I’m David Dorn, and I’m in my third career – this is the third of three very different careers. These days, I’m an executive coach – sometimes called a leadership coach – and I’ve been doing this for, well, it’ll be 29 years in August.
I’ve actually been doing this since before it was even called coaching. It’s something I’m passionate about. I still love helping people – especially leaders, because they’re in a position to touch the lives of others who, in turn, impact even more people. I often say that if I can help a leader be more effective or more sustainable – and use even better leadership techniques – then that’s a good day for me. That’s why I do this: to make a difference in the world.
Why do you think some leaders struggle with goal setting – for themselves or their teams? What’s usually at the root of that challenge?
Well, I struggle with goal setting – so I’m not sure I’m the best person to answer! But seriously, I think part of the challenge is not knowing exactly where they want to go. Once you figure that out, the “how” gets easier. But settling on what you really want to accomplish can be tough.
When I work with people, I often start with “why,” but that can feel vague for folks – they don’t want to lock into something if they’re unsure. And once you set a goal, if you don’t reach it, it can feel like failure – even though it’s not. I think that fear contributes to the struggle.
There’s also the challenge of breaking goals down into the right bite-sized pieces. We talk about SMART goals – making them attainable, measurable, etc. – but that process can feel overwhelming, especially in complex, fast-moving organizations.
How do you balance setting ambitious goals with ensuring they remain realistic and achievable?
That’s a really good question. I think organizations sometimes undermine themselves by setting overly ambitious goals and handing them down without context. People look at those goals and think, “Where did this come from?” And when they’re inevitably missed, it doesn’t help morale – it feels like failure.
I think it’s great to have ambitious visions – to want to achieve great things. But when we’re setting actual targets, they need to be realistic and not create undue stress on the system, whether it’s a business, nonprofit, or military organization.
Stretch goals are great – we want people to push themselves. I often say it’s okay to be a demanding boss, but you also need to be a fair and caring boss. That’s the balance.
When working with executives, how do you help them differentiate between strategic goals vs. operational or tactical ones?
I guess I’ll interject something here that may or may not directly answer the question. But two things I make sure to work on with leaders – especially long-term clients, and once we’ve addressed anything urgent to make them successful – come from a term I once heard in property law. A lawyer was describing a piece of land and talked about the highest and best use of that land. That phrase instantly resonated with me because people are assets too. So the question becomes: how do we get the most out of ourselves or out of someone else? What’s their highest and best use? What are their gifts? Their strengths? What are they passionate about?
I often say that leaders have three main things they can leverage or trade on: time, energy, and social capital. Of course, they bring wisdom as well—but time, energy, and social capital are the key resources they can expend. And if we can have someone spending their time on something they’re passionate about – something that gives them energy and drives important, high-impact results – then that work not only energizes them, it builds social capital too. So they’re actually increasing their energy and influence by working on the right things.
And those things tend to be strategic. These are the big-picture items that matter most – no matter what level you’re at. That’s where people should be focusing. It’s central to working in your highest and best use. So we focus on identifying those areas—both now and in the future – so we can intentionally move toward them.
Just as important is identifying what isn’t the best use of a leader’s time. What are the things that might be someone else’s highest and best use? Something they could be passionate about, something they could grow from. That’s where development through delegation comes in – what I sometimes call “delegating” – where you’re not just handing off tasks, you’re developing someone through that responsibility so they can rise. And it’s crucial to help people understand that when they’re given a new challenge, task, or promotion, they’re becoming more valuable—not just to your organization, but in the marketplace. There’s a big “what’s in it for them.”
Now, to answer the question more directly – strategic goals are the ones that have long-term impact. Operational or tactical goals are the ones that help us get to that long-term impact.
I often use something called the “urgent vs. important” matrix. Urgent tasks are things that need to be done right away. But often, we lose sight of the long-term, important things that truly deserve our focus.
In fact, this connects to another key focus of mine, which is what I call leadership sustainability. Others might call it resilience – but to me, it’s about how we keep leaders healthy – mentally and physically – so they can keep doing this important work. Not just now, not just in a year or five years, but 10, 20, even 30 years from now. More and more, people are working – and leading – into their 70s and 80s. So how do we make that possible? We take care of ourselves.
Unfortunately, in the urgent vs. important matrix, health often isn’t urgent – until it is. But we shouldn’t wait until it becomes urgent. We need to treat it as a strategic asset. Because it is.
How can leaders use goal setting as a way to build resilience and foster a growth mindset in their teams?
Well, as leaders, we want to set stretch goals that actually grow the team. Part of growing up – part of being successful in life and in an organization—is stretching and taking risks. And when we take risks, sometimes we don’t succeed. That’s why it’s the leader’s job to build a system where people can be stretched, where they’re allowed to fail in safe ways – not in unsafe ones.
We want people to grow and learn from their failures and setbacks. That’s what builds resilience – because once we know we can come back from a challenge and grow stronger, we’re better prepared for the next one. But if someone fails in an unsafe way, I believe that’s on the leader. The leader shouldn’t let that happen. We’ve got to check in often enough to support our people – make sure they have what they need, that they’re headed in the right direction, and that we’re giving the level of support necessary for them to ultimately succeed.
Staying in touch – that’s the work of a leader. Being a support mechanism. And I always encourage leaders to make sure they’re coming from a place of wanting that person to succeed. It’s not about you being successful – it’s about them being successful. And when someone feels that you genuinely care about their success, they’ll work harder for you – and help you be successful in the process.
So again, stretch people. Let them fall down sometimes. Then help them learn: What happened? What did you learn? How do we make sure this doesn’t happen again? Those are the kinds of coaching questions that help people grow while they’re doing the work.
Now, the whole idea of a growth mindset is fascinating in itself, because it’s a choice. There’s research on this – on the difference between a performance orientation and a learning orientation toward challenges. One large study found that people who approached challenges with a learning orientation were more than twice as successful – not just in long-term development, but in getting promoted.
And we don’t often think about it, but we can choose that mindset. We can ask, “What can I learn from this task? What can I learn from this challenge?” Let’s put aside the performance part for a moment – because performance anxiety can actually get in the way. “Don’t strike out, don’t strike out, don’t strike out” – that’s not going to help you hit the ball, right?
If you focus on learning, we know something valuable will come from it. That puts us in a state of flow. It lets us work from a mindset of abundance instead of scarcity. And it encourages experimentation.
I worked with a senior executive once who loved his organization and couldn’t imagine working anywhere else. I asked him why, and he said, “In most companies, they tell you that if you make a mistake or fail, that’s okay – you’ll learn. But they’re lying. You make mistakes, you fail, and they punish you. If it happens enough, they fire you. Here, you don’t get your bonus – which is a big part of your compensation – unless you can document your failures and what you learned from them.”
That flipped the whole model on its head. Imagine a workplace where learning from mistakes is required. Where failure isn’t hidden – it’s shared, understood, and used to get better. That’s what it looks like when we’re not falling into the “ABC” trap: Accuse, Blame, Criticize.
One way I coach leaders to build that mindset is by having team members regularly share mistakes and what they learned from them in meetings. It creates psychological safety. It makes it normal. We all make mistakes – so let’s stop hiding them and start learning from them.
What advice do you give leaders who struggle with follow-through after setting a goal? How can they stay accountable – especially when things get busy or hard?
This question prompts me to share what I call my RAMT—my rant. After years and years of doing this work, I’ve realized that many people in leadership roles don’t actually know how to manage. That’s where the leadership/management line gets blurry.
I work with a lot of folks internationally—leaders who went to elite schools in the U.S., then returned home with impressive credentials. They may have grown up with status, maybe they knew how to direct staff or order people around. They can do mergers and acquisitions on paper, but they’ve never actually learned how to lead and manage people day-to-day. So, I often have to teach them the basics—and to be honest, all of us could use a refresher sometimes.
What I’ve seen across all my work—whether it was with NASA, running my own businesses for 18 years, or coaching leaders today—is that the same formula for success shows up again and again. It’s simple, but not always easy to implement. Here it is:
50% of success working with others is setting clear expectations.
That means: what does the goal really mean? What does success look like? What exactly are we trying to accomplish? Now, here’s where it gets tricky: clear to one person might not be clear to another. So we have to tailor our communication to the individual.
Some people—you’ve worked with them long enough, they know what you mean, they’ll take it and run with it. Others may need more detail. You’ll need to walk them through what success looks like and what the steps are. And that’s okay.
And it really doesn’t matter where the expectations come from—as long as they’re clear. They can come from above, be dictated, be collaborative, or even suggested by the employee. I often say, “You tell me what you think you should do.” Any of those work, as long as the expectations are crystal clear.
That said, I do believe collaborating on expectations is the best path. You get more diverse ideas, better solutions, and stronger buy-in. But again—the clarity is what matters most.
The other 50% of success? It’s following up.
Following up until you don’t have to follow up anymore. That’s where leaders often fall short. Follow-up must come from a place of caring and support. The goal is to help that person succeed.
So we set a timeline—an agreed-upon cadence, milestones, or checkpoints where we come together, review progress, and make adjustments as needed. We’re there to support them, not to micromanage.
That follow-up schedule depends on the person. Some people don’t need much. Others need a lot of handholding—and that’s part of the job. It doesn’t matter how busy we are as managers; our job is to make sure our people are successful.
Now, if someone consistently isn’t the right fit, we may need to make a different decision. But our first responsibility is to give them the support and structure they need to succeed.
And once that follow-up schedule is in place, it’s your job as the leader to make sure it happens. Don’t let it fall off the radar. If they don’t show up when expected, go to them. Because if we’re not following up on a goal, then it probably wasn’t that important to begin with.
But if you have clear expectations and consistent follow-up, then success is almost inevitable. You can adjust the expectations, see if they’re reasonable, course correct as needed—and in doing so, you help that person grow into someone even more valuable to your organization and to society.
How do you see the role of goal setting evolving in modern workplaces, especially with hybrid teams, AI tools, and shifting priorities?
Well, I guess my first answer is: we need to have flexibility. If we set goals and the landscape is changing—and we stay stuck to those goals—we might completely miss the target, because the target itself is moving. The landscape is shifting. What we want to be accomplishing may need to shift, too. Even the nature of the business can change quickly these days.
So staying attuned to the relevance of our goals is critical. I think that’s where some organizations struggle. They set a goal and keep doggedly working toward it—even when the political or economic environment has changed. That’s how they end up failing in unsafe ways.
We have to keep an eye on the broader landscape—on what’s changing in the world around us—and check in with our people. The folks doing the work are closest to the customer, the technology, and the shifts happening on the ground. With the pace of change today, we need them to be our eyes and ears, helping us adapt and recalibrate as needed.
Any final words for our readers?
I guess I’d just offer a quick plug for something I think is really important: as we look at our goals and the work we’re doing, we’ve got to stay clear on why we’re doing it. What are we trying to accomplish—and who are we as leaders while we’re doing it?
Are we self-focused leaders, mostly concerned with our own success? Or are we other-focused leaders—focused on helping the people around us succeed, helping the organization succeed, and ultimately making a broader impact in society? Making the world a better place?
Why are we in business? Why are we working for this nonprofit? Even in mission-based organizations, people can lose sight of that purpose. The daily grind can turn meaningful work into just a job—even if the mission is an important one.
So I think it’s critical to stay connected to our values, to why we’re doing what we’re doing—and to make sure that “why” is woven into the day-to-day work. That’s what keeps people inspired and motivated. That’s what brings real meaning and purpose to our work.
