The Proxy Problem
By guest author Zora Artis
In our third global Strategic Alignment and Leadership research, one finding stood out clearly: most organisations assume alignment because performance holds. As a strategic advisor and Mirror Mirror practitioner, I see the same pattern in practice. Alignment is rarely measured directly. It is inferred. And in complex environments, that can create risk
Most executive teams believe they are aligned.
Performance is reviewed, and strategic initiatives are tracked. Dashboards are visible – sometimes monthly or quarterly, and sometimes in real time. Delivery is discussed in detail.
From there, a quiet assumption forms: if results are holding and milestones are being met, the organisation must be aligned.
When we asked CEOs and senior leaders how strategic alignment is measured, that assumption began to shift.
“No one measures alignment per se. They measure profit or performance and assume that if that’s good, alignment must be too. It’s a proxy measure, not an intentional one.”
Simon Cavendish, SCMP, Internal & Change Communications Consultant
This view was not isolated. Across sectors, leaders described measurement systems that are disciplined and sophisticated, yet rarely designed to test alignment directly.
Financial performance matters. Operational metrics matter. Strategy execution systems matter. They bring visibility and accountability. What they do not automatically confirm is whether people interpret priorities the same way or whether trade-offs are resolved through a shared lens.
As Katie Macauley, CEO, AB, put it:
“Unless you do a specific piece of work on alignment, you’re only using proxy measures. That’s the reality for most.”
Although there’s a clear gap in measurement, those that do measure see results.
“Most aren’t measuring alignment on what truly drives success. Where boards set C-suite KPIs around alignment, you see measurement. When people do measure it, they have aha moments and valuable conversations they haven’t had before.”
Iain Good, Founder & Partner, Premiumisation Partners + Good Coaching & Mentoring
Alignment lives in shared clarity, behaviour, commitment and action. These require deliberate examination.
When consistency starts to loosen
At the start of a strategy cycle, alignment feels strong. The intent is clear.
“We’re on the same page” is often said. Energy is high.
The real test comes when friction arises, such as budget constraints, clashing priorities, market shifts, operational bottlenecks, geopolitical factors, unexpected regulatory moves, and even new leadership hires.
“Everyone is aligned until they hit roadblocks. Then, in finding solutions, they convince themselves they’re still aligned, but a one per cent drift becomes two, then three, and eventually it spreads.”
Andre Oberholzer, Group Executive, Corporate Affairs, Sappi Ltd.
That description captures something familiar.
If five senior leaders describe the strategy in materially different ways, the variation is not cosmetic. If capital allocation, hiring decisions, and executive time do not align with declared priorities, the organisation receives mixed signals, regardless of how clearly the strategy has been communicated.
None of this happens dramatically. It accumulates through reasonable, locally justified decisions. Over time, those decisions reshape execution.
Performance may still appear solid for a while. However, strategy cycles are shortening. Priorities evolve within quarters, not years. That compresses the gap between small inconsistencies and tangible consequences.
The lag problem
Many organisations rely on annual engagement surveys as an indirect measure of alignment. The cadence itself has become part of the risk.
Sushant Vashisht, Director, Corporate Communications & Employee Brand, Adobe (India, Asia Pacific, Japan):
“Fatigue and emotion cycles that took twelve months now take three. If you wait a year, negative sentiment amplifies fourfold.”
In an environment where strategic direction can shift mid-year, a 12-month measurement rhythm leaves long stretches in which leaders operate on assumptions.
Engagement data has value when the right questions are asked. If surveys explicitly test whether people understand priorities, see how their work connects to them, and observe consistency in leadership behaviour, they can provide useful signals. Yet engagement is often treated as proof of alignment when it is more accurately an outcome influenced by it.
Lag matters. By the time data is analysed and cascaded, strategic direction may already have shifted. In shorter strategy cycles, reliance on lagging proxies creates blind spots.
For leaders focused on growth, the issue is coordinated action. When priorities are interpreted differently, decisions slow, and capital spreads thinner than intended. The impact rarely appears dramatic at first: it builds across quarters. Deliberate measurement shortens that feedback loop before performance is impacted.
The decision lens
One of the clearest insights from the research reframed the issue simply:
“They don’t measure alignment… what matters is whether employees can articulate the strategy in their own words — and whether decisions reflect priorities.”
Heather Young, Communications & Management Executive
This shifts the focus from communication output to decision-making patterns.
When trade-offs are tight, which initiatives proceed? Which are paused? Which metrics influence incentives? How often are executive decisions reopened because interpretations differ across functions?
Those patterns are observable, and they can be examined deliberately.
Some organisations are tightening the links between strategic priorities, initiatives, and accountability in real time. Others use structured diagnostics to surface where leadership teams see priorities and ways of working, how they execute differently, and where cross-functional tension sits. The specific approach varies. The common element is intent: alignment is treated as something that can be tested rather than assumed.
Where measurement is genuinely embedded, it becomes operational. One Fortune 500 Operations Executive described a workforce of thousands across 16 countries and mine sites, where everyone is clear about what the organisation is trying to achieve each year and how it is measured. Individuals understand how their KPIs link to the strategy and the dashboard. Quarterly reviews test progress, and if results slip, the business adjusts.
“How you’re assessed as an individual is based on strategic alignment… It impacts your short- and long-term incentives, your career opportunities, and your growth.”
Nicole Bearne, Founder & Director, The Comms Exchange, compressed it further:
“In the best systems, everyone’s development reviews link back to how they’re fulfilling the strategy. That’s how you measure it — through behaviour and delivery, not just sentiment.”
Where that discipline exists, alignment becomes visible in behaviour rather than being inferred from results.
Why is it not examined more often
Testing alignment directly is confronting. It can reveal differences in interpretation at senior levels, expose where incentives contradict declared priorities, and surface blind spots at the top.
Once visible, those gaps require coordinated action.
Russell Grossman, Executive Director Communications, ORR – Office of Road & Rail, framed the dilemma directly:
“If you do measure it, will you change what you want to do? Or is it just for your own comfort?”
Measurement creates accountability. It shifts alignment from intent to governance. Without evidence, accountability relies on assumption.
More than that, it creates an obligation. Once misalignment is visible, leaders are no longer free to dismiss it as anecdotal. They must either adjust behaviour, incentives and priorities, or consciously accept the consequences.
Avoiding measurement can therefore be rational. If you are not prepared to act, there is safety in assumption.
An engineering perspective from a Strategy & Management Executive expressed the principle plainly:
“If you’re not measuring it, you can’t improve it. There’s no feedback loop.”
Strategic alignment follows the same logic. Without feedback, small deviations accumulate. In compressed strategy cycles, this accumulation happens faster than many leaders expect.
A leadership question
In this early insights series, we have explored the alignment paradox, the understanding of alignment itself, trust, listening, psychological safety, and the accelerating pressures shaping organisations today. Each theme influences whether people choose to move together.
Measurement determines whether leaders know if they are.
When alignment weakens (and it will), it’s rarely overt. It shows in small adjustments to priorities, in justified reallocations of time and capital, in interpretations that seem reasonable in isolation, in duplicated effort, in disconnected employees, and in time wasted on firefighting. Over successive strategy cycles, those adjustments shape execution and culture.
The proxy problem is not about tools or sentiment at a point in time. It is about evidence.
When you say your organisation is aligned, what proof would withstand scrutiny beyond financial performance? And in a strategy cycle measured in quarters, not years, how quickly would you detect that alignment is starting to shift?
The full third global Strategic Alignment and Leadership white paper will be released in mid-March 2026. If you’d like early access to the full white paper, sign up here. You can also subscribe to the Clear Leaders Substack for continuing research updates.
Mirror Mirror™ is a scalable methodology and practice for leadership and cross-team alignment. It reduces delivery risk and unlocks new opportunities by making alignment measurable and repeatable — combining diagnostic data with structured dialogue to drive shared clarity and coordinated action.
 | A guest post by
|