Difference Between Agreement And Alignment

Alignment is healthy and wrong orientation can be deadly. If a sales team is to succeed, it must always consult with the manager. They may not always agree with the decision, but they still have to execute the decision as if it were their own. Build: Play devil`s advocate for a minute and answer this hypothetical question: Does a team mentality first rule out consent playing a role in decision-making? In other words, in situations where consistency is more necessary than orientation, don`t team members have an excuse to become very „me-first“ with every decision they think they have the slightest personal risk? Build: In your article, you enter an acquisition -; something that presents a huge potential risk – ; as a scenario in which a high-level team might need agreement rather than guidance. In your experience, what other events typically require the search for convergence? „The main force that influences the threshold between alignment and convergence is trust within the team,“ he writes. „While the issue of trust deserves a conversation, more trust means that more risk can be tolerated without the agreement of all being needed. For example, acquiring a product or business that has a significant impact on focus, resources, customers, and financial results across the business would represent a high organizational risk. While all team members (and their teams) are also significantly affected, there is also a high level of personal risk. Look for consistency.┬áThat`s pretty much to the extent that alignment and agreement come together. Beyond this point, the goal and vision are indicated and the work begins. We no longer need to question the purpose, but we might question the point of view of others and those we offer.

From there, it`s about focusing on what we had planned. Friction begins when we are in meetings where we have to make decisions about our affairs. If our contribution and ideas are tested, our faith is also in what we have said on which we are oriented. The temptation to mix alignment and concordance is persistent and something that requires a conscious effort to separate by giving them each their rightful place. Build addressed this topic in detail, with the help of Table Group and Advisor Margaret Heffernan. So our interest was aroused when we read, not so long ago, an article in the Huffington Post that distorted the dominant view of orientation as a golden rule. Ryan McKeever, marketing director of St Paul-based consulting firm Aveus, offers in this article a model where orientation is not always the ideal target for the high-level team. And the consequence of this way of dealing with disagreements is that we waste time and energy turning our wheels.

McKeever`s model, which he developed with the owner of Aveus and his partner Linda Ireland, illustrates when a high-level team should seek consistency rather than direction: you can see this principle in marriage, for example, where two people agree to be in agreement with the goal (that`s why we present vows), but most of us know that convergence is not always the byproduct of orientation in a relationship. Why do we tend to treat orientation and agreement in the same way? Maybe it`s because we like to go our own way and we don`t like the idea that people don`t agree with us. We may never have thought much and assumed that they overlap in some way. It is possible that someone, with the career, told us in his own way that he was the same. We confuse them by making us believe that if you agree with my ideas, you automatically agree with me. We confuse alignment and concordance, because there are traces of each of them that are found in the other, and separating them often seems abnormal…

Comments are closed.