Clarity ≠ Alignment

When organizations struggle with alignment, the default response is usually the same: "We need to be clearer." Clearer strategy. Clearer goals. Clearer communication.

To be fair, clarity does matter. People can't move in the same direction if they don't understand where they're going. Clear goals and directives are a fine balance between details and broad overview.

But here's the uncomfortable truth you will eventually confront: you can have complete clarity and still have misalignment.

You can articulate the strategy perfectly. You can repeat it in town halls, focus groups, slide decks, and one-on-ones. You can even get nods of agreement, and a verbal confirmation validating they understand. But without the necessary change in behavior, words of clarity are meaningless. Deadlines slip. Decisions stall. Teams quietly pull in different directions.

At that point, the issue is no longer clarity, but competing commitments — unspoken individual or collective obligations people feel bound to honor at the same time. These commitments often conflict with one another, creating invisible tensions around values, loyalties, and identity.

Individually, this can feel like risking competence or comfort. It may mean stepping outside areas where they feel capable and confident, risking perceived incompetence. It can also feel like betraying loyalties to people, roles, or institutions, and ultimately create tension with how they see themselves.

For example, if someone has done work the same way for over 10 years, they may be facing the competing commitment to remain relevant and resourceful to their department. Rather than simply aligning with a new company-wide initiative to integrate new technology into the workflow, they might slow-roll their end of the integration. They may also start to sour on the relationship with those pushing for the change, making the workflow process even less efficient. It is relatively the same when it comes to the collective. However, the complexity increases based on having multiple people involved, and understanding what the culture of that team, department, or organization values, is loyal to, and what is their identity/identities.

For example, an entire department might internally question the point of the new technology when they have been so successful over the last five years with their own processes. The culture fears innovation from a large technological integration failure that happened 15 years ago, which cost the company a significant loss in value and 50% of its workforce. They also question their own future, as the technology automates a moderate portion of their job responsibilities.

So instead of aligning with the proposed initiative, the department resists. Not because the message is unclear, nor is it usually done in a deliberate and coordinated way. Rather, they resist as a default defense mechanism in the face of a perceived danger. That response could be as subtle as slow email responses, or as blunt as hearing "that's not the way we do things here" from people in the department.

Alignment begins with a deep understanding of the people and dynamics within the organization. It requires looking beyond stated goals to the loyalties, fears, and identities quietly shaping behavior. When these underlying forces are acknowledged, clarity becomes actionable and real progress can take hold.