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

Planning and Reorganising Masquerading as Work

One of the recurring themes in my writing is that there is not enough planning before action is taken. Maybe what I should have said is that there is not enough effective planning. The distinction is important as far too often too much planning and reorganisation gets in the way of real work. My experience is that there are two main sources for this wasteful work: perfectionism and deception. Continue reading

Successful Project Management at the Executive Level

The dream: A management team meets to deal with an opportunity or challenge. After some discussion a decision is made. Goals are decided. A project leader is appointed. A short number of weeks later the project leader calls a management meeting to present his deliverables. Management agrees that the deliverables have been met. The project is closed.

The reality (you know where this is going, don’t you?): A management team meets to deal with an opportunity or challenge. After some discussion a decision is made. Goals are decided. A project leader is appointed. Time passes. Nothing happens. The opportunity starts fading, or the challenge gets worse. More management meetings are called. The team leader gives his excuses. Management update the goals. This cycle is iterated until the opportunity disappears or the challenge becomes a crisis. Continue reading