The loosely defined notion of "fit," "congruence," or alignment is central to most theories of strategic management and technologies of organizational design. "Things" need to "hang together," be "mutually consistent," "make sense" or work in "harmony." Most of these theories propose mechanisms by which firms achieve a close fit or adapt in order to attain a new one as conditions change. Those that manage to "fit" are more likely to succeed than those who don't.

The notion of congruence usually has a pair of objects for which some comparison is being rendered. For example, a company has its external environments and its mission. The company is expected to be more successful, everything else held constant, if the chosen mission is consistent or congruent with these environments. Or, if an organization's architecture (how the people are supposed to be linked) is not congruent with the organizational logic (how the work is organized), then form and function are incongruent. Compared to incongruency, congruency is easier to manage and more likely to produce desirable results.

Independently, many scholars have traveled the road leading to the use of congruency to describe patterns of relationships that work. These include Lex Donaldson, Ralph Kilmann, Ken Mackenzie, Jerome Nadler, Michael Tushman, and many more. One reason is that the alternative to congruency is optimization. Optimization comes complete with nice models, software, and swagger. But, technically one can only hope to optimize a closed system in which the variables, constraints, and relationships are completely specified. Unfortunately, for the "optimizers," organizations are open, not closed, systems. We can confidently speak of getting better or worse but not for being the best or the worst.

The looseness of the term congruence becomes a strength because different relationships may be described by different tests for determining the fit. These are called congruency conditions. Some congruency conditions are logical, other correlational, some are causal, and some are purely subjective judgments. Congruency, once broken down into a set of embedded congruency conditions, allows greater analytical and operational flexibility because it allows different types of paired relationships for different pairs of "things."

The conceptual variety begs for an overarching framework for congruency, of which the specific congruency conditions are a part. A concept of dynamic congruency had evolved which was built upon the interdependence between two models: the ABCE model for the organization as a whole and an abce model for the individual Associate.

These seventeen Organizational-Level Congruency conditions are listed in their order of cause and effect. The higher in the table the congruency condition, the greater its effect on those below it. For example, when there is incongruency between the organizational environments and the organizational mission statement, all of the other 16 conditions are likely to be off, too. Incongruencies on higher Organizational-Level Congruency conditions are probable root causes of lack of congruency on those lower in Table 1. Remember that all 17 conditions must be met for full Organizational-Level Congruency.

The ABCE model shows the elements needed to define Organizational-Level Congruency. It provides a holistic overview of the connections between the organization's environments, its strategic direction, its means for implementing the strategic direction (the Implementing Organizational Technology) into results, and results produced. The ABCE model is a useful tool for thinking about strategic management. But what about the people who make it work?

There is another type of congruency, called Dynamic Bonding Congruency. Think of bonding as the ties that bind an organization together. This bonding must be strong if an organization expects to respond effectively to change. There are three types of bonding: (1) the bond between Associates and the organization; (2) the bond between Associates and his or her position; and (3) the bond between the position and the organization. All three must be present to achieve dynamic bonding congruency as illustrated in Figure 1.

At the other end of aggregation, lie the individual Associates who make the organization work. The abce model parallels the ABCE model but applies to the individual Associate. The abce model is illustrated in Figure 2. The relationship within this model, like those in the ABCE model can be opened up in order to specify more detail. Basically, the congruency within the abce model constitutes what we call Associate/Position bonding congruency.

However, the Associate and the organization are linked. There is the bonding of the Associate with the organization itself and between the position and the organization. Thus there are three types of dynamic bonding congruency:

1. Associate/Organization Bonding conditions
2. Associate/Position Bonding conditions
3. Position/Organization Bonding conditions.

Dynamic congruency obtains when there is both organizational level dynamic congruency and dynamic bonding congruency. The Organizational White Paper produced by the HALO system contains measures for the six types of congruency conditions and provides a summary measure for the level of dynamic congruency in an organization.

The theory of the organizational hologram contains extensive discussion about dynamic congruency (which back in 1991 was all combined congruency). What is especially interesting about these findings is that organizational level dynamic congruency and dynamic bonding congruency must be managed simultaneously. A focus on people, via dynamic bonding, can help the organizational level dynamic congruency work. But, focusing on bonding and neglecting the organizational level dynamic congruency will lead to first a failure at the organizational level and then to an unraveling of bonding. Similarly, a results obsessed executive (such as those at Enron) who ignores people needs, will find the dynamic bonding starting to shred. As the bonding is weakened, there will be a breakdown of the organization's ability to achieve organization level dynamic congruency. Basically, organizational level needs must be met in order to create the conditions for dynamic bonding and dynamic bonding is necessary for the organizational level dynamic congruence to work.

The links between the ABCE and abce (Associate/Organization and Position/Organization) bonding is illustrated in Figure 3.

There are three Associate/Organizational (A/O) bonding conditions which describe the linkage of an Associate to the organization. The 14 Associate/Position (A/P) bonding conditions describe the linkages of an Associate to the position held in the organization. There are many employees who like the organization (high A/O bonding) but dislike their job (low A/P bonding) and vice versa. There are four Position/Organization (P/O) bonding conditions which define the links of a position to the organization. In an era of "teams" and downsizing, the bonding of a position to the organization is often weak and a source of restless and opportunistic behavior on the part of Associates. The holonomic model holds that all three types of dynamic bonding congruency are vital to the continued success of an organization.

Dynamic congruency requires the joint achievement of organizational-level congruency and bonding congruency.

When the 12 Holonomic Processes of change and adaptation are operating throughout the organization, dynamic congruency is a byproduct. The holonomic model demonstrates that it is necessary to have both types of congruency. Attempts to manage only Organizational-Level Congruency will fail unless there are simultaneous attempts to manage Dynamic Bonding Congruency. Efforts to manage Dynamic Bonding Congruency without concurrently managing Organizational-Level Congruency will also fail. Thus, heart (dynamic bonding congruency) and mind (organizational-level congruency) need to be integrated. This conclusion shows why, in situations of rapid change, strategic and human resource management are intertwined and jointly dependent.