Article

So, what’s our team supposed to do and why do we exist?

August 15, 2020
A group of people are sitting around a long table in a conference room.

The Leader Must Help the Team Define its Mission and Long-Term Direction and Translate This into Actionable Goals and Priorities

First ask your team to decide: “Why does this team exist and what is its purpose and mission” 

 Just as the organization as a whole needs a clearly defined mission and direction, the senior team – and subsequently every other team that evolves as the organization grows – also needs clear direction and a compelling sense of team purpose. This will provide focus, motivation and discipline to all team members. Everyone on the team needs to understand why the team exists, how it is supposed to add value and how its work fits into the broader mission and strategy of the organization.

Too often, a team’s time and attention are eaten up by crisis management and today’s pressing problems. Teams can become overly reactive rather than proactive. This leaves little or no time for strategic thinking. So, it is very important, when a team is being formed, to define a meaningful mission and clarify the purpose of the team, basically to ask: Why are we here? What does the team do? Why is it important? The executive team should revisit that theme regularly and not spend all its time fighting fires.  

Having a well-defined and shared purpose or a compelling sense of mission unites people around a cause, such as curing a major illness or creating a new technology that will revolutionize the world. High performing teams need this kind of focus and motivation and a set of performance challenges that give meaning to their efforts. Having clear, focused, and challenging goals helps you and your team members decide what’s in and what’s out, what’s important or not important, what helps you achieve the mission and what isn’t helpful. 

A clearly defined purpose creates a foundation for important decisions about the team itself. What is necessary and critical in order for us to achieve our purpose? What are the criteria for team membership that will help us achieve this? What skills, knowledge, and experience are needed by team members? What sort of things should we be working on in pursuit of our goals? How often do we need to meet to assess our progress? 

Here are some questions for the team to consider:
  • What is our role as a team?
  • What work have we been brought together to focus on?
  • What do we want to achieve as a team?
  • Where do we add value to the organization?
  • How will working together help us deliver more value than working as individuals?
  • What does success look like and how will we measure it?
  • What long-term team goals should we be focused on?
  • What should be our team priorities?
  • What should we be accountable for?
  • Where should we spend our time doing together?
  • What kind of decisions should we make as a team? 
  • What is the scope of our authority?
  • Should we emphasize operational problem solving, generating ideas and solutions, information exchange, making strategic decisions, or overseeing tactical execution?
  • How do we decide who should be members of the team? 
  • What format should we follow for our meetings, setting the agenda, and following-up? 
  • How often should we meet and for how long?
  • What challenges will we face as a team? 
  • How can we support one another more effectively to achieve team purpose? 
  • What other teams or organization do we need to engage, coordinate and collaborate in order to be successful?  
Suggestion: When teams are forming and team members hardly know each other, spend some time together outside the company, having dinners together, getting to know each other personally and learning each other’s background and strengths. “In spite of efforts to improve performance, most organizations struggle to provide what people really need most to be successful – an emotional connection to the team and work,” says Curt Coffman, author of Culture Eats Strategy for Lunch. 


Defining the Team’s Broader Objectives and Goals: What Should We Actually Be Doing?

Once the central focus of the team is clear – and as much as possible this should be determined by the members of the team, not floated down from on high – the next step is to set specific, challenging, consequential goals that support the primary purpose and define what is to be accomplished. 
 
The leader plays a critical role in translating broad vision, mission, and strategic direction into specific and measurable performance goals for the team. These goals need to be specific enough to get the team to focus on the critical actions needed to hit its targets and get results. They will be different from the broader organizational goals, and from individual goals, but all should be aligned. The overall organizational mission translates into strategic objectives, and cascades down to functional goals, team goals, and individual goals. It is important that the team’s objectives are created together to gain commitment from its members.

  • What should be our team and individual performance objectives for the next year? 
  • How do our team’s objectives align with the company strategy and priorities?
  • What specific deliverables should we be held accountable for?
  • What should be our critical priorities for the next month, quarter, year?
  • How should we measure our performance and track progress on our team goals?
  • How should we report on our progress toward individual and team goals?
  • What interdependencies are important and require collaboration, coordination and regular communication?
  • What actions need to be taken to achieve each of our individual and team goals?
  • How should we celebrate progress and wins?

Decide together . Work closely with the team to determine what results, deliverables and work products the team should focus on. What does the team need to make happen? Be sure each team member understands what part he or she has to play toward achieving the team’s goals. As the leader, it’s your job to help build commitment, mutual support, and alignment of all team members around the team’s objectives and goals. Here are some guidelines:
  • Discuss goals and priorities regularly and push for clarity and specificity. When the conversation wanders off target, bring the team back to focus on the essentials – the goals and priorities and how to accomplish them.   
  • Write the goals down, being sure to get input and involvement from team members, and re-think and rewrite together with the team until they are in a form that is clear, simple, specific, and measurable. 
  • It is important to get all team members to agree upon the goals and their importance, as well as on what metrics or milestones will be indicators of their achievement.
  • Formulating the goals together gives a feeling of shared accountability. This process will make it easier for the team to maintain focus on what is critical, as well as to track progress and hold itself accountable.

If, instead of a team process, generating strategic objectives and goals is always decreed from above and doesn’t allow a collaborative process to develop, the level of member buy-in will be reduced, because they had no ownership role in creating the goals they’re expected to live by. Shared objectives and goals are more powerful than those dictated by the leader. A micro-managing, high-control, autocratic leader will tell people what the goals ought to be; an effective team leader facilitates a discussion among team members to formulate the objectives together. This is especially true for members of the Millennial generation, and knowledge workers who expect to be consulted and to work together in formulating priorities. 

Goals should be challenging but attainable. The great artist and architect Michelangelo said, “The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark.” Team as well as individual goals should stretch people and challenge them, but still be realistic enough to be achievable. Google employs two types of goals, “committed” and “aspirational”. People are expected to achieve committed, absolute goals 100%. For aspirational goals (otherwise referred to as “moonshots” and “BHAG (Big Hairy Audacious Goals)” achieving 70% is considered quite okay.  
 
Measure progress with milestones. It is important to create milestones that will allow for small wins along the way, so people have a tangible way to feel they are progressing.

share this

Related Articles

Related Articles

Why smart leaders are the hardest to to work for.
By Rich Hagberg March 30, 2026
Some of the smartest leaders you will ever meet are also some of the hardest people to work with.  They are fast, perceptive, and unusually strong at solving hard problems. They see patterns others miss. They cut through ambiguity. They grasp systems, strategy, and complexity at a very high level. In many cases, those gifts are exactly why they became founders, technical leaders, or senior executives. And yet many of these same people leave a trail of strained relationships behind them. Their direct reports feel unseen or intimidated. Peers experience them as dismissive, impatient, or controlling. Their bosses admire their intellect but hesitate to trust them with broader leadership responsibility. At home, partners often feel emotionally alone. Over time, the leader becomes puzzled. They know they are smart, committed, and often right. So why do people keep pulling away, withholding the truth, or failing to fully follow them? The answer is that many high IQ leaders are working from an incomplete model of effectiveness. They assume that if they think clearly, argue logically, work hard, and produce results, the rest should take care of itself. That model can work for a long time in school, in technical roles, and in the early stages of a company. But eventually leadership becomes less about the quality of your own mind and more about your ability to work through the minds, emotions, motivations, and limitations of other people. That is where many smart leaders start to fail. The Core Problem Intelligence is not the problem. It is an asset. The problem is that intelligence often creates distortions. It can make a leader overestimate the power of logic, underestimate the importance of emotion, and develop habits that quietly damage trust. It can also create a subtle arrogance. Not always the loud kind, but the quieter assumption that if other people are slower, less rigorous, or more emotional, they must be the problem. Once a leader starts living inside that assumption, interpersonal trouble becomes almost inevitable. Five Common Patterns 1. Overreliance on reason Many bright leaders treat relationships as if they are mainly cognitive systems. If there is disagreement, they explain more. If someone is upset, they analyze the issue. If morale is low, they offer strategy. If a direct report feels discouraged, they give solutions. In their minds they are being helpful and efficient. But the other person often feels bypassed. Their emotional reality is treated as noise rather than information. Their need to be heard is mistaken for a need to be corrected. This is a major blind spot in analytical leaders. They often do not realize that understanding is not the same as persuasion, and problem solving is not the same as relationship building. A person can agree with your logic and still not trust you. They can accept your decision and still lose commitment because the relational cost was too high. 2. Impatience High horsepower people often process faster than the people around them. They see the answer early. They get bored by slower thinking, frustrated by repetition, and irritated when others need more context than they do. This can make them decisive and productive. It can also make them hard to work with. They interrupt. They jump ahead. They finish other people’s sentences. They push past concerns before others feel understood. They make those around them feel slow, clumsy, or not worth listening to. This teaches the organization something dangerous. It teaches people that the leader’s mind is the only one that really counts. The safest strategy becomes speaking briefly, deferring quickly, or waiting until the leader has already decided. Then the leader complains that the team is passive or not taking ownership. What they often do not see is that the culture has adapted to them. 3. Emotional underdevelopment hidden by cognitive strength Very bright people can use intellect as a defense against emotional discomfort. They can analyze instead of feel. They can explain instead of reflect. They can argue instead of absorb. They can move to abstraction when the deeper issue is shame, fear, insecurity, hurt, or loneliness. They are often unaware this is happening. They do not experience themselves as defended. They experience themselves as rational. But leadership requires emotional range. Not sentimentality. Not therapeutic language. Real range. The ability to notice your own reactions before they control your behavior. The ability to tolerate feeling wrong, uncertain, criticized, or less competent than you want to appear. The ability to stay present when another person is disappointed, anxious, or angry without immediately shutting it down, fixing it, or counterattacking. Leaders who cannot do this often become brittle. They look composed until challenged in just the wrong way. Then out comes defensiveness, coldness, contempt, withdrawal, or overcontrol. 4. Low interpersonal curiosity Smart leaders are often highly curious about ideas, products, markets, and strategy, but not necessarily about people. They know how to interrogate problems, but not always how to explore another person’s inner world. They ask what happened, but not what it felt like. They want the conclusion, not the hesitation. They want the output, not the psychology. People do not trust leaders simply because they are competent. They trust leaders who show that they are trying to understand them. Interpersonal curiosity communicates respect. A leader does not have to agree with someone to make that person feel seen. But when the leader skips that step, people feel reduced to functions rather than treated as human beings. 5. Weak awareness of impact Many smart leaders are genuinely surprised by how strongly people react to them. They tell themselves, “I was just being direct,” or “I was only asking a question.” In their own minds, intent carries most of the moral weight. If they did not mean harm, then the reaction seems excessive. But leadership does not work that way. Impact matters because power magnifies everything. A passing comment from a founder can ruin a weekend. A skeptical look from a senior executive can silence a room. A blunt critique can stick in someone’s head for months. High IQ leaders often underestimate this because they evaluate themselves from the inside while everyone else experiences them from the outside. That gap sits at the center of many 360 feedback problems. The Identity Trap There is another layer here. Some smart leaders have been rewarded for being exceptional for so long that they quietly build their identity around being the smartest person in the room. They may not say it out loud. They may even dislike arrogance in others. But inside, being quick, insightful, and right has become central to their sense of worth. Once that happens, other people’s competence can feel threatening. Feedback becomes harder to absorb. Collaboration becomes more performative than real. The leader listens selectively, especially when they believe the other person is less capable. They become invested in remaining the mental center of gravity. That is a dangerous place to lead from. It turns intelligence into status defense. It makes humility feel like loss. It makes genuine curiosity harder. And it makes the leader lonelier than they realize, because very few people feel close to someone who always has to occupy the top intellectual position. The Shift That Matters The good news is that these problems are workable. In fact, smart leaders often improve quickly once they see the pattern clearly. Their intelligence then becomes an ally rather than a shield. But improvement requires a shift in model. Leadership is not just about being right. It is about creating enough trust, clarity, and psychological safety that the best thinking of the group can emerge. Your job is not merely to contribute your intelligence. It is to increase the total intelligence of the system. That means treating emotions as information rather than interference. It means becoming curious about your own interpersonal signature. What happens to people in your presence when you are under pressure. Do they get more open or more cautious. More honest or more political. More energized or more tense. Those are not soft questions. They are the real scorecard of leadership impact. It also means slowing down your certainty just enough to make room for other minds. Ask one more question before concluding. Stay with the other person’s frame a little longer. Notice when you are moving to solution because you are uncomfortable with uncertainty or emotion. Let people finish. Reflect before rebutting. And it means understanding that warmth and strength are not opposites. Many analytical leaders fear that becoming more emotionally intelligent will make them softer or less respected. The opposite is usually true. Leaders become more effective when people experience them as both rigorous and fair, both clear and human, both demanding and safe enough to tell the truth to. Practical Experiments A few simple practices can help. In your next one on one, spend more time understanding than advising. In your next disagreement, summarize the other person’s view in a way they agree is accurate before stating your own. In your next leadership meeting, track how often you interrupt, redirect, or signal impatience. After a difficult conversation, ask yourself not only whether your point was valid, but what emotional residue you likely left behind. Ask two trusted people what it feels like to disagree with you, and listen without defending. Final Thought Human beings are not engineering problems. They are not solved by superior reasoning alone. They need respect, steadiness, dignity, trust, and emotional attunement. That is why so many smart leaders struggle. Not because they are too intelligent, but because they have leaned on the wrong part of themselves for too long. At a certain point in leadership, your mind stops being the main differentiator. Plenty of people are smart. What becomes rarer is the ability to combine intelligence with self awareness, candor with sensitivity, high standards with trust, and authority with emotional maturity. That is when a smart leader becomes someone people actually want to follow.
The Courage to Confront: How Real Leaders Balance Candor and Care
By Rich Hagberg December 16, 2025
(Part 2 of The Best Leaders Playbook — Building Trust Systems Series)
Integrity as an Innovation Strategy: Why Moral Clarity Drives Creativity, Not Just Compliance
By Rich Hagberg December 9, 2025
(Part 1 of The Best Leaders Playbook — Building Trust Systems Series)
ALL ARTICLES