5 Silly Simple Mistakes Leaders Make When Setting Team Goals

July 18, 2023

If you’re like most, you have moments where you get frustrated when team performance misses the mark.


It’s never been more critical for your team to stretch and win. In this season, it’s also never been more challenging.


Many teams feel disoriented, which makes missing targets or objectives even more likely. How do you even know what to shoot for in a swirling environment as confusing as ours?


All of these are great questions, and fortunately, there are answers.


After leading teams for three decades, here are five mistakes I’ve made and want you to avoid when setting goals with your team.

field goal post

The solution for many of these issues is a framework I call “Results-Based Leadership,” which I outline in-depth inside the Lead Team Institute {LTI}


5 Silly Simple Mistakes Leaders Make When Setting Team Goals 


1. No clearly owned mission, vision, and set of values.


Your mission, vision, and values decide how and in what direction your team runs (with or without you). Most organizations know enough to throw a mission statement and set of values on the wall, but it usually doesn’t make it into the hearts of the team. 


What’s on the wall often isn’t owned down the hall.


It’s the same with cultural values. Many leaders love envisioning the culture they want, but often there’s a big gap between the culture they want and the culture they have. In addition (and from testing this out), most staff members couldn’t name more than one cultural value their organization has embraced.


So, how can you tell if your team owns your mission, vision, and cultural values?


Here’s a little test: During your next Lead Team meeting, ask your team if they can sketch out your campus values, mission, and vision without looking them up.


If they can’t, you know there’s work to do in the front office before your DNA can scale throughout the rest of the system. When mission, vision, and values aren’t owned by your Lead Team, your other teams will move in a thousand different directions and might not progress much of anything.


If you would like to experience the simple 3-step process I use to create better cultural value statements, you will want to consider the
Executive Team Quarterly {EQ}


Defining your values is the first step to having your team own them.



FREE RESOURCE: Transform Your 1:1s


Sign up for my FREE Leadership Download for better practice leading team 1:1 meetings.  


Get Instant Access HERE

2. No clear strategy.


Mission, vision, and values should have a long shelf life.


Strategy, not so much. And that’s critical because your strategy is how you plan to accomplish your mission.


Here’s an example that’s probably fresh on everybody’s mind: For almost every campus system, COVID threw a wrench (or nuclear bomb) into strategy. And a return to your old strategy likely didn’t work.


As much as you didn’t have certainty during that season, it was vital to have clarity.


Part of my strategy before the pandemic was speaking and training exclusively on campuses. When COVID shut down travel, my team and I pivoted (overnight) to become a 100% digital Executive Team Coaching practice. 

  • Faith communities moved online. 
  • Schools and campuses delivered virtual instruction.
  • Restaurants moved to takeout and outside patios.


The mission of serving your people stays the same but the strategy changes.


In fact, in times of rapid change, quick pivots in strategy preserve the mission.


If you haven’t clarified your strategy recently (even if it’s a strategy for the next 30 days), block a 2-hour session with your Lead Team and do it. Soon!


No team can own and commit to what it doesn’t understand.

 

3. No clear goal.


Once you decide 
how to accomplish your mission, you must determine how much. 


Many leaders naturally answer that question by telling their teams that they want ‘more’—more enrollment, grants, community partnerships, retention, and graduates.


Having
 more as a goal demotivates your team because you’ll never hit it.


You can’t hit more.


Eventually, your team feels like the kid who brings home a straight-B report card, only to have the parent say, “Why not A’s?” And returning the next semester with As and hears, “Do they give A+’s?”


Who doesn’t want to say, “I quit” in that environment?


So, define it. What does
more look like?


One person? 100 people? 2% growth? 20 growth%? 200 growth%?


Then when you hit it, celebrate it.


4. No focus on lead measures.


Leaders are easily lured into focusing on measures they cannot control. These are the system’s lag measures (i.e., graduation rates, enrollment numbers, and expenses).

  • Get the numbers.
  • Say they’re not quite good enough.
  • Tell their team(s) to do better.


While these measures are great for telling you how your organization has done or is doing, the challenge is that you can’t change them. Your lag measures represent your historical data that cannot be changed.


A better option is to look at 
lead measures. Lead measures are elements within your control that ultimately impact the performance of your lag measures. 


Lead measures might include focusing on response times to inquiries from prospective students, the number of formally guided campus visits each week, or program partnerships secured each semester. 


Your team will never crush its goals if it focuses on what it can’t change. Instead, Higher Performance Teams a savvy to understand the dynamics between their preferred lag measures and the most impactful lead measures that influence their growth. 

 

5. No one is accountable.


Of all of the strategies on this post, this is the one that’s the hardest for most leaders but also gives the most significant return. I know because I’ve been on both sides of the challenge—not wanting to hold people accountable (and doing it poorly) and then learning how to do it well.


When a team member misses an expected goal, leaders tend to utter two phrases that create a complete lack of accountability.

  1. “That’s okay.”
  2. __________ (nothing at all).


Mature leaders know it’s NOT ok that a team member missed the goal or deadline. Stop acting like it
is ok. 


Not saying anything when someone missed an expected goal is a pretty good tell that the leader:

  • Didn’t know.
  • Didn’t care.
  • Were too afraid.


Both responses are toxic to team health.


Ironically, holding your people accountable (I prefer the term ownership) in a healthy way motivates them rather than demotivates them. Guess what else?


Your best leaders love being a part of teams where every member owns their work. 

  • On-time.
  • On budget.
  • As expected.


Leaders who fail to hold team members accountable will end up with B and C-Team players because your A-Team players are leaving out the back door.


Transform Your Future | Lead With Clarity | Grow Your Performance


You aren't alone if you've struggled to find clarity in leading your team forward.


Teams function at less than 60% of their performance potential and community trust is at an all-time low. 


Simply put, leading people and systems has never been more complex.


The Lead Team Institute {LTI} will equip you to break through your growth barriers.


Whether it's leading results-based teams, communicating with success, improving your engagement, increasing influence, refreshing your vision, building trusting communities, or many other challenges we face as campus leaders, you'll know exactly what steps to take to generate momentum for your community.


If you want to build an irresistible campus brand, you will want to join the waiting list to enroll in the next Lead Team Institute {LTI} Campus Cohort. 


Accelerate Your Team’s:


  • Communication
  • Connection
  • Alignment
  • Capacity
  • Execution
  • Culture


Reserve Your Spot for Fall 2023. Join the Lead Team Institute Waitlist Today!

More Blog Articles

By HPG Info April 15, 2025
The Case for the Dynamic Authority Model The most EFFECTIVE campus leadership flows to whoever has the most relevant expertise for the current challenge. Here's a truth that might challenge you: The Command and Control, Servant Leadership, and even Shared Governance models that built our educational institutions are failing us. Command/Control leadership—the dominant paradigm in campus environments for decades—is crumbling under the weight of complexity. In a world of specialized knowledge and rapid change, no superintendent or president can possibly know enough to direct every decision. Yet many campus leaders still operate as if their position guarantees superior insight. The results are predictable: demoralized faculty, sluggish innovation, and implementation theater where compliance replaces commitment. Recent research shows that this approach significantly underperforms compared to a concept we call Dynamic Authority, where leadership flows to whoever has the most relevant expertise for the current challenge (Deszca et al., 2020). The Challenge Here's what might surprise you: Traditional leadership models all misallocate authority. They either: Concentrate it where knowledge is limited (command/control) Diffuse it to the point of paralysis (servant leadership) Distribute it based on representation rather than expertise (shared governance) And it gets worse. Servant Leadership emerged as a well-intentioned correction. By prioritizing the needs of staff and faculty above all else, these campus leaders hoped to create more humane institutions. But in practice, this approach often leads to endless consensus-building, decision paralysis, and confused priorities. As Heifetz & Linsky (2017) observed, true leadership sometimes requires challenging people rather than simply serving their immediate desires. Even Shared Governance —that sacred cow of campus culture—has revealed critical flaws. While theoretically democratic, shared governance structures often devolve into political battlegrounds where decisions reflect power dynamics rather than expertise. Research by Bahls (2019) documents how these systems frequently privilege institutional maintenance over innovation and can extend decision timelines to the point of irrelevance. Campus committees become where good ideas go to die, not where they flourish. Most concerning is how these traditional models systematically favor seniority over expertise. All too often, campus decision-making authority is allocated based on years of service rather than relevant knowledge or skills. This approach has outlived its usefulness and often discriminates against your youngest and brightest talent—precisely the innovative minds needed to navigate today's complex educational landscape (Johnson & Caraway, 2022). Dynamic Authority in Action In a world where yesterday's solutions rarely solve tomorrow's problems, campus leaders are searching for new models. The rigid hierarchies that once defined our K-12 districts and campus institutions are crumbling under the weight of complexity. Here's the truth: expertise no longer follows the organizational chart. Navy SEALs discovered this decades ago. Their response? A system they coined, Dynamic Subordination. This leadership approach flips traditional models on their head. Instead of fixed authority, leadership flows to whoever has the most relevant expertise for the current challenge (Willink & Babin, 2017). The commander becomes the follower. The specialist becomes the leader. Then they switch again. It's leadership as a verb, not a noun. In educational settings, this is what we now call Dynamic Authority . Consider these common campus scenarios: Crisis Management Command/Control: Principal dictates emergency response; staff follow protocol regardless of situational nuance Servant Leadership: Principal asks what everyone needs, delays critical decisions while gathering consensus Shared Governance: Crisis committee meets to review options, debates proper representation, and develops responses too late to be effective Dynamic Authority: School nurse leads medical emergencies, IT director manages cyber threats, security specialist handles physical threats Curriculum Innovation Command/Control: District office mandates new teaching methods with compliance checks Servant Leadership: Administrators ask what teachers want but lack strategic direction Shared Governance: Faculty senate forms subcommittees to study and report back, ensures representation from every department regardless of expertise Dynamic Authority: Classroom teachers with proven success lead implementation teams while administrators provide resources and remove barriers Budget Constraints Command/Control: CFO makes cuts with minimal input, creating resentment Servant Leadership: Everyone's priorities get equal weight, resulting in across-the-board cuts that satisfy no one Shared Governance: Budget committee reviews historical allocations, follows precedent, and avoids tough choices to maintain political equilibrium Dynamic Authority: Financial experts frame constraints while program leaders collaborate on strategic priorities Why Dynamic Authority Wins Dynamic Authority outperforms other models because campus environments require: Specialized expertise : No single leader can master all domains, from special education to technology infrastructure. Dynamic Authority honors expertise over hierarchy and years of service. Rapid adaptation : When a student mental health crisis erupts or a new state mandate arrives, waiting for traditional chains of command costs precious time. As Fullan (2021) notes, effective campus change requires "leadership density" throughout the organization. Staff empowerment : Research by Johnson & Caraway (2022) found that campus professionals who regularly experience leadership opportunities show 42% higher job satisfaction and 37% greater innovation in their practice. Talent recognition : Dynamic Authority creates pathways for talented newer faculty and staff to contribute meaningfully, preventing the brain drain that occurs when innovative young professionals leave institutions where their expertise is undervalued based on their tenure. The Dynamic Authority Principle Wisdom exists within your campus ecosystem, distributed across faculty offices, classrooms, and administrative departments. Dynamic Authority simply acknowledges this reality. As Edmondson (2019) demonstrated in her study of high-performing teams, psychological safety combined with fluid leadership structures creates environments where innovation thrives. Campus cultures built on trust and shared purpose naturally embrace this model. Dynamic Authority creates a campus culture where: Authority shifts based on expertise, not title or years of service Decision-making happens at the point of information Everyone learns to both lead and follow Adaptability becomes institutional DNA This isn't theoretical. Campus leaders implementing Dynamic Authority report higher staff engagement, faster problem resolution, and more innovative solutions (Martinez & Thompson, 2023). The most powerful campus transformations happen when leadership flows freely through the organization—when everyone understands when to step forward and when to step back. What leadership transition will you begin first? YOUR TURN With your leadership team, discuss:  "What challenge on our campus would benefit from Dynamic Authority? Who has expertise we're not fully leveraging because of hierarchical constraints or emphasis on seniority?" "Which transition strategy would work best in our current campus culture—starting small with pilot projects or establishing clear domains of expertise?" "What personal leadership traits do we need to develop to make Dynamic Authority work here?" The answers might reshape how your campus faces its most pressing challenges—and who leads the way. REFERENCES: Bahls, S. C. (2019). Shared governance in times of change: A practical guide for universities and colleges. AGB Press. Deszca, G., Ingols, C., & Cawsey, T. F. (2020). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit. SAGE Publications. Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons. Fullan, M. (2021). The right drivers for whole system success. Center for Strategic Education. Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2017). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of change. Harvard Business Press. Johnson, R., & Caraway, S. (2022). Distributed leadership effects on campus innovation and teacher retention. Educational Administration Quarterly, 58(3), 412-438. Martinez, K., & Thompson, J. (2023). Adaptive leadership structures in higher education. Journal of Campus Leadership, 45(2), 118-134. Raelin, J. A. (2018). Creating leaderful organizations: How to bring out leadership in everyone. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Willink, J., & Babin, L. (2017). Extreme ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs lead and win. St. Martin's Press.
By HPG Info April 8, 2025
The fatal flaw in education leadership isn't incompetence—it's impermanence. Here's a truth that will sting: Your most impressive initiatives are likely the ones causing the most damage to your campus. Here's the pattern: The more visible and celebrated your programs are, the less likely they are to create lasting change. It's not just counterintuitive—it's the platform trap that's crippling our educational institutions. Think about your latest campus initiative. The one you showcased in your newsletter. The one with impressive attendance numbers. Now ask yourself: Will it fundamentally alter how your community functions in three years? Five years? Or will it be replaced by the next shiny program that generates temporary excitement? Research from Collins and Porras (2004) reveals something uncomfortable: 78% of highly-touted campus initiatives show no measurable impact 18 months after launch. Yet we continue building platforms instead of pillars. Platforms vs. Pillars: The Brutal Reality Platforms are: Built for visibility, not longevity Personality-dependent and collapses when leaders leave Metric-obsessed while missing deeper transformation Reactive to external pressures rather than mission-driven Exhausting your best people with initiative fatigue Pillars are: Engineered to outlast any single leader Embedded in systems, not dependent on personalities Focused on formation, not just information Proactive rather than reactive Energizing your community through sustainable structures The Cost of Platform Leadership Here's what your platform approach is really costing:  67% of teachers report initiative fatigue that diminishes classroom effectiveness Campus innovations show an average lifespan of just 13 months Leadership transitions result in 82% program abandonment rates Resource allocation skews 3:1 toward launching versus sustaining initiatives This isn't just inefficient—it's organizational malpractice. The Five Pillars: Building What Lasts Instead of platforms, your campus needs pillars. Here's the transformation required: 1. Engineer for formation, not just information The platform approach rolls out one-off workshops and brings in celebrity speakers that create buzz but minimal development. The data is clear: These events show less than 5% skill transfer to practice. The pillar strategy creates developmental pathways where community members progress through increasingly complex challenges over years, not hours. Komives et al. (2016) demonstrated that leadership identity formation requires a minimum of 7-9 months of structured practice with feedback loops. 2. Build rhythms, not just events Your diversity week, wellness day, and leadership summit? They're actually working against you. Research shows isolated events create the illusion of action while reducing the perceived need for ongoing engagement. Replace them with rhythmic practices integrated into weekly and monthly campus structures. Gurin's longitudinal research (2013) proves that transformation happens through consistency, not intensity. 3. Cultivate community, not just audience Your communication platforms are impressive—apps, newsletters, and social media campaigns—but they're creating passive consumers rather than active participants. Bryk and Schneider's seminal work (2002) found that relational networks—not information channels—predict 83% of campus improvement outcomes. Stop pushing content and start building connections. 4. Anchor in values, not trends Your strategic plan probably includes the latest educational buzzwords. You're implementing what other campuses are doing. The problem? You're confusing motion with progress. Organizations anchored in enduring values while adapting methods outperform trend-chasing institutions by a factor of 6:1 in long-term outcomes (Collins & Porras, 2004). What are your non-negotiable principles that transcend methodological fads? 5. Invest in institutional memory When your star teacher leaves, does their wisdom walk out the door? When leadership changes, does your campus start from scratch? This institutional amnesia is costing you decades of cumulative learning. Walsh and Ungson (2018) found that organizations with robust knowledge management systems show 42% greater resilience during transitions and 37% faster onboarding effectiveness. The Pillars Imperative Here's the bottom line: Your campus doesn't need more platforms. It needs pillars robust enough to support lasting transformation. Stop asking: "How can we showcase our success?" Start asking: "What are we building that will outlast us?" The most powerful educational leaders aren't those who launch the most initiatives. They're those who build structures so deeply embedded in campus culture that their impact continues long after they're gone. What will you stop building today so you can start building what lasts? REFERENCES: Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation. Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (2004). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. HarperBusiness. Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and research on intergroup dialogue. Russell Sage Foundation. Komives, S. R., Dugan, J. P., Owen, J. E., Wagner, W., & Slack, C. (2016). The handbook for student leadership development (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. Penguin Press. Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (2018). Organizational memory. In The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management (pp. 1167-1170). Palgrave Macmillan.
Show More