суббота, 30 июля 2022 г.

55 Business Model Patterns. #3 Aikido

 


Aikido is a Japanese martial art in which the strength of an attacker is used against him or her. As a business model, Aikido allows a company to offer something diametrically opposed to the image and mindset of the competition. This new value proposition attracts customers who prefer ideas or concepts opposed to the mainstream.


Swatch

How they do it: Swatch’s brand image mirrored off its name, a contraction of ”second watch”. Watches were intended as casual, disposable accessories – diametrically opposed to the mainstream industry’s approach. The Swatch product line was developed as a response to the ”quartz crisis” of the 1970s and 1980s, in which Asian-made digital watches were competing against traditional European-made mechanical watches.

Nintendo

How they do it: When the video console market was dominated by Sony (Playstation) and Microsoft (Xbox), Nintendo introduced the Wii console with totally different attributes and features than the two successful products from Sony and Microsoft. Instead of targeting serious gamers, the Wii targets a broader target group allowing them a more interactive and fun-focused game experience. In addition Nintendo first introduced a wireless controller with a movement detector, creating a totally different product than its competitors.

Below, the top industries for the pattern "Aikido" are displayed, in order to get insights into how this pattern is applied across different industries. We've collected data from 2 firms using this pattern.


Below, the pattern "Aikido" is analyzed based on co-occurrence, in order to get insights into how this business model pattern is applied in combination with other patterns within the firms we studied.


https://bit.ly/3JjESQx


Inventive problems

The product of company should be equal to the products of competitors in order to woo customers away from the competitors.

The product of company should be different from the products of competitors in order to attract non-customers.

The product should be targeted at a small group of customers in order to fully meet the needs of customers.

The product should be targeted at a large group of customers in order to attract more buyers and get the maximum revenue.

Application examples

In the realm of business one of the first companies to apply the Aikido model was Six Flags, an American corporation that currently operates 21 amusement parks in the USA, Canada and Mexico. In line with the Aikido business model, the focus lies on regional themes and an accessible structure for customers, a strategy that contrasts with nationally oriented theme parks such as Disneyland. The regional proximity of the parks facilitates more frequent visits by local customers, creating higher revenues with less marketing effort. Another plus is that in the low season such parks continue to attract local customers

Founded in 1976, and now part of the L’Oréal corporate group, The Body Shop International plc (known as The Body Shop) is a chain of cosmetic retail stores. True to the Aikido business model, the company adopts a radically different approach within the cosmetics business. Its founder, Anita Roddick, summarised her strategy as follows: ‘I watch where the cosmetics industry is going and then walk in the opposite direction’. A major difference characterising The Body Shop is the absence of glamorous ad campaigns, making do with a marketing budget of no more than a fifth of the cosmetics industry standard. In addition, The Body Shop believes in selling environmentally friendly containers that can be reused wherever possible, also putting natural ingredients into its products and championing an ethical approach by not testing them on animals. All these choices make The Body Shop something of an oddity in the cosmetics industry, but has also enabled it to carve out an entirely new market for natural and environmentally friendly cosmetics for itself.


https://bit.ly/3cSTKt7

Business Aikido: Gaining Strategic Advantage Through Leverage


In Aikido, martial arts students study and practice katas—pre-arranged movements that enable them to deal with an opponent successfully. The centuries-old art teaches practitioners to use the force of an opponent against the opponent. This strategy gives the student a definite advantage if attacked.

In a similar way, what were strengths in Web 1.0 have become weaknesses in Web 2.0. Remember when companies had to have legions of developers, dozens of people manning the help desks, and big was best?

In Web 2.0, the flip side is what's important. Agility and intellect are critical. Co-creation provides leverage and risk is shared. Knowledge flows easily, resulting in faster development. Collaboration is pervasive and there are no enemies—just partners.

There are several things a small-to-midsize business (SMB) needs to pay attention to if it's going to gain competitive advantage in Web 2.0. Because flexibility is important, SMBs can beat large enterprises by adding value and making their internal and external environments extremely collaborative.

Some Evidence

The main point is that people tend to move toward ideas.

You can see this in a comparison of two companies: Microsoft and 37signals. One is a software juggernaut that jealously guards its intellectual property (IP). Microsoft still takes an assertive stance toward customers and markets. Its new Windows Vista, large and late, has received mixed reviews—though its contribution to revenue is staggering.

37signals is almost an exact opposite. The company appears interested in attraction and creativity, building software as a service (SaaS) applications that do just enough for the user—not more. Its Basecamp is product management with a collaborative style. Instead of time-consuming, difficult-to-use software, 37signals uses a simple font, open space, and tabs that increase ease of use and productivity.

Adobe Photoshop has been accused of being one of the most difficult applications to use. As a result, Adobe Photoshop Elements was developed—it could be called a "lite" version of Photoshop. A boxed edition of software can have difficulty competing with a great hosted idea.

Shutterfly is a site that allows users to upload photos, share them, and create items with them. With Shutterfly, there's no such thing as just a static individual album. Users are able to create a photo collage and get it printed on a mug, or build a photo album online then have it printed and delivered. It's the completeness of the services that differentiates Shutterfly—so much is possible.

Software development continues to undergo a tremendous shift away from closed platforms by Microsoft and others to the openness typified by Linux, Opera, and Ubuntu.

Corporations have seen the shift and are using open software themselves—often slashing their expenses in the process.

Implications

  1. Companies need to look more deeply at how customers might like to use their products. Maybe the company sees the product as a tissue, but the consumer sees it as a health care item, a decorative item, a short-term emergency bandage, an item to use in art projects.
  2. Crafts, knitting, sewing, quilting, and art are all enjoying renewed popularity. People are discovering that they like to make things. There's even a magazine called Make.
  3. There is a love-hate relationship with mass-produced anything. And people want craftsmanship, the unique, the unusual, and things that make them think and are interesting. While selling mass-produced items is not as attractive as it was, there's still a place for that kind of item—but maybe now it should be personalized in some way.
  4. Early customer feedback is important. Waiting until prototypes are done to ask for customer opinions on fit, finish, packaging, flavor, texture, perceived value, or price is too late. Build customer feedback into the product cycle as early as possible.

What to Do Now

  1. Find new uses. New uses for products create new markets. Expand your perception and see with new eyes what you've been producing. Put yourself in the shoes of your customer. Come up with additional uses—go out on a limb.
  2. Be part of the trend. Find ways your products or services can work with new trends.
  3. Personalize it. Find a way to make your product unique to the purchaser. Deliver it the way users want. Make it available on all platforms. Let them adapt the user interface. Give the consumer the ability to change things.
  4. Listen to a customer today. Establish systematized customer interaction as a cultural norm within your company. Make sure associates at every level get involved.

Start practicing your own Aikido moves, and use your opponent's strength to your benefit.

https://bit.ly/3bfSbVA



The Aikido Approach to Digital Transformation

Although there is no written-in-stone means of thriving during this chaotic new normal, Softtek welcomes a panel of experts to discuss a strategic approach inspired by a modern Japanese form of martial arts.

Aikido

Like many martial art forms, Aikido is “a type of self-defense, in which you hold and throw your opponent and use his or her own movements.” However unlike many other fighting styles, it does not leverage brute strength and is instead based on the principle of disarming the threat without causing physical harm.

Softtek CMO, Alex Camino, relates the concept’s ideation to the general economic surplus we saw near the end of 2019, which was then followed by a swift decline: “We were in a growing economy… we were on the offensive… And suddenly, the pandemic hits us and puts on the defensive.”

Faux Shields

Among many players, any cost-optimization strategy during hard times is generally seen as a good thing. However, this isn’t always the case, as former Forrester analyst and current SVP of Marketing for Softtek, Stephanie Moore, introduces faux shields— defensive cost strategies that look great on the surface, but derail savings and true modernization in the long run.

  1. Maximum spreadsheet cost-out
  2. Cheaper is better
  3. Lipstick evolution (glamorize tech portfolio)
  4. “Concession” deals
  5. Mess for less megadeals
  6. Trojan horse savings

The future is here, and we have the technology to help us leave these common, yet flawed defensive techniques in the past, replacing them with modern and strategic alternatives. And as we will continue to see reiterated, the trick is to invest with value, not cost, in mind.

Predictable paths to recovery

Shafqat Azim of ISG takes a customer-data-and-research-driven approach to explore how businesses impacted by Covid-19 can realize the highest value in their digital initiatives.

Three Horizons Framework

While Covid-19 has brought liquidity and profitability issues to about 2/3 of ISG’s clients, the remaining 1/3 (particularly those in industries like life sciences and healthcare) deal with the overwhelming increase in demand brought upon them in a very short amount of time. No matter the challenge, survival is key for all players before entering the “Three Horizons” identified through ISG research.

  1. Recover and Resolve: After surviving through immediate cost take-outs, companies will use the following 1-2 business quarters to evaluate how to get back up to speed—or in Azim’s words—how to “peel off the band aids without having the blood gush out again.” How can companies balance technology spend, become cloud- ready and continue critical processes, without damaging sustainability?
  2. Invest Differently: Costs have been reduced, and future sustainability is looking brighter. At this point (1-3 business quarters), Azim explains while drawing upon a common theme throughout the webinar, that we must “start to invest with value in mind, not just cost reduction.”
  3. Business Change in the Next Normal: By next year, businesses will need to evaluate how to behave differently, based on different ways of investing and executing strategies.

The common denominator

Across these Three Horizons, Azim identifies a common denominator: How do you recognize value from your ongoing investments?

ISG leverages a “digital value assessment,” using data from over 550 organizations to evaluate the capabilities, level of investment and business value realized (in the form of revenue, customer retention or operational efficiency) from digital initiatives.

Since the top 25% of these businesses have shown significantly above average numbers, their recipes for success were able to be studied and put into capability groupings:

  • Clients who realize higher than average revenue increases:
    • Regularly assess automation’s impact on employees
    • Analyze IoT data streams
    • Co-create digital products with customers and partners
  • Clients who realize higher customer retention:
    • Adopt common tech platforms
    • Create end-to-end visibility into product
    • Service backlog in development teams and IoT streams
  • Clients who see higher OpEx reduction:
    • Adopt personalized content for employees and clients
    • More strongly leverage automation
    • Adopt common tech platforms

History tells us the best thing we can do is embrace the new norm

Anja A. Allen of Ernst & Young begins by reminding us to take a step back and think about other events that have drawn change on a global scale. Humanity has dealt with plenty throughout history, and we can learn from it (read more).

“As much as we feel that our life is out of our control, there’s typically a pattern to these things; there’s always order and chaos” – Anja A. Allen

Ernst and Young has found with its clients that it’s not good to fall into the cycle of mindless cost cutting, but it’s also not good to be overly tactical. Instead, success comes from coordinating cost-cutting initiatives and transformations for the future; we must embrace the new norm and adopt new ways of doing business.

Unfortunately, embracing today’s change is hard for many organizations. It’s human nature to pursue things that are familiar.

What's the trick?

Embracing new norms and adopting new business models places even more prominence on technology, and fundamentally different approaches to the way that technology is delivered. There are 3 things to consider:

  1. Humans are at the center of every strategy. Businesses must determine how to source internal and external talent to tackle various initiatives. Additionally, they must activate strategic partnerships to help one another enable strategies and delivery models.
  2. Innovation at scale. “If we had Covid-19 in the 1980s, we would have not been able to work the way we work today.” Now we have platforms, like Microsoft Teams  or Zoom, that allow business to carry on, and we can leverage these platforms to better align our pre-Covid-19 business strategies with the changes taking place.
  3. Technology at speed. Many businesses tend to glamorize their technology portfolio rather than modernize, which ties back to the previously mentioned “lipstick evolution.” The better choice, Anja explains, is to simplify the technology portfolio and only consider elements that drive operational efficiency. Finally, these kinds of standardizations should be done with transparency—the last thing businesses need is to lose client trust or upset an entire workforce.

Funding your digital future

Softtek Managing Director for the US Beni Lopez revisits a topic from the past webinar, with a refreshed outlook.

Optimizing costs

If cost reduction wasn’t a primary concern for your organization in January 2020, like the rest of the world, with the exception of a few outliers, it likely secured a top spot in lockstep with the start of the “Great Shutdown.” Cost optimization is also the first step in laying the groundwork for a digital future. This step has ideally been completed already, but includes:

  • As soon as the CEO calls for a % cost reduction, CIOs must look to short-term quick hits: (reduce hardware spending; renegotiate maintenance, monthly Saas fees and telecom usage; and rationalize procurement process and the existing vendor landscape).
  • Next, optimizing costs involves accelerating the digital labor force with cognitive Robotic Process Automation, enabling AI, clearing a path to scale and integrating new processes and workflows.
    • Big takeaway: these are value-focused, not cost-focused optimizations.
  • Honoring the Aikido reference, organizations must use momentum from these optimizations to remain advantageous amidst unfavorable circumstances. Through further digitization and automation of operations, costs can be reduced by up to 30% in just one year.
    • Big takeaway: these initially costly steps have a fast time-to-value metric
  • Lastly, businesses should consider divesting non-critical processes to digitally enabled partners. This is becoming more common, as organizations are starting to see the benefits of outcome-based outsourcing strategies like Build Operate Transfer (BOT) CoEs, digital hub nearshoring (with partners in nearby tech hubs like Monterrey, for example), moving from CapEx to OpEx, amongst others.

Invest in the right direction

Also mentioned in a previous webinar, businesses must identify, protect and enable their “A team,” talent who have adopted and adapted with more fluidity and confidence. More analytics and AI are one way to enable these individuals to continue creating above-average value in their projects.

Get ready for the recovery

Organizations who have adopted any combination of the strategies highlighted will have freed up a substantial amount of financial and talent resources, allowing for new business models, new lines of service and an understanding of new expectations related to customer experience.

Conclusion

We live in the best of times to deal with the worst of circumstances. Even before the pandemic, the word ‘disruptive’ has become an exemplary aspect of the aggregate business environment. And in dealing with all things disruptive, we have learned to better adapt. It is through these adaptations that even the most unlikely businesses to survive have shown resiliency—grocery stores have become pickup centers, movie theaters have become streaming platforms and healthcare players have expanded digital capabilities in record time to keep up with unprecedented demand.

Hasty cost take-outs have been proven to destroy future resiliency, demonstrating the need to be strategic in our adaptations. We must leverage strategic partnerships with an “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” attitude. We must avoid tunnel visioning a cost-focused mindset, with the consideration that sustainably reducing costs may require an initial expenditure through hiring consultants or contracting different digital projects. We must stop yearning for the old way of doing things and embrace the inevitable change.

Finally, in returning to the Aikido reference, sometimes the best offense is defense. If we keep an eye on the enemy’s movements, we can use the force imposed upon us to make it out in one piece, or better yet, in a more advantageous position than before.

m

Author
Benjamin Burke



Swatch business model


The Nintendo Business Model In A Nutshell





Nintendo is a Japanese consumer electronics and video company founded in 1889 as Nintendo Karuta – a manufacturer of decorated, hand-made playing cards. By the 1980s, the company made significant investments in a rising technology: video games. It then produced popular titles like Donkey Kong and, later on, Super Mario Bros. Today Nintendo generates revenues through video game franchise sales, e-commerce, and the Unfold System.

History of Nintendo

Nintendo is a Japanese consumer electronics and video company headquartered in Kyoto, Japan.

The company was founded in 1889 as Nintendo Karuta – a manufacturer of decorated, hand-made playing cards. Nintendo would produce these cards for over seven decades, but sales fell after the cards became associated with gambling and Japanese organized crime.

In 1950, 22-year-old Hiroshi Yamauchi took control over Nintendo and expanded the product range to include toys and amusement arcades. Over twenty years later, Yamauchi made a significant investment in an emerging technology: video games. The popular title Donkey Kong was released in 1980, catapulting the company to the global stage.

The even more successful Super Mario Bros. was released five years later, named after the landlord who owned Nintendo’s American headquarters. The success of the game was nicely complemented by the release of the Game Boy in 1989, the first handheld electronic game console. This pioneering success has been built upon with the subsequent releases of consoles including the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, Nintendo 64, Nintendo DS, GameCube, Wii, and Nintendo Switch. 

Today, the company continues to be an innovative player in gaming and consumer electronics. Profits in 2020 were 376.6 billion JPY, or approximately $3.6 billion.

Nintendo revenue generation

Traditionally, console-based home entertainment companies make money via the continual creation and licensing of games.

Let’s take a look at how this plays out for Nintendo.

Video game franchise sales

Nintendo is well-known for regularly adding too many of its video game franchises with periodic releases. For example, the Super Mario franchise has been running since 1985. 

This strategy builds brand loyalty and allows the company to charge a relatively high price for its products.

eCommerce

Nintendo sells gaming consoles, games, and gaming accessories via their online store. 

Games are also available for purchase directly from the gaming console interface. By allowing users to download games with an internet connection, the company saves money on the distribution and physical production of games.

Unfold System

The Nintendo Unfold System is an evolution of the franchise sales model.

Instead of Nintendo paying developers to make and release new titles, the onus is on the consumer to pay to expand a single game. An unfolding game differs from expansion packs or franchise titles in that entire parts of the game are hidden and locked at release. As the customer becomes more invested, they pay Nintendo to unlock additional features, adventures, or lands.

For the company, this is seen as a far less risky strategy than franchising. Rather than building a new game on the same platform as the existing game, Nintendo simply keeps the existing base and charges the customer for any new features it develops.

In theory, the Unfold System expansion method can be used indefinitely. Games may have no endpoint and a new version may only be necessitated by a console upgrade.

Smash Bros: Ultimate

The fighting game Smash Bros: Ultimate is already utilizing the Unfold System. Users must now purchase a season pass to take part in each game iteration – otherwise known as a season.

In 2019, the first season was charged at $24.99. This fee gave players access to exclusive items, stages, and five new characters. The following year, the game was unfolded further to incorporate a second season that was charged at $29.99 for six new characters.

Pokémon – which Nintendo owns a 32% stake in – has also added new lands and adventures using this revenue strategy.

Key takeaways

  • Nintendo is a video game and consumer electronics company headquartered in Kyoto, Japan. The company was founded in 1889 as a manufacturer of decorative, hand-made playing cards.
  • Nintendo makes money by creating and licensing video games. The company has been particularly successful in building brand loyalty via high-quality franchise releases.
  • Nintendo also sells access to additional game features as part of its Unfold System. Instead of paying developers to build new games on the same base, players pay Nintendo to expand access within a single game.
https://bit.ly/3ScG1gK

How to Enhance the Customer Experience

Customer centricity is key to generating higher revenues and profits. For example, a rise of as little as 5% in customer retention increases profits by up to 125%. So how can customer retention be improved? And what metrics are important to incorporate into a research program to enhance customer experience?

To find out how you can enhance your customer experience, check out the infographic below.


https://bit.ly/3vrlSKq

Performance Boost

 


What should you expect in terms of commercial outcomes from adopting the integrative approach of the ROUNDMAP™ strategic and executive framework?

4.1 - EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS

Although the effects of the deployment of the ROUNDMAP™ methodology will depend on the specific circumstances, the authors of HumanSigma suggest that increased engagement, which is one of the objectives of ROUNDMAP, will produce results ‘that far exceed companies’ expectations’. Kotter & Heskett’s extensive research on the effects of culture on performance even showed a 765% net income improvement over a period of 11 years (~22% YoY-growth, between 1977-1988).
















https://bit.ly/3zgU2Br

When Engaged Employees Meet Engaged Customers


These moments produce results that far exceed companies' expectations, according to the authors of Human Sigma

A Q&A WITH JOHN H. FLEMING AND JIM ASPLUND, AUTHORS OF HUMAN SIGMA: MANAGING THE EMPLOYEE-CUSTOMER ENCOUNTER

In every company, there are workgroups that outperform the others, sometimes enormously. These groups are more productive, profitable, customer-focused, safer, and more likely to withstand the temptation to go elsewhere. Gallup spent years researching how to replicate their success -- and found that employee engagement is the key to high performance.

In every company, there are customers who outspend the others, sometimes enormously. They visit more often, resist competitive overtures, promote your brand to others, and forgive the occasional service hiccup. Gallup spent years researching how to replicate those customer relationships -- and found that customer engagement is the key to high profitability.

But then the researchers uncovered something puzzling. The data showed that when workgroups with engaged employees served engaged customers, the end result was something more than the sum of its parts. The equation of "engaged employees + engaged customers" produced results far exceeding what the researchers expected. So they dug deeper.

Using meta-analysis to analyze 1,979 business units in 10 different companies, they found that workgroups that score above the median on employee engagement and below the median on customer engagement are 1.7 times more financially effective than units that score below the median on both measures. Results were similar for workgroups that achieved the opposite results: above the median on customer engagement, below the median on employee engagement. But workgroups that scored above the median on both customer and employee engagement were, on average, 3.4 times more financially effective than the units ranking in the bottom half on both measures. They called the management approach developed to measure and manage the human systems in business "HumanSigma." (See graphic "The Impact of HumanSigma.")


It took a few more years to figure out how and why HumanSigma works and how to integrate the science into businesses. In their book Human Sigma: Managing the Employee-Customer Encounter, Gallup researchers John H. Fleming, Ph.D. and Jim Asplund explain HumanSigma and how companies can use it to get the most from their human systems.

In part one of this interview, the authors provide explicit insights for GMJ readers: what companies do to undermine HumanSigma; why people, not products, are the fulcrum of profitability; and why it's tempting to replace workers with machines -- and why you really, really shouldn't.

GMJ: How much of your thinking on HumanSigma is owed to Six Sigma?

Dr. Fleming: My answer to that is "some." Six Sigma offers some good conceptual ideas that help an organization improve itself by improving its processes. But remember that Six Sigma was developed in a manufacturing context, and the role people played in its equation was relatively small.

Once businesses had wrung all the improvements they could from improving their processes, they tried to apply Six Sigma to their human systems. And they failed, because people are hard to "fix." HumanSigma was developed as a response to the lack of effectiveness of Six Sigma methodology to increase productivity from people.



GMJ: Why are people so hard to fix?

Asplund: There are a couple of good reasons. If you buy a tractor or a furnace, you know what you're going to pay for it, how it'll depreciate, what the maintenance costs are likely to be, and roughly when it will quit working. If it pulls a load or melts steel at a given rate today, it'll perform the same or very close to it tomorrow.

But people don't work that way. They're unpredictable, both in ways that you might appreciate and ways that you don't. So because people -- employees and customers -- are much more unpredictable than machines, they can't be managed or directed in prescribed ways.

GMJ: You open the book by discussing "Terminator Management" as a failed way to cope with human unpredictability. Tell me what that is and why you think it's flawed.

Fleming: In the movies, the Terminator is programmed to accomplish a task, and he doesn't know how to do anything other than accomplish that task. He has no discretion, no learning capacity -- he just goes. What we call the "Terminator School of Management" deals with the difficulty of managing people by ignoring or squashing their humanity. We use it as a metaphor of how organizations squeeze human initiative and responsiveness from the service delivery system by scripting the range of behaviors that an employee is allowed to execute.

It's essentially a conventional way of thinking, the idea that "It would be great to get rid of all my employees; I'd be much happier if they were machines." But it's not effective in driving real organic growth and real change.

GMJ: How do you create real organic growth and change?

Fleming: When a company scripts employee behaviors, telling people exactly how to do the job rather than having them focus on the outcomes they should achieve if the job is done well, it creates automatons. It might reduce variability in how the job is done, but it also increases variability in the desired outcome. The result is service with no soul: bland, soulless, and undifferentiated.

The paradox here is that to achieve the desired outcome -- emotional engagement -- companies may actually need to increase the variability in the steps to create it. Executing bland, undifferentiated service will not create engaged customers, and it won't get you organic growth. Customers who buy more and shop more often create organic growth. Engaging them emotionally will create organic growth. Machines may execute tasks flawlessly, but they can't engage customers. And customers want more than transactions; they want relationships. Only people can build those.

GMJ: In your book, you said the employee-customer encounter is the new factory floor. What did you mean by that?

Fleming: If you contrast manufacturing environments with service economy environments, you need a new definition of value creation for a service economy. The definition that we landed on was that value is created when an employee and a customer come together and they interact.

That's different from manufacturing, where you create value by making a product that is ready to be sold. Creating value in a manufacturing context is fairly straightforward -- if you have a lot of broken products, you have problems; if you have no broken products, no poor-quality products, then your business can flourish.

In a service economy business, so much more is riding on the interactions that your employees have with your customers. You need a new set of tools to evaluate how well you're doing.

GMJ: Does HumanSigma apply to employees who don't interact directly with customers?

Asplund: Yes. Think of the guy on the loading dock; he may never talk to a customer. But if he drops a TV before he loads it on the truck or if he takes an extra three days to get it to the store, it affects customers regardless of whether he ever talks to them.

GMJ: You say in the book that companies should manage the employee and customer experience in tandem. But doesn't that require massive reorganization, all new integration of departments, different foci for leadership? How should you do it and why do you say it's worth doing?

Fleming: I'm not sure that bringing those two things together is all that radical a proposition. It doesn't happen very much today, but that doesn't mean it can't. HumanSigma has to be conceptualized and managed holistically. For example, one of the recommendations we make in the book is that if your company is not going to reorganize and create new human systems, the very least it can do is create a steering committee. That group should be responsible for HumanSigma initiatives and include representatives from all areas that are affected by them. Just getting your marketing and operations and human resources departments talking to one another and working together could create fundamental change.

GMJ: You used the word "soul" a lot in Human Sigma, and you emphasize the essential humanity of business. Why is humanity important in business? And how can companies control the emotional reactions of employees and customers?


Asplund: A company can't control people's emotional reactions -- but let me step back for a moment. The reason a company must understand the essential humanity of its customers and employees is because they are people first and customers and employees second. They're living, breathing, real people. Before a business can manage them effectively, it must understand how customers and employees think and how they react; it must understand their psychology and their emotional infrastructure.

Another thing to consider is that most companies treat people as rational in their decision making when they really are not. The vast majority of human decisions aren't made strictly through rational thought processes; they're made in many other ways, including intuitively. Habits and simple rules that developed in cultures thousands of years ago can predispose us to behave in certain ways. More of our reasoning is based on emotions than you would suppose.


Fleming: The employee-customer encounter is fundamentally emotional, and it must be measured and managed locally. We've found tremendous variation in performance and profitability from store to store or from workgroup to workgroup. But you won't see the variation at the business unit level, much less at the individual level, if you examine the operation too broadly. And we've found that telling employees to behave in exactly the same way with customers can actually increase variation.

GMJ: How? Doesn't outlining the procedural steps, essentially telling irrational humans exactly what to do, lead to better outcomes and higher profits?

Fleming: No. If you standardize everything, then everything becomes standard.

GMJ: Well, that's good, right? Standard is better than variation, isn't it?

Fleming: No. It just creates mediocrity. There's a paradox here that is important to recognize. What we're suggesting is that companies that have concentrated on creating consistency of execution have failed to create consistency in the outcomes that execution is intended to produce. Most are trying to control the process through which employees are delivering service by mandating the steps.

We flip that by telling companies to clearly define the outcomes, which include establishing emotional connections with customers. Companies should allow employees a much greater range of flexibility -- within clearly defined boundaries -- to achieve those outcomes and to establish and maintain connections with customers.

GMJ: Because customers aren't engaged by processes but by people.

Fleming: Exactly.

GMJ: But this seems very risky. Most companies are loath to give frontline staff that much responsibility.

Asplund: It's actually less risky than you might think, because your employees are doing it their way anyway, and they're not channeling their efforts effectively. They're people, and they're behaving like people. Trying to control their behavior just won't work.

Fleming: Instead, what you should do is understand their behavior and what makes them tick. Then try to use that understanding to manage them more effectively. Ultimately, that may mean you should exert less control over the execution to achieve more control over the outcome.

GMJ: But ceding control chips away at the power structure, and that's going to be hard for some executives to swallow.

Fleming: I think we're talking more about the control structure than the power structure. Terminator Management is really about a need for control. This approach sacrifices real service quality in favor of the illusion of control.

What we're advocating is for executives to let go of some of that control. You know, it's like the old adage: It's hard to reach for the future when you're holding on to the past. Sometimes you have to open your hands and let go of old ideas in order to grasp new ones.

-- Interviewed by Jennifer Robison

https://bit.ly/3bfe878


New Research: How Employee Engagement Hits the Bottom Line


by 

What would contribute most to your being both happier and more productive at work? How about feeling truly taken care of, appreciated, and trusted by your employer?

More than 100 studies have affirmed the connection between employee engagement and performance, but the Towers Watson 2012 Global Workforce Study — 32,000 employees across 30 countries — makes the most powerful, bottom line case yet for the connection between how we feel at work and how we perform.

This new study concludes that the traditional definition of engagement — the willingness to invest discretionary effort on the job — is no longer sufficient to fuel top performance in a world of relentlessly increasing demand. The problem is that “willing” doesn’t guarantee “able.”

What’s required now is something called “sustainable engagement.” The key factor, the study finds, is a work environment that more fully energizes employees by promoting their physical, emotional and social well-being. I’d add to that mental and spiritual well being — or more specifically, the added energy derived from the capacity for absorbed focus and a strong sense of purpose.

“Many employers are pursuing a variety of wellness efforts, typically focused on giving incentives or penalties to people who embrace healthy behaviors like exercise, good diet or effective management of a chronic illness,” the report concludes. “These are important, but to sustain energy, employers have to go beyond these core programs and embrace the notion of workplace energy on a far broader plane.”

When they do, the consequences are nothing short of staggering.

In a broader analysis of 50 global companies, Towers Watson found that companies with low engagement scores had an average operating margin just under 10 percent. Those with high traditional engagement had a slightly higher margin of 14 percent. Companies with the highest “sustainable engagement” scores had an average one-year operating margin of 27 percent.

Forty percent of employees with low engagement scores said they were likely to leave their employers over the next two years, compared to 24 percent of traditionally engaged employees, and just 18 percent of employees with the highest “sustainable engagement” scores.

So what is energy, exactly? In physics, it’s simply the capacity to do work. In other words “energy” and “capacity” are essentially interchangeable. In simple terms, energy is the fuel in our tanks — what’s required to bring our skill and talent to life. Without sufficient energy, skill is rendered irrelevant. You can’t run on empty and that’s increasingly what employees are being asked to do.

Feelings of overload and burnout are default emotions in today’s organizations. Nor is this likely to change soon. Higher demand and fewer resources are the new normal. Effectively addressing the issue of capacity — energizing the workplace — depends on the willingness of individuals, leaders and organizations to each take responsibility for their roles.

For organizations, the challenge is to shift from their traditional focus on getting more out of people, to investing in meeting people’s core needs so they’re freed, fueled, and inspired to bring more of themselves to work, more sustainably.

Specifically, Towers Watson concludes that organizations must create policies and practices that make it possible for employees to better manage their workload, live more balanced lives and exercise greater autonomy around how, when, and where they get their work done. Policies focused on flexibility and working remotely contribute to a more energized workplace, we’ve found, and so does setting organization-wide boundaries around the length of meetings and the hours during which people are expected to respond to email.

For leaders, the key is to begin thinking of themselves as Chief Energy Officers. Energy is contagious, for better and for worse, and disproportionately so for leaders — by virtue of their influence. “The manager is at the heart of what we might think of as a personal employee ecosystem,” the Towers Watson study concludes, “shaping individual experience … day in and day out.”

Among sustainably engaged employees, for example, 74 percent in the study believed senior leaders had a sincere interest in their well-being. Only 44 percent of traditionally engaged employees felt the same way, while only a miniscule 18 percent of disengaged employees felt their managers genuinely cared about their well-being. No single behavior more viscerally and reliably influences the quality of people’s energy than feeling valued and appreciated by their supervisor.

For individual employees, the challenge is to take a measure of responsibility for their experience, and not allow themselves to default into victim mode. It’s bracing to discover how two people can experience the same workplace, and even the same set of demands, in entirely different ways.

Employees willing to take more responsibility for how they manage and take care of themselves — regardless of the sort of organization and supervisor they work for — end up feeling better and performing better than those who see themselves as victims. The mantra we use is a variation on the Serenity Prayer: “Invest your energy in what you have the power to influence. Don’t invest energy in what you can’t influence, and have the wisdom to know the difference.”

A workplace that really works? It begins with employers and employees truly valuing and investing in one another.

https://bit.ly/3zJYoTi

You may have noticed that these impressive growth numbers aren’t the result of better marketing, sales, or customer service, rather from a culture in which employees are given the opportunity, skills, systems, and trust to be able to commit themselves to offer customers the value they deserve and take full responsibility for it. We call this Customer Excellence.

4.2 - REACTIVE VERSUS PROACTIVE

Author Jan Bommerez is clear about it: if people are allowed to proactively assist customers to help them achieve their objectives, sooner rather than later, employee motivation, passion, pleasure, and trust will rise. However, if employees are only allowed to react to problems, stress will take over and employee motivation, passion, pleasure, and trust will tumble ─ increasing sick leave and employee turnover. The trick is to manage each process from a perspective of a desired future, instead of from a distressed state of problem-solving.

4.3 - SYNERGY IN A COMPLEX SYSTEM

Organizations are complex systems in that they are able to solve things as a whole, that none of its parts is capable of doing by itself. This is called synergy. Swiss mathematician and sociologist Dirk Helbing and his group found that the dynamics of a flock of birds, which can be seen as a typical complex system, can be described using merely three rules:

  1. ALIGNMENT ─ Each bird aligns its flight with the average flight direction of the local flock (the part of the flock close to it).
  2. COHESION ─ Each bird moves towards the average position of the local flock.
  3. SEPARATION ─ Each bird tries to avoid local over-crowding and predators.

The behavior of a flock is part of its strategy: to protect each individual from predators. Within organizations, large groups of individuals are bound to show similar behavior, however, when members are unaware of the mission or don’t understand their part in it, they will become disconnected. You might have heard of the expression ‘Birds of a feather flock together’: people with similar backgrounds will herd into smaller groups ─ creating organizational silos ─ to protect each other while some may even perceive other ‘flocks’ as predators. It isn’t hard to see that those disconnected and unaligned organizations will have a hard time achieving their mission.

"Building a visionary company requires one percent vision and 99 percent alignment."

~ Jim Collins in Built to Last


https://bit.ly/3wM9OTS