Organizational Design Consultants

We just closed a $480K deal at Aligned - our biggest ever. But twice in the final weeks, it almost died. It was brutal. Two execs came out of nowhere with objections. We had no access. No time to fix it. But 22 (!!) stakeholders had already been engaged… And they saved it. That’s when it hit me: Multithreading isn’t a tactic. It’s deal insurance. Here’s the exact playbook we now run in every complex deal: 1. Early Exec-to-Exec Sponsorship Don’t wait until sh*t hits the fan. Initiate VP-VP or CXO-CXO alignment early. We send short, supportive emails without direct asks. Time after time, that builds genuine trust and establishes a safety net long before we need it. 2. Identify ‘Hidden Stakeholders’ Buyers often silently forward materials internally. By using Deal Rooms, we uncover up to 68% more stakeholders, often the real decision-makers influencing budget approvals or strategic buy-in. 3. Isolate Stakeholders 11 people on a call? You’re NOT multithreaded - it’s about quality, not volume. Our team opens separate 1:1 convos. They follow up with each buyer with next steps, suggestions or value that ties to something they said. 4. Proactive Signal-Based Engagement When stakeholders interact with key assets in the deal room, we use those signals to trigger follow ups - e.g. RevOps spends 20min on CRM integration; they might need more info, or could benefit from a dedicated session. 5. Multiple Champions Strategy Nothing beats having an army of internal champions instead of one. Whenever we see an opportunity to build champions, we do it. It derisks the deal in case someone leaves. Plus, budgets are shared, or are just easier to pass. 6. Real-time Alerts on New Stakeholders Our deal room sends instant alerts whenever there’s a new stakeholder (see #2). We then leverage this event as an opportunity for exec introductions or quick alignment note—”Hey, saw you joined the project”. 7. Support the Above-the-Line (ATL) Met an exec early? Keep them looped into POC updates, key milestones, or call takeaways. When we give regular status updates, it builds credibility and keeps momentum - as execs don't join every call, and appreciate the visibility. 8. Never Underestimate Below-the-Line (BTL) Decision-making today is flatter; end-users/junior stakeholders are increasingly influential. I’ve lost count on how many times AEs (our BTL buyers) were make or break in our deals. Give them genuine attention. Don’t underestimate any buyer. 9. Late-Stage Exec Reinforcement If a deal stalls, a concise, confident, personal email from me as CEO resets urgency. The message isn't pushy; it reinforces our shared vision, driving commitment. —— Multithreading isn’t a tactic. It’s insurance. A deal defense system. Built thread by thread, stakeholder by stakeholder. So when things break, and they will - You’re not the only one left to save it. P.S. The Deal Room we used to multithread is Aligned. It's free to try: https://lnkd.in/dYksGnfb

"Culture change" is the biggest lie in organizational transformation. Here's what actually happens: You run workshops. You print posters. You train people on new values. Six months later, behavior looks exactly the same. Why? Because you've got the causality backwards. Culture follows structure. Not the other way around. Craig Larman captured this in his Laws of Organizational Behavior. The first law: Organizations are implicitly optimized to avoid changing the status quo of middle- and first-level manager positions and power structures. Read that again. Your organization isn't resisting change because people are difficult. It's resisting change because it's designed to resist change. The structure, rewards, and processes are all optimized to preserve existing power. Want to change culture? Change the structure. Want people to collaborate? Remove the structural barriers that make collaboration expensive. Want innovation? Create Product Groups with real P&L ownership and decision-making authority. Want customer focus? Merge customer-facing and product development units so everyone shares the same measures of success. Jay Galbraith's Star Model shows this clearly: Strategy, Structure, Processes, Rewards, and People practices must be in harmony. Change one without the others, and the system snaps back. Stop running culture workshops. Start redesigning your organization. The culture you want will emerge from the structure you create. #SimplificationOfficers #OrganizationalChange

Nike eliminated its CTO and CCO roles while adding a COO and four geographic heads. The goal is removing management layers and refocusing on athletes. This shows what happens when new CEOs restructure around their priorities. Your business needs org charts that match strategy, not inherited titles. When Elliott Hill cuts technology and commercial chiefs but adds regional leaders, he signals that local execution matters more than centralized functions. Nike kept certain executive roles and deleted others. The company appointed Venkatesh Alagirisamy as COO. Four geographic heads joined senior leadership. Technology and commercial operations report through different structures now. -) Chief technology officer role eliminated -) Chief commercial officer position removed -) Geographic leadership expanded instead Hill inherited a structure built for different priorities. He's rebuilding around sports and athlete focus rather than technology platforms or commercial coordination. Fewer layers means faster decisions at regional levels. Audit whether your executive structure serves current strategy or preserves legacy org charts. Eliminate roles that add approval steps without improving decisions. Create positions that solve today's problems, not yesterday's. Ask yourself: Do your C-suite titles reflect what actually drives your business now? Stop protecting executive roles because they existed before. Build leadership structure around what needs to happen, not what used to matter.

One of the biggest mistakes I see CEOs making is not tailoring their C-Suite to their current business strategy or leadership needs. Whether you have grown or inherited a leadership team, you need to regularly audit how and if it is serving your current needs and be willing to adjust accordingly. When I start working with CEOs, on average, they have more than 10 direct reports. …And when they have 13-14, things start breaking down no matter how talented the individual players are. If this is you, you need to rethink how you design your C-Suite and to what effect. Here are the first three areas to consider: - ACCESS: What and who needs your constant attention and focus? Does your calendar reflect this? Do you have the space and energy for creativity, vision, and focused problem-solving in these areas? Are the executives owning these core deliverables the correct owners (with the right playbooks, seniority and experience to navigate them during your current/anticipated scale of growth)? - DELEGATION: What can and should you be delegating (in the near and/or long term)? Are there people or processes sucking up your time that no longer need your regular guidance or sign-off to be effective? Can you roll under any of your current direct reports under another executive (either temporarily or permanently)? - SIGNOFF: What constitutes a CEO-only level decision? Are the demands on your time correlated with this standard? Have you become an unintentional bottleneck in the approval or innovative process? During the 12 years I worked at Google, three different CEOs helmed the company – Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, and Sundar Pichai. Each CEO had a different reporting structure, despite having roughly the exact same SVPs and talent available. That’s because as a company evolves, your focus and needs as a leader will change. Different things need CEO attention, guidance, sign-off, or mentoring depending on priorities, and your reporting structure should reflect that. Some CEOs can be worried about altering their reporting structure even when it is no longer serving them. They are hesitant to change their reporting lineup because they don’t want people to see it as a “demotion” or threaten their egos. The fact of the matter is this, if you don’t align your direct reporting structure to match your current growth strategy, you’ll be crippled by managing, NOT leading. Pay close attention to this as you scale! #leadership #scale #culture #growth

The best leaders I know? They never talk about their title. Weird, right? But here’s what I’ve learned after years of architecting leadership systems: Never follow a leader who loves the position more than the people. This kills leadership maturity in scaling organizations. I see this pattern destroying teams every single day. Leaders who build empires vs. leaders who build ecosystems. Leaders who create dependencies vs. leaders who create capabilities. Leaders who hoard power vs. leaders who multiply it. The difference shows up in execution every day. Position-lovers do this: • They make themselves the only bottleneck • They build systems around total control • They create followers who can’t function independently • They optimize for visibility, never velocity • The org stalls when they’re gone People-lovers do this instead: • They build leadership infrastructure that actually scales • They design decisions at the right levels • They create leaders of leaders, not followers • They embed development into the operating model • The system strengthens whether they’re there or not One creates a constraint in your business. The other creates a flywheel for growth. I learned this by working under both types. The position-driven leader made me compete for authority. Every win I had felt threatening to them. The people-driven leader made me exceed my limits. They didn’t need me dependent on them. They needed me developed and fully empowered. If you’re a founder or exec, ask yourself: Is your leadership team high-performing or just protecting domains? You already know the honest answer. The work isn’t about fixing broken people. It’s about redesigning your entire leadership operating model. Leadership maturity doesn’t scale around egos. It scales when it’s built into your systems. P.S. Ever worked under a leader who invested in making you better instead of keeping you small? Send them a message today. Those leaders are rarer than they should be. And if you’re building a team right now? Make sure you’re the catalyst, not the constraint.

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

𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: 𝐌𝐞𝐞𝐭 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐀𝐫𝐞 Enterprise Architecture abhors a vacuum—it thrives on stakeholder engagement. Often, architects jump into collaboration without first assessing one critical factor: • 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞, 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐄𝐀? Before strategy, frameworks, or roadmaps, 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬, 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 and 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. This will shape how you approach, gain buy-in, and drive outcomes. Here are 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐬 for aligning EA with stakeholders: 𝟏 | 𝐆𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐞 𝐄𝐀 𝐀𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 EA means different things to people, how can you align? Approach: * 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞. What do leaders think EA does? What experiences shape their view? * 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐄𝐀 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞. If a product saw EA as 'overhead,’ shift the conversation to ‘rapid decision-making.’ * 𝐓𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. Finance, operations, and IT leaders have different concerns. Meet them on their terms. 👉 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞: When you shape EA’s role based on their reality, it becomes relevant, not theoretical. 𝟐 | 𝐀𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐄𝐀 𝐭𝐨 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 EA isn’t all architecture, it’s solving business problems. Approach: * 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐊𝐏𝐈𝐬. Growth? Efficiency? Risk? Align EA contributions to what leadership interests. * 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭. Show architecture driving go-to-market, savings, or agility—over compliance. * 𝐀𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐞/𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐬. If EA was a bottleneck, demonstrate accelerated decision-making instead. 👉 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞: EA is a strategic enabler, not afterthought. 𝟑 | 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐄𝐀 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 EA works best in collaboration, not isolation. Approach: * 𝐄𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. Decision-making improves when EA is a proactive presence. * 𝐒𝐡𝐢𝐟𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 ‘𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐄𝐀’ 𝐭𝐨 ‘𝐜𝐨-𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.’ Stakeholders engage when architecture is a tool for their success. * 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞-𝐨𝐟𝐟. EA isn’t a pitch—it’s a dialog evolving with business. 👉 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞: EA shaping decisions early rather than reacting later. 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠. Before pushing frameworks or models, assess 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐄𝐀 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲—and how to reshape that narrative to unlock its full potential. How do align EA stakeholders? Let’s discuss.👇 --- ➕ 𝐅𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 Kevin Donovan 🔔    👍 Like | ♻️ Repost | 💬 Comment    🚀 𝐉𝐨𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬’ 𝐇𝐮𝐛 👉 https://lnkd.in/dgmQqfu2

Stakeholder alignment is not about getting everyone to agree. It is about making sure everyone understands the tradeoffs. When I see alignment fail, it is usually because we skipped one of these steps: • Clarifying what decision is actually being made • Making assumptions visible before debating solutions • Naming the constraints that are shaping the conversation • Confirming what success means to each stakeholder Alignment does not happen by accident. It happens when someone is willing to slow the conversation down and make thinking visible. What is the hardest part of stakeholder alignment in your projects right now?

Are you expecting higher performance without redesigning the system that produces it? Fact: Performance pressure has increased. Operating clarity has not. Over the past year, many organisations have reduced headcount while tightening performance expectations. That combination is not neutral. It changes how leadership must operate. What’s failing is not motivation. Not work ethic. Not capability. What’s failing is the operating logic under pressure. Leadership teams are demanding faster execution while keeping the same number of priorities, the same decision bottlenecks, and adding urgency on top of ambiguity. 🔍 The result is predictable: • People expend more effort • Decisions take longer because authority is unclear • Quality declines through rework and risk-avoidance • Critical issues surface late, when options are narrower ❌ This is activity under strain, not performance. The organisations holding up are not pushing harder. They are redesigning how work moves. 👉 If you manage people, lead initiatives, or want to influence change, act on these three points: 1️⃣ Reduce the system’s load Define the two outcomes that matter in the next 30–60 days. Formally pause or stop work that competes with them. Performance improves when capacity matches intent. 2️⃣ Reassign decision rights Identify decisions still escalating by habit rather than risk. Move ownership to the lowest sensible level and make it explicit. Speed follows clarity. 3️⃣ Specify standards, not urgency Replace “as fast as possible” with explicit criteria for quality, scope, and trade-offs. People execute well when success is defined, not when pressure is increased. 📌 This is the leadership work of this moment. Not motivation. Not charisma. Not urgency. Structural clarity under constraint. 🧠 Culture is a critical part of this system work — I’ll address that explicitly in later posts. Before asking for more output, ask: 👉 What ambiguity am I still tolerating in the system I lead? That’s where performance is currently being constrained.

Most failed projects never lacked a plan — they lacked agreement. A project charter isn’t paperwork. It’s the invisible contract that aligns every stakeholder before chaos starts. It defines: - Why this project exists (purpose) - Who owns what (accountability) - How success will be measured (outcomes) I’ve seen teams skip this step because “we need to start fast. ” They end up starting twice — once to build, once to fix. But too often, teams skip this step because “ we need to start fast. ” The truth? They end up starting twice — once to build, once to fix. If you want to lead with clarity, start with alignment. Your first deliverable isn’t the Gantt chart — it’s shared understanding. Here are 3 ways to make your project charter actually work: ✅ 1. Make it outcome-driven, not output-driven. Most charters focus on what will be delivered — timelines, budgets, tasks. Shift to why it matters. Define the problem it solves and what success looks like in behavior or adoption. - Instead of “Deliver new CRM,” say “Increase user adoption by 25% within 3 months.” ✅ 2. Co-create, don’t delegate. A charter written for stakeholders dies fast. A charter written with stakeholders lives. Run a short alignment session before writing — get your sponsor, users, and leads to co-own the “why” and the “how.” - The goal: fewer sign-offs, more buy-in. ✅ 3. Keep it human-readable. If people can’t skim it, they won’t follow it. Use one page, plain language, and visuals (timeline, ownership chart, success metrics). A charter is not a report — it’s a roadmap for humans. - Ask yourself: “Could my team summarize this in 30 seconds?” If not, simplify. Because in the end — a good charter isn’t about process. It’s about clarity, ownership, and trust. 📈 Start with alignment. Delivery gets easier from there. #ProjectManagement #WGU #PMP #Leadership #ProjectCharter #Delivery