Why Clear Department Direction Beats Short‑Term Goals: Insights from a Q1 Review

In mid‑April, our department held a Q1 performance review for the management team. Besides each department head presenting quarterly plans and outputs, the session emphasized mutual learning among managers. Overall, teams did not encounter technical issues; missed targets stemmed from unclear direction, planning, and poor cross‑department cooperation. The primary factor limiting contribution was the department heads' ability to define direction and planning.

Stage 01: Difference Between Department Direction and Goals

During the review, we asked two questions of most department heads: Is the department's direction clear? Is the department's goal clear? About half answered that either the direction or the goal was unclear.

Direction derives from a department’s responsibilities. For example, the Efficiency Engineering direction focuses on extreme internal efficiency, aiming to create a highly digitized enterprise that becomes a competitive advantage. Direction is not a fixed endpoint but a continuous deepening effort, producing increasingly ambitious milestones over time. Goals, however, are concrete, measurable, and time‑bound, adhering to the SMART principle, serving as milestones within the broader direction.

Goals are typically set for a year or less, with clear plans, resources, and acceptance criteria. Longer‑term goals (e.g., three‑year targets) often serve as directional statements without detailed execution plans.

For instance, a company aiming for a 5 trillion GMV in three years breaks it down into annual milestones (2 trillion, 3 trillion, etc.). Each year’s budget and resources can be allocated to achieve those milestones, making the goals actionable.

If a department only has short‑term milestones, it can launch projects to meet them without defining a long‑term direction or building a specialized team. Department heads must clarify their direction with superiors to validate the department’s value.

Stage 02: Why Department Direction Is Unclear

Many heads focus excessively on short‑term goals, neglecting direction. When company‑wide annual goals are clear for some departments but vague for others, it creates an imbalance. For example, a 2 trillion GMV target may not directly relate to the Efficiency Engineering department, whose responsibility is governance of people, finance, and information.

Efficiency Engineering can either follow HR/Finance goals, gaining visible short‑term results, or set independent goals aligned with its own direction, risking misalignment with company objectives. Both approaches have trade‑offs.

Effective heads balance supporting other departments’ goals while also pursuing independent, forward‑looking objectives that may not yield immediate results but lay groundwork for future growth.

For example, the EBS team eliminated many finance‑related bottlenecks in 2019, reducing demand from finance and business units. However, this led to reduced team morale and a sense of crisis, illustrating how unclear direction can affect team stability.

The root cause of unclear direction is often a short‑term mindset among department heads, overlooking the importance of long‑term vision.

Stage 03: Building Forward‑Thinking “Directionality”

In a competitive environment, short‑term performance pressures are inevitable, but long‑term achievement depends on personal capability, effort, and values, which are controllable. Department heads must sustain a long‑term perspective, recognizing that value remains stable while price (performance metrics) fluctuates.

Adopting a long‑term view prevents over‑focus on immediate, visible tasks and encourages investment in unseen contributions that create future value. As Wang Xing expressed, “Do not overestimate two‑year changes nor underestimate ten‑year changes,” emphasizing the importance of patience and long‑term thinking for leaders.