Executing a Corporate Transition

This entry is part 4 of 4 in the series Corporate Transformation

In this fourth article in a series on corporate transformation focused on my experience in the GCC I look at how to execute a corporate transition. In the first article of the series I described how I use a SWOT matrix to define four different corporate states and the relevant strategy for each state. This article focuses on strong firms in stressed markets. Such firms need to transition their product and service offerings to meet the new challenges of the market. This is the simplest form of corporate transformation as the company is starting with a strong management team and the market challenges are known. At this point an organizational diagnostic has been performed and an internal team has been assembled. In terms of strategy, the triage in terms of removing executives is probably unnecessary. What’s left is executing an adaptive strategic plan.

Don’t just give a man a fish

The conventional approach to change management is hiring consultants to map out the current state of the company, the market direction, the future state of the company and to provide the transition plan. Although a solution is provided the client is left to figure out how to execute the change plan on their own. This like giving a man instructions on how to fish. If you’re a fisherman, you know that this doesn’t work.

A relatively more recent approach is to hire the likes of Alvarez & Marsal or AlixPartners who provide an interim management team to lead the change management project. This solves the issue of how the change plan is executed. But the client still hasn’t learned how to fish, they have simply paid someone to fish on their behalf.

My approach of leading a team assembled from the client’s employees allows for not only knowledge transfer but also direct experience and practical skills transfer. This difference in philosophy means that my goal is to build change management capability into the company and allow the company to then effectively manage the change on their own. This is an important difference to simply managing a single change process.

Continue reading

Strategic Planning in Transformations and Turnarounds

This entry is part 3 of 4 in the series Corporate Transformation

This is the third in a series of articles on corporate transformation, focused on my experience in the GCC. In the first article I developed a framework to define the current state of a company: leader, obsolete, stressed, and distressed. Identifying the current state then allows me to select a strategy type to develop: innovate, transform, transition, and turnaround. In the second article I introduced the first phase of strategic planing, which is the organizational diagnostic. This  first phase determines which of the four states the company is currently in. In this third article I describe the main phase of strategic planning that I use.

Organizational triage

The organizational diagnostic will usually result in identifying some quick wins that will have a material impact on the business. When a company calls in external executive management to manage change there are usually two main reasons:

  1. The existing executive management is competent in its job and just needs support planning and executing change while they continue to run the business; and/or
  2. The existing management cannot or will not effect change.

Which scenario is present will come out during the organizational diagnostic phase. If the second scenario is present it is critical to resolve the issue immediately. This leads to two immediate tactical changes necessary for the development and execution of a transformation / turnaround strategy.

Continue reading

Corporate Transformation: Organizational Diagnostic

This entry is part 2 of 4 in the series Corporate Transformation

This is the second in a series of articles on corporate transformation, focused on my experience in the GCC. In the first article I developed a framework to define the current state of a company: leader, obsolete, stressed, and distressed. Identifying the current state then allows me to select a strategy type to develop: innovate, transform, transition, and turnaround.

With this framework I have a foundation on which to develop an effective strategy. The first step is to determine which of the four states the company is currently in. The conventional term for this is  organizational diagnostic. Organizational diagnostics are a well studied subject in academia, each major consultancy has its own methods for performing a diagnostic, and great companies will also have  their own methodology. In reviewing these different methodologies I was unable to find one that was effective for the companies that I was involved with, be it as an executive, board director, investor or transformation manager. So I had to develop my own, sometimes using relevant parts of the methodologies developed by others.

Failure of Conventional Organizational Diagnostics

My starting point was understanding the challenges in applying conventional diagnostic tools to companies in the GCC. The common theme is that the GCC has seen several centuries worth of evolution in their economies happening within about a 50 year period. I will touch briefly on a few of these challenges.

Continue reading

Turnaround, Transition, Transform or Innovate?

This entry is part 1 of 4 in the series Corporate Transformation

Corporate strategy begins with an understanding of the current state of the firm. The state of a company can be defined in multiple ways and my corporate framework uses leader, obsolete, stressed, and distressed. Corporate leadership is generally well understood – the company  and the economy are doing well and the executive team’s goal is to remain ahead of the competition and in tune with its clients’ needs by innovating. However, the phrases corporate turnaround, corporate transition and corporate transformation are often used, especially in challenging economic times, but there is no clear agreement amongst business executives and board directors as to what these terms mean. This confusion in terms of defining the state of the company usually leads to catastrophic strategic failure since any strategy that does not understand the current state of the company cannot address the issues faced by the company.

Disagreement about these issues is partly due to a lack of a general consensus on definitions but also partly due to the negative connotations they can evoke. In the minds of business executives the phrase “turnaround” immediately signals a distressed company which is considered an unacceptable message. At this point minds close. Executives avoid discussing what distressed might mean in this context and why it should be considered unacceptable. At one end of the scale are companies with large negative cash flows, no cash, no current assets, high short term debt, and facing legal action. Such a company is easily understood to be distressed. But at the other end of the scale is a company with multiple product/service lines that have high barriers to entry, each generating strong free cash flow. This is a successful company. The question is where on this scale does a company switch from distressed to a leader?

This question can be decomposed into three questions: 1. What is the corporate health scale that we are using? 2. What are the possible corporate states a company can be in? and 3. Where on the scale is each corporate state positioned?

Continue reading

Effectiveness beats Efficiency in Strategy

Efficiency slowed profit deterioration

Effectiveness will replace efficiency as the main strategic goal of UAE companies in 2018. At least, it will for the successful companies. 2017 was the year of efficiency, as companies learnt to do what they used to do with less. Less money, less time, fewer people. Efficiency cut costs and slowed down profit deterioration. As important a step as that was, it was a stepping stone to the important strategic goal of effectiveness. In simple terms, efficiency is getting things done whereas effectiveness is getting the right things done. After all, there’s no point finding cheaper ways to reach a goal if it is the wrong goal.

Effectiveness leads to profit growth

Effectiveness looks at where new revenue, and profit, are going to come from as, opposed to efficiency’s focus on costs. There is nothing wrong with working to achieve efficiency first, as it gives the company time to understand the new external environment. But there comes a time when cutting costs no longer works. In the end, sustainable profit growth is driven by increases in revenue, not decreases in cost. So how do companies become effective? What does it even mean? It means evolving, even transforming if necessary, so as to adapt to the new realities of the economy.

Executives might ask what can they do to generate revenues in a challenging economy? A simple example, just to make a point, is this: take advantage of all the efficiency initiatives. Cost cutting means downsizing, so moving companies will thrive. But what else can happen? Property management companies might provide a discounted rent during the time a client is unemployed. Continue reading

Cash Conversion Cycle Red Flags

In my work helping companies transform themselves to take better advantage of economic opportunities and to manage risks more efficiently, working capital risks are frequently overlooked even though they are at the front line of risks faced by companies of all sizes.

The cash conversion cycle, an important liquidity measure that usually forms the core of a company’s working capital, is of particular importance . The cash conversion cycle is a measure of how long it takes for a dollar that is spent on the development of a product or service (which is subsequently sold on to a client) to be converted back into cash in the form of revenues. Mismanaged it can destroy a company’s finances. Continue reading