Three ways of showing intent

Most of what follows will probably feel familiar. My aim here is to try and describe something that often seems to get felt or talked about vaguely and suggest a way of addressing it more directly.

Most organisations would tell you that they believe they communicate their intentions clearly - strategies are published, priorities are announced, and teams are briefed on what matters.

But when you ask people working in those organisations what they think the organisation really wants or what is most important, their answers often vary, sometimes wildly.

Most people who've worked in-house will probably recognise this dynamic immediately. The interesting question is perhaps why organisations that understand this pattern still fall into it so consistently. In my experience, the answer is rarely simple - it's usually some combination of structural inertia, cultural norms, and external pressures that make the gap between intent and action feel almost inevitable.

I don't think this happens because staff are confused, instead I think it's actually because organisations often seem to operate at three often conflicting levels of intent - behavioural, operational, and declared.

Quick theory detour: Chris Argyris distinguished between espoused theory (what organisations say they value) and theory-in-use (what their actions actually reflect). People consistently organise their work around theory-in-use, because it's reinforced by real, observable consequences. My experience is that many organisations fail to notice when structural and behavioural signals override their stated priorities.

Why does this matter?

When intent, structures, and behaviour are misaligned, leaders are forced into dealing with constant confusion, escalation and exception-handling.

That is an extremely expensive, inefficient, and unenjoyable coping mechanism.