[MUSIC] So in addition to those two fairly detailed stories let me just acknowledge two, two further stories. One is, is a story we've been hearing a lot about in this course. Which is HCL Technologies, which is a big Indian IT services company. And the transformation made by Vineet Nayar who was the former Chief Executive. Essentially to really kind of shake up the organization in terms of how employees saw their role within the organization, and how the management of that company saw their role in helping the employees. And then the final one I'll just briefly acknowledge is the, the recent changes in Unilever under current Chief Executive Paul Polman. Now Paul Polman like, like P and G is, is, is working in a very, very big company selling products around the world. So you can't make dramatic changes to a company like Unilever. Well what Polman has really been pushing is this notion that Unilever should be a sort of a force for good, for change in the world. They should be focusing on, on nutritional products. They should be focusing on trying to actually do things right. In the language of this course, they have a very much an, an oblique, rather than alignment approach to objective setting. And he's being very, very cautiously but sensibly thinking about ways of pushing every different Unilever business to think bigger, think in terms of the long term, think in terms of sustainability. The impact that they're making on their communities. So you put it together those four examples I deliberately chose those four examples to represent the different dimensions of my framework. So if Lars Kolin was focusing on emergence rather than bureaucracy and if A G Lafley was focusing on collective wisdom rather than hierarchy. In the case of Vineet Nayar and HCL we're focusing on intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic motivation. And for Paul Polman at Unilever, it's all about focusing on oblique goals, rather than the process of linear alignment around direction setting. It's one of the very first things Paul Polman did when, you know, he started this program. He said, we are no longer going to give quarterly guidance to analysts. In other words, we are not going to tell you, every three months what we're doing. We're going to reduce that to telling you every year. Now, in the world of financial analysis, that is a scary proposition. In fact, a lot of the, the financial analysts became very nervous when he announced that. because he thought the, he thought the company was trying to hide something. He wasn't. He was trying to say instead, we are simply trying to take a longer term perspective, and we can't do that if we have to report to you every three months. So, put it all together, we see a number of themes around what we're going to call chief executive led or top down change. First of all, all of these chief executives are very shall we say secure in their role. They have an opportunity, a mandate to do something differently. If you're a chief executive who's trying to turn around the ship, quite clearly doing something a little bit risky, a little bit courageous is not going to go down well. Your job is to put the company back on course before you try doing something a bit different. Secondly, all of these had a very clear guiding theme. It was very clear what the Chief Executive intention was trying to achieve, and he typically put a slogan around it. You know, the spaghetti organization in the case of, of In the case of HCL, it was employees first, customers second. Thirdly, in each case we're not just talking about it, we're putting some teeth behind this slogan with a set of very specific initiatives. So in the case of Procter and Gamble's connect and development initiative. A lot of very specific programs of activity, putting people in place to really actually turn these ideas into something real. And then finally, the process of doing this takes time. All of those executives spent many, many years not just doing it once, but sort of doing it many, many times over a period of years, reinforcing the message, continuing to remind people until they were metaphorically blue in the face, all of the things that they were pursuing. It takes at least five years for a big company to make some sort of significant change in its way of working. So unless you are a chief executive with a, kind of a five year mandate for change these sort of changes are not really smart things to do. Which of course is one of the reasons why we see it happen so seldom. So I have great admiration for these people, for having the courage to try something differently and to have the tenacity to kind of follow through on those ideas. When it works, it works very, very effectively. All these four companies are, and have been for many years, high performing organizations. But, I think it's safe to say we do not see enough of these type of initiatives.
