Why the word “alignment” has become a strategic obstacle

…and what should we replace it with?

For years, management has repeated the same mantra: we must be aligned.

Strategic alignment. Team alignment. Goal alignment. Alignment with the vision.

The word is reassuring.

It creates the illusion of control.

But in a world that has become complex, unstable and interconnected, alignment has turned into a simplifying word used to think a complex reality. A comfortable concept inherited from another time.

Alignment: a geometry that is too simple

Two points are always aligned.

A line connects point A to point B, without detours, without hesitation.

This geometry was effective for a long time: a clear direction, a single axis, a controlled trajectory.

But a straight line leaves no room for doubt, for learning, or for enrichment along the way.

To be aligned is to agree on a direction, not to question its relevance through contact with reality.

Yet reality never moves in a straight line.

An inheritance from command and control

In day-to-day practice, “being aligned” often means one thing: agreeing with one’s superior.

Not making waves. Adjusting one’s discourse. Validating more than questioning.

Behind ths word lies an inheritance from "command and control": a system that was effective in a stable world, but becomes unsuitable when uncertainty turns structural.

The problem is not moral.

It is structural.

Complexity: what alignment prevents us from seeing

Companies no longer operate in a world of simplifying procedures, but in a complex world:

unstable,

interconnected,

shaped by constant shocks.

In this context, alignment becomes a form of impoverishment.

It reduces diversity of perspectives,

slows adaptation,

and turns debate into validation.

A highly aligned organisation gradually becomes an organisation that no longer learns.

Alignment also creates unhealthy managerial tension

Beyond ways of thinking, alignment creates unhealthy tension within teams.

A tremendous amount of energy is spent aligning discourses, objectives and decisions that become misaligned as soon as reality shifts.

Continuously aligning unstable points is exhausting.

This tension fuels defensive behaviours:

more control, more reporting, more pressure to “stay on track”.

A vicious circle emerges: the more unstable the world becomes, the more alignment is reinforced, and the more the organisation rigidifies and exhausts itself by investing energy in the wrong place.

Changing geometry: from line to network

It is time to change the conceptual framework.

And above all, to change our mental geometry.

Rather than spending energy aligning points along a line, we must learn to connect them and think in terms of networks.

Steve Jobs spoke of “connecting the dots” to explain how new ideas emerge and how individual and collective creative power develops.

This intuition is deeply relevant for organisations.

In a complex world, performance no longer comes from alignment,

but from the ability to:

create connections,

enable dialogue between different perspectives,

link scattered information,

stimulate initiative and reveal talent.

A network of intelligences is infinitely more robust than a perfectly aligned chain.

The network is the most resilient form for a system of collective intelligence:

it absorbs shocks better,

learns faster,

and adapts without breaking.

Each “node” in the network exists to contribute, not to be aligned.

And this internal network can then connect more easily with the company’s external ecosystem.

From alignment to dynamic coherence

The real issue is no longer alignment, but dynamic coherence.

Dynamic coherence views the company and its project not as a straight line, but as a trajectory.

It seeks to animate a human dynamic guided by shared meaning, clear transformation axes, and the capacity to be continuously enriched through contact with reality.

We move forward with a direction, a trajectory, a plan.

But we remain attentive.

We nourish the project.

We adjust without betraying its meaning.

Synchronizing rather than aligning

Synchronizing does not mean making everyone identical, lined up on the same track.

It means synchronizing each person within the overall movement:

meaning,

current priorities,

real constraints,

rhythms.

Synchronizing rather than aligning means:

drawing on everyone’s intelligence, uniqueness and talents,

recognising deep understanding of the field,

enabling responsible local decisions,

while remaining connected to the collective project.

This is how collective intelligence emerges:

not through uniformity,

but through the quality of connections and the shared ability to nurture the trajectory.

The managerial “how”: changing practices

Changing geometry begins with simple actions.

👉 Replace alignment meetings with synchronization conversations.

Moments to share challenges, but above all to listen.

👉 Become a manager of talent networks rather than a conductor of control.

Make space. Trust. Allow yourself to be surprised.

👉 Move from “change management” to co-constructing change.

The manager is no longer the one who explains decisions made elsewhere, but the one who creates dialogue between strategic intent and field experience.

The synchronization conversation aims to move the employee:

from an executor who must align,

to a responsible actor asked to contribute to the project.

A simple change of word triggers a change in posture.

And that change in posture transforms collective energy.

Conclusion: banning alignment to stay alive

Words are never neutral.

Continuing to speak of alignment means continuing to think of the world as a straight line.

If we want organisations capable of facing the complexity of reality, we must change geometry:

abandon alignment,

connect the dots,

build networks of intelligence,

and learn to synchronize rather than constrain.

In an unstable world,

an organisation that does nothing but align

eventually dies… perfectly aligned.