Enterprise Synchronization Index (ESI) Survey
For each question, select the statement that most closely reflects your organization today—not where you aspire to be.
Respondent Information
Organization Name
Role/Title
Department/Unit
Email
example@example.com
Section I: Strategic Alignment
1. Our people understand not only what they do, but how their work contributes to our enterprise strategy.
Most people understand their role, but not how it connects to our strategy.
Some employees understand the connection, but it is not broadly understood.
Understanding varies significantly by function, level, or manager.
Most employees can explain how their work supports our strategy.
People across the organization clearly understand how their work advances our strategy.
2. If asked employees at every level—from the frontline to the executive team—to describe what success looks like, they would describe the same strategic priorities.
You would hear very different priorities depending on who you asked.
Leadership is generally aligned, but that alignment has not reached the broader organization.
The major priorities are understood, but they are interpreted differently across the organization.
Most employees describe substantially the same strategic priorities.
From the frontline to the executive team, people consistently describe the same strategic priorities.
3. Our incentives, metrics, and daily decisions consistently reinforce our enterprise strategy.
Our incentives and metrics frequently encourage behavior that conflicts with our strategy.
Some incentives and metrics support our strategy, but significant gaps remain.
Alignment exists in many areas but is inconsistent across the organization.
Most incentives, metrics, and daily decisions reinforce our strategic priorities.
Incentives, metrics, and daily decisions are deliberately aligned to reinforce our enterprise strategy.
Section II: Enterprise Execution
4. Our organization creates opportunities to win big while ensuring failures are inexpensive, fast, and informative.
Failed initiatives tend to be costly, slow to stop, and produce limited learning.
We take calculated risks, but unsuccessful initiatives often consume more time or resources than they should.
Some initiatives are appropriately sized and generate learning; others are not.
Most initiatives limit downside while generating useful learning when they fail.
We consistently place smart bets, limit downside, stop quickly when necessary, and apply what we learn.
5. Cross-functional work moves efficiently without unnecessary meetings, escalation, or duplicated effort.
Cross-functional work regularly stalls because of unclear ownership, coordination, or decision-making.
Teams eventually work together, but excessive meetings, escalation, or handoffs slow execution.
Some cross-functional work moves efficiently, while other efforts require significant intervention.
Most work moves efficiently across functions with limited escalation or duplicated effort.
Cross-functional work moves quickly and seamlessly with clear ownership, decisions, and accountability.
6. Our middle managers translate executive strategy into coordinated action across the organization.
Strategic priorities are frequently lost between executive leadership and frontline execution.
Some managers translate strategy effectively, but execution varies significantly.
Execution depends heavily on the capability of the individual manager.
Most managers effectively translate strategic priorities into coordinated action.
Managers across the organization reliably convert strategy into coordinated execution.
7. Our organization identifies when one function’s success creates unintended consequences elsewhere in the enterprise.
We typically discover cross-functional consequences only after they have affected performance.
We identify obvious downstream impacts, but often too late to avoid them.
We anticipate major cross-functional impacts but frequently miss less visible consequences.
We usually identify when decisions in one function could negatively affect another.
We routinely evaluate decisions for enterprise-wide consequences before acting.
Section III: Strategic Agility
8. As customers, competitors, or market conditions change, our organization quickly realigns priorities, KPIs, and incentives.
Our priorities, KPIs, and incentives remain largely unchanged even when market conditions shift.
We adjust priorities, but supporting KPIs and incentives often lag significantly.
We respond to change, but full organizational alignment takes time.
We quickly update priorities, KPIs, and incentives when conditions materially change.
Priorities, KPIs, and incentives move together as conditions change, keeping the organization aligned.
9. The pace of decision-making matches the pace of change in our markets.
Important decisions are consistently slower than the pace of change in our market.
We eventually make the right decisions, but delays frequently reduce their impact.
Decision speed varies significantly depending on the issue or who is involved.
Most important decisions are made at the speed our market requires.
We consistently make high-quality decisions at market speed.
10. We adapt our organization without creating confusion across functions or disrupting execution.
Organizational change creates significant confusion and disrupts execution.
We adapt, but change frequently creates avoidable disruption or loss of momentum.
Some changes are absorbed effectively while others create significant friction.
Most organizational changes occur with limited disruption to execution.
We adapt quickly while maintaining alignment and execution across the enterprise.
Section IV: AI Accountability
11. Our organization can explain and defend important AI-driven decisions to an auditor, regulator, customer, or board of directors.
We would struggle to explain how our AI systems reached important decisions.
We can explain some AI-driven decisions, but significant gaps remain.
We can explain most important AI decisions, although our evidence and processes are inconsistent.
We can explain and defend most important AI-driven decisions with supporting evidence.
We can confidently explain, evidence, and defend important AI-driven decisions to regulators, customers, auditors, or our board.
12. We have clearly defined where AI should lead—and where human judgment should remain primary.
We have not clearly defined where AI should act and where human judgment is required.
We have begun defining those boundaries, but they remain unclear or inconsistently applied.
Clear boundaries exist in some areas but not across the enterprise.
We have clear guidelines for where AI should lead and where human judgment should remain primary.
We have deliberately designed and governed where AI creates advantage and where human judgment remains essential.
13. Our AI investments strengthen our competitive position rather than simply improving efficiency or automating existing work.
Our AI investments primarily automate existing work or reduce cost.
AI is improving productivity, but its strategic impact remains limited.
Some AI initiatives strengthen competitive advantage while others primarily improve efficiency.
Most AI investments strengthen capabilities that differentiate us competitively.
Our AI investments are creating meaningful competitive advantages that are difficult for others to replicate.
Section V: Defending the Moat
14. If a significant disruption occurred tomorrow, I am confident our organization would respond effectively—not because we anticipated the crisis, but because we have architected resilience throughout the enterprise.
A major disruption would expose significant weaknesses in our organization.
We would likely recover, but largely through extraordinary individual effort.
We have meaningful resilience in some areas, but important vulnerabilities remain.
Our organization is designed to absorb most disruptions without significant loss of execution.
Resilience is built into how we operate, allowing us to adapt without relying on extraordinary effort or having predicted the disruption.
15. Growth, acquisitions, or major organizational changes strengthen our organization rather than create operational friction.
Growth, acquisitions, or major changes regularly create lasting operational complexity and friction.
We eventually integrate growth and change, but execution suffers significantly during the process.
Our ability to absorb growth or change varies significantly by initiative.
Most growth initiatives and major changes are absorbed without lasting operational friction.
Our operating model allows us to grow, acquire, and evolve while becoming stronger rather than more complex.
16. Our competitive advantage will remain meaningful as AI lowers barriers to entry across our industry.
AI significantly threatens the advantages that differentiate our business today.
We have meaningful advantages today, but we are uncertain how durable they will be as AI adoption increases.
We believe our advantages are sustainable, but important long-term risks remain unresolved.
Most of our competitive advantage depends on capabilities that AI alone cannot easily replicate.
17. We consider how our business will compete if customers increasingly rely on AI agents instead of traditional buying channels.
We have not seriously considered how AI agents could change customer purchasing decisions.
We have discussed the implications but have not developed a response.
We are evaluating how AI-assisted buying could affect our customers, channels, and competitive position.
We are actively preparing for AI agents to influence customer purchasing decisions.
Our strategy already accounts for a future in which AI agents influence or make purchasing decisions.
18. Our leaders have timely, reliable information to make high-quality decisions.
Leaders frequently make important decisions without timely or reliable information.
The information usually exists, but finding, accessing, or reconciling it slows decisions.
Leaders generally obtain the information they need, although quality or timeliness varies.
Leaders usually have timely, reliable information when important decisions must be made.
Decision-makers consistently receive the right information, at the right level of detail, when it is needed.
Enterprise Synchronization Index™
Maximum Score: 90 81–90 | High-Performance Synchronized Enterprise Your organization demonstrates exceptional alignment between strategy, execution, agility, AI accountability, and competitive resilience. You are well positioned to scale while preserving strategic coherence. 67–80 | Well Synchronized Your organization has a strong foundation, but isolated disconnects are likely limiting execution speed, organizational agility, or long-term value creation. 53–66 | Execution-Constrained Your organization has capable people and sound strategies, but misalignment between functions, priorities, or decision-making is reducing enterprise performance. 39–52 | Functionally Strong, Systemically Misaligned Individual departments may perform well independently, yet the enterprise is not operating as a coordinated system. Significant value is likely trapped between organizational boundaries. 18–38 | Fragmented Enterprise The organization is working harder than necessary to achieve results. Before investing in additional technology or transformation initiatives, focus on synchronizing the enterprise. Your Enterprise Synchronization Profile Your personalized report includes: Enterprise Synchronization Index™ Section Scores Strongest Dimension Greatest Opportunity Top Three Executive Priorities Recommended Next Steps In addition to your overall score, the report identifies Synchronization Gaps—disconnects between strategy, execution, agility, AI accountability, and competitive resilience. These gaps often create hidden friction, slow decision-making, and reduce enterprise value even in organizations with strong leadership and sound strategy.
Total Score
Submit
Should be Empty: