A strategy meeting at a large medium-sized company. The presentation on the new strategic program has turned out well and looks great—it’s the kind of thing people are familiar with and appreciate. HR then proudly presents the new cultural program—clearly structured, well thought out, and adaptable. There is widespread approval in the room. A short while later, the communications department takes the stage. A new guiding principle, striking visuals, and a clear narrative flow. Here, too, everyone is in agreement.
Why not? Each part makes sense on its own—it’s just that they aren’t coordinated. The ideas and plans don’t mesh; they don’t show where the company wants to go with all these initiatives.
That is precisely the problem: This new form of silo does not arise from compartmentalization, but from disconnected translation. Everyone is working on the same topic, but no one has a comprehensive overview.
The effect becomes apparent in the weeks that follow. Managers must sort through, select, and rephrase ideas—and perhaps set their own priorities. One opts for the new strategy; another for the cultural program. From two clear-cut concepts, a third version emerges unnoticed in everyday life because neither of the previous ones is really usable.
Good individual work, weak overall impact
No one here works against one another, whether intentionally or out of negligence. On the contrary: Everyone is committed to the same cause; they just work alongside one another rather than with one another. That is precisely what makes this phenomenon so difficult to grasp. And it also explains why it takes so long to become apparent.
The pattern is typical: Communication is supposed to convey the culture, HR is supposed to embed it, and leadership is supposed to implement both. Each role is appropriately staffed—but no one is steering the big picture. Or to put it another way: Everyone is working on the same issue, but each function interprets it differently.
Precision in the details. Blurriness in the big picture.
The differences never manifest as conflict; they are evident only in subtle nuances: a different tone, a different order, a slightly shifted focus. None of this is wrong, and none of it is significant enough to warrant discussion. Everything works. And what appears to run smoothly at first glance is not scrutinized.
Then the first cracks begin to appear, success fails to materialize, and the necessary coordination work increases: Leaders have to tie together what wasn’t connected in the first place and fine-tune details that were decided long ago. Energy no longer flows forward but is instead channeled into retroactive coordination. People sense inconsistency long before they can put a name to it.
This costs energy, and over time, credibility—and ultimately, effectiveness. At its core, this reveals unclear roles and mandates: exactly the pattern we described in the January newsletter.
There is no common point of reference
As long as each function operates precisely on its own, this is exactly what happens: precision in the details, but a lack of focus in the big picture. Local attention to detail leads to a lack of focus on a broader scale—not in spite of, but because of the good work. After all, culture doesn’t emerge from programs, but at interfaces and handoffs.
What’s missing is a common point of reference: a vision that everyone can use as a guide. Only when that exists will measures work in tandem rather than running parallel to one another.
Alignment, therefore, does not mean: yet another meeting, yet another round of discussions, or even more coordination. Alignment means: making joint decisions before each department proceeds with its own implementation.
Four Clarifications That Make All the Difference
This doesn’t require a new mission statement. It requires four clarifications—specific and verifiable:
- A shared vision. Clarify exactly what you want your culture to achieve. HR and Communications should describe this purpose not just in similar terms, but in unison. Here’s a simple test: Is there a single sentence that all stakeholders can use to describe the initiative in the same way?
- Clear VResponsibilities. For each key topic, identify who is in charge—and how the handoffs between HR and Communications will work. And is it clear who is in charge and who provides input?
- GJoint prioritization. Prioritize initiatives together instead of letting parallel projects run side by side. Timing and sequence also need to be coordinated. In other words: What happens when—and in what order?
- VReliable feedback. Systematically gather feedback from the organization, evaluate it together, and translate it into concrete adjustments. And above all: Is there an early check to see what is actually being understood?
It’s not about smoothing over all differences. Different perspectives are valuable—as long as they contribute to the same vision. What matters is that everyone has the same vision in mind and knows what role they play in achieving it.
Culture does not arise where people work the hardest, but where things fit together harmoniously. Only then will everyone not only be sitting at the same table—they’ll also be working on the same topic.