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.

Sometimes, leaders narrow goals to avoid confusion. But if a goal is too narrow, it can easily be gamed. Back in 1990, Sears set sales goals for its auto repair staff of $147/hour. This limited goal prompted staff to overcharge for work and conduct unnecessary repairs on a companywide basis.

Goal met, boss!

Ultimately, Sears' Chairman Edward Brennan acknowledged that the goal had motivated employees to deceive customers. Narrow goals fueled Enron's rapid financial decline. Their sales incentive system paid salesmen a commission based on the volume of sales, with no consideration for the price of goods sold. Even during Enron's final days, their executives received large bonuses for meeting revenue goals.

Goal met, boss!

Ultimately, the goal drove the company into the ground. In the late 1960s, Ford Motor Company announced the goal of producing a car under 2000 pounds, under $2,000, and available for purchase within 3 years. Management signed off on failed safety checks to expedite the development of the car — the Ford Pinto.

One omitted safety check concerned the fuel tank, which was located behind the rear axle in less than 10 inches of crush space. The Pinto could ignite upon impact. Even after Ford finally discovered the problem, executives remained committed to their goal instead of repairing the faulty design.

Goal met, boss!

Ultimately, it was at the expense of safety, ethics and company reputation.

Related: Goal-Setting Strategies and Actions to Take to Achieve Any Goal

Narrow goals can cause people to focus myopically on short-term gains and force them to lose sight of the potentially devastating long-term effects of their actions on the organization. It's practically impossible to predict the exact negative effects of a goal, but it's almost guaranteed a narrow one will be met with consequences.

Ken O'Brien, the former New York Jets quarterback, was throwing too many interceptions. He was given what you might think is a reasonable goal — throw fewer interceptions. And he would be penalized financially for every interception. It worked. He threw fewer interceptions. But only because he threw fewer passes.

Goal met, boss!

Related: SMART Goals May Be Holding You Back — Try This Method Instead

A goal alone can't create success. The falderal, pomp and circumstance around the goal can't create success. Random ideas to support a goal can't create success. Yet, we are obsessed with goals. We are obsessed with those companies and leaders who set their sights on something perceived as unachievable and then get there. Pick your poison – Elon Musk, Marc Benioff, Larry Ellison, Whitney Wolfe Herd – they've all succeeded. But the goal wasn't the magic elixir.

Analysts and even well-known writers frequently attribute a company's success to a single decision or process, even though the company's relative success enabled it to make such a decision or implement such a process in the first place. It's confusing correlation with causation.