In partnership with
Read time: 3.3 min.
TOGETHER WITH THE DEEP VIEW
Become An AI Expert In Just 5 Minutes
If you’re a decision maker at your company, you need to be on the bleeding edge of, well, everything. But before you go signing up for seminars, conferences, lunch ‘n learns, and all that jazz, just know there’s a far better (and simpler) way: Subscribing to The Deep View.
This daily newsletter condenses everything you need to know about the latest and greatest AI developments into a 5-minute read. Squeeze it into your morning coffee break and before you know it, you’ll be an expert too.
Subscribe right here. It’s totally free, wildly informative, and trusted by 600,000+ readers at Google, Meta, Microsoft, and beyond.
{{First Name | My friend}},
Let me show you something that happens more often than most executives admit.
Between 2002 and 2016, Wells Fargo aggressively pursued a cross-sell strategy. The thesis was straightforward: deepen customer relationships by increasing the number of products per household.
“Eight is great.”
On paper, it was sound.
Higher lifetime value
Stronger retention
Improved economics per customer
Clear growth optics
If you had been in that executive room, you likely would have nodded. It made strategic sense.
But every strategy carries tradeoffs.
And this is where things get interesting.
The tradeoffs that were visible
The tradeoffs the organization was facing were not hidden.
Ambitious targets increased pressure on frontline teams
Incentive intensity heightened ethical exposure
Revenue acceleration required supervisory oversight at scale
Performance optics competed with early friction signals, as visible success metrics often outweighed weaker early warnings emerging inside the system
Functional discomfort gets muted when leaders closest to the strain hesitate to challenge the strategy after consensus has formed
None of this was surprising or a secret.
The real question was whether the system had fully absorbed those tradeoffs. Every strategic gain carries a cost somewhere in the organization.
Over time, it tends to show up as pressure, risk, friction, ethical exposure, and/or operational strain somewhere in the system.
Those costs do not disappear. They simply move until someone carries them.
Strong executive teams slow down long enough to decide where that cost will live.
They ask practical questions:
Which leader owns the downside if this creates pressure in the field?
How do incentives need to change so behavior stays aligned with the strategy?
What early signals would tell us the system is under strain?
When that work happens, the tradeoff has been metabolized.
If it does not happen at decision time, the tradeoff does not disappear.
It migrates.
What migration looks like
At Wells Fargo, the pressure didn’t vanish. It redistributed.
Over time, signals began appearing in the system:
The push to increase products per household remained aggressive
Frontline employees reported intense pressure to meet sales goals
Employees raised internal concerns about sales practices
Some employees reported that targets were unrealistic
None of these signals, on their own, looked catastrophic.
But together they pointed to something structural, a pattern many executive teams quietly recognize: the cost of the strategy had not been fully absorbed at the decision layer.
How this shows up in executive teams
Thankfully, most C-Suite teams will never face headline scandals.
But they often face tradeoff deferral.
You have likely heard the language:
“We will monitor that.”
“We will manage the risk.”
“We will optimize around it.”
“We will address that in phase two.”
That language is not irresponsible. By most accounts, it’s rational. But rational deferral still postpones cost ownership.
And when losses are not absorbed, they diffuse.
Unmetabolized tradeoffs often appear in quieter ways first:
Functional discomfort gets muted
Leaders hesitate to press too hard
Performance narratives override tension signals
Implementation friction feels unexpected
It sounds operational.
But it often begins at the decision layer.
If a tradeoff is not fully carried at decision time, it tends to reappear later as consequences accumulate.
What this has to do with alignment
Alignment is often mistaken for agreement.
But agreement simply means the room nodded.
Alignment means the leadership team is clear about the cost of the decision and who will carry it.
When tradeoffs are not metabolized, alignment never really forms.
The room produces agreement, but that agreement rarely survives execution.
A pause worth taking
As you think about your executive team, consider this quietly:
What tradeoffs have you acknowledged but not fully absorbed?
Where are you assuming friction will resolve itself downstream?
Which costs have you postponed in language, even if they are already present in reality?
This is not about becoming risk-averse.
It is about becoming structurally honest.
Agreement feels clean. Momentum feels energizing. Growth feels decisive.
But if the cost is not carried somewhere explicitly, the system will assign it for you.
When tradeoffs are carried early, execution stabilizes.
When they are deferred, the organization eventually pays the cost anyway.
Until Next Sunday,
Shawnette Rochelle, MBA, PCC
Founder, Excellence Unbounded
Executive alignment and decision clarity
If you’re curious to learn more about my work with executive teams, you can find it here.
