A senior leader came to a coaching session recently with a challenge that is far more common than most executives will admit.
""They're committed. I just don't know what they're committed to."
He was not describing a performance problem. He was describing a meaning problem. And in my experience, the two are far more connected than most leadership conversations acknowledge.
When people do not understand why their work matters, something consequential happens. They default to busyness. They optimise for activity rather than impact. And when priorities compete, which they always do, they have no frame of reference to make sound decisions. They escalate. They wait. Or they decide based on what feels most urgent rather than what is most important.
That is not a failure of commitment. It is a failure of clarity.
The Strategy Line of Sight
One of the frameworks I use most consistently in leadership coaching is what I call the Strategy Line of Sight. Every individual in a team should be able to trace a direct line from their daily work to the organisation's broader purpose.
That line runs through five levels:
- Organisation Purpose: Why do we exist?
- Strategic Priorities: What are the most important outcomes we must achieve this period?
- Team Mission: How does our team contribute to those priorities?
- Team Goals: What specific results are we responsible for delivering?
- Individual Goals: What is my contribution?
When these five levels are explicitly connected, alignment becomes visible. When they are disconnected, teams can be productive in the wrong direction, investing effort in work that feels meaningful locally but contributes little at the organisational level.
The Prioritisation Problem No One Names
When people lack strategic clarity, they cannot prioritise effectively. Not because they lack intelligence or initiative. Because they lack the reference point that makes prioritisation possible.
Without that understanding, people default to one of two patterns. They prioritise based on urgency, responding to what is loud rather than what is important. Or they prioritise based on visibility, focusing on what they believe their manager will notice rather than what will create the most value.
Both patterns are rational responses to ambiguity. Neither serves the organisation well.
A Diagnostic Question Worth Asking
If you stopped five members of your team today and asked them the following questions, how consistent would their answers be?
- What are the organisation's top three strategic priorities right now?
- What is our team's specific contribution to those priorities?
- What should we be focused on this quarter, and why?
If the answers diverge significantly, that is not a team problem. That is a leadership communication problem.
Clarity is not what the leader says. Clarity is what the team understands.
Three Practices That Build Line of Sight
Provide context before content. The simplest shift a leader can make is to lead every conversation about work with the why before the what.
Instead of: "We need this report by Friday."
Try: "We are entering a planning cycle. This analysis will directly inform how resources are allocated across the business. The quality of our thinking here will shape decisions that affect the next twelve months. We need the report by Friday."
The task has not changed. The meaning has. And meaning changes how people show up.
Move team conversations from activity to impact. Most teams spend the majority of their meeting time discussing tasks. High-performing teams spend more time discussing outcomes: what impact is being created, how that connects to the broader strategy, and whether effort is flowing to the right places. A team that understands its contribution to customer retention will make different prioritisation decisions than a team that sees its job as answering inquiries. The frame governs the judgement.
Create regular space for strategic sense-making. Clarity is not a one-time communication event. It requires consistent reinforcement of the why behind the what, and space for teams to discuss, question, and interpret strategy rather than simply receive it. When people can apply strategic logic to their own decisions, they are better equipped to navigate trade-offs without requiring everything to escalate.
The Question Worth Sitting With
The most effective leaders I work with do not just set goals. They help people understand why those goals matter, how they connect to a larger purpose, and why that purpose is worth the effort.
They help their teams answer the question that sits beneath every task, every deadline, and every competing demand:
What are we really trying to achieve here, and what does that mean for the choices in front of us today?
When that question has a clear, shared answer, prioritisation becomes less about managing time and more about making choices that are strategically sound.
And that is the difference between a team that is busy and a team that is building something.