Aligning Operations With Business Goals

I often get the question which level of strategy is most important: corporate, business, or functional level? The answer may surprise you. Business-level strategy is most important. This is why. Roughly, there are three levels of strategy: 1. Corporate-Level Strategy Strategy for an entire (often large) corporation, covering aspects like investment, portfolio management, diversification, acquisitions, and financial objectives. 2. Business-Level Strategy Strategy for a business unit, division or smaller company, covering aspects like target market, value proposition, positioning, revenue model, and capabilities. 3. Functional-Level Strategy Strategy for a department such as marketing, production, or HR, covering aspects like how to create efficiency and added value for the business and corporation. Most people would say Corporate-Level Strategy is the most important. Because it is the highest level, encompasses most, and involves the highest ranks in an organization. I disagree. For me, Business-Level Strategy is most important. Why? Because this is the place where the real action is. It is at this level that you have your products and customers, where you make your money, and where you invest most. So, as the name already suggests, it’s at this level that actual business takes place. Corporate-Level Strategy and Functional-Level Strategy are of course important too. But both are supportive. For Functional-Level Strategy this is clear, but Corporate-Level Strategy is also primarily oriented at creating the right conditions for Business-Level Strategy to be successful. This is why Business-Level Strategy is most important and the level to which organizations need to spend most of their attention—time, people, and money-wise. [Featured in The Strategic Leadership Playbook. Originally published in October, 2023] #strategyconsulting #businessanalysis #managementdevelopment

In our pursuit of connecting HR to business outcomes, my colleague Dick Beatty and I have observed an interesting evolution. While many focus on aligning HR with business strategy and financial results (the lag indicators), we see an opportunity to create even greater impact by focusing on stakeholder value as the lead indicator of business success. In this article, we explore a three-stage process for evolving HR's business connection: from predicting financial outcomes through human capital investments, to understanding how stakeholder value determines financial results, and finally to leveraging human capability to drive stakeholder value. We share specific actions HR leaders can take to shape this stakeholder value and ultimately lead - rather than just predict - business results. I invite you to explore these ideas and share your experiences: How are you creating stakeholder value through your human capability initiatives? What have you found most effective in connecting HR to business outcomes? Let's learn from each other about elevating HR's contribution to sustainable business success. #HR #Leadership #BusinessStrategy #StakeholderValue #FutureOfWork

I’ve been on both sides of the strategy table. I’ve helped craft bold plans with leadership teams —clear goals, slick presentations, all the right words. And I’ve also sat with frontline teams who were just trying to survive their week. Here’s the hard truth I’ve learned: Most strategies don’t fail because they’re bad. They fail because they never truly reach the people doing the work. When you’re in the room designing strategy, it all makes sense. But when you’re on the ground? It sounds more like this: “Wait, what are we doing now?” “How is this different from what we’ve already been doing?” “Who has time for that?” The disconnect is real. Here’s what I’ve seen go wrong—again and again: 🧩 No translation layer  ↳ Great strategy, but no one explains what it means in daily actions. 📉 Middle managers get squeezed  ↳ They carry the weight of execution but weren’t part of the design. 🔇 No feedback loop  ↳ Frontline insights never make it back up to influence the plan. ⚔️ Too many priorities  ↳ The urgent always buries the important. So what actually makes a difference? 🧭 Involve the frontline early 🗺️ Turn strategy into clear, simple behaviors 🛡️ Equip (don’t just pressure) middle managers 🔁 Build real-time feedback and adapt fast 👁️ Keep the strategy visible in day-to-day work One thing I now believe deeply: Strategy lives or dies in the hands of the people asked to deliver it. And if they’re not set up to succeed, the strategy never had a chance. 📣 I’m curious—have you experienced this gap? What helped close it in your world? 👇 I’d love to hear what’s worked—or what hasn’t. ♻️ Share this with your network if it resonates. ☝️ And follow Stuart Andrews for more insights like this.

The average tenure of a VP of Customer Success? 18 months. Ask a CS leader why, and they'll tell you: unrealistic expectations. Ask a CEO, and they’ll say: failure to meet expectations. Who's right? Both. CEOs set aggressive goals but don’t always understand what it actually takes to achieve them. CS leaders want to rise to the challenge but often fail to educate and manage up. The result? A giant game of misalignment and unmet expectations. But here’s the thing—both sides want the same outcome: 🟢 Customers who stay. 🟢 Customers who grow. Having been on both sides of this, I’ve seen it done right—and painfully wrong. If I were stepping into a CS leadership role today, here’s how I’d bridge the gap: 1️⃣ Get Clear on the Goals Before running full speed ahead, sit down with the CEO (or senior exec). Look at the data and align on goals. But—newsflash—where you’re starting from matters. You can’t promise to hit a 130% NRR when retention is tanking at 85%. Aligning on the baseline ensures you’re setting a strategy, not a fantasy. 2️⃣ Analyze the Data You can’t fix what you don’t understand. Before you start building a 42-step CS strategy, figure out: ❓ What’s actually driving churn? ❓ Where are the biggest risks? ❓ What will move the needle fastest? If adoption is the biggest issue—your focus isn’t just “more QBRs.” It’s training, enablement, and change management. Solve the right problem. 3️⃣ Keep It SIMPLE CS leaders love to overcomplicate things. (Guilty.) But here’s the truth: Good today > Perfect six months from now. Start small. Run a pilot. Test and learn. Execution beats perfection every time. 4️⃣ Align on Leading Indicators NRR and GRR are great—except they’re lagging indicators. If you wait for those numbers to move, it’s already too late. Instead, track: ✔️ Expansion pipeline growth ✔️ Health score trends ✔️ Early-stage adoption signals Catch issues early. Pivot fast. 5️⃣ Iterate or Pivot As Needed If something isn’t working, fix it fast. There’s no trophy for sticking with a bad plan just because you wrote it down. Make data-driven decisions. If the signs are there, adapt before it’s too late. 6️⃣ Communicate (Early & Often) Execs don’t need every little detail. But if you’re not proactively sharing progress, they’ll make up their own story. ✔️ Weekly or bi-weekly updates ✔️ Regular check-ins ✔️ A clear, consistent narrative When there’s silence, assumptions win. And assumptions are rarely in your favor. CS isn’t like Sales, Marketing, or Finance—it’s still a black box for many execs. Your job is to demystify it. Set expectations. Educate. Show impact. Manage up. This won’t solve everything—but it will make things a lot better. _________________ 📣 If you liked my post, you’ll love my newsletter. Every week I share learnings, advice and strategies from my experience going from CSM to CCO. Join 12k+ subscribers of The Journey and turn insights into action. Sign up on my profile.

CFO: "You delivered £10M savings. Next year we'll make your target £12M." Procurement: "Okay, we'll do our best" 🤷♂️ That trap that turns smart procurement leaders into basic purchasers. That isn't strategy. It's wishful thinking. Here is the problem: When Procurement exists only to deliver a number, everything else collapses. → Savings without context are risky. → Savings without TCO or risk weighting are misleading. → Savings without value creation, capability building, supplier performance or ROI are pointless. And when teams deliver against unrealistic targets, those targets only get bigger. The credibility trap tightens. I've seen this too often. Savings get harder year on year. → Short term cuts appear. → Bad decisions sneak in. → Category maturity is ignored. → Supplier performance is sacrificed. → The business pays more in the long run. There is a better way. A more grown up way. — Try this instead in your objectives setting: 1. Define your vision and strategy ➟ Why does Procurement exist for this business? ➟ Where do you want the function to be in two to five years? ➟ What is your unique value? 2. How do you create value beyond cost? A clear strategy stops the team drifting into reactive purchasing. ➟ Align your objectives with the business ➟ Interview stakeholders. ➟ Map problems and aspirations. ➟ Understand commercial priorities. When your objectives reflect the real needs of the business, you stop chasing artificial targets and start unlocking real value. 3. Deliver a multi tiered value matrix Any function measured on a single metric will eventually fail. Track the value that actually matters: ➟ Cost. ➟ Value and ROI. ➟ Risk mitigation. ➟ ESG impact. ➟ User feedback. ➟ Supplier performance. If the business only sees savings, that's because Procurement only talks about savings. 4. Push back on poor behaviour Respect your stakeholders but don't be ruled by them. ➟ Challenge bad assumptions. ➟ Call out unrealistic expectations. ➟ Have the uncomfortable conversations. ➟ This is what separates a strategic function from an order taker. Here's the truth most teams avoid: Procurement doesn't fall into the savings trap because the answer is complicated. It falls in because the trap is comfortable. It's easy to chase a number. It's harder to define value. It's harder to change expectations. It's harder to lead. But the teams that escape the trap become the teams that transform their organisations. Any ideas why so many still stay stuck? —— P.S. want to join 22,000+ procurement pros getting FREE insights from me every week? Join here https://procurebites.com/

Not all cyber threats are equal…. It is crucial for the Board & CXOs to ensure that investments in security are aligned with the organization's risk profile. This requires regular risk assessments & aligning the cyber security strategy with the organization's business goals. Simply put, far too many boards & CEOs see cybersecurity as a set of technical initiatives & edicts that are the domain of CIO, CISO, & other technical practitioners. In doing so, they overlook the perils of corporate complexity & the power of simplicity when it comes to cyber risk. In fact leaders who are serious about cybersecurity, need to translate simplicity & complexity reduction into business priorities that enter into the strategic dialogue of the board, the CEO, & the rest of the C-suite. Questions such as the following can help catalyze this conversation: • How does a full accounting of cyber risk affect our business model’s attractiveness, & does that suggest the need for a “simplification agenda”? • How transparent are the cyber risks and trade-offs associated with our external digital partnerships, & what would be the pros & cons of simplifying our ecosystem to make them more manageable? • How risky are our IT-enabled legacy processes, and how should we prioritize investments to secure, simplify, & transform them to achieve competitive advantage? Leadership teams which grapple with questions like these and embrace simplicity boost their odds of making the entire enterprise securable. Breakneck digitization in the smartphone era has exacerbated matters, as companies have increasingly created ecosystems with a variety of new partners to help expand their reach and capture new, profitable growth. They range from supply chain relationships across goods & services to partnerships for data, distribution, marketing, & innovation. Even more recently, the business challenges of COVID-19 pandemic have spurred faster adoption of digital solutions that rely on data, digital networks and devices that are often operated by companies outside the organization’s borders. Leaders seeking to strike a better balance can start with some basic principles. One is ensuring that strategic moves won’t increase complexity risk & make the current situation worse. Another is understanding that simplification of company, may require more than minor rewiring of systems, & instead may demand more fundamental & often longer-term modification to IT structures, to make them fit for growth. The challenges & opportunities fall into 3 areas. 1. Business models 2. External Partners 3. Internal Systems Reducing complexity while establishing a framework for governance & shared responsibility demands deliberate action, over the long & the short term. It also demands attention & energy of the CEOs & the boards who understand its value and are ready to invest in changing mindsets. Leaders who are ready to step up and set the tone will create a better blueprint for a securable enterprise.

Contrary to popular belief, having a GTM team offsite will not fix your go-to-market problem. Neither will a pipeline meeting on Wednesdays. Neither will a CMO-CRO bi-weekly coffee meeting. Neither will firing your CMO and trying to hire a unicorn marketing leader. It’s a Band-Aid. It might make it easier for people to work together. It might patch up the problem for a while that will come back to you in 3 months when you’re missing your pipeline for Q4. It’s a Band-Aid. The real solution? Redesign your GTM (aka the Factory that produces your revenue) - Starting with Financial Planning, Modeling, and Budgeting, and then working across the rest of GTM team to Sales, Marketing, Sales Dev, Ops, Post-Sale, etc. 1. Build a Unified View of GTM with Financial Data & GTM Data that measures both performance (effectiveness) and unit economics (efficiency) 2. Align the entire GTM leadership team on a core KPI stack that has *nothing* to do with attribution by department or channel 3. Categorize and evaluate GTM investment portfolio allocation by customer lifecycle stage, NOT DEPARTMENT. 4. Methodically break down compound metrics to isolate the biggest issues / risks / opportunities by customer lifecycle stage 5. Build and align on cross-functional initiatives to solve the biggest issues in your Revenue Factory 6. Monitor and evaluate impact against the core KPI stack that has nothing to do with attribution by department or channel. #finance #gtm #b2b #sales #marketing p.s. Just to drive home the message - you should be able to *clearly* understand how your GTM is performing and isolate the biggest issues/opportunities without ever discussing or using attribution by channel or department 🙂

Decisions aren’t made in the meeting. They’re confirmed there. In Japan, this principle has a word: Nemawashi (根回し). Literally translated as “going around the roots,” it refers to the careful pre-alignment that happens before any official decision. Instead of debating and risking conflict in the room, leaders consult stakeholders one by one in advance—quietly gathering perspectives, addressing concerns, and building alignment step by step. I have encountered Nemawashi while working on a business in Japan. I initially assumed the meeting room would be the place for persuasion and debate, but I quickly discovered that someone had already done the groundwork beforehand. The most meaningful conversations took place in hallways, over coffee, or in quiet, one-on-one discussions. By the time everyone entered the meeting, stakeholders had already reached a consensus. What appeared to be a quick agreement in the room was, in reality, the result of weeks of careful listening, adjusting, and aligning that took place outside of it. This approach may feel unfamiliar to those accustomed to Western business practices, where decisions are often made after open discussion and debate in a meeting. However, Nemawashi highlights a universal truth, which is that influence usually occurs before visibility. The most successful outcomes are rarely the result of a single brilliant presentation or a dramatic last-minute pitch. Instead, they are the product of thoughtful groundwork. Understanding who matters, anticipating questions, adapting your message, and ensuring people feel heard long before the spotlight moment. For global leaders, this cultural lesson has a practical takeaway: before your next product launch, investment pitch, or strategic decision, spend as much time aligning stakeholders beforehand as you do preparing your slides. When people feel included early, they are more likely to support the outcome later. So, the next time you’re preparing for a big decision, remember Nemawashi. Do the quiet work in advance, and you’ll find the meeting itself becomes smoother, shorter, and more powerful. 👉How do you prepare stakeholders before a big decision? #Leadership #CrossCultural #DecisionMaking #JapanBusiness #StakeholderManagement

Aligning executive stakeholders with conflicting priorities is a puzzle many product people face. How do you solve it? When stakeholders pull in different directions, the secret isn't in aligning immediately around a product vision. Instead, elevate the conversation: align first on company goals. What outcomes do we aspire to achieve as a company? This unified understanding of company priorities becomes your north star. Here's how you can approach this: 1️⃣ Level Up the Discussion: Before diving into a product vision, ask stakeholders to agree on broader company goals. What did your CEO emphasize as priorities for your business? This context is crucial. It sets the stage for aligning individual goals to the bigger picture. 2️⃣ Connect Back to Product Vision: Once unified on company objectives, demonstrate how the product vision helps achieve these goals. "Here's our shared goal. Based on customer insights and priorities, this vision drives us towards it.” This shows your vision isn't just arbitrary—it's informed and intentional. 3️⃣ Seek Constructive Feedback: Encourage dialogue. Why might a stakeholder disagree with the vision? Is it truly about priorities, or personal impacts and unmet goals? This feedback refines your approach but remember, the product vision isn't a committee decision. It's guided by data and customer needs. 4️⃣ Give Credit and Build Back: Stakeholders feel valued when their input shapes outcomes. Make sure to recognize their contributions. This fosters trust and buy-in. Being stuck in the build trap often arises from chasing outputs over outcomes. Aligning on higher-level goals ensures your product strategy isn't just a list of features but a pathway to delivering real value. 🎯 So, next time conflicting priorities emerge, remember: align at the top, then articulate a product vision that navigates towards those shared company goals. How have you managed stakeholder alignment in your organization? Share your experiences!

You want to balance Security and Trust imperatives when running your GRC programs? 6+1 tips to better align your program with both Security and Go-To-Market stakeholders. 1️⃣ Make company security the baseline, not frameworks Stop implementing "SOC 2 controls" and start implementing "our security baseline" that happens to satisfy SOC 2. When security is the goal and compliance is the byproduct, you shift focus from checking boxes to securing systems. Your framework should be an output, not an input. 2️⃣ Implement risk-based KPIs alongside sales metrics Balance "deals unblocked" with "critical risks mitigated" and "mean time to remediation". When your performance depends equally on sales enablement AND security improvement, priorities naturally align. What gets measured gets managed - so measure what matters for security. 3️⃣ Build remediation-driven compliance Make remediation the centrepiece of your program. Every finding should have an owner and timeline. Every certification project should be measured by issues fixed, not just paper collected. Celebrate remediation velocity like you celebrate deal velocity. Evidence collection is a means, not an end. Find ways to help owners get further on the remediation side. 4️⃣ Develop automation-first GRC programs When use-cases are custom, easy or complex, invest in building rather than buying. This doesn't just save money - it puts technical capability at the heart of your GRC function, ensuring you speak the same language as engineering and can evaluate vendor claims critically. Your GRC team should also own some code, not just spreadsheets. 5️⃣ Converge GRC and security engineering Break down the divides. Embed GRC people in security engineering teams and vice versa. Make knowledge transfer explicit and continuous. When "Trust" people understand the technical reality and engineers understand the compliance requirements, both sides make better decisions. 6️⃣ Value actual security outcomes over compliance artefacts Start celebrating actual security improvements. Did your controls actually reduce the attack surface? Did your risk management identify and address a real threat? The true measure of your program is effectiveness, not documentation. A successfully defended system is worth more than a perfectly documented one. BONUS: 7️⃣ Celebrate security-driven business decisions Redefine success to include deals you shaped for better security outcomes, not just those you rubber-stamped. Recognise team members who improved contract terms, strengthened vendor security requirements, or helped sales understand realistic compliance timelines. Security still shouldn't just be about saying "no" - it should be about finding secure paths to more "yes." Trust and security aren't opponents; they're partners. Engineers who respect your GRC program and customers who recognise your security maturity—that's the sweet spot. Time to build both, not sacrifice one for the other.