The Myth of Alignment
Why togetherness quietly undermines real alignment
Photo by Kajetan Powolny on Unsplash
Oft-repeated advice to senior leaders centers on alignment. Weekly meetings designed to sync, off-sites meant to integrate, and goals oriented toward a common target. When organizations struggle, the absence of alignment is blamed for silos, competing agendas, and aimless outcomes.
The popular cures are familiar: find consensus that can be committed to, break down silos, eliminate conflicting incentives, and resolve ambiguity at the top. In extreme cases, misalignment is treated as a leadership failure requiring reorganization or replacement.
The hard work of alignment matters. In his book, Re:Align, Jonathan Trevor makes the case that organizations should pursue alignment as a proactive strategy, rather than a reactive response to a failed one. He’s right. Alignment is coordinated commitment in the presence of difference.
But the Antagonist for alignment is sneaky. It often looks like consensus or disagreement. Sometimes it looks like misalignment or missed goals. But the real Antagonist of alignment is together. Together is the language of corporate community. It sounds healthy. It feels mature. It signals unity, cohesion, and shared purpose. But togetherness is not the same thing as alignment. It’s the misnomer that everyone is in. Together can feel like harmony, consensus, and even robust disagreement.
But together is a trap, especially for senior leaders. Whether it’s building or keeping a great company culture, presenting a unified front to customers or stakeholders, or going to bed at night with the comfort of congenial conciliation, this Antagonist must be confronted.
Together can exist without trust. Together can survive with or without clarity. Together can even coexist with disagreement.
In his 2016 letter to Amazon shareholders, Jeff Bezos articulated what has since become a widely quoted phrase: disagree and commit.
What makes the idea powerful is the discipline that follows disagreement: commitment.
But there is something deeper in Bezos’s insight. Disagree and commit only works if disagreement is real. And real disagreement requires differentiated perspectives. Without that, commitment is just compliance dressed up as unity.
This is where togetherness quietly undermines alignment.
In Failure of Nerve, Edwin H. Friedman argues that anxious systems over-focus on techniques, consensus, and sensitivity, rather than on leaders who take responsibility for their own clarity and direction. Friedman contends that healthy leadership is not consensus-driven but differentiated. A leader who knows where they stand, stays connected to others, and resists the pressure to disappear into togetherness when anxiety rises.
Alignment does not begin with agreement. It begins with leaders who are willing to be distinct.
This is why togetherness is such a powerful Antagonist. It offers the comfort of belonging without the cost of conviction. It allows organizations to feel aligned without ever being tested by real difference.
Organizations don’t lose alignment because people disagree. They lose it because distinct disagreement is softened to preserve harmony.
True alignment is people moving in the same direction without needing to stand in the same place.
Togetherness feels good. Alignment does something.
The Antagonist is already at work. Are you?
Antagonist Check
How does the language of togetherness mislead your organization?
What disagreement feels tolerated but not resolved?
What does the differentiated perspective of the senior leader look like?
Does this content resonate?
Hi, I’m Brad. If the challenges I write about sound familiar, it’s because I spend my time helping executives and their teams work through them. Over the past 30 years, I’ve been a founder, principal, CEO, chief of staff, and board chair. If you’re interested in a conversation about working together, I accept a limited number of new engagements each year. You can send me a message here.