The narrative gap: how competing stories inside the organisation undermine your operating model
Every operating model comes with a story
A story about how the organisation will work. A story about what will change. A story about what will finally become possible. But after the launch, something else emerges: competing narratives. Different stories leaders tell themselves and their people about what the model actually means.
Executives feel this long before they name it. Two leaders interpret the same decision right differently. Teams follow the story they trust, not the one on the slide. Functions optimise for their own version of “success”. The organisation quietly fragments.
Not because the model is unclear. But because the narrative system isn’t aligned.
What the narrative gap looks like
Different roles, different symptoms, but the same patterns emerge: when leaders run on competing narratives, the operating model fractures.
Example 1: The Chief Strategy Officer who thinks the model is about speed
The Chief Strategy Officer believes the new model is designed to accelerate execution. So she pushes for faster decisions, lighter governance, and rapid iteration.
But the Chief Operating Officer believes the model is about stability. So he pushes for consistency, predictability, and risk control.
They’re not misaligned. They’re running on competing narratives.
Example 2: The Head of Data who thinks the model elevates data as a strategic asset
The Head of Data believes the change finally gives data a seat at the table. So he behaves accordingly; stepping into decisions, shaping priorities, and influencing flow.
But product and technology see data as an enabler, not a driver. So they interpret his involvement as overreach.
He’s not overstepping. He’s following the story he was sold.
Example 3: The GM in Operations who thinks the model decentralises authority
The General Manager in Operations believes teams are meant to be empowered. So she pushes decisions down, removes approvals, and expects autonomy.
But her peers believe the model centralises key decisions to reduce risk. So they escalate, seek sign off, and expect control.
She’s not inconsistent. She’s operating from a different narrative about power and decision rights.
Example 4: The Head of Marketing who thinks the model is about customer centricity
The Head of Marketing believes the change was designed to bring customer insight closer to delivery. So he inserts marketing into prioritisation, sequencing, and product decisions.
But product sees the model as outcome driven, not function driven. That and people are using the phrase “we’re moving towards a product operating model” constantly in the hallways. So they interpret his involvement as interference.
He’s not interfering. He’s following a purpose based narrative.
Example 5: The CFO who thinks the model is about cost discipline
The Chief Financial Officer believes the new structure is meant to reduce duplication and improve efficiency. So she optimises for cost.
But the Chief Executive Officer believes the model is about growth. So he optimises for speed and market opportunity that can be grabbed by being more efficient since they would have let these opportunities go in the past.
They’re not disagreeing. They’re telling different stories about the same model.
Why the narrative gap is so destructive
People act on the story they believe, not the structure they’re given.
When the narrative gap is high:
Leaders use the same model to optimise for different outcomes,
Decision contradict each other,
Teams follow the loudest or safest story,
Governance becomes inconsistent,
Delivery becomes unpredictable,
Trust erodes, and
The model becomes symbolic instead of operational.
Operating models don’t fail because people don’t understand them. They fail because everyone is running on a different story about what the model is for.
A quick reflection if this resonates
Take 60 seconds and ask yourself:
“What story do my leaders believe this operating model is telling?”
You’ll know instantly.
If you want to go deeper, ask:
“Where are behaviours diverging because the underlying story is different?”
That’s where the narrative gap is hiding.
What the reflection tells you
If you can see the narrative gap, you’re already ahead of most organisations.
The question isn’t whether the model is clear. It’s whether the story behind the model is shared and understood consistently.
Leaders who get ahead of this don’t rewrite the model. They align the narrative so that it makes the model make sense.
If you’re seeing the narrative gap, now is the moment to act
You don’t need more slides. You need a shared story that drives consistent behaviour.
If you’re ready to steady the system, let’s work on this together. Here are three ways:
Interim Executive - when the transformation needs a senior leader inside the organisation to stabilise, steer, and deliver,
Capability Building - when product and transformation leaders are expected to know how to navigate the people, politics, and performance expectations that come with their jobs, yet no one has taught them these skills during their entire career, and
Executive Coaching - when senior leaders need a confidential, strategic partner to think clearly, make decisions, and lead through change and complexity.