Identifying and Managing “Incompatible Goals” in ICAM Investigations

In every ICAM investigation, we search for deeper organisational factors that shape human decisions and system performance. Among these, "Incompatible Goals" consistently emerge as one of the most common and revealing findings. They sit quietly beneath the surface of many incidents, influencing behaviour in subtle ways, shaping trade-offs, and creating tension between what workers are asked to do and what they are resourced or rewarded for achieving.

Yet despite their prevalence, many organisations still misunderstand or underestimate the power of incompatible goals. Too often, leadership teams believe that clear targets, ambitious KPIs, and strong accountability drive excellence. However, when those targets clash - when safety, production, quality, or cost compete rather than complement each other - they can become latent conditions that set the stage for failure.

Understanding "Incompatible Goals" as an Organisational Factor

In the ICAM model, Organisational Factors are systemic influences that shape the context in which work is performed. They are upstream conditions, often set by leadership decisions, that influence frontline behaviour long before an incident occurs.

Incompatible Goals arise when different parts of the organisation pursue objectives that conflict, or when individual employees face multiple goals that cannot be achieved simultaneously. These conflicts may be explicit (for example, "produce more units while using fewer staff") or implicit (such as a culture that rewards speed but punishes mistakes harshly).

The key is this: incompatible goals force trade-offs. Workers must decide which goal to prioritise, often under time pressure or uncertainty. When the system rewards one goal over another - for example, production output over safety compliance - the resulting behaviour may be predictable, but unsafe.

Why Incompatible Goals Matter in Investigations

From an ICAM perspective, identifying incompatible goals shifts the focus from "what the person did" to "why the system made that behaviour likely". It allows investigators to uncover the context of decision-making, where individuals navigate conflicting expectations.

Consider the following common scenario: A maintenance technician is instructed to complete a scheduled repair before the end of the shift, but is also required to follow every step of a lengthy permit process. With limited time, the worker chooses to skip one step to meet the schedule. When an incident occurs, the investigation reveals not a careless individual, but a system that created a conflict between time and compliance.

Incompatible goals, therefore, point us to latent organisational conditions. They help us see how leadership messages, planning processes, KPIs, and resource decisions combine to shape operational realities. Once identified, they can be addressed through structural and cultural alignment - a far more sustainable solution than disciplinary action.

Common Forms of Incompatible Goals

While every organisation is unique, certain patterns appear repeatedly in ICAM investigations across industries. Below are some of the most frequent types:

1. Safety vs Production

The classic conflict. Production targets demand speed, output, or throughput, while safety systems require careful adherence to procedures, permits, and checks. When deadlines are rigid or downtime is penalised, workers feel pressure to "get the job done" even if that means cutting corners.

2. Quality vs Cost

Manufacturing and service organisations often face pressure to deliver high-quality outcomes within strict budgets. When cost-cutting measures reduce inspection time, materials, or staffing, the tension between doing it right and doing it cheaply becomes acute.

3. Compliance vs Flexibility

Leaders may encourage "innovation" and "initiative," yet simultaneously demand strict compliance with detailed procedures. Workers receive mixed messages: be creative, but never deviate. This confusion breeds inconsistency and fear of blame.

4. Customer Satisfaction vs Policy Adherence

Frontline teams in customer-facing roles are told to "delight the customer" but also to enforce policies. When a policy frustrates a client, staff must choose between following the rule and maintaining goodwill.

5. Short-Term vs Long-Term Objectives

Projects may prioritise immediate deliverables at the expense of sustainability, training, or system resilience. Short-term wins can mask emerging risks until an incident exposes the underlying weakness.

6. Competing Departmental KPIs

Different departments optimise for their own metrics. For example, procurement focuses on cost savings, while engineering demands high-quality components. Each team succeeds in isolation but creates system-level friction and risk.

How Incompatible Goals Become Latent Conditions

Incompatible goals rarely appear overnight. They are typically the result of leadership decisions that, while rational in isolation, interact in unintended ways. They become latent conditions when embedded in:

• Performance frameworks (KPIs, bonuses, scorecards)

• Policies and procedures that send mixed signals

• Resource allocations that do not match expectations

• Cultural messages such as "make it happen" or "failure is not an option"

• Organisational silos where departments optimise for their own goals

Once established, these conditions remain dormant until circumstances - time pressure, staff shortages, or unusual tasks - activate them. In that moment, workers make trade-offs, often believing they are doing what the organisation truly values.

Identifying Incompatible Goals During an ICAM Investigation

Recognising incompatible goals requires careful analysis during the Data Gathering and Analysis phases of the ICAM process. The following techniques are particularly useful:

1. Interview Insights

Ask open-ended questions that explore pressures, priorities, and perceived expectations:

• "What were you trying to achieve?"

• "What outcomes mattered most to management?"

• "Were there any competing priorities?"

• "What would have happened if you took more time?"

Listen for language that reveals internal conflict: "We had to get it done," "They wanted it both ways," "There was no time," or "We were told not to stop production."

2. Document Review

Analyse KPIs, policies, shift targets, and communication records. Look for contradictions:

• A policy stating "safety is our priority" while KPI dashboards track only output.

• Memos pushing for reduced downtime without reference to safe work practices.

3. Observation and Contextual Inquiry

Observe how work is actually performed. Are procedures practical? Do teams adapt or improvise? Are resources sufficient to meet all goals simultaneously?

4. Timeline Reconstruction

Examine the sequence of events leading up to the incident. Points where decisions were made under pressure often reveal conflicts between competing objectives.

5. Organisational Mapping

Use ICAM’s Organisational Factors layer to trace how leadership messages, planning systems, and departmental KPIs interact. Map where goals diverge or clash.

Case Example: Safety vs Production

In a manufacturing facility, a conveyor system jammed during a high-demand shift. The supervisor instructed the maintenance team to "clear it quickly" as production backlog was building. The team bypassed a lockout-tagout step, believing it was safe because power was "off." The system restarted unexpectedly, injuring a worker.

The ICAM investigation revealed that:

• Production targets were aggressive and linked to supervisor bonuses.

• The maintenance procedure required full isolation, but this took 20 minutes.

• Leadership messages emphasised "meeting daily quotas."

The incompatible goals were clear: Speed and output were rewarded, safe procedure was expected but not prioritised. The incident was not due to worker negligence - it was the result of an organisational system that made unsafe choices more likely.

Leadership Accountability

Incompatible goals are a leadership problem, not a worker problem. When conflicting goals exist, they reflect a misalignment of strategy, planning, and communication. Senior leaders must accept responsibility for designing coherent systems.

Effective leadership means:

• Aligning KPIs so that safety, quality, and production are integrated rather than competing

• Communicating priorities clearly, especially under pressure: "If in doubt, stop and make it safe"

• Providing resources that match expectations - adequate staffing, time, and tools

• Rewarding the right behaviours through recognition and performance systems

When leaders model consistency, workers no longer need to guess which goal matters most.

Strategies to Manage and Align Organisational Goals

Managing incompatible goals requires a deliberate approach across multiple levels of the organisation. Below are key strategies:

1. Review and Align KPIs

Examine all performance measures across departments. Do they complement or compete? Integrate balanced scorecards that include lagging (output, cost) and leading (safety, learning, quality) indicators.

2. Clarify Decision Hierarchies

Develop clear guidance for trade-offs. For example:

• "Safety takes precedence over production."

• "If targets conflict, escalate to your supervisor."

Such statements only work if leadership consistently reinforces them in practice.

3. Embed Safety and Quality in Business Strategy

Treat safety and quality not as compliance burdens but as value enablers. Link them directly to strategic outcomes such as customer trust, brand reputation, and long-term profitability.

4. Strengthen Cross-Functional Collaboration

Create mechanisms for departments to negotiate shared goals. Joint planning sessions, integrated KPIs, and cross-functional reviews help break down silos.

5. Monitor Organisational Signals

Regularly review near misses, hazard reports, and worker feedback for signs of pressure or conflicting expectations. If employees report "we don’t have time," treat it as an early warning.

6. Foster a Learning Culture

Encourage open discussion of pressures without blame. When teams can safely raise concerns about unrealistic targets, leadership gains insight to adjust before incidents occur.

7. Leadership Walkarounds

Leaders should spend time at the frontline, asking not just "What are you doing?" but "What pressures are you under?" These conversations reveal the reality behind the dashboards.

Integrating Findings into Recommendations

When incompatible goals are identified in an ICAM investigation, recommendations should focus on system alignment, not just local fixes.

Examples include:

• Redesigning KPIs to ensure safety metrics carry equal weight in performance evaluations

• Revising planning processes to include realistic time allowances

• Implementing escalation pathways when teams cannot meet competing demands

• Reviewing incentive schemes to ensure they reinforce desired behaviours

• Conducting leadership workshops on systems thinking and organisational learning

Each recommendation should address the root organisational misalignment rather than the symptom.

The Cultural Dimension

Beyond structures and systems lies culture - the shared assumptions about "how things get done." Even with aligned KPIs, a culture that glorifies "heroes who get it done" can sustain incompatible goals. Workers may internalise the belief that results matter more than rules.

Cultural transformation requires visible leadership commitment:

• Recognising and celebrating those who stop work for safety reasons

• Sharing stories of trade-offs managed well

• Demonstrating that integrity and caution are valued

As culture shifts, incompatible goals become less tolerated, and alignment becomes the norm.

Proactive Management: Detecting Conflicts Before Incidents

The ultimate goal is to detect and resolve incompatible goals before they contribute to an incident. Proactive measures include:

• Risk assessments that include organisational factors, not just technical hazards

• Pre-task planning sessions that surface potential conflicts

• Safety climate surveys that ask workers about competing demands

• Learning teams or after-action reviews that discuss pressures experienced

• Continuous improvement loops where findings from ICAM investigations inform business planning

By integrating these practices, organisations move from reactive correction to proactive design.

Lessons from High-Reliability Organisations

High-reliability sectors such as aviation and nuclear power manage competing goals through clear prioritisation, redundancy, and constant communication. They accept that trade-offs will occur but design systems that default toward safety. This mindset can be adapted across industries: build slack into schedules, ensure decision support for dilemmas, and reinforce that stopping work is a sign of strength, not weakness.

Conclusion: Turning Conflict into Clarity

Incompatible goals are not inevitable - they are a design choice. They reflect how organisations articulate priorities, measure success, and allocate resources.

ICAM investigations give us the lens to see these hidden tensions. But identification is only the first step. Real progress comes when leaders act to align strategy, systems, and culture.

When goals complement rather than compete, workers no longer face impossible choices. They can focus on doing the job safely, effectively, and with pride - confident that what the organisation says, rewards, and values are truly the same.

That alignment is the essence of a resilient, learning organisation - and a cornerstone of modern ICAM practice.