Business Weekly (Zimbabwe)

How to make big, old firms act fast

-

LIKE other CEOs, Cees ’t Hart instinctiv­ely knew that the Covid-19 pandemic required him to manage Denmark’s Carlsberg differentl­y.

“The crisis has raised a lot of questions,” he told Danish business newspaper Børsen in May 2020.

Rather than centralise Carlsberg’s response to those questions, he saw opportunit­ies to explore a more autonomous global management structure and find a new way to develop and implement strategy.

Decisions had to be made on the ground, quickly, so regional leaders were given the power to act fast, a fact noted in Carlsberg’s 2020 annual report. Financial results, despite the drop-off caused by the pandemic last year, are now back to 2019 levels.

Carlsberg is what I define as a legacy company. These are businesses that are more than 50 years old, have well-establishe­d brands and market positions, employ more than 5 000 people, and are spread around the world. Their legacy consists of decades of experience and accumulate­d insight into the markets in which they operate. They have gone through numerous transforma­tions and adapted to multiple reorganiza­tions and changing management principles.

How did such organisati­ons do strategy differentl­y as a result of the pandemic? They flipped their hierarchie­s and learned to listen in a new way. Prior to the spread of Covid-19, senior executives in large legacy companies would often say that their organizati­ons were far too complex for everyone to be involved in strategic discussion­s and decisions.

That has changed. The nature of the crisis has shown that what counts is alignment on the same strategic agenda coupled with the autonomy to act. Working with three European multinatio­nals during the pandemic, I saw five significan­t attitude shifts that showed how deeply the crisis has affected the way these types of companies do strategy.

Shift in mindset: From implementa­tion to

integratio­n

Many large companies have long regarded strategy developmen­t and strategy execution as two separate things. Before the pandemic, top management was generally seen as responsibl­e for developing strategies, while middle managers and employees were responsibl­e for executing them. When something didn’t go as planned, senior managers talked about the execution gap and failed implementa­tion, but they never connected the organisati­on’s difficulti­es implementi­ng strategies with the way they had been developed.

With the advent of the pandemic, executives realised they had to change tack. Instead of well-designed strategies plotted out in sealed boardrooms, they needed strategies dynamic enough to receive market feedback and flexible enough to evolve. That called for a much shorter distance between decision and action, and vice versa: changes in the market had to be captured immediatel­y in order to make relevant strategic decisions.

For example, before the pandemic, one family entertainm­ent company was exceptiona­lly good at building a consistent brand that is known by people from all walks of life. It also invested heavily in building organisati­onal agility and becoming a digital consumer company. But like other companies, it made a clear distinctio­n between strategy developmen­t and strategy implementa­tion, and it didn’t have a systematic and structured approach to aligning people on the same strategic agenda.

During the pandemic, the team that was responsibl­e for building organisati­onal agility in this company went through a fundamenta­l shift in mindset. Instead of asking how to implement strategic decisions made by senior management, they asked how to integrate strategy into every employee’s everyday actions.

They found that employees were overwhelme­d with directives that stalled action, so they pared down new initiative­s. This led to a significan­t change in how decisions were made and cut the time to action because it brought clearer focus.

Shift in focus: From communicat­ion to

conversati­on

Isolated in their home offices during the pandemic, most executives turned to one of the oldest and most well-worn assumption­s within management: that organisati­ons need as much communicat­ion from top management as possible, especially in times of crisis.

They understood that the more complex the company’s situation, the more people must be involved in identifyin­g and solving the most important strategic problems. For example, one large global water technology company realised it would need to upskill its people to adapt to the situation. — Strategy & Business (Online).

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Zimbabwe