Managing and supporting employees through cultural change in mergers
By Becky Kaetzler, Kameron Kordestani, Emily O’Loughlin, and Mieke Van Oostende – Mergers create vast organizational anxiety about the future: in most cases, the operating model and culture will change dramatically for one or both merging companies. These changes go far beyond a new name and senior leadership; they challenge the core of an organization’s identity, purpose, and day-to-day work. Even small tactical changes, like new expense policies or cafeteria options, can rattle employees. Anticipating and addressing these “organizational emotions” can set the foundation for seamless, effective integration. Failing to anticipate and address them can lead to poor business performance, a loss of critical talent, and the leakage of synergies.
Merging companies must shift the day-to-day behavior and mind-sets of their employees to protect a deal’s sources of value, both financial and organizational, and to make changes sustainable.
One basic problem is management’s tendency to focus mostly on changes that would directly help to capture a deal’s value targets while largely ignoring those required to maintain and enhance the company’s health. Organizational design, for example, is always top of mind in the early stages of merger planning, but companies often sidestep cultural differences until difficult issues come to light. At that point, the base business will already have suffered, top talent may already have looked for external opportunities, and the capture of synergies may have become more difficult.
A holistic, effective integration program should proactively address the full scope of changes your employees will experience in an integration. Managing through this kind of effort involves two broad tasks: embedding cultural changes and managing operational ones. more>
Posted in Business, Economic development, Economy, Education, How to, Net
Tagged Business improvement, Change management, culture, McKinsey, Mergers and acquisitions, Skills
A transformation in store
Brick-and-mortar retail stores need to up their game. Technology could give them significant boost.
By Praveen Adhi, Tiffany Burns, Andrew Davis, Shruti Lal, and Bill Mutell – Now should be a great time in US retail. Consumer confidence has finally returned to pre-recession levels. Americans have seen their per capita, constant-dollar disposable income rise more than 20 percent between the beginning of 2014 and early 2019.
Yet despite the buoyant economic environment, many brick-and-mortar stores are struggling. In the last three years, more than 45 US retail chains have gone bankrupt.
Yet rumors of the physical store’s death are exaggerated. Even by 2023, e-commerce is forecast to account for only 21 percent of total retail sales and just 5 percent of grocery sales. And with Amazon and other major internet players developing their own brick-and-mortar networks, it is becoming increasingly clear that the future of retail belongs to companies that can offer a true omnichannel experience.
Retailers are already wrestling with omnichannel’s demands on their supply chains and back-office operations. Now they need to think about how they use emerging technologies and rich, granular data on customers to transform the in-store experience. The rewards for those that get this right will be significant: 83 percent of customers say they want their shopping experience to be personalized in some way, and our research suggests that effective personalization can increase store revenues by 20 to 30 percent.
Several new technologies have reached a tipping point and are set to spill over onto the retail floor. Machine learning and big-data analytics techniques are ready to crunch the vast quantities of customer data that retailers already accumulate. Robots and automation systems are moving out of factories and into warehouses and distribution centers. The Internet of Things allows products to be tracked across continents, or on shelves with millimeter precision. Now is a great time for retailers to embrace that challenge of bringing technology and data together in the offline world. more>
Posted in Broadband, Business, Economic development, Economy, Education, History, How to, Net, Science, Technology
Tagged Broadband, Business improvement, Internet, McKinsey, Omnichannel, Retail
Digital transformation: Improving the odds of success
By Jacques Bughin, Jonathan Deakin, and Barbara O’Beirne – or established companies, the pressure to digitize business models and products has reached new intensity. McKinsey research shows that the best-performing decile of digitized incumbents earns as much as 80 percent of the digital revenues generated in their industries.
Ascending to that elite group is far from easy. In a new survey of more than 1,700 C-suite executives, we learned that the average digital transformation—an effort to enable existing business models by integrating advanced technologies—stands a 45 percent chance of delivering less profit than expected. The likelihood of surpassing profit expectations, on average, is just one in ten.
The good news is that executives can decisively increase the chance that a transformation focused on digital enablement will beat performance expectations.
Our latest research shows that exceptionally effective digital transformations are distinguished mostly by the practices that executives choose to follow. Adhering to a well-defined set of transformation practices lifts the likelihood of exceeding profit expectations to more than 50 percent—about five times better than transformations that involve none of these practices. What’s more, the same combination of practices works for every type of digital-enablement effort that our survey covered. more>
Posted in Business, Economy, Education, How to, Net, Technology
Tagged Business improvement, Digital transformation, Internet, McKinsey, Productivity, Success, Technology
Bias busters: Avoiding snap judgments
Despite their best intentions, executives fall prey to cognitive and organizational biases that get in the way of good decision making.
By Tim Koller, Dan Lovallo, and Phil Rosenzweig – The board of a mining company thinks it’s time for a new CEO, one who understands the increased role of technology in the industry and can inspire the next generation of mining leaders. The hiring committee has a few internal candidates in mind—namely, the heads of the copper, nickel, and coal divisions.
All three have similar years and types of industry experience and comparable P&L responsibilities. But the front-runner in the minds of many on the committee is the head of the copper division. After all, copper has contributed the most to the bottom line over the past few years, while the other divisions have been lagging. It must be because the unit head is a tech-savvy people person, with a good understanding of industry trends, they reason. “Seems like a no-brainer,” the head of the hiring committee notes.
But how can the board be sure that it is picking the best candidate for the top job?
These distortions don’t apply only to company performance; the halo effect can also alter how we view individual performance. That’s what happened in the case of the mining company. The front-running CEO candidate’s division had performed well in large part because of a significant spike in the price of copper, something over which he had no control. Yet the halo of high profits shined on the business-unit leader, the hiring committee’s initial impressions of him stuck, and he was appointed CEO.
Much to the board’s dismay, the new CEO did not demonstrate either skillful use of technology or strong leadership, two capabilities that were critical for this role. Early in his tenure, the company incurred billions of dollars in losses. more>