Strategy Development: Aiming at Targets and Other Businesslike Activities 
A lot of upstream business planning involves creating “strategies” that establish future performance expectations (targets) and the path required to get there. These targets can range from the diffuse and multi-faceted “become a top-ranked city in the world for quality of life" to the precise “increase the sales of ABC brand toothpaste by 32% in 2024.” To focus proceedings and make things sound sufficiently businesslike, the path to success is broken down into discrete activities, each to be measured against KPIs (key performance indicators), quantifiable measures used to evaluate the success of the given activities. These are then rolled out across the organization.

Targets themselves are agnostic and may be derived from various sources: 1) forecasts, i.e., estimates of future outcomes extrapolated from current conditions and trends (likely outcomes); 2) projections, i.e., estimates of future outcomes based on a change scenario(s) but building off current conditions (potential outcomes); or 3) aspirational goals not necessarily anchored to current conditions or trends at all but falling into the “I have a dream” category. Targets derived from forecasts are the most conservative; projections occupy a middle ground; and those defined by aspirations are the most radical.
The preferred approach to target setting depends on the situation: Will it be most effective to set aggressive but attainable targets based on forecasts of market behavior and institutional performance (sober but boring)? Or is a change scenario required to kickstart things and move beyond the readily predictable (transformational but not revolutionary)? Or does the situation require a complete reboot, lining up one or a series of simultaneous leaps forward surpassing reasonable expectations of future outcomes but providing motivating symbols of excellence?

Rather than working through all types of targets, let us skip right to the extreme case, where a strategy is built around aspirational targets, and discuss the downstream impacts that can arise from such an approach.

First off, because the aspirational strategy evokes a future vision so much better than the current reality, it can be alluring and inspirational, requiring only that participants invoke a suspension of disbelief to overcome the fact that the probability of success as advertised is vanishingly low. Extremely powerful but not necessarily practical. And even though the topline targets are aspirational, they are targets nonetheless, and subordinates are rarely asked to opine on the wisdom of the strategy but rather are required to demonstrate how it can be accomplished. Thus, the exercise becomes one of retroactively justifying the lofty targets, ensuring that all the KPIs add up, and making sure that 2+2=6, as it were. As this process works its way through the system, an entire augmented reality is constructed, with one improbable outcome stacked upon and supporting the next. And while this doesn’t matter during the planning stages, things get stickier when it comes to implementation.

People involved in fantastical processes tend to fall into a few common categories, with some “drinking the Kool-Aid” and morphing into unquestioning advocates, others giving lip service but lacking conviction, and still others checking out entirely. Which category best serves the organization? You might think that advocates are what the organization needs most; after all, they are the true believers willing to commit their all. However, this is not the case because people lacking the capacity for critical thought are rarely effective operators in complex environments. And you certainly don’t want the other groups. In fact, this is a trick question because, when it comes to implementing the impossible, nobody measures up.
There is also the question of resource allocation during execution. In complex strategies with sequential and interdependent elements and multiple players where the demand for inputs needed to effectively strive for the aspirational targets exceeds supply by a large margin (money, people, material, technology, etc.), it is difficult to suddenly start prioritizing during the budget allocation phase where there has been no prior recognition of limits or scarcity. It can easily devolve into a race for available resources amongst the players, with one group cannibalizing the opportunity of the next without an overarching rationale or an organized step down from the aspirational targets, making it very difficult to get the most out of the limited resources available.

"Shoot for the Moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars." This may be a famous maxim, but as a business strategy, it ignores the fact that you can just as easily burn up in the atmosphere after a misguided launch.