Or a system based on processes and bonuses is making companies predictable, unoriginal and fragile?
Years of constantly growing demand combined with a logic that has rewarded the ability to generate increasing profits could have weakened companies deeply. Large groups appear reluctant to take risks and experiment with change, resulting in becoming unresponsive and inflexible to exogenous changes. For too long, the focus has been on processes and efficiency rather than creating long-term value, thus favouring a short-term approach driven by future uncertainty and the “we have always done this way” dogma. It almost seems that the leading managerial groups in the industrial world have become masters in internal politics, protecting their status quo and loyalists.
With this premise, it is not surprising that they did not see the upcoming demand crisis: first, the case of bicycles, then the one of motorcycles, landing in the market of cars. Not to mention fashion. Companies in these sectors have often adopted a business model based on excessive production to obtain scale economies and save on costs, causing volumes and inventory explosion. The alignment between supply and demand is always a great unknown for all markets; however, in addition to adopting a business model like the one described above, companies have often set the demand forecast on past trends or overestimated the expected value of the market without evaluating the technological and infrastructural context.
A question arises: is it possible that the managerial line did not see the early signals? Companies have only reiterated prediction models of previous years instead of exploring the possibility of adopting business structures capable of responding to the emerging needs of different customer groups. Even if the critical reading of the context had been realized, a concrete change has not occurred. So, what is the driving force of change? But, above all, in which areas do we want to change? What are we looking for?
The world of human resources must confront transformations that appear indispensable in organizational models, such as implementing structures oriented towards teamwork, with transversality that streamlines pyramid systems and mechanisms that reward innovation and risk even in the event of failure. In other words, the development of a generalized and widespread entrepreneurial attitude among functions regardless of job classification. Excessive attachment to processes crystallizes innovation and becomes an alibi for not taking the risk of change.
The companies that have the best chance to face a context dominated by uncertainty and in continuous transformation are the ones that can act as spokespersons for this concept of widespread entrepreneurship, where each member collaborates in the functioning of the system. The idea of collaboration must be understood in a way that implies thinking about the success of the company in addition to its own, with a tension to guide the competitive development of the company at a micro level. The professional challenge is open!