#5 Thursday Think Tank: Principle 3: Translate & Communicate Strategic Direction

Last Thursday we held our fifth Thursday Think Tank — and it was one of the most substantive sessions we've run. Rich debate, sharp perspectives, and a body of work that pushed the community's thinking in exactly the right directions.

Not a member? Apply to become a member to access the meeting recap

We had strong representation across the village for this one — and the discussion was the better for it. But the session also surfaced a useful lesson: we were slide-heavy. Future sessions will run leaner — fewer slides, more open conversation — so the full range of practitioner experience in the room can come to the surface. Our goal is always a community-generated pressure test, not a presentation.

Thursday Think Tank: Principle 3 — Translate and Communicate Strategic Intent

Session 5 tackled a deceptively simple-sounding principle. Every leader will tell you their organization communicates strategy. Almost none of them will tell you it's working.

Defining the Principle

Principle 3 is the structured process through which strategic direction is converted and aligned across every level of the organization — from ensuring clarity at the top, to cascading objectives and KPIs vertically and horizontally, to sustaining communication throughout execution.

Two refinements came out of the discussion. Linda Finley made the case — and the group agreed — that "bi-directional" understates the requirement. The village demands omni-directional communication: not just top-down and bottom-up, but flowing across and between every function. Jay Wieder added a sharp practical note: whoever we're writing this for, they need a strong opening statement and direct bullets. Not 3,000 words. Andy Jordan's upcoming standardized Principle template will deliver exactly that.

The Practitioner Instinct Problem

The most consistent theme: the practitioner instinct to jump straight to the How before the What and the Why are fully framed. It's what makes this community valuable — and a discipline we have to impose on ourselves.

The Principle definition sets the universal standard of excellence. The Plays describe how different organizations achieve it — Balanced Scorecard, OKRs, Hoshin Kanri, or methods we haven't seen yet. What matters is whether the outcomes are achieved, not the method. Kim's V4 document is, in large part, already a Play — and a very good one. The task now is to separate the two layers more cleanly.

What the Checklist Must Cover

A robust Principle 3 checklist must address, at a minimum:

• Is the C-Suite genuinely accountable for ensuring strategy is translated and communicated across the organization?

• Is the corporate strategy clearly defined before translation begins?

• Is the strategy effectively decomposed — with the right metrics at every level?

• Is all activity and spend — operational and discretionary — aligned to the strategic direction?

• Is communication omni-directional and continuous, not a one-time event?

• Is there a mechanism to update and re-translate strategy when variables change?

Those are the standards. The Plays are where we get into the How.

Not a member? Apply to become a member to access the meeting recap

And if you're not yet a member of the StrategyXF community — this is the kind of conversation we have every week. Come join us.