( Original HL: Strategic Ambiguity And Organisational Strain: Re-Reading IndiGo’s Recent Turbulence )
By : Dr Kiran Mahasuar
The recent disruptions at IndiGo — flight delays, crew shortages and visible stress across the network — have been widely attributed to duty-time regulations and an overstretched system. Each of these factors matters, but interpreting the events solely through an operational lens risks obscuring the strategic processes that have been quietly reshaping the organisation. What appears to be an episodic breakdown may actually reflect a deeper tension between IndiGo’s historic identity and its evolving strategic aspirations.
IndiGo’s Strategy and Cultural Contradictions
For most of its existence, IndiGo’s strategy has been anchored in cost leadership. Fleet commonality, high aircraft utilisation, point-to-point routing, standardised processes, and a culture centred on efficiency created a tightly aligned operating model. Such systems depend on precision and predictability. In an efficiency-driven culture, processes guide behaviour, variance is minimised, and reliability emerges from disciplined adherence to routines. Customer experience is defined not by personalisation but by consistency.
The introduction of business-class seating, a strengthened loyalty programme, and wide-body aircraft for long-haul routes signals a substantive shift away from this singular logic. These are not incremental changes; they represent a movement towards a differentiated, service-oriented model. Yet such a model requires cultural and structural capabilities very different from those that underpin a cost leader. A service-led orientation depends on discretionary judgement, interpretive flexibility, and a more nuanced understanding of customer expectations. These assumptions sit uneasily alongside a culture optimised for throughput and uniformity.
The coexistence of these divergent expectations creates what scholars describe as strategic ambiguity. Some ambiguity can be productive, allowing organisations to evolve. But when the operating architecture — i.e., the processes, systems and cultural routines — remains tuned to a former strategy, the ambiguity becomes destabilising. Staff must simultaneously enact two different interpretations of “good performance”: one that prioritises procedural speed and another that values service depth. This duality is difficult to sustain, particularly in an environment as tightly regulated and resource-constrained as aviation.
Herbert Simon’s idea of bounded rationality offers a useful explanation of why it is difficult to sustain the aforementioned duality. Decision-makers operate with finite cognitive attention. The addition of new strategic priorities does not simply increase workload; it increases complexity, creating competing claims on managerial focus. The aviation sector, with a multitude of touchpoints and zero tolerance for human error, amplifies this pressure. Pilots are scarce and expensive. Crew duty rules limit scheduling flexibility. Weather disruptions, safety requirements and network interdependence demand continuous coordination. A strategy that introduces greater complexity without adjusting organisational design multiplies the burden on managerial attention, making misalignment more likely.
Porter, Chandler and Strategy Alignment
Michael Porter’s long-standing warning about the “middle-of-the-road” position becomes salient in this context. Firms straddling cost leadership and differentiation often lose the advantages of both. Costs rise due to added complexity, but the organisation lacks the structural and cultural investments needed to deliver genuine differentiation. IndiGo risks moving into precisely this territory. The current turbulence may therefore reflect less an episodic operational failure and more the predictable friction of occupying an ambiguous strategic middle.
Equally relevant is Alfred Chandler’s foundational argument that structure follows strategy. Strategy and structure must be co-extensive and co-terminus; they must evolve together. When a firm shifts strategic direction without corresponding changes in structure, routines, incentives and cultural norms, organisational lag emerges. IndiGo’s strategy appears to be evolving more rapidly than its structural infrastructure. The routines that ensured its early reliability — viz. simplified scheduling, homogeneous fleet operations and strict process discipline — were never designed to carry the weight of a dual-positioning strategy.
This misalignment is not unique to IndiGo; the history of business and organisations is replete with examples of firms whose hybrid aspirations created organisational strain. What distinguishes successful transitions from unsuccessful ones is not ambition but coherence. Where the structural shift lags behind strategic intent, operational volatility becomes recurring rather than incidental. IndiGo’s future trajectory depends on confronting this coherence gap. Its aspiration to develop into a global network carrier is not misplaced; as the market evolves, growth opportunities naturally pull leading airlines upward.
But the shift requires a deliberate redesign of structure, culture and routines. If cost leadership remains central to its identity, then differentiation initiatives must be judiciously evaluated. If the airline intends to pursue a differentiated strategy, then the supporting organisational architecture must be rebuilt accordingly.
The recent disruptions should therefore be read not simply as operational noise but as indicators of a deeper transition. IndiGo has reached a point where strategic clarity and structural alignment must be re-established. The choice is not between ambition and discipline; it is between coherence and fragmentation. Only the former will allow IndiGo to navigate its next phase with stability.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication. |
