TBM 215: Shallow vs. Deep Alignment
I originally posted this on LinkedIn a couple days ago. It is rare that I post something, and then repost on the newsletter, but I liked this short post.
“We're 100% aligned!" Oh really?
"We finished our OKRs! We're aligned!" Oh really?
"The team agreed on action items!" Oh really?
Alignment is about cultivating a collective sense of purpose and direction, not achieving total consensus or conformity/consistency. It is a continuous process of discovering and rediscovering common ground, shared values, and shared understanding—pragmatically and in context.
Shallow alignment is low-stakes, easy to achieve, and fits neatly on a slide. Deep alignment embraces the idea that multiple, sometimes conflicting, values and truths exist. It is messy and requires people to agree to disagree.
Shallow alignment avoids tension. Deep alignment inherently involves tension and friction, hence why deep alignment requires psychological safety, time to diverge, and time to get real.
Shallow alignment is expensive to maintain and crushes creativity. Deep alignment is strategic, resilient, empowering, and complex.
Alignment is not a checkbox.
Alignment is a system in dynamic equilibrium, constantly adjusting and responding to changes. There is overall balance, but minute by minute and day by day, things are shifting, adapting, bending, and reconfiguring. There's no such thing as "100% alignment". The minute you've left the meeting, the system is rebalancing based on new information.
Too often, teams rely solely on alignment proxies—goals, lists, budgets, and priority lists. Teams stress "commitment" over understanding.
While these artifacts may have emerged from a momentary (or perceived) state of alignment, they are not, by themselves, "alignment." The system shifts. Are these still the right goals? Have we received new information? Do we share the same conviction as we once did? We may agree to see our bets through, but that doesn't mean our alignment system is in equilibrium.
The point? Participating in the continuous journey of alignment takes work, vulnerability, and safety. It is not a checkbox. And we should look beyond the shallow forms of alignment that predominate in a business context.
Was heartened to see the traction on your LinkedIn post John. It's a crucial topic that presents so much opportunity in terms of learning about the definition and nature of alignment between people; about the role of the leader and the role of data insights in the alignment process; about how that process works best and under what circumstances; and about the power of such work in enabling engagement and effectiveness, and mitigating the risks of misalignment. After all, behind every observable problem is misalignment as a root cause.
This reminds me of a speech given by Abraham Kuyper back in the 1800s where he makes the distinction between “uniformity” and “unity”. Things that are uniform look the same, though they may have nothing in common under the surface and things that are unified / united grow from the same root, even though they may not look anything like each other.