The Overalignment Trap

Alignment is good … till it isn’t.

Tell me if this sounds normal,” the country head of a global MNC said, over coffee, “To run a brand campaign, I need three global sign-offs, two ‘pre-align’ calls, and an 11-person sync to get everyone on the same page.” He shook his head. “I’m moving meetings more than I’m moving metrics.”

If that hits close to home, you’ve already felt the hidden cost of alignment taken too far.

Alignment is essential. But is there a tipping point? In any organisation, alignment creates focus. It helps teams prioritise, avoid duplication, and execute with consistency. In fast-moving environments, alignment gives people direction when everything else is in flux.

But sometimes, the effort to stay aligned becomes the very thing that gets in the way. Especially today — when distributed teams, remote work, constant reorgs and global interdependencies muddy the waters — it’s easy to overcorrect. The result? Alignment tightens so much that it quietly backfires.

This week, let’s explore the subtle trap of over-alignment. What does it look like in practice? What do we lose when everyone’s always trying to be on the same page? And how can leaders strike a healthier balance — one that leaves space for challenge, tension and originality?

When Alignment Turns into Conformity

Research shows that teams with some internal friction consistently outperform those that are either too conflict-ridden or too uniform. The sweet spot lies in just enough clarity and agreement to move forward together — and just enough tension to keep thinking sharp.

So, how do you know when alignment has gone too far? The warning signs are deceptively positive on the surface:

• Too good to be true. Everything clicks. There’s no conflict, no resistance, no hard conversations. Harmony reigns. But it might be masking something deeper.
• Update overload. Team members constantly “check in” with a stream of messages and emails that rarely add substance. It looks like communication — but it’s really just noise.
• The usual suspects. The same voices dominate every room. Familiar faces, familiar viewpoints. Relationships are cosy, but the challenge is missing.
• No tension, no traction. Meetings glide along without a hint of disagreement. Decisions come quickly — undebated and untested.
• Consensus, then… stuck. Everyone nods their approval, yet progress stalls. The team looks aligned, but can’t seem to move forward and deliver.

What We Lose When We All Agree

There’s a serious cost to pushing alignment past its useful edge. It doesn’t always look dramatic, but it shows up in trust, pace and culture.

• Dissent disappears. Groupthink sets in. Fast, unanimous agreement becomes the unspoken goal. Diverse thinking leaves the room — and with it, the team’s ability to challenge assumptions and tease out new opportunities. Blind spots grow and bold ideas fizzle out before even seeing the light of day.
• Collaboration becomes overload. Collaborative work has surged by over 50% in the past two decades. In many companies, just 3-5% of employees generate up to 35% of the collaborative value. These top contributors become overburdened and eventually become bottlenecks. They’re in every room. Nothing moves without them.
• Bureaucracy creeps in. When total alignment becomes the mission, red tape naturally follows. Days go by in a blur of updates, check-ins and approvals. There is constant motion — but no momentum. Agility disappears in a flurry of paperwork.
• Initiative fades. In rigidly standardised cultures, autonomy shrinks. People hesitate to try something new or suggest an alternative. If ideas don’t map perfectly to the ‘masterplan’, they’re dropped. Creativity flatlines, and so does ownership.

The Abilene Paradox

In his classic essay, The Abilene Paradox, Jerry B. Harvey digs into team dysfunction rooted in the inability to express disagreement. The story that frames the idea is simple: a family, sitting comfortably at home on a hot day in Texas, decides to take a miserable trip to Abilene. Not because anyone wants to, but because each assumes the others do — a fact revealed only after everyone has endured the unpleasant outing.

Over-alignment creates the perfect conditions for this paradox to play out. People go along with plans they don’t actually support and sometimes even add their enthusiastic approval! What emerges is not true consensus, but an illusion — a kind of collective misunderstanding of reality.

When this happens, teams start acting in ways that are counterproductive to their intent and goals. If the cycle isn’t broken, it repeats itself with growing intensity.

Getting Back to Smart Tension

The best leaders don’t chase relentless alignment. They build elasticity — the ability to hold tension without breaking. Here are five ways for leaders to strike the right balance, one that facilitates both cohesion and creativity:

1. Build dissent into your rhythm.

Be intentional about generating a healthy level of conflict. Don’t assume people will speak up if they disagree. Especially in over-aligned cultures, they often won’t. So, engineer dissent into your processes and structures.

Rotate the role of ‘devil’s advocate’ among different team members. Require proposals to specifically address potential drawbacks. Collate feedback anonymously to get people’s real opinions. Carve out time to discuss alternative viewpoints and uncover blind spots. Ask uncomfortable questions regularly — and make it safe for others to do so as well.

2. Separate disagreement from disloyalty.

Make it clear: pushing back isn’t personal. It’s part of the job. It’s normal and, in fact, beneficial for the entire team. Reflect on how you respond when challenged. Do you invite discussion — or shut it down? Do you penalise the person in some way, perhaps unconsciously? Do you show you can change your mind when presented with a strong counter-argument? These cues shape team behaviour more than you think.

3. Free collaborative bottlenecks.

If a handful of people are being dragged into every project, meeting and decision, it’s a red flag. Top collaborators often receive an unreasonable number of requests for hands-on help or approvals, which can lead to bottlenecks. Support these overburdened team members by helping them filter requests and delegate tasks more effectively, so the weight of collaboration is more evenly distributed.

Those seeking help should be encouraged to access existing informational resources and make decisions more independently, where possible. Question the value of other collaborative tasks that may be stifling momentum. Do team members really need all those check-ins and recurring meetings?

4. Reward challenge, not just unity.

If only consensus gets recognised, dissent will go underground. Take the fear and anxiety out of speaking up by celebrating team members who question the status quo. Shine a light on those who surface uncomfortable truths and suggest unconventional ideas. That’s how you build a culture of real safety and smarts.

5. Set boundaries around misalignment.

You don’t have to choose between chaos and conformity. Even as organisations work towards greater flexibility, they can continue to safeguard alignment by putting guardrails in place. Maintain agreement on core mission, values and priorities, not just in the C-suite but flowing down to middle management.

Have clear conversations about what’s non-negotiable — and what’s open for debate. Set norms around acceptable trade-offs. Empower people to speak up if they encounter mixed signals or feel key priorities shifting.

Here’s the irony: over-alignment doesn’t look like dysfunction. It looks like agreement, order, even teamwork. That’s what makes it so easy to miss – and so damaging when it sets in.

If your team spends more time syncing than building, it’s not a culture of alignment. It’s a culture of inertia. Invite challenge. Create stretch. Build the kind of culture where traction trumps smoothness.