Fem knep: Så lockar du företagets talanger

Posted in Aktuellt, Executive Team / Ledningsgruppsarbete, Leadership / Ledarskap on May 30th, 2016 by admin

Att behålla och locka talanger till bolaget är avgörande. Men vad är det som får de bästa att stanna kvar – och framtidens – att söka sig till er. Enligt KTH-läraren och MBA-föreläsaren Gregg Vanourek finns det en enkel femstegsmetod du kan följa.
– Lehman Brothers, Toyota, FIFA och nu senast Volkswagen. Alla är de exempel på dåligt ledarskap och visar att vi gör om samma misstag hela tiden. Chefer som kompromissar med etiken och hållbarheten och låter det kortsiktiga vinstintresset styra, säger författaren Gregg Vanourek som undervisar på Stockholm Business Schools Executive MBA Program och är adjunkt på industriell ekonomi på KTH.

Tillsammans med sin pappa har han utvecklat en ledarskapssyn som balanseras mellan excellens, etik och hållbarhet. Den har sin bas i forskning och intervjuer med chefer i 61 organisationer italent 11 länder, däribland Sverige.

I boken definieras excellens som att uppnå goda resultat för alla företagets intressenter; från aktieägare och medarbetare till leverantörer och samhället där företaget verkar. Etik handlar om hur du uppnår målen och om att göra det rätta även när det är svårt och kostar mer.
– Att ljuga om en produkts funktionalitet för att sälja mer är självklart oetiskt för många men tyvärr vanligt när pressen från försäljningssiffrorna känns av, säger han.

Med hållbarhet menas att driva företaget på ett sätt så att det kan bestå över tid. Här finns en extern del (miljöpåverkan till exempel) och en intern del som handlar om hur företaget behandlar sina resurser och anställda på ett långsiktigt hållbart sätt.

“Ett exempel på dålig hållbarhet är att fixa till kvartalssiffrorna genom att låna från nästa kvartal”.

Just fokus på etik och hållbarhet är också något som utmärker chefsutbildningen Executive MBA på Stockholms universitet. Enligt Vanourek ligger det dessutom i linje med hur den nya generationens talanger väljer jobb.

– De är väldigt måna om att låta värderingar styra med vad och hur de jobbar.

Men hur ska du då göra för locka och behålla framtidens nyckelpersoner? Här är fem frågor, baserade på Vanoureks femstegsmetod, som du kan ställa dig själv.

1. Vi har anställt chefer som pluggat färdigt – måste de skolas ännu mer?
Ledarskapsutveckling och etikträning kostar både pengar och tid. Avsätt det. Träna chefer på att lämna sin bekvämlighetszon för att känna sig trygga i att fatta obekväma beslut och förstå när ett stöttande ledarskap passar bäst. När Gregg Vanourek föreläser tipsar han ofta om ett bra underlag för etikdiskussion: Aristoteles om den gyllene medelvägen och Kants kategoriska imperativ. Smågrupper bör användas till att diskutera vad som är sunt förnuft och bra omdöme i olika situationer, gärna med kollegor du ser upp till.

2. Vi har ju ett syfte: att tjäna pengar. Duger inte det?
Vässa hur du förmedlar, både internt och externt, vad företagets syfte, värderingar och vision är – och vart ni strävar. Elon Musk (Tesla, SpaceX, Hyperloop) är exempel på hur ett företags syfte blir till en magnet som drar talanger till sig från hela världen.

3. Vi rekryterar nog rätt: vi kollar på cv:t och gör några tester. Borde räcka?
Hitta fler talanger genom att uppdatera hur du gör anställningsintervjuer utifrån både hjärna och hjärta. Frågor som visar på emotionell intelligens, karaktär och matchning med den kultur du vill skapa (hjärta) är lika viktiga som resumé och kompetenser (hjärna). Ett exempel på arbetsgivare som är duktiga på att hitta djupare personliga storys hos de som de anställer är sökjätten Google.


4. Djupare mening med jobbet – hur då?

Ett steg är att uppmuntra så kallad ”job crafting”. Tanken är att medarbetaren själv formar sitt förhållningssätt till arbetet, som en kallelse som uppfyller en djupare mening. Motverka inställningar som att jobb bara är en väg till att få lön eller bara en del i karriären. Känslan av att göra något värdefullt håller talanger kvar i huset.

5. Vi har ju skrivit ned policyn – varför funkar den inte?
Värderingar gör ingen nytta om de enbart är formulerade på företagets hemsida eller i medarbetarhandboken. Dina löpande beslut och alla medarbetarled ska genomsyras av dessa värderingar.

Tre konkreta tips här:
a) Utveckla värderingarna i målande beskrivningar.
b) Förankra i konkreta beteenden som attityder under möten, transparens i kundkontakter.
c) Gör värderingarna mätbara och bygg utvecklingssamtalen utifrån dem.

Källa: Konsultguiden.se, 29 maj 2016
Av: Katharina Green
Länk

Ny studie: Hållbara bolag ger bättre avkastning

Posted in Aktuellt, Board work / Styrelsearbete on May 27th, 2016 by admin

Bolag som är skickliga inom sina ESG-arbeten tenderar att visa de bästa operativa resultaten. Det visar en studie som nyligen presenterades av Oxford Universitet*. I studien har resultaten från över 200 olika studier av bolag och deras hållbarhetsarbeten analyserats.

Slutsatserna ur studien från Oxford visar en enhetlig bild: De bolag som presterar bäst i sina ESG-arbeten tenderar också att uppvisa de bästa operativa resultaten. Schroders är en av de aktörer på fondmarknaden som har tagit studien på allvar. Nu väljer kapitalförvaltaren att ansluta sina mest populära fonder till Hållbarhetsprofilen.

sustain 1Hållbarhetsprofilen är framtagen av SWESIF, Sveriges forum för hållbara investeringar, och ska se som ett komplement till de finansiella fondfaktabladen. Med hjälp av verktyget kan fondspararna få en bild av hur de anslutna fondaktörerna arbetar med hållbarhetskriterier i sina investeringar. Fondspararna kan bland annat se hur fondaktörerna arbetar för att välja in, välja bort och påverka olika bolag med utgångspunkt från deras hållbarhetsarbete.
– Vi har under en tid följt arbetet med Hållbarhetsprofilen och beslutat oss för att delta i initiativet. Detta eftersom att vi anser att verktyget ger ett mervärde och ett bättre beslutsunderlag till fondsparare. Bland annat i form av ökad transparens och ökat medvetande kring hur olika fondbolag arbetar med hållbarhetsfrågor, säger Ketil Petersen, som är Nordenchef på Schroders.

Hållbarhetsprofilen visar bland annat aktivt påverkansarbete
Schroders är idag en av världens mest inflytelserika kapitalförvaltare med tillgångar för över 3500 miljarder kronor under förvaltning. Bolaget har länge arbetat aktivt med ESG-frågor och var bland annat en av de första fondaktörerna som anslöt sig till UNPRI – FNs riktlinjer för ansvarsfulla investeringar. Kapitalförvaltaren har idag högsta rating inom UNPRI och hållbarhetsarbetet är integrerat i hela organisationen. ESG-specialister arbetar tillsammans med analytiker och investerare, för att stärka och påverka bolagen i deras hållbarhetsarbete. sustain 2

–Vi arbetar aktivt med ESG i de bolag som vi investerar i runt om i världen. Och med stort fokus på deras transparens i verksamheten. Vi försöker också aktivt påverka bolagen genom konkreta rekommendationer samt uppföljningar på förbättringar i deras hållbarhetsarbete, säger Ketil Petersen och fortsätter:
– Vårt beslut om att ansluta till Hållbarhetsprofilen ser vi som en viktig del i vår strävan mot att erbjuda attraktiva och långsiktiga investeringslösningar för våra kunder. Studier visar bland annat på att bra hållbarhetsprinciper ger fördelar i kapitalkostnader, vilket gynnar långsiktigt sparande. Vi är också övertygade om att företag med en hållbar affärsmodell visar på bättre ekonomiska resultat.
(* From the Stockholder to the Stakeholder, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford and Arabesque Asset Management, 2014)

Ur studien “From the Stockholder to the Stakeholder”:
1, Välskötta bolag ur en ESG-synpunkt kan ha kapitalkostnadsfördelar på mellan 0,8 till 1,32 procent
2, 88 procent av studierna visar på ett positivt samband mellan bolagens hållbarhetsarbete och deras operativa resultat.
3, Kreditvärderingsinstitut tenderar att ge högre betyg till aktörer med starka ESG-policyer.

Studien är en samlad studie av 200 olika studier över relationen mellan bolagens prestationer och deras hållbarhetsarbete.

Källa:Privataaffarer.se, maj 2016
Link

The sales secrets of high-growth companies

Posted in Aktuellt, Försäljning / Sales, Leadership / Ledarskap, Strategy implementation / Strategiimplementering on May 25th, 2016 by admin

The authors of Sales Growth reveal five actions that distinguish sales organizations at fast-growing companies.

What distinguishes sales organizations at fast-growing companies from their lagging peers? In a wide-ranging survey of more than 1,000 companies, we unearthed five meaningful differences:

1. Commitment to the future
That the world is changing ever more quickly may be a cliché, but that makes it no less true: all sales leaders know that they need to anticipate changes that could turn into opportunities or threats. Yet the best leaders move beyond acknowledgement to commitment.

They make trend analysis a formal part of the sales process through systematic investments of time, money, and people. Building and sustaining the capability to take a forward-looking view of the market is not easy. In discussions with more than 200 sales leaders while researching our new book, Sales Growth, two common characteristics emerged: the mind-set of sales leadership and resource commitment.

sales 1Sales leaders must consistently monitor the macro-environment in search of sales opportunities, no easy task given the relentless pressure to hit near-term targets. Forward planning must be part of someone’s job description—not just part of top management’s lengthy to-do list—with sufficient resources to take advantage of the best opportunities. Companies have to be willing to take risks now to create sales capacity long before the revenue will materialize. More than half of the fast-growing companies1 we analyzed look at least one year out, and 10 percent look more than three years out.

After planning, sales leaders aren’t afraid to put their money where they think the growth will be: 45 percent of fast-growing companies invest more than 6 percent of their sales budget on activities supporting goals that are at least a year out—a significant commitment in an environment where sales leaders fight for each dollar of investment.

2. Focus on key aspects of digital

Successful brands don’t just “do digital”; they use their full arsenal of capabilities to massively increase the effectiveness of their sales force and to transform the customer buying experience to be “digital first.” It pays off: digital channels provided at least a fifth of 2015 revenues for 41 percent of the fast-growing companies we surveyed—both business-to- business and business-to-consumer—compared with just 31 percent at slow-growing companies.

This trend is only becoming more important, as almost two-thirds of all US retail sales by 2017 will involve some form of online research, consideration, or purchase.

When it comes to customer experience, leading organizations are building out digital routes to market or augmenting traditional direct or indirect sales with digital. For traditional software companies, the focus on SaaS-based products is driving a change toward a digital sales experience where they discover, demo, and trial, all within a few clicks online. Many industrial companies are seeing their products also sold in external marketplaces, which is prompting them to build out their own e-commerce platforms to directly shape the customer experience.

Sales leaders are especially strong at harnessing digital tools and capacities to support the sales organization. Fast-growing companies are more effective than slower-growing ones at using digital tools and capabilities to support the sales organization (43 percent versus 30 percent). They tend to focus on three fronts:

First, they arm sales teams with digital tools that can quickly deliver relevant and usable insights. Second, they treat partners as an extension of the sales force and invest in collaboration tools to improve the flow of data between organizations. Third, they recognize the potential for big micromarket or macrotrend analyses to improve planning and capture opportunities most effectively. As the technology emerges, they are making targeted investments in tools, technologies, and talent to make the most of these opportunities. Success in digital comes from fanatical optimization—not as a one-off project, but as a continuous process. It comes from harnessing mobile technologies to drive growth, understanding how customers use and switch between the mobile channel and other channels. And it comes from integrating digital into a great omnichannel experience that spans marketing to post-purchase.

3. Harnessing of the full range of sales analytics
Only now is the promise of advanced analytics catching up to the hype. Take customer analytics. Companies that use it extensively see profit improvements 126 percent higher than competitors who don’t. And when it comes to sales improvements through the extensive use of advanced analytics, the difference is even larger: 131 percent.

The value of advanced analytics is wide ranging, but where sales leaders excel against their peers is in making better decisions, managing accounts, uncovering insights into sales and dealsales 2 opportunities, and sales strategy. In particular, they are shifting from analysis of historical data to being more predictive. They use sophisticated analytics to decide not only what the best opportunities are but also which ones will help minimize risk. In fact, in these areas three quarters of fast-growing companies believe themselves to be above average, while between 53 and 61 percent of slow-growing companies hold the same view.

But even among fast-growing companies, only just over half—53 percent—claim to be moderately or extremely effective in using analytics to make decisions. For slow-growing companies, it drops to a little over a third. This indicates that there remains significant untapped potential in sales analytics.

4. Investment in people
A rigorous focus on sales-force training is a clear differentiator between the fast- and slow-growing companies we surveyed. Just under half the fast growers spend significant time and money on sales-force training, compared to 29 percent of slow growers. There’s room for improvement, though. Among fast growers, just over half believe their organization has the sales capabilities it will need in the future, while a third of the slow growers feel similarly equipped. As few as 18 percent of fast growers think they excel at pipeline management, and even in the most successful area—understanding specific customer needs—only 29 percent claimed to be outstanding.

What is notable from our research, however, is that fast growers are committed to improving sales talent and performance. The head of sales at a North American consumer-services company, for example, tried a new approach to improving sales performance after years of fruitless initiatives. Instead of focusing solely on what the sales force had to do, the program also devoted significant attention to building the talents and capabilities to enable them to do it, making a substantial investment in teaching skills and enforcing their use with specific goals. The result? A 25 percent improvement in rep productivity across all regions within 18 months. More impressive still, the gains stuck, and two years later performance was still improving.

5. Marriage of clear vision with leadership action
Two-thirds of fast-growing companies undertook a major performance improvement over the previous three years, and 84 percent considered it successful or very successful.

Sales leaders at these organizations said the two most important factors that contributed to that success were management articulation of a clear and consistent vision and strategy, followed by leadership commitment.

Articulating the vision should be simple. The chief executive officer of an emerging-markets telecommunications firm, for example, announced a “3 × 3 × 3” growth aspiration: three years to expand beyond its home country, three years to expand beyond its region, and three years to become a leading global brand. Besides being simple, the aspiration was bold, specific, and easily measurable.

No sales transformation will work without steadfast support from the very top. Only a committed leader can override internal politics, see the big picture, and focus on the best solution regardless of past practices. Sometimes, the commitment can be very personal. For example, the head of sales at another telecom firm recognized how fundamental customer experience was for success. At the same time that he controversially clamped down on aggressive sales techniques that had a negative effect on customer experience, he proposed to his CEO that customer satisfaction ratings should determine 25 percent of his variable pay.

Sales leaders face a dizzying array of issues and opportunities to manage, often at speeds that seemed unimaginable even a few years ago. But by focusing on what really matters, sales leaders can break away from their competitors.

Source: McKinsey.com, May 2016
Authors: Mitra Mahdavian, Homayoun Hatami, Maria Valdivieso and Lareina Yee
About the authors: Homayoun Hatami is a director in the Paris office, Mitra Mahdavian is an associate principal in the Silicon Valley office, Maria Valdivieso is a senior expert in the Miami office, and Lareina Yee is a senior partner in the San Francisco office.
Link

Changing change management

Posted in Aktuellt, Board work / Styrelsearbete, Executive Team / Ledningsgruppsarbete, Leadership / Ledarskap, Strategy implementation / Strategiimplementering on May 19th, 2016 by admin

Research tells us that most change efforts fail. Yet change methodologies are stuck in a predigital era.
It’s high time to start catching up.

Change management as it is traditionally applied is outdated. We know, for example, that
70 percent of change programs fail to achieve their goals, largely due to employee resistance
and lack of management support. We also know that when people are truly invested in change
it is 30 percent more likely to stick. While companies have been obsessing about how to use
digital to improve their customer-facing businesses, the application of digital tools to promote
and accelerate internal change has received far less scrutiny. However, applying new digital
tools can make change more meaningful—and durable—both for the individuals who are
experiencing it and for those who are implementing it.
The advent of digital change tools comes at just the right time. Organizations today must
simultaneously deliver rapid results and sustainable growth in an increasingly competitive
environment. They are being forced to adapt and change to an unprecedented degree: leaders
have to make decisions more quickly; managers have to react more rapidly to opportunities and
threats; employees on the front line have to be more flexible and collaborative. Mastering the art
of changing quickly is now a critical competitive advantage.
change 2For many organizations, a five-year strategic plan—or even a three-year one—is a thing of the
past. Organizations that once enjoyed the luxury of time to test and roll out new initiatives must
now do so in a compressed period while competing with tens or hundreds of existing (and often
incomplete) initiatives. In this dynamic and fast-paced environment, competitive advantage will
accrue to companies with the ability to set new priorities and implement new processes quicker
than their rivals.

The power of digital to drive change
Large companies are increasingly engaged in multiple simultaneous change programs, often
involving scores of people across numerous geographies. While traditional workshops and
training courses have their place, they are not effective at scale and are slow moving.
B2C companies have unlocked powerful digital tools to enhance the customer journey and
shift consumer behavior. Wearable technology, adaptive interfaces, and integration into social
platforms are all areas where B2C companies have innovated to make change more personal
and responsive. Some of these same digital tools and techniques can be applied with great
effectiveness to change-management techniques within an organization. Digital dashboards
and personalized messages, for example, can build faster, more effective support for new
behaviors or processes in environments where management capacity to engage deeply and
frequently with every employee is constrained by time and geography.
Digitizing five areas in particular can help make internal change efforts more effective
and enduring.

1. Provide just-in-time feedback
The best feedback processes are designed to offer the right information when the recipient can
actually act on it. Just-in-time feedback gives recipients the opportunity to make adjustments to
their behavior and to witness the effects of these adjustments on performance.
Consider the experience of a beverage company experiencing sustained share losses and
stagnant market growth in a highly competitive market in Africa. The challenge was to motivate
1,000-plus sales representatives to sell with greater urgency and effectiveness. A simple SMS
message system was implemented to keep the widely distributed sales reps, often on the
road for weeks at a time, plugged into the organization. Each rep received two to three daily
SMS messages with personalized performance information, along with customer and market
insights. For example, one message might offer feedback on which outlets had placed orders
below target; another would alert the rep to a situation that indicated a need for increased
orders, such as special events or popular brands that were trending in the area. Within days of
implementing the system, cross-selling and upselling rates increased to more than 50 percent
from 4 percent, and within the first year, the solution delivered a $25 million increase in gross
margin, which helped to swing a 1.5 percent market-share loss into a 1 percent gain.

2. Personalize the experience
Personalization is about filtering information in a way that is uniquely relevant to the user and
showing each individual’s role in and contribution to a greater group goal. An easy-to-use
system can be an effective motivator and engender positive peer pressure.
This worked brilliantly for a rail yard looking to reduce the idle time of its engines and cars by
up to 10 percent. It implemented a system that presented only the most relevant information
to each worker at that moment, such as details on the status of a train under that worker’s
supervision, the precise whereabouts of each of the trains in the yard, or alerts indicating
which train to work on. Providing such specific and relevant information helped workers clarify
priorities, increase accountability, and reduce delays.

3. Sidestep hierarchy
Creating direct connections among people across the organization allows them to sidestep
cumbersome hierarchal protocols and shorten the time it takes to get things done. It also
fosters more direct and instant connections that allow employees to share important
information, find answers quickly, and get help and advice from people they trust.
In the rail-yard example, a new digital communications platform was introduced to connect
relevant parties right away, bypassing middlemen and ensuring that issues get resolved quickly
and efficiently. For example, if the person in charge of the rail yard has a question about the
status of an incoming train, he or she need only log into the system and tap the train icon to
pose the question directly to the individuals working on that train. Previously, all calls and
queries had to be routed through a central source. This ability to bridge organizational divides is
a core advantage in increasing agility, collaboration, and effectiveness.

4. Build empathy, community, and shared purpose
In increasingly global organizations, communities involved in change efforts are often physically
distant from one another. Providing an outlet for colleagues to share and see all the information
related to a task, including progress updates and informal commentary, can create an
important esprit de corps.
Specific tools are necessary to achieve this level of connectivity and commitment. Those
that we have seen work well include shared dashboards, visualizations of activity across
the team, “gamification” to bolster competition, and online forums where people can easily
speak to one another (for example, linking a Twitter-like feed to a work flow or creating
forums tied to leaderboards so people can easily discuss how to move up in the rankings).
This approach worked particularly well with a leading global bank aiming to reduce critical
job vacancies. The sourcing team made the HR process a shared experience, showing all
stakeholders the end-to-end view—dashboards identifying vacancies; hiring requisitions made
and approved; candidates identified, tested, and interviewed; offers made and accepted;
and hire letters issued. This transparency and openness built a shared commitment to getting
results, a greater willingness to deliver on one’s own step in the process, and a greater
willingness to help one another beyond functional boundaries.

5. Demonstrate progress
Organizational change is like turning a ship: the people at the front can see the change but the
people at the back may not notice for a while. Digital change tools are helpful in this
case to communicate progress so that people can see what is happening in real time. More
sophisticated tools can also show individual contributions toward the common goal. We have
seen how this type of communication makes the change feel more urgent and real, which in
turn creates momentum that can help push an organization to a tipping point where a new way
of doing things becomes the way things are done.

Digital tools and platforms, if correctly applied, offer a powerful new way to accelerate and
amplify the ability of an organization to change. However, let’s be clear: the tool should not drive
the solution. Each company should have a clear view of the new behavior it wants to reinforce
and find a digital solution to support it. The best solutions are tightly focused on a specific task
and are rolled out only after successful pilots are completed. The chances of success increase
when management actively encourages feedback from users and incorporates it to give them a
sense of ownership in the process.

Sourece: McKInsey.com, July 2015
Authors: Boris Ewenstein, Wesley Smith and Ashvin Sologar
Link

Ahead of the curve: The future of performance management

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on May 17th, 2016 by admin

What happens after companies jettison traditional year-end evaluations?

The worst-kept secret in companies has long been the fact that the yearly ritual of evaluating (and sometimes rating and ranking) the performance of employees epitomizes the absurdities of corporate life. Managers and staff alike too often view performance management as time consuming, excessively subjective, demotivating, and ultimately unhelpful. In these cases, it does little to improve the performance of employees. It may even undermine their performance as they struggle with ratings, worry about compensation, and try to make sense of performance feedback.

These aren’t new issues, but they have become increasingly blatant as jobs in many businesses have evolved over the past 15 years. More and more positions require employees with deeper expertise, more independent judgment, and better problem-solving skills. They are shouldering ever-greater responsibilities in their interactions with customers and business partners and creating value in ways that industrial-era performance-management systems struggle to identify. Soon enough, a ritual most executives say they dislike will be so outdated that it will resemble trying to conduct modern financial transactions with carrier pigeons.

PM 3Yet nearly nine out of ten companies around the world continue not only to generate performance scores for employees but also to use them as the basis for compensation decisions.1 The problem that prevents managers’ dissatisfaction with the process from actually changing it is uncertainty over what a revamped performance-management system ought to look like. If we jettison year-end evaluations—well, then what? Will employees just lean back? Will performance drop? And how will people be paid?

Answers are emerging. Companies, such as GE2 and Microsoft,3 that long epitomized the “stack and rank” approach have been blowing up their annual systems for rating and evaluating employees and are instead testing new ideas that give them continual feedback and coaching. Netflix4 no longer measures its people against annual objectives, because its objectives have become more fluid and can change quite rapidly. Google transformed the way it compensates high performers at every level.5 Some tech companies, such as Atlassian,6 have automated many evaluation activities that managers elsewhere perform manually.

The changes these and other companies are making are new, varied, and, in some instances, experimental. But patterns are beginning to emerge.

Some companies are rethinking what constitutes employee performance by focusing specifically on individuals who are a step function away from average—at either the high or low end of performance—rather than trying to differentiate among the bulk of employees in the middle.
Many companies are also collecting more objective performance data through systems that automate real-time analyses.
Performance data are used less and less as a crude instrument for setting compensation. Indeed, some companies are severing the link between evaluation and compensation, at least for the majority of the workforce, while linking them ever more comprehensively at the high and low ends of performance.
Better data back up a shift in emphasis from backward-looking evaluations to fact-based performance and development discussions, which are becoming frequent and as-needed rather than annual events.
How these emerging patterns play out will vary, of course, from company to company. The pace of change will differ, too. Some companies may use multiple approaches to performance management, holding on to hardwired targets for sales teams, say, while shifting other functions or business units to new approaches.

But change they must.

Rethinking performance
Most corporate performance-management systems don’t work today, because they are rooted in models for specializing and continually optimizing discrete work tasks. These models date back more than a century, to Frederick W. Taylor.

Over the next 100 years, performance-management systems evolved but did not change fundamentally. A measure like the number of pins produced in a single day could become a more sophisticated one, such as a balanced scorecard of key performance indicators (KPIs) that link back to overarching company goals. What began as a simple mechanistic principle acquired layers of complexity over the decades as companies tried to adapt industrial-era performance systems to ever-larger organizations and more complicated work.

What was measured and weighted became ever more micro. Many companies struggle to monitor and measure a proliferation of individual employee KPIs—a development that has created two kinds of challenges. First, collecting accurate data for 15 to 20 individual indicators can be cumbersome and often generates inaccurate information. (In fact, many organizations ask employees to report these data themselves.) Second, a proliferation of indicators, often weighted by impact, produces immaterial KPIs and dilutes the focus of employees. We regularly encounter KPIs that account for less than 5 percent of an overall performance rating.

Nonetheless, managers attempt to rate their employees as best they can. The ratings are then calibrated against one another and, if necessary, adjusted by distribution guidelines that are typically bell curves (Gaussian distribution curves). These guidelines assume that the vast majority of employees cluster around the mean and meet expectations, while smaller numbers over- and underperform. This model typically manifests itself in three-, five-, or seven point rating scales, which are sometimes numbered and sometimes labeled: for instance, “meets expectations,” “exceeds expectations,” “far exceeds expectations,” and so on. This logic appeals intuitively (“aren’t the majority of people average by definition?”) and helps companies distribute their compensation (“most people get average pay; overperformers get a bit more, underperformers a bit less”).

But bell curves may not accurately reflect the reality. Research suggests that talent-performance profiles in many areas—such as business, sports, the arts, and academia—look more like power-law distributions. Sometimes referred to as Pareto curves, these patterns resemble a hockey stick on a graph. (They got their name from the work of Vilfredo Pareto, who more than a century ago observed, among other things, that 20 percent of the pods in his garden contained 80 percent of the peas.) One 2012 study concluded that the top 5 percent of workers in most companies outperform average ones by 400 percent. (Industries characterized by high manual labor and low technology use are exceptions to the rule.7 ) The sample curve emerging from this research would suggest that 10 to 20 percent of employees, at most, make an outsized contribution.

Google has said that this research, in part, lies behind a lot of its talent practices and its decision to pay outsized rewards to retain top performers: compensation for two people doing thePM 2 same work can vary by as much as 500 percent.8 Google wants to keep its top employees from defecting and believes that compensation can be a “lock-in”; star performers at junior levels of the company can make more than average ones at senior levels. Identifying and nurturing truly distinctive people is a key priority given their disproportionate impact.

Companies weighing the risks and rewards of paying unevenly in this way should bear in mind the bigger news about power-law distributions: what they mean for the great majority of employees. For those who meet expectations but are not exceptional, attempts to determine who is a shade better or worse yield meaningless information for managers and do little to improve performance. Getting rid of ratings—which demotivate and irritate employees, as researchers Bob Sutton and Jeff Pfeiffer have shown—makes sense.

Many companies, such as GE, the Gap,9 and Adobe Systems,10 have done just that in a bid to improve performance. They’ve dropped ratings, rankings, and annual reviews, practices that GE, for one, had developed into a fine art in previous decades. What these companies want to build—objectives that are more fluid and changeable than annual goals, frequent feedback discussions rather than annual or semiannual ones, forward-looking coaching for development rather than backward-focused rating and ranking, a greater emphasis on teams than on individuals—looks like the exact opposite of what they are abandoning.

The point is that such companies now think it’s a fool’s errand to identify and quantify shades of differential performance among the majority of employees, who do a good job but are not among the few stars. Identifying clear overperformers and underperformers is important, but conducting annual ratings rituals based on the bell curve will not develop the workforce overall. Instead, by getting rid of bureaucratic annual-review processes—and the behavior related to them—companies can focus on getting much higher levels of performance out of many more of their employees.

Getting data that matter

Good data are crucial to the new processes, not least because so many employees think that the current evaluation processes are full of subjectivity. Rather than relying on a once-a-year, inexact analysis of individuals, companies can get better information by using systems that crowdsource and collect data on the performance of people and teams. Continually crowd-sourcing performance data throughout the year yields even better insights.

For instance, Zalando, a leading European e-retailer, is currently implementing a real-time tool that crowd-sources both structured and unstructured performance feedback from meetings, problem-solving sessions, completed projects, launches, and campaigns. Employees can request feedback from supervisors, colleagues, and internal “customers” through a real-time online app that lets people provide both positive and more critical comments about each other in a playful and engaging way. The system then weights responses by how much exposure the provider has to the requestor. For every kind of behavior that employees seek or provide feedback about, the system—a structured, easy-to-use tool—prompts a list of questions that can be answered intuitively by moving a slider on the touchscreen of a mobile device. Because the data are collected in real time, they can be more accurate than annual reviews, when colleagues and supervisors must strain to remember details about the people they evaluate.

Employees at GE now use a similar tool, called PD@GE, which helps them and their managers to keep track of the company’s performance objectives even as they shift throughout the year. The tool facilitates requests for feedback and keeps a record of when it is received. (GE is also changing the language of feedback to emphasize coaching and development rather than criticism.) GE employees get both quantitative and qualitative information about their performance, so they can readjust rapidly throughout the year. Crucially, the technology does not replace performance conversations between managers and employees. Instead, these conversations center around the observations of peers, managers, and the employees themselves about what did and didn’t help to deliver results. GE hopes to move most of its employees to this new system by the end of 2016.

In other words, tools can automate activities not just to free up time that managers and employees now spend inefficiently gathering information on performance but also transform what feedback is meant to achieve. The quality of the data improve, too. Because they are collected in real time from fresh performance events, employees find the information more credible, while managers can draw on real-world evidence for more meaningful coaching dialogues. As companies automate activities and add machine learning and artificial intelligence to the mix, the quality of the data will improve exponentially, and they will be collected much more efficiently.
Finally, performance-development tools can also identify the top performers more accurately, though everyone already knows subjectively who they are. At the end of the year, Zalando’s tool will automatically propose the top 10 percent by analyzing the aggregated feedback data. Managers could adjust the size of the pool of top performers to capture, say, the best 8 or 12 percent of employees. The tool will calculate the “cliff” where performance is a step function away from that of the rest of the population. Managers will therefore have a fact-based, objective way to identify truly distinctive employees. Companies can also use such systems to identify those who have genuinely fallen behind.

Relatively easy and inexpensive to build (or to buy and customize), such performance-development applications are promising—but challenging. Employees could attempt to game systems to land a spot among the top 10 percent or to ensure that a rival does not. (Artificial intelligence and semantic analysis might conceivably distinguish genuine from manicured performance feedback, and raters could be compared with others to detect cheating.) Some employees may also feel that Big Brother is watching (and evaluating) their every move. These and other real-life challenges must be addressed as more and more companies adopt such tools.

Take the anxiety out of compensation
The next step companies can take to move performance management from the industrial to the digital era is to take the anxiety out of compensation. But this move requires managers to make some counterintuitive decisions.

Conventional wisdom links performance evaluations, ratings, and compensation. This seems completely appropriate: most people think that stronger performance deserves more pay, weaker performance less. To meet these expectations, mean performance levels would be pegged around the market average. Overperformance would beat the market rate, to attract and retain top talent. And poor scores would bring employees below the market average, to provide a disincentive for underperformance. This logic is appealing and consistent with the Gaussian view. In fact, the distribution guide, with its target percentages across different ratings, gives companies a simple template for calculating differentiated pay while helping them to stay within an overall compensation budget. No doubt, this is one of the reasons for the prevalence of the Gaussian view.

This approach, however, has a number of problems. First, the cart sometimes goes before the horse: managers use desired compensation distributions to reverse engineer ratings. To pay Tom x and Maggie y, the evaluator must find that Tom exceeds expectations that Maggie merely meets. That kind of reverse engineering of ratings from a priori pay decisions often plays out over several performance cycles and can lead to cynical outcomes—“last year, I looked out for you; this year, Maggie, you will have to take a hit for the team.” These practices, more than flaws in the Gaussian concept itself, discredit the performance system and often drown out valuable feedback. They breed cynicism, demotivate employees, and can make them combative, not collaborative.

Second, linking performance ratings and compensation in this way ignores recent findings in the cognitive sciences and behavioral economics. The research of Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and others suggests that employees may worry excessively about the pay implications of even small differences in ratings, so that the fear of potential losses, however small, should influence behavior twice as much as potential gains do. Although this idea is counterintuitive, linking performance with pay can demotivate employees even if the link produces only small net variances in compensation.

The art and science of well-being at work
Since only a few employees are standouts, it makes little sense to risk demotivating the broad majority by linking pay and performance. More and more technology companies, for instance, have done away with performance-related bonuses. Instead, they offer a competitive base salary and peg bonuses (sometimes paid in shares or share options) to the company’s overall performance. Employees are free to focus on doing great work, to develop, and even to make mistakes—without having to worry about the implications of marginal rating differences on their compensation. However, most of these companies pay out special rewards, including discretionary pay, to truly outstanding performers: “10x coders get 10x pay” is the common way this principle is framed. Still, companies can remove a major driver of anxiety for the broad majority of employees.

PM 1Finally, researchers such as Dan Pink say that the things which really motivate people to perform well are feelings like autonomy, mastery, and purpose. In our experience, these increase as workers gain access to assets, priority projects, and customers and receive displays of loyalty and recognition. Snapping the link between performance and compensation allows companies to worry less about tracking, rating, and their consequences and more about building capabilities and inspiring employees to stretch their skills and aptitudes.

A large Middle Eastern technology company recently conducted a thorough study of what motivates its employees, looking at combinations of more than 100 variables to understand what fired up the best people. Variables studied included multiple kinds of compensation, where employees worked, the size of teams, tenure, and performance ratings from colleagues and managers. The company found that meaning—seeing purpose and value in work—was the single most important factor, accounting for 50 percent of all movement in the motivation score. It wasn’t compensation. In some cases, higher-paid staff were markedly less motivated than others. The company halted a plan to boost compensation by $100 million to match its competitors.

Leaders shouldn’t, however, delude themselves into thinking that cutting costs is another reason for decoupling compensation from performance evaluations. Many of the companies that have moved in this direction use generous stock awards that make employees up and down the line feel not only well compensated but also like owners. Companies lacking shares as currency may find it harder to make the numbers work unless they can materially boost corporate performance.

Coaching at scale to get the best from the most
The growing need for companies to inspire and motivate performance makes it critical to innovate in coaching—and to do so at scale. Without great and frequent coaching, it’s difficult to set goals flexibly and often, to help employees stretch their jobs, or to give people greater responsibility and autonomy while demanding more expertise and judgment from them.

Many companies and experts are exploring how to improve coaching—a topic of the moment. Experts say three practices that appear to deliver results are to change the language of feedback (as GE is doing); to provide constant, crowdsourced vignettes of what worked and what didn’t (as GE and Zalando are); and to focus performance discussions more on what’s needed for the future than what happened in the past. Concrete vignettes, made available just in time by handy tools—and a shared vocabulary for feedback—provide a helpful scaffolding. But managers unquestionably face a long learning curve for effective coaching as work continues to change and automation and reengineering configure job positions and work flows in new ways.

Companies in high-performing sectors, such as technology, finance, and media, are ahead of the curve in adapting to the future of digital work. So it’s no surprise that organizations in these sectors are pioneering the transformation of performance management. More companies will need to follow—quickly. They ought to shed old models of calibrated employee ratings based on normal distributions and liberate large parts of the workforce to focus on drivers of motivation stronger than incremental changes in pay. Meanwhile, companies still have to keep a keen eye on employees who are truly outstanding and on those who struggle.

It’s time to explore tools to crowdsource a rich fact base of performance observations. Ironically, companies like GE are using technology to democratize and rehumanize processes that have become mechanistic and bureaucratic. Others must follow.

Source: McKinsey.com, May 2016
By: Boris Ewenstein, Bryan Hancock and Asmus Komm
About the author: Boris Ewenstein, Bryan Hancock, and Asmus Komm are expert principals in McKinsey’s Johannesburg, Atlanta, and Hamburg offices, respectively.
The authors would like to thank the People & Organization team at Zalando SE for their valuable collaboration and contributions to this article.
Link

Karriärtips från toppchefer

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Leadership / Ledarskap on May 9th, 2016 by admin

DN har talat med fem höga chefer och frågat dem om deras bästa tips för att lyckas i karriären. Några tips är: passa dig för att ta ansvar för fel som andra har orsakat, leverera oavsett uppdrag och våga testa olika saker.

Ann Carlsson, vd, Apoteket:

Hur kom du in i branschen som du jobbar i?
– Apoteket sökte någon med erfarenhet från snabbrörliga konsumentvaror, och gärna från ett företag som klarat att vara framgångsrikt på en marknad med hård konkurrens. Styrelsen för Apoteket var modig nog att rekrytera mig trots att jag hade annan kompetens än den som traditionellt funnits.

Vilka karriärmisstag har du lärt dig mest av?
– Att rekrytera rätt person för uppdraget är min allra viktigaste uppgift som chef. Tidigt i min karriär tittade jag alldeles för mycket på fakta som utbildningsbakgrund eller vilket bolag de sökande arbetat i. Det ledde till flera misstag. I dag är jag mycket mån om att ta reda på hur de tacklat utmaningar, hur de fått med sig människor och hur de utvecklat sin avdelning eller sitt företag. Jag uppskattar människor som vågat göra misstag – och dragit lärdom.

Vilka är dina viktigaste råd till unga personer som precis är i början av sina karriärer?
– Välj en arbetsplats och ett uppdrag som du tänder till på. Intresse och engagemang brukar leda till bra resultat. Lägg fokus på att göra ett bra jobb där du är, då kommer din karriärutveckling på köpet.

Sonat Burman-Olsson, vd, Coop Sverige:

Hur kom du in i branschen som du jobbar i?  
– När jag var på Electrolux utvecklades företaget från att vara ett verkstadsföretag till ett konsumentföretag. Vi började fokusera på kundinsikter och det kom in ny kompetens med bakgrund inom retail. Företaget blev mer kundorienterat och produktutvecklingen gick snabbare. Sedan gick jag som vice vd till Ica-gruppen och nu har jag jobbat i branschen i tio år.

Vilka karriärmisstag har du lärt dig mest av?
– Ta inte på dig ansvaret för saker som andra har orsakat. Ibland försöker vi hålla fanan uppe för andra. Ett annat misstag är att inte vara tydlig när något inte fungerar. Det är bättre att säga rätt ut när något är fel istället för att linda in.

Vilka är dina viktigaste råd till unga personer som precis är i början av sina karriärer?
– Leverera oavsett vilket uppdrag du får. I början av karriären kommer du att få uppdrag som upplevs som oviktiga. Men se till att leverera även på dem. Då får du större och större uppdrag medkarriär tiden, eftersom man vet att du alltid levererar. Våga byta jobb. Det berikar dig, gör dig tryggare som person och hjälper dig att hitta rätt i karriären.

Peter Wolodarski, chefredaktör, Dagens Nyheter:

Hur kom du in i branschen som du jobbar i?
– Jag pluggade på Handels och sökte ett sommarvikariat på Expressens ledarredaktion. Den dåvarande redaktören PM Nilsson vågade testa mig, trots att jag bara var 20 år och hade jobbat med små tidningar. Parallellt med studierna tog jag också fram research åt Åke Ortmark i TV8. Efter ett drygt år på dessa medieföretag hörde DN av sig och på den vägen är det.

Vilka karriärmisstag har du lärt dig mest av?
– Haha, jag var nog ganska bångstyrig i början av mina år på DN, på gott och ont. Både en mardröm och tillgång för chefer. Lite bättre nu, tror jag.

Vilka är dina viktigaste råd till unga personer som precis är i början av sina karriärer?
– Följ den inre kompassen och arbeta med sådant som intresserar dig. Det gör livet roligare.

Susanne Ehnbåge, vd, Siba:

Hur kom du in i branschen som du jobbar i?
– Jag såg en annons om att SIBA sökte en trainee, jag brinner för utveckling och tyckte att SIBA verkade vara en spännande och rolig arbetsplats. Jag sökte tjänsten och efter några intervjuer landade jag tjänsten och har inte ångrat en sekund av det beslutet.

Vilka karriärmisstag har du lärt dig mest av?
– Jag har egentligen inte gjort något jag direkt ångrar. Har genom mina roller på SIBA, Netonnet Group och NetOnNet haft förmånen att utvecklas både som person, kollega och ledare – men även haft stödet att förverkliga många av mina idéer och drömmar.

Vilka är dina viktigaste råd till unga personer som precis är i början av sina karriärer?
– Tänk noga igenom vad du vill arbeta med och vad som ger dig energi, glädje och utveckling. Välj sedan en arbetsplats, antingen i en tjänst du söker eller vill ha så småningom, som du tror innebär att du kan pricka av så många saker som möjligt på din önskelista. Var tydlig med vad du vill och låt ditt arbete reflektera att du menar allvar med dina ambitioner, så kommer du kunna nå ditt mål och samtidigt ha roligt på vägen dit.

Anna Borg, Nordenchef, Klarna:

Hur kom du in i branschen som du jobbar i?
– När jag började jobba med försäljning skedde det genom att jag hade många förslag till förbättringar och till slut sa min dåvarande chef ”Ok, då får du chansen att visa hur vi kan göra det bättre”. Skälet till att jag är hos Klarna är en kombination av att de letade efter någon som jobbat med förändring i försäljningsorganisationer, och att jag ville till ett snabbrörligt företag med en affärsmodell jag tror på.

Vilka karriärmisstag har du lärt dig mest av?
– Alla erfarenheter är vad som gjort mig till den jag är, så jag ser det inte som misstag. Men jag har lärt mig hur viktigt det är med en bra chef. För många år sedan valde jag ett jobb som var kul men med en chef som inte var så bra. Då saknade jag förutsättningar för att göra mitt bästa. Vid ett annat tillfälle stannade jag alltför länge trots att jag behövde en ny utmaning.

Vilka är dina viktigaste råd till unga personer som precis är i början av sina karriärer?
– Testa olika saker. Välj en bra chef som kan ge dig förutsättningar att utvecklas. Du blir bra på det du övar på – ta ansvar tidigt, lyssna på andra men lita också på dig själv så du kommer att utvecklas.

Källa: DN.se, 8 maj 2016
Länk

Sakerna framtidens ledare måste lära sig

Posted in Aktuellt, Leadership / Ledarskap on May 9th, 2016 by admin

När förändringen från analogt till digitalt rusar fram och påverkar alla delar av din affär, blir dina handlingar som ledare helt avgörande. Du styr om dina medarbetare ska se möjligheter eller omöjligheter.
Ja, det är mycket fokus på det digitala idag och osäkerheten bland våra ledare, på vad de ska göra och vad som förväntas, är väldigt stor på sina håll. Vi träffar Mats Wahlström, en av våra utvecklingsansvariga på IHM Business School, för att få lite större insikt i vad det är som sker.
DL 1
– Hej Mats, kan du kortfattat sammanfatta vad det är som händer där ute i digitaliseringens spår.
– Hej, att uttala sig kortfattat om den Digitala Transformationen och vad som sker ute i företagens verksamhet är jättesvårt. Det är en oerhört komplex fråga och mognadsgraden är väldigt olika på företagen. Men jag gör ett försök med några frågor som bör lyftas.

Val av kunder och erbjudandet.
Var finns våra kunder och var kan vi möta dem? Vad behöver vi bygga för digitala tjänster för att komplettera eller t o m ersätta våra existerande kunderbjudanden?
Effektivisera, mäta och förbättra.
Vi kan äntligen börja mäta! Siffror och data fullkomligt väller ut ur olika system och lyckas vi tolka data korrekt, så vinner vi stora fördelar, men vem ska göra det? Man måste dessutom våga ta beslut utan att ha all indata för att inte tappa fart framåt.
Affärsmodellen.
Nu skapas nya globala möjligheter. Möjligheter att hitta nya samarbetspartners, lägre kostnader, nya kunder osv. Här behöver ledningen gå in för att säkerhetsställa att vi har den kompetens som behövs. Har vi de resurser som krävs?
Den digitala marknadsplatsen.
Navet i varje digital transformation. Utbud och efterfrågan kopplas samman blixtsnabbt. Det kan handla om allt ifrån kommunala anbudsprocesser till ett hundrapack Iphone laddare på Alibaba som dyker upp på Blocket. Vilka är dom digitala marknadsplatserna i din bransch? Hur fungerar dom?
Morgondagens, eller dagens, ledare.
Måste vara nåbar i mycket större utsträckning än tidigare, tagna beslut måste snabbt kunna förändras. Man måste bygga flexibla organisationer och komplettera upp med kompetens, internt och externt, när det behövs.

Nu har jag bara skummat på ytan men det är viktiga frågor som ledningen på alla företag måste diskutera.

Vill du läsa mer av Mats tankar kring den digitala transformationen så hittar ni hans blogginlägg här.

Källa: IHM.se, maj 2016
Länk

Five priorities for competing in an era of digital globalization

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Board work / Styrelsearbete, Digitalisering / Internet, Strategy implementation / Strategiimplementering on May 9th, 2016 by admin

As digital flows command a growing share of trade and economic growth, executives must answer new questions.

Globalization, once measured largely by trade in goods and cross-border finance, is now converging with digitization. Enormous streams of data and information are transmitted every minute—circulating ideas and innovations around the world via email, social media, e-commerce, video, and more. As these sprawling digital networks connect everything, everyplace, and everyone, companies must rethink what it means to be global. Our latest research quantifies the economic impact of this shift and suggests five critical areas of focus for executives and top teams.

The new trade in bits

To measure the economic impact of digital globalization, we built an econometric model based on the inflows and outflows of goods, services, finance, people, and data for 97 countries around the world.1 We found that over a decade, such flows have increased current global GDP by roughly 10 percent over what it would have been in a world without them. This added value reached $7.8 trillion in 2014 alone. Data flows directly accounted for $2.2 trillion, or nearly one-third, of this effect—more than foreign direct investment. In their indirect role enabling other types ofdigi3 cross-border exchanges, they added $2.8 trillion to the world economy.2 These combined effects of data flows on GDP exceeded the impact of global trade in goods. That’s a striking development: cross-border data flows were negligible just 15 years ago. Over the past decade, the used bandwidth that undergirds this swelling economic activity has grown 45-fold, and it is projected to increase by a factor of nine over the next five years.

Beyond creating value in their own right, digital flows are transforming more traditional ones. Some 50 percent of the world’s traded services are already digitized and that share is growing. About 12 percent of the global trade in goods is conducted via international e-commerce.3 Digitization is facilitating flows of people too, as AirBnB, TripAdvisor, and other websites provide information that enables travel.

Meanwhile, the growth of trade in goods has flattened. That’s a stark reversal from previous decades, which saw it rise from 13.8 percent ($2 trillion) of world GDP in 1985 to 26.6 percent ($16 trillion) of world GDP on the eve of the Great Recession. Weak demand and plummeting commodity prices account for a large part of this recent deceleration, though trade in both finished and intermediate manufactured goods has also stalled since the crisis. In parallel, many companies are reconsidering the risks and complexity of managing long supply chains—and placing greater importance on speed to market and other costs of doing business and less on labor costs. As a result, more production is occurring in countries where goods are consumed. Looking forward, 3-D technology could further erode international trade as some goods are printed at their point of consumption. These shifts make it unlikely that global trade in goods will resume its previous brisk growth.

Open platforms, virtual goods, and ‘digital wrappers’

Behind the scenes, the largest corporations have been building platforms to manage suppliers, connect to customers, and enable internal communication and data sharing. While many platforms are internal, the biggest and best known are more open: spanning e-commerce marketplaces, social networks, and digital-media platforms, they connect hundreds of millions of global users.

These open platforms give businesses enormous built-in customer bases and ways to interact with customers directly. They also create markets with global scale and transparency: with a few clicks, customers can get details on products, services, prices, and alternative suppliers from anywhere in the world. That makes markets function more efficiently, disrupting some intermediaries in the process. What’s more, digital platforms are helping companies that deliver digital goods and services to enter new international markets without establishing a physical presence there. They also give millions of small and midsize businesses global exposure and an export infrastructure. On eBay’s platform, anywhere from 88 to 100 percent of these relatively modest companies export—compared with less than 25 percent of traditional ones in the 18 countries the company analyzed.

digi2Also growing rapidly is trade in virtual goods, such as e-books, apps, online games, and music downloads, as well as streaming services, software, and cloud-computing services. As the cost of 3-D printing declines, this trade could expand to new categories—for instance, companies could send digital files to output goods locally. A lot of companies already use 3-D printing for replacement parts and supplies in far-flung locations.

Many companies are adding digital wrappers to raise the value of their offerings. Logistics firms, for example, use sensors, data, and software to track physical shipments. One study found that radio-frequency-identification (RFID) technology can help to reduce inventory costs by up to 70 percent while improving efficiency. Case studies in Germany, including the logistics centers of BMW and Hewlett-Packard, found that the technology reduced losses in transit by 11 to 14 percent.
Grounding the digital dialogue

Business models built for 20th-century globalization may not hold up as digitization gains ground. As leaders take stock of the opportunities and threats, five questions can help ground the discussion:

1. Do we have a clear view of the competitive landscape?
Competition is intensifying as digital platforms allow companies of any size, anywhere, to roll out products quickly and deliver them to new markets. Amazon now hosts two million third-party sellers, while some ten million small businesses have become merchants on Alibaba platforms. The growing trend toward “micromultinationals” is seen most clearly in the United States, where the share of exports by large multinational corporations dropped from 84 percent in 1977 to 50 percent in 2013. New digital competitors from all over the world are unleashing pricing pressures and speeding up product cycles.

2. Do we have the right assets and capabilities to compete?
Building digital platforms, online customer relationships, and data centers is not just for the Internet giants anymore. GE, for example, is transforming its core manufacturing capabilities to establish itself as a global leader in Internet of Things technology. Businesses in all industries need to take a fresh look at their assets, including customer relationships and market data, and consider whether there are new ways to make money from them. To do so, they will need advanced digital capabilities, a major source of competitive advantage, and workers with cutting-edge skills are in short supply. Online talent platforms can help companies navigate a more global labor market and find the people they need in far-flung places.

3. Can we simplify our product strategy?
Digitization can simplify the tailoring of products, brands, and pricing for companies that sell into multiple global markets. But there’s a parallel trend toward more streamlined global product portfolios. Several automakers have moved in this direction. Apple offers only a limited number of its iPhone and iPad models, all with consistent design and branding wherever they are sold. Airbnb, Facebook, and Uber have simply scaled up their digital platforms in country after country, with limited customization. The media and consumer-technology industries are shifting to simultaneous global product launches, since social and other digital platforms enable consumers around the world to see, instantaneously, what’s on offer in other countries. This development creates opportunities for products to go viral on an unprecedented scale. Making smart customization trade-offs, in short, is becoming an increasingly important top-management priority.

4. Should we retool our organization and supply chain?
Digital tools for remote collaboration and instant communication make it possible to centralize some global functions (such as back-office operations or R&D), to create virtual global teams that span borders, or even to forgo having one global headquarters location. Unilever, for example, used technology solutions to streamline some 40 global service lines and create virtual-digi1delivery organizations with team members around the world who meet via videoconference.

Digital technologies are also reshaping supply chains. Digital “control towers” that offer up-to-the-minute visibility into complex supply chains, for instance, can coordinate global vendors in real time. Since speed to market matters more than ever in a digital world, many companies are reevaluating the merits of lengthy and complex supply chains; logistics costs, lead times, productivity, and proximity to other company operations now have a higher priority. According to a recent UPS survey, approximately one-third of high-tech companies are moving their manufacturing or assembly closer to end-user markets.6 The wider adoption of 3-D printing technologies could lead more companies to reconsider where to base production, potentially reshaping the world’s manufacturing value chains in the process.

5. What are the new risks?
Maintaining data security has to be a top priority for companies in every industry. It’s difficult to stay ahead of increasingly sophisticated hackers, but companies can prioritize their information assets, test continually, and work with frontline employees to emphasize basic protective measures. In addition, the Internet and international competition have cut into the window of exclusivity that companies once enjoyed for new products and services; copycat versions can be launched in new markets even before the originators have time to scale up.

The economic impact of digitization is growing, and digital competition often spans borders. As digital tools create new possibilities for building and managing a global presence, business leaders must challenge long-held assumptions about the international competitiveness of their companies.

Source: McKinsey.com, May 2016
Link
Authors: By Jacques Bughin, Susan Lund, and James Manyika

Behöver ni en digital strategi?

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Digitalisering / Internet on May 4th, 2016 by admin

Stefan Hyttfors föreläser om framtiden. En framtid vi inte vet något om men som garanterat kommer bjuda på förändring. Stefans mission i livet är att göra oss redo för den förändringen.

Häromveckan skrev han ett uppseendeväckande inlägg på Linkedin: “Jag är inte säker på att det behövs en digital strategi. Däremot måste vi förstå hur världen förändras på grund av digitaliseringen”.

Ingen digital strategi? En hel del höjer nog på ögonbrynen. Realtid Karriär bad Stefan utveckla sina tankar.
– Problemet med en digital strategi är att den i princip alltid handlar om hur man ska effektivisera en gammal affärsmodell med hjälp av ny teknik. Eftersom lönsamheten dessutom ökar på kort sikt till följd av minskade marginalkostnader känner sig alla beslutsfattare övertygade om att de gör rätt, vilket bara förvärrar problemet på lång sikt, förklarar han.

För Stefan handlar digitalisering om att lösa problem på helt nya sätt.
– Därför behöver du förstå hur samhället och människors beteende förändras, och se över din företagsstrategi.

Kan du ge exempel på detta.
– Kodak är världens mest omtalade exempel på det som kallas ”digitally disrupted”. Den globala smartphonemarknaden i år är 1,5 miljarder enheter och vi kommer knäppa ungefär en biljonstrategy fotografier. Om Kodak hade lekt med tanken på en sådan framtid hade en slutsats varit självklar – så kan det aldrig bli med filmrullar. Det 130-åriga, marknadsledande, superinnovativa företaget med ett av världens starkaste varumärken gick inte i konkurs för att de var dåliga, tvärtom. Kodak var bäst, men på att sälja saker som ingen längre köper.

Menar du att många företag inte hänger med och har en övertro på gamla, beprövade affärsmodeller?
– Ja, det menar jag. Det finns väldigt få exempel på företag som dödar – eller ens kannibaliserar på – sin egen affärsmodell. Istället försöker man skydda den. Kodak är bara ett exempel. Lösningen kommer istället från entreprenörer som fokuserar på nya möjligheter och inte har någonting att förlora.

“Vi behöver förstå att världen förändras på grund av digitaliseringen”. Kan du utveckla det?
– Man måste förstå vad digitalisering betyder. Dematerialisering, demonetarisering och decentralisering är några exempel på konsekvenser. Autonoma bilar och digitalisering gör det exempelvis möjligt för oss att konsumera bil som tjänst istället för som produkt i framtiden. Den viktiga frågan för de som säljer bilar idag är inte om det kommer bli så, utan om du kan få det att bli så.

Men hur kan företag förutse det de inte känner till? Ingen kan ju veta vad som väntar runt hörnet, vilken teknik som plötsligt dyker upp och fullständigt ändrar spelplanen.
– Det handlar inte om att förutse vad som ska hända utan om att hela tiden utmana sig själv. Jag gav bilindustrin som exempel. Vi vet att framtidens bilar inte drivs av fossila bränslen, delas av kunderna i storstäder och kan köra själva. Vi vet dessutom att företag som VW, Toyota och GM har enorma resurser. Trots detta ser vi nu utvecklingen komma från teknikbranschen och små entreprenörer samtidigt som de stora bevisligen fuskar för övertyga omvärlden att tro på sin gamla modell.

Kan företag locka till sig millennials om de inte har en digital strategi?
– Fråga en 25-åring så inser du snabbt att begrepp som sociala medier och digitala strategier är de gamlas språk. Framtidens medarbetare lockas av mening mer än någonting annat. Berätta VARFÖR man ska arbeta i ditt företag, förklara vilket viktigt problem ni löser, så har du snart en kö av millennials utanför personalkontoret.

Menar du att digitala strategier är oviktigt oavsett bransch?
– Alla företag behöver en strategi, med betoning på EN. Inte en digital strategi. Alla organisationens funktioner ska stödja den, inte skapa och driva egna strategier. Att man tar fram strategier för varje disciplin och stödfunktion beror på att det är lättare än att ifrågasätta och ändra existensberättigande.

Vad skulle du säga att det får för konsekvenser att digital strategi har blivit ett modeord?
– Att osäkra ledare köper en ny tjänst av konsulter vilket skapar en känsla av trygghet vilket leder till att många missar de verkliga utmaningarna och möjligheterna.

Vilka är de verkliga utmaningarna och möjligheterna?
– Snabb teknikutveckling gör det möjligt för flera miljarder människor att lösa problem på sätt som aldrig tidigare funnits. Två tredjedelar av jordens befolkning saknar fortfarande uppkoppling, så vi har det mesta framför oss.

Hur tror du framtiden blir för dem som inte förstår eller inte vill förstå hur världen förändras?
– Det blir precis som för Kodak, Nokia och Blockbuster som redan visat hur snabbt det går i utförsbacken när man startar högt.

Hur kan man dra nytta av digitaliseringen i sin karriär, i dag och i framtiden?
– Om tio år pratar vi alla om affärsidéer, företag och varumärken som inte ens har startats idag. Vi befinner oss i början av början och precis som under den industriella revolutionen så vinner de som ser möjligheter och tar risker.

Vad kommer de gamla företagen spela för roll i framtiden ?
– Liten och snabb slår stor och gammal. Den trenden har varit tydlig länge. Livstiden för stora företag är betydligt kortare i dag än för några decennier sedan. Snart befinner vi oss i en tid då i princip inget företag klarar att vara ledande mer än max tio år. Alla intressenter borde se på gamla företag med skepsis istället för att tro på evigt liv, säger Stefan Hyttfors.

Källa: Realtid.se, 4 maj 2016
Länk

Micke Darmell: Vi måste sluta lägga tid på dåliga jobbmöten

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt on May 3rd, 2016 by admin

Varje år sitter svenska tjänstepersoner i dåliga möten till en kostnad av 170 miljarder kronor – enbart räknat i lönekostnad. Företag och organisationer måste se över möteskulturen för att få en bättre arbetsmiljö. Det tjänar alla på.

Ett företag med 100 anställda investerar cirka 27 miljoner kronor varje år i ren mötestid. Förberedelser, resor, lokalkostnader, kaffe (viktigt!), uppföljning och så vidare ingår inte i den kalkylen. Dessa 27 miljoner kronor är alltså mycket lågt räknat. Samtidigt är mer än hälften av all mötestid ineffektiv. För den här organisationen betyder det 15 bortkastade miljoner, 150 000 kronor per anställd – varje år!

darmell 2För den enskilde tjänstepersonen, som sitter en tredjedel av sin arbetstid i möten, innebär det sex förlorade veckor per år. För chefen, som sitter i möte 50 till 80 procent av tiden … ja, än mer. Du som läser det här känner kanske igen vad denna frustration betyder för stressnivån. Du har nog inga svårigheter att hitta bättre sätt att tillbringa sex veckor än framför en sömnig powerpoint-presentation med oklart syfte? Du kanske rent av med hjälp av den här texten som argument tänker gå till din chef och be om tre veckors extra semester nästa år (om du lovar att sluta springa på dåliga möten i gengäld)?

Trots pengar i sjön och ökad stress för medarbetarna, har många organisationer av oklar anledning en kultur där det är ok att hålla dåliga möten där det skjuts vilt från höften. För lite tid sätts av till att planera, genomföra och följa upp. Det brukar betyda att låg kvalitet får kompenseras med hög kvantitet. (Slå upp ”ond cirkel” i ett lexikon, jag har för mig att svensk möteskultur används som exempel för att förklara.)

När organisationer mäter och skruvar på allt annat för att förbättra produktiviteten, varför får dåliga möten bara pågå? Varför har inte ledarskapsutbildningar möteskultur på agendan? Varför förväntas inte ledare i organisationen leda bra möten? Varför behandlas inte de interna mötena som den viktigaste kommunikationskanalen en organisation har? Varför är det ok att bara fortsätta slösa med tid, pengar och kollegors energi?darmell 1

I ett parallellt universum är goda interna möten kittet som håller organisationen samman. De här mötena ger en bättre arbetsmiljö med mindre stress och större engagemang. Mötena i sig, men framför allt organisationsmålen, blir meningsfulla för alla kollegor. En bra möteskultur säkerställer all styrning och att vi gör det vi bestämt. Och kanske galnast av allt – i det här universumet skickas det väldigt lite interna mail!

Tillbaka till vår värld. Den 31 mars i år trädde en ny arbetsmiljölag i kraft som sätter krav på alla organisationer att arbeta för en förbättrad hälsa på arbetsplatsen, och däribland minska den ohälsosamma stressen. Jag har bevittnat hur många organisationer använt en god möteskultur som verktyg för att uppnå en bättre arbetsmiljö. Det är ett fantastiskt medel får att uppnå vilka mål organisationen än må ha, och medarbetarna mår bättre på köpet.

Varsågod, lågt hängande frukt till ett värde av 170 miljarder kronor. Det är bara att plocka.

Källa: DN.se, 3 maj 2016
Länk
Av: Micke Darmell
Läs mer om Micke Darmell här