Agreement can be the most dangerous moment in any collaboration.
Not disagreement. Agreement.
Because agreement feels like alignment.
Everyone's nodding.
Everyone's saying yes.
The meeting ends with what looks like unity.
Three weeks later: chaos. Rework. Finger-pointing. People running fast—but not together.
Agreement isn't alignment.
When an organization is aligned, people feel enthusiastic, energized, and connected.
And until you understand the difference, you'll keep watching collaborations fall apart without understanding why.
Your expertise gets you into the room. But your ability to connect without a script is what keeps you there. When you freeze, you don't just lose a conversation—you lose authority.
The Impromptu Communications Navigator is a complete toolkit for navigating the unscripted moments that define your career. Stop freezing. Start connecting.
I've Watched This Happen
I was advising on a cross-agency initiative early in my career.
Smart people.
Shared deadline.
Everyone agreed on the goal in the first meeting.
By week three, one group was building a pilot. Another was drafting policy. A third was still "gathering stakeholder input."
Same goal. Completely different interpretations of what it meant.
When it surfaced, the response was predictable: frustration, blame, defensiveness. But the problem wasn't the people.
It was that we'd mistaken agreement for shared logic.
They'd all said yes. They'd never built the same map.
What This Is Actually Costing You
Misaligned logic becomes misaligned expectations.
Misaligned expectations become misaligned behavior.
Misaligned behavior becomes mistrust.
Once mistrust enters the room, influence drops—fast.
You stop being seen as principled. You start being seen as political.
Your actions get interpreted through suspicion instead of shared understanding. And you won't know it's happening until the relationships are already damaged.
This is how experts lose influence without doing anything wrong. The logic was never shared.
So every move looks like a personal agenda.
Agreement Isn't Alignment
Agreement is everyone saying yes.
Shared logic is everyone understanding the same problem, the same constraints, and the same trade-offs.
You can have the first without the second. It happens constantly.
And when it does, people interpret the same decision differently, then blame each other for the gap.
Why You Keep Missing It
The trap feels like being efficient.
You get agreement and move to action. Why slow down when everyone's nodding?
Because nodding isn't understanding. People nod when they think they understand. They nod when they don't want to be the one who slows things down. They nod when they're already planning how they'll handle it their own way.
Experts make this worse. You present your logic clearly. You assume that if it's sound, others will adopt it.
They won't. They'll nod—and then operate from their own map.
Presenting logic = telling people how you see it.
Building shared logic = creating a frame people can think inside of together.
The first is a monologue. The second is architecture.
I see so many experts skip the architecture because they're eager to get to the "real work."
The shared logic is the real work.
Everything else builds on it—or crumbles without it.
How to Build a Map Everyone Can Follow
So how do you build shared logic instead of just collecting agreement?
I think there are three conversations that can make the difference between alignment that holds and alignment that collapses under pressure.
Gif by snl on Giphy
Let’s get it…
1. Surface the assumptions
Before decisions, ask: "What assumptions are we each making about this problem?"
You're not looking for consensus. You're looking for visibility.
Most misalignment lives in unspoken assumptions. Two people can agree on the goal and disagree completely on what the goal means—because they're assuming different things about the problem, the timeline, or the constraints.
Make the invisible visible. That's where alignment starts.
2. Define the non-negotiables
Ask: "What constraints are real? What success criteria can't change? What guardrails protect this work?"
Non-negotiables create boundaries. Boundaries create consistency. Consistency creates trust.
When non-negotiables aren't explicit, people make their own.
Then they're confused when others don't honor commitments that were never actually shared.
3. Align on the trade-offs
This is the conversation experts resist most, and it's the most important.
Ask: "If everything is important, what becomes less important? Where are we willing to be excellent, and where are we willing to be adequate?"
Nothing aligns people faster than naming the trade-offs upfront.
Because if you don't name them, people will make them silently and differently. Then you'll fight about outcomes that were actually decided by unstated trade-offs nobody agreed to.
When This Gets Harder
Once you have the framework, there's a nuance that changes how you apply it.
I've found there's a subtle difference in approach depending on whether you're working with a team or a group.
A team shares a common goal. They're bound by a shared destination.
A group is a collection of individuals coordinating efforts—each optimizing for something different.
Most high-stakes influence happens in groups: cross-functional initiatives, stakeholder coalitions, partnerships, inter-departmental work.
Here's the nuance:
With a team, you can assume shared purpose exists. Start by surfacing assumptions about the work—how you'll execute, what trade-offs you'll make, what success looks like.
With a group, you can't assume shared purpose. Start by surfacing interests—what each party needs from the coordination—then find where those interests overlap before you build shared logic.
With a team, the question is: "How do we do this together?"
With a group, the question is: "What does each of us need, and where do those needs align?"
Miss this distinction, and you'll build shared logic on a foundation that doesn't exist.
Agreement without shared logic is how people nod in the meeting and fight when doing the work. Build the shared frame first, and influence follows.
LEVEL UP
AI Prompt: Your Shared Logic Builder
Copy, paste, and complete this in your favorite LLM:
I need to build shared logic before we start making decisions. Help me surface assumptions and create real alignment.
Here's the work or decision: [Describe it]
Here's who's involved: [Roles, perspectives, whether this is a team or a group]
Help me:
1. Identify the assumptions different people might be making—especially ones that could conflict.
2. Clarify what non-negotiables I should make explicit upfront.
3. Surface the trade-offs we'll need to name—where we can't have everything.
4. If this is a group (not a team), map the different interests and where they might overlap.
5. Draft 3 questions I can ask to build shared logic before we start deciding.
6. Anticipate where misalignment is most likely to emerge if I skip this work.POLL
Where Does Your Alignment Break Down?
CURATED ROUNDUP
What to Review This Week
Read: The Power of Collaboration by Thea Spitzer
Listen: The Power of Alignment in Leadership by The Leadership Vision Podcast
In Case You Missed It!
The Bottom Line
Agreement without shared logic is an illusion.
People don't fall apart because they disagree. They fall apart because they're operating from different maps of what's happening—and don't realize it until the damage is done.
The experts who lead don't just present their logic. They build shared logic—the kind that holds when pressure comes.
Emotion drives decisions. Shared logic drives coordination.
Build the logic first. The influence follows.
Thanks for reading. Be easy!
Girvin
What did you think of today's newsletter?
