In the fast-paced world of technology, a team without a clear goal isn’t just inefficient—it’s a liability. Yet, the problem rarely lies in a lack of ambition. More often, engineering and product teams suffer from “goal fatigue,” where a barrage of competing priorities dilutes focus and output.
To navigate this, leaders must understand the landscape of goal-setting frameworks and, more importantly, how to apply them with radical simplicity. Here is a breakdown of the major strategies, how to set clear expectations, and practical tips for execution.
Part 1: Decoding the Strategies
Before you can set a goal, you need a framework. Here are the four most common methodologies used in tech:
The landscape of goal-setting strategies begins with the foundational SMART framework—the grandfather of the discipline—which emphasizes goals that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound.
While this method excels at structuring individual performance plans and short-term, concrete tasks like refactoring an authentication module by a set date, it can inadvertently stifle ambition by encouraging teams to set easily clearable hurdles. Moving from individual tasks to organizational alignment, OKRs (Objectives and Key Results), popularized by tech giants like Intel and Google, connect high-level objectives regarding where a team wants to go with specific key results that define how they arrive.
This approach is ideal for driving “stretch” goals across a company, though teams must be wary of confusing key results with simple task lists; a true KR measures impact, such as increasing retention, rather than just launching a feature. For a much broader horizon, BHAGs (Big Hairy Audacious Goals), coined by Jim Collins, serve as visionary “North Stars” spanning 10 to 25 years. While excellent for maintaining long-term company culture and vision—akin to organizing the world’s information—they are generally too abstract for daily sprint planning. Finally, for teams requiring more agility, FAST Goals offer a modern alternative to SMART by prioritizing Frequent discussions, Ambitious scope, Specific metrics, and Transparent progress. This dynamic framework is best suited for agile teams that value the ability to pivot quickly and maintain transparency over rigid, annual planning cycles.
Part 2: The Philosophy of Radical Simplicity
While frameworks are useful, they can become bureaucratic traps. The secret to effective goal setting in tech isn’t adding more structure—it is removing noise.
Cloud Architect Pragya Keshap argues that the primary enemy of execution is volume, not vagueness. She advocates for a strategy of “Radical Simplicity.”
“After years in engineering and product roles, a pattern that has become clear to me is that most teams don’t struggle because they lack goals but because they’re buried under them,” Keshap explains. “Research on prioritization and focus consistently shows that people and teams execute better when they concentrate on a small number of meaningful objectives at once, often just one to three. That’s why my strategy now is radical simplicity. No more than three truly important goals per quarter. When everything is a priority, nothing really moves.”
This approach solves the cognitive load problem. When an engineer has to context-switch between five different “P0” (Priority Zero) tickets, productivity plummets. Keshap suggests a powerful counter-move:
“To make that focus real, I’m explicit about what we are not doing this quarter. Naming the ‘non-goals’ removes guilt and distraction and gives people permission to go deep instead of constantly context-switching, which is known to drain cognitive bandwidth and reduce effectiveness. It helps teams trade being busy for impact.”
Part 3: How to Set Clear Expectations
Once you have selected a strategy (like OKRs) and applied the filter of simplicity, how do you communicate this to the team?
1. Define the “Why,” not just the “What” Engineers are problem solvers. If you hand them a solution (“Build a button here”), you cap their creativity. If you give them a problem (“Users are dropping off at checkout”), you unlock their potential. Always tie technical goals back to business value.
2. Establish a “Definition of Done” (DoD) Ambiguity breeds resentment. A goal is not “Improve API speed.” A goal is “API response time is under 200ms for 95% of requests.” Clear expectations require binary outcomes—at the end of the quarter, there should be no debate about whether the goal was met.
3. The One-Sentence Rule Complexity is often a mask for a lack of clarity. If a goal requires a paragraph of explanation, it is not refined enough. As Keshap notes, this is a crucial stress test for any leader:
“A simple practical rule keeps us honest. If a goal can’t be explained in one clear, jargon-free sentence, it isn’t ready yet. That constraint forces sharper thinking up front, from aligning expectations and making trade-offs visible to ensuring everyone knows exactly what ‘good’ looks like before the work begins.”
Part 4: Practical Tips for Execution
Limit Work in Progress (WIP): Adopt the “Rule of Three.” Never have more than three active initiatives per team. If a new one comes in, one must go out.
Visualize the Goal: Whether it is a dashboard on a TV screen or a progress bar in Jira, keep the main goal visible. If it’s out of sight, it’s out of mind.
Conduct “Goal Retrospectives”: We do retrospectives for code and sprints, but rarely for goals. At the end of the quarter, ask: Did we pick the right metrics? Did this goal actually move the needle?
Decouple Performance from Moonshots: If you use ambitious goals (like OKRs), do not tie compensation 100% to hitting them. If you do, teams will sandbag (set lower goals) to ensure they get their bonus.
By combining a structured framework with Keshap’s philosophy of radical simplicity, leaders can create an environment where goals are not burdens, but tools that drive genuine impact.
