Every strategy encounters tension. Markets shift, constraints tighten, and unintended consequences surface. The issue is not whether coherence will be tested. It is whether leadership will reassert it deliberately — or allow divergence to stabilise.
How incoherence becomes normalised
Strategic incoherence rarely begins with contradiction. It begins with accumulation. Trade-offs are implied but not explicit. Capacity constraints emerge but are not recalibrated. New initiatives are layered onto existing commitments.1
Operational layers interpret as best they can. Managers create sequencing rules locally. Teams prioritise according to incentive structures. Performance continues. But interpretation widens. What began as shared direction becomes adjacent logics.
Why reassertion is avoided
Reasserting coherence requires visible choice. It may require declaring one objective subordinate to another, retiring initiatives that once had executive endorsement, or revising sequencing assumptions publicly. That feels disruptive — it may appear as correction or retreat.
So leaders often prefer rhetorical reinforcement. They restate priorities, encourage stronger alignment, and ask managers to cascade more clearly. But restatement without reprioritisation does not reduce ambiguity. It redistributes it.2
When coherence is not reasserted explicitly, escalations increase, cross-functional tension becomes chronic, and managers absorb contradiction informally. Change management is asked to realign behaviour. Facilitation sessions multiply. Measurement intensifies. But the operating model remains unchanged.
Over time, instability becomes interpreted as performance variance rather than strategic ambiguity. Trust in coordination declines.
What reassertion actually involves
Reasserting coherence is architectural. It answers: under current constraint, what gives way? Which objectives pause? Where does authority reside for resolving cross-functional trade-offs?3
These decisions reduce interpretive load. They clarify behavioural expectation. They allow operating models to adjust visibly. Reassertion is not about stronger messaging. It is about explicit sequencing.
If leadership does not reassert coherence, the system adapts. Local workarounds harden, informal authority patterns solidify, and variance becomes embedded. Later attempts to correct drift require more disruption. What could have been recalibrated becomes institutionalised.
At that point, change management is again positioned to correct behavioural symptoms. But the origin was unaddressed strategic ambiguity.
Strategic coherence is not a one-time achievement. It is an ongoing governance responsibility. When leaders avoid explicit recalibration, they shift the burden of coherence downward. Middle management absorbs tension, practitioners facilitate repeatedly, and instability circulates quietly.4
This is one way of understanding how strategic clarity, operating model design, and practitioner stance interact to either stabilise or reinforce systemic drift.
-
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday. Senge’s “eroding goals” and “drift” archetypes describe exactly how strategic incoherence accumulates: not through a single contradictory decision but through the compounding of small accommodations, each of which appears locally reasonable. Trade-offs that are implied rather than explicit, capacity constraints that are acknowledged but not recalibrated, and initiatives layered onto existing commitments are all expressions of the eroding goals dynamic — standards drift because each individual adjustment seems marginal, and the cumulative effect is invisible until the gap between stated intent and actual conditions becomes too large to ignore. ↩︎
-
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action. Harvard Business School Press. Pfeffer and Sutton demonstrate that organisations routinely substitute talk for action — restating priorities, producing better strategy documents, and cascading clearer messaging — when the actual requirement is structural reprioritisation. The knowing-doing gap is produced by the substitution of knowing (articulated priorities) for doing (structural recalibration that changes what people actually work on and what they are rewarded for). Restatement without reprioritisation is the paradigmatic case of this substitution: the ambiguity is not reduced; it is redistributed to wherever the restated priorities encounter the unchanged structural reality. ↩︎
-
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. MIT Press. Chandler’s foundational thesis — that structure must follow strategy — has a direct corollary for strategic reassertion: when strategy has accumulated incoherence, the restoration of coherence requires structural clarification, not strategic restatement. The architectural questions Chandler would ask are precisely the ones strategic reassertion requires: what authority structure supports this priority ordering, what coordination mechanism resolves cross-functional trade-offs, and what governance design makes the intended sequencing operational rather than aspirational? ↩︎
-
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage. Weick establishes that sensemaking is distributed throughout organisations — when central leadership does not provide an updated, coherent frame, peripheral actors construct local interpretations that allow them to continue working. What appears at the leadership level as a deferred recalibration decision is experienced at the operational level as a sensemaking burden: middle managers must make sense of contradictory priorities without a coherent frame to draw on. The resulting local interpretations — managers absorbing tension, practitioners facilitating repeatedly — are not failures of execution; they are the organisation’s distributed response to an absent coherence signal from the centre. ↩︎