Strategy typically flows in one direction. The board sets vision. Executive leadership interprets it. Senior management translates it. Staff execute it. Each layer adds distance between strategic intent and operational reality.
By the time strategy reaches the frontline, the connection feels abstract. Staff know what they're supposed to do. They're less clear on why it matters or how their daily work advances organizational goals.
Over lunch at digitalNow 2025, Chrissy Bagby from the American Association of Veterinary State Boards shared a different approach. Her organization needed greater strategic and operational alignment. The solution came from an unexpected source: the St. Louis Arch.
Chrissy explained the problem with traditional strategy using a structural engineering example. If you start building an arch from one side, you keep building that one side until you reach a point where you can't build anymore. The structure becomes unsound. You need support from the other side.
The St. Louis Arch solved this by building both sides in tandem. They met in the middle. That's what gave the structure integrity.
The American Association of Veterinary State Boards applied this same principle to strategy.
The board of directors developed a strategy map. Standard practice. But at the same time, staff developed an operational map as a companion document.
The operational map captured staff perspective: "These are the operational things we need to have happen to make the strategy a reality."
Two foundations. Built simultaneously, not sequentially.
Staff built vision plans on top of the operational foundation. Each department and all executive and senior leadership created these plans. Think of them as business plans for their areas.
Staff said: "This is what we think is important to do this year" based on their operational knowledge.
Then they received what the board had put together in the strategy map. They already had the operational map they'd created. Now they connected the two.
"We're gonna align our vision to the strategy in this way and to our operational map in this way."
Everything connected at the top with a scope of work that combined what the board had done with what staff had done.
The result: Even frontline staff could see how what they're doing impacts strategy. They could literally see their words in the scope of work for the strategic plan.
This approach required multiple perspectives. Chrissy worked with their executive team and senior team. They brought in a consultant who helped them "flip the whole thing." CEO James Penrod was instrumental in making it happen.
The board and CEO had to say: "Let's give this a shot." That entrepreneurial spirit to try something different made the reversal possible.
The American Association of Veterinary State Boards isn't unique in needing better strategic and operational alignment. Many associations face this challenge.
Traditional top-down strategy creates predictable problems:
Frontline staff know things leadership doesn't. They understand what actually works in practice. They see operational constraints that strategy documents ignore. They interact with members daily and spot patterns leadership misses. They know where processes break down and why.
When strategy gets built without that knowledge, the gap shows up at implementation. Staff don't own what they didn't help create. Execution becomes compliance rather than commitment. Innovation from the frontline gets lost. Questions about "why are we doing this?" never get satisfactory answers. Strategic initiatives stall.
Staff at the American Association of Veterinary State Boards see their words in strategic documents. They made the connections between operations and strategy themselves. They own it because they built it.
Operational reality informed strategy from the start, not as an afterthought.
The process had five distinct steps, each building on the previous one.
The board of directors created their strategic vision. They set priorities and goals. They defined what success looks like. Standard board work.
The difference: They didn't cascade it yet.
Staff created their companion document at the same time the board was working. Their perspective: "These are the operational things we need to have happen to make the strategy a reality."
They documented:
This happened parallel to board work, not after it.
Each department built vision plans based on their operational knowledge. Staff said: "This is what we think is important to do this year."
They created these before seeing the final strategy but knowing both foundations existed.
Staff received what the board put together in the strategy map. They already had their operational map. They had their vision plans.
Now they aligned their vision to the strategy AND to operations. They made the connections explicit. They owned those connections because they created them.
Everything connected at the top. Board work plus staff work equals scope of work.
Frontline staff could see their words in the strategic scope. They could trace how their daily work impacts strategy. The structure held because it was built from both sides.
The arch approach creates different outcomes for each stakeholder group.
For staff:
They're not waiting for strategy to cascade down. They're building from their expertise simultaneously. Their operational knowledge shapes strategy. They see themselves in the final product. Ownership exists from day one.
For the board:
Strategy gets informed by operational reality. The board knows what's feasible before committing resources. Staff buy-in is built in, not hoped for afterward. There's a clear execution path because staff designed it.
For the organization:
Strategic and operational alignment exists from the start. Implementation moves faster without translation lag. Innovation from the frontline gets captured. Both sides stay accountable to each other.
What this required from leadership:
CEO James Penrod had to be willing to try something different. The board needed comfort with a reversed approach. A consultant helped facilitate the flip. The whole thing required entrepreneurial spirit.
Trust mattered most. Trust that staff perspective is as valuable as board perspective.
The arch model matters particularly for AI implementation because the traditional approach fails predictably.
Leadership decides AI priorities. Staff are expected to implement. Leadership doesn't understand operational workflows well enough. Staff don't understand strategic rationale. AI projects fail at implementation.
Frontline staff know which tasks are actually repetitive. They see where manual processes create real bottlenecks. They understand which member interactions could benefit from AI and where automation would cause more problems. They know what training their peers actually need. They see technical constraints and dependencies.
Leadership knows budget realities. They understand board expectations and concerns. They track how member expectations are evolving. They see the competitive landscape. They hold the long-term vision for the organization.
Neither perspective alone is sufficient.
Leadership alone chooses AI projects that aren't operationally feasible. Staff alone optimize current processes without transformation. Together, they identify AI opportunities that are strategically important AND operationally achievable.
Board creates AI strategy map:
Staff creates AI operational map:
Staff develops AI vision plans:
The alignment:
Staff connects their AI vision to strategic priorities. They align operational opportunities with strategic investments. They can explain how their AI projects serve the board's vision. They own implementation because they designed the approach.
There's no translation gap between strategy and execution. Staff buy-in exists from the start. Timelines are realistic. The connection between daily work and AI strategy is clear. Frontline innovation gets captured and resourced.
The St. Louis Arch stands because it was built from both sides. The American Association of Veterinary State Boards' strategy works for the same reason.
Most associations keep trying to build from one side. The board sets strategy. Leadership cascades it down. Staff receive it as finished work. The structure never quite holds.
What if you reversed the typical flow?
Your frontline staff know things leadership doesn't. Your board sees things frontline doesn't. The strength comes from meeting in the middle.
Three questions to consider:
The structural truth remains: You can't build an arch from one side. Neither can you build strategy that actually sticks.