Connecting Dots is the monthly newsletter for global professionals leading innovation.

◎⁃◎

Overcoming the Alignment Trap

“We need to get aligned!”

It’s a common refrain when people talk about their culture or strategy. It’s also a trap.

For a group to function well, they need to have some shared understanding of its purpose and what they are setting out to do. Yet, every individual has a different understanding of and need for alignment.

We know that high-performing teams can work through different perspectives and intellectual conflict without it becoming divergent directions or interpersonal conflict.

We also know that underperforming teams often struggle to agree on anything or operate in pseudo-harmony. In either case, the unbounded wish for ever-greater alignment can signal a lack of commitment, trust or adaptability.

Teams struggling with the alignment trap often latch onto rigid processes as a saviour, argue over what two-by-two model is right as a power battle or engage in a continuous alignment dialogue of unending meetings, offsites, hallway conversations, group texts and research projects as “real-work” avoidance.

Therefore, rather than ask “How do we get aligned?”, a better question I pose to leadership teams is:

“What’s the least amount of alignment you need to function?”

This question reduces the alignment burden by demystifying and making tangible where you need to align your understanding and where you don’t. It also helps identify the optimum amount of difference that serves your collective and individual interests.

As per Edition 47 of Connecting Dots, alignment doesn’t mean you have to agree absolutely with each other but members have agency to accept and respect different perspectives while committing to a path of action. In my experience, practicing innovation tolerance rather than the alignment trap supercharges organizations to successfully increase their innovation pace, efficiency, impact or ambition.

If total alignment is required for decisions, something else is happening. Such as a form of anti-work collusion that surfaces in the form of non-decisions—typically a subconscious hidden competing commitment. Or, a subtler phenomenon where individual needs override shared needs—typically an unconscious defence against anxiety.

If your team or culture struggle to get aligned, flip the question. Work out how little alignment you need to achieve your goals and objectives.

◎⁃◎

Here’s an example of how to get “good enough” or minimum viable alignment:

With a facilitator independent of your team, have each person identify all the items they see as important for alignment.
Then, in pairs share and identify any gaps.
As a group, visualize all the alignment areas and identify common themes.
Lastly, dot vote on themes which might be most impactful on the group’s success.
Two people nominated by the group take the themes away to document and wordsmith the 3-5 most impactful items as alignment principles.

Use the principles when making key decisions like strategy changes, identifying key projects, signing off annual plans or approving which innovations go to market.

*An independent facilitator trained unconscious dynamics of groups is key to contained emotional or power dynamics which will always be present and can be helpful if channelled intentionally.

◎⁃◎

Learn more about Brett’s leadership development practice for global executives with innovation responsibilities.

◎⁃◎

Subscribe to Connecting Dots