One of the early lessons I learned in managing teams was that the larger the team grew, the less likely it was that everyone would agree on something.
It could be marketing, operations, or what pizza was ordered for lunch—more people meant a higher chance that someone would disagree with the plan.
Suzy is a vegetarian. Joey only eats chicken nuggets. Kayla is fine with pepperoni but doesn’t eat meat on Fridays.
This is a small and silly example, but it helps make a great point.
Now, there are a couple of different types of reactions from readers I get when talking about this.
There’s one reader who is thinking “you don’t need everyone to agree, you’re the boss, what you say goes and if they don’t like it, ‘tough.’ ” This probably doesn’t apply much for pizza, but I’ve heard this about other decisions in organizations.
There’s another reader who is thinking, “this is why you don’t involve everyone in every decision. Decisions come from the top and should be made in private.”
There’s another reader who is thinking “I guess it depends on what the problem is. If someone is allergic to gluten, then yeah, they should have a say in a seemingly small decision like what pizza is ordered for lunch.”
Obviously, I’m not representing all readers here, but I hope I’m accounting for most.
For most important decisions, agreement is nice. And I don’t mean that in a fluffy, kumbaya way. I mean, when people agree with the mission, they’re more intrinsically motivated to work effectively. Agreement can be powerful, even critical, in organizations and teams.
Sometimes, though, agreement is impossible, even after discussing a decision at length and allowing space for dissent and opinion.
In these cases, it’s important to shoot for alignment instead.
Alignment just means that some people don’t agree with the plan, but they’re willing to do the work and move forward anyway. They’re willing to stand behind the decision as part of the team.
One of the ways I’ve set this up in the past is “let’s do it my way first. If I’m wrong, we can do it your way next.” This can help garner the trust needed for alignment. If you’re willing to be wrong and put your approach on the line, most people are more willing to get behind the movement. Be warned: this is not a silver bullet. It’s not the right tool for only some conversations so you need to use your best judgment to sense if it is.
It’s also important to realize that, up until this point, I’ve sort of alluded to the idea that there are only two paths. Your way (the wrong way) and my way (the right way). That’s not true either. Allowing space to discuss what parts of the plan or decision are creating conflict can allow for new ideas and plans to surface. And isn’t that why you have a team in the first place?
Diverse teams outperform homogenous teams every time. Get to the root of the disagreement and you may unlock new paths that were not visible before.
We’re looking for a shared outcome. As long as you can discuss the plan or decision with a shared goal in mind, you can achieve alignment and possibly agreement.
Ultimately, what you’re looking for is a situation where the whole team can believe in the mission. It’s not about the decision itself—it’s bigger than that. Sometimes the mission requires agreement. Sometimes it requires alignment. Sometimes it’s a mix of both.
These are less like individual states and they’re more like two ends of a spectrum and it’s each of our responsibilities, as leaders, to meet others where they are and understand the root of the conflict.
If you have a situation where the mission itself is in question, well, that’s a different problem altogether.
I hope this helps outline some important differences in agreement and alignment. If you have memorable experiences with agreement and alignment, please share in the comments. These stories can be super useful for people who are navigating this challenge for the first time—or for people like me who still have a lifetime of learning to do.