Rejoinder to “Organizational Alignment: Vital Practices”
I judge it impossible to act, on anything meaningful, anyway, sans principles. “Practical” is just euphemism for applying one’s principles without naming them beforehand. It marks both politics and businesses — particularly political HR wonks — whose leaders use it to foist their principles on others.
And it renders organizational alignment impossible, allowing instead, arbitrary, unchecked imposition of principles without recourse for those imposed. Challenging the surreptitious imposition of principles sans a stated philosophy allows the ideologue (she or he imposing) to vilify the opposer on the very grounds of her or his opposition.
This sort of ersatz leadership, of course, thrives in hierarchies and their dysfunctional corporate cultures.
An admittedly ideological organization, on the other hand, committed to openly declaring and aligning with its ideology can foist its principles on none nor does it have room for or tolerate those who do so.
That’s what organizational alignment is.
The litmus test is perhaps this: The openly ideological and aligned organization is constantly looking for misalignment to weed out before they take root. Not as a corporate function, but as the right and duty of every individual member to balk, to call bullshit, when others’ principles are foist upon them.
The ideology, not the whim of executives and certainly not social mores, must define the organization and the relationships within it.