09 on a 5 point scale that is rather good

In the 1980s, a new ran that doctors had identified the yogurt as a magical means of contraception. Some wondered: "is this a new technique for promotion by manufacturers. In reality, it was a simple funny story. The question "to make it effective, should be used yoghurt"before"or"after"", these physicians responded: "" instead of"".

Funny or not, this story is similar to another of the same time, real, this time. In the 1980s, a wind come to the Japan brought the news that these companies had found a crop of magic tools that may explain their profitable growth. TQM, Kaizen, Lean Production and many others have attracted Western companies and developed the belief that the path to profitable growth through the "Tools".

The benefits of these Japanese tools, to which were added in the 1990s those of Western origin such as reengineering, benchmarking or 6 Sigma, are undeniable and have been proven by many companies who have applied them with success. Include only focusing on the client, the dynamics of permanent progress and the resulting quality of the excellence of the process. Thus in Harley-Davidson in the 1980s, told by mockery that customers were more patient in the world, both the quality of the delivered motorcycles was bad. Person, not to is surprised that with the entry of Japanese manufacturers on the market of the large displacements, Harley to be quickly found bankrupt, terminating in 1982, 40 of its employees. But that's not counting with the new management team which launched in 1983 and has led, for 15 years, a real transformation of the grace company, among others, to several management tools. 32.400 Sold motorcycles and 15 of market share, the company moved to 300,000 and more than 50 of market share. Its operating margin, it is now more than 26 and growth world 8.9 and United States 6.7 (with the market growing to 0.2): it is not surprising that the capitalization of Harley-Davidson is superior to that of General Motors for several years now, well before the recent this last setbacks. When you visit the Harley type businesses (as I was brought to the study of dozens of companies in 15 countries), their managers will themselves put forward all the tools that they have put in place and you will explain how they have contributed to the growth and success of their business.

Acquire the basic

Arrived at this point, some readers, especially those who have lived of the introduction of tools of management in their own companies, can become skeptical. They remember great public fanfare, launches, of the first groups of projects or work pilot which have not been followed by or that led to some administrative positions in the headquarters of the style "for quality". Research on the actual impact of the management tools support this scepticism. Thus, according to a study by Bain & Company published in 2001 by Darell in "california Management review" Rigby, 82 of leaders feel that "the majority of tools promise more that they issue. For example, in the case of TQM, in 1993 "Fortune" already indicated that two thirds of managers Americans found that the TQM failed in their business. This finding may seem harsh in the eyes of some readers. Indeed, the same study of Bain & Company revealed that the score of satisfaction of the leaders for 25 studied tools varies from 3.22 to 4.09 on a 5 point scale, that is rather good. The problem is that most of these 25 tools are functional: their implementation does not imply that a function of the company (marketing, strategy, management control) and not its entirety. When you look at the scores for the global tools, such as the reengineering or the TQM, and whose implementation involves all employees, the scores are among the worst. How to explain that global tools which are wonders in a few best practices are not in a majority of companies

The answer to this question is well summarized in the English proverb "A fool with a tool is still a fool", or in the interpretation of this side of the channel, "an idiot with hammer is more dangerous than without. In other words, for companies who have not understood, and which have not been prior work, who have not acquired a "fundamental" as say athletes, for these companies, a great management tool, rather than solve problems, will become a problem, a source of frustration, or even damage. Imagine a tennis player who, without having acquired a fundamental, application to control a blow particularly powerful right that he observed in Roger Federer Even if he masters, there is a strong chance that trying to in games of high level, rather to improve its performance with his new technique, this player will draw only 30, or even injury. Indeed, without the acquis fundamentals such as the anticipation of the ball or positioning on the field, this technique of the coup will be difficult to execute, or even dangerous for him. However, many companies are continuously for the last technique, "particularly powerful". What are therefore these fundamental that the companies which received management tools successfully acquired in advance

In contrast to the "Toolkit" of management, there is not a "basic box". I would say fortunately further. Because it is here that begins deep understanding, discovering that it is not the structures, processes, specific observable on the surface which constitute the fundamental, but the underlying principles of work and organization. Regardless if the structure is flat, "rake", "inverted pyramid", "Star" or even built around an old good hierarchy. What is important is that it simplifies to the maximum the work of the people. I attended, recently, an exchange between several leaders on the need to centralize purchasing. Everyone was in agreement on significant cost reduction that follows. All but one. Director of a French subsidiary of a European industrial group, he said that home purchases are generally not centralized. With looks surprised his interlocutors he explained that their procurement policy was left to the buyers with the objective, among other things, of not burdening the operation of these subsidiaries key players. Thus, buyers are regularly discussed between them the interest to regroup on such and such product, sometimes decide to do so with all or a part of the subsidiaries. But most importantly, they shall not create braking action of the players who create the value and growth in their business, i.e. those of the sales and manufacturing.

Or take the communication and sharing information, another fundamental often overlooked in the business. No matter what system or process is used, what information and exchanging regular management meetings with managers and employees, what daily tour of the "Chief" in the field, what "daily word of the boss." What is important, is that all front-line and supervisory employees receive complete and updated information, because it is unrealistic to ask them to make good decisions, good initiatives, to coordinate if they don't have good information. I have observed companies where it is going to display as one of the fundamental principles: "our employees learn first" or "we say everything, the good, the bad and the ugly".

Poor small decisions

Finally, another example of basic (but with the three, the company will already make a huge leap): autonomy and authority.

It doesn't matter if the company uses the framework of individual goals, dedicated budgetary envelopes, teams organized by client. What is important is that the front-line employee, when he is faced with a problem where an opportunity, has both the autonomy and the authority to act to bring the solution. Business express this fundamental principle in different ways: "expert-3 metres square" (i.e. within its boundaries, it is the employee who is an expert and the more able to take the right decision), or "If the customer has a problem, bring the solution immediately.

These fundamental are in reality much more use of simple prerequisites for the successful use of management tools. For example, the fundamental simplification of working people and its impact on the strategy, even that of growth. The studies are unanimous about the fact that the difference between good companies (think Renault) and those who have excellent performance in the long term (think Toyota) does not lie in the quality of their strategies but in the ability to execute them. Imagine now a moment at the difference in implementation of the strategy between a company where the structure is that any problem is resolved between the functional directors, often in the presence of the CEO, and the other where the structure is simplified for years with the desire to allow people to field to coordinate and execute their actions and initiatives as soon as possible.

Or, take the fundamental "full disclosure and the immediate sharing of information" and its impact on the capacity for improvement and innovation of the enterprise key to profitable growth. It is not uncommon to hear leaders regret that the employees of their company provide few ideas or trivial ideas. But the question "that know your employees on the major problems of the company, be they commercial, financial or sales force turnover", silence follows. However, any major idea begins with knowledge of a major problem. Similarly, with the question "that know on the string value of the company, on its commercial strategy, its policy of branding." However, if the company does not all of this information, how will the employee judge whether its solution is economically sound, commercially interesting or consistent with the marks of the company On the other hand, if it does, as is the case of a textile business that I've observed in the North of the France, it may one day save one of its largest customers not by the action of its CEO or even of a commercial, but that of an employee whose job is to load trucks. On learning of a truck driver that in the last delivery the client complained of damaged rollers, he acted in the day because it often informed him that he must do more for the client and the more quickly. He then took the initiative to seek the cause, found it in the warehouse, has repaired the same day, and thereby prevented the delivery of damaged rollers. Interesting question: "what is the first cause of clients start". Which is better or cheaper competition "According to an extensive study, 9 of customers leave for this reason. However, 68 do so because of the indifference of employees of the company. But how can we not be indifferent if we know nothing

The above employee initiative was possible not only because he had a lot of information, but also because he had considerable autonomy and authority the last fundamental which I would like to discuss, including its impact on the profitability, such exploitation or any other indicator margin. When the employee does not have the autonomy and authority to solve a problem he meets, either a frustrated client or a process down, instead of the address, it will settle the procedure or "wait right." It is therefore here face not of the "little big ideas" but "too bad small decisions" that the hierarchy is often not notice elsewhere. Think of all the supermarket where workers continue to close the doors and dismiss customers desperate five minutes before closing time to meet "closing time", rather than do so five minutes later and make the customers happy and loyal. The number of these bad actions explodes squarely in the heavy control structures. Procedures and rules, the greater is the chance that the employee be something it considers stupid just to meet them. For the sake of consistency, it must be conceded that the ubiquitous "leaders" have the same effect on the quality of decision of their subordinates. If the authority to resolve the problems on the ground is not in subordinates, but in their "leader" who has the right to question all their decisions, "autonomy" to summarize not to take good and great decisions but to those who are most likely to "to the Chief". When calculating the cost of this mass of poor small decisions, this lack of initiative and risk-taking, calculating which appears nowhere in the financial edge tables, we quickly see why the profitability of these companies in the long term is far behind that of the excellent businesses that have a fundamental.

And to complete this presentation, yet add a dimension of the fundamental, deeper than their contribution to the implementation of strategy, innovation or profitable growth. It is simply the account of the employees, not as a (human) resource but beings human full. That claim employees when their corporate structure complicates any action, any initiative that they undertake That it brings greater respect to the procedure to them. That deduce when in the company there are two categories of people "those who know" and "those who do not know" Only on does them not trust, that are considered not smart enough. Similarly, when the company does their grants no autonomy and authority to make decisions about the problems. And it does not take long in companies who lack the Basic for a majority of front-line employees, and their framework, become disengaged, cynical, indifferent and is forced to make said "procedure" or "what Chief wants", even if the employee finds this foolish. Arrived at this point, I would have liked said that in France, it succeeds better than elsewhere in regard to the commitment of employees to their business. Unfortunately, the numbers will allow me not. According to a large study conducted in 2004 by cabinet ISR in 10 industrialized countries, the France occupies the last place.

Then, returning to the metaphor of the yoghurt that are effective as contraception only if used "instead of", the tools can be effective only "after". Use "instead" of fundamental is that the leak in front of the business, a way to avoid looking face, to eliminate the anxiety about the upcoming results, to perpetuate the belief that "it is good enough" or that "it is like the competition".

And the CEO to stop one day this leak the magic wand tool and say "Stop!". "it cannot continue like that." If the courage human and political to do so, then patience and perseverance to acquire the fundamentals, then everything is possible, even approaching the profitable growth of Harley Davidson. If he does not, you'll be soon occupied by the next magic tool for your business, with profitable growth remaining pleasant but distant dream