Goals Are Mirrors of Power, Not Guideposts of Reason

Goals often appear in organizations like clear guideposts. But anyone who looks closely realizes: they are reflections of those who set them.

Goals are less objective fixed points than expressions of power relations – and not the result of neutral reason or objective analysis. Whoever overlooks this underestimates the social and political negotiation processes that precede every goal-setting.

Goals Are Made by Those Who Hold Power

Goals do not simply fall from the sky. They are made by people who possess resources, influence, or other means of power.

What counts as a "desirable state" in an organization is rarely the result of sober analysis but usually the outcome of interpretive authority and skillful positioning within the power structure. Anyone who deals with goal definitions should therefore always ask: Who benefits from this goal? Who can push it through? Who is left out?

Organizations are, as sociologist Niklas Luhmann's (1994) systems theory shows, not rational purpose-driven associations but systems that reduce complexity through decision premises. Goals are not neutral markers but expressions of the currently dominant power relations. They often serve less to actually steer than to legitimize existing interests and stabilize positions of power.

Power Is Relational, Not a Possession

Power in organizations is not a possession but a relational phenomenon. It arises wherever actors can control uncertainties, allocate resources, or determine communication channels.

These power relations are never one-sided: even those who appear "powerless" always retain a residual autonomy, for example by executing instructions poorly or exerting influence through refusal and resistance. Ultimately, it is "merely" a question of whether one can and will bear the consequences of refusing the other's power. The power game is therefore dynamic and constantly in motion – and goals are a central playing field of this game.

The idea that goals are objective, rationally derivable fixed points is a useful fiction. In truth, they are the result of negotiation processes in which actors with different interests, resources, and interpretive power struggle over the definition of the "desirable." Who prevails depends less on the quality of the arguments than on the position within the power structure.

Whoever Sets Goals Sets the Rules

Goal-setting processes are stages for power games, not neutral acts of steering. Here, interests are negotiated, coalitions forged, alliances formed, and rivals outmaneuvered.

Whoever sets goals thereby also sets the rules for future negotiations and shifts the power relations in their favor. The integration of goals into the organization is therefore not simply an act of steering but a political process that is always shaped by strategic communication, covert alliances, and symbolic demonstrations of power.

Goals thus often serve less to steer than to legitimize existing interests. They are part of what sociologist Niklas Luhmann called "uncertainty absorption": they reduce complexity, create orientation – but always within the framework of the power structures that produce and stabilize them.

Rational Goal-Setting Conceals the Power Behind It

Organizations tend to stage goals as rational steering instruments, but this belief is itself part of the power game. The more we rely on rational goal-setting, the more the actual negotiation and power processes are concealed.

The organization appears outwardly as guided by reason, while internally power games, coalitions, and strategic positioning are decisive.

Sociologist Niklas Luhmann (1994) speaks here of the "paradox of decision": every decision – and thus every goal-setting – is always also arbitrary, because it excludes alternatives that would have been equally possible. The rationality of goal-setting is therefore always limited and ultimately serves to absorb uncertainty, not to produce truth or objectivity.

Making Power Relations Explicit Opens New Possibilities

Anyone who works with goals in organizations should ask less about what "good goals" look like and more: Who benefits from this goal? Who pushes it through? Who is left out?

Goal-setting processes should be opened to different perspectives. The underlying interests, resources, and positions of power should be made explicit and addressed as part of the process.

This reflection is not an accusation but a necessary condition for a realistic assessment of organizational reality. Whoever allows different perspectives and openly addresses the power relations behind goals – not as an accusation but as honest reflection – at least recognizes where the actual levers lie for truly achieving goals.

Whoever opens goal-setting processes and makes power relations explicit creates new possibilities for influence. Power cannot simply be moderated away. Opening goal-setting processes merely shifts the power games – they do not disappear.

But that is precisely the decisive step: the organization learns to deal with these shifts, rather than being guided by the illusion of objective goals.