I can’t predict the future, but when I see a thorny decision looming at a company, I start hoping they don’t rush past the “are we really in alignment?” phase.

When they do rush past, I know things are highly likely to fall apart over time.

It often starts with a well-meaning impulse. Everyone is busy. There’s a challenging decision to make, and it feels responsible to take quick action. So the group hopes for instant alignment.

But abstaining from further debate is not the same thing as agreement. Actual alignment requires assumptions and tradeoffs to be examined, and alternatives to be identified. It requires people to think through the consequences of each alternative, and the freedom for some to say, “I’m not convinced.”

When the room is optimized for speed, those moves start to feel like friction.

When decisions get made too quickly, without real dissent, the issues that would have been raised during the missing conversation don’t disappear—they just move downstream. A half-examined strategy becomes an implementation problem. Role ambiguity becomes a people problem. An unspoken risk becomes a budget surprise.

The work still gets done, but with more effort and less trust.

Eventually, the team stops telling the full truth, through small, seemingly rational choices to stay efficient, stay pleasant, stay on schedule. Meetings become smoother, but outcomes become shakier.

The fix isn’t to slow everything down. It’s to earn alignment by raising the uncomfortable questions early, while they’re still cheap.

Where are you mistaking politeness for progress?