1. Home
  2. Leadership
  3. Setting Goals
  4. Goal Complexity

Goal Complexity

On a grand scale, goals are simple things that exist on their own. But as the scale of the goal increases, so does its complexity. Instead of a single goal for all members of a team, you have multiple goals, each with its own needs and degree of importance. In addition, all members have many interests in their lives, not just the single-minded pursuit of whatever the group is trying to achieve.

In no time at all, life gets complicated. You need to deal with the complexity of goals, and that means understanding goal hierarchy in all its forms. The first step is to look at goal complexity.

Goal Towers

Forget about sitting back and leading your team to greatness for one and only one goal; that situation never exists. Goals aren't monolithic because they don't happen in one step. A goal rests on everything that must occur for it to happen. Instead of seeing a goal as a position off in the distance with continuous progress that must happen before it can arrive, think of your goal as a structure — a tower. At the very top of the structure is the goal. Under that ultimate goal can be any number of stages. Each stage comprises some number of columns that represent sub-goals. Sometimes, when a goal comprises several steps, a column consists of multiple pieces stacked one atop the other, as shown in FIGURE 6-1.

FIGURE 6-1:

The Goal Tower

Let's return to the idea of cooking a meal — not at a school, this time, but in your home for some friends. Here are just some of the steps that must occur:

  • Research recipes.

  • Buy ingredients.

  • Do preparatory work.

  • Decorate the surroundings.

  • Cook various dishes, starting each so they are ready at the same time.

  • Serve the meal.

Someone practiced in entertaining doesn't labor over the division of steps, but she does perform each and every one. Each part breaks down into other elements. For example, preparatory work might involve cleaning the food, chopping vegetables, and making a stock for a soup — and that's just to cook dinner for friends.

If you ever think your goal is simple, it means that you aren't giving it enough thought. Take some time and plot out all the steps that must happen before your team can achieve the goal. Each step becomes an intermediary goal.

The more complex the goal, the more parts it has. Each part is a goal in itself, with its own set of contributing elements. Suddenly single-mindedness goes out the window. To lead a team to make an overall goal, you now have to accomplish a whole group of objectives.

You reach the goal one stage at a time. You can't skip any because the goal is a structure, like a building. Remove one part and the entire tower collapses. Next comes another source of conflict: other goals.

Competing Goals

Achievement would be much easier if you had nothing to do but focus on one task. Unfortunately, the world rarely waits until you are ready for it. Aside from the complexity of what they want to achieve, leaders must deal with a range of goals that may all be necessary. Priorities can conflict, either in terms of what the goals try to achieve or in the resources they demand.

The Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s certainly faced such challenges. There were a range of potential legal challenges, groups interested in direct nonviolent action in one place and another. Leaders of the movement had to work together to determine the courses of action that would bring them closer to what they ultimately wanted: equal rights.

Instead of one goal for the team, or even goals with multiple parts, you often face many potential goals. Rather than the goal tower, you've got the goal office park. You must know which of the goals you will be visiting and how you can support all of them without leaving anything undone.

All entities — whether they be neighborhood associations, nonprofits, or global corporations — must at one point or another determine the relative importance of goals in the face of their fundamental principles. What does the organization or group stand for? Which goals are most important? How can the organization effectively strive toward the principles it holds true? When leaders can answer those questions with some uniformity, they can better invest resources and minimize the conflict of egos and personal agendas. Leaders who are responsible for multiple goals must weigh the options and focus on what most effectively supports the organization's mission.

Communication is also vital in this context. There will be many times in your growth as a leader when people will assume they can continuously ask you to do more without providing you with additional resources. You face the dilemma of opposing the extra work and being branded an obstructionist or taking it on and eventually failing at part of it by causing undue stress on your team. Generally, you must chart the course of doing what you can. Before things become unmanageable, you must let those above you know in a positive way. Back up your stance with as much hard data as you can muster, and ask for help in determining your priorities. When done judiciously (and not as a case of crying wolf), you bring the point home and gain tacit acceptance of the need for limitations.

Competing with the Personal

Furthermore, you find competing goals outside of the organization as well. People have their own lives, and other things are more important to them than the goals of the organization or its leaders. It's absurd to expect people, whether volunteers or paid employees, to embrace team goals at the complete expense of their own. If that happens, leaders face either a high turnover, making success far more difficult, or a warping of personalities and sublimated resentment and anger. This generates subconscious resistance, if not out-and-out antagonism and sabotage.

For that matter, your own goals and principles might or might not mesh with those of the organization at any given time. A leader must be prepared to make some degree of personal sacrifice, but it isn't boundless. For example, you might decide that one goal of an organization is incompatible with your personal morality. Under such circumstances, you have a painful decision to make.

A common problem for organizations actually is when personal career goals come into conflict with overall goals. Instead of focusing on the needs of the organization, high-level managers think first of advancing their own careers and departments. In operational research terms, the consequence is called suboptimization: What is best for the whole is not necessarily best for the part.

An effective solution to the problem of personal goal conflict is to erase the dichotomy. Be human with your team members. Learn about their interests and drives, and then think creatively. How can group goals reinforce those of team members and help them achieve more of what they want? Let's say your team members are away from home too much. You can consider cutting down travel, or even offering a day of telecommuting with no meetings, so time is more productive and team members can knock off at a reasonable hour without facing a commute. If someone is taking classes at night, is there any part of a volunteer project that might benefit from experience in that particular area?

  1. Home
  2. Leadership
  3. Setting Goals
  4. Goal Complexity
Visit other About.com sites:

Netplaces.com, a part of The New York Times Company.

All rights reserved.