Change, Challenge, Value, and Corporate “complexity.”

Having gone through corporate carve in/outs, one concept that still amuses me when doing the benefits & risks due diligence, is the logic behind working in silos i.e., why something worked in Spain, but in Italy it cannot... In these times, we should be able to respond properly to those tricky questions.

Fragmented data insights and the development of kingdoms within any setup, do exacerbate a lack of flexibility toward performance improvement; however, the fear of disturbing an accomplished cowboy/girl leadership culture that, as key sources of revenue, have successfully managed complexity in “their” unique setup, opens the question of ?“strategic cannibalism?”.

For example, when mapping profitable cross-departmental processes, it is complicated when collaboration and real-time information sharing is missing. As a result, this situation can open the can of worms or vicious circle of overpromising and under delivering efficiencies, i.e., poor marketing campaigns, misunderstanding customer value, needs, and poor support.

It is true that one size does not fit all but if the target is to become a customer-centric organization, we need to better understand people’s intrinsic motivations to really boost innovation, sales, and customer satisfaction.

Using different tools and methods across geographies could lead to confusion and inefficiencies. Sometimes instead of developing a tailored-made tool from scratch, why not collaboratively find the key bottlenecks of an existing, well-regarded solution and work towards solving or understanding those few bottlenecks; that if properly solved, will help its integration and scalability through effective, generative, and organic stickiness.

Some companies, leaders in their segments or known for their cutting-edge technology could, internally, struggle with chaotic process and data management. Despite this, there is still a fear of change among their employees, which is counterintuitive. Becoming comfortable with their current methods, even if they were inefficient or not future proof.

Remember, sometimes we do not need to reinvent the wheel. This approach has saved time and resources, allowing the teams to quickly provide valuable input, adapt, and improve their strategic effectiveness and management practices.

Also, it is true that when you are making money, you do not want to know how much money you have left behind, which is top granularity in risk management terms. If innovation can foster saving time and a better use of my resources, without venturing into unknown territory, setting up proper integrated workflows with other tools the organization was already using should be an easy decision.

As teams begin seeing the benefits of projects better organized, communication improved, and productivity increased. Real progress is when the first fear of change gives way to a newfound openness to experimentation, unique features and suggesting ways to really optimize their workflows.

The goal is, when a major strategic project faces an unexpected challenge, for teams to quickly access all relevant information and collaborate effectively to increase the odds to resolve the issue favorably, instead of defending the status quo.

When people defend the status quo, they resist change due to comfort, fear of the unknown, and a desire to keep control and stability.