Focus Failure

Fewer Goals Lead to Greater Success

In the quest for success, managers often believe that setting multiple goals will drive their teams to achieve more. It’s a common assumption: the more targets you set, the higher the chances of hitting at least some of them. But in practice, this scattershot approach can lead to failure on all fronts. When you overload your team with too many objectives, you increase the probability of falling short across the board.

Setting simple, moveable metrics is one of the most effective strategies a manager can employ to propel a team forward. These metrics serve as clear benchmarks that not only motivate but also align everyone’s efforts toward common ends. They act as the compass by which a team navigates the complexities of their tasks, ensuring that everyone is rowing in the same direction. However, there’s a fine line between leveraging metrics as a tool for focus and diluting their effectiveness through overuse.

The crux of the problem with too many goals lies in two primary areas. First, there’s the issue of resource allocation. Every organization operates with finite resources—time, money, manpower. As you pile on more objectives, you’re stretching these resources thinner and thinner. Imagine trying to cover an ever-expanding area with a fixed-size net; inevitably, gaps will appear. Each goal demands its share of attention, energy, and investment. When these are divided among too many pursuits, none receive the depth of focus they require to flourish.

This spread leads to over-leverage. In financial terms, over-leverage means taking on too much debt relative to equity, leaving little room to maneuver if things don’t go as planned. Similarly, when a team is overextended, it lacks the flexibility to respond to unexpected challenges or opportunities. If one project suddenly demands more resources—perhaps due to unforeseen complexities or a sudden market shift—there’s no slack to accommodate it. The team becomes brittle, unable to adapt, and risks collapsing under the weight of its own ambitions.

The second, more insidious issue is the conflict between goals. Not all objectives are compatible; in fact, many are inherently at odds with one another. Consider a tech company that aspires to be the leading innovator in its field, prioritize operational efficiency, attract top-tier research talent, and maintain compensation at the industry median. At first glance, these goals seem commendable. But dig deeper, and contradictions emerge. Leading innovation often requires significant investment and a tolerance for failure, which can conflict with a stringent focus on operational efficiency. Attracting the best talent usually necessitates offering above-average compensation and benefits, clashing with the aim to keep costs at median levels.