From Squishy to Solvable: Translating Alignment Into Action
Put me in the same room as an engineer, ex-military, or investments bro and I'm going to be the squishy one.
If you've ever done personality diagnostic assessments—love them or hate them—there's one valuable takeaway: not everyone thinks like you.
I spike high on the inspirational, energetic, and emotive. Low on the logical, precise, and data-driven.
I'm the person who doesn't RTFM (to the pain of my scientist husband) and breaks things while trying to build them.
Although I started my career plunged into an environment where I surrounded myself with these high-energy creative types, I eventually learned how to embrace being that one person in the room who operated a bit differently. I was forced to finely articulate what I did and spent a lot of time trying to prove the worth of effective brand and communication.
Most importantly, I had to learn to empathize with people who didn't think like me.
People tend to think alignment is nodding heads or walking out of meetings with three action items and due dates. But it goes much deeper than that—deeper than anything AI can currently produce (never say never).
It requires Emotional Quotient: understanding how different people process information, what they value, and what language resonates with them. This self-awareness—this ability to empathize with people who think differently—is the foundational part of what we talk about when we say we need alignment.
The problem with “alignment”
Everyone says they need it. No one defines it.
Executive: “We need better alignment.”
Me: “What does that look like?”
Executive: “You know… everyone on the same page.”
Me: “What does ‘same page’ mean to you? And would your COO define it the same way?”
Here’s the thing: when a big-picture thinker says alignment, they might mean “everyone understands the vision.” When a detail-oriented operator says it, they might mean “everyone follows the same process.”
Same word. Completely different expectations.
When someone says “we have an alignment problem,” what do they actually mean?
Do they mean leaders can’t articulate strategy consistently? Teams don’t understand why decisions were made? Different sites are operating with conflicting priorities? Managers aren’t cascading information effectively?
Those are four different problems requiring four different fixes.
Saying “we need alignment” without specificity is like saying “I want to be healthier” without defining whether you mean lose 20 pounds, run a 5K, or lower your blood pressure. All valid goals. Completely different solutions.
Before you launch an “alignment initiative,” ask three questions
Give me an example of where alignment broke down.
Not theory. A real moment. Teams duplicating work because ownership isn’t clear. Sites chasing different priorities. Leaders unable to explain the why.
Pay attention to what kind of breakdown it is: operational (things aren’t getting done), strategic (direction is unclear), or cultural (trust or communication is missing).
What’s the cost of not fixing this?
Fuzzy problems feel optional. Expensive problems feel urgent.
Are projects taking twice as long because decisions stay unclear? Are opportunities slipping through because no one can agree on priorities? Are people leaving because they don’t understand the mission?
Operational costs mean lost time. Strategic costs mean missed opportunities. Cultural costs mean lost trust. When you connect alignment to tangible impact, it stops being abstract.
What does success look like?
If we solve this, what changes?
Teams know who owns what. Initiatives launch faster. Managers spend less time re-explaining decisions because everyone understands the why.
Operational success means things move faster. Strategic success means priorities stay consistent. Cultural success means people understand and feel connected. Match your solution to the kind of success you want.
How this shows up in practice
I was designing an offsite with a leadership team when I presented an afternoon session on defining shared values. Sandwiched between KPIs and market insights, one of the ops leaders looked at the agenda and said, “Ah yes, the squishy stuff.”
I laughed—and then made it the working title for the session.
They weren’t resistant to the work; they were resistant to the language. Once I translated the “squishy stuff” into their terms—systems, consistency, reducing rework—it stopped being squishy.
You can show the engineer why consistent messaging is a systems problem.
You can show the finance exec why misalignment is a cost center.
You can show the people leader why clarity reduces turnover.
Same work. Different translation.
The uncomfortable truth
The real resistance isn’t to alignment work. It’s to vague definitions and language that doesn’t resonate.
When you understand how someone processes information and what they value, you can translate “squishy” work into something solvable.
So the next time someone says they need better alignment: ask for a specific example, listen for what they value, and propose solutions in their language—not yours.
Getting everyone “on the same page” means nothing until you define which page, what’s on it, and how you’ll communicate it to people who think differently than you do.
Self-awareness isn’t just nice to have. It’s how you get real alignment in rooms full of people who don’t think like you.
