We're Great at Wishing and Bad at Making Choices — How Obscure Goals and Narrow Targets Derail Our Success When we're trying to reach a goal, we lose sight of the fact that we need to make tradeoffs. Goals aren't as simple as a proclamation — they are part of a bigger strategy.

An average sports coach's goal is to win a game. A good coach's goal is to win a tournament. A great coach's goal is to build a great team. A great team might lose a few games or even a tournament, but eventually, it becomes a long-term winner.

Goals are a result of choices, not the other way around. Choosing to strive towards one thing and not another. This means there are things you are consciously choosing not to spend time, effort or resources on.

But this is where things get complicated. Say the goal is to double growth in three years. Is that a clear goal? No. We don't have a clear choice.

Where should growth come from? Are there products or services that have more growth opportunities than others? Are there new markets to explore? What areas are off limits and why? What is limiting growth today? Would eliminating inefficiencies be considered growth, as it reduces costs? Many business leaders regrettably craft their goals in such a way that it provides the organization with no rudder from which to steer the ship.

Some leaders will provide a little more direction. Maybe focusing on growth in a specific industry. Or increasing sales in a specific vertical. But that's not enough to illustrate the goal in a way that funnels and guides downstream choices.

Related: The 5 Golden Rules of Goal-Setting

Take Boeing. In 1997, they acquired McDonnell Douglas, shifting their goals towards cost reduction maximization. But without structure, the goal would be taken to the extreme. Manufacturing and construction of plane structures were outsourced to reduce costs. An increased reliance on outside partners made highly talented workers and engineers redundant, saving more money. However, in turn, a lack of in-house skills made it almost impossible to manage the multi-national network of suppliers. Flaws and problems began to accelerate. Financial engineering took precedence over aerospace engineering. Oh, and some planes crashed. But the goal of cost reduction was met!

Uh, okay. Was that the wrong goal? Was the approach to achieving it incorrect? Or was it really a matter of having an open-ended goal to be met at all costs?

Goals by themselves aren't inherently bad. You also might have a goal of reducing costs in your organization. Or improving customer satisfaction. Or increasing talent retention. But interpreting those goals – the parameters that guide and direct your team's choices — determines success. Boeing is just one example of what happens when your goals stand alone without a clear choice framework. This is why having a strategy is crucial — it doesn't define all the rules, but it defines where the boundaries are.