Coordinated action relies upon reconciling disagreement
For a strategy, transformation, program, or business relationship to succeed, people must coordinate their actions. Acknowledging non-likemindedness and proactively reconciling it into aligned action is a critical success factor.
The starting point
A group starts with more differences than it sees.
SchellingPoint’s research finds groups likeminded on 24% of their opinions about their shared topic and non-likeminded on 76% - before the first dialogue.
These figures describe opinions, not people. Non-likemindedness means the group does not yet share the same view of an opinion. It does not establish why.
Share of opinions rated before dialogue. Likemindedness is a measure of shared views; it is raw material for achieving Sufficient Alignment.
The 3 reasons for misalignment
What we assume. What reconciliation reveals.
We ask privately, “Why do you agree or disagree with that opinion and why do you think others view it differently?” We then reconcile the differences. The reason people first perceive and the reason identified during reconciliation tell two different stories.
Different information, experience, or observations.
The same words carry different meanings.
Different motivations, interests, or priorities.
Source: SchellingPoint collaboration research. Bars use the same 0–100% scale. Percentages describe the distribution of perceived reasons and reasons identified during reconciliation.
Different Drivers accounts for 95% of perceived reasons and 5% of actual reasons.
Understanding Different Drivers
How disagreement becomes a judgment of intent.
The research exposed a pattern that creates politics before the real reason for a difference is understood.
We encounter a difference.
Someone says or does something we disagree with.
We decide why they are wrong.
Our brain rationalizes why what they are saying or doing is wrong.
We assign an intention.
The explanation becomes a negative judgment of the other person’s motives.
“She doesn’t want to change.”
“He’s trying to justify more budget.”
The other person is rarely present when we make that judgment. We treat an explanation we have supplied as a fact about their intentions.
Once we believe their motives are the problem, we work around them, defend against them, or stop asking. This is phantom politics: conflict created by an assumed difference in drivers.
Different Drivers is a real reason for misalignment. The error is assigning it before examining the data and the meaning of the words.
Find the difference that is actually there
The same opinion. Three different causes.
“We are not very good at this.”
Different Data
35% of disagreements arise from differences in information and experience.
One person has seen failures the other has not. They are judging from different evidence.
The response: Bring the observations together and assess the complete picture.
Different Dictionary
At 60%, the most common cause of disagreement is the different meanings people assign to the same words.
Both have seen the same results, but “good” means something different to each of them.
The response: Define the standard before comparing their judgments.
Different Drivers
Conflicting motivations account for less than 5% of disagreements—a far smaller share than people perceive.
They understand the evidence and the standard, but want different outcomes or give different priorities to them.
The response: Make those interests explicit and design a response the group can support.
Change the conversation
Ask for the reasoning before assigning the motive.
“You think that; I think this. Here is what causes me to think this. What causes you to think that?”
Listen for the evidence, the meaning of the words, and the interests behind each view. Establish which difference you need to reconcile. Don't seek to be right.
For leaders and managers, this is part of Group Decision Design: reconciling material differences so people can commit to coordinated action. The aim is Sufficient Alignment around the response the group designs, alongside Closest Fit and Maximum Feasibility.
The question opens the conversation. A repeatable discipline makes the capability something your organization can develop and own.
From research to organizational capability
Leaders and managers need to be decision designers as well as decision-makers.
SchellingPoint’s work combines more than a decade of teaching managerial decision-making at leading business schools with research into how groups develop goals and actions - and how flaws in those designs undermine implementation.
Misdiagnosing misalignment exposes a significant blind spot: organizations depend on groups to design shared responses, but lack a common discipline for performing that work, assessing its quality, and improving it.
We have translated the research into a framework, methods, measures, software, and AI that make Group Decision Design a practical capability.
Start with what the research reveals. Explore the solutions that put it to work.
