Many organizations use shared goals as part of the performance management process.  The rationale is that if multiple people have the same goal, they will tend to work toward the same thing, collaborate and hold one another accountable.  I’m not sure that always works.  In my experience, shared goals reduce clarity, can create contention, and decrease meritocracy. 

The problem with shared goals is that they create accountability for an outcome that is bigger than any individual can achieve.  While that sounds good in theory, it makes it difficult for an individual to understand specifically what he or she is supposed to deliver.  It’s fine to provide the broader goal as context for an individual goal.  But every person in the organization needs to be clear on what they need to contribute.  Otherwise, when a goal isn’t met you start to hear the common refrain, “but I did my part.” It’s much easier to determine if someone has done their part when that part has been clearly defined.

Another problem with shared accountability is that collaboration can start to turn into contention.  When one individual’s success is dependent on another person’s actions, there can be a lot more arm-chair quarterbacking and second guessing.  Each person in your organization should be empowered to make a unique contribution based upon his or her scope of responsibilities.  While collaboration is important, if an individual is spending more time justifying his or her actions to his or her peers or being second-guessed, performance will slip.  It’s much easier to gain support and cooperation from others when they aren’t trying to impose their views on how to get things done. When individuals have unique accountability that is aligned with a broader goal, each person can be fully empowered to move forward, make decisions, and not meddle in the actions of others. 

Finally, shared accountability decreases meritocracy (if you are trying to achieve that).  One person can “succeed” without actually making a contribution.  For example suppose that two people share a profitability goal with one person responsible for sales and the other for operations (expenses).  Now imagine that the sales person exceeds her target while the operations person misses his but the company still meets its profitability goal. If the shared goal is included in the performance management process, the operations person is going to get a boost to his or her rating. This is neither a fair or accurate reflection of that person’s performance.  It masks performance issues and could eventually lead to resentment from those “pulling the weight”.

The common solution to the three problems I mentioned is to have a mix of team and individual goals used in performance management.  However, this actually amplifies the problem.  Once an individual knows that he or she has done his part, that individual may get too involved in their well-intention but often misguided attempts to “help” others achieve theirs.

The way to ensure that groups are collaborating and working as a team is through leadership.  If three people are contributing to the same goal, then one person further up in the organization should actually own that goal.  Part of owning a goal involves making sure that the people who contribute to that goal are working together.  The owner is responsible for making sure that individuals are not optimizing their contribution at the expense of the broader goal.  That person also is in the best position to make decisions about which sub-goal should receive priority or additional help.  Each person in an organization should be accountable for a unique contribution and coordinate the supporting contributions of his or her team.

Instead of using a mix of individual and team goals in the performance management process, split them up.  Unique, individual goals should be the basis for performance management process. Team goals should be part of a broader compensation/benefit strategy that rewards people for being part of a successful company (the way the profit sharing does).

Shared goals are fine for creating common vision and rallying your workforce.  However, they should not be used to set individual direction or evaluate individual performance.  Individuals should have clear and unique goals that contribute to a broader goal.