An inconvenient truth about the significant transformations of our time - and how to succeed!

To be honest, I'm a (slightly) old, classical, digital nerd. My digital life began in the mid-1980s almost simultaneously with a bread box (Commodore 64) and a Casio fx-7000GA (a programmable calculator with graphic plot function) followed by a first IBM PC with 40 MB hard disk and 286 processor. To keep a long story short, I finally spend some years in the international branch of one of the world's largest telecommunications providers, to actively bring the internet onto mobiles/cellphones And at the end even smartphones. 

With all this love for "digital", my heart beats even stronger for real people and ways to improve collaboration in companies by putting people, with all their potential, talent and emotions (back) in the focus of management. That's due to the fact, that, as proven by scientists, better leadership, higher awareness, more efficient decision-making processes, fewer interferences, in short, an improved management design, all this are elements to become more successful - even economically!

Nevertheless, in the upcoming significant transformations, many companies focus primarily on technology and only then see the need to pursue other topics as well. But, there is an inconvenient truth: It is a waste of time, resources energy in fear of a feeling of greater insecurity in a particular area. But later more on this.

Complex outcomes and complicated clouds

Looking at the transformation chains currently underway, is at the top of the list as a complicated but relatively "easy" to design and manage technologic implementation. Only then, when the technological prerequisites are implemented, topics such as agility (as a mindset) and "new work" (as a new "logic" of cooperation) emerge. However, because these issues are about human and attitudes, they are complex and the implementation can ultimately neither be planned nor be controlled.

The actual result of these developments is maybe indefinite and hard to grasp, for sure it can not be found in the cloud. 

At the same time, in Germany (and elsewhere), there's an increasing need to catch up in the context of digital work, despite the good economic figures. Awareness of this rising need has even reached the commonly late starters: politics.

In many companies, the digital transformation is a project condemned to success. Likewise, no company can afford to gamble on implementing more agile collaboration or on implementing new work approaches or cultural developments. Old blue chips and lighthouses like Deutsche Bank and VW have become classic negative examples.

A significant and mostly unnoticed problem of the digital transformation is that the implementation of digital-business, -interaction and -communication models primarily focuses on the "what", i.e. on the construction of a technological platform. The "how", i.e. the of co-operation, along with the reflexion of attitudes and , and hence of culture, is, at best, only actively addresses at a later stage.

The question is whether companies do themselves a favour by keeping his order. I think it's a terrible & costly mistake.

Culture and mindset first?

What's fatal is, that often even top decision makers are not sure which transformation cycle they can take as an alternative route to success. The problems are too present and concise, the whirlwind of this "digital stuff" is too loud, prevailant there's too little time to think things thoroughly through in more quiet times.

With change initiated this way it is often considered much too late, where, how and why, at which points, in which areas, which working structures most transformation is required - especially when it concerns management structures, processes or even management attitude.

Like no other development of the last 50 years , with its altered communication patterns, new requirements for workspace layouts and, e.g. agile decision-making processes, intervene with the way of working and the self-image of management!

At the same time, there is still a firm belief in the immutability of "management", in the supposed fact that there is no need to change management habits and approaches. A story fed by the fact that management has barely changed since time immemorial.

But, all experiences working on developing culture and attitude, habits and mindset, show that these 

• do not stop at the entrance of executives offices 

and that

• concerning a comprehensive implementation of "the change" here the problems often actually .

The exemplary influence of cultural and attitude-shaping performance of the management top team concerning changes in the company are too often a blind spot.

There one more thing to be considered: Once again confirmed in our recently completed study on "agile management", especially among top managers, almost independent of company size and industry, there is a clear confirmation bias. Top managers and decision makers see their contribution, the future of the as well as their influence on it by about 10 - 15% more positive than the rest of all comrades in the company.

The job description of top managers and decision makers

Gary Hamel summarises the role of management in 4 main components. According to him, management has the task

a) to enable people to contribute their maximum value as individuals and/or as a team for a common goal.

b) to create maximum (added) value from the customer's point of view. 

c) to focus on new products and services to ensure long-term viability.

d) to anchor the first three points as skills.

I define management (in my words) as: "The art to orchestrate effective collaboration for maximum customer value."

No matter how in detail you management (as role and institution), the external developments of the last 30 years require an (in the future probably permanent) reflexion and re-thinking of managements self-image and the existing structures.

Todays ubiquitous but partly obsolete management models lead to reduced access to the existing potentials in the skills and abilities of the employees.

Change in the VUCA world starts with the why

In my opinion, this coupling is one of the most important factors why so many transformation projects fail. According to a study from 2016, almost 80% of all change projects do not even achieve 75% of the previously announced goals. Perhaps this is "only" a consequence of our understanding of change management, which still follows a 30-year-old logic in many places, after which change can be handled as an "only" complicated, predictable process. Today in a complex, dynamic VUCA world (VUCA = Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous), this overly simplistic logic results in an extremely low success rate, requiring complex tasks and thus, according to Ashby's Law, another approach.

The inconvenient truth: Transformation begins in the core

The inconvenient truth is that transformation is rather complex than complicated, and thus we deal with it in the wrong order.

Anyone who launches projects puts increasing inevitably pressure to change attitudes and culture in the course of transformation. Those who do so, the and the management team, the decision makers, more and more in a predicament to take action that relieves this pressure. She brings to a high degree short-term unrest in the , instead of their long-term promising development paths show.

Start with Why

Why do not we start with "why" ?!

Simon Sinek points out that motivation works better from inside out, for example, with a suitable approach to leadership. One of his findings is the structure of the Golden Circle, which focuses on the "why" and derives the "how" and "what" from it.

So, why don't you start working on the significant transformations in this order beginning with the "why" instead of the "what"?

The "why" is deeply rooted in the core of every anyway. Management (as role and institution) is the natural communication medium for this "why". Its task is to create the common goal, the structures processes, around this "why" and for the benefit of optimal customer experience and interest. The task is also to initiate and moderate dialogues on these topics, i.e. enable employees to act as freely as possible (agile) and at the same time in the sense of an unseen value contribution for the company. The need for the most suitable technological tools then is the logical consequence and much easier to implement.

Another (preliminary) result of our analysis of more than 200 companies: those companies and management teams that have clarified the questions of optimal collaboration and focus on topics such as design-, risk- and value-add-dialogue are much more successful.

From being to becoming designer

It is necessary to and (self) reflect one's attitude and the interaction of management with the . An intelligent management design, in the design of management understanding, attitude, intention leadership, as well as all other transformation processes, depends on the willingness of those affected to make this change. The circle of those affected in the first step is, however, since it includes only the top executives, much smaller than in all other initiatives, and moreover, those affected are indeed always involved in (literally) crucial place.

A neo-perspective, a re-examination of the management design begins with the reflection of the effect of the top managers and decision makers on the . It provides opportunity and frees up space to clarify their impact for themselves and on each other before it draws more circles and meets the . It is an approach that first tests the opportunities of change in a small, decisive circle before turning to the outside world. It is the approach that turns those into key players and designers of their future, who otherwise often accompany change only with control and control.

People in focus

The demonstrably most promising form of management (in role, attitude and as an institution) is one that understands in the context of leadership as "facilitator" and "supporter" of the employees. Another result of the recent study on agile management shows, that in those companies in which management operates with a clear focus on people (in their different roles as clients, employees and business partners), a higher degree of mutual trust, a more explicit purpose and a much higher willingness to perform and to take on leadership prevails. Such companies are significantly more successful than competitors focusing on command and control.

If that sounds as if the "internal transformation" has to be finished before starting one of those significant transformations, I can reassure you. Of course, there is a great advantage to being looked at or mirrored in this direction at an early stage. But it also works well for companies and management teams that have already started those significant transformations. This option exists, because the pressure increases successively in the course of the projects, but gets massive only at the end. Thereof there's often enough time to reposition yourself meanwhile.

My advice to management teams is clear: embark on the analysis, foreign- and self-reflection. Start the change (also) yourself. Give an example and be the leader your employees want to follow because they the importance of acting together and being able to find self-efficacy in it. No witchcraft, but just as learnable, as business administration and marketing.

The fact that even consultants like McKinsey have put the topic of intact "corporate health" on their agenda shows that I am not alone with the perception of meaning. Also, there are few, but a growing number of colleagues who, like me, focus on the topic and competently deal with it and provide support.

My advice to all other employees and executives in the companies involved in or tackling the significant transformations: Make yourself and your colleagues aware of the side-effects and their impact on culture, attitudes, and cooperation within the company as early as possible. Engage in dialogue with colleagues and leaders, and, if possible, engage with your management before it is rudely awakening. Because rudely awakened management sometimes tends to too fast decisions - and often lose too many. But you can almost only win like that.

For myself, I can state: It is tremendously exciting to look at and accompany the developments of the world and companies from the perspective of my core topics. There are always fascinating new aspects and challenges. And sometimes also very instructive insights. Even if they initially seem uncomfortable.

20. Feb, 2018 - ZUKUNFTheute - erfolgreicher.zusammen.wirken

More articles can be found the ZUKUNFTheute blog. 

Guido Bosbach is the founder of ZUKUNFTheute, consultant & mentor for top management. He's a leading expert in designing and implementing successful collaboration patterns and contemporary management design.

In December 2017, he was named one of the 25 LinkedIn Top Voices 2017 D-A-CH.

Follow him on Twitter and   !

Thanks to Sean McGuire for the impulse to translate the (initially German) article.