How Leaders State Goals Has an Impact on Action
Goals are not created or stated equally.
Leaders rightly set short and long-term goals based upon the strategy and vision of the organization.
But how they state them is a critical choice that is often overlooked.
Goals, like many other concepts, can be stated in the positive or the negative. Consider the difference between a stated goal focused on“reducing errors” versus a declared goal aimed at “increasing accuracy.”
In essence, they are the same goals, but the former is stated in the negative and the latter in the positive.
Here are a few more examples:
“Increase the number of satisfied customers” versus “Decrease the number of dissatisfied customers.”
“Deliver all projects on time by implementing effective planning” versus “Ensure all projects stay on track to avoid delays and missed deadlines.”
“Enhance associate loyalty and satisfaction to retain top talent”versus “Lower associate turnover by improving retention strategies.”
“Decide on the right product mix to maximize profitability”versus “Eliminate losses from the budget by cutting underperforming products.”
Framing goals in the positive rather than the negative doesn’t sound like it matters all that much. But motivation, focus, and overall success can be tremendously impacted by it.
Goals stated in the positive tend to be clearer and more obviously actionable. Positive goals feel more empowering, focusing the attention on what people want to achieve rather than what they want to avoid. It’s always easier to do something than to eliminate or stop from doing something.
Negatively stated goals can instill a sense of doubt and hinder risk-taking and innovative thinking. Because they concentrate on what not to do, the steps to achieve them are less obvious or straightforward.
Leaders can sometimes state goals in the negative without realizing it, so it is important to take stock and examine stated goals soon after they are crafted.
Look carefully at both the short and long-term goals you have set and make sure they are expressed in the positive. Consider restating those goals that are framed in the negative.
The ability to proactively charge toward those goals may depend on it.
While positively framed goals often feel empowering, are there scenarios where negative framing might be more effective? For example, in highly regulated environments or safety-critical industries, goals like “reduce safety incidents to zero” might resonate more deeply with the urgency of compliance or risk mitigation. How might leaders decide when negative framing is the right choice?
Beyond motivation, how does goal framing affect emotional engagement and resilience? Positive goals may energize teams, but do they risk fostering complacency if challenges aren’t explicitly acknowledged? Similarly, negative goals might spur action in moments of crisis.
A positively framed goal draws people in with the promise of progress and possibility.
On the other hand, negative framing can feel like steering clear of hazards and rocks without knowing where the goal lies.
Leaders need to wield words carefully because language creates emotional energy.