
Eliminate False Alignment on Your Team When change efforts stall, the problem often isn’t a lack of strategy, it’s a lack of true alignment. Teams move fo...
Change efforts stall not because the strategy is wrong but because the team never agreed on who decides what, according to a Harvard Business Review piece by Julia Dhar and co-authors. The article, adapted from "The False Alignment Trap," argues that teams often move ahead assuming shared priorities, only to hit friction when unspoken expectations surface.
The fix, Dhar writes, is to define the exact decisions that need to be made, name the person who owns each one, and spell out how they will be made, before execution starts. That means setting clear parameters for what counts as a decision versus an input, and making the distinction explicit rather than implicit.
The trap is common in cross-functional initiatives where every stakeholder has a view but no one has a veto. Without a decision-rights map, the group defaults to consensus-seeking, which slows progress and blurs accountability. Dhar recommends a short written charter for any major change effort: who decides, who advises, who gets informed, and what happens if the group disagrees.
The piece stops short of prescribing a specific template, but the logic is straightforward. If two people in the room believe they hold the same decision right, alignment is an illusion. The first meeting of a change team should surface that question, not assume it is settled.
Drafted by a large language model from the source reporting linked above, then screened by automated publishing checks. It is not read by a journalist before publication. Some articles cite our Alpha Score. Verify prices and figures against the original source. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.