The Most Expensive Sentence in the Boardroom: “We All Agree”
Alignment is the most underestimated factor in strategy execution. Not because leaders ignore it, but because they believe they already have it.
It is a familiar scene. The executive team leaves the strategy session satisfied. Everyone nodded, the slides were clear, the decision was made. Six months later, three departments are executing three different versions of the same plan, and nobody can quite explain why.
The alignment illusion
HBR research among more than 500 employees found that actual strategic alignment between staff, managers and executives was two to three times lower than people believed.¹ That gap is the real problem. A team that knows it disagrees can work on it. A team that thinks it agrees moves ahead with confidence, in different directions.
HBR also notes that alignment is often neglected because nobody owns it. It falls between strategy, HR and line management, and daily operations push the bigger picture aside.²
The false alignment trap
In 2026, HBR gave this phenomenon a name: the false alignment trap. Many change efforts fail not because of poor execution, but because senior leaders believe they agree on why, what and how to change when they actually do not. Vague discussions, avoiding conflict and the pressure to move fast create an agreement that only exists on paper. The result is paralysis, wasted effort or watered-down compromises. The remedy sounds simple but takes discipline: be specific, invite disagreement early and make it safe, debate rigorously, clarify who decides, and commit formally.³
A clear centre, and a purpose people can live
Rita McGrath argues in HBR that organisations need a strategic centre: one coherent organising principle that guides choices, resources and identity.⁴ Without that centre, every department optimises its own logic.
Purpose is part of this, but it can backfire. When companies promise employees they can make a difference, and then rules, metrics and bureaucracy prevent exactly that, purpose turns into frustration. HBR calls it thwarted impact, and it hits the front line hardest.⁵ Gartner’s 2026 outlook adds that culture dissonance, the gap between the culture leaders describe and the one employees experience, is holding organisations back from their performance goals.⁶
Our view
Alignment is where the G.O.A.L. model earns its keep. A strong new leader placed in a misaligned top team will either be absorbed or rejected. That is why, before we start a search, we often speak to each member of the leadership team separately and ask the same question: what is our GOAL? The differences in the answers usually tell us more than any job description.
Real alignment takes time up front. HBR’s conclusion matches our experience: that time comes back many times over in faster and better execution.³
Questions we ask our clients
- If we asked your directors separately about the GOAL, would we hear the same answer?
- Where is disagreement in your team being smoothed over instead of being spoken?
- What do your frontline people need to stop doing so that they can actually contribute to the purpose?
Our work starts with your GOAL — not with a vacancy. Read more about our G.O.A.L. model or get in touch.
Sources
- Harvard Business Review, “Is Your Company as Strategically Aligned as You Think It Is?”, May 2023. hbr.org/2023/05/is-your-company-as-strategically-aligned-as-you-think-it-is
- Harvard Business Review, “What Leaders Get Wrong About Strategic Alignment”, January 2026. hbr.org/2026/01/what-leaders-get-wrong-about-strategic-alignment
- Harvard Business Review, “The False Alignment Trap”, July 2026. hbr.org/2026/07/the-false-alignment-trap
- Harvard Business Review, “The Power of Strategic Centering”, July 2026. hbr.org/2026/07/the-power-of-strategic-centering
- Harvard Business Review, “When Purpose Backfires”, June 2026. hbr.org/2026/06/when-purpose-backfires
- Harvard Business Review, “9 Trends Shaping Work in 2026 and Beyond”, February 2026. hbr.org/2026/02/9-trends-shaping-work-in-2026-and-beyond