The Alignment Trap

The system that governs decisions in most transformation programs makes stopping work almost impossible.

The work is rarely obviously bad, and the teams are capable. The problem is systemic: every initiative has a sponsor, every stream has a rationale, and each piece of work feels defensible in isolation.

Over time, this creates a familiar pattern. Portfolios grow. Capacity fragments. Delivery slows. Everyone stays busy. Very little moves.

I call this dynamic the Alignment Trap, and I see it play out in programs of every size.

The trap emerges when consensus becomes the default requirement for decisions.

At first, this feels sensible: broader input, shared understanding, reduced risk. In practice, something else happens. Decision forums fill up. Discussion increases. Trade-offs get deferred. No one explicitly chooses to keep underperforming work alive. The system does it automatically.

This is a long-standing observation. Research from McKinsey has consistently found that roughly 70 percent of transformation efforts fail to meet their objectives. What is discussed far less is how often an inability to stop work drives those failures, more than poor strategy does.

Behavioural science has a name for this at the individual level: escalation of commitment, the well-documented tendency for decision-makers to keep investing in a failing course of action because of what has already been spent. Barry Staw's foundational research showed that people commit the most resources to failing efforts when they feel personally responsible for the original decision.

In transformation programs, this dynamic operates at scale. Every initiative has an owner who championed it, and every stream has a team whose identity is tied to it. Stopping anything means someone has to absorb the discomfort of admitting it did not work, or worse, that it should never have started.

Because stopping work requires broad agreement, the path of least resistance is always continuation. Funding rolls forward, delivery teams stretch thinner, and momentum dissipates gradually.

02What alignment actually optimises for

Alignment optimises for safety. It reduces visible disagreement, spreads responsibility, and avoids discomfort in the room.

Focus is what it gives up.

The result is false alignment: agreement in the room, and no change in what the program actually does.

The cost rarely shows up as a single failure. It shows up as slower decision cycles, persistent dependencies, incremental delivery that never compounds, and teams spending more time explaining progress than producing outcomes.

Money stays allocated. People stay committed. Results lag. The organisation appears active, and the transformation stands still.

03Why good governance doesn't fix this

Many organisations respond by adding more structure: extra steering forums, additional checkpoints, and heavier reporting. That increases oversight while leaving decisiveness where it was.

As Paul Rogers and Marcia Blenko of Bain argued in Harvard Business Review, decisions stall wherever there is ambiguity over who gets to decide what, and effective decision-making depends on clarity about who is accountable for which decisions.

Without clear authority, governance becomes observational. Forums record progress without creating it. What is missing is the authority to stop work.

04Defunding as a capability

This is the structural shift that separates programs that move from programs that stall.

The ability to defund work is a capability, and like any capability, leaders need to design it deliberately.

That means designing four things deliberately:

1. 1
   Explicit authority thresholds

   So people know who can make the call.

2. 2
   Clear ownership of outcomes

   So accountability does not dissolve into committee.

3. 3
   A regular decision cadence

   So reviews happen whether things feel urgent or not.

4. 4
   Permission to stop without blame

   Treating the end of work as good governance.

When these are present, trade-offs become routine and stop being political. The portfolio shrinks. Delivery sharpens. Confidence increases.

When they are absent, every review becomes a negotiation. Nobody stops anything. And the Alignment Trap tightens.

Bain's research on decision-driven organisations reinforces the point. Of 57 reorganisations it studied, fewer than a third produced a significant improvement in performance, and some destroyed value. The ones that worked improved the organisation's ability to make and execute key decisions faster than competitors. Structure followed decisions.

05How fast programs escape the trap

Programs that move well design decision systems differently. They separate input from authority.

Input stays broad. Teams gather perspectives early and surface risks explicitly. Authority stays narrow. Decision rights are clear, and escalation paths are limited.

Stopping work becomes a normal outcome of review. Behaviour changes quickly: teams focus on the outcomes that matter, initiatives compete honestly for funding, and momentum becomes visible.

06A diagnostic question

If you want to know whether the Alignment Trap has taken hold in your program, ask one question:

“

Which initiatives would still be funded today even if you had full permission to stop them?

If the answer is "most of them," the issue is decision design, whatever the level of ambition or effort.

07Where to start

Escaping the Alignment Trap does not need a cultural change program or stronger messaging. It needs structural clarity about who decides, what can be stopped, and how often those decisions are revisited.

That work is uncomfortable. It is also where momentum is recovered.

A practical place to begin is the sequencing conversation: moving capacity to the work that delivers value soonest, while every initiative stays on the roadmap with a new start date.