Que ferait Google?

Cover of What Would Google Do?

Et s'il s’agissait de la question la plus importante qu’un dirigeant d’entreprise en panne de changement ait à se poser? C’est en tout cas le titre (en anglais “What would Google do?”) de l’ouvrage de Jeff Jarvis, expert américain des médias (son blog ici), qui nous aide à mieux comprendre les changements majeurs vécus par les entreprises sous l’angle du succès de Google.
Dans une interview au Delaware online Jarvis explique le succès du géant de l’Internet par sa capacité à percevoir le monde différemment. Google joue naturellement avec les règles du monde digital et non plus du monde industriel:
“Google did not grow to be, according to the Times of London, “the fastest growing company in the world” by trying to buy and own and control everything. Instead they created platforms and networks that enabled others to succeed. Google also shows the way to having a new relationship with the public, your customers.”
Ce monde digital se caractérise, selon Jarvis, par une économie d’abondance. Réussir en contrôlant une pénurie est donc de moins en moins possible. Pour réussir dans un monde d’abondance, il faut avant tout être performant.
Autre nouvelle règle apparue avec le monde digital: un nouveau type de relation clients, évoqué ci-dessus, dans lequel l’entreprise fait confiance à ses clients, considère qu’ils sont intelligents et bien informés.
Pointés du doigt par Jarvis pour n’avoir pas ou peu su adopter ces nouvelles règles: l’industrie automobile américaine et la presse qui ont continué à fonctionner dans un monde de pénurie où les clients sont mal informés.
Face à l’émergence des nouveaux acteurs 2.0 tels que Google, on en revient donc pour les entreprises toujours à la nécessité de comprendre et mettre en oeuvre le changement, ce que souligne ici Jarvis:
“Change is inevitable. It is immutable. And the only sane response to it is to seek it out and embrace it and exploit it. That can be painful to those who resist change or who are incapable of changing. But it is inevitable and it is especially inevitable now.”

A quand un(e) ministre de la performance?

J’ai lu avec curiosité et intérêt que Barack Obama venait de nommer son “Chief Performance Officer”, en la personne de Jeffrey Zients, jusqu’alors consultant en management. Le président poursuit ainsi sa mise en oeuvre du changement: alors qu’il avait communiqué sa vision durant toute sa campagne, il aligne désormais son organisation en modifiant sa structure et créant de nouvelles fonctions. Avec la création de ce poste, il met de la substance derrière les concepts; il donne des responsabilités, du poids à ses agents du changement, condition sine qua none d’une mise en oeuvre réussie. En même temps il poursuit sa communication avec, semble-t-il, le double objectif de continuer à susciter l’enthousiasme et donc l’adhésion au changement mais aussi de préparer les gens aux difficultés inhérentes de mise en oeuvre; on en voit ici un bon exemple lors de l’annonce de cette nomination (texte tiré de l’article sur le sujet du Los Angeles Times):
His team of management, technology and budget experts will "help us revamp government operations from top to bottom and ensure that the federal government is truly working for the American people," the president said.
"None of this will be easy," he said in his address. "Big change never is. But with the leadership of these individuals, I am confident that we can break our bad habits, put an end to the mismanagement that has plagued our government and start living within our means again."
En France, les pouvoirs publics tentent d’instaurer une culture de performance (http://www.performance-publique.gouv.fr/) mais a-t-on suffisamment aligné l’organisation et responsabilisé les acteurs du changement?
Lire ici l’article complet en anglais du Los Angeles Times

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama says he'll cut wasteful programs (money.cnn.com)

The Tube is transforming… Et le métro?

Image via Wikipedia

Le site RH anglais www.personneltoday.com publie un billet sur le programme de gestion du changement du London Underground (LU) dans le cadre de la refonte complète de son réseau. Un énorme chantier de 10 ans et 10 milliards de Livres qui nécessite une forte implication et un changement de comportements des collaborateurs afin d’assurer la continuité du service. Car le Tube souhaite avant tout garder sa spécificité, telle que l’explique Howard Collins, COO: "We say to staff: the only way we can do this is with your help. We could be like the New York Subway or the Paris Metro, run by machines with no visible staff around. But what our customers appreciate more than anything else is the people - helpfulness and information.” Malgré les exigences techniques, LU refuse donc de compromettre sur ce qui fait sa force, ce sens du service que l’on aimerait trouver plus souvent en France.
L’évènement principal de ce programme est une série de workshops, intitulés “Valuing Time” , dont le but est de motiver les collaborateurs à s’engager dans le processus de changement et valoriser le temps consacré aux clients et collègues. Développés avec l’aide d’une agence de communication, les workshops ont lieu dans une ancienne galerie d’art souterraine ressemblant un peu à une vieille station de Tube relookée. La session commence par l’arrivée du PDG sur scène, en Tube svp, pour délivrer un speech de motivation d’environ 20 minutes. Puis des sessions sont organisées entre groupes de collaborateurs, permettant de faire ressortir les craintes, les espoirs et de casser les barrières fonctionnelles et hierarchiques. Le feedback est apparemment très bon et Howard Collins en donne ici les raisons:

• Implication des participants
• Un facteur “Wow”, autrement dit quelque chose de spectaculaire sans apparaître démesuré ou trop coûteux (ici l’arrivée en train du PDG)
• Donner l’opportunitée aux participants d’échanger de manière informelle
• Pour un projet d’une telle importance, c’est le top management qui doit diriger la session
• Faire attention avec l’utilisation de termes comme “Vision” ou “Mission” et parler plutôt de manière simple d’où l’entreprise souhaite aller
• Garder les coûts d’un tel programme à un niveau raisonnable

Je me permettrai d’ajouter 2 points:

1. S’assurer que de telles sessions constituent un point de départ de l’implication des collaborateurs et non un évènement sans suite
2. S’assurer que la forme de telles sessions soit en adéquation avec la culture de l’entreprise (sauf peut-être si c’est justement la culture que l’on souhaite changer!)

Sur ce dernier point, je me demande comment de tels Workshops seraient perçus à la RATP.
Lire ici l’article de personneltoday.com

Roger Federer and the Need for Change

Image by KLINX via Flickr

As a true tennis fan, I have been following enthusiastically past year’s battles at the top of the tennis world, marked by the rise of Nadal and the fall of “King” Roger. From a strategy and change management perspective, Roger’s struggle is an interesting case to look at. I find it a perfect example of just how difficult although critical, change is for market leading organisations.
Having outrageously dominated his “market” for about 4 years, RF, like so many other market leaders, hasn’t felt the need of making any significant changes to his strategy; after all, playing and training this way is what brought him and kept him at the top, so why should he change? The problem is that in the mean time, competition has gained strengths. In particular, one key player from Spain, originally labelled as a “niche” clay court specialist, has managed to widen and deepen his capabilities while still retaining his core competency. Nadal has managed to transform his game to become more offensive and gain more advantage on hard courts and grass. He has been able to lead change in such a way that Federer hasn’t. There’s more bad news for Roger: the unexpected rise of a new British competitor who seems to have taken a clear advantage on him.
Most tennis commentators have been saying it for a couple of years now since the early signs of his fall appeared: Roger will have to change the way he thinks and acts tennis; they’ve been saying that his training sessions lack a game plan, unlike Nadal’s; they’ve been detecting signs of complacency. Yet despite his brilliance, talent and intelligence, Federer hasn’t changed. This just shows how difficult it is, and Roger, it seems, is only at stage 1: establishing the need for change.
Getting through that first stage often requires the help of an external party that will act as a mirror and come up with a sharp, critical and objective view of the situation. That party, probably consultants for an organisation or a coach for a person, will have to be confronting in such a way that their client will not only understand but really feel the need for change. Interestingly Federer doesn’t have any coach at the moment and is said to be discussing opportunities with John McEnroe. But there are also other ways to start changing: an extraordinary event that can somehow make you look at things differently. Federer will be father in a few months…
Related articles by Zemanta

• Roger Federer could join forces with John McEnroe to salvage winning form (telegraph.co.uk)

Web 2.0 expo in San Francisco

I have recently started to get acquainted with the reality of web 2.0, many thanks to Holger Nauheimer and his Change Management blog. Holger just went to the Web 2.0 expo in San Francisco and came out with the conclusions quoted below. Key learning seems to be that Web 2.0 will be changing profoundly the way organisations work and interact with their stakeholders:

So, what's your executive summary? Web 2.0 has become mainstream, at least in the US and in Asia (so it will be mainstream in Europe in 1-2 years). It is clear what are the standard applications of social media for organizations, governments and non-profit communities. The tools have pretty much matured, and all further development just gives the cream on top of what we have already. It is now time to go vertical, i.e. deepen the diffusion of social media in organizations and society. This is a change project for most organizations, and for administrations anyhow.Holger Nauheimer, Change Management Blog, Apr 2009

Change management needed to greening corporate travel

Changing our behaviours to reduce our carbon footprint is a key and sometimes difficult challenge for us individuals and businesses. Air travel represents 2% of the world's total CO2 emissions, which may seem insignificant at first but is in fact a lot if you compare it with cleaner means of travelling. As an indication The Impact of Tourism on Climate Change (Peeters, 2007) reveals that European tourists use air travel for 20% of their trips, which yet accounts for 75% of the total tourism transport CO2 emissions (interesting to note the Pareto principles applies here).

The Green Travel Summit held on 23-24 March in California, came out with the top 10 challenges to greening corporate travel, of which 6 are directly related to change management issues, as highlighted below:

1. Where to begin

2. Perception vs reality regarding costs

3. Overcoming resistance to change

4. Buy in from senior management

5. ROI*

6. Securing budget

7. Reporting standards and metrics*

8. Green washing: truth vs fiction

9. Buy in from both the planner and the supplier

10. Communicating and educating all relative stakeholders

* to me directly related to change management as measuring and communicating successes and benefits is a key component

More details here