can also create a clear line of sight from daily work to the overall strategy, fostering a sense of ownership and accountability.

You need to make the goals part of the day-to-day. The high-level frame for this starts at your organisational stucture – Executive, Leadership Team(s), Management Team(s), Divisions, Business Units, Teams etc. Regardless of your size you are bound to have at least two levels. These teams need to be meeting regularly and their work must be in context the goals. Teams then need to come together to celebrate and share; goals need to be part of the agenda. Business units, Divisions etc etc from bottom to top the goals at each level are part of meeting agendas and people can see where they fit and how they are contributing. As an example for a software company, the connection between ‘Product Sales Growth’ and ‘implement X feature’ becomes connected; without the new feature clients have been asking for then Sales Growth isn’t possible.