You may have heard the story of NASA's Mars Climate Orbiter—a $125 million spacecraft that vanished in 1999 because one engineering team measured in feet and the other in meters.
Most people don’t know that Kodak actually invented the first digital camera in 1975—but the leadership team couldn’t align around it because it threatened their core film revenue model. In the end, Kodak lost its market leadership to digital-first competitors like Sony and Canon—and eventually filed for bankruptcy in 2012.
The Apple iPod is an almost universally recognized success story. But at the time, Microsoft had smart engineers, a big budget, and a clear opportunity in the digital music space. And the Zune flopped. Why? Teams working on hardware, software, marketing, and licensing were operating in silos and pulling in different directions. Apple’s iPod project was laser-focused on one shared goal: elegant user experience. The Zune was feature-rich… and misaligned. Apple sold over 400 million iPods. Microsoft discontinued the Zune in 2011.
Misaligned teams are a bit like a relay team where each runner thinks they’re in a different race. One’s sprinting the 100-meter dash, another’s running a marathon, and someone in the middle decided it’s a three-legged sack race. There’s no shortage of effort—but there’s definitely a shortage of medals.
If you're guiding leadership development in your organization, aligned goals should be one of your highest priorities. New leaders in particular often jump straight into task management without a clear understanding of how their team’s work connects to broader goals. That’s where you come in.
Solid research—including studies by Locke & Latham, Gallup, and Berson & Avolio—consistently highlights the profound impact goal alignment has on performance.1 Employees who see how their personal goals connect to the organization's mission experience higher engagement, motivation, and productivity. Clear alignment helps team members feel their contributions matter, creating a deeper sense of purpose and belonging.
Rather than simply setting goals and hoping they stick, consider using the Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) framework—popularized by companies like Google and Intel—to align your team's efforts clearly with organizational priorities.
OKRs involve two components:
For example:
Using OKRs transparently shows every team member how their individual work contributes to broader goals—helping to prevent the kind of misalignment that sent NASA’s Mars mission spiraling off course.
Effective alignment doesn’t stop at setting goals—it extends into ongoing support and monitoring:
As a leader, you are the bridge between individual efforts and organizational visibility. When goals shift, communicate clearly and transparently to maintain trust and clarity.
Misaligned goals typically occur when teams lack clarity on organizational priorities or fail to communicate effectively. Avoid setting goals in isolation. Instead, engage your team in understanding how their personal objectives fit into the larger vision.
Additionally, recognize that goals often need adjustment. Successful leaders navigate these changes transparently, explaining clearly why goals must evolve, and remaining open to feedback and ideas from their teams.
Aligned goals are transformative. They empower teams with clarity, boost motivation, and improve performance. But more than that, they foster environments where every team member understands their purpose and sees their value.
Ready to help your leaders set better goals and align their teams more effectively? The Leadership Progress Cycle helps leaders master goal alignment, equipping teams to achieve meaningful results with clarity and confidence. Start a Free Trial to discover the power of aligned goals—experience the LPC difference firsthand.
1Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Prentice Hall. Gallup (2022). State of the Global Workplace Report. Berson, Y. & Avolio, B. J. (2004). Transformational leadership and the dissemination of organizational goals: A case study of a telecommunication firm. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 625-646.