Target's executives on Wednesday morning will have no choice but to update shareholders and analysts on the company's "transformation." If they don't do it upfront, the analysts will pester them with questions about it.
But if questions about a transformation eventually get a little tiresome for Target executives, they'll have only themselves to blame. They're the ones who didn't want to use a more down-to-earth business term like "turnaround" to describe what has to happen at the Minneapolis-based company.
New CEO Brian Cornell was appointed to "Lead Company's Transformation," the news release of last July said, and the concept has since become so central to what the company says it's doing that it even established a transformation office.
On one hand, it's easy to see why a company would talk about efforts to improve financial results as a "transformation." There's hard work ahead, and sizing up the job as a transformation can motivate and focus the people who need to figure out and implement new ways of doing things.
It also makes it sound like a big job, which should buy some time before the shareholders get impatient for financial results to improve.
On the other hand, this kind of term really gets in the way of understanding what's happening at Target.
For one thing, it needlessly mystifies the task of managing the company. The simplest way to describe the recent history of Target is that the people running the company needed to do a better job, from allocating capital to organizing the work at headquarters. The board of directors eventually decided that a new person was necessary at the top to really do that.
What to sell, how to entice consumers to shop more and how to organize and staff the headquarters to make those decisions — all of that is what managers are paid very well to decide.