International Journal of Strategic Communication

ISSN: 1553-118X (Print) 1553-1198 (Online) Journal homepage: [Link]/journals/hstc20

Alignment: Explicating a Key Concept in Strategic

Communication

Sophia Charlotte Volk & Ansgar Zerfass

To cite this article: Sophia Charlotte Volk & Ansgar Zerfass (2018) Alignment: Explicating a Key
Concept in Strategic Communication, International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12:4,
433-451, DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2018.1452742

To link to this article: [Link]

Published online: 13 Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4365

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

[Link]
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION
2018, VOL. 12, NO. 4, 433–451
[Link]

Alignment: Explicating a Key Concept in Strategic Communication

Sophia Charlotte Volka and Ansgar Zerfassa,b
a
Institute of Communication and Media Studies, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; bDepartment of Communication
and Culture, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway

ABSTRACT
This article seeks to build a better understanding of the concept of align-
ment, which has been acknowledged as a central aspect of strategic com-
munication, but never explicitly defined. Building upon a comprehensive
literature review and systematization of concepts at the nexus of strategic
communication and management research, a working definition and an
integrative conceptual framework of alignment of strategic communication
are suggested. The new definition describes alignment of strategic com-
munication both as an outcome and an ongoing process and introduces a
distinction between primary and secondary alignment. The new framework
combines the multiple perspectives and types of alignment discussed so
far, differentiating between external and internal alignment, intrafunctional
and cross-functional alignment, management–strategy–activities alignment
and process–structure–culture–people alignment. Six avenues for future
conceptual, empirical, and critical research are pointed out to provide
inspiration for strategic communication scholars to carry forward research
of the alignment concept.

The rationale for researching the concept of alignment

Throughout the first decade of research in strategic communication, the importance of alignment of
communication with organizational goals or between vision, brand, identity, and communication
activities has been widely acknowledged. Although the seminal definition of strategic communica-
tion as “the purposeful use of communication by an organization to fulfill its mission” (Hallahan,
Holtzhausen, van Ruler, Verčič, & Sriramesh, 2007, p. 7) does not elaborate in detail upon the
question of how to support the fulfillment of an organization’s mission, other definitions have
explicitly stated the necessity of aligning communication with overall goals to do so. For instance,
Argenti, Howell, and Beck (2005) have defined strategic communication as “communication that is
aligned with a company’s overall strategy to improve its strategic positioning” (p. 83). Other scholars
have emphasized the alignment between different communication activities in order to ensure
coordination and consistency of an organization’s communications (e.g., Christensen, Morsing, &
Cheney, 2008; Hatch & Schultz, 2001).
A first analysis of published work in the International Journal of Strategic Communication and
The Routledge Handbook of Strategic Communication edited by Holtzhausen and Zerfass (2015)
reveals that the term “alignment” has received numerous mentions (e.g., Hallahan et al., 2007;
Invernizzi & Romenti, 2015; Nothaft & Schölzel, 2015; Werder, 2015; Löffelholz, Auer, & Srugies,
2015), indicating that the concept is indeed a key aspect in strategic communication research. The
alignment of strategic communication with organizational goals has also continuously proven a
crucial question for practice: Empirical surveys of more than 21,000 practitioners across Europe over

CONTACT Sophia Charlotte Volk [Link]@[Link] Institute of Communication and Media Studies,
Burgstrasse 21, 04109 Leipzig, Germany
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at [Link]/hstc.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
434 S. C. VOLK AND A. ZERFASS

10 years have shown that linking communication with overall goals is the most enduring challenge
for the profession reported by communication managers (Zerfass, Verhoeven, Moreno, Tench, &
Verčič, 2016, pp. 55–56). Similar results were found by a large survey of communication managers in
the United States in S&P 500 companies (Kanihan, Hansen, Blair, Shore, & Myers, 2013).
However, a closer look into the strategic communication literature indicates that the term is used
in very different contexts and has never been explicitly defined. In spite of the frequently claimed
necessity for the alignment of strategic communication, scholars have not engaged in an exploration
of its theoretical underpinnings. As a result, the construct of alignment lacks a conceptual explication
and clarification.
In view of this research gap, this article seeks to bring the aspect of alignment to the forefront of
the debate in order to clarify this central concept of strategic communication. Along this line, the
article will advance the debate by reviewing the relevant literature at the nexus of strategic commu-
nication, management, and organization research and by reflecting upon the different aspects of
alignment discussed so far. The aim is to develop a working definition of alignment of strategic
communication and to propose an integrative conceptual framework. By explicating the concept
through the lens of strategic communication, this article lays an important foundation for future
theory building (Chaffee, 1991) and concludes with research directions for the emerging field of
strategic communication scholarship.

Literature review
A literature review was conducted at the nexus of strategic communication, strategic management
research and neighboring fields, and organization research to explore the multiple notions, levels,
types, and perspectives of alignment discussed so far. The objective was threefold: The first goal was to
reconstruct and clarify the alignment concept in the strategic communication domain. To do so, a full-
text search was performed using the term “align*” to identify seminal contributions in The Routledge
Handbook of Strategic Communication, the International Journal of Strategic Communication, and the
database Communication & Mass Media Complete (search terms: “align*” AND “strategic commu-
nication”). The second goal was to review concepts of alignment discussed in strategic management
research and neighboring fields in order to arrive at a better understanding of the different reference
objects to which communication must be aligned. A full-text electronic search and follow-up snowball
search was conducted using the term “align*” to search for relevant publications indexed in the
database Business Source Premier. The third goal was to consolidate the knowledge and reduce
complexity in order to arrive at a first explication of the concept by outlining an integrative definition
and a conceptual framework of alignment of strategic communication.

Alignment in the domain of strategic communication

Although the necessity for the alignment of strategic communication has frequently been empha-
sized as a desirable goal or a natural condition for the success of organizations, most authors have
not engaged in an elaboration of the theoretical fundaments or dimensions of the concept. The
analysis of contemporary literature in the strategic communication domain revealed that the term
“alignment” is often used, but seldom defined. Only two monographs have elaborated explicitly
upon the alignment concept: The Alignment Factor: Leveraging the Power of Total Stakeholder
Support by Riel (2012) and Taking Brand Initiative: How Companies Can Align Strategy, Culture,
and Identity Through Corporate Branding by Hatch and Schultz (2008). Both works stem from the
field of corporate and brand communication; they are based on case study research.
When taking into account these and other sources, scholars have referred to alignment in
different contexts: for instance, as a “mutually rewarding relationship” between a company and its
external and internal stakeholders (Riel, 2012), as the “interlocking” or “link” between corporate
strategy and communication strategy (e.g., Argenti et al., 2005; Cornelissen, 2017; Hallahan et al.,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION 435

2007), or as the “coherence” between vision, brand, identity, symbols, messages, or culture (e.g.,
Christensen et al., 2008; Hatch & Schultz, 2001). A common understanding is obviously missing and
the concept remains unclear.
In fact, three major notions of alignment can be distinguished from the literature review: (1)
organization–stakeholder alignment; (2) communication strategy alignment; and, (3) communica-
tion strategy and activities alignment.

Organization–stakeholder alignment
One strand of literature investigates alignment between an organization and its internal and external
stakeholders (e.g., Invernizzi & Romenti, 2015; Riel, 2012). Alignment with internal stakeholders
refers to aligning all employees to the organization and towards a common goal, identity, or
behavior. Alignment with external stakeholders means aligning the organization to the multifaceted
and changing expectations, beliefs, and demands articulated by different stakeholder groups. In this
context, strategic communication is understood as a tool to create and maintain organization–
stakeholder alignment and/or to detect misalignment. The ultimate goal of organization–stakeholder
alignment is to create a favorable impression and to gain stakeholder support and an unrestricted
license to operate (Riel, 2012).
In his monograph The Alignment Factor, Riel (2012, p. xvii) defines alignment as “a mutually
rewarding relationship between a company and its key stakeholders that enables the firm to meet its
objectives and realize its purpose.” The strongest form of alignment—or best possible outcome—is
total stakeholder support, which enables companies to open markets, win governments’ permission
to do business and minimize problems (2012, p. 1).
Riel puts special emphasis on the vital importance of achieving a well-aligned workforce, which he
termed Strategically Aligned Behavior (SAB) in his earlier works (Riel, Berens, & Dijkstra, 2009),
understood as employee actions that are consistent with the company’s strategy. Communication
plays a critical role in gaining internal stakeholder alignment, as it helps executives to jointly align
employees to corporate strategy through different techniques of consultation, mirroring, consensus,
or power play (Riel, 2012, p. 9). In order to measure internal workforce alignment with strategic
objectives, Riel (2012) refers to the RepTrak Alignment Monitor. This method and service offered by
the Reputation Institute identifies five drivers of alignment: media and messaging; cascading; dialog;
recognition and reward; and, capability development. The tool is supposed to help companies assess
the effectiveness of their employee communications and identify the best ways of implementing
initiatives designed to arrive at an aligned workforce, understood as fully committed, taking
initiative, promoting the strategy, and helping others.
Riel (2012, p. 46) further highlights the need to fully integrate communications with counterparts
from marketing, accounting, information technology, and human resources to foster internal align-
ment. Once that alignment is achieved, the company has to align itself to the expectations of external
stakeholders to secure an unrestricted license to operate. The author suggests establishing external fit
at three levels—with issue, public opinion, and reputation—through gathering intelligence based on
analyses of competitors, consumer behavior, media, and scanning techniques. To achieve external
alignment, organizations can rely on the same techniques of consultation, mirroring, consensus, or
power play (Riel, 2012, p. 123).
Invernizzi and Romenti (2015) have briefly elaborated the organization’s alignment with the
external environment in their recent analysis of entrepreneurial organization theory. They identified
four contributions of strategic communication in their Entrepreneurial Communication Model: the
“aligning role,” the “energizing role,” the “visioning role,” and the “constituting role” of strategic
communication. Communication in this context is hence ascribed an “aligning role” in supporting
the organization to achieve alignment with external expectations through four different activities:
boundary spanning; environmental scanning; activity of bridging; and engaging stakeholders.
Regarding the first two activities—boundary spanning and environmental scanning—communica-
tion supports monitoring and interpreting the context in which the organization operates and
436 S. C. VOLK AND A. ZERFASS

provides critical input for aligning strategies with ongoing external dynamics and expectations in
order to guarantee long-term survival and legitimacy (Invernizzi & Romenti, 2015, p. 472).
Regarding the latter two activities—bridging and engaging stakeholders—communication helps
building partnerships between the organization and its most important stakeholders, incorporating
their points of view in managerial decision making and thus activating codecisional processes, and
thereby stimulating supporting behavior from stakeholders.

Communication–strategy alignment
A second strand of literature investigates alignment between communication strategy and corporate
strategy (e.g., Argenti et al., 2005; Cornelissen, 2017; Hallahan et al., 2007). Following this under-
standing, strategic communication is the object to be aligned to the overarching corporate strategy,
or business strategy, enterprise strategy, or functional strategies, respectively. The purpose of
communication strategy alignment is to enhance the company’s strategic positioning and contribute
to increased performance (Argenti, 2016).
Many seminal definitions of strategic communication have stressed its notion as being “purpose-
ful” (Hallahan et al., 2007, p. 3), “intentional” or “objectives-driven” (Kiousis & Strömbäck, 2015, p.
799), with the purpose of fostering the achievement of overall goals and fulfilling the organization’s
mission. Even though the notion “strategic” is inherent in the term “strategic communication,” only
a few scholars have explicitly defined the term as “communication aligned with the company’s
overall strategy” (Argenti et al., 2005, p. 83). Alignment in this context emphasizes the need to
formulate communication strategies that are linked to corporate strategy and mission in order to
contribute to corporate success (e.g., Falkheimer et al., 2017; Zerfass, 2008). Communication and
marketing scholars have adapted strategy and planning concepts from management research to
address these challenges and proposed frameworks for deriving communication goals and setting up
communication plans (e.g., Bruhn, Esch, & Langner, 2016) and for connecting communication
strategy to corporate strategy through Communication Scorecards (e.g., Zerfass, 2008).
Although there is clarity on the necessity for well-aligned, harmonized communicative strategies,
goals and plans, it is notable that the linkage and process of aligning communication and corporate
strategy has received scant empirical attention in the strategic communication domain, just as has a
deeper analysis of the strategy concept. Little research has so far explored how communication-
strategy alignment can be achieved by means of translating overall strategic goals into specific
communication goals in practice (e.g., Nothaft & Schölzel, 2015; Raupp & Hoffjann, 2012).

Communication strategy and activities alignment

A third strand of literature emphasizes alignment of all communication activities to the commu-
nication strategy and to each other (e.g., Christensen et al., 2008; Hatch & Schultz, 2001). The
purpose of communication strategy and activities alignment is to achieve coherence and integration
between vision, brands, identity, symbols, messages, or culture, with the goal of orchestrating all
communications to appear consistent across different audiences and different media. From this
perspective, strategic communication is the object to be aligned to corporate strategy and itself.
In their monograph Taking Brand Initiative. How Companies Can Align Strategy, Culture, and
Identity Through Corporate Branding, Hatch and Schultz (2008) elaborate upon alignment from the
viewpoint of corporate branding. They conceptualize alignment as coherence between the strategic
vision of the company’s top management, the culture and beliefs of company employees, and the
images held by external stakeholders. Building on earlier work (Hatch & Schultz, 2001), they suggest
the Vision-Culture-Image (VCI) Alignment Model as a tool to achieve alignment and detect
misalignment based on multiple practice case studies. Following their argumentation, three sources
of misalignments or gaps can be distinguished that can damage the corporate brand: a vision-culture
gap, an image-culture gap, or a vision-image gap.
An interesting notion in the context of misalignment is so-called narcissism and hyper-adaption
(Hatch & Schultz, 2008, p. 58): the former meaning that corporations talk too much and fail to listen
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION 437

to the expectations of stakeholders (“arrogant bastards”), whereas the latter means that corporations
adapt their activities too strongly to external expectations and hence lose their inner compass
(“headless chicken”). To assess the alignment status of the corporate brand and the coherence
between vision–culture–image, the authors propose four VCI assessment tools: (1) stakeholder
surveys; (2) dialog between middle managers from key business functions; (3) dialog between
brand managers and stakeholders; and, (4) events and routines that connect stakeholders to each
other via the brand (Hatch & Schultz, 2008, p. 82). They also underline the necessity to integrate
branding efforts across all functions to ensure that different groups doing different things pull the
brand in the same direction (p. 77).
In the marketing literature, another tool to achieve congruency or detect (mis)alignment between
brand, identity, culture, and corporate brand communications is the AC4ID test (Balmer, 2012), the
origins of which date back to the 1990s and earlier identity-alignment models. The diagnostic model
distinguishes seven identity types forming a corporate brand: (1) the actual corporate identity; (2)
communicated corporate brand identity; (3) conceived corporate brand identity; (4) covenanted
corporate brand identity; (5) cultural corporate brand identity; (6) ideal corporate brand identity;
and, (7) desired corporate brand identity. The authors point out that brands and identities are not
fixed, but are flexible and constantly changing, and that temporal misalignments may occur and
should be observed and changed to avoid possible perilous consequences for the corporations.
In the corporate communications and integrated communication literature, scholars have high-
lighted the necessity of aligning symbols, messages, voices, and behaviors in order to achieve
integration, coordination, and orchestration of an organization’s communications across different
audiences and different media (Cornelissen, 2017). Alignment in this context is understood both as
the consistency of all communications with the overarching strategy and values of the corporation,
and between all communication activities to avoid fragmented activities or discrepancies between
messages, images, and actions. The underlying rationale is to create a homogeneous image of the
corporation and to achieve congruence of talk and action.

An overview of alignment in strategic communication

In summary, the literature review in the strategic communication domain has revealed that align-
ment is indeed a key concept, which, however, still lacks a clear definition and a theoretical
foundation. In spite of the frequently claimed necessity for alignment, the majority of research has
not been interested in understanding how to achieve alignment or analyzing the different types and
levels of alignment. Critical thinking is scarce, and possible dysfunctional consequences of alignment
have seldom been questioned. Table 1 provides a structured overview of the three major types of
alignment – (1) organization–stakeholder alignment; (2) communication–strategy alignment; and (3)
communication strategy and activities alignment – discussed so far in strategic communication
literature.

Alignment in management, strategy, and IT research

In light of the shortcomings of the existing literature in the strategic communication domain, this article
will look at the alignment concept discussed in the field of management and organization research. The
concept of alignment has been researched in the management domain since the 1970s. Early investiga-
tions focused specifically on aligning the strategies of information technologies (IT) or information
systems (IS) and business. In the following decades, scholars from other management subfields, such as
business strategy, human resources, manufacturing, and marketing, expanded the research stream to
include examinations of the alignment of strategies, people, structures, processes, or channels.
A steady growth in the number of approaches, frameworks, and models can be observed since
then, with IT and IS research being the main contributors to the debate (Alagaraja, Rose, Shuck, &
Bergman, 2015; Avison, Jones, Powell, & Wilson, 2004; Coltman, Tallon, Sharma, & Queiroz, 2015).
 438

Table 1. Concepts of alignment in the strategic communication domain.

Exemplary tools/
Type Definition Purpose Object concepts Strategic communication
S. C. VOLK AND A. ZERFASS

(1) Organization-stakeholder A mutually rewarding relationship between a Unrestricted license to Alignment of the internal RepTrak Alignment . . . is a tool to achieve
alignment company and its key stakeholders that operate, total stakeholder workforce to the Monitor (Riel, 2012) internal and external
enables the firm to meet its objectives and support organization Strategically Aligned alignment with key
realize its purpose (Riel, 2012) Alignment of the Behaviour (SAB) (Riel stakeholders, and to detect
organization to external et al., 2009) misalignment
stakeholder expectations Aligning Role of
Strategic
Communication
(Invernizzi & Romenti,
2015)
(2) Communication strategy The interlocking or link between corporate Enhance strategic Alignment of Communication . . . is the object to be
alignment strategy and communication strategy (e.g., positioning, increased communication strategy planning/management aligned to corporate
Argenti et al., 2005; Cornelissen, 2017; performance and corporate strategy and process (Bruhn et al., strategy
Hallahan et al., 2007) with strategies of other 2016)
functions
(3) Communication strategy The coherence, consistence or congruency Integration, coordination, Alignment of all Vision–Culture–Image . . . is the object to be
and activities alignment between vision, brand, identity, symbols, and orchestration to communication activities to (VCI) Alignment Model aligned to corporate
messages, values, or culture (e.g., Christensen strengthen brand, communication strategy (Hatch & Schultz, 2008) strategy and itself
et al., 2008; Hatch & Schultz, 2001) reputation, or and to each other Strategic Brand
attractiveness Alignment/AC4ID Test
(Balmer, 2012)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION 439

However, the foundations and inner workings of alignment remain unclear: “Yet, we know little
about how alignment is created or measured at multiple levels in the organization. In fact, elabora-
tion on organizational alignment in the literature is not only limited, but also underexplored.”
(Alagaraja et al., 2015, p. 18) This is quite surprising, as studies among managers continuously reveal
that alignment is widely regarded as desirable in organizations and at the top of practitioners’
concerns, according to annual Chief Information Officer (CIO) surveys conducted by the Society for
Information Management (SIM) (Caffrey & McDonagh, 2008; Cumps et al., 2009; Luftman, 2000).
In management literature, alignment is commonly described as “strategic fit” (Henderson &
Venkatraman, 1993), “bridge” (Ciborra, 1997), “integration” (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993),
“harmony” (Luftman & Kempaiah, 2007), “linkage” (Ramel, Grandry, & Dubois, 2009), or “fusion”
(Smaczny, 2001). A variety of definitions exist that emphasize different levels of alignment. From an
external alignment perspective, scholars typically investigate an organization’s strategic fit with
external expectations of the environment for the purpose of strengthening organizational perfor-
mance. From an internal alignment perspective, scholars analyze the coherence of key organizational
components, such as strategy, culture, processes, people, leadership, and systems for the purpose of
accomplishing common goals (Sender, 1997). This understanding also encompasses the coordination
between different organizational functions or business units on a vertical level (cross-functional) as
well as the integration of different elements within each function on a horizontal level (intra-
functional) (Alagaraja et al., 2015; Kathuria, Joshi, & Porth, 2007; Powell, 1992).
Besides the diverse definitions of alignment, the construct is conceptualized in various ways: as a
static outcome or end state (e.g., Chan & Reich, 2007); as an evolutionary process or moving target
(e.g., Burn, 1993); as a resource, or as an adaptive, dynamic resource capability or skill (Alagaraja &
Shuck, 2015). In this context, scholars have argued from the viewpoint of different theoretical frame-
works (i.e., configuration theory, congruency theory, or the resource-based view) and perspectives (i.e.,
strategy-as-practice, strategy-as-content, symbolic-interpretive) (see Venkatraman & Camillus, 1984,
for an overview of the schools of thought). Depending on whether scholars understand alignment as an
ongoing adaptation process and moving target or as a final outcome of such a process, alignment is
considered to be emergent and dynamic, or manageable and measurable as an end state.
As an end state or outcome, research typically involves examining realized strategies, structures,
and planning methods. Following this understanding, managing alignment requires certain skills or
capabilities, which is why some scholars define alignment skill as a strategic resource or competitive
advantage (e.g., Powell, 1992). In contrast, if alignment is understood as a process, the focus is
primarily on analyzing actors, values, communication, or understanding. Correspondingly, depend-
ing on different paradigmatic orientations and underlying understandings of organizations and
strategy, approaches to alignment research are either process-oriented, descriptive, design-oriented,
mechanistic, prescriptive, or normative (Alagaraja et al., 2015; Avison et al., 2004; Coltman et al.,
2015). Recently, scholars advocating the strategy-as-practice (SAP) perspective have started in-depth
discussions of the alignment concept, arguing for a turn towards a practice viewpoint on the
practices and processes in organizations to maintain or establish alignment (e.g. see Sarhan &
McDonagh, 2014; Walsh, Renaud, & Kalika, 2013).
One popular assumption throughout the literature holds that alignment has a positive influence
on corporate performance. However, the asserted alignment–performance relationship is difficult to
confirm (Kearns & Lederer, 2000). In fact, there are only a few small-scale studies that indicate that
organizations with successfully aligned business and IT strategies outperform their nonaligned peer
organizations (e.g., see Luftman & Kempaiah, 2007; Sabherwal & Chan, 2001), but large-scale
empirical evidence remains scant (Kearns & Lederer, 2000; Silvius, De Waal, & Smit, 2009).
Some scholars have recently challenged the widely shared positivist (and occasionally naïve)
assumption that alignment will lead to measurable organizational performance. They criticize that
the normative literature ignores many significant contextual factors and is based on mechanistic
assumptions of organizations that fail to correspond to real life (Chan & Reich, 2007; Yayla & Hu,
2009). Furthermore, they argue that alignment may also have dysfunctional consequences: too tight a
440 S. C. VOLK AND A. ZERFASS

fit between IT and business strategy may reduce strategic flexibility and result in a “rigidity trap”
where tight or inflexible links can delay or impede an organization’s ability to respond quickly to
environmental change (e.g., Coltman et al., 2015; Jarvenpaa & Ives, 1994). In addition, critics have
called into question that working toward prespecified or fixed alignment goals may be unrealistic in
turbulent, unpredictable environments, in which corporate strategies are constantly changing,
ambiguous, or difficult to adapt (Chan & Reich, 2007). This critical perspective, however, is out-
numbered by the majority of scholars that simply equate alignment with success or conceptualize it
as a key precondition for increased performance.
To date, most work about alignment is still conceptual in nature, as only a few scholars have
attempted to develop assessment models to measure and operationalize alignment (Bergeron,
Raymond, & Rivard, 2004). In fact, alignment has seldom been empirically measured on a large
scale at all; the focus is mostly on assessing static alignment ex post in a single industry or firms based
on a simple high–medium–low scale, and less on analyzing the dynamic and evolutionary process of
aligning. The most well-known attempt to measure alignment has been suggested by Luftman (2000),
which will be discussed in more detail in the following section. His so-called Strategic Alignment
Maturity Model (SAMM) measures alignment status ex post based on six measurement criteria. The
paucity of large-scale empirical research is primarily due to the intangible nature and the complexity
and multidimensionality of the alignment construct (Chan, 2002; Reich & Benbasat, 1996).
It requires scholars to conceptualize different levels of linkage between at least two different
organizational components (e.g., strategy, culture, performance, size) and thus a sophisticated
combination of multiple measures. However, clearly operationalized and validated alignment mea-
sures are rare (Silvius et al., 2009). The existing case studies, for instance, combined qualitative
interviews and document analyses in the focal organizations, measuring mutual alignment based on
self-reported perceptions of alignment and cross-references in strategy, planning, and project
management documents. This, however, requires sampling at least two matching groups of respon-
dents from different departments – mostly IT executives and business executives – and gaining
access to the corresponding documents, such as strategy maps, plans, or calendars (e.g., see Kearns &
Lederer, 2000; Sabherwal, Hirschheim, & Goles, 2001).
The same sampling complication applies for quantitative surveys, which generally measure the
strength of correlation between the self-reported perception and the importance of alignment of at
least two different surveyed groups, asking for example, “On a scale of 1–5, how do you rate alignment
in your organization?” (e.g., see Bergeron et al., 2004; Powell, 1992; Sabherwal & Chan, 2001).
Quantitative studies have typically used correlation analysis, structural equation modeling, or regres-
sion analysis to measure congruence (Chan & Reich, 2007). To complicate matters, if alignment is
conceptualized as a process instead of an end state, researchers must find solutions to measuring it in a
dynamic mode and longitudinally (Venkatraman & Camillus, 1984). Some critics even raise the
question of whether alignment may be so short-lived and subject to constant changes in turbulent
environments that it is not even measurable with certain indicators (Yayla & Hu, 2009). This brief
discussion shows that measuring alignment remains an important challenge (Alagaraja et al., 2015).
Multiple works have, however, theorized about the success factors or enablers and inhibitors of
alignment. Baker and Jones (2008) compiled a list of factors influencing successful IT alignment,
ranging from top management support for IT, strong IT leadership, and relationship between CEO
and CIO, to communication between IT and business employees. In fact, throughout many works,
the importance of communication as a tool for achieving alignment has been acknowledged.
Management scholars have recognized the critical importance of communication in creating shared
knowledge, a common understanding, and a collective awareness of the strategy and vision through
alignment-related discussions. Moreover, the effective communication between departments or units
on a horizontal level as well as top management communication towards executives and employees
have been highlighted as enablers of alignment (Campbell, Kay, & Avison, 2005; Chan, Sabherwal, &
Thatcher, 2006; Luftman & Brier, 1999). Nevertheless, an explicit discussion of the crucial role of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION 441

communication in the alignment process has been neglected in the management literature, which
views communications as a primarily tactical function.
To structure this debate, the variety of alignment concepts in management research can be
organized into six overarching streams: (1) external alignment; (2) strategy alignment; (3) process
alignment; (4) structure alignment; (5) culture alignment; and (6) people alignment. These are
discussed below.

External alignment
A first popular stream of research investigates the fit or harmony of the organization’s vision, goals,
and tactics with the external environment. The underlying rationale is that companies whose strategy
and structure are aligned to the environment should be less vulnerable to external threats and
therefore perform better (Venkatraman & Prescott, 1990). The purpose of external alignment is
generally described as maintaining organizational flexibility and the ability to respond to environ-
mental uncertainty in order to secure organizational survival. This perspective is closely related to
strategy alignment, because strategy is the fundamental force that mediates between the organization
and its environment; however, the focus is on achieving an external fit.
One often-cited model is the Strategic Alignment Maturity Model (SAMM) by Luftman (2000),
which provides a multimeasure, practical framework for organizations to evaluate the alignment
maturity between business and IT for the purpose of enabling the firm to adapt to changing external
expectations of the environment. Luftman (2000) outlines six business-IT alignment maturity
criteria: communications, competency/value measurements, governance, partnership, scope and
architecture, and skills. The assessment method is intended to help organizations in knowing the
maturity of their alignment practices, understanding the enablers and inhibitors, and identifying
opportunities for enhancing the alignment of business, IT and the external environment, i.e., by
means of communication between both units to foster knowledge sharing, organizational learning,
and a mutual understanding shared by business and IT staff.
Although the model provides a multitude of measures and is based on a five-year practice
research project at the IBM’s Advanced Business Institute, it has been criticized as failing to produce
knowledge that touches the lived experience in organizations and in real-life situations (Avison et al.,
2004; Sarhan & McDonagh, 2014).
A different perspective has been suggested by Baker and Jones (2008), who build upon the resource-
based view of the firm in order to conceptualize alignment as an enduring competency that allows the
organization to respond to the rapidly changing competitive environment. Their Dynamic Capabilities
Framework, later termed Dynamic Strategic Alignment Competency (Baker, Jones, Cao, & Song, 2011),
views alignment as a strategic resource, capable of generating a competitive advantage, and suggests a
dynamic approach to measuring the degree and maturity of strategy alignment.

Strategy alignment
A second stream of research explores strategy alignment, understood as the strategic fit of the
corporate strategy to the environment, as well as the linking of overall strategy to organizational
components, such as structures, systems, processes, and activities or operations. In addition, strategy
alignment also comprises the congruence of functional strategies with corporate strategy (Alagaraja
et al., 2015; Snow & Miles, 1983). The ultimate goal is to gain a competitive advantage through
strategic positioning, and to increase performance and profitability through an internal strategic fit.
Probably the most well-known conceptual model in contemporary research is the Strategic
Alignment Model (SAM) suggested by Henderson and Venkatraman in 1993, which emphasizes
the strategic fit between external environments and internal components and highlights matching all
internal components (infrastructures, processes, and skills) to strategy to achieve functional and
cross-dimensional integration. The model was developed during a multiyear study at IBM’s
Advanced Business Institute, with executives representing over 1,000 Fortune 500 U.S. organizations,
who were asked to identify their personal role in aligning organizations. As such, the initial IT model
442 S. C. VOLK AND A. ZERFASS

provides a framework to think about alignment, rather than to measure alignment status. It has been
the basis for other research areas and often been applied, although its critics have lamented its static,
prescriptive, and normative perspective upon strategy and alignment.
Another popular approach to achieve strategy alignment stemming from management research is
the Balanced Scorecard and the related concept of Strategy Maps, suggested by Kaplan and Norton
(2006), to create synergies between units and corporate management.

Process alignment
A third debate evolves around the integration and coordination of the processes between different
functions or departments and the alignment of processes to corporate strategy. The goal of establish-
ing a fusion of organizational processes is to reduce internal inefficiencies and ensure that different
functions work towards a common goal (Weiser, 2000). The process design perspective underscores
the importance of congruence between workflows, involving tasks, responsibilities, goals, and
objectives across different work groups, departments, and teams in the organization.

Structure alignment
Another research stream emphasizes organizational design and the degree to which organizational
structures are compatible with corporate strategy and consistent across different functions or depart-
ments. The aim is to maintain flexibility and ability in order to adapt the organizational design to
changing conditions and to increase profitability and efficiency through using synergies between
functions (Swanson, 1994). In the marketing literature, for instance, scholars have analyzed how to
coordinate multiple online and offline marketing channels. One example is the Model of Strategic
Channel Alignment (MSCA) (Wehmeyer, Kipp, & Riemer, 2009), a process-oriented modification of
the well-established Strategic Alignment Model (SAM), developed to align traditional marketing
structures to the new demands of online marketing. A dynamic perspective on structure alignment
was developed by Sabherwal et al. (2001), who proposed a Punctuated Equilibrium Process Model to
examine the dynamics of structural alignment across long periods of relative stability or evolutionary
change, interrupted by short periods of quick or revolutionary changes.

Culture alignment
A fifth discussion relates to the achievement of congruence between individuals’ values and behaviors
with existing organizational norms, and the compatibility of the organizational culture and multiple
subcultures. In addition, scholars emphasize the alignment of culture to corporate strategy, making
reference to the memorable saying “culture eats strategy for breakfast,” a famous quotation attributed to
Peter Drucker. The objective is to remove internal barriers between subcultures and increase cooperation
among individual members. In spite of its relevance, the question of how organizational subcultures exert
influence on the alignment process and implementation success is an understudied component in
alignment research. Building upon organizational culture and change research, Branson (2008) for
instance developed a Framework of the Values Alignment Process as a means for enabling employees
to discern, discuss, and actively support the cultural values that are necessary for making desired changes
and achieving cultural alignment. Ravishankar, Pan, and Leidner (2011) suggested a Subculture Model of
the Intersection of Alignment and Implementation to address the relationship between alignment, the
influence of different organizational subcultures, and implementation success.

People alignment
Finally, another stream of research investigates the accordance of employees’ understanding and
support for the organization’s strategy and mission, and in particular the alignment of executives
with organizational strategy and values. The objective is to increase employee performance through
alignment of internal workflows and collaboration among employees. This perspective is often found
in human resource literature, which highlights the importance of aligning top management behavior
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION 443

with the values and norms of the organization, as their exposed leadership role is crucial for
achieving employee alignment.

Structured overview of alignment in management

Although the study of alignment in the management domain has made significant progress over the
past decades, there is no common definition, model, or framework of alignment. Multiple paradig-
matic perspectives exist and different alignment types can be distinguished. A holistic view that
integrates the different notions into an overarching conceptual framework is still missing (Avison
et al., 2004). Apart from the paucity of empirical studies and explorations of the process of
alignment, there is also a lack of critical perspectives upon the possible risks of alignment. Only a
few scholars have criticized the commonly shared positivist viewpoint on alignment and investigated
its possible dysfunctional consequences (for an overview see Chan & Reich, 2007). Up to this day, it
still remains unclear how to achieve and sustain alignment and what the impact of misalignment
might be on the corporation.
Table 2 provides a structured overview of the six major types of alignment – (1) external
alignment; (2) strategy alignment; (3) process alignment; (4) structure alignment; (5) culture align-
ment; and (6) people alignment – discussed so far in the management literature.

Towards a definition and conceptual framework for alignment of strategic

communication
The analysis reveals the need for a consolidation of the knowledge gained to develop a multi-
dimensional working definition and an integrative conceptual framework of alignment of strate-
gic communication. A definition of alignment of strategic communication first implies that
strategic communication is conceptualized as the object of alignment. Based on an integration
of the review’s findings, it is proposed to view alignment both as a manageable outcome and a
result of an emergent and dynamic process. This is in line with recent calls by management
scholars for integrating both perspectives (Baker & Jones, 2008). Following this understanding,
the outcome of alignment can manifest itself in varying, measurable degrees of linkage or
coherence between alignment components. The degree of alignment can hence be measured
periodically to assess variations over time. A high degree of alignment of organizational compo-
nents is considered desirable as it is commonly agreed that alignment is a key precondition for
organizational success. Yet, “total” alignment may not be definitively and finally achieved at any
given point; rather, organizations can be seen as going through a process towards or away from
alignment (Baker & Jones, 2008; Ravishankar et al., 2011).
To provide more clarity regarding the different types of alignment of strategic communication, a
new distinction is suggested, termed primary alignment and secondary alignment. The former refers
to the primacy of alignment of communication strategy with corporate strategy as a necessary
prerequisite for strategic communication to support organizational goal achievement, by means of
“purposeful” and “intentional” communication. The latter emphasizes the alignment of communica-
tion activities with communication strategy and between each other, which is compatible with an
integrated communications perspective. Linking this newly proposed distinction back to the litera-
ture review, primary alignment corresponds to communication strategy alignment, yet secondary
alignment corresponds to communication strategy and activities alignment.
Pulling these analytical considerations together, the following working definition is offered:
Alignment of strategic communication can be understood as the varying degree of linkage between the
communication strategy and the overall organizational strategy (primary alignment) and of the coherence
between communication activities, including brands, images, symbols, messages, or topics, and between them
and communication strategy (secondary alignment) for the purpose of achieving organizational goals. This is
the outcome of an ongoing alignment process, which can be managed more or less intensively.
 444

Table 2. Concepts of alignment in management, strategy, and IT research.

Type Definition Purpose Object Exemplary tools/concepts
(1) External alignment Fit or harmony of the organization (vision, goals, Organizational flexibility, ability to Alignment of Strategic Alignment Maturity
and tactics) and external environment respond to environmental changes organization to the Assessment (Luftman, 2000)
environment Dynamic Capabilities Framework (Baker
& Jones, 2008)
Dynamic Strategic Alignment
Competency (Baker et al., 2011)
(2) Strategy alignment Strategic fit, functional integration or congruence Higher competitive advantage, higher Alignment of corporate Strategic Alignment Model (SAM)
S. C. VOLK AND A. ZERFASS

of strategies performance and profitability strategy to the (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993)
environment; Practical Alignment Framework (Avison
Alignment of functional et al., 2004)
strategies to corporate Punctuated Equilibrium Process Model
strategy (Sabherwal et al., 2001)
Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton,
2006)
(3) Process alignment Integration and coordination of the processes of Fusion of organizational processes to Alignment of processes Process alignment model based on the
different functions or departments reduce internal inefficiencies to strategy; Process Classification Framework (PCF)
Alignment of processes (Cragg, Tagliavini, & Mills, 2007)
between functions Eight S model (Higgins, 2005)
(4) Structure alignment Degree to which the structure and resources of Ability to adapt organizational design to Alignment of structures/ Model of Strategic Channel Alignment
different functions or departments are consistent increase flexibility and synergies systems to strategy and (MSCA) (Wehmeyer et al., 2009)
with each other between functions among sub-structures/ Punctuated equilibrium process model
systems (Sabherwal et al., 2001)
(5) Culture alignment Congruence between individuals’ values and Compatibility of organizational culture Alignment of culture to Framework of the Values Alignment
behaviors with organizational values and cultural and subcultures in order to remove strategy and among Process (Branson, 2008)
behavioral norms, and across multiple subcultures internal barriers and increase sub-cultures Subculture Model of the Intersection of
cooperation Alignment and Implementation
(Ravishankar et al., 2011)
Organization Culture Audit (Burn, 1993)
(6) People alignment Degree to which employees and executives Behavioral accordance with the Alignment of workforce Dynamic Relationship Model of
understand, support, and are able to execute the organization’s mission to achieve to strategy, culture, or Alignment (Sender, 1997)
organization’s strategic initiatives and are common organizational goals or increase values Strategically Aligned Behavior (SAB)
committed to the mission employee performance (Gagnon & Michael, 2003)
Translated Strategic Alignment Model
(TSAM) (Walsh, Renaud, & Kalika, 2013)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION 445

The knowledge gained from the literature review was further synthesized and consolidated to develop a
holistic conceptual framework that integrates the relevant dimensions and types of alignment discussed
so far in the domain of strategic communication and management research. The multiple notions of
alignment identified in the previous analysis—organization-stakeholder alignment; communication strat-
egy alignment; communication strategy and activities alignment; external alignment; strategy alignment;
process alignment; structure alignment; culture alignment; and people alignment—were conflated and
merged together for the purpose of removing conceptual overlaps and increasing analytical clarity,
resulting in the distinction of six different levels and types.
Figure 1 depicts the proposed conceptual framework of alignment of strategic communication. The
matrix visualizes different levels and types of alignment on a vertical axis and a horizontal axis. The left-
hand vertical axis introduces a first distinction between the environment–organization–department
level, at which alignment can be observed, exemplified for the communications, human resources, and
production department. The right-hand vertical axis presents the corresponding types of alignment:
external–internal alignment and intra-functional–cross-functional alignment. The horizontal axis intro-
duces an additional distinction between management–strategy–activities alignment; the former type is
further broken down into process–structure–culture–people alignment. In addition, the previously
suggested distinction between primary–secondary alignment is resumed. The figure adopts a commu-
nication perspective, which is why the communications function is highlighted in blue and the errors in
the matrix depict the directions to which reference objects strategic communication must be aligned.
The conceptual framework is designed to lay ground for further conceptual, empirical, and
critical explorations of alignment of strategic communication. It is meant to be open for discussion
and empirical applications to test its usefulness as a structuring element for research.
The suggested framework establishes multiple levels of analyses and allows scholars to integrate
different theoretical perspectives from neighboring fields and investigate the alignment construct
from varying paradigmatic perspectives. This allows future research to study different types and
levels of alignment grounded in an overarching common framework, and to overcome single-sided,
fragmented research or silo thinking.
Environment

External
Stakeholder Stakeholder
interests activities
Organization

Internal

Corporate Corporate Corporate

management strategy activities
Primary
alignment
Communications

Intra-functional

Communication Communication Communication

management strategy activities
Brands, identity,
Resources, budgets, Secondary
Goals, plans topics, messages,
processes, structures alignment
symbols

Human resources Human resources Human resources

Cross-functional
HR

management strategy activities

Production

Manufacturing Products and

Production strategy
management services

… … …
Process, structure, Strategy alignment Activity alignment
culture, people alignment

Figure 1. A conceptual framework for alignment of strategic communication.

446 S. C. VOLK AND A. ZERFASS

The framework is particularly suitable for identifying possible sources of misalignment and
detecting at which levels and between which specific elements misalignment may occur. The field
has largely acknowledged the risks of misfits, or any gaps and discrepancies, and emphasized the
avoidance of misalignment. There are a number of conceivable misalignment sources that appear
promising to be investigated by future research. With regard to external–internal alignment, mis-
alignment between corporate strategy and environmental expectations can result in conflicting
interests, decreased support, or even the loss of the license to operate. In addition, inconsistencies
can occur between a company’s talk (communication of strategy) and actions (corporate activities),
which usually means that a company does not practice what it preaches. Second, relating to primary
alignment, communication strategy may not be fully aligned with corporate strategy, and therefore
results in a decoupled function. Third, relating to secondary alignment, communication activities
may not be derived systematically from communication strategy, resulting in activities that do not
contribute to organizational goals. In addition, communication activities may not be orchestrated
and use inconsistent messages, resulting in a heterogeneous and ambiguous image possibly causing
confusion. Fourth, with regard to cross-functional alignment, the overall management of the
communication department may not be aligned with other departments, leading to inefficient
workflows, frictional loss, or decreased synergies. Moreover, communication activities may not be
coherent with communicated messages of other departments, i.e., with an employer branding
campaign launched by the human resource department, which results in inconsistent perceptions.
This brief elaboration of potential avenues for using the conceptual framework as a structuring
element for researching the alignment construct already shows that many research gaps remain to be
closed by scholars. However, the framework may also be interesting to practitioners and managers to
gain a better understanding of the different reference objects to which strategic communication must
be aligned, and to identify and eliminate the typical sources of misalignment.

Directions for future research

This article has directed the focus on alignment as a central variable of strategic communication,
which has so far seldom been brought to the forefront of the debate. Building on an interdisciplinary
review of the multiple alignment concepts discussed in strategic communication and management
literature, a working definition and a conceptual framework of alignment of strategic communica-
tion were proposed. The proposed conceptual framework provides a fresh view on the alignment
construct that spans disciplinary boundaries and reframes existing debates, and may serve as a
structuring element to guide future research. Six avenues for the second decade of research into the
foundations of strategic communication appear to be most promising.

Expanding the alignment concept

A first avenue concerns in-depth explorations into the theoretical foundations of the alignment
construct, incorporating and merging different theoretical standpoints, different theoretical frame-
works and research paradigms. For instance: How can existing theoretical frameworks, models, and
perspectives inform the further development of the alignment concept? What are the conceptual
overlaps between the alignment debate and contemporary discussions of polyphony and the “com-
munication constitutes organizations” (CCO) perspective? How can strategy-process, strategy-as-
practice perspectives, or agility concepts help to reconceptualize the alignment construct as an
emerging and evolving process, or moving target?
As critical thinking has proven to be rare in the contemporary alignment debate, there is further-
more great potential to engage in critical inquiries, i.e., into paradoxes or conflicting logics. Across the
literature, some scholars have noticed the possible “pathologies” of too much alignment, resulting in
“functional stupidity” and inflexibility, a lack of reflexivity and potential misrecognition of problems
(Alvesson & Spicer, 2012; Falkheimer et al., 2017). Future research may ask: Are there accounts of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION 447

alignment as a rational myth (“pseudo-alignment”) to position the organization or its components as

legitimate and show compliance with established structures? Is it at all possible to achieve a simulta-
neous fit between all types and levels of alignment? What are the conflicting patterns between
dysfunctional aspects of alignment (“hyper-adaption”) and functional aspects of misalignment (to
avoid “functional stupidity”)? Are there accounts of alignment contributing to stagnation?

Managing primary alignment of strategic communication

A major gap concerns the elaboration of what was termed primary alignment: the linking of
communication strategy to corporate strategy. As many communication practitioners still seem to
struggle with doing the right things rather than just doing things right (Falkheimer, Heide,
Simonsson, Zerfass, & Verhoeven, 2016), there is great potential for scholars to engage in empirical
research and study how alignment of strategic communication with overall goals is created, main-
tained, and managed in practice. Questions to be investigated include: Which tools and planning
processes are employed to create alignment of communication strategy with corporate strategy (and
business, functional strategies)? How do organizations align communication strategy to changing,
emergent corporate strategies? Which solution strategies are employed for planning communications
under unpredictable conditions? How often do communicators realign or adapt the communication
strategy? How is strategic alignment of communication managed, visualized, and documented?
Which alignment skills or capabilities are needed? How is cross-functional alignment with other
departments or units established and which interfaces are most important for communication
practice? What are the perceived benefits and challenges of managing communication alignment
reported by communicators? What are the expectations of top managers towards the alignment of
communication and corporate strategy?

Managing secondary alignment of strategic communication

A third avenue for future research lies in creating intersections with integrated communication
research and studying how communication practitioners manage the orchestration and integration
of all communications, especially against the background of rising media convergence and poly-
phonic communication environments. This may include: How are communication activities aligned
with communication strategy? Which tools or approaches are employed to integrate and coordinate
all communications to achieve intra-functional alignment? To what extent and at what levels does
communication misalignment surface or manifest itself?

Measuring and assessing alignment

A fourth avenue of research may follow the path of management scholars and engage in
methodological explorations of how to operationalize and validate the alignment construct
empirically. Of increasing importance is to develop more rigorous measurement models for
cross-sectional studies, provide more accurate descriptions of the metrics used, and finding
solutions to measure alignment in a dynamic and longitudinal mode (Chan & Reich, 2007).
Besides qualitative explorations using interviews or focus groups, document analyses, archival
data, or observations, large-scale quantitative studies are particularly needed to investigate the
often-claimed but not yet validated positive impact of alignment on success (Bergeron et al.,
2004). Scholars should strive to analyze multiple levels and components of the alignment concept
in order to better understand the concept in its complexity.
Empirical studies into the practices of communication departments can inform how and at what
levels alignment outcomes are assessed in practice. For instance: What are the metrics and methods
to measure the current degree and maturity of alignment of communication, i.e., with strategy,
culture, brand, stakeholder expectations, etc.? How is progress or regress towards alignment of
448 S. C. VOLK AND A. ZERFASS

communication measured over time? How do organizations measure the impact of alignment of
strategic communication on organizational performance?

Exploring the conditions of alignment from a comparative perspective

An under-researched area with multifaceted opportunities for fundamental research into the inner
workings of alignment concerns the conditions, success factors, benefits, and consequences of
alignment. Large-scale, longitudinal, and comparative studies are rare, just like inquiries into the
influence of environmental and organizational conditions, i.e., How does alignment of communica-
tion differ depending on organizational characteristics, industry characteristics, or environmental
uncertainty? How does alignment evolve over time? What are enablers and inhibitors of alignment
of communication? How does alignment differ depending on centralized, decentralized, or hybrid
organizational structures? How is the standing and reporting relationship of the communication
department related to its alignment? How does alignment differ depending on the personal relation-
ship between the CEO and the CCO? How are the antecedents of alignment interrelated? What are
the consequences of alignment of communication? Is a maximum or (optimal) level of alignment
and integration related to success (i.e., increased reputation, trust, performance, etc.)? Do well-
aligned departments outperform misaligned departments? Is misalignment related to lower goal
achievement? Who are the actors involved in creating alignment (top/middle managers, employees)?

Using strategic communication as an alignment tool for organizations

Ultimately, a sixth avenue for future research may investigate the role of communication as a tool in
achieving or maintaining alignment. Although scholars have acknowledged its critical importance as a
success factor, deeper analyses of communications’ use as a tool are needed: What is the role of strategic
communication in supporting the organization to create internal alignment (people, culture, cross-
functional, etc.)? How does strategic communication help to sustain external alignment (i.e., through
listening, monitoring, early warning mechanisms)? What are the expectations of executives towards the
communication department in supporting and enabling organizational members or other departments
to become aligned? Do organizational agents use communicative means to portray their own goals as
being well-aligned with corporate goals in order to gain power? What is the role of the communication
department in supporting the organization’s long-term survival by reflecting and mirroring critical
changing environmental conditions? Are there accounts of strategic communication being employed as a
tool to create the deceptive illusion of alignment (“ceremonial alignment”)? Is strategic communication
used as a tool to mask misalignment by buffering conflicting interests?
Looking back, reconceptualizing and explicating the alignment concept as a key aspect of strategic
communication has proven a rewarding attempt. The new definition and conceptual framework provide a
foundation for further theory development in the emerging domain of strategic communication, opening
up multiple new perspectives beyond the prevailing notion of communication strategy alignment. Various
research questions have been formulated to inspire strategic communication scholars to carry forward
alignment research in the upcoming decade and extend the body of knowledge in the future.

References
Alagaraja, M., Rose, K., Shuck, B., & Bergman, M. (2015). Unpacking organizational alignment: The view from theory
and practice. Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership, 13(1), 18–31.
Alagaraja, M., & Shuck, B. (2015). Exploring organizational alignment-employee engagement linkages and impact on
individual performance: A conceptual model. Human Resource Development Review, 14(1), 17–37. doi:10.1177/
1534484314549455
Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). A stupidity-based theory of organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7),
1194–1220. doi:10.1111/[Link]-7
Argenti, P. A. (2016). Corporate communication (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION 449

Argenti, P. A., Howell, R. A., & Beck, K. A. (2005). The strategic communication imperative. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 46(3), 83–89.
Avison, D., Jones, J., Powell, P., & Wilson, D. (2004). Using and validating the strategic alignment model. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 13, 223–246. doi:10.1016/[Link].2004.08.002
Baker, J., & Jones, D. (2008). A theoretical framework for sustained strategic alignment and an agenda for research.
Proceedings of JAIS Theory Development Workshop. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 8(16).
Retrieved from [Link]
Baker, J., Jones, D., Cao, Q., & Song, J. (2011). Conceptualizing the dynamic strategic alignment competency. Journal
of the Association for Information Systems, 12(4), Article 2. Retrieved from [Link]
Balmer, J. T. (2012). Strategic corporate brand alignment. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/8), 1064–1092.
doi:10.1108/03090561211230205
Bergeron, F., Raymond, L., & Rivard, S. (2004). Ideal patterns of strategic alignment and business performance.
Information & Management, 41, 1003–1020. doi:10.1016/[Link].2003.10.004
Branson, C. M. (2008). Achieving organisational change through values alignment. Journal of Educational
Administration, 46(3), 376–395. doi:10.1108/09578230810869293
Bruhn, M., Esch, F.-R., & Langner, T. (Eds.). (2016). Handbuch Instrumente der Kommunikation: Grundlagen –
Innovative Ansätze – Praktische Umsetzungen (2nd ed.). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Gabler.
Burn, J. M. (1993). Information systems strategies and the management of organizational change: A strategic
alignment model. Journal of Information Technology, 8(4), 205–216. doi:10.1057/jit.1993.32
Caffrey, E., & McDonagh, J. (2008). A longitudinal perspective on critical issues in the management of information
systems in large organisations. Paper presented at the International Conference on Business Innovation and
Information Technology, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
Campbell, B., Kay, R., & Avison, D. (2005). Strategic alignment: A practitioner’s perspective. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, 18(6), 653–664. doi:10.1108/17410390510628364
Chaffee, S. H. (1991). Communication concepts 1: Explication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chan, Y. E. (2002). Why haven’t we mastered alignment? The importance of the informal organization structure. MIS
Quarterly Executive, 1(2), 95–110.
Chan, Y. E., & Reich, B. H. (2007). IT alignment: What have we learned? Journal of Information Technology, 22, 297–315.
Chan, Y. E., Sabherwal, R., & Thatcher, J. B. (2006). Antecedents and outcomes of strategic IS alignment: An empirical
investigation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(1), 27–47. doi:10.1109/TEM.2005.861804
Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Cheney, G. (2008). Corporate communications. Convention, complexity, and
critique. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Ciborra, C. (1997). De Profundis? Deconstructing the concept of strategic alignment. Scandinavian Journal of
Information Systems, 9(1), 67–82.
Coltman, T. R., Tallon, P. P., Sharma, R., & Queiroz, M. (2015). Strategic IT alignment: Twenty-five years on. Journal
of Information Technology, 30, 91–100.
Cornelissen, J. (2017). Corporate communication: A guide to theory and practice (5th ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Cragg, P., Tagliavini, M., & Mills, A. (2007). Evaluating the alignment of IT with business processes in SMEs. 18th
Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS) 2007 Proceedings, Toowoomba, University of Southern
Queensland.
Cumps, B., Martens, D., De Backer, M., Haesen, R., Viaene, S., Dedene, G., . . . Snoeck, M. (2009). Inferring
comprehensible business/ICT alignment rules. Information & Management, 46(2), 116–124.
Falkheimer, J., Heide, M., Nothhaft, H., Platen., S. V., Simonsson, C., & Andersson, R. (2017). Is strategic commu-
nication too important to be left to communication professionals? Public Relations Review, 43(1), 91–101.
Falkheimer, J., Heide, M., Simonsson, C., Zerfass, A., & Verhoeven, P. (2016). Doing the right things or doing things
right? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 2(2), 142–159.
Gagnon, M. A., & Michael, J. H. (2003). Employee strategic alignment at a wood manufacturer: An exploratory
analysis using lean manufacturing. Forest Products Journal, 53, 24–29.
Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Verčič, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining strategic communication.
International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 3–35.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2001). Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand? Harvard Business Review,
79(2), 129–134.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2008). Taking brand initiative. How companies can align strategy, culture, and identity
through corporate branding. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming
organizations. IBM Systems, 32(1), 4–16.
Higgins, J. M. (2005). The eight ‘S’s of successful strategy execution. Journal of Change Management, 5(1), 3–13.
Holtzhausen, D. R., & Zerfass, A. (2015). The Routledge handbook of strategic communication. New York, NY:
Routledge.
450 S. C. VOLK AND A. ZERFASS

Invernizzi, E., & Romenti, S. (2015). Adopting an entrepreneurial perspective to the study of strategic communication.
In D. R. Holtzhausen & A. Zerfass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of strategic communication (pp. 214–228). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1994). The global network organization of the future: Information management
opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(4), 25–57.
Kanihan, S., Hansen, K., Blair, S., Shore, M., & Myers, J. (2013). Communication managers in the dominant coalition:
Power attributes and communication practices. Journal of Communication Management, 17(2), 140–156.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2006). Alignment. Using the balanced scorecard to create corporate energies. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kathuria, R., Joshi, M. P., & Porth, S. J. (2007). Organizational alignment and performance: Past, present and future.
Management Decision, 45, 503–517.
Kearns, G. S., & Lederer, A. L. (2000). The effect of strategic alignment on the use of IS-based resources for
competitive advantage. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(4), 265–293.
Kiousis, S., & Strömbäck, J. (2015). The strategic context of political communication. In D. R. Holtzhausen & A.
Zerfass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of strategic communication (pp. 383–395). New York, NY: Routledge.
Löffelholz, M., Auer, C., & Srugies, A. (2015). Strategic dimensions of public diplomacy. In D. R. Holtzhausen & A.
Zerfass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of strategic communication (pp. 439–458). New York, NY: Routledge.
Luftman, J., & Brier, T. (1999). Achieving and sustaining business-IT alignment. California Management Review, 42(1),
109–122.
Luftman, J. N. (2000). Assessing business-IT alignment maturity. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 4(14). Retrieved from [Link]
Luftman, J. N., & Kempaiah, R. (2007). An update on business-IT alignment: “A line” has been drawn. MIS Quarterly,
6(3), 165–177.
Nothaft, H., & Schölzel, H. (2015). (Re-)reading Clausewitz: The strategy discourse and its implications for strategic
communication. In D. R. Holtzhausen & A. Zerfass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of strategic communication (pp.
18–33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Powell, T. C. (1992). Organizational alignment as competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2), 119–134.
Ramel, S., Grandry, E., & Dubois, E. (2009) Towards a design method supporting the alignment between business and
software services. Proceedings of 33rd Annual IEEE International Computer Software and Applications Conference
(COMPSAC), Seattle (WA), USA, pp. 349–354.
Raupp, J., & Hoffjann, O. (2012). Understanding strategy in communication management. Journal of Communication
Management, 16(2), 146–161.
Ravishankar, M. N., Pan, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (2011). Examining the strategic alignment and implementation success
of a KMS: A subculture-based multilevel analysis. Information Systems Research, 22(1), 39–59.
Reich, B. H., & Benbasat, I. (1996). Measuring the linkage between business and information technology objectives.
MIS Quart, 20(1), 55–81.
Riel, C. B. M. van (2012). The alignment factor. Leveraging the power of total stakeholder support. London, UK and
New York, NY: Routledge.
Riel, C. B. M. van, Berens, G., & Dijkstra, M. (2009). Stimulating strategically aligned behaviour among employees.
Journal of Management Studies, 46(7), 1197–1226.
Sabherwal, R., & Chan, Y. E. (2001). Alignment between business and IS strategies: A study of prospectors, analyzers,
and defenders. Information Systems Research, 12(1), 11–33.
Sabherwal, R., Hirschheim, R., & Goles, T. (2001). The dynamics of alignment: Insights from a punctuated equilibrium
model. Organisational Science, 12(2), 179–192.
Sarhan, M., & McDonagh, J. (2014). Thee practice turn in strategic alignment research: Fostering A strategy-as-
practice perspective. UK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings 2014, Paper 37. Retrieved May
1, 2017, from [Link]
Sender, S. W. (1997). Systematic agreement: A theory of organizational alignment. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 8(1), 23–40.
Silvius, A. J., De Waal, B., & Smit, J. (2009). Business and IT alignment: Answers and remaining questions. Pacific Asia
Conference on Information Systems (PACIS) 2009 Proceedings. Paper 44. Retrieved from [Link]
pacis2009/44
Smaczny, T. (2001). Is an alignment between business and information technology the appropriate paradigm to
manage IT in today’s organisations? Management Decision, 39(10), 797–802.
Snow, C. C., & Miles, R. E. (1983). The role of strategy in the development of a general theory of organizations. In R.
Lamb (Ed.), Advances in Strategic Management (Vol. 2, pp. 231–259). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Swanson, R. A. (1994). Analysis for improving performance: Tools for diagnosing organizations and documenting
workplace expertise. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehle.
Venkatraman, N., & Camillus, J. C. (1984). Exploring the concept of “fit” in strategy research. Academy of
Management Review, 9, 513–525.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION 451

Venkatraman, N., & Prescott, J. E. (1990). Environment-strategy coalignment: An empirical test of its performance
implications. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 1–23.
Walsh, I., Renaud, A., & Kalika, M. (2013). The translated strategic alignment model: A practice-based perspective.
Systèmes d’Information Et Management, 18(2), 37–68.
Wehmeyer, K., Kipp, A., & Riemer, K. (2009). Managing the process of channel alignment. Business Process
Management Journal, 15(1), 48–73.
Weiser, J. (2000). Organizational alignment: Are we heading in the same direction. The Kansas Banker, 90, 11–15.
Werder, K. (2015). A theoretical framework for strategic communication messaging. In D. R. Holtzhausen & A.
Zerfass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of strategic communication (pp. 269–284). New York, NY: Routledge.
Yayla, A. A., & Hu, Q. (2009). The impact of IT-business strategic alignment on firm performance: The role of
environmental uncertainty and business strategy. Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) 2009
Proceedings. Paper 729. Retrieved May 3, 2017, from [Link]
Zerfass, A. (2008). The corporate communications scorecard: A framework for managing and evaluating communica-
tion strategies. In B. van Ruler, A. Tkalac Verčič, & D. Verčič (Eds.), Public relations metrics: Research and
evaluation (pp. 139–153). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Zerfass, A., Verhoeven, P., Moreno, A., Tench, R., & Verčič, D. (2016). European Communication Monitor 2016.
Exploring trends in big data, stakeholder engagement and strategic communication. Results of a survey in 43
countries. Brussels, Belgium: EACD/EUPRERA, Quadriga Media Berlin.