Maybe. It could be true. But, in the interest of folks who just want a summary with an opportunity to dig in deeper, this piece would have benefited from the addition of a worked example in the text; simply as an explanation and a teaser. I spend enough time with spreadsheets.
My takeaway: get people to independently create an artifact representing their priorities, share the results, discuss the differences, come to a consensus informed by everyone's insights.
Whatever artifact makes sense. Maybe a spreadsheet list. Maybe a one page, or half page, serious coherent characterization from each person.
How people independently see priorities before collective discussion, being as important as how they rate them, I would go with one page thoughtful summaries.
Having experienced partially-aligned organizations, I would want key contributors to a discussion like this to come from every major part of an organization. Emphasis on very different roles, especially important leaf roles, not just top leaders. Otherwise you get high bubble-at-the-top alignment. Top-only strong alignment is like concrete, perniciously inflexible. Which is what I experienced. End-to-end insight and discovery of alignment is needed to get adaptable, in-touch, actually effective alignment.
And as is hammered so well in "Creativity, Inc" by Ed Catmull, alignment isn't just about coordinating efforts. It is about continuously identifying and removing friction, of any kind, anywhere, for anyone, as individuals make their very different contributions in service to the common direction.
> get people to independently create an artifact representing their priorities
Except trying to get most stakeholders to be alone with their thoughts to be condensed upon a blank document before them causes them to violently open outlook and schedule a meeting with everyone instead.
Pre-alignment-meeting alignment! A good thing to explicitly exclude.
Definitely need a healthy culture when asking for honesty and openness about what people think, including they see as unclear, unknown, inconsistent with others, and/or outside the existing box.
Maybe we can break out of it by giving who ever is taking accountability if that thing goes wrong a tie breaker vote, or have their votes weigh a bit more?
Maybe. It could be true. But, in the interest of folks who just want a summary with an opportunity to dig in deeper, this piece would have benefited from the addition of a worked example in the text; simply as an explanation and a teaser. I spend enough time with spreadsheets.
My takeaway: get people to independently create an artifact representing their priorities, share the results, discuss the differences, come to a consensus informed by everyone's insights.
Whatever artifact makes sense. Maybe a spreadsheet list. Maybe a one page, or half page, serious coherent characterization from each person.
How people independently see priorities before collective discussion, being as important as how they rate them, I would go with one page thoughtful summaries.
Having experienced partially-aligned organizations, I would want key contributors to a discussion like this to come from every major part of an organization. Emphasis on very different roles, especially important leaf roles, not just top leaders. Otherwise you get high bubble-at-the-top alignment. Top-only strong alignment is like concrete, perniciously inflexible. Which is what I experienced. End-to-end insight and discovery of alignment is needed to get adaptable, in-touch, actually effective alignment.
And as is hammered so well in "Creativity, Inc" by Ed Catmull, alignment isn't just about coordinating efforts. It is about continuously identifying and removing friction, of any kind, anywhere, for anyone, as individuals make their very different contributions in service to the common direction.
> get people to independently create an artifact representing their priorities
Except trying to get most stakeholders to be alone with their thoughts to be condensed upon a blank document before them causes them to violently open outlook and schedule a meeting with everyone instead.
Pre-alignment-meeting alignment! A good thing to explicitly exclude.
Definitely need a healthy culture when asking for honesty and openness about what people think, including they see as unclear, unknown, inconsistent with others, and/or outside the existing box.
what happens when you have three players, and three options that do not have a stable equilibrium?
aka Arrow's impossibility theorem?
Interesting question.
Maybe we can break out of it by giving who ever is taking accountability if that thing goes wrong a tie breaker vote, or have their votes weigh a bit more?