I've been thinking something for a while...
I think our collective goal IC could be more or less summed up as "globally reshape the world according to our own values". The preferred methods of achieving it vary based on each individual member and our current situation, and "our values" isn't a perfectly coherent concept either, but it's roughly what the majority of us would agree on.
It seems to me that there's two different high-concept approaches we could take to accomplish it. I'll just dub them "Approach 1" and "Approach 2".
Approach 1: Gradual improvements, or what Ami called "bottom-up". We set up systems that gradually change incentive structures to those that align with our values, propagate our values among the general public, etc. It's characterized by low risk, lack of short-term payoffs, an eye for the very-long-term, and (ideally, once it gets going) lack of single points of failure (if we die, our ideals won't die with us). Among our last projects, this approach is exemplified by the Merchant Empire, the storage scroll banks, building a hospital, modifying Leaf's education system, and the entire thing with turning the Shimura Estate into a semi-separate village complete with a school.
Approach 2: Accumulation of direct personal power, or what Ami called "top-down". We make ourselves more powerful, directly twist the social fabric to follow our commands, turn powerful figures to our side. It's characterized by high-to-moderate risk, massive short-term payoffs, the expectation that we'll achieve global victory within a decade, and a complete dependency on surviving until then. It's exemplified by Mari's takeover of the Merchant Council, our expedition into the Basement, sealing research, making Jiraiya into an ally, hunting for Summoning Scrolls, and raising our stats.
Both approaches have their own pros and cons, which I believe I've made clear. Quick heuristic: Approach 2 is what we're "supposed" to do, Approach 1 is what makes other ninja stare at us in confusion.
Problem, though: These two approaches are fundamentally incompatible, and because we're trying to do both of them, we suck at both.
Approach 1 is supposed to become self-sustaining, but it depends on us surviving until we make it self-sustaining (which won't be easy in itself). Otherwise, it'll be as Tsunade had said: once we die, everyone we told to work on improving the world will wander off and go back to murder-killing each other. Until we've made ourselves obsolete, it is absolutely critical that we stay low, provoke as little attention from powerful hostile parties as possible, and generally maximize our long-term life expectancy at the cost of high-impact plays. There could be no meetings with Orochimaru, no expeditions to capture Tailed Beasts, no hunts for Scrolls, no highly dangerous research.
With the way we're acting, we're going to get ourselves killed waaay before our projects could afford it. We suck at Approach 1.
Approach 2 depends on us quickly seizing opportunities that appear in front of us, ruthlessly prioritizing which power-ups or people we're going after, and a willingness to accept risks if the reward is sufficiently high. Otherwise, we'll lag behind. With this approach, we can't waste time on projects that don't give immediate benefits, because time is our main resource and opportunity costs our main enemy. No revolutionizing education, no personally going out to build walls for civilian villages, this takes time away from becoming friends with emotionally vulnerable Clan Heads and negotiating for secret techniques.
We suck at Approach 2 not because the QMs deliberately raise difficulty levels to deny us shinies or whatever, we suck at it because we suck at it. Ami is what we'd be if we didn't.
My point is, if we want to be effective, we should pick an approach and commit to it, instead of switching between them based on whims. Either we're playing the same game the other ninja play, or we're playing our own. Sort of playing both is how we fail at both.