Achieving change: Formulating target states

Monday morning, 8 a.m. Mr. Maier has an appointment with his division manager. He is tense. He wistfully recalls his early days at the company, when thingswere"still going well" for him. Back then, he often sat around with his colleagues after work. Together, they had achieved greater profits year after year, systematically expanded market share, and left the competition far behind.

And today? Today, everything is different. Mr. Maier is exhausted. Not only are the company's successes failing to materialize, but the memory of his last conversation with leader him leader a queasy feeling. "I expect an eight percent increase in divisional earnings, Mr. Maier!" the latter had told him with a determined expression. "And that's in the next six months!"

This resulted in numerous meetings, appointments, and workshops that ended in tough discussions rather than concrete results. Despite many ideas for improving his team, Mr. Maier can show little to no results this morning, almost six months after his conversation with his division manager. Except for the number of overtime hours, which had increased rapidly due to the intense activity. Discouraged and with a blank look on his face, Mr. Maier is now waiting for his boss this Monday...

Are you familiar with this kind of situation? Have you ever been faced with a similar target that you didn't know how to achieve? Although the target was clear on the surface and almost SMART in its formulation—an eight percent increase in six months—Mr. Maier and his team were unable to achieve it. The goal was supposedly clear, yet they were still in the dark. This is because goals—even SMART goals—allow the desired result to be quantified, but leave the direction open.

The crucial factor is what question you ask.

There are various ways to achieve the desired increase in divisional earnings, for example.

Option a) Increase in sales for the division while keeping costs constant

Option b) Reduction of costs with unchanged sales

Option c) a mixture of both

Each of the options involves different possibilities, influencing factors, and risks. The question is: which one is more effective in the current situation under the given conditions?

As a result of the lack of clarity about the framework conditions and the lack of focus on one of the options, numerous meetings are often convened and ideas discussed in everyday business life, as in the case of Mr. Maier. All too often, the key question asked is

"What could we do to achieve xy?"

The answers are a bundle of measures that can usually be implemented quickly and with predictable results. The reason why such measures are given priority is that, at first glance, they:

1) promise the best cost-benefit ratio, and

2) the effects on the result are easily foreseeable or calculable.

Those affected thus regain a piece of the missing orientation. In most cases, familiar solution strategies are used, albeit in a new guise. The result: (familiar) solutions are discussed in terms of their feasibility, rarely in terms of their effectiveness in relation to the problem. As the discussion progresses, the actual obstacles on the way to the specific goal often fade from focus. As with a sprinkler , the available energy sprinkler divided into many small individual measures instead of being bundled in a targeted manner.

The effective question is derived from the target state...

But what is the most effective way to achieve results? My suggestion is to define a corresponding target state as the most important element of any change project, derived from the desired result , ideally described in the EOA. The target state is not merely a milestone, as is customary in project management. Rather, you can think of a target state as a precise description of the base station that you will pass on your way to your result.

This means that, in addition to the measurable (partial) result and the defined period of time by which you want to achieve this milestone together with your team, you need to define something else. Namely, the qualitative and quantitative conditions under which you will have reached the respective base station.

The essential elements of a target state are therefore:

• The overarching challenge:

The target state always describes a partial contribution to the company's results. In the above example, the overarching challenge is to improve the company's results. Mr. Maier's department is expected to contribute a certain amount to this. This is specified in more detail in the

• Performance indicator:

This is always derived from the overall challenge facing the company. However, it quantifies the desired effect of the respective area in concrete terms. In Mr. Maier's area, the desired effect is eight percent in total. It is important to define whether this is to be achieved through an increase in sales, a reduction in costs, or a combination of both. Accordingly, sales and/or costs must also be measured as performance indicators.

• Date:

The target state is always scheduled. A period of two months makes sense. If, as in the example, the end result is to be achieved in six months, this means that Mr. Maier and his team will define two target states on the way to the result, which everyone will use as a guide. In the case of large, less manageable challenges, even smaller stages are helpful.

• Adjustment lever:

Depending on the option selected above (a, b, or c), the control levers are derived and quantified, for example, the key cost drivers, sales shares of products or services, etc.

• General conditions:

As a further element, the qualitative framework conditions provide additional guidance on the circumstances—both at the base stations and in the results. For example, it is often stated here that the desired result should be achieved without reducing the workforce or compromising quality standards. If necessary, you can also make this measurable. However, this is only necessary if this key figure is relevant to the result. In this case, it should be listed at the top of the quantified levers anyway.

• Visual representation:

A visual representation of the desired state or final result forms the basis for initiating the desire for change in everyone involved (see also Change – Develop target states and create identification). Seize the opportunity and use an inspiring vision of the future to create the emotional readiness for change. In practice, corporate goals or visions are often used for this purpose. It is important that the image matches the respective target state.

Working with target states is like turning on a flashlight. You bring light into the darkness of change by consistently focusing on the future result. The beam of light shows the way. The relevant obstacles become clearer. You ensure that all other uncertainties, to the left and right of the beam of light, are blocked out. Only the issues that actually lie in your path are focused on. The energy to eliminate them is concentrated. This enables better results in less time. The individual base stations serve to repeatedly align your beam of light and focus on the result step by step.

... and makes all the difference

Clearly differentiating between potential problems and actual obstacles enables the team to orient and align itself in order to effectively implement your change project. The question "What could we do to achieve xy?" is replaced by

"What do we need to do to achieve the desired end state or result?"

Image source: © Stocksnap – Martin Sattler