Multiple Points of Coherence can Help People be More Confident They are Aligned
In performance measurement and goal setting, the pattern of separating the goal from the evidence of progress has another benefit: testing and validating alignment. Here's how.
Hi everyone,
Thank you for reading Great CTOs Focus on Outcomes. I publish weekly and have an archive of over 150 posts, each packed with valuable insights on various topics relevant to CTOs and the issues they face, distilled from my career experience.
I strive to make each post a helpful resource on the topic it focuses on so that when a CTO has a need, they can reference an atomic nugget of insight. To this end, I regularly revisit and refine posts, ensuring you always receive the best and most up-to-date information with the most clarity.
- Daniel Walters, Founder Great CTO & writer of Great CTO blog.
If you’d like to support the growth of this resource, consider upgrading to paid and take advantage of the other ways I can help you.I have written many posts on goal-setting, focusing mainly on OKRs, one of the most popular methods. What interests me about goal-setting approaches is the involvement of people who are aligned and have a common understanding of what they strive to achieve together.
One of the most notable features of OKRs is their division of information into a goal, the objective, and typically two or more key results. PuMP, a performance measurement framework, has a similar approach to representing goals—it refers to the objective as a result, while its equivalent of Key Results is known as ‘measures’.
A survey of other similar frameworks would likely reveal a similar separation of concerns between the goal and the evidence of achieving the goal. It seems like an innocuous design choice, but it is powerful. Let me explain why.
Static Equilibrium: an Analogy for the Effect of Separating Goal from Evidence of Achieving the Goal.
The goal of these systems articulates what we are trying to achieve, separate from how we will know we’ve achieved it or measure progress. Some goal systems have encouraged conflating all of this information, so a clear separation has some vital utility.
When we separate these, the goal can be more plainly expressed, making it easier to assess whether we agree on what is trying to be achieved. Of course, as goals try to be succinct, there is still the potential for misalignment. Some of the recommendations I made in this post are designed to increase the likelihood of alignment.
When I think about this, I often think of the ‘impossible’ floating plant bots, which use three or more ropes to anchor them in space or the Jakob rope suspension installations like the one pictured at the top of this post. You also see this concept used in sailing contexts. It is known as static equilibrium, and these examples are often called ‘triangulated suspension’ or ‘triangulated guying systems’.
All of these have an object secured in position in 3D space. This thing that’s secured in space is analogous to the goal. Ropes and an equilibrium of suspension force secure them in place. These are analogous to the evidence, i.e., the measures in PuMP or the key results in OKRs.
As I shared in my companion piece to the one above, which shares how to write good key results for an outcome, key results may be evidence of achieving the goal or can be the inverse, indicative of heading in the wrong direction.
In this way, the measures can be used together to help interpret whether we are progressing toward achieving the goal or heading off-track.
Points of Agreement as Inbuilt Alignment Test
Having multiple correlating bits of evidence that more specifically describe a goal and what changes if you achieve it provides more opportunities to detect when there is misalignment.
You can ask for clarification when Key Results are suggested that don’t align with your understanding of the goal. These may indicate areas of departure or reveal nuances of the goal that may be clear to some but not others.
Whether you identify areas of conflict that need debate or uncover things that need to be more explicit, you are improving the clarity of the goal and the shared understanding for all who will be engaging with it.
I cover using Objectives and Key Results as an alignment test in this post:
If you combine this with an explicit articulation of your rationale for the goal, the WHY, in addition to the WHAT, and the goal itself, then you have another opportunity to test alignment. It’s entirely possible to have defined what you want to achieve the same as someone else and yet still have different motives for wanting to achieve that. Why you want to achieve something can change what it means to achieve it successfully. More on this idea here:
Working through the different correlation points for a shared goal will help you find the static equilibrium, confirming that all parties understand what will be achieved. It will also help hold the goal concept firmly in place as each potentially confounding misalignment is identified and debated to resolution. The likelihood that you have a goal that’s understood in the same way increases.
This may seem like it's costly in time and effort to do upfront, but what might take an hour or two then will certainly save many hours later, as the misalignment creates friction and leads to misguided effort. This reduces wasted energy and time caused by misalignment among team members or leadership operating with different interpretations of the goals.
Have you noticed this property of goals articulated with the goal and the evidence that supports it? What approaches have you taken to test alignment? Do you have examples where misalignment led to confusion and conflict? Please share your experiences in the comments.
If you enjoyed this publication, please help others find us and benefit from the insights.