"Align" is one of the most overused words in corporate America, and it would annoy the crap out of me if it wasn't so useful.
My knee-jerk reaction when I started at an office where the word plagued every conversation like a rogue MBA virus was to push back and stick to more typical conversation language: "I agree with that."
But the longer I work, the more apparent it becomes that, quite frankly, "agreeing" or "disagreeing" with everything that happens in the office is an untenable standard. Many things, if not most things, fall into the "unideal but necessary" category. Compromises have to be made. Haphazard backup plans need to be put into action. When things like this happen, it's almost impossible for everyone to agree completely on something. But it's reasonable to get everyone to align on it, to give a stamp of approval stating that, whether you fully agree or not, you will support the plan. It might be an annoying word, but it's a downright useful one.
In fact, it's so useful that I wish the philosophy of it seeped outside of work more. I think most people agree that we as a country have a problem with "agreeing to disagree" nowadays. It's more often than not "agree to be eternally passive aggressive to each other on Facebook unless we agree." Adopting this "alignment" mindset — worrying not about things I agree with, but things I can swallow — would in my opinion be much healthier and productive for relationships than our current no-gray culture. You're starting to see it in some areas — ranked voting in the latest NYC mayoral election was a great example. But thinking of "aligning" rather than "agreeing" in more areas of life might just make all of our disagreements a little less toxic.
Comments