Episode 35 - The Cost of Staying Aligned

Alignment is often seen as a sign of good collaboration.

But what happens when alignment becomes… constant?

In this episode, Giovanna reflects on a leadership team that needed seven alignment meetings for a one-day off-site.

Not because of complexity. Not because of conflict. But because nothing seemed able to move without everyone being brought back in.

What are we really protecting when we keep aligning?
And what is the hidden cost of that safety?

The Orange Twist is hosted by Giovanna D’Alessio, MCC — reflections on leadership, culture, and change for HR professionals and organizational leaders.
Connect with Giovanna on LinkedIn.
New episodes released regularly. Stay curious.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:03

Welcome to the Orange Twist, your ten minute shot of insight to shake up your thinking on leadership culture and change. Hosted by Giovanna D'Alessio, Master Certified Coach. Episode thirty five. The cost of staying aligned. I was involved recently in designing a one day off site for a leadership team. Nothing extreme, one day, a clearer objective, a few sessions to shape, some choices to make. And yet, I found myself invited into a series of alignment meetings that at some point I stopped counting precisely, but I think we reached seven. Seven moments to just align. At the beginning it makes sense. First conversation, we explore the intention, what the day is really for, what matters, what doesn't. Good, necessary. Second one, we define the flow, who speaks when, how we open, how we close. Still makes sense. Then something starts to shift. The third, the fourth, we are no longer shaping the experience, we are adjusting it. Small things, very small things. A session moves by 15 minutes, a title is slightly rephrased. Someone asks, should we maybe swap these two parts? And suddenly we need to realign again. What struck me was not the content of those conversations, it was the energy around them. This sense of that nothing could move, not even slightly, without bringing everyone back into the loop. As if the plan was something fragile that could break if touched without collective agreement. And at some point I found myself wondering how many of these alignment loops are happening quietly across the organization for things much bigger than a one-day off-site. Because if it takes seven alignments for this, what does it take for a strategic initiative? For a transformation program, for anything that crosses boundaries? You start to imagine the amount of time, the amount of attention, the numbers of hours spent bringing people back to the same page again and again. And the question becomes a bit uncomfortable, what are we protecting exactly? Because it doesn't feel like clarity anymore. Clarity was achieved quite early, actually. It's something else. There is a moment I remember very clearly. We were discussing a minor adjustment, really minor, and someone said, let's just make sure that everyone is aligned on this. And I felt this almost physical reaction, align on this? On something that two years ago someone would have simply decided and communicated in a sentence. So what changed? Why does a 15-minute shift require collective reassurance? There is a fear in there, not always visible, not openly acknowledged, but very present. The fear of misalignment showing up later as a problem. The fear of someone saying, I wasn't aware, or this is not what we agreed. The fear of stepping on someone's territory even unintentionally, and maybe even more quietly, the fear of being the one who decided alone and got it wrong. Because when everything is aligned, responsibility spreads. It becomes lighter, safer. No one really owns the decision entirely. It belongs to the group. But the cost of that safety is surprisingly high. It's not just time, it's something about momentum. Every time you stop to realign, you slightly break the flow of the work. You go back from doing to checking, from moving to confirming. And after a while, you can feel it. Projects don't stall exactly, they just don't move with the same energy. There is always one more conversation needed, one more confirmation, one more just to be sure. And people get used to it. It becomes the normal, normal way of operating. Until someone new joins or someone external looks at it and asks a very simple question. Why do you need so many people to agree on this? And there is no clear answer because inside the system it feels obvious. Of course, we need to realign. Of course, we need to bring everyone along. That's what good collaboration looks like. But is it? Or is it something slightly different, something that looks like collaboration, but is actually a way of managing anxiety. Keeping everyone close, informed, consulted, and so nothing unexpected happens, so that no one feels excluded, so that no one can say this was done without me. And again, I'm not questioning the value of alignment. There are moments where it is absolutely necessary. But I keep coming back to that off-sight. Seven alignments for one day. And I imagine all the other seven alignments happening in parallel in different corners of the organization for different topics. And I wonder, if you removed half of them, what would really happen? Where would things actually break? And where would they simply move faster? Because maybe the real question is not how to align better, but how much misalignment are we actually willing to tolerate in order to keep things alive? And that's not a comfortable question, because it brings us very close to something leaders don't always like to sit with. The possibility that not everyone is on the same page, that some people move ahead while others are still processing, that decisions are taken with partial agreement. So I'm curious, next time you feel the need to call for just one more alignment, especially on something small, what is the risk you are trying to eliminate? And is that risk real or just very, very uncomfortable to hold? If this episode is still something in you, subscribe to The Orange Twist, your weekly shot of insights on leadership, culture, and change served with the twist. So join me next time for another Fresh World Perspective.