Do an Internet search for team alignment and you’ll find plenty of articles – why your team needs to be aligned for superior performance, how to align your team, and what alignment looks like.
And you’ll see images like these to depict high performance teams.
Team alignment implies everyone is moving forward in unison with precise coordination and execution. It might look nice, but on second glance you see they are moving within a narrow range, with very little variance.
. . . The focus is on staying in formation.
. . . There is little tolerance for differences.
. . . . Creativity is not desirable.
Team alignment depends on a control orientation – keeping people in line. It depends on a hierarchical structure with a lot of policies to maintain the alignment.
You might also see images like these to depict leadership and team alignment. Although team members are not in a precise formation, they are lined up behind a leader.
It shows that team alignment is leader dependent. Followers depend on the leader to make decisions on direction and tell them what to do.
These images imply that team members . . .
. . . should not act independently or get out of line.
. . . have little need to communicate with each other.
. . . are mindlessly following the leader, with no idea where they are going.
Stop trying to align your team.
We need teams composed of individuals who are able to make quick decisions on how to respond to what comes their way, who are able to use their good judgment to solve problems, who coordinate their efforts with each other, and who come up with fresh new ideas.
A compelling vision (that includes common purpose and shared values) is a more powerful way to unifying your team than trying to align them through structure, policies and procedures.
When a team is organized around a unifying vision, the vision becomes the glue that holds your team together. Team members trust each other without concern about competing self-interest because they know they serve the same purpose and values Creativity flourishes, and there is more room for autonomy within the broad guidelines of the shared vision. Because everyone knows they each desire the same result, team members can use their own judgment in how to approach tasks. And there is more space for conflict to arise and to be resolved, instead of being kept under the table. Creative disagreement focuses on the issues at hand, not on personalities, and leads to better solutions.
It might look a little messy, not nearly as neat as everyone lined up on track, doing what they’re supposed to be doing. But these are the benchmarks of high performance teams.
So instead of being the lead duck with a line of followers, support your team in creating a compelling vision, let go of control and redefine your role as a leader.
And instead of team alignment images, use images like these to depict your powerful, cohesive team.
Great article! What would happen if organizational values were defined by the whole organization, withou taking the ‘vision cascading’ for granted? Wouldn’t that be more robust as culture and values’ sense of ownership would thrive?
Hi Fabian, That’s exactly right and many organizations do that. There are several ways to approach these kinds of conversations, but the point is, it must be intentional and not taken for granted, as you point out.
That’s great. Would you be so kind in sharing those examples of companies already operating in that way? You might do that privately if you prefer. That info will be very useful for my PhD thesis. Thanks so much in advance! Regards. Fabian
Hi Fabian, Look for companies that have employed large group intervention technologies like Real-Time Strategic Change, Open Space, Future Search and World Cafe. Here are a few of my blog posts that might be helpful: Try Collaborative Change for a Change | Vision: How It’s Created Is as Important as What It Says |
An Interview with Jake Jacobs on Real Time Strategic Change | and 3 Approaches to Culture Change: What Works
Depending on what your specific focus is, you might want to take a look at these companies: Gore, Morning Star, Zappos and Valve. Good luck with your dissertation. Such an important topic!
p.s. I have facilitated this process for many companies over the years. It works for as long as leaders stay committed and are willing to keep the conversation alive.
Jesse Lyn
What I see, even in the four images at the bottom of the article is everyone doing the same thing. Some might call that unity of purpose or common vision, common goals all of which seem very good to me. However, that said, I liked it best when my team could function independently according to their own peculiar strengths, gifts and abilities. Then we could pool those resources to bring to bear on a particular issue, project or goal. I gave my team sufficient independence and autonomy so they were not all doing what appears to be the same thing, in the same way, at the same time. That still keeps everyone “in alignment” as you have described it. If you want a different image here’s one that might suffice. I played football. We were definitely a team but each of us had different skills and we had different assignments. Knowing how and when to execute those, as well as being very well-coached, allowed us to have an undefeated season. We were not necessarily the biggest or the fastest but we were very successful.
All good points, Gary. And thanks for sharing that additional image from football. Images are helpful in explaining concepts. And the wrong images undermine them.
As I look back on a career in mental health, when we really had teams with a common vision, was when we were part of the civil rights movement to close institutions and permit people with disabilities to live in their home communities with supports. Now I’m afraid the “vision” is for the government to spend as little money as possible, and that’s something that it’s hard to get people to get excited about.
And no wonder. A mobilizing vision is proactive, not reactive. It’s about moving forward, not self-protection.
My question here is if the mobilizing vision is defined by the top executives or by the whole organization. I am aware of participatory leadership methods, I’ve learned all of Art of Hosting’s plus others. But you can apply all of them even if the Vision/values/mission have been defined at the very top. However I will sustain in my thesis that collectively agreement on organizational values is more mobilizing than those defined only at the very top. Strategic decision making is a thing, but corporate values are at a higher level, that’s the reason for not many companies being so open to empower their people as human beings so all together could agree and honor the values, with a greater sense of ownership, commitment and mobilization.
Well said. When people are invited to participate in creating the vision and values, they understand them better and are more deeply committed. Senior leaders often believe this approach is risky, but the bigger risk is in holding tight to the reins and dampening engagement.
does alignment mean lockstep? as I understand alignment it’s everyone understanding and committed to the mission of the organization. Is that bad? It seems to me that this definition of alignment allows for creativity, and maybe even deviation in terms of questioning the mission.
In theory yes, that is what we want to convey. But the dictionary definition of alignment is “arrangement in a straight line, or in correct or appropriate relative positions.” Both the term and the images we use do not convey what you describe.
So well described: The ‘lead duck’ approach is all about nice photos but little creativity or innovation.
The best performing teams ROTATE the members in the lead duck position. There is value in having a member in that position. But there is better team performance / innovation when all share AND all therefore are able to contribute in other creative ways.
You will see this in ducks in flight or paddling; you will also see this in bicycle team time trials!!?
Thanks John. Planned rotation of the lead can be helpful in many kinds of situations. And on high performance teams we often see leadership emerging naturally according to what is needed at the moment and who is in the best position to provide that leadership. It’s organic, not prescribed.
Love this, Jesse. Lots of fodder for thought here. It’s being aware of the polarity between alignment and freedom; consistency and creativity; group think and individual expression. Thanks for writing!
A polarity perspective is always helpful. The challenge is in identifying the real polarities. Thanks for adding to the conversation Maren!
I appreciate the intent of this article but the understanding of what “alignment” means is unfortunate. Alignment does NOT mean “in formation,” “intolerance of differences, an avoidance of creativity, nor a control orientation.” Physics 101 will tell you that.
As Einstein, Tesla and many others have told us, everything is frequency. Nature, in its intended state is a natural alignment of an inconceivable and infinite variety of frequencies. It is “creation” of the highest form. Not only tolerant of differences but interdependent on them. The most effective organizations are those that try to replicate what nature has demonstrated.
It is suggested that a “compelling vision” is what brings alignment. Not a word was said about where that compelling vision comes from. The truth is alignment is what creates the compelling vision.
Interesting perspective. Thanks for weighing in Ian.
Agree – you’ve used the metaphor of physical alignment on teams which isn’t something I see happening. Alignment is when people have a common understanding of purpose etc: a shared current reality . Check out my website for more.
Hi Jesse Lyn,
I fully align with your message.
(or shouldn’t I? – it might be confusing)
“To align or not to align?” is NOT the question!
Your post (I might suggest) implies:
Align more: a Preferred future, a shared vision, a common purpose/goal, and shared values.
Don’t align (align less): the structure, the policies and the procedures.
Whenever there is an agreeing gap on a specific decision in a team, I could offer: “So you don’t fully agree with the decision. At this point – can you align with it?” (meaning: accepting to go along with the notion of the decision)
Points well made 🙂 The major problem is that the images we use for alignment convey the primary meaning of the word (lining up) and not the secondary (acceptance). The image of aligning around a shared vision sounds looks and sounds like an oxymoron to me.
You are right. The problem is in the image or metaphor – and all metaphors have shortcomings. I’d suggest that the ‘old’ idea of “alignment” is to form a line, to line people/things up. That is a mechanistic application. A synonym might be “bureaucracy” or “structure” that demands compliance, conformity and obedience.
The birds image is misleading because the birds don’t “get in formation” as a function of obedience. That is called a “morphic field” where birds just know how to do it; the simultaneous swooping etc. They are “aligned” on a totally different level, a quantum, energetic or spiritual level. Or if those words are too ethereal, in their DNA.
Now, to stay with nature metaphors, is an ant colony “aligned?” I’d say absolutely yes, in the most amazing way. To us it looks crazy and without pattern but it’s all aligned to a common purpose. That too is a morphic field. They just know how to ant. Sometimes it’s called “co-intelligence.” (Rupert Sheldrake is who you want to be reading here.) We’ve forgotten how to human and there is little to hold us together.
So what organizations evidence this morphic co-intelligence? Most do not. Their team motto is “Every man for himself!” Apple is maybe an exception. There’s a morphic apple-ness pervading the company. It may be folklore, but it was said that there was only one job description at Apple…”Make yourself useful.” That’s how nature does it, so should we.
Jesse, the thinking you inspire is fabulous and essential. Seems like everything around us is falling apart and somehow we need to learn how to bring it all back together.
Appreciate your exploration of metaphors and taking this conversation further and deeper. My gripe with the typical “alignment” metaphor is that it is too neat and clean, when reality is organic and messy, as you describe with the ants. Order comes out of chaos, but it’s not so pretty and tidy as we wish is were.
As always, you strike a seemingly “contrary” position and then demonstrate how absolutely spot on it is! Alignment toward values and vision keeps people committed to finding INNOVATIVE ways to move toward the vision and keep values consistent. But “stay mute and salute” is a poor way to lead– in fact, I would add that it is dangerous.
Thanks Eileen. We need to keep reviewing our language to make sure it conveys what we intend. When overused, words become jargon.
This piece reminds me of Chapter 5 of David Eagleman’s “Incognito,” where he talks how the brain is made up of thousands of “subagents” that do one specialized function, each of which contribute to the larger movement, perception, action, etc. Intensely fascinating!
How clever – a great image and depiction of what a high performance team looks like. Thanks for that reference Dave!