Name: 変革の必要性｜ラース・フェステ｜TED Institute (An imperative to transform | Lars Faeste | TED Institute)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T09:44:19.000Z
Duration: 11 min 39 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

程度の副詞

How often have I heard those sentences or even thought it?

It's time to turn those two deep believes totally upside down.

I generally believe that if it ain't broken, you should fix it and that you should always be ready to change a winning team.

During the last 15 years, I've been working shoulder to shoulder with CEOs to transform their businesses.

So while the talk today is about business transformation, it is equally relevant for leaders and to be leaders off governments, institutions, NGOs and even in sports.

We have all heard about how the advances of science and technology and how, thanks to Moore's law, we now live in times of exponential, unprecedented change that is also having effect on how business works.

In fact, one out of three companies today will be dead in five years.

50 years ago, the same number was one out of 20 companies as blockbuster Stop automotive Kmart, all one's leaders in their field all failed to transform to new realities and eventually died, and they grow from Intel famously once said.

It is clear looking at these numbers that Manager's today need to be paranoid more than ever.

In fact, I want to push this even further and say, in this environment, only the paranoid thrive managers need to enter what I call a permanent paranoia state of mind.

It is a state of mind where you constantly question yourself.

And when you're at the best, you're pushing yourself to get even better, you might say, Isn't this what any good manager should anyway be doing?

And yes, but my experience has been that managers are not paranoid enough.

In fact, I would say the real strong managers of today are constantly asking themselves, Is this good enough?

Permanent paranoia is not very comfortable.

And what I talk about here, it's not the illness.

It's rather when a manager constantly questions the fundamentals of the business looking for disruptions, opportunities and threats and is ready to transform the business.

60% of the companies that I worked on so far we're either in trouble or head and uco at the helm.

So it's typically companies that didn't transform preemptively or where the management We're not paranoid enough.

So if permanent paranoia is so important, how come managers don't in betters or live by that there can be several reasons for that.

Some companies have a culture that neglects or minimizes new ideas, causing them to totally lose out on trends and changes in the market environment.

Other companies are so focused on the short term that they forget to reposition for long term competitive advantage.

So people often ask me, Is it possible for managers to be paranoid enough?

Is it even possible to transform early enough?

We call it the three box transformation approach.

The key is to combine thinking short term, medium term and having the right team to get it done.

I like to call the first box funding the journey.

It is about putting cash to the bottom line within 6 to 9 months to fund the necessary changes in the company, but also to give the organization the self confidence on its ability to execute, as we say up in the cold north.

If you don't survive the winter, there is not much point in planning for the next summer.

Off funding The journey moves is actually from Shell, the great oil and gas company that, faced with an oil price that has more than half over the last two years, have dramatically taking out cost reduced investments in order to retain the strong operating results and ability to ever invest into the future, including the massive acquisition of BG British Gas that will help repossessions shell even stronger.

So the first step is funding the journey.

The next step is winning in the medium term.

Where do we need to evolve our business model, too?

I noticed we have stopped talking about the long term in the world we live in.

With so much disruption and speed, the midterm is all we can we can look at.

GM waas itself on the brink of bankruptcy just a few years ago, and now it has created the funds to be able to invest into medium term winning in the medium term.

One great example of that is actually their investment into the right sharing company lift.

GM has the goal to combine the right sharing competences of lift with the self driving technology of GM putting out there and network of self driving cast or even self driving Texas.

So if funding the journey and winning in the medium term, other two first steps.

But that's not enough, you also need to have the right team right organization, the right competences and to manage the transformation rigorously to succeed.

An example of that is the Dutch banking group I N.

That has transformed their organization into a much more agile set up in order to cope with the changing customer crime ends and customers wanting to access the bank digitally.

One of their units they have organized from a more traditional setup to a model based on tribes where they take individual handpicked people with the competences into a squat.

And they try to mimic the benefits off a startup company with the speed, agility and intra preneurs ship, and without losing the benefits of a large company in terms of functional excellence and scale, Let me now take an example of a company that has transformed using all three elements at once.

We all remember Nokia as the company that once dominated the mobile phone industry and eventually had to leave that business.

What is easily for gotten is that over its 150 year history, Nokia has transformed itself several times from the beginning off Robert Boots and pulp Mills.

In 2007 Nacchio had almost 40% global markets here in mobile phones.

The best operating system, the best phone features, the best building cameras, enormous scale in their business set up.

In fact, the managers of Naka We're so proud and obsessed about the strength of Nokia that they forgot to be paranoid in only a couple of years, Not care went from being the dominating player toe almost bankrupt enterprise burning cash at a Detrimental Rafe in 2013 Knock.

It took two steps that transformed the trajectory.

They sold the mobile phone business to Microsoft, and they used part of that funding to invest in their networks business and buyout Siemens from that business over the subsequent three years not yet totally transformed the organization and the team.

In fact, 99% off the employees today of Nokia did not carry and knock your batch just three years ago.

With the latest acquisition of Alcatel Lucent, Nokia is starting to set an all new standard and bar for that industry.

At the same time for the midterm, they are investing into the digital health and variable industry.

They've just bought a company with things that they plan to roll out globally.

Knock It has, since the down turn off the bottom in July 2012 increased its enterprise value 14 times, returned billions of dollars to shareholders.

Knock it is again the pride and the most valuable company in Finland, from walking debt to second.

It's setting a brand new stand are in just three years.

So when people hear me talk through this transformation approach in the three steps, they often say so last.

This all sounds very interesting, solid, but isn't it also quite well known and common knowledge?

But if it is so straightforward and obvious, how come companies failed to transform all the time?

It is through the simultaneous activation and execution of the three elements that companies succeed in transforming preemptively before, the better.

Transformation is a necessity, not an option.

You are going to be done to you if it ain't broken.