For parents, this is a usual situation. I know that my wife and I are very committed to what we want for our children; Let them become responsible and trustworthy adults. But in this way, we often disagree on different decisions. We should use this orientation to explain our choice: one of us would explain how to let a teenager go somewhere to achieve our «responsible» goal, and the other would explain that this teenager would not lead to our «adult life». It was a constant confirmation of our orientation, but in the end, as a team, we had to agree on what we would say to the teenager, while realizing the creative tension that is part of the dynamics of parenting. Think about it with me: it`s easy (and we spend a lot of time doing it, because it`s easy) to accept or not to consent. We simply do so and our position is NOT dependent or related to another person`s position. It`s happening all over the world today – silos that are built, either on the ground, seemingly black or white decisions that will anchor. There may be many others who are on our side or who do not agree with us – (that`s why we`re here at the beginning!) – but it doesn`t matter whether they`re there or not when it comes to our agreement or disagreement: we can do it all on our own. This goes pretty much to the extent that direction and agreement go hand in hand. In addition, the purpose and vision are indicated and the work begins.
We no longer need to question the objective, but we could question the views of others and those we propose. From here, that is what we have planned. The friction begins when we sit in meetings where we have to make decisions about our affairs. When our contributions and ideas are tested, we believe in what we have said, that we are moving towards them. The temptation to mix orientation and concordance is ongoing and this requires a conscious effort to separate them by giving them each their place. In the story I told here, it would have been easy. All the points of contention were based on history; They were easy to check. McKeever and the overall idea of Ireland is that high-level teams must determine which decisions require an agreement in relation to the alignment. In an interview with Build, McKeever discusses these and other aspects of his article.
«On the other hand, the agreement requires a higher level of commitment on the part of each person on the team. The agreement implies unanimity in terms of disagreement. If there is agreement, everyone really thinks that the direction of the decision and the measures that result from it are both their personal choice and the choice of the group. The alignment is impeccable and the wrong orientation can be fatal. If a sales team succeeds, it must always align itself on the scale. They may not always agree with the decision, but they must always execute the decision as if it were theirs. But most of the disagreements do not exist about what happened, but about what we want to do next. This information is not based on intuition and prediction. So, it seems that if you don`t agree with the idea of the leader of the best way, does that also mean that the person is misdirected with the vision of the Fuhrer? That`s a good article, Hanna. In the search for guidance removes personal effects from it, so that both parties can focus on the goal. As Christina said, it`s something that requires a little training, but it really helps to move the situation forward.
Thank you! When I work for the alignment, I have to keep my point of view and adapt his position in relation to the point of view of others who, from their point of view, do the same.