If you’ve ever driven on a multi-level highway interchange, you know the feeling. Lanes split, signs flash, exits appear too soon or too late. You’re headed somewhere but the road keeps changing. There’s pressure to pick the right lane fast or risk missing your exit. For me, Dallas freeways are the stuff of nightmares. One moment you think you’ve got it. The next, you’re four lanes away from where you need to be, praying for a break in traffic.
That’s exactly what being on an executive team feels like.
Everyone is racing toward a vision. But each person’s map looks different. Some want to merge. Others want to brake. A few want to build a new road altogether.
And here’s the truth I’ve learned after years of coaching leadership teams: alignment is not about getting everyone to agree. It’s about honoring the value of different lanes, different speeds, different routes and still reaching the destination together.
The best teams don’t fear divergence. They treat it like oxygen. Not every opinion makes it into the final vision. But every voice is heard, respected and used to sharpen the strategy.
Diverging To Converge
Just like the chaos of a speedy highway, leading a multiteam system means navigating motion, not managing sameness. Research in the Academy of Management Journal found that multiteam systems actually perform better when there’s disagreement between component teams and leadership on how much risk to take. Agreement can lead to premature consensus. Disagreement invites perspective. It surfaces blind spots. It sharpens the route.
When one team brakes and another wants to speed ahead, the instinct might be to force alignment. But the smarter move is to listen. Tension isn’t a threat, it’s an opening. Divergence creates the conditions for deeper thinking, better choices, and more aspirational outcomes.
Think of your organization like a fast-moving convoy. The best leaders don’t flatten differences. They honor them. They don’t chase uniformity. They seek clarity.
Don’t Force The Merge: The Business Case For Disagreement
Divergence isn’t dysfunction. It’s a recalibration tool. It keeps you from taking the wrong exit at the wrong speed.
Take one team I worked with. The executive team was split on a major transformation plan. Half wanted a full overhaul. The other half warned of burnout and unintended consequences. For weeks they circled the issue. Meetings got tense. Some leaders felt sidelined. Others pushed harder. The turning point came when the CEO stopped pushing for agreement and asked a different question: “What truth is each of us trying to protect?”
That question changed everything.
The team began listening not to respond but to understand. They moved past positions and uncovered priorities that mattered deeply—innovation yes, but not at the cost of stability. Agility but not chaos. They didn’t end up with one leader’s idea. They ended up with something better: a shared vision that reflected many truths. Divergence had done its job.
Here’s the trap many teams fall into. They confuse harmony with effectiveness. They think alignment means nodding heads and smooth meetings. But if nobody’s pushing back it probably means nobody’s thinking hard enough. Divergence, when held with respect, is how the best ideas survive scrutiny and how strategy grows stronger roots.
Another time, I worked with a CEO and her team that had a long history of side conversations and polite avoidance. Everyone was kind. No one was honest. When they hit a major growth plateau they invited me in. In our very first session I noticed something subtle. Every time someone raised a concern they glanced sideways, waiting to see if it was safe to speak. It wasn’t. They’d built a culture of agreement, not alignment.
We broke that dynamic by naming it. Not blaming. Just naming. And then, as a group, they created a few guiding principles — short phrases that outline how they would work together. Those guidelines became their anchor. It gave permission to challenge each other. To surface tensions. And most importantly, to stay in the room when things got uncomfortable. Within a quarter their planning process improved. People spoke up earlier. Debates got real. And decisions got faster not slower.
These teams didn’t arrive at alignment by smoothing over differences. They did it by naming them. Then working through them. So how do you do that in a repeatable way?
Here are five practices I’ve seen separate high-performing leadership teams from the rest:
Every leader brings a unique lens. Strengths-based leadership isn’t just about playing to individual capabilities. It’s about realizing that your team’s range of perspectives is what gives you clarity. When one person leans into risk, another guards for stability. When one envisions the future, another protects the now. The friction isn’t dysfunction. It’s design.
Unspoken tensions grow roots. Teams that normalize open disagreement tend to make better decisions and trust each other more. Gallup’s data backs this. Leaders who create space for disagreement without judgment build greater trust, psychological safety and strategic cohesion. If something feels off, say it early. Don’t let the silence harden.
It’s hard to argue when the rules are clear. I’ve seen teams shift dramatically when they define their own rules of engagement. Not values painted on a wall but working principles that shape how they show up. Assume positive intent. Push the idea, not the person. Decide once, commit together. These aren’t platitudes. They’re operational glue.
Your organization doesn’t need a slogan. It needs a story. Not just what you’re doing but why it matters. Great executive teams align not by enforcing one view but by weaving multiple truths into a shared purpose. That purpose becomes the filter. Every decision, every pivot, every message passes through it.
Alignment drifts fast, especially under pressure. That’s why the best teams check in regularly not just on KPIs but on how well they’re living the principles they chose. They ask, are we still hearing each other? Are we still holding space for dissent? Are we still moving forward together?
Make Divergence Your Discipline
In a world moving at relentless speed, it’s tempting to default to consensus. To smooth over differences in the name of unity. But high-performing executive teams know better. They don’t sidestep tension. They make space for it. They know that productive friction, when held with respect, sharpens clarity and strengthens conviction.
So here’s your call to action: stop chasing artificial agreement. Instead, build structures that invite real debate, define guiding principles that hold the team together and recommit regularly to the messy, human work of listening and aligning. Treat divergence not as something to tolerate but as a strategic asset.
The best executive teams value divergence. They don’t agree first. They get real first. Then they move forward—together.