Nowadays, the urgency of the ecological transition is on everyone’s agenda. And yet, its implementation comes up against mentalities that have not yet changed much. The CEO of the BASF chemical group, Martin Brudermüller, provides a good summary of the current situation: “People like to keep repeating what they know how to do and what has proven to work. That’s what makes it so difficult to accelerate the pace.”

Bain surveyed nearly 5,000 people in nine different economic sectors: although two-thirds of respondents consider that they will need to develop new competencies, less than half of non-managers are offered the possibility of developing these new competencies… A subject that needs urgent attention!

The reality is that we do not yet know precisely which technical skills will be necessary. We will have to innovate, to proceed by trial-and-error. Bain’s partners underline that the key lies in a change of attitude in order to spread a “growth mindset”. Considering that we can and must constantly develop ourselves, opening our minds to change, learning from others and, ultimately, learning to learn: this is what will make the difference in meeting the challenges of the ecological transition.

Source: A Talent Strategy for Sustainability: Skills Matter, but Mindset Is Everything, Sarah Elk, Julie Coffman, Tracy Thurkow, John Hazan, Bain & Company, November 2023.

Share

98% of companies have already been affected by a cybersecurity incident that initially arose within a partner organization. This risk grows as operations become digitalized and the interconnection between the systems of various stakeholders is enhanced: clients, distributors, partners, tier 1 and 2 suppliers, etc.

But how can you optimally counter the multiplicity of possible risks? Within the framework of a survey of best practices in the market, the experts at Boston Consulting Group have shared an approach for prioritizing efforts:

- Start by identifying the minimal level of information required to assess your suppliers’ level of exposure to cyber risks. Then, focus your analyses on those who appear to present the greatest danger of contamination.

- Practice different cyber-attack scenarios, in partnership with a representative sample of your suppliers, in order to document with as much precision as possible your principal risks and the possible options to counter them.

- Use this analysis to identify the protective actions to be undertaken as a priority, whether internally or with key suppliers and partners.

This approach enables you to reinforce your cybersecurity in a targeted and progressive manner: a far more effective method than trying from the outset to establish a global approach to be deployed across your entire range of suppliers.

Source: Is Your Supply Chain Cyber-Secure?, Kris Winkler, Colin Troha, Ben Aylor, Nadine Moore, Boston Consulting Group, October 2023.

 

Share

And what if the role of leaders was—also—to simplify managers’ work in order to free up some of their time? Good middle managers can make all the difference, not only in ensuring the proper execution of strategy, but also in developing the teams and retaining talents. But do managers truly have the time and availability to devote themselves fully to these missions?

For example, in one healthcare company, middle managers had to handle an average of 300 requests from the head office and senior management every week. That much less attention available to support employee development! Managers' schedules were overloaded with reporting, supervisory committees and administrative tasks of every kind. The company initiated a process of pruning and sorting, starting from the managers' perspective and asking them what was really important in their eyes to allow them to accomplish their missions.

A rethinking process from which any organization would benefit from inspiring itself, to avoid the inflation of demands on managers and help them focus on what truly provides value to the organization.

Source: Are middle managers your next ace in the hole?, Emily Field, Bryan Hancock, The McKinsey Podcast, August 2023.

 

Share

In this interview, business organizations’ sociologist François Dupuy takes stock of the evolution of management styles, from Taylorism to cooperative models. Paradoxically, the traditional authoritarian approach seemed more propitious to commitment: the work was segmented and sequential; it was easy to take note that the expected work had been well done and to reward it.

The current models have aimed at breaking the silos. Apparently a common-sense decision: by cooperating, it becomes possible to optimize the operating methods and to ensure that the whole organization takes advantage of each unit’s progress. But this came hand in hand with an increasing disengagement of the staff. A point to remember from this analysis is notably that cooperation does not come easily. It requires an effort, by demanding that we get out of our comfort zone by placing ourselves in a situation of interdependence. It blurs the perception of the impact of our own efforts, which hampers motivation. Thus, asking your teams to cooperate is not sufficient. It is also — and maybe even foremost — through regulating and setting up processes that make cooperation natural that it will be possible to make it happen.

Source: François Dupuy : « l’injonction à la coopération est généralement stérile » [The injunction to cooperate is generally sterile], Observatoire de la compétence métier, obervatoire-ocm.com, December 2022.

Share

Companies generate many more ideas than they can implement. Admittedly, a wide variety of ideas must be produced in great number in order to select the best is an integral part of the innovation process. At the same time, the number of good ideas that end up falling between the cracks is astronomical.

In fact, the deployment of new ideas is far from natural in business organizations. When faced with a large number of radically innovative ideas or continuous improvement opportunities, the same phenomena are generally observed:

Efforts are spread too thin

The more ideas there are,the harder it is to implement them. Indeed, each new idea requires a significant expenditure of energy: imagine ways to implement it, convince the various stakeholders, develop a detailed action plan, solve the problems that necessarily arise, get people to abandon old habits... It’s a long, hard road from idea to action. Therefore, putting every single new idea into practice is literally impossible. A classic trap is spreading their efforts too thin by trying to deploy more ideas than they can reasonably handle....at the risk of failing to deploy any successfully.

Motivation tends to dwindle

Even when focus is placed on a single idea, maintaining the same level of motivation over time is difficult. Initial enthusiasm for a good idea tends to erode as small and large problems inevitably arise. This is especially true since initial rapid progress often gives way to slower and less visible advances as the project moves forward. So, the motivation fueling the project tends to peter out over time. Most innovative projects thus cross a plateau, where energy drops to the point of stopping altogether. The easiest and most common escape is to generate new ideas, which will be abandoned in turn when their implementation becomes too laborious.

Operational concerns take priority

Lastly, the biggest obstacle to the deployment of new ideas is the priority given to current operations over innovation projects. Indeed, operational tasks are visibly necessary, with short-term objectives, well-understood risks and rapidly tangible outcomes. Conversely, a great deal of time is often needed before the benefits of innovative projects become visible. Moreover, a delay on an operational task is more likely to be criticized than the failure to launch an innovation that everyone has always done without up to now. So, the temptation is strong to place priority on “urgent” operational matters to the detriment of new projects, no matter how important.

How to deal with these many obstacles?

The observation of the greatest innovators reveals some basic principles which help reduce the number of good ideas that get lost somewhere between their generation and ultimate execution. For example:

Continuously maintain an obsessive focus on action

Remaining continuously—almost obsessively—focused on action is the best way to keep ideas from remaining purely theoretical. The most innovative companies, such as Disney and Apple, for example, are distinguished less for the creative genius of their teams than for their remarkable discipline in terms of execution. Forcing yourself to restate and clarify your ideas systematically until they take the form of concrete projects helps minimize this risk. For example, you could insist that each meeting end with a list of concrete action items, with targeted deadlines. In this way, every idea that is “thrown out there” must necessarily be assessed in order to make a deliberate decision to pursue it,abandon it or set it aside for later study.

Be stringent in screening ideas to deploy

A second essential discipline is to limit the number of ideas selected for concrete execution. This may seem paradoxical when a company is trying to be more innovative. The experts point out, however, that applying this critical prerequisite keeps companies from spreading their efforts too thin and producing few results. A resolutely pragmatic approach is often most effective. Some consider that if a project is the subject of reminders around us - employees, superiors, customers, etc.- this is a sign that it deserves to be pursued.Conversely, if everyone forgets about it, the project is probably not as important as it may have originally seemed. As unconventional as it is, this approach is more effective than rational choice allegedly on the basis of a hypothetical return on investment!

Involve those around you

Many ideas die because they are developed in isolation. Indeed, observation of great inventors shows that they generally interact with numerous diverse groups and individuals. Another benefit from involving others is that the more we publically communicate our commitment to innovate, the more we feel obligated to move the project forward. This creates much of fuel to increase the probability that an idea is born.

 

Share