Peel back almost any case study of a failed organization, and you'll see, more than anything else, an example of a failure of alignment. Alignment, at its simplest, is the entire organization working towards a common goal. It seems so simple, but in practice is really difficult to achieve. Why is this? Is it just some perverse quirk of human nature? Or can alignment happen?

On the Harvard Business School blog earlier this week, there was a post on how Steve Jobs Solved The Innovator's Dilemma. The posting was quite interesting -- and relevant to those of us in the social and public sector -- because essentially, it's not about profitability, it's about passion.

Now that the lockout is officially over, the amount of conversations revolving around football has picked up significantly. Football is something that I enjoy very much and like talking about whenever I get the chance. As a consultant, I also enjoy conversations centered on strategic management and the excitement that comes with each client. Over the weekend, I was talking to a friend about my job and, as most conversations between two, twenty-four year old males do, the topic eventually turned to football. In some odd way, this got me thinking about the similarities between football and strategic management. I know, a weird comparison, but stick with me and I think you will see where these thoughts came from.

So, last weekend, I was restocking wardrobe essentials like t-shirts, socks, etc. As is the case with most guys, shopping is not one of my strong suits. I delay and delay until there is no choice but to retire those trusty but threadbare socks and replace them with a fresh pair.

While I was shopping, the gentleman working the counter struck up a conversation. He said he recently finished college and has been working at the store for almost a year now. I mentioned something about how tough jobs are to find and he said it seems to be getting better- if his sales numbers are any indicator of the overall economy. As a data cruncher, I had to ask how his numbers were tracked and the answer was pretty surprising...

What is a mission statement? What makes a mission statement effective? How do you become mission-driven? These were just a few of the questions that the microfinance institution in Moldova found themselves asking as they began the Balanced Scorecard process.

In my previous blog post, I shared some stories from Dan Pink's book Drive on the new science of motivation. This book has been highly influential in causing many organizational leaders to re-evaluate their ideas about the best ways to motivate people.

In companies and organizations that thrive on creative thinking and innovative solutions, financial rewards and external "carrots and sticks" are being replaced with a new management doctrine of Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose.

But do these ideas really work? What are some real-life examples of Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose, and how can your organization adopt these ideas in your workplace?

For most of the 20th century, the quintessential American job was in a factory. Workers earned good incomes and middle-class lifestyles by doing repetitive, high-volume tasks. The way to motivate workers at these jobs was simple: "carrots and sticks." Pay people more money for doing more work, and punish people for breaking the rules.

Today, in the 21st century, the best organizations must act less like factories and more like think-tanks. The winners of the 21st century workplace will not be the ones who make the most widgets, but who can create and incubate the most creative and game-changing ideas.

Typically, organizations can identify hundreds of projects that "need" to be completed. Most of these projects address a problem, usually someone feels burdened to implement them, but oftentimes the leadership team has not identified, defined, or actively managed those projects for maximum strategic impact.

Without discipline from the top, hundreds of projects continue to go unfinished and over budget without any real impact on the organization's mission.

Perhaps it's time to try a new approach.

This is the title of a new working paper at Harvard Business School. The paper, found here, is the result of some great research being conducted by Lisa D. Ordóñez, Maurice E. Schweitzer, Adam D. Galinsky, and Max H. Bazerman, all professors at various business schools. The premise is that goal setting may cause more damage than benefits. This may be cause for concern if you have been creating personal scorecards or otherwise been working to link your employee performance to the Balanced Scorecard.

One of the most notable current trends in the nonprofit arena is for donors to look for a "return on investment" for their charitable giving. They want to know that their donation to one organization will yield social impact. More than that, they want to know that your organization will yield a greater impact than another cause to which they could donate.

This is a positive trend for sensible- dare I say- strategic charitable giving. However, the outcome results or impact measures are not the indicators that leaders of nonprofits should be managing. Rather, leaders need to focus on the underlying cause and effect linkages that drive impact.