In the previous five articles, we explored the organizational efficiency dilemma, employee anxiety, strategic choices of leaders, and the dual lens of capital and users, layer by layer analyzing the profound impact of “goal ambiguity” on organizations.

Yet no matter how profound the theory, it must ultimately be tested on the real battlefield of business. History is the most unforgiving teacher, and the rise and fall of enterprises serves as a thick textbook of case studies, telling us one thing: whether an organization can sustain high efficiency hinges on its ability to define, adhere to, and continually refresh its goals.

Kodak, the imaging giant, is one of the most heartbreaking chapters in that textbook. Its tragedy was not due to technological backwardness, but to goal rigidity. As early as 1975, Kodak invented the digital camera, yet it steadfastly locked its core corporate goal onto “maximizing film sales.” Powerful production efficiency, a well-honed supply chain, and meticulous management processes—all these highly efficient systems ultimately became a heavy burden. Digital technology was seen as a threat, and resources were efficiently funneled into defending the old track. When the industry wave arrived, Kodak’s efficiency only deepened its inertia, and it was ultimately consumed by the future it had itself invented. This case serves as a warning: when efficient execution is aimed at the wrong goal, even the most powerful engine can only accelerate the journey into the abyss.

In stark contrast is the rebirth of Microsoft. When Satya Nadella took over as CEO in 2014, Microsoft was plagued by internal silos and a lack of innovation. After clearly recognizing that “internal efficiency cannot create the future,” he refreshed the company’s core mission—“to empower every person and every organization on the planet to achieve more.” The clarity and depth of this goal were like resetting the organization’s DNA, redirecting efficiency toward the right direction: open collaboration, a cloud computing strategy, and a focus on the developer ecosystem. The results speak for themselves: Microsoft not only regained its growth momentum but also achieved a sixfold increase in market capitalization. Refreshing the goal transformed efficiency from a source of inertia into a driving force.

The lens of capital, at times, can amplify the deviation from goals. The story of WeWork is a classic example. The founder positioned the company as a tech platform to command a capital premium, pursuing aggressive expansion and scale growth with impressive short-term efficiency, while ignoring the core business logic: whether rental income could cover costs. When the spotlight of capital shone down, its illusory value evaporated instantly, with its valuation plummeting from a peak of $47 billion. This case illustrates that when an organization’s goal is to appease external capital rather than create real value, even the highest level of execution is merely building castles in the air.

What is truly worthy of respect is an organization like Amazon, which has always used user value as its North Star. Since 1997, Jeff Bezos has adhered to a long-term goal: customer obsession. Guided by this principle, Amazon has been willing to sacrifice short-term profits, invest heavily in building its logistics network, develop AWS, and implement seemingly inefficient initiatives like “1-Click ordering.” These investments were not blind; they were measured against the yardstick of user value, ultimately creating a self-reinforcing “flywheel effect” that turned efficiency into long-term, sustainable competitiveness. User value became the sole guide through the fog.

Looking back at these business cases, the conclusion is strikingly clear: the goal is the organization’s most critical strategic gravitational force. Efficient management, technological capability, and capital operations are all powerful engines, but without a precise and steadfast North Star, these engines can only cause the organization to lose its way quickly or accelerate toward a collision.

Only when the goal is clearly pointed toward real value does efficiency have meaning, and only then does the organization have a future. The histories of Kodak, Microsoft, WeWork, and Amazon serve both as a warning and a guide—reminding every manager: the value of efficiency is ultimately determined by the direction of the goal, and the correctness of that direction decides the ultimate destination of all efforts.