Prioritization, Not Motivation, is Key to Team Performance, According to Sands

In a recent LinkedIn post, leadership advisor Sands argues that many perceived “motivation problems” within teams are actually rooted in a fundamental issue of poor prioritization. Sands uses a case study from a Vice President of Engineering to illustrate how a lack of clear focus and direction can lead high-performing teams to underperform and eventually burn out.

The Root Cause: A Prioritization Deficit

Sands begins by challenging the common assumption that teams lack motivation. Instead, he posits that the core issue lies in how work is prioritized and managed. He recounts coaching a VP of Engineering who managed six teams and 17 direct reports. During a review of leadership metrics, two teams stood out due to significant “Sprint Drift” – meaning a large percentage of their completed work deviated from the original sprint plan. One team exhibited 20% Sprint Drift, while the other, notably lacking a Product Manager, suffered from 50% Sprint Drift.

This high level of deviation, as Sands explains, has predictable and detrimental downstream effects. These include constant priority shifts, engineers resorting to self-directed work, obscured capacity, slipping timelines, and teams becoming perpetually reactive rather than proactive. This environment, he notes, is exhausting not due to laziness, but because of an inability to protect focus.

“This is how many high-performing teams quietly break down. Not through dramatic failure. Through constant interruption.”

Identifying the Warning Signs of Reactivity

According to Sands, this erosion of focus and the subsequent burnout often occur subtly. Teams don’t typically fail dramatically; they break down through a barrage of constant interruptions and shifting priorities. Sands outlines seven key warning signs that leaders should watch for:

• Priorities shift mid-cycle, causing teams to lose momentum.
• Deep work disappears, replaced by meetings and interruptions that degrade execution quality.
• A pervasive sense of urgency develops, leading to a collapse in effective prioritization.
• Team capacity remains invisible, leading to the absorption of more work than can be handled.
• Ownership becomes blurry, with multiple influences but no single point of accountability for outcomes.
• Problems surface too late, as risks remain hidden until deadlines are already missed.
• Tradeoffs are never discussed, with new work being added without removing existing commitments.

Sands emphasizes that without clear priorities and defined ownership, teams inevitably spend more time reacting than executing. This can lead to a situation where individuals no longer feel pride in their work because little is completed cleanly or effectively.

“Without clear priorities and ownership, teams spend more time reacting than executing.”

The Solution: Re-establishing Focus and Ownership

In the case study, once the prioritization problem became evident, the VP of Engineering implemented significant changes. Sands highlights these corrective actions, which included reducing direct reports, rebuilding ownership structures within the teams, rigorously protecting sprint planning and retrospectives, and immediately seeking to hire Product Management support. Sands points out that the metrics not only exposed the problem but also clearly indicated the necessary solutions.

“The metric didn’t just expose the problem. It showed exactly what needed to change.”

Sands concludes by inviting leaders to reflect on their own experiences, asking about the earliest signs they have observed that indicate a team is becoming reactive rather than focused. He also offers a free “Leadership Readiness Quiz” designed to help leadership teams identify gaps in prioritization, communication, accountability, and execution.