strategy follows structure

Strategy follows structure.  I read an interesting article (https://www.firstconcepts.com/strategy-follows-structure/) on this well established theory in business science.  The article resonated with me perhaps because my company is undergoing a big transformation.  

"Structure is not simply an organization chart. Structure is all the people, positions, procedures, processes, culture, technology and related elements that comprise the organization. It defines how all the pieces, parts and processes work together (or don’t in some cases). This structure must be totally aligned with strategy for the organization to achieve its mission and goals. Structure supports strategy."

People, positions, culture,  sure - understood.  Processes and technology:  I am in the middle of transforming an organization with decades of experience in on prem software development to a software as a service development organization.  Changing our development methods, processes and the developments tools is part of that.  Feature streams, git, jenkins, artifactory, continuous integration, ...

"If an organization changes its strategy, it must change its structure to support the new strategy. When it doesn’t, the structure acts like a bungee cord and pulls the organization back to its old strategy"

I have seen that happen when an on prem software development organization and a managed services organization were asked to transform themselves into a cloud software as a service organization without actually making any organizational changes.  The strategy changed but the structure wasn't - the result was everything "bungee'd" back to where it was - mission failed was the consequence.

"It takes the right structure for a strategy to succeed. Management that is solely focused on results can have a tendency to direct everyone on what they need to do without paying attention to the current way the organization works. While people may carry out these actions individually, it is only when their daily way of working is integrated to support strategy that the organization’s direction is sustainable over time."

"Top management can’t just send out a proclamation about a new strategy, direction and vision and expect everyone to follow it. To implement such a strategic shift requires a complete change within the organization itself. The organization’s DNA has to be rebuilt or its existing DNA structure will cause the new strategy to fail and revert back to the old strategy. And that will happen without top management’s involvement."

I have yet to experience an organizational DNA change.  Or maybe it changed without me noticing?  I do receive a frequent stream of proclamations at my company but typically they are much too high level for a lowly Sr. Architect like myself.  On the other hand can every individual expect that every detail of a strategy change has been figured out when it reaches his level?  Maybe the frequency of strategy changes is an indicator of whether you and your organization are doomed or not?  You definitely know you are doomed if there even is no strategy or you have one that you don't understand.

Another idea came to my mind when I wrote the last paragraph.  I work for a very large company.  When I studied EU law (among other things) I learned about the subsidiarity principle (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:ai0017).  Should very large organizations adopt this principle or do they already explicitly/implicitly do?  Maybe I will write about that in my next blog post.