Are People Telling You What You Want to Hear?

As leaders, we want alignment, we expect alignment and, based on the available data, we assume alignment. Occasionally, however, we get a glimpse of an alternative reality of competing priorities and people pulling in different directions. Rather than being disappointed, this presents leaders with a great opportunity – the opportunity to re-align people in terms of priorities, strategy and success.

The Illusion of Alignment

As leaders we may think: ‘The strategy has been talked about for long enough, surely everybody knows what needs to happen’. Moreover, being so invested in our strategies and plans, we can be reluctant to entertain the idea that others are not fully bought in, or committed. However, as much as we want alignment to exist, perfect and perpetual alignment is an illusion.

The illusion of alignment, it is an easy mistake to make and persists for many reasons:

To explore, you can click on any of the above, or simply scroll below.

We assume people think like we do

Leaders are prone to see alignment (even where it may not exist). That is because we tend to assume that others share our beliefs – that they see things the same as we do.¹ This is a particular danger for those at higher levels of the organization, who may be out of touch with the reality of what is happening at the coal face.

We expect people to speak up if they disagree

It is not surprising the leaders would assume that their people are aligned.  After all, if they did not understand or agree with the priorities or strategy they would say it. In reality, however, many executives will stay silent or simply nod in agreement (called nodding dog syndrome), rather than speak up.

One of the leading causes of misalignment is what we call strategic silence – that is, the inability to have important open and honest conversations about priorities and strategy. Instead, important conversations are not being had (CNBH).

A global bank decided to implement a new technology platform to enhance customer service. The leadership assumed that announcing the strategic benefits would ensure departmental alignment. However, the frontline staff who interacted with customers daily felt the new system complicated their workflows, leading to resistance and slower adoption. They were however reluctant to speak up, fearing that it would be seen as a sign of disengagement.

We believe misalignment is somebody’s fault

‘If there is misalignment, somebody must be to blame’ – that has been the traditional view. For example:

• Leaders may see it as reflecting badly on them, perhaps even taking it as a personal slight. 
• If people are not aligned, leaders may question their commitment and engagement, perhaps even their character. For example, saying they are lazy or resistant to change.

However, misalignment isn’t necessarily anybody’s fault. Often, it has more to do with the system, than anything else.

People want to do the work that matters, they want the organization to succeed and so on. But they find themselves being pulled in different directions, juggling multiple projects and priorities and serving different masters (in terms of stakeholders, strategies, and so on).

One of the most effective ways to boost alignment is to remove the obstacles and barriers that people face in being aligned. Of course, you cannot do this, however, if you believe that everything and everyone is aligned.

A financial services firm set an aggressive growth target, pushing sales teams to expand the customer base. Leaders assumed that the aggressive growth targets were clear and aligned across the organization. Surprisingly, however, the result was significant misalignment between risk tolerance and customer acquisition strategies.

We think – you’re either aligned or you’re not!

We can be prone to simplification, saying, for example, ‘either you are aligned or you are not’. But alignment is not binary, it is a matter of degree. To achieve one hundred percent alignment one hundred percent of the time is Pollyanna.

Here are some of the other ways in which we simplify the issue of alignment:

1. Adding to the illusion of alignment is the belief that alignment is constant, or fixed. However, being perfectly aligned today is no guarantee of alignment tomorrow. At a time of change and uncertainty, alignment must be dynamic. Organizations need to be able to re-align as needed and to do it with speed.
   
2. That people will naturally coalesce behind the strategy set out by the C-suite is a dangerous assumption. This is especially true for hierarchical organization with traditional functional boundaries or silos at times of change and uncertainty.  
   
3. The challenge of ensuring alignment at the top of the organization is one thing, but ensuring alignment from top to bottom is another. If alignment is out by just 1 or 2% at the top then it could be out by 10 or 20% by the time it reaches the bottom of the organization. But, keep in mind that alignment is horizontal as well as vertical. It must span traditional functional boundaries.
   
4. Alignment isn’t everything and perfect alignment, even if possible, may not always be desirable. Some misalignment may be required to ensure progress, especially for business unusual projects and initiatives. 
   
5. Keep in mind also, you can be perfectly aligned, but still moving in the wrong direction. Alignment that is the result of groupthink or blind conformity may not be desirable either.
   
6. There is a simple test of alignment – ask people what the top 3 priorities are. Then, see how consistent they are. However, it is important not to stop there.  To fully close the loop you also need to check for alignment in respect of results and purpose too.
   
7. Alignment has many levels:

• Words – Where strategies are set out in PowerPoint presentations and people talk the talk.
• Deeds – Where words are matched with deeds, with commitments being put into action.
• Resources – The organization’s commitment is reflected in the allocation of resources. The commitment of its people is reflected in where they spend their time.

A major pharmaceutical company set the goal of launching a new blockbuster drug. Speed to market was seen as a commercial imperative, and a cross-functional team was assembled to make it happen. But reality did not align with strategy. The project team struggling to access resources with its members juggling multiple other projects and nearing burnout as a result.