The Alignment Fallacy

Why you might be trying to solve another problem.

I’ve spent a lot of my personal and professional life seeking alignment. Hours spent trying to get everyone to see the world in a particular way so that we can solve the problems from the same place. Working in internal operations type roles, the answer to many problems is often professed as just needing “better communication”, “more alignment”. I truly believed it, and while good comms and planning have their place, I now feel that perhaps I fell for a bit of a scam.

Total alignment is rarely possible and often not necessary.

The quest for complete alignment often reveals a lot about ourselves and the culture we’re operating in. It can also be a barrier to progress.

“It’s more important to get people pulling in the same direction than on the same page.” - Hannah Ritchie 

The quote above was in reference to solving the Climate Crisis, however I feel it’s applicable to both personal relationships and business objectives.

There is a phenomenon which plagues the sustainability movement. Many positive environmental initiatives are blocked by environmentalists because it results in some damage to the environment. Renewable energy infrastructure projects often suffer delays from this. The quest for clean energy competes with protecting natural ecosystems. Different groups who all passionately care about creating a greener future get stuck in an argument over the most environmentally friendly path forward. There is no objectively perfect answer to this. Rather than accepting trade-offs, those with good intentions often block the progress they seek. This problem cannot be solved with alignment. There are too many conflicting values and agendas at play. Instead it requires something else - leadership.

The siren call of “we need more alignment” often quietly whispers “we lack leadership”. Leadership is the combination of creating a shared vision, gaining enough critical mass of people and resources to buy into it, and pushing forward on the desired path. Leaders do not need 100% alignment to make progress in their organisations. They just need to create the conditions to spark momentum and most importantly set the direction. They also need to be brave enough to own the risk of failure. 

Over-indexing on alignment can also be a symptom of a deeper problem. The need for complete explicit agreements in organisations can reveal a culture which requires you to be on defence (a cover your a*s culture if you will). Alternatively, it can be driven by a culture which suffers from being too collaborative (it happens). Plans which require committee approval get delayed, often never quite leaving that committee discussion stage. Broad stakeholder alignment is a positive thing that should be strived for but there can be limits. High risk, high reward scenarios rarely get complete agreement up front. Instead, they require someone to step up and commit to pursuing that path.

In our personal lives our need to seek alignment can be a symptom of a need for approval, control or to have our worldview acknowledged. Not experiencing complete alignment can be interpreted as a risk (people will use this against me) or a rejection (people don’t value what I have to say). Of course neither are true but seeking the comfort of total agreement often reveals a deeper fear within us.

To be clear, I do think seeking alignment is beneficial. I have witnessed too many projects go off the rails due to misalignment to think otherwise. The key is to understand the distinction between alignment and consensus. You don’t need unanimous approval to move forward. You just need direction and a willingness to accept the baton of ownership.