What I notice repeatedly is executives describing misalignment when the issue is something else entirely.

Most senior teams know where the problems sit. They know which costs are out of line, which initiatives are diluting focus and which roles are stretched or misfiring. Agreement is rarely absent. What’s missing is the decision that creates consequence.

So work continues without really shifting. Analysis deepens. Papers circulate. Decisions are described as complex when they are mostly uncomfortable.  One example I often see is teams caught between the need for process change and the desire to keep investing for growth. Neither feels safe to prioritise.  Decisions stall and both agendas quietly lose momentum.  Governance absorbs the tension. Everyone stays busy. Very little changes.

This isn’t a capability issue. These are experienced, commercially grounded leaders. Avoidance persists for more human reasons. Real decisions create winners and losers. They strain relationships. They expose judgement in ways frameworks never do.

Collective agreement can feel safer than individual accountability. If everyone approves it, no one fully owns it.

What breaks the pattern is not more alignment, but a willingness to choose. To stop one thing so another can succeed. To change roles, priorities or expectations and hold the line when it gets uncomfortable.

When that happens, momentum returns quickly.

Not because everyone agrees, but because someone led.