The Alignment Check: Two Simple Signals for Change Management Success

In a recent post, I wrote about aligning to external changes. This time, I want to focus on changes you drive yourself and how to know if your team is truly aligned before you execute.

Re-orgs don’t have to be scary

Re-orgs are challenging changes to run. There are tasks to execute, communications to manage, and outcomes to protect. They can also be difficult for employees, and those challenges can threaten the very results you hope to achieve. But what if re-orgs could not only avoid creating fear, but actually empower your team when managed well?

After a recent re-org, a Principal Engineer told me: “That was the best change management communication piece I’ve been presented since joining. Thank you for putting this much effort into reasoning the structure changes.”

Afterwards, I heard:
“I’m so happy, this is a completely different experience.”
“The team is much more focused.”
“I have my confidence back.”

I’m proud of that feedback. It’s the sign of a well-understood change and a well-aligned team. But it didn’t happen by accident, and it hasn’t always been this way. My approach to change management has been shaped more by my failures than my successes. I have seen how surprise can erode trust, how a lack of understanding can stall execution, and how “disagree and commit” falls apart without true alignment.

Over time, I have built a simple tool to help me avoid those pitfalls and set up change for success: The Alignment Check. While my most recent example comes from a re-org, this approach applies to any significant change. It is a quick way to tell whether the people impacted are ready to move from hearing about a change to committing to it even if they don’t agree with every detail.

What Is The Alignment Check?

The Alignment Check is my quick gauge for whether a change is ready to move from announcement to execution. I ask myself:

1. Is anyone surprised by this change?
2. Do people understand the change, even if they do not agree with it?

If I can confidently answer no to the first and yes to the second, then alignment is in place and the change has a strong foundation.

Signal #1: No Surprises — Reduce Emotional Resistance

In change management, surprise usually means you have not signaled the need for change early enough. Surprise rarely generates positive emotion. Instead, it creates a spike of frustration, confusion, or fear, all of which steal attention from early execution.

Pushing forward without giving people time to process will erode trust and often lead to resistance, conscious or unconscious, that slows or derails your plan.

Some changes must be kept confidential until the last moment for legal, strategic, or privacy reasons. But those situations come with a cost: friction, morale hits, and lost trust. Pay that cost as rarely as possible.

Detecting surprise

I rarely ask directly, “Were you surprised by this change?” That’s a closed question with an obvious desired answer. Instead, once the change is announced, I invite conversation by asking how the announcement is landing for them or what they think of it so far. I listen for clues that they’re still trying to make sense of the change or its impacts. Some will openly say they were surprised. Others may not say it, but you can often see them wrestling with understanding. Both are signs you may have missed the mark in signaling the change.

I also lean on people I know will give me a clear read. I ask a few trusted individuals on the team for their take on how people are reacting. This lets me get a more accurate picture, especially for those who may not feel comfortable speaking up directly.

Techniques to reduce surprise:

• Give early signals that change is coming, even before details are finalized
• Involve key stakeholders early
• Explain the problem before the solution so people can sit with the “why” first

I often use one-on-ones to seed the problem I will need to solve. As a senior leader, I am usually working on a months-long horizon, so I have time to prepare others. Change management starts well before the change itself.

For key leaders, I make sure they are clear on the problem ahead of time. I may discuss it over several meetings so the context is understood, while in parallel lining up the actual changes or aligning with other leaders. Time is the key ingredient here. It is not wasted, it is the foundation for success.

For select people, I will preview my plans and ask for input. This helps troubleshoot and refine the plan, and gives them ownership. Only do this if you are genuinely open to feedback. If not, you will erode trust instead of building it.

I also suggest keeping an inventory of your team’s core needs so you can anticipate how they might react to change. This helps you plan your communication strategy with those needs in mind. Lara Hogan has an excellent post on core needs and change.

Signal #2: Understanding — Agreement Optional, Clarity Mandatory

Alignment does not require full agreement. In fact, aiming for universal enthusiasm can backfire when people feel like you are selling, not informing.

My goal is understanding: people know why the change is happening and what we are aiming to achieve. I count it as a success when someone says, “I don’t agree, but I understand.” That is enough to enable coordinated action.

How to check for understanding:

• Ask someone impacted to explain the change back to you
• Watch for consistent messaging across teams. If the “why” drifts, understanding is not solid yet
• Provide clear documentation so the rationale can be revisited

I use consistent messaging in team meetings, talking about problems I am aiming to solve or observations I am making. Regularly surfacing my areas of focus creates an environment where change is expected.

Why These Signals Matter

No surprises and understanding preserve psychological safety by creating transparency. This helps people process and integrate the change, which:

• Maintains trust
• Speeds adoption
• Ensures more consistent execution

Without these signals, you are left managing emotional fallout or uneven implementation, both of which slow you down and put your primary goals at risk. And trust is not just for this change. If it is damaged or depleted, every future change will be met with suspicion and resistance, no matter how reasonable your plans seem.

“Disagree and commit” is sometimes used as an excuse to skip building alignment. But true commitment requires understanding. People can disagree on many factors, but they need to be clear about your perspective on the “why” and how your plan addresses it. Minimize surprise and build understanding, and “disagree and commit” becomes a viable shorthand for “I disagree, but I understand, and will commit.”

Using The Alignment Check

Think of The Alignment Check as the final step before you execute a change:

Step 1: Is anyone surprised? If yes, you have skipped alignment work.
Step 2: Do they understand the change? If no, keep communicating.

When both answers are where you want them, you are ready. Change management is not just about executing a plan; it is about ensuring the people impacted have internalized the “why.” The Alignment Check keeps you honest about whether that is true, so you can move forward with clarity, speed, and trust intact. When you pass it, you are not just ready for this change, you are building the trust that makes the next one easier.

Photo by Quaid Lagan on Unsplash