I’ve worked with enough executive teams to spot the pattern: A long list of strategic initiatives is presented, time is short, tensions are high, and someone says, “Let’s vote.”
It sounds efficient and even democratic. In practice, voting rarely leads to true alignment. Even worse, it leaves you with an illusion of alignment that can mask bigger problems. Here’s why:
Voting Flattens Nuance into ‘Yes’ or ‘No’
Strategy isn’t simple math but rather prioritization layered with risk, timing, resourcing, and sometimes gut instinct. Voting flattens those complexities. A project with a long-term ROI might lose out to something easier to implement. Something that advances the five-year vision gets sidelined because the quick win is more popular.
In theory, you’re choosing what’s best for the business. In practice, you’re choosing what gets the most nods in the moment.
It Creates Winners and Losers, and it Does it Fast
The moment a vote is cast, the room divides. Some get their ideas through and others don’t. Even on high-functioning teams, that can erode trust over time. This is especially true if you hear things like: “I backed your initiative last quarter. Where were you when I needed support for mine?”
That’s not strategy, it’s keeping score.
Voting quietly turns alignment into a tally of political capital. Once that dynamic takes hold, people start protecting their initiatives instead of debating what’s best for the company.
The Real Vote Often Happens Before the Room Comes Together
Another thing I’ve seen is that by the time the actual vote happens, the influencing has already occurred. This includes side conversations, pre-reads, and power plays. Some voices are louder and some agendas are more rehearsed. Voting might feel neutral, but it often reflects dynamics outside the room, and those dynamics aren’t always visible to newer or less established leaders.
When the same people “lose” again and again, it doesn’t feel like business. It feels personal, and that’s how disengagement starts.
Take it from Politics: Electing Doesn’t Equal Aligning
Look at our national elections for the best example. We voted, and we’re more divided than ever. There’s no shared vision and no win/win. We’re left with opposing sides trying to block each other from moving forward. That’s not the model you want in a leadership team.
Voting might be fine for choosing lunch, but when you’re allocating millions in budget and defining the direction of your company, you need something better.
So What’s Better? Criteria and Conversation
I’m not saying you can’t rank or score options, but make sure the scoring is based on shared, strategic criteria. Things like:
- Which initiatives align most closely with our 3–5 year goals?
- What’s the projected ROI or customer impact?
- What will build long-term capabilities, not just short-term optics?
Even more importantly, have the conversation. A real conversation where people surface concerns, challenge assumptions, and (ideally) adjust their thinking together. Alignment doesn’t mean everyone gets their way. It means people walk out of the room committed to the direction, even if it’s not the one they originally championed.
Final Thought: If Voting Feels Necessary, Ask Why
If voting is your go-to decision tool, it might be a symptom of something bigger. It could be unclear criteria, fragile trust, or unspoken power dynamics. Those things can be fixed, but only if they’re acknowledged.
The goal isn’t faster decisions, it’s better ones. Better usually requires more dialogue, not less.
Alignment doesn’t come from tallying hands. It comes from shared clarity, real dialogue, and the discipline to prioritize what’s best for the business and not what’s most popular.
That starts with asking better questions before you ever cast a vote.
For more insights about how leadership teams can get and stay aligned, including results from exclusive IPM research, download You’re Not as Aligned as You Think You Are.
May 22, 2025
Author
"*" indicates required fields