There is no time for vision talk – we need to get on with what is happening today – lower the vision!
I think the goals are no longer where we had set them at the beginning of the year? I wonder if others have noticed them? Maybe if we all kept quiet, no body will notice that has happened?
Dec 31. New Year is here again. My resolution for the new year (from tomorrow) is to lose weight. Cheers!
Mar 31. Hmm … that cake was yummy. Don’t you agree?
June 14. Oh-oh! My weight has yo-yoed once again. Nothing works!
EVENT
WHAT THE STRUCTURE LOOKS LIKE AT A POINT IN TIME (AS AN EVENT)
When goals seem to have their own direction (goal) and are drifting (away) from us.
When managing performance becomes an imperative. Something that we cannot do without. We believe (strongly) that only what gets measured (supervised) gets done!
So we set goals (milestones) for our goals.
But it is futile. Or if we achieve it, it happens at a huge cost to the organization. Why does it cost us so much to get there?
PATTERN
A MANAGEMENT STORY ILLUSTRATING THE BEHAVIOR OF THE STRUCTURE PLAYING OUT OVER TIME (BOT / VIDEO)
The Story of NASA, since the landing on the moon.
Attention to SARS in 2002 in Singapore after 9/11 in 2001. Lives lost to SARS on the island = 80. Terrorism = 0.
Why Drifting Goals May Remain Invisible Until a Crisis
A drifting goal is not always recognised while the drift is occurring. Attention may be redirected towards another compelling objective, an immediate operational pressure or a competing interpretation of what matters most. As this happens, the original goal may lose priority without a clear decision being made to abandon it. The consequences can remain difficult to see because the effects of the drift may emerge elsewhere in the system or only after a significant delay.
A crisis may therefore reveal the consequences of a long period of unrecognised drift rather than mark the beginning of the problem. The task of systemic diagnosis is to look backwards from the visible consequences and investigate the earlier goals, competing priorities, decisions and delays that may have shaped the trajectory.
The SARS chronology below provides a context for this inquiry. The timeline documents the sequence of events and responses; establishing Drifting Goals as the causal explanation requires further evidence about the original objectives, the competing priorities and the decisions that influenced the response. The distinction matters: a timeline can establish what happened and when, but it does not, by itself, establish the complete causal structure.
STRUCTURE
DESCRIPTION OF THE ARCHETYPE
We have lowered our standards to close the gap between the actual and desired performance.
We notice there is a gap between the goal and the actual. There are two ways we might take to close the gap. One is we truly care for the goal and therefore we take corrective actions to bring our actual state closer to the goal. The other way is to allow pressures to lower the goal to take effect and over time we do not think there is any difference between the goal (since the goal itself may have eroded, over time) and the actual. As such no further action takes place.
Reading the Structure: Two Ways of Closing the Gap
The Drifting Goals archetype contains two balancing loops that offer different responses to the same performance gap. Although both loops can reduce the perceived gap between the goal and actual performance, they do not necessarily move the system towards the same outcome.
B2 — Corrective action to improve actual performance
The lower loop represents the path of diligence. When a gap is recognised, corrective action is initiated to bring actual performance closer to the intended goal. However, corrective action takes time to influence actual performance. During this delay, the gap remains visible, resources continue to be committed, and those responsible must sustain their efforts without necessarily seeing immediate results. This loop requires patience, persistence and a willingness to continue working towards an outcome whose benefits may not yet be apparent.
B1 — Pressure to lower the goal
The upper loop offers a different response. Rather than improving actual performance, pressure to lower the goal reduces the standard against which performance is judged. The perceived gap can therefore become smaller without a corresponding improvement in the underlying condition. The system obtains relief from the pressure of underperformance, but the original ambition may remain unrealised.
The two loops are therefore not equally desirable routes to achievement. One seeks to change actual performance; the other can reduce the gap by changing the goal. The central diagnostic question is not simply whether the gap is closing, but what is changing to close it?
MENTAL MODEL
OUTLOOK THAT CAUSES THE STRUCTURE TO PERSIST DESPITE OUR EFFORTS TO SOLVE IT / RESISTS PROBLEM SOLVING:
“Our current level of activity is acceptable, even though it is below standard.”
The Behavioural Tension: The Pain of the Gap
The gap between the goal and actual performance is not merely a numerical difference. It can become a source of emotional tension: disappointment, anxiety, frustration, fear of failure, and pressure to justify results. When corrective action is expensive, or its effects are delayed, this tension can persist even when the right actions have already begun.
Lowering the goal offers immediate relief from that tension. It can also appear to avoid the financial, operational, and reputational costs of waiting for results. The danger is that the system learns to escape the discomfort of underperformance rather than develop the capacity to manage the delay between action and effect. Repeated over time, this response can normalise progressively lower standards.
The mental model is therefore sustained not only by the belief that present performance is acceptable, but also by the attraction of relief from the pressure to improve. The system may remain committed to its stated objective while its decisions gradually move it away from that objective.
FEAR OF FAILURE. LEARNING: TO LET IT GO SO AS NOT TO LET THE FEAR AFFECT THE WAY YOU SHAPE YOUR OUTLOOK, PERSPECTIVES AND DECISION-MAKING.
From the Pain of the Gap to the Discipline of Vision
A goal can become experienced as a continuing judgement of present inadequacy: actual performance is measured against the desired state, and the gap becomes the dominant focus of attention. Under pressure, the organisation may begin to treat the gap itself as a problem to be eliminated, rather than as information about the work still required to achieve the intended outcome.
A compelling vision changes the role of the gap. It gives the system a desired future towards which people can organise their attention, learning and collective effort. When that vision is genuinely shared, actual performance and the gap do not disappear; they become information for learning, evaluation and course correction. A shortfall is not automatically a reason to abandon the destination. It is a signal to investigate what is preventing progress and what must change.
A vision does not, by itself, eliminate Drifting Goals. If it is merely declared, rather than translated into decisions, resources, coordinated action and accountability, the underlying structure can remain unchanged. The system must still confront actual performance, examine delays, learn from the gap and sustain corrective action.
For STRLDi, the distinction is between organising the system around the discomfort of not yet having achieved the goal and organising it around the disciplined, collective work of realising the intended future.
The gap is a signal. The delay is a condition to be managed. Corrective action is the means of changing performance. A shared vision supplies direction and collective commitment to sustain that work.
The critical question becomes: Can the system remain faithful to its intended future while learning how to close the gap between its present condition and the performance required?
MAKING A SYSTEMIC INTERVENTION
TREATING THE STRUCTURE
STRLDi Intervention: Restoring the Path to the Intended Future
The intervention is not simply to insist that people maintain a goal at all costs. Nor is it to assume that every change in a target represents failure. Goals may legitimately need revision when conditions, evidence or the underlying purpose change. The systemic problem arises when standards are progressively lowered to relieve the pressure of underperformance without addressing the causes of that underperformance.
STRLDi therefore treats intervention as a process of recovering the intended future, making the sources of drift visible and restoring the system’s capacity to act on the gap.
1. Detect the drift. Examine performance trajectories rather than isolated results. Identify whether performance is deteriorating, stagnating or repeatedly missing the intended standard.
2. Recover the original goal. Establish what was initially intended, how the standard has changed over time, and whether each revision was supported by evidence or driven by pressure to make results appear acceptable.
3. Expose competing priorities. Identify the other goals, demands or pressures drawing attention and resources away from the stated objective. Determine how these priorities interact and which are being allowed to take precedence in practice.
4. Trace the consequences. Examine what the drift is concealing, who or what is affected, and why the consequences may remain invisible until a threshold is crossed or a crisis occurs.
5. Restore the corrective path. Examine whether the established procedures, resources, capabilities, decision rights and relationships are sufficient to close the gap. Identify structural causes rather than treating the shortfall as merely an individual performance failure.
6. Re-establish a compelling shared vision. Clarify the intended future in a way that guides collective decisions and sustains commitment through delays and setbacks. Translate the vision into practical requirements, responsibilities and measures of progress.
7. Establish a transition plan and feedback discipline. Set out the actions, sequence, resources and realistic timeline required to improve performance. Monitor actual results against the intended standard, evaluate whether interventions are working, and adjust the means without casually abandoning the destination.
The purpose is to ensure that the system does not confuse relief from the pressure of a gap with resolution of the condition that created it.
STAYING FOCUSED ON VISION
Various pressures can often take our attention away from what we are trying to achieve. Used as a diagnostic tool, it can target drifting performance areas and help organisations obtain their visions.
Intervention:
- Look for drifting performance figures. This is a sign that the archetype was at work and that real corrective actions are not being taken
- Look for goals that conflict with the stated goal
- Identify what are the ways we are taking (standard procedures) to close the gap. Are these inadvertently contributing to the goal slippage
- Examine the past history of the goal. Have these been lowered over time?
- Anchor the goal to an external reference
- Clarify a compelling vision that will involve everyone
- Create a clear transition plan. Establish what it will take to achieve the vision and establish a realistic timeline.
What it looks like if the system was working well:
- “We know where we are going and what it will take to get there.”
- We monitor, evaluate and adjust performance standards in order to achieve our goals.
The Systems Thinker: Established Literature on Drifting Goals
The Drifting Goals archetype has been examined in the systems-thinking literature through several complementary perspectives. These include the role of competing priorities, the gradual normalisation of declining performance, the importance of maintaining a compelling vision, and the design of systemic interventions. Together, these contributions provide a foundation for understanding the archetype and identifying practical points of intervention.
1. Using “Drifting Goals” to Keep Your Eye on the Vision
Article: Read the full article
Central argument: Other organisational pressures—such as cost control, productivity targets and firefighting—can divert attention from the intended goal. As corrective action becomes more difficult or its effects are delayed, the goal may gradually be lowered until the deterioration becomes visible through a crisis.
Suggested interventions:
▪️ Identify performance measures that have deteriorated or oscillated over time.
▪️ Examine explicit and implicit goals that conflict with the stated objective.
▪️ Review standard operating procedures for correcting the gap and identify whether they contribute to slippage.
▪️ Investigate whether the goal has been lowered over time and how revisions relate to past performance.
▪️ Anchor the goal to an external frame of reference.
▪️ Clarify a compelling vision that engages everyone involved.
▪️ Establish a clear transition plan with realistic requirements and timelines.
STRLDi extension: Examine not only whether a goal has been lowered, but also whether competing priorities have concealed the drift and delayed recognition of its consequences. Preserve the history of the original goal, subsequent revisions, performance trajectories and decisions that shaped the system’s direction.
2. Drifting Goals: The Challenge of Conflicting Priorities — Daniel H. Kim
Article: Read the full article
Central argument: Goals rarely operate in isolation. An organisation may declare a commitment to quality while rewarding cost reduction, or commit to punctuality while allowing other demands to take precedence. These competing objectives can progressively weaken the original standard without an explicit decision to abandon it.
Suggested interventions:
▪️ Identify interdependent goals rather than analysing the stated goal in isolation.
▪️ Determine which goal should take precedence in the particular context.
▪️ Investigate the practical constraints that make simultaneous achievement difficult.
▪️ Establish mechanisms to reduce conflicts between competing demands and priorities.
STRLDi extension: Map the relationships among competing goals and investigate what each priority draws attention away from. Determine which consequences are displaced, where information fails to travel across the system, and whether the apparent conflict reflects a genuine trade-off or a failure to redesign the relationships between objectives.
3. Drifting Goals: The “Boiled Frog” Syndrome
Article: Read the full article
Central argument: Declining performance and declining expectations can reinforce one another gradually. Because the change is slow, each new level may appear tolerable in isolation, even as the system moves further away from its original standard. The article also makes an important distinction: revising a goal is not inherently wrong; the issue is whether revision becomes a way to accommodate deterioration rather than correct it.
Suggested interventions:
▪️ Treat deteriorating performance figures as possible warning signs of systemic drift.
▪️ Examine whether targets are being set from recent performance rather than an independent standard.
▪️ Use external standards, customer requirements or other defensible reference points to resist inappropriate downward adjustment.
▪️ Distinguish justified changes to goals from changes that merely normalise poor performance.
▪️ Recognise that the same dynamic can support continuous improvement when goals are progressively raised in response to improved performance and higher standards.
STRLDi extension: Track the trajectory, not merely the latest result. Maintain the baseline against which deterioration can be recognised, examine the cumulative effect of successive compromises, and identify the point at which gradual adjustment becomes a threat to the system’s intended purpose.
4. Guidelines for Designing Systemic Interventions
Article: Read the full article
Central argument: Systems insight must translate into interventions that address a problem’s underlying structure. Effective interventions should be capable of sustaining and correcting themselves through feedback, rather than depending on a one-off decision or temporary burst of effort.
Suggested interventions:
▪️ Map where an intervention could break an unhelpful causal link.
▪️ Add missing links between parts of the system that need to coordinate or exchange information.
▪️ Shorten delays that prevent timely recognition or correction of problems.
▪️ Establish the expected behaviour of the system after intervention.
▪️ Test interventions through controlled experiments where feasible.
▪️ Involve the stakeholders whose understanding and commitment are necessary for implementation.
▪️ Monitor outcomes and refine interventions in response to feedback.
For Drifting Goals specifically, the article recommends making the goal explicit and anchoring it to an external standard, thereby weakening the connection between pressure to lower the goal and the goal itself.
STRLDi extension: Investigate the complete set of relationships sustaining the drift. In addition to anchoring the goal, restore missing information, accountability and decision-making links; identify who can initiate corrective action; and establish feedback that reveals whether the system is genuinely improving.
Synthesis: From Established Guidance to STRLDi Practice
Across these articles, four recurring intervention principles emerge: make the drift visible, expose conflicting priorities, anchor the goal to a defensible reference point, and sustain corrective action through a compelling vision and a realistic transition plan.
STRLDi builds on these principles by emphasising the wider systemic relationships that may allow drift to remain unnoticed. A goal can be progressively compromised while attention is absorbed by another compelling objective, while consequences emerge elsewhere in the system, or while delays make the effects of corrective action difficult to observe. The intervention must therefore examine not only the goal and the gap, but also the relationships that determine what the system notices, values, measures and acts upon.
The purpose is not to preserve every original target regardless of circumstances. It is to distinguish evidence-based adaptation from the progressive lowering of expectations that allows underlying problems to persist. This distinction becomes especially important in complex systems, where the consequences of drift may become apparent only after a crisis has exposed the accumulated effects of earlier decisions.
From Global Trends to the Sustainable Development Goals
The global temperature record illustrates a long-term trajectory that must be understood in relation to the goals established to address climate change. However, a deteriorating or unfavourable trajectory does not, by itself, establish that goals are drifting. Drifting Goals occurs when the system responds to the difficulty of achieving an intended outcome by progressively lowering its expectations, rather than adequately addressing the causes of underperformance.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a wider context in which to examine this distinction. Adopted in 2015 under the United Nations 2030 Agenda, the 17 goals were intended to advance interconnected social, economic and environmental outcomes. With 2030 approaching, the central question is not simply which targets are off track, but whether the goals, their interrelationships and the interventions being pursued are sufficient to change the trajectory.
1. The SDGs: Progress Against the 2030 Ambition
Assess progress against the original commitments, the intended timelines and the observed trajectories. Identify where progress is on track, too slow or regressing. A performance gap is the starting point for diagnosis; it is not, on its own, proof of Drifting Goals.
2. The Blind Spots: What the SDG Framework Does Not Adequately Connect
The STRLDi point of departure is that the goals cannot be understood or achieved independently. The relationships between human activity, nature, the economy, governance and people must be made explicit. Where these relationships are insufficiently understood or acted upon, interventions directed at individual goals may fail to produce the wider transformation required.
3. STRLDi’s Four Domains of SDG Interrelationships
STRLDi organises the 17 SDGs into four interconnected domains:
▪️ Human–Nature Interrelations: SDGs 3, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14 and 15.
▪️ Human–Economy Interrelations: SDGs 1, 2, 8, 9 and 12.
▪️ Human–Governance Interrelations: SDGs 16 and 17.
▪️ Human–People Interrelations: SDGs 4, 5 and 10.
This grouping provides a systems-thinking lens through which to examine dependencies, tensions, feedback and potential blind spots across the SDGs.
4. The System Archetypes Behind the Blind Spots
STRLDi applies system archetypes to investigate recurring structural problems across these domains. These include Limits to Growth, Growth and Underinvestment, Drifting Goals, Fixes that Backfire, Shifting the Burden, Escalation, Success to the Successful, Burden Limits and Accidental Adversaries.
The purpose is not merely to assign an archetype to a goal. It is to investigate the structures and relationships that sustain a problem, including why well-intentioned interventions may fail to produce the intended outcome.
5. Drifting Goals: Are We Addressing the Causes or Accommodating the Gap?
The SDGs provide an opportunity to examine whether persistent underperformance is prompting stronger corrective action or a gradual adjustment of expectations. This requires evidence of how goals, standards, priorities or commitments have changed over time. Where such evidence exists, the Drifting Goals archetype can help explain how the system may come to accept outcomes that fall short of its original ambition.
For STRLDi, however, the deeper question extends beyond whether a target has been lowered. Were essential goals omitted, were critical interrelationships left insufficiently addressed, or were the interventions inadequate to change the system’s trajectory? These are propositions to investigate against evidence, not conclusions to assume for every SDG.
6. STRLDi’s Proposition: Systemic Healing Through Interrelationships
The STRLDi proposition is that the SDGs cannot be brought back on course through isolated interventions alone. The goals, the conditions required to achieve them and the relationships among them must be examined together. This includes identifying missing system conditions, clarifying interdependencies and redesigning interventions so that progress in one domain reinforces rather than undermines progress in another.
The ultimate task is to move beyond accommodating persistent gaps towards changing the structures that produce them. In this sense, addressing Drifting Goals means restoring the connection between the intended future, the system’s actual trajectory and the collective action required to close the gap.
7. From Diagnosis to Global Turnaround
The practical question is how the interrelationships between the SDGs can be used to redesign priorities, institutional responsibilities, investment and accountability. A shared vision of the intended future must be translated into coordinated corrective action, with progress monitored against meaningful standards and the consequences of intervention assessed across the wider system.
The objective is not simply to preserve targets on paper. It is to improve the system’s capacity to achieve them.
