Printable version here

The IADS attended the Global Peter Drucker Forum, an annual event organized in Vienna, Austria, last December. This event is an international management conference dedicated to the management philosophy of Peter Drucker, a management professor, writer, and consultant, often referred to as a “management guru”. The conferences held during the Forum aimed at making a reconciliation between pure research (systematically based on Peter Drucker’s findings) and practice, by having on-stage academics and executives.

While the whole session was dedicated to exploring the notion of “creative resilience” in an age of discontinuity, two specific talks raised our attention, as they challenged some notions that are taken for granted in business :

• Simplify to win,
• Plan a transformation process,
• Have the appropriate individuals carry this process.

What if the simplification process has become a poison for businesses in a world where uncertainty is everywhere and every day, at every level? What if the business transformation was not a process, but a never-ending moment, because its true nature is more psychological than measurable in actions? Finally, what if CEOs could not count on dedicated individuals to carry out a digital transformation process due to its very evanescent nature?

While we already reviewed these notions in our 2022 White Paper, “Smarter department store organizations”, by especially wondering if the structure had always followed strategy in the past for department stores, these two conferences gave an interesting angle that comes as an ideal complement to the conclusions we made at that time.

Introduction: Questioning Conventional Business Strategies

During a conference held at the Peter Drucker Forum in Vienna last December, Pierre Le Manh, CEO of the Project Management Institute (PMI), an HR consultancy company dedicated to upskilling and reskilling people, made a disconcerting remark: at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the whole market thought that PMI would go down, as their business entirely relied on discretionary budgets. Contrary to expectations, they did not. The surprising part comes from Le Manh’s candid admission that they performed much better than anticipated, but no one in the company, including himself, truly understood why or what factors contributed to their relative success over competitors.

Since his career was built on the fact of being an outsider (he was first appointed CEO at less than 30 years old, under the premise that “he did not have any clue about the business he was about to lead,” a trait seen as a strength by the then-president of CFL Holdings who recruited him), he proposed to review his inability to explain PMI’s success by questioning what leaders are usually taught, and what he did not do “by the book” when he joined.

In doing so, he challenged the long-term effectiveness of conventional business strategies: defining a value proposition, choosing a market, adapting the offer, focusing on specific customers, and optimizing the supply chain are all sound strategies… but what if this simplification also creates an organizational fragility? After all, the business tactics companies have been using for the past 20 years were adapted to a world where free money, safe real-time logistics, and the predictability of events were taken for granted, a world that no longer exists.

He also emphasized that natural ecosystems are extremely complex and based on millions of interactions that allow the environment to remain very resilient. In his opinion, this suggests that the simplification businesses often pursue might not be the wisest move in a world where resilience and the ability to face the unexpected are now vital.

This strong view against simplification in business, for the sake of ensuring resilience and the ability to absorb shocks (even though “simplified” processes such as Just in Time were initially described as the best way for organizations to absorb shocks), was later echoed in another conference dedicated to digital transformation.

Digital Transformation: More Than Flexibility

When asked about digital transformation and its ability to add flexibility to organizations, Lalit Karwa, the Head of Tata Consulting Services in Europe, was clear: the question is whether digital transformation adds enough flexibility. He stated that the answer was negative: given the changes the world is undergoing, the need for flexibility is now extreme, and expectations to reach that level are not realistic. Moreover, the notion of flexibility varies according to different perspectives, and the gap between decision-making and execution in digital transformation often leads to failure.

He emphasized that digital transformation is primarily a transformational process, with the “digital” aspect being just a component. The foundation relies heavily on people and processes, often overlooked in transformation efforts:

• 70% of transformations fail due to internal resistance: making a company more flexible often involves less flexibility at the individual level, creating friction,
• Placing people at the centre of a transformational process does not reduce complexity, on the contrary,
• Processes cannot also systematically be trimmed down or reviewed according to general principles. In the same way that Le Manh mentioned that playbooks might have to be reviewed, Karwa suggested that “inefficient processes in any given company were there for a reason, and leaders should empower their staff capable of tweaking these processes rather than replacing them with external elements.”

In summary, digital transformation is a complex process that, unfortunately for CEOs, cannot be simplified by creating an ad hoc department responsible for such a transition. As Karwa put it, “If one does business as usual and launches into digital transformation as a parallel process, it will fail. There is nothing in digital transformation that has a start and an end.”

Instead of top-down efforts, Karwa emphasized the need for bottom-up transformation approaches, mixed with a systematic revaluation of conventional business practices. He cautioned against relying on external experts (notably interesting as he leads a consultancy company) and emphasized that, for change to be successful, employees must be motivated, equipped, and empowered to redesign processes.

He proposed a set of 6 rules to define the “new generation” digital transformation in organizations:

• The outcome should drive what gets prioritized,
• The outcome should be time-boxed,
• Uncertainty should be managed in new ways,
• Adoption should be planned at the design stage,
• Transformation should be an innovative process.
• Transformation should be carefully balanced in an equilibrated portfolio.

The outcome should drive what gets prioritized: 

Karwa explained that, for front-liners, respecting deadlines and budgets is paramount, and then they deal with “HQ’s eccentricities”. To ensure this group feels involved in the transformation efforts, the value proposition of such efforts should be clear, relevant, and valuable to them, and be the sole focus of management. Too often, transformation efforts culminate in grandiose plans that fail to connect with or engage the workforce.

The outcome should be timeboxed 

Karwa suggests that relevant teams (if not the entire company) should be tasked with realizing the value of their efforts within 120 days. Ninety days is too short a period, and 180 days too vague. Therefore, leaders involved in the effort should report and demonstrate results, ROI, and KPIs within this 120-day period.

Uncertainty should be managed in new ways 

It's impossible to act without checkpoints, which Karwa suggests implementing every two weeks. During these checkpoints, micro-decisions should be made according to market developments, user feedback, and general observations. These micro-decisions are intended to steer the project in real-time and mitigate the expensive commitments that will eventually need to be made.

Adoption by design 

Addressing the disconnection between decision-makers and those tasked with developing solutions, Karwa stressed the importance of empathy and humility. The transformation plan's solutions must be centered around people’s needs. In his words: "If no one uses your solution, why do you build it?"

The transformation should be infused with innovation 

The transformation process should be planned, designed, and developed with the objective of empowering the organization and providing it a competitive edge. In other words, innovation should be embedded in the transformational process to ensure the organization is not only equipped for today but also for tomorrow.

The transformation plan should be part of a larger perspective 

Karwa expressed his view that transformation initiatives should be part of a balanced portfolio, which plays at the same time offence and defence.

These last two points echo Le Manh’s views, who insists that businesses should allocate 70% of their resources to business as usual, 20% to innovating in known territory, and 10% to uncharted territory (a distribution rarely observed in real conditions, as per his own words).

While Le Manh advocates for CEOs to avoid oversimplification when developing a strategy and keep room for manoeuvring, Karwa goes further by stating that "innovation departments" are ineffective in driving company-wide transformation (as this opposes day-to-day business to innovation). Instead, he stresses the need for companies (and their cultures) to make innovation an everyday practice, rather than a periodic transformation. In other words, dismiss the notion of transformation as a plan with a beginning and an end, but instead, see it as a perpetual movement within the organization.

Karwa acknowledges that this vision is disconcerting, if not uncomfortable, but for him, this is the price to pay to be stronger. Le Manh goes further by reminding us that crises are opportunities for organizations to emerge not different but stronger. While this is now a widely accepted statement, he affirmed that companies today have no excuse not to be ready for unforeseen events, as developing alternative contingency plans is a critical and essential piece of work in a world where disruption becomes the norm.

Pierre Le Manh and Lalit Karwa’s viewpoints highlight the necessity of integrating resilience, innovation, and adaptability into the very fabric of organizational culture. This approach requires a shift in mindset, from viewing transformation as a finite project to understanding it as an ongoing, integral part of business evolution.

To broaden the subject and to resonate with the essence of their messages, a fitting reference from Peter Drucker, whose forum sparked these discussions, can be utilized. Drucker, a visionary in the field of management, famously said, “The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence; it is to act with yesterday’s logic.” This quote encapsulates the core theme of the discourse presented by Le Manh and Karwa. It suggests that the key to thriving in today’s rapidly changing business landscape lies not in adhering to outdated models and strategies, but in developing an agile, forward-thinking approach that can adapt to new challenges and opportunities.

This idea prompts a broader reflection on the future of business leadership and strategy. As organizations navigate through an era of unprecedented change and complexity, the principles and strategies discussed by these leaders could serve as a guiding framework for others. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the evolving dynamics of the global market, the increasing interconnectivity of systems, and the unpredictable nature of future challenges. By embracing a mindset of continuous learning, innovation, and adaptability, businesses can not only survive but thrive in the face of uncertainty, turning potential crises into opportunities for growth and transformation.

Credits: IADS (Selvane Mohandas du Menil)