Article
So, what’s our team supposed to do and why do we exist?
August 15, 2020
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

Introduction: The Brutal Truth About Change If you’re leading a company, here’s one brutal truth you can’t dodge: resistance to change isn’t just inevitable—it’s a gift. Most leaders don’t see it that way. They treat it like an obstacle to bulldoze, something to out-argue, out-maneuver, or silence. But resistance, if you know how to read it, is a living, breathing diagnostic tool. Every objection, every sideways comment in a hallway, every moment of awkward silence in a meeting—it’s all data. It tells you where the trust gaps are, where the communication breakdowns have happened, and where your people’s unspoken fears live. If you ignore that data, you’re flying blind. The hard numbers back this up: more than 70% of organizational change initiatives fail, not because the strategy was flawed, but because leaders underestimated what it would take to guide people through the emotional turbulence of transformation. If you want your next big initiative to succeed, the shift starts here: stop seeing resistance as the enemy, and start listening to what it’s telling you. When you do, you’ll discover that resistance isn’t a wall to break down—it’s a map showing you exactly where to go next. 1. Rethink Resistance: It’s Data, Not Defiance Let’s flip the lens. When people resist, they’re rarely doing it for sport. They’re sending up flares. They’re telling you something’s unclear, untested, or untrusted. For example, I worked with a CEO rolling out a sweeping technology overhaul. His first instinct when his managers hesitated was frustration—until we sat down and dissected the resistance. It turned out the managers weren’t doubting the technology; they were worried about the gap between the training timeline and the rollout date. They didn’t fear change—they feared being set up to fail. When you stop labeling resistance as “non-compliance” and start treating it like intelligence gathering, you find it points to the very levers you can pull to move the change forward.

Most startup founders are brilliant at innovation, disruption, and blazing new trails. They're visionaries, incredibly driven, and fiercely independent. Unfortunately, those same powerful traits often sabotage their ability to foster genuine collaboration—a critical ingredient in startup success. I've spent decades coaching founders, and one of the biggest blind spots I've observed is the gap between what founders naturally do well and what's required to create truly collaborative cultures. Understanding these tendencies—and knowing how to counter them—can mean the difference between startup stagnation and breakout growth. High Independence, Low Collaboration Founders thrive on independence. They love breaking rules, ignoring boundaries, and pushing limits. But independence can quickly morph into isolation. The very idea of slowing down to seek consensus or accommodate team input feels restrictive, even suffocating. Implications: This independent streak inadvertently sidelines team members, suppresses input, and reduces engagement. Talented people quickly learn their ideas don't matter, and teams become passive or defensive. Actions to Counter: Practice deliberately inclusive decision-making. Clearly define which decisions you'll make alone and where you'll solicit team input. Regularly check in to see if team members feel heard and involved. Dominance Isn’t Always Dominant Many founders naturally take a commanding stance. Their assertiveness, directness, and forcefulness can spark initial progress but, over time, it creates resistance. When team members feel steamrolled or fearful of speaking up, creativity vanishes. Implications: A dominant style shuts down communication, makes feedback difficult, and kills the very collaboration needed for sustained innovation. Actions to Counter: Make intentional space for quieter team members to speak. Foster psychological safety by modeling vulnerability and humility Balance assertiveness with curiosity—actively seek feedback rather than waiting for it. The Curse of Poor Delegation Delegation isn't just handing off tasks—it's handing off trust. But founders notoriously struggle with this, often believing only they can execute properly. Every task not delegated reinforces the message that the team isn’t capable. Implications: Poor delegation creates bottlenecks, slows execution, and demoralizes talented employees who feel undervalued and micromanaged. Actions to Counter: Start small by delegating lower-risk tasks clearly and thoroughly. Regularly check your impulses to micromanage; remind yourself why you hired capable people. Invest in mentoring and coaching rather than controlling. Communication Breakdown Founders are famously impatient. They think fast, act fast, and often communicate quickly or incompletely. What seems obvious to them might be totally unclear to their team. Implications: Poor communication creates ambiguity, confusion, and frustration, grinding collaboration to a halt. Teams waste energy guessing expectations rather than innovating. Actions to Counter: Slow down to clearly articulate the "why" behind your decisions. Confirm understanding by asking team members to reflect back their interpretations. Regularly solicit feedback on your communication style and clarity. Arrogance: The Silent Collaboration Killer Confidence is crucial. But confidence unchecked can veer into arrogance, leading founders to dismiss feedback, overlook critical insights, and alienate key contributors. Implications: Arrogance destroys trust, stifles dialogue, and creates a toxic environment where collaboration is impossible. Actions to Counter: Intentionally invite critique and respond openly and constructively. Regularly acknowledge your mistakes publicly to model humility. Actively seek alternative viewpoints before finalizing decisions. Conflict Avoidance (or Aggression) Many founders fall into two extreme camps: conflict avoiders or conflict initiators. Both extremes are deadly to collaboration. Avoiding conflict leaves critical issues unresolved. Aggressive conflict handling creates resentment and fear. Implications: Poorly managed conflict erodes team cohesion, undermines trust, and can spiral into prolonged dysfunction. Actions to Counter: Establish clear, structured conflict resolution processes. Practice direct yet respectful conflict conversations. Use neutral facilitation for emotionally charged discussions. Systems Thinking vs. Reactive Planning Startups prize agility and adaptability. But too much short-term thinking neglects the processes and structures that sustain collaboration. Without clear systems, teams fall into chaos. Implications: Reactive planning leads to burnout, inefficiency, and frustration as team members constantly fight fires rather than building strategically. Actions to Counter: Balance short-term agility with consistent investment in systems and clear processes. Regularly revisit and improve structures as your company scales. Empower process-oriented thinkers in your organization to build effective systems. Workaholism and Burnout Culture Founders set the pace. But when founders turn workaholic, they unknowingly create an environment of exhaustion, anxiety, and diminished psychological safety. Exhausted teams are seldom collaborative. Implications: Productivity drops, innovation dries up, and talented employees start to leave. Actions to Counter: Actively model sustainable work-life balance. Publicly recognize and reward collaborative, balanced behaviors. Regularly monitor signs of burnout and intervene early. Ambiguity Isn’t Always Your Friend Founders typically tolerate ambiguity better than most. But your team needs clarity and direction. Too much ambiguity creates stress and undermines collaborative execution. Implications: Team paralysis, lack of initiative, and increased frustration. Actions to Counter: Clearly define roles, responsibilities, and expectations. Regularly ask your team what clarity they need to be effective. Balance your tolerance for ambiguity with your team’s genuine need for guidance. The Collaboration Paradox Founders face a paradox. The same traits that fuel their success—independence, assertiveness, rapid execution—also sabotage the collaborative environments crucial for scaling. Acknowledging this paradox is the first step. The second is intentionally adopting behaviors that might feel unnatural at first: fostering inclusive communication, delegating with trust, managing conflict constructively, investing in systems thinking, and balancing your independent streak with genuine empathy. The good news? These skills are learnable. Great founders don’t have to become entirely different people; they simply need to expand their toolkit. Start today by picking just one area and committing to small, consistent improvements. Your team and your startup—will thank you.