Sometimes its not the goal thats the problem, its how we frame the path to it
- Phil D'Adamo
- Nov 24, 2025
- 2 min read
In my leadership experience, when it comes to leading change, how you structure and set your performance targets can make a world of difference.
The theory goes something like this:
• Set a target too low, and you breed complacency.
• Set it too high, and you risk burnout, disengagement or backlash.
• Set it cleverly, stretching but credible, and you mobilise creativity, investment and collective momentum.
Recently, the Nationals announced they would abandon their commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050, proposing Australia peg its efforts to the OECD average - cutting emissions by 30–40% by 2035.
That’s well below the federal government’s commitment to reduce emissions by 62–70% by 2035.
That announcement triggered my thinking on two fronts:
1️⃣ Could the net zero debate be framed differently?
2️⃣ How can you best set performance targets to bring people along and drive successful change?
On the 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭, research and experience both show that a 25% shift is big enough to require new thinking but small enough to feel doable.
Below that threshold, you get comfort. People think they can just tweak what they already do.
Beyond it, you risk collapse. People disengage because the goal feels unrealistic, vague or too far away.
A 25% stretch forces people to experiment, learn and build new capability without tipping into overwhelm.
On the 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭, Australia’s formal targets are clear:
• Net zero by 2050 (legislated)
• 62–70% reduction below 2005 levels by 2035.
It’s taken almost 20 years to cut emissions by around 30%, yet we’re now aiming to more than double that reduction in the next decade.
Achieving around 90% gross emissions reduction by 2050 means most of the heavy lifting happens between now and 2035.
That raises a question of framing:
Is there a better way to structure the ambition so it feels more achievable and engaging?
If we hold the long-term vision of net zero by 2050 but break it into 5-year cycles, the path becomes more tangible.
For instance, if we aimed for cumulative reductions like this, we’d still reach around a 90% gross emissions reduction by 2050:
• 25% emissions reduction by 2030
• 30% further reduction by 2035
• 30% further reduction by 2040
• 30% further reduction by 2045
• 30% further reduction by 2050, and net zero.
𝐌𝐲 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭:
When you reframe a long-term goal into shorter, credible increments - ideally around that 25–30% mark — you keep people engaged and make the change measurable and explainable.
That’s the heart of 𝐚𝐝𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 — translating big visions into believable action.
What do you think - is the challenge the target itself, or how we frame it?
DM me if you would like to know more about what I do.
