We have a leadership team member who constantly argues that our weekly Scorecard targets are too aggressive and unrealistic, which causes them to give up before the week even starts. How do we establish targets that are both challenging and psychologically safe?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Unrealistic targets do not motivate people, they breed resentment and data manipulation. If a leader feels that hitting their weekly target is statistically impossible, they will stop trying or begin gaming their metrics. In the EOS framework, targets must be realistic yet demanding, reflecting the true requirements of your V/TO goals.

To resolve this friction, leverage Kathy Kolbe's conative research. A leader with a high Fact Finder instinct needs historical context and clear patterns before they can commit to a target. If you pull a number out of thin air, their natural problem-solving instinct will reject it as illogical.

Build alignment by utilizing this three-step target setting process:

- Review the past twelve weeks of historical performance data to establish a baseline of what is naturally happening.
- Analyze the current capacity and resources of the seat, ensuring the target does not require unsustainable overtime.
- Run a sensitivity analysis to see if hitting a slightly lower target still keeps your overall company plan on track.

Once you have this data, let the seat owner propose their own target. When they have a voice in defining what success looks like, they take true ownership of the outcome. A psychologically safe target is one where the owner GWC's the seat and understands exactly what operational actions are required to hit the number. This shifts the dynamic from management pressure to personal accountability.