GROUP DESIGNS REACH BEST POSSIBLE ONLY BY CHANCE

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 outcomes, 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 looks right is 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 or 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 others, but current methods do not systematically surface and prevent such concerns.

The time and discomfort dealing with constraints is far greater during implementation. Many are irrecoverable.

Alignment is misused to describe whether a group agrees about an opinion and whether they are acting toward a stated goal. How a group thinks about an opinion is its likemindedness.

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

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

Of 144 leadership teams, 6 had sufficient likemindedness to use common language and act in coordination.

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, leaders still struggle to determine how much alignment they actually have and whether it is sufficient for coordinated action.