GROUP DESIGNS REACH BEST POSSIBLE ONLY BY CHANCE

We have learnt that when groups describe the intended outcomes of in-flight implementations, they identify 13 on average. Unbeknownst the them, they agree on 5 and disagree on 8.

Without an explicit Cost of Inaction against which to assess the value of proposed goals and objectives, an implementation may be merely valuable rather than demonstrably on target.

Due to Feasibility-Bias throughout the design process, many valid and valuable goals are prematurely rejected.

Three findings that bring into question whether what looked right was right.

When groups are asked why their in-flight implementation won't be successful, they average 44 unresolved constraints - issues not being addressed.

Even in problem-solving, turnaround, restorative situations, opinions that might be deemed negative are unwelcome and stifled.

Concerns about unintended negative consequences are among the strongest emotional reasons for rejecting otherwise valid goals and actions. Sponsors foresee 1 on average; implementers foresee 12 additional, but current methods do not systematically surface and prevent such concerns.

The time required to validate and mitigate such concerns into the design is far less than the cost of damage control during implementation. Many are irrecoverable.

Alignment is the Holy Grail of management. It is one of the most discussed, desired, and invested-in outcomes in organizational life. Yet for all the frameworks, methodologies, and interventions devoted to it, groups are left without an objective measurement of how much alignment they possess.

We learned that alignment is treated as a binary condition: we/they are, or are not, aligned. Mathematical analysis derived from Thomas Schelling’s work on likemindedness has placed every group between 44 and 92 on a 0–100 scale. No group was ever fully 'aligned.'

We can project that no group can ever be fully aligned. The data also indicates that few groups find sufficient alignment.