EXTRA, Ledarskap i Coronatider: Styrelseproffsen: Så tar ni er genom krisen

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Board work / Styrelsearbete, Leadership / Ledarskap on March 29th, 2020 by admin

Skilj på känslor och fakta, håll borta egot som rädsla för att misslyckas och fokusera på att det är företaget som ska klara sig.
Var synlig, rak och ärlig. Sov, ät och pausa.
Det är några vd-råd som hjälpt näringslivsprofilerna och styrelseproffsen Mats Jansson, Sarah McPhee och Lottie Knutson genom tidigare kriser.

”Ingen kris är den andra lik”, betonar Mats Jansson efter årtionden som vd, däribland Axfood och SAS, och senare styrelseledamot i Telia Sonera, Candyking och Delhaize.

”Men principerna för krishantering är desamma.”

Kriser kräver extrem prioritering i arbetet som vd, faktabaserade, aldrig känslomässiga, beslut och kritisk granskning av all information, enligt forne SAS-chefen. Vad är sant, vad är känslor och framför allt: vad är relevant för företaget?

”En vd måste bära krisen – informationen och besluten, men också hålla liv i entusiasm och kraft internt. Aldrig gömma sig, aldrig skicka fram andra. Vid materiella skador kan du delegera framträdandet, men aldrig när det gäller drabbade människor. Var ärlig, sakligt driven och rak”, fortsätter Mats Jansson, som gjort sig känd för sin rakhet och utvecklade sin syn på ärlighet i Di Weekend 2013:

”Ärlighet är inte att säga allt man tänker, utan att i stället stå för det man har sagt.”

Även Sarah McPhee, tidigare vd och koncernchef för pensions- och försäkringsjätten SPP, i dag ordförande för bland annat Fjärde AP-fonden och styrelseledamot i Klarna, Bure Equity och Axel Johnson Inc, betonar vikten av transparens och vd:ns fokus framåt.

”Tänk ut vart verksamheten ska och bryt ner det i koncisa steg. Först detta, sedan nästa, sedan nästa…”, säger hon.

”Det är för kriser en vd verkligen behövs. När allt går bra, får andra leda och briljera.”

Båda lyfter fram att avdela en person som hanterar krisen.

”Se till att krisen inte knäcker hela ledningsgruppen genom att alla gräver ned sig i den. Dela upp ledningsarbetet i krishantering och vanliga verksamheten”, säger Mats Jansson.

Hur mycket bör man som vd följa med i informationsflödet?
”Inte alls. Det ska den personen som är satt att hantera krisen göra. Det gagnar inte vd att veta senaste nytt”, svarar Sarah McPhee.

Hon började på SPP 2008, mindre än tre månader efter Lehman Brothers konkurs i den skenande finanskrisen.

”Jag var ingen expert på det som kom. Men när jag hade kommit fram till att så här ska det bli kände jag ett lugn inför uppgiften. När en kris bryter ut vill man vara snabb och visa kraft, man bryr sig ju. Men det som känns jättebra först kan visa sig bli både dyrt och verkningslöst, och då blir det ingenting. Snabbt är bra men genomtänkt vinner i längden.”

Företagsledare behöver även hålla reda på sina känslor och sitt ego, däribland den egna rädslan för att misslyckas, menar hon.

”Självklart kan det gå åt h-e. Men krisen handlar inte om dig, utom om bolaget du leder.”

Att inte ta saker och ting så personligt är viktigt, enligt Mats Jansson.

Vara känslokall menar du?
”Absolut inte! Inte kall, men kylig. Stor skillnad.”

Enligt honom är det i kriser som agnarna sållas från vetet:

”En vd kan vara oerhört emotionell, men måste kunna hålla avstånd till känslor och fakta för företagets bästa. Det där måste sitta i ditt dna. Det är det karaktärsdraget, inte krisen, som avgör om du är skickad i att hantera kriser eller inte. Resten – hur man sorterar och prioriterar rätt – lär man sig med erfarenheten.”

Men om du inte är extern vd utan familjeföretagare?
”Svårare, men ändrar inget i sak”, svarar Ica-handlarsonen från Kolsva i Västmanland med ett förflutet i den generationsdrivna Axel Johnson-sfären.

Under Mats Janssons nära fyra vd-år i SAS gick bolaget från runt 30.000 anställda till 15.000. Han hanterade flygkrascher med många dödsoffer, strejker, oljepris på nästan 150 dollar fatet, det vill säga flygbränslet kostade lika mycket som personalen, akuta likviditetskriser och emissioner för att undvika konkurs. Miljardförlusterna under finanskrisen 2008-2009 hann knappt klinga av förrän askmolnet från Island ställde samtliga SAS-plan på marken.

”Branschanalytikerna i London kallade mig för Mr Bad Luck. För att orka behöver man en stöttande familj och rutiner. Jag tog inga samtal före klockan 08, gick eller sprang på Djurgården kl 05.30 varje morgon och åt sedan frukost med familjen.”

Även Lottie Knutson, Fritidsresors och hela Sveriges informationsbärare efter tsunamin 2004, framhåller team med rak dialog och prestigelöshet.

”Trots Gottrörakraschen, tsunamin, hårda sparpaket och it-haverier under mina år på SAS och sedan Fritidsresegruppen är coronaviruset det hittills värsta jag upplevt. I princip all verksamhet jag är i närheten av varslar och tvingas permittera merparten av personalen”, säger hon.

Idag arbetar hon som styrelseledamot i bland annat Cloetta, Stena Line och STS Alpresor, föreläsare och skribent.

”Hur långa och svåra arbetssituationer jag än har haft försöker jag gilla läget, ta en sak i taget och ha fokus på de drabbade. Det gäller att ta korta pauser, säkra mat och sömn och införa skift så fort som möjligt.”

Din viktigaste lärdom?
”Att det blir värre innan det blir bättre, och att vi i ledarrollen måste kunna fatta snabba beslut samtidigt som vi hjälper medarbetarna att skymta ett hopp bortom det akuta.”

”Det är inte en slump att utsatta yrkesgrupper bär uniform, skyddsdräkt eller vit rock, som tas av vid arbetsdagens slut. Även kontorsfolk bör göra en liknande symbolhandling; byta kläder, duscha, ta en promenad för att försöka släppa jobbet. När vårt privata jag är detsamma som jobbrollen blir vi sårbara vid uppsägningar och turbulens.”

Men allt är inte mörker. Att ta sig genom kriser ger också starkt positiva erfarenheter, betonar trion.

”Man jobbar nära medarbetare och lär känna varandra på ett annat sätt. Det ger energi. Mina mest positiva minnen och erfarenheter är från just kriser, ibland får man även vänner för livet”, säger Sarah McPhee.

 

 

Källa: DI.se, 29 mars 2020
Länk

Anställda saknar förtroende för ledningens förändringsarbete

Posted in Aktuellt, Board work / Styrelsearbete, Executive Coaching, Executive Team / Ledningsgruppsarbete, Leadership / Ledarskap, Strategy implementation / Strategiimplementering on February 27th, 2020 by admin

Få anställda i stora nordiska finansbolag känner tillit och förtroende till sin ledning i förändringsfrågorna – det visar en ny undersökning från konsultjätten Accenture.

Konsultjätten Accenture har i undersökningen “Nordic Transformation Readiness Study” undersökt hur anställda och chefer på företag inom bank, finans och försäkring arbetar med förändring. Det är första gången undersökningen genomförs i Norden med företag inom bank, finans och försäkring.

Resultatet visar att de nordiska företagen inom bank, finans och försäkring har relativt få anställda som är frustrerade eller otrygga över sin roll i förändringsarbetet, i en internationell jämförelse. De anställda upplever även att organisationerna har tillräckligt med personal för att driva förändringsarbetet framåt.

– Först och främst vill jag säga att alla de nordiska företagen vi analyserat är “on track” med sin förändringsresa. Däremot har de inte kommit lika långt i processen som önskvärt och har ännu inte riktigt fått utväxling för sitt arbete. Vi konstaterar att de har en del kvar att göra för att uppnå de bästa resultaten, säger Linda Håkansson, ansvarig för finansiella tjänster på Accenture.

De nordiska svagheterna identifieras till att få anställda känner tillit och förtroende till sin ledning i förändringsfrågorna. De anställda finner även att cheferna på avdelningarna inte gör tillräckligt för att stödja förändringsarbetet.

– Vårt resultat visar att medarbetare i Norden är redo för att skapa förändring och har alla förutsättningar som behövs. Däremot är det ledningen som här behöver ta kommando över processen vilket inte upplevs av de anställda i nuläget.

På internationell nivå är resultaten de omvända. Där känner fler medarbetare oro och frustration över sin roll i företagets förändringsresa. De upplever också i större utsträckning att företagen är underbemannade för processen.

– Internationellt är resultaten de motsatta. Där är det istället ledningen som driver på för förändring och de anställda som känner sig dåligt utrustade för processen. När vi jämför de nordiska resultaten med de globala konstaterar vi att internationella bolag har kommit längre i förändringsresan än deras nordiska konkurrenter.

Linda Håkansson tror att skillnaden dels beror på kulturella skillnader inom ledarskap. Andra faktorer som spelar in är företagens storlek och benägenhet till förändring.

– I Norden har vi en ledningskultur som önskar konsensus vilket stärker medarbetarnas roll i arbetet men i viss mån försvagar ledarskapet. Internationellt är det vanliga med toppstyrda organisationer och där behöver de istället arbeta med att förankra medarbetare i processerna.

Ser ni några skillnader mellan olika roller på samma företag?
– Det vi ser är de som arbetar på utvecklingssidan bättre förstår företagets hela förändringsprocess och känner sig delaktiga. Rådgivare, eller de som arbetar med slutkunden, är de som ser lägst resultat kring förändringsresan.

Vilken är er rekommendation till ledningar som vill driva förändring?– Det handlar om att förstå sina anställda, sitt företag och tydligt kommunicera vägen framåt. När du som ledare tror att kommunicerat tillräckligt behöver du ofta upprepa budskapen och målsättningen så att det verkligen går in. Det handlar om att skapa en delaktig “vi-känsla” som får dina anställda att nå sin fulla potential.

– Det är väldigt farligt att tro att du som ledning är färdig med förändring. Oavsett vilka andra problem eller utmaningar du som ledning har måste din närvaro vara tydlig och framåtdrivande. En öppen organisation som tillåter personalen att jobba mot tydliga mål.

—————————————————

Undersökningen gjordes under våren 2019 och innefattar anonyma svar från sex nordiska storbolag inom bank, finans och försäkring. 

– Syftet är att du som företag ska ha rätt information när du fattar strategiska beslut. Genom att kartlägga företagens förmåga och beteende inom förändring så att företagen bättre kan förstå hur de ska leda sin utveckling framåt, säger Linda Håkansson, ansvarig för finansiella tjänster på Accenture. 

Undersökningen görs via det Accenture-utvecklade analysverktyget Transformation GPS och kompletteras med djupintervjuer med personer i ledande roller. Sammantaget har Accenture fått svar från över 1 miljon anställda som enligt Accenture tydligt visar var företagen befinner sig i sin förändringsresa. 

 

Källa: Realtid.se, 27 februari 2020
Länk

 

How to beat the transformation odds

Posted in Aktuellt, Board work / Styrelsearbete, Executive Coaching, Executive Team / Ledningsgruppsarbete, Fact Based Management, Leadership / Ledarskap, Strategy implementation / Strategiimplementering on February 26th, 2020 by admin

Three out of four transformations fall short!

Transformational change is still hard, according to a new survey. But a focus on communicating, leading by example, engaging employees, and continuously improving can triple the odds of success.

After years of McKinsey research on organizational transformations,  the results from our latest McKinsey Global Survey on the topic confirm a long-standing trend: few executives say their companies’ transformations succeed.  Today, just 26 percent of respondents say the transformations they’re most familiar with have been very or completely successful at both improving performance and equipping the organization to sustain improvements over time. In our 2012 survey, 20 percent of executives said the same.

But some companies have beaten the odds. We asked respondents whether their organizations follow 24 specific actions that support five stages of a transformation.  At organizations that took a rigorous, action-oriented approach and completed their transformations (that is, all of their initiatives have been fully implemented), executives report a 79 percent success rate—three times the average for all transformations. According to the results, no single action explains the difference; in fact, the more actions an organization takes, the more likely its transformation is to succeed. Still, the results suggest that some transformation practices correlate much more closely than others with success. These practices include communicating effectively, leading actively, empowering employees, and creating an environment of continuous improvement so organizations can keep their performance from stagnating (or even regressing) once a transformation’s goals are met.  By implementing continuous-improvement activities that enable the organization to look regularly for new and better ways to work, respondents’ organizations double their chance of successfully sustaining improvements after the transformation.

The power of action—and communication
To test which transformation practices correlate most with success, we asked executives about 24 specific actions that support a transformation’s five stages (see sidebar, “The 24 actions of transformation”). Indeed, the results indicate that when organizations follow a rigorous approach and pursue all of these actions during a transformation, the overall success rate more than doubles from the average (26 percent), to 58 percent. Among only completed transformations, respondents report a success rate of 79 percent—about triple the average success rate for all transformations.

While the results show that success links closely to a greater overall number of actions, they also indicate that not all 24 actions are created equal. Communication, specifically, contributes the most to a transformation’s success. At companies where senior managers communicate openly and across the organization about the transformation’s progress, respondents are 8.0 times as likely to report a successful transformation as those who say this communication doesn’t happen. Good communication has an even greater effect at enterprise-wide transformations, where company-wide change efforts are 12.4 times more likely to be successful when senior managers communicate continually.

It also helps when leaders develop a clear change story that they share across the organization. This type of communication is not common practice, though. When asked what they would do differently if the transformation happened again, nearly half of respondents (and the largest share) wish their organizations had spent more time communicating a change story.

Lead, don´t manage
According to respondents, leadership matters as much during a transformation as it does in the company’s day-to-day work. It can’t be delegated to a project-management office or central team—the presence (or not) of which has no clear bearing on a transformation’s success—while executives carry on with business as usual. Indeed, when senior leaders role model the behavior changes they’re asking employees to make (by spending time on the factory floor or in the call center, where work is done), transformations are 5.3 times more likely to be successful. Success is twice as likely when senior leaders and the leaders of initiatives spend more than half of their time on the transformation. In practice, though, only 43 percent of these leaders say they invested that much working time in the transformation’s initiatives.

But even if they’re involved, senior leaders face some potential pitfalls. First is the perception gap between them and everyone else in the organization. Eighty-six percent of leaders say they role modeled the desired behavior changes when transformation initiatives were being implemented, yet only half of all employees who were part of the transformation (but didn’t play an active role) say the same. Overall, senior leaders are also 2.5 times as likely as other employees to rate their companies’ transformations a success.

A second pitfall, in addition to outsize optimism, is overplanning. Few initiative leaders—only 22 percent—say they would spend more time planning the transformation if they could do it over again. Instead, these respondents most often say they would spend more time communicating a change story (49 percent) and aligning their top team (47 percent).

Choose the right people and empower them

An involved team of senior leaders is only half the battle. Executives report that for transformations to truly succeed, companies must think about the role that employees play as well as their people needs across the organization. If the transformation happened again, the largest share of executives say they would move faster to keep people resistant to changes out of leadership or influencer roles.

According to respondents, it’s important to define clear roles so employees at all levels are prepared to meet the post-transformation goals—a factor that makes companies 3.8 times more likely to succeed . Also key to an effective people strategy is allocating enough employees and the right ones—that is, the high performers and active supporters—to work on the transformation. One effective way to hold these people accountable, according to the results, is using transformation-related metrics. Executives who say their initiatives’ leaders were held accountable for their transformation work in annual evaluations are 3.9 times more likely than others to report a successful transformation.

Prepare for continuous improvement

Once initiatives are fully implemented, the change effort does not end; almost 40 percent of respondents say they wish they had spent more time thinking about how their organizations would continue to improve. Several specific practices that help companies connect strategy to daily work, deliver value more efficiently to customers, enable people to contribute to their best ability, and discover new ways of working all link to an organization’s long-term health—and can keep companies from backsliding on performance gains and support continuous improvements after transformation.

For example, in organizations where people understand how their individual work supports the company’s broader vision, executives are 5.5 times likelier than others to say the transformation has been successful . To achieve long-term success, that link must also be reinforced with a company-wide commitment to identifying opportunities for improvement—a practice that more than quadruples the likelihood of success. Likewise, executives report a much higher rate of success when their companies have a systematic process for developing people’s capabilities and for identifying, sharing, and improving upon best practices.

Of the eight continuous-improvement actions we asked about, one was an outlier: only one-third of executives say teams of employees begin their days discussing the previous day’s results and the current day’s work, compared with strong majorities of executives who agree that their organizations take each of the other actions. But respondents whose organizations had implemented daily discussions were twice as likely as others to report success.

Looking ahead

Focus on people, not the project. Transformations are about the people in the organization as much as they’re about the initiatives. The long-term sustainability of a transformation requires companies to engage enthusiastic high-potential employees, equip them with skills, and hold them accountable for—as well as celebrate—their contributions to the effort. Companies should, in our experience, take the same steps toward developing people throughout the organization. To build broad ownership, leaders should encourage all employees to experiment with new ideas: starting small, taking risks, and adapting quickly in their work. Doing so can create far-reaching and positive support for change, which is essential to a transformation’s success.

Communicate continually. When embarking on a transformation, executives should not underestimate the power of communication and role modeling. The results suggest that continually telling an engaging, tailored story about the changes that are under way—and being transparent about the transformation’s implications—has substantially more impact on an effort’s outcome than more programmatic elements, such as performance management or capability building. But the communication doesn’t end once the change story has been told. Leaders must continually highlight progress and success to make sure the transformation is top of mind across the organization—and to reduce the gap between what employees believe is happening and what they see.

Take more action. Transformation is hard work, and the changes made during the transformation process must be sustained for the organization to keep improving. There is no silver bullet—and while some factors have more impact than others on a transformation’s outcome, the real magic happens when these actions are pursued together. Overall, the survey indicates that the more actions an organization took to support each of the five stages of transformation, the more successful it was at improving performance and sustaining long-term health.

 

Source: McKinsey.com
About the authors: The contributors to the development and analysis of this survey include David Jacquemont, a principal in McKinsey’s Paris office; Dana Maor, a principal in the Tel Aviv office; and Angelika Reich, an associate principal in the Zurich office.

Link

Läs mer om förtroendet för ledningen avseende förändringsarbete inom nordiska finansbolag (27 februari 2020):

 

Organizations do not change. People change!

Posted in Aktuellt, Board work / Styrelsearbete, Executive Team / Ledningsgruppsarbete, Leadership / Ledarskap on October 28th, 2019 by admin

Addressing an organization’s mindset has a tangible business impact and is the key that opens the door to successfully transforming an organization.

Albert Einstein once famously remarked, “Today’s problems cannot be solved with the same level of thinking that created them.”
Consider the example of a Latin American consumer goods manufacturer under pressure to change its performance after not having performed well for several quarters. Due to urgency, the chief transformation officer went off to set more stretched targets and created a weekly governance to review performance initiatives with more rigor.

Yes, people worked hard. Yes, at first some KPIs improved, but all of this drained more energy than the results it was delivering. It soon became clear that the people would not last a marathon at the speed of a sprint; they had started to become disengaged.
Like in this organization, most enterprise transformations focus on changing business metrics and, at best, employee behaviors—and not the thinking what created the need for a transformation in the first place. And, not surprisingly, 70% of them fail. Companies with failed transformation programs identify employee resistance or management behavior as the major barrier (72%) to success.

To avoid that statistic, this manufacturer for the first time shifted the focus on the people. What was driving their behavior? What made their eyes shine? What would truly engage them in a transformation? Looking for these answers, the top team discovered that up until then, people were gaining praise for doing new things even if they were not delivering their promised results. They thought that short-term results were more important than satisfying the consumer. And when the time came to choose, they felt that their individual goals were bigger than the company’s. All this was limiting them from participating wholeheartedly in the transformation underway.

In fact, these mindsets, as we call them, needed to be flipped to make things work. Through a set of targeted initiatives, these mindsets were shaken. The people came to realize that satisfying the consumer is what will bring the short-term results. There is no success for the individual if the company is not doing well. And they started to be recognized for executing with discipline focusing on our full potential to deliver challenging goals. Sharing the story of why the transformation was necessary and addressing these mindsets engaged the employees with a whole new level of energy, and only few months later the organization was able to deliver its first quarter back on track and continue the trend.

Companies that take the time to identify and shift deep-seated mindsets were 4x more likely to rate their change programs as “successful,” according to the McKinsey Quarterly Transformational Change Survey, 2010. In fact, mindset shifts are linked to the highest impact behaviors a person wants to change.

Unless you first identify the mindsets, both limiting and enabling your people, your transformation initiatives may be wasting resources, time and energy. Another company, a telco, found that managers spent the majority of performance reviews explaining the complex rating process vs giving feedback. So, the telco simplified the process and rating system, increased frequency of conversations, and provided training on delivering feedback. However, it’s important to keep in mind that “from” mindsets aren’t necessarily bad; many rational, competent and well-meaning people could and do operate in this way.

In the case of the telco, leaders cancelled reviews and/or spent most time on small talk. Why? Leaders actually avoided difficult conversations and focused the feedback on process because they were afraid that criticism and difficult conversations would damage their relationships. Once this mindset transformed into “honesty (with respect) is the essence of building strong relationships,” leaders started to engage in regular, honest and courageous feedback conversations, and focus their feedback on performance.
Addressing the organization’s mindset has a tangible business impact and is the key that opens the door to successfully transforming an organization. In our next articles, we explore how to uncover those mindsets and how to turn them around.
The authors wish to thank Natasha Bergeron for the practical insights she provided for this post.

Source: McKinsey.com, October 2019
Authors: Anita Baggio, Eleftheria Digentiki and Rahul Varma
Link

Vila rätt – så maxar du semestern för din hjärna

Posted in Aktuellt, Allmänt, Board work / Styrelsearbete on July 16th, 2019 by admin

Sommarsemestern är ett bra tillfälle för återhämtning, och inte minst hjärnan behöver ett avbrott och vila.

”Att bli trött efter att ha stressat mycket på jobbet, och ha låtit ‘hjärnan gå på högvarv’, ska inte tas för lätt på”, säger neuropsykologen Åke Pålshammar.

Så här råder experterna till att ta vara på semesterdagarna.

”Under ledigheten ska man lämna så mycket som möjligt som har med jobbet att göra. Man får gärna tagga ned lite innan ledigheten också. När man är så mycket uppe i varv som många av oss är kan det ta upp till en hel vecka av semestern att få ned varvet”, säger Åke Pålshammar, neuropsykolog och senioruniversitetslektor vid Uppsala universitet.

I och med att människor är så olika går de inte att generalisera vad som krävs för att hjärnan ska kunna återhämta sig. Grundregeln är att lägga tankar på jobbet åt sidan om det är möjligt, men det är inte ovanligt att vissa blir ”näst intill tokiga” om de inte har en hög stimulansnivå.

”Hjärnan behöver inte så ohyggligt mycket lugn, om man inte är väldigt uppe i varv och känner att det sliter”, fortsätter Åke Pålshammar.

”Då kan man behöva ordentlig avkoppling. Även då kan man ha någon form av kontakt med vardagen genom att kolla mobilen, säg en gång om dagen, så att man slipper oroa sig för att något ska hända om man inte har en ersättare”, säger han.

Har man mycket stimulans på jobbet så är det kanske inte ännu mer stimulans som får en att koppla av att, utan man kan behöva dra ned på tempot. Samtidigt ska man inte kasta sig in i att gå ned i för lågt varv och känna att ”hjärnan stannar”.

De som har mer enformiga jobb kan behöva en annan form av stimulans under ledigheten för att hjärnan ska må bra. Det blir en slags vila av att få göra något roligt och annorlunda från det man brukar göra.

Att blir trött efter att ha stressat mycket på jobbet och låtit ”hjärnan gå på högvarv” ska inte tas för lätt på, enligt Åke Pålshammar.

”Om hjärnan går på högvarv för länge så får vi problem med bland annat att orka göra viktiga saker eller koncentrera oss. Man har nött ned alla system och då kommer det ibland en förfärande trötthet som kan göra att man nästan inte orka engagera sig för någonting. Då kan man bli näst intill handlingsförlamad”, säger Åke Pålshammar.

Om man inte heller fått en ordentlig sammanhållen sömn skriker hjärnan efter att få sova och varva ned. Till slut tycks hjärncellerna bestämma sig för att gå i strejk, fortsätter han.

Det är rekommenderat att ta minst två veckor sammanhållen semester, menar Åke Pålshammar. Risken är dock att två veckor av ledighet kan bestå av en veckas nedtrappning, följt av några dagars upptrappning för att återgå till vardagen, vilket gör att det inte blir mycket av riktig semester kvar.

”En månads sammanhållen semester, det är nog vad man absolut skulle önska. Då får man en chans att under två av veckorna varva ned ordentligt och ger hjärnan en chans till återhämtning”, säger Åke Pålshammar.

Enligt Dan Hasson, docent i folkhälsovetenskap och anknuten forskare vid Mayo Clinic och Karolinska institutet, får man ett ökat välbefinnande som på sin höjd håller i sig i ett par veckor efter semestern, oavsett om det är en kortare eller längre ledighet.

”Man behöver vara pragmatisk och fråga sig själv vad man vill ha ut av sin ledighet. För alla är inte semestern vilsam utan den kan vara fylld med krav och måsten. Då kan det vara en lättnad att komma tillbaka till jobbet efter semestern”, säger Dan Hansson.

Det behöver inte vara negativt att tänka mycket på jobbet under semestern, menar han.

”Är man passionerad i sitt jobb är det bara roligt om man fortsätter tänka på det under ledigheten.  Men om det blir ett problem att tänka för mycket på jobbet kan man gärna innan semestern tänka på vad som kan få en att slappna av. Återhämtning är något man även ska ha i vardagen så klart, men under semestern kan man verkligen maxa det och se till att man får lite mer djupgående återhämtning”, säger Dan Hasson.

Källa: DI.se, juli 2019
Länk

Five moves to make during a digital transformation

Posted in Aktuellt, Board work / Styrelsearbete, Digitalisering / Internet, Executive Team / Ledningsgruppsarbete on May 20th, 2019 by admin

Surveyed executives confirm that digital transformations rarely achieve success. But in those that do lie the structural elements that may help organizations overcome the odds.

Despite the abundance of digital and analytics transformations underway across the business landscape, few companies are achieving the results envisioned. Our latest McKinsey Global Survey on the topic confirms that the rate of success is alarmingly low.1 About eight in ten respondents say their organizations have begun digital transformations in recent years, but just 14 percent say their efforts have made and sustained performance improvements.2 What’s more, only 3 percent report complete success at sustaining their change. (Explore the survey results in our data visualization, “An interactive look at digital transformations.”)

That companies find difficulty turning in successful digital transformations is not surprising, since we know from previous research that digital transformations are harder than more traditional ones to get right. But a look at the structure of digital and analytics transformations points to five key moves at particular stages of a transformation that set successful change efforts apart. These actions suggest ways that other organizations can plan and execute digital transformations successfully.

For starters, respondents who report the greatest levels of success in pursuing digital transformations say their organizations ruthlessly focus on a handful of digital themes tied to performance outcomes. In defining their transformations’ scope, these successful organizations boldly establish enterprise-wide efforts and build new businesses. They also create an adaptive design that allows the transformation strategy and resource allocation to adjust over time. In addition, they adopt agile execution practices and mind-sets by encouraging risk taking and collaboration across parts of the organization. Moreover, in successful efforts, leadership and accountability are crystal clear for each portion of the transformation.

Ruthlessly focus on a clear set of objectives

When considering a response to digital disruptions, organizations face many critical choices. Should they transform their existing business model or build a new one? Should they drive down costs or focus on customer engagement? Which areas of the business will require more investment in digital initiatives, and which will need to defund their own initiatives to free up resources for the ones that perform well or reflect higher-priority objectives? Getting leaders to agree upon the best way forward can be challenging, but the survey results suggest a need for consensus.Would you like to learn more about McKinsey Digital?Visit our Digital Organization page

With successful digital transformations, respondents say their organizations keep efforts focused on a few digital themes—that is, the high-level objectives for the transformation, such as driving innovation, improving productivity, or reshaping an end-to-end customer journey—that are tied to business outcomes, rather than pursuing many different agendas (Exhibit 1). At successful organizations, accountability for those objectives also spans the organization. These respondents are 3.7 times more likely than others to report a shared sense of accountability for meeting their transformations’ objectives. They also say their organizations have been clear about the financial effects of their initiatives; for example, they estimate impact based on the company’s current business momentum and models of near- and long-term scenarios.

Exhibit 1

Be bold when setting the scope

We know from previous research that digital strategies should be bold in magnitude and scope,3and the survey results show that this also holds true for digital transformations. The successful digital and analytics transformations are about 1.5 times more likely than others to be enterprise-wide in scale (Exhibit 2). This result aligns with earlier research, which found that companies making digital moves often use new digital technologies at scale to capture the full benefits from their technology investments.4 Respondents at successful organizations are also 1.4 times more likely than others to report the creation of new digital businesses during their transformations.

Exhibit 2

Create an adaptive design

The fast pace at which digital drives change explains why so many companies are launching digital transformations and why the transformations themselves must be flexible. Defining a multiyear transformation’s investment requirements and performance targets up front—and not revisiting them as the transformation progresses—has perhaps never been a sound approach. But digital transformations require monthly, if not weekly, adjustments. We see this adaptability ingrained in the design of successful transformations: respondents reporting success are almost three times more likely than others to say their efforts involve at least monthly adjustments to their strategic plans, based on business leaders’ input on the state of the transformation (Exhibit 3).

Exhibit 3

Along with the need for adaptable transformation targets, flexible talent allocation is a differentiator in a transformation’s success. Respondents at successful organizations are more than twice as likely as others to strongly agree that their allocation of talent to digital initiatives has been dynamic during their transformations. Finally, a larger share of respondents reporting success say their organizations have reallocated their operating expenditures to fund the transformation. Earmarking resources for initiatives that span organizational silos can help ensure that a transformation is properly funded and that initiatives aren’t partially funded by one part of the organization only to be deprioritized by another.

Adopt agile execution approaches and mind-sets

Just as the transformation’s design must be adaptable, so must the execution of its initiatives. Successful digital and analytics transformations are likelier than others to employ more agile ways of working, such as encouraging risk taking, innovation, and collaboration across parts of the business, during a transformation.5 Agility’s importance to transformation success is clear when we look at the agile characteristics of companies’ organizational culture. Respondents at successful organizations are more than twice as likely as their peers elsewhere to strongly agree that employees are rewarded for taking risks of an appropriate level and 2.6 times likelier to say their organizations reward employees for generating new ideas (Exhibit 4). Additionally, these respondents are three times likelier to say employees collaborate effectively across business units, functions, and reporting lines. These findings align with previous research on successful digital cultures, which found that being risk averse and too siloed often prevents incumbents from realizing business impact from their digital activities.

Exhibit 4

Of course, organizations can rely on employees to be innovative, take appropriate risks, and work collaboratively only if they have the right digital talent. Talent is another aspect in which successful digital and analytics transformations differ notably from the rest. A larger share of success-group respondents than their peers strongly agree that their organizations are focused on attracting and developing highly talented individuals. They are 1.8 times likelier than others to say their organizations have hired new employees with strong digital and analytics capabilities during their transformations. What’s more, these respondents report that an average of 53 percent of employees have been trained in new digital and analytics capabilities since their transformations began—1.7 times greater than the share of employees reported at other organizations.

Make leadership and accountability crystal clear

Who owns the digital and analytics transformation is often a hotly contested question, since the initiatives that organizations pursue will affect how company resources are prioritized and might even change the entire direction of the organization. A look at responses describing leadership roles shows significant differences between the success group and others in how certain roles lead the transformation’s strategy and its execution. Respondents reporting successful transformations are likelier than others to say their leaders—from the board and CEO down to the leaders of specific initiatives—engage materially in the efforts (Exhibit 5). For example, leaders at these organizations are more likely to communicate their transformations’ progress regularly to the markets. There also is greater clarity at successful organizations about who is responsible for which portion of the transformation, whether it’s the ownership of a specific initiative or a particular stage in the process.

Exhibit 5

Clarity about ownership is critical, since responsibility often shifts among different groups as the digital transformation progresses, and the handoffs must be well-defined. The survey results show how successful companies manage ownership over time during their digital and analytics transformations (Exhibit 6). For setting strategy and measuring impact, the largest shares of respondents from successful organizations say responsibility lies with the corporate strategy function, which has visibility across the entire business and broader ecosystem. By contrast, respondents at all other organizations are more likely than the success-group respondents to say individual business units or functions are responsible for these steps. Meanwhile, respondents from successful organizations say business units most often oversee the actual execution of initiatives—that is, building and refining them.

Exhibit 6

Looking ahead

While most respondents say their organizations have not fully sustained the improvements made during transformations, lessons can be learned from the approaches of the organizations that did succeed. The results from those efforts point to moves companies can make to keep their transformations on a path toward success:

  • Raise the bar on leadership alignment and commitment. The broader scope of successful transformations further underscores the importance of having buy-in and alignment across the full organization to keep efforts coordinated and prioritized. Lack of leadership alignment around objectives often leads to many subscale and misaligned initiatives. One way to encourage commitment to a transformation’s initiatives is to show leaders, using pilots and proof-of-concept exercises, that the strategy will work, followed by investment in a single cross-cutting initiative. Building these proof points can galvanize support for the change effort. The same is true of increasing leaders’ digital fluency. These steps help make leaders comfortable with dedicating operating and capital expenditures at an enterprise level, which shows executive commitment and reduces the risk of wasting resources on incomplete initiatives.
  • Build in flexibility with clearly defined handoffs. Not only are successful transformations more likely than others to span large parts of the organization, but the ownership of each transformation will evolve over time as it moves from ideation through execution. The results suggest that there must be a clear plan for how these shifts in accountability will occur. Handoffs and overlap are notorious friction points that are critical to manage and define. Leaders should gather the pertinent groups across the business and provide a clear plan for each transition, to avoid duplication, misalignment, and dropped balls.
  • Enforce survival of the fittest among digital initiatives. Like ownership, funding for initiatives requires clarity: there should be clear criteria for reallocation of resources, whether operating or capital expenditures, based on performance. All digital initiatives should be expected to meet their targets to continue to receive funding. When initiatives fail to do so, organizations should defund them without delay to free up capital for new ones and quickly move on to the next approach. Seeking out M&A and partnership opportunities to quickly build out missing capabilities for new initiatives has been shown to be an important differentiator for success,6  and this seems likely to continue to hold true as the pace of digital transformations continues to increase.

About the author(s)

The survey content and analysis were developed by Jonathan Deakin, a partner in McKinsey’s London office; Laura LaBerge, a senior expert in the Stamford office; and Barbara O’Beirne, an associate partner in the Dublin office.

They wish to thank Jacques Bughin, Tanguy Catlin, Oisin O’Sullivan, and Soyoko Umeno for their contributions to this work.

Link

Three keys to faster, better decisions

Posted in Aktuellt, Board work / Styrelsearbete, Executive Coaching, Leadership / Ledarskap on May 3rd, 2019 by admin

Decision makers fed up with slow or subpar results take heart. Three practices can help improve decision making and convince skeptical business leaders that there is life after death by committee.

Two years ago, we wrote about how it was simultaneously the best and worst of times for decision makers in senior management. Best because of more data, better analytics, and clearer understanding of how to mitigate the cognitive biases that often undermine corporate decision processes. Worst because organizational dynamics and digital decision-making dysfunctions were causing growing levels of frustration among senior leaders we knew.

Since then, we’ve conducted research to more clearly understand this balance, and the results have been disquieting. A survey we conducted recently with more than 1,200 managers across a range of global companies gave strong signs of growing levels of frustration with broken decision-making processes, with the slow pace of decision-making deliberations, and with the uneven quality of decision-making outcomes. Fewer than half of the survey respondents say that decisions are timely, and 61 percent say that at least half the time spent making them is ineffective. The opportunity costs of this are staggering: about 530,000 days of managers’ time potentially squandered each year for a typical Fortune 500 company, equivalent to some $250 million in wages annually.1

Managers at a typical Fortune 500 company may waste more than 500,000 days a year on ineffective decision making.

The reasons for the dissatisfaction are manifold: decision makers complain about everything from lack of real debate, convoluted processes, and an overreliance on consensus and death by committee, to unclear organizational roles, information overload (and the resulting inability to separate signal from noise), and company cultures that lack empowerment. One healthcare executive told us he sat through the same 90-minute proposal three times on separate committees because no one knew who was authorized to approve the decision. A pharma company hesitated so long over whether to pounce on an acquisition target that it lost the deal to a competitor. And a chemicals company CEO we know found himself devoting precious time to making hiring decisions four levels down the organization.

In our previous article, we proposed solutions that centered around categorizing decision types and organizing quite different processes against them. Our latest research confirms the importance of this approach, and it also highlights for each major decision category a noteworthy practice—sometimes stimulating debate, for example, while in other cases empowering employees—that can yield outsize improvements in effectiveness. When improvements in these areas are coupled with an organizational commitment to implement decisions—embracing not undercutting them—companies can achieve lasting improvements in both decision quality and speed. Indeed, faster decisions are often a happy outcome of these efforts. Our survey showed a strong correlation between quick decisions and good ones, suggesting that a commonly held assumption among executives—namely, “We can have good decisions or fast ones, but not both”—is flawed.

Three fixes that make a difference

Avoiding life on the bubble

Of the four decision categories we identified two years ago, three matter most to senior leaders. Big-bet decisions (such as a possible acquisition) are infrequent but high risk and have the potential to shape the future of the company; these are generally the domain of the top team and the board. Cross-cutting decisions (such as a pricing decision), which can be high risk, happen frequently and are made in cross-functional forums as part of a collaborative, end-to-end process. Delegated decisions are frequent but low risk and are effectively handled by an individual or working team, with limited input from others. (The fourth category, ad hoc decisions, which are infrequent and low stakes, is not addressed in this article.) Clearly, it is important that these types of decisions happen at the appropriate level of the company (CEOs, for example, shouldn’t make decisions that are best delegated). And yet, just as clearly, many decisions rise up much higher in the company than they should (see sidebar, “Avoiding life on the bubble”).

Even those businesses that do make decisions at the right level, however, complain about slow and bad outcomes. The evidence of our survey—and our experience watching executives grapple with this—suggests that while the best practices for making better decisions are interrelated, there’s nonetheless one standout practice that makes the biggest difference for each type of decision.

Big bets—facilitate productive debate

Big-bet decisions can be future-shapers for a company, the most important decisions leaders make. And they often receive much less scrutiny than they should.

The dynamic inside many decision meetings doesn’t help. It’s as if there is an unspoken understanding that the meeting should proceed like a short, three-act play. In the first act, the proposal is delivered in a snappy PowerPoint presentation that summarizes the relevant information; in the second, a few tough yet perfunctory questions are asked of the presenter and answered well; in the final act, resolution arrives in the form of an undramatic “yes” that may seem preordained. Little substantive discussion takes place.

In a global agricultural company, for example, the members of the executive committee tended to speak up only if their particular area of the business was being discussed. The tacit assumption was that people wouldn’t intrude on colleagues’ area of responsibility. Consequently, when the top team moved to decide on a proposed new initiative in Europe, the leaders from the US business stayed silent, even though they had years of hard-won experience in marketing and cross-selling similar agricultural products to those new ones under discussion. Nonetheless, the decision was made, the products launched—and sales lagged expectations. Later, the European sales force was frustrated to learn their US counterparts had relevant experience that would have helped.

Whether the cause of such dynamics is siloed thinking or a consensus-driven culture (of which, more later), the effect on decision making is decidedly negative. Bet-the-company decisions require productive interactions and healthy debate that balance inquiry and advocacy. In fact, the presence of high-quality interactions and debate was the factor most predictive of whether a respondent in our survey also said their company made good, fast big-bet decisions?

Leaders can encourage debate by helping overcome the “conspiracy of approval” approach to group discussion. Simple behavior changes can help. For example, consider starting the decision meeting by reminding participants of the overall organizational goals the meeting supports, in order to reframe the subsequent discussions. Then assign someone to argue the case for, and against, a potential decision or the various options under consideration. Similarly, ask the leaders of business units, regions, or functions to examine the decision from outside their own point of view. A rotating devil’s advocate role can bolster critical thinking, while premortem exercises (in which you start by assuming the initiative in question turned out to be a failure, and then work back for likely explanations) can pressure test for weak spots in an argument or plan.

The objective should be to explore assumptions and alternatives beyond what’s been presented and actively seek information that might disconfirm the group’s initial hypotheses. Creating a safe space for this is vital; at first it can be helpful for the most senior participants to ask questions instead of expressing opinions and to actively encourage dissenting views. Productive debate is essentially a form of conflict—a healthy form—so senior executives will need to devote time to building trust and giving permission to dissent, irrespective of the organizational hierarchy in the room.

A final note of caution: minimizing the number of debate participants to speed up decision making could harm decision quality. As many studies show, greater diversity brings greater collective wisdom and expertise, along with better performance. This is also true in decision making. To ensure a faster process, companies should manage the expectations of debate participants by limiting their voting rights and sticking to other agreed-upon processes, as we explore next.

Cross-cutting decisions—understand the power of process

An executive we know joked during a meeting that “a committee is born every day in this organization.” Just then, another executive nearby looked up from his computer to announce he had just been invited to join a new committee. The comedic timing of the line was perfect, but it wasn’t a joke.

Or perhaps the joke is on the rest of us? We often find companies maintaining a dozen or more senior-executive-level committees and related support committees, all of which recycle the same members in different configurations. The impetus for this is understandable—cross-cutting decisions, in particular, are the culmination of smaller decisions taking place elsewhere in the company. And cross-cutting decisions were the ones that executives in our survey had the most exposure to, regardless of their seniority.

Yet when it comes to cross-cutting decisions (involving, for example, pricing, sales, and operations planning processes or new-product launches), only 34 percent of respondents said that their organization made decisions that were both good and timely.

There are many reasons cross-cutting decisions go crosswise. Leaders may not have visibility on who is—or should be—involved; silos make it fiendishly hard to see how smaller decisions aggregate into bigger ones; there may be no process at all, or one that’s poorly understood.

Solving for cross-cutting decisions, therefore, starts with commitment to a well-coordinated process that helps clarify objectives, measures, targets, and roles. In practical terms, this might mean drawing a bright line between the portion of a meeting dedicated to decisions from the parts of a meeting meant to inform or discuss. Any recurring meetings (particularly topic-focused ones) where the nature of the decision isn’t clear are ripe for a rethink—and quite possibly for elimination.

Good meeting discipline is also a must. For example, a mining company realized that its poor decision making was related to the lack of rigor with which executives ran important meetings. As a result, the top team developed a “meeting manifesto” that spelled out required behaviors, starting with punctuality. The new rules also required leaders to clarify their decision rights in advance, and to be more deliberate about managing the number of participants so that meetings wouldn’t become bloated, on the one hand, or lack diverse views, on the other.

The manifesto was printed on laminated posters that were put in all meeting rooms, and when the CEO was seen personally reinforcing the new rules, the news spread quickly that there was a new game afoot. As the new practices took hold, the benefits became apparent. In pulse-check surveys conducted over the course of the following year, the company’s measures of meeting effectiveness and efficiency went up by almost 50 percent.

A social-network analysis, meanwhile, allowed a global consumer company to identify time wasting around decision making on a heroic scale—as many as 45 percent of interactions were found to be potentially inefficient, and 23 percent of the individuals involved in an average interaction added no value. In response, the company broke down complex processes into key decisions, clarified roles and responsibilities for each one, defined inputs and outputs for each process, and made one person accountable for each outcome. After conducting pilots in several countries, executives used two-day workshops to roll out the process redesign. The resulting benefits included a significant financial boost (as employees used the freed-up time in higher-value ways), as well as an arguably more important boost in employees’ morale and sense of work–life balance, which in turn has helped the company attract and retain talent.

Delegated decisions—make empowerment real

Delegated decisions are generally far narrower in scope than big-bet decisions or cross-cutting ones. They are frequent and relatively routine elements of day-to-day management. But given the multiplier effect, there is a lot of value at stake here, and when the organization’s approach is flawed it’s costly.

In our experience, ensuring that responsibility for delegated decisions is firmly in the hands of those closest to the work typically delivers faster, better, and more efficiently executed outcomes, while also enhancing engagement and accountability.

Our research supports this view. Survey respondents who report that employees at their company are empowered to make decisions and receive sufficient coaching from leaders were 3.2 times more likely than other respondents to also say their company’s delegated decisions were both high quality and speedy.

A vital aspect of empowerment, we find, involves creating an environment where employees can “fail safely.” For example, a European financial-services company we know started a series of monthly, after-work gatherings where leaders could meet over drinks to discuss failure stories and the lessons they’d learned from them. The meetings were purposely kept informal, but top management nonetheless established ground rules to ensure that the stories would be meaningful (not trivial) and that employees telling the stories would be protected. The meetings started small but became popular quickly. Today, a typical session includes 40 to 50 of the company’s top 150 leaders. The climate of trust and openness the sessions encourage has translated into better ideas, including practical lessons that have helped the company speed up its release of new products.

As this example suggests, empowerment means not only giving employees a strong sense of ownership and accountability but also fostering a bias for action, especially in situations where time is of the essence. That’s easier said than done if there’s no penalty for avoiding a decision or sanction for escalating issues unnecessarily.

Executives who get delegated decisions right are clear about the boundaries of delegation (including what’s off-limits and how and where to escalate what’s beyond an individual’s competence), ensure that those they entrust with decision-making authority have the relevant skills and knowledge to act (and if not, provide them with the opportunity to acquire those capabilities), and explicitly make people accountable for their areas of decision-making responsibility (including spelling out the consequences for those who fail to respond to the challenge). This often means senior leaders engaging in conversations and dialogue, encouraging those newly empowered to seek help, and in the early days subtly and invisibly monitoring the performance of those participating in “delegated” forums so as not to appear to be taking over. Leaders might want to start mentoring their reports with a small “box” of accountability, slowly expanding it as more junior executives grow in confidence.

For leaders looking to become better delegators, it’s not a question of choosing between a style that is “hands-on” or “hands-off,” or between one that is “controlling” or “empowering.” There’s a balance to be struck. Root out micromanagers who are both hands-on and controlling, as well as “helicopter autocrats” who are hands-off and controlling, occasionally swooping in, barking orders, and disappearing again. But the laissez-faire executive—generally too hands-off, delegating but leaving those with the responsibility too much to their own devices (sometimes with disastrous results)—is also a danger. The ideal in our experience are hands-on and delegating leaders who coach, challenge, and inspire their reports, are there to help those who need help, and stay well clear of actually making the decision.

After the decision: Seek commitment, not unanimous agreement

In his April 2017 letter to Amazon shareholders, CEO Jeff Bezos introduced the concept of “disagree and commit” with respect to decision making. It’s good advice that often goes overlooked. Too frequently, executives charged with making decisions at the three levels discussed earlier leave the meeting assuming that once there’s been a show of hands—or nods of agreement—the job is done. Far from it.

Indeed, any agreement voiced in the absence of a strong sense of collective responsibility can prove ephemeral. This was true at a US-based global financial-services company, where a business-unit leader initially agreed during a committee meeting not to change the fee structure for a key product but later reversed course. The temptation was too great: the fee changes helped the leader’s own business unit—albeit ultimately at the expense of other units whose revenues were cannibalized.

One of the most important characteristics of a good decision is that it’s made in such a way that it will be fully and effectively implemented. That requires commitment, something that is not always straightforward in companies where consensus is a strong part of the culture (and key players acquiesce reluctantly) or after big-bet situations where the vigorous debate we recommended earlier has taken place. At a mining company, real commitment proved difficult because the culture valued “firefighting” behavior. In staff meetings, company executives would quickly agree to take on new tasks because it made them look good in front of the CEO, but they weren’t truly committed to following through. It was only when the leadership team changed this dynamic by focusing on follow-up, execution risks, and bandwidth constraints that execution improved.

While it’s important to devote enough resources to help propel follow-through, and it’s also important to assign accountability for getting things done to an individual or at most a small group of individuals, the biggest challenge is to foster an “all-in” culture that encourages everyone to pull together. That often means involving as many people as possible in the outcome—something that, paradoxically, in the end will enable the decision to be implemented more speedily.

While it’s important to assign accountability for getting things done to an individual, the biggest challenge is to foster an “all-in” culture that encourages everyone to pull together.

Follow the value

There are many keys to better decision making, but in our experience focusing on the three practices discussed here—and on the commitment to implement decisions once taken—can reap early and substantial dividends. This presupposes, of course, that the decisions leaders make at all levels of the organization reflect the company’s strategy and its value-creation agenda. That may seem obvious, but it bears repeating because all too often it simply doesn’t happen. Take the manufacturing company whose operations managers, faced with calls from the sales team to raise production in response to anticipated customer demand, had to consider whether they should spend unbudgeted money on overtime and hiring extra staff. With their bonuses linked exclusively to cost targets, they faced a dilemma. If they took the decision to increase costs and new orders failed to materialize, their remuneration would suffer; if the sales team managed to win new business, the sales representatives would get the kudos, but the operations team would receive no additional credit and no additional reward. Not surprisingly, the operations managers, in their weekly planning meeting, opted not to take the risk, rejected a proposal to set up a new production line, and thereby hindered (albeit inadvertently) the group’s higher growth ambitions. This poor-quality—and in our view avoidable—outcome was the direct result of siloed thinking and a set of narrow incentives in conflict with the group’s broader strategy and value-creation agenda. The underlying management challenge is part of a dynamic we see repeated again and again: when senior executives fail to explore—and then explain—the context and underlying strategic intentions associated with various targets and directives they set, they make unintended consequences inevitable. Worse, the lack of clarity makes it very difficult for colleagues further down in the organization to use their judgment to see past the silos and remedy the situation.

Designing an organization to deliver its strategic objectives—setting a clear mission, aligning incentives—is a big topic and outside the scope of this article. But if different functions and teams do not feel a connection to the bigger picture, the likelihood of executives making good decisions, whether or not they adopt the ideas discussed earlier, is significantly diminished.

Source: McKinsey.com, April 2019
Link

About the authors: Aaron De Smet is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Houston office, Gregor Jost is a partner in the Vienna office, and Leigh Weiss is a senior expert in the Boston office.

The authors wish to thank Iskandar Aminov, Alison Boyd, Elizabeth Foote, and Kanika Kakkar for their contributions to this article.

Shifting the board’s focus from compliance to engagement

Posted in Board work / Styrelsearbete on March 4th, 2019 by admin

Board members today must grapple with increasingly complex matters of strategy and risk. In response, many companies are rethinking board meetings to enhance alignment, energize the board and elevate its performance.

In a conversation with a board chair and a CEO following a successful board search, we asked if their recently completed board review had surfaced any issues regarding the chair of the governance committee. The board chair was a bit surprised and asked what prompted our question. We then discussed what “good” looked like for a governance committee chair, and compared that benchmark of behaviors with the experience and inclinations of the incumbent. It quickly became evident that the board review they had undergone had relied too heavily on a simple questionnaire, which, to make matters worse, was analyzed in a cursory way by an outside firm. This “check the box” compliance-oriented exercise rarely leads to a meaningful improvement of board effectiveness and engagement.

Given that today’s investors scrutinize a company’s board of directors as closely as its financial results, boards increasingly are seeking more thorough board reviews to help ensure that their team interactions and processes are aligned. A proper board effectiveness review goes beyond the standard questionnaire and is centered on individual behaviors and team dynamics and interactions.

Each board has its own set of issues, depending on the history, structure and personalities involved. Even so, in the more than 550 board effectiveness reviews that Egon Zehnder has conducted, we have seen a common challenge emerge: The ongoing struggle to stay focused on strategy and not get bogged down with administrative and procedural matters. And it is a struggle: As more and more topics, from digitalization to diversity, are added to the board’s agenda, it becomes increasingly difficult even to track the various issues that directors must monitor, let alone for directors to step back and consider those issues in a larger context. The reality is that the board’s processes and information flow can unwittingly be at cross purposes with a strategic perspective. These are the sorts of derailers that a thorough board effectiveness review can uncover, while also putting in place mechanisms for ongoing, rather than periodic, feedback.

The board meeting today: Documentation and the agenda

Consider how the typical two-day board meeting unfolds. Approximately two weeks before the meeting, members receive the agenda and supporting materials to review. In the hard-copy era, the thickness of the board book was limited by the size of the FedEx box it was shipped in. Today, however, most companies use digital board books accessed through tablets. These applications are rightly heralded for their convenience, but they also remove any physical constraints on the amount of material distributed to the board. As a result, we have found that board members are inundated with reports, presentation decks and miscellaneous analyses on everything from investor relations to cybersecurity to safety compliance. Board members are sometimes surprised to learn that they contribute to this problem by their own requests for additional information. This is why some governance experts have sounded an alarm on a “boardroom information crisis”; it becomes harder and harder for even the most diligent board members to absorb, digest and reflect on all the material they are given. Managing the deluge of data crowds out the time needed to ask important questions. The board book material, instead of supporting the agenda, can detract from the agenda items truly needing attention.

We see this when we examine how typical board meetings unfold. The first day is frequently devoted to committee meetings. The board then gathers for dinner and then convenes the next day to work through the board agenda. At some point in the afternoon the meeting adjourns and everyone departs.

On its face, there is nothing objectionable about this structure, but a better approach is to recognize that significant amounts of committee work today can be conducted by teleconference, allowing the committee to work through many issues before the board meeting. This is not to say that the entire committee agenda can be dealt by phone, but that there are many ways of being more effective in filtering what requires the attention of the full board.

The board meeting reconsidered: Deep dives and discussion

What would a board meeting look like if the meeting were designed to maximize meaningful strategic discussion? Two to three weeks before the board meeting, a much thinner board book would be distributed. It would start with a one- or two-page letter from the CEO and board chair. The CEO would summarize the state of the company and frame key issues, and the chairman would outline the agenda for the upcoming board meeting, The agenda would include more time for discussion and debate, and be centered on a select number of strategic issues, sizable operating issues and major risk items. The supporting material in the board book would provide background on those topics. Of course, other administrative matters will still need to be discussed, but the majority of time would center on priorities that could unlock value.

For example, instead of reviewing in detail an investor relations presentation that has already been vetted and approved by the CFO and CEO, the board might be asked to consider the key issues and concerns that shareholders and analysts have most recently surfaced and flagged. Instead of the company’s latest 100-page sustainability report, the quarterly board book might include a summary of metrics and performance indicators while reserving a full-board “deep dive” discussion for once a year.

Committee chairs would conduct many agenda items by conference call. When the directors arrive on the first day, instead of breaking into committees, the entire board would meet for a detailed briefing by the CEO on the most pressing matters. A working dinner would follow, during which directors would discuss specific topics and could begin to identify points of agreement and divergence. The next day, the board would meet for a frank discussion to stretch and challenge assumptions and to work toward decisions. While some of the board meeting will have to be devoted to procedural matters, the board’s major focus is kept on a higher, strategic plane. The board chair of one of the world’s largest public companies recently shared with us his realization that when he was CEO and chairman of a prior company, he didn’t devote sufficient time to the board agenda. Only later did he realize that getting the agenda right has a sizable impact on board performance.

In an earlier day, it was sufficient for boards to monitor management’s performance, approve major decisions and ensure conformity with a much smaller set of regulations. But in today’s much more complex environment, it is not enough for boards to be stewards; they, like management, need to create value. The board does this when it focuses on its role as advisor and resource to management, rather than its mere overseer. Rethinking board meetings, considering team dynamics and providing open feedback to board members can align the board with this goal. That, in turn, will energize the board and elevate its performance.




Source: Egon Zehnder, June 2017
Link

Ge styrelserna mer betalt

Posted in Aktuellt, Board work / Styrelsearbete on January 14th, 2019 by admin

Styrelseledamöterna i börsbolag behöver få högre ersättningar och generellt bättre villkor, anser börsens fjärde största svenska ägare AMF.

”Vi är i behov av bra personer som ställer upp och bidrar med sin kompetens i styrelser. Därför måste vi göra det mer attraktivt”, säger Anders Oscarsson, aktiechef på AMF.

Valberedningsarbetet inför vårens stämmosäsong är inne i ett avgörande skede. I en intervju med Di slår nu AMF-chefen Anders Oscarsson, som sitter i åtta tunga valberedningar, fast att trenden är att det blir svårare att hitta kompetenta styrelseledamöter.

För att bredda rekryteringsbasen måste villkoren för dem som väljer att ingå i börsbolagsstyrelser förbättras, enligt AMF-chefen som i mer än ett decennium har suttit i storbolags valberedningar.

”Mitt mål är att det ska bli attraktivare att sitta i styrelser. Då kan flera se styrelsearbete som en alternativ karriär eller vara beredda att lägga sin fritid på ett styrelseuppdrag för att det är roligt och ersättningen är bra”, säger Anders Oscarsson.

Han pekar på tre orsaker till att det har blivit svårare att rekrytera styrelseledamöter.

Den första är att mer omfattande regelverk och att ett större personligt ansvar har gjort det mindre lockande att sitta i styrelser.

Den andra är att högre krav i styrelsearbetet har medfört att styrelseproffs har färre uppdrag än tidigare.

”Den tredje orsaken är att valberedningarna har blivit mer professionaliserade på så sätt att en person som inte levererar får lämna styrelsen. För några år sedan gav valberedningen en styrelsemedlem som inte levererade chansen några år till”, säger Anders Oscarsson.

Varför har valberedningarna blivit hårdare?

”En styrelse blir allt viktigare som kravställare mot vd och verkställande ledning. Därför blir det också mer betydelsefullt för oss som förvaltar andra människors pengar att hitta bra styrelseledamöter som har rätt kompetenser, tid, kraft och engagemang”, säger Anders Oscarsson.

Han slår fast att en större höjning, jämfört med tidigare år, av arvodena är en viktig del för att göra det mer attraktivt att sitta styrelser. Men han poängterar att även andra förändringar bör genomföras.

Ett generellt problem, enligt AMF, är att villkoren för styrelseledamöter är utformade på ett sätt så de snarast passar ekonomiskt oberoende före detta direktörer och inte personer i karriären som försörjer sig på styrelseuppdrag.

”När man sätter sig i en styrelse i dag får man oftast arvodet ett år i efterskott. Flera bolag bör överväga att göra utbetalningar månadsvis eller kvartalsvis. Personer som inte är ekonomiskt oberoende utan försörjer sig på styrelsearbete behöver löpande ersättningar”, säger Anders Oscarsson.

Han konstaterar att styrelsearvodena inte heller är belåningsbara och framför allt inte pensionsgrundande.

”Det sätter dem som hoppar av sin operationella karriär för att bli styrelseproffs i en dålig position. Redan för tio år sedan när vi skulle öka kvinnoandelen i styrelserna var det flera kvinnor som vi rekryterade som slutade sina operationella jobb och satte sig i fem sex styrelser. Jag tycker man kan säga att många av dem gick i en kvinnofälla”, säger Anders Oscarsson.

”För det första för att man lämnade det operativa och inte var lika intressant tio år senare när man börjat tappa sina affärskontakter. För det andra har man inte tjänat in pension under den här perioden och för det tredje har man inte fått tillräckligt höga arvorden för i många fall mycket välutfört arbete.”

Hur mycket borde styrelsearvodena generellt höjas på vårens stämmor?

”De senaste tre fyra åren har arvodet till styrelseledamöter höjts med cirka 2 procent per år. Jag tror att höjningarna behöver bli högre i år i många fall. Vi talar snarare om 5 än 2 procent.”

”Dessutom ser jag att ersättningen till Revisionsutskottet kommer att stiga då arbetet för denna roll har blivit betydligt mer omfattande.”

AMF:s bedömning är att den procentuella höjningen av styrelsearvoden blir allra högst i mindre bolag.

”I mindre bolag som har haft styrelseledamöter som har fakturerat sitt arvode, vilket inte längre är möjligt sedan i våras, kommer nog ökningen i procent bli hög.”

Är det verkligen bra för det långsiktiga värdeskapandet för era pensionssparare att arvodena höjs mer än de senaste åren?

”Ja. Vi förvaltar andra människors pengar och vi är i behov av att det finns tillgång på bra personer som ställer upp och bidrar med sin kompetens i styrelser. Därför måste vi göra det attraktivt att sitta i styrelser, vilket också innebär att vi måste höja arvoden.”

”Styrelsen är nästan bolagets billigaste del. Styrelserna tillför mycket specialistkunskap och kompetens till bolagen för en kostnad som inte ger många konsulttimmar från de stora amerikanska konsultfirmorna”, säger Anders Oscarsson.

Källa: DI.se, 13 januari 2019
Länk

Utmaningen handlar om nya krav från kunderna

Posted in Aktuellt, Board work / Styrelsearbete, Customer care / Kundvård, Fact Based Management on January 3rd, 2019 by admin

Tiffani Bova är i Sverige för att lansera sin senaste bok ”Growth IQ: The Ten Paths To Growth”.
Utmaningen med den nya tekniken handlar inte alls om teknik – utan om att omdefiniera sin affär och hålla jämna steg med kundernas förväntningar.
Det menar tidigare Gartneranalytikern och molnstrategen Tiffani Bova.

Digitaliseringen rymmer så många möjligheter att det är svårt att veta var man ska börja. För Tiffani Bova – Innovation Evangelist på världens största mjukvaruföretag inom kundvård – är svaret enkelt:

– Utmaningen i dag handlar inte alls om teknik, utan om kundernas förväntningar och krav. De har förändrats mycket snabbare än de flesta företag inser och det är människorna som är den disruptiva, eller omstörtande, kraften i den tekniktransformation som vi nu genomgår, säger hon.

Ordet disruption finns egentligen inte på svenska, men används desto flitigare för att beteckna den svindlande omstöpning av hela branscher som vi ser. Kreativ förstörelse, menar Tiffani Bova, som jobbade som analytiker vid Gartner Group i tio år innan hon kom till Salesforce. Nu är hon i Sverige för att lansera sin senaste bok ”Growth IQ: The Ten Paths To Growth”.

Nya krav från kunder
AI, molntjänster, Internet of Things… det är lätt att tro att utmaningen handlar om själva tekniken. Det gör den inte, menar Tiffani Bova, utan om att kunderna nu blivit så bekväma med digital teknik att de kräver helt nya saker av företagen.

– Medarbetare och processer behöver förändras, annars kommer vi aldrig att utnyttja potentialen som den nya tekniken rymmer fullt ut. Många är skeptiska inför vad den nya tekniken kan göra, vilket är synd. Tekniken låter oss utföra allt det vi vill att den ska göra, från AI och maskininlärning till säkrare prognoser… Men förändring är bland det tuffaste för många, säger Tiffani Bova.”

Ny digital teknik används ofta till att automatisera och digitalisera befintliga processer. Det ser Tiffani Bova som slöseri med potential, om det är så att processerna i sig borde bytas ut för att spegla en ny tids affärsmodell. Men var ska ett företag börja?

– Reimagine, återskapa eller snarare nyskapa din affär och det sätt på vilket du tillför värde till människor. Skrota alla silos och se till att alla inom företaget har tillgång till all data om kunden. Låt försäljning flytta ihop med kundservice som ett sätt fördjupa kundrelationen och sälja mer.

Hur går det till att nyskapa?

– Det beror helt på kontexten – kunderna och marknaden. Men benchmarka dig inte mot konkurrenterna. Prata istället med kunderna och fråga vad de vill ha.

Men, vet kunderna verkligen vad den nya tekniken kan möjliggöra?

– Nej, men de vet hur de vill att en optimal köpupplevelse ska se ut – och vad de inte vill ha. Sen är det upp till dig att använda tekniken för att leverera den. Och skräddarsy en köpresa som verkligen går hem hos dem. Kanske ser den helt annorlunda ut än innan digitaliseringen. Men om du håller fast vid en leverans som bottnar i att ni sitter fast i system och tänkande som går decennier tillbaka i tiden, då kommer du inte att lyckas.”

Behov av fler säljare
Många hävdar att AI hotar jobben. Rätt använd blir effekten den rakt motsatta, menar Tiffani Bova.

– Vad gäller säljare märker vi på Salesforce hur användningen av AI faktiskt leder till ett ökat behov av fler säljare, inte färre. Ju smartare ett företag blir, desto mer potential finns det att faktiskt sälja mer.

För att styrka vikten av kundupplevelsen citerar hon fakta från Salesforces studier:

”80 procent av dagens kunder är beredda att byta leverantör och två av tre är beredda att betala mer för en bättre köpupplevelse. 51 procent av gångerna möts inte kundernas krav vid köpet.”

Hur skiljer sig kundens upplevelse av ett varumärke, eller ett företag, i dag jämfört med tiden innan digitaliseringen?

– Det handlar om två helt olika saker och har inget med varandra att göra. Förväntningarna är så mycket högre i dag. Även hos en äldre generation, som i dag är helt med på smartphonetåget.

Ny teknik och nytt kundtänk kräver ibland nya kompetenser. Hur ska företagen se till att medarbetarna har rätt kunskap?

– Lista de kompetenser som ni behöver i framtiden och låt medarbetarna veta vilka de är. Identifiera människors styrkor och vad de vill jobba med i framtiden. Dina kunder kommer att vara ungefär lika nöjda som dina medarbetare är. Ditt företag kommer inte att vara mer innovativt än vad dina medarbetare är.

Fortbildning – en del av kulturen
Det är ingen slump, menar Tiffani Bova, att Salesforce utsetts till ett av världens mest uppskattade företag att jobba för och samtidigt en av de mest innovativa.

– Vi pushar för ständig fortbildning, det är en del av kulturen.

Till sist, varför är CRM mer aktuellt än någonsin?

– Därför att kunderna kräver så mycket mer i dag, vilket ställer större krav på kundrelationshantering.

Detta är Salesforce
Salesforce är världsledande inom customer relationship management, CRM, tack vare en plattform som utnyttjar den senaste teknologin inom molntjänster, sociala medier, mobil kommunikation, sakernas internet (IoT) och artificiell intelligens (AI). Med den kan företag av alla storlekar i alla branscher kommunicera med sina kunder på ett helt nytt sätt.

Salesforce rankas som nummer ett på Forbes lista över världens bästa arbetsgivare.

Tidningen har också åtta år i rad utsett Salesforce till ett av världens mest innovativa företag.

Källa: Di.se, 3 januari 2019
Länk