Really agree with this. I’ve come to a similar conclusion from a slightly different direction: ambiguity often survives precisely because the framework makes the conversation look resolved.
One extension I’d add is that shared language is necessary, but not sufficient.
Once we make the different meanings visible, we still need to name the decision, establish who owns resolving conflicts, and connect the definition to action. Otherwise, we risk moving from false alignment to a beautifully maintained vocabulary of disagreement.
Your observation is spot on, Amodiovalerio! I've designed the Language Mapping Blueprint to address exactly that: not only a shared, contextual meaning, but also decision rights and behavioural implications for each of the roles involved. That extra step, of turning shared meaning into decisions ownership and behaviours, is where I think a lot of alignment work falls short.
Really agree with this. I’ve come to a similar conclusion from a slightly different direction: ambiguity often survives precisely because the framework makes the conversation look resolved.
One extension I’d add is that shared language is necessary, but not sufficient.
Once we make the different meanings visible, we still need to name the decision, establish who owns resolving conflicts, and connect the definition to action. Otherwise, we risk moving from false alignment to a beautifully maintained vocabulary of disagreement.
Your observation is spot on, Amodiovalerio! I've designed the Language Mapping Blueprint to address exactly that: not only a shared, contextual meaning, but also decision rights and behavioural implications for each of the roles involved. That extra step, of turning shared meaning into decisions ownership and behaviours, is where I think a lot of alignment work falls short.