Quando os "experts" proclamarem que as empresas são viciadas em salários baixos talvez fizesse sentido que reflectissem nas dificuldades da mudança. Parece que Aristóteles terá dito "A quem os deuses querem destruir, eles enviam previamente quarenta anos de sucesso".
"Imagine that you are running a large, mature business with a well-known technology and proven business model. Furthermore, let's assume that because the business is mature and competition is intense, the strategy of the business is to compete on low costs. Imagine, for example, a semiconductor plant at Intel or a manufacturing plant at Toyota. In these instances, the key success factors are around efficiency and productivity, driving costs down (maybe through quality improvement and lean manufacturing), and incremental innovation (faster, cheaper). The skills needed for this include great operational expertise, a disciplined approach, rapid problem solving, and a short-term focus. The formal organization to promote increased efficiency and productivity typically emphasizes a functional organization (manufacturing, engineering, product development, sales, R&D with clear metrics and rewards for incremental improvement and short feedback loops to promote fast learning and the implementation of improved methods. ... this is about exploitation with an emphasis on efficiency, control, certainty, and variance reduction. [Moi ici: "variance reduction" ... como não recuar a Redsigma - O fim da linha] Improvement is a function of ever increasing alignment. With a low cost strategy, the winners are those organizations that are best able to drive out inefficiencies.
...
Now consider the challenge facing the leader of an emerging organization where the future of the business or technology is uncertain - perhaps Twitter or other social media companies. The overarching strategy is to scale quickly based on innovation and flexibility. Here the key success factors are growth, flexibility, and rapid innovation. What types of skills are needed? Clearly technical skills are important, but so is the ability to adapt and move quickly. Given the uncertainty in the technology and the market, the structure of the organization needs to be flat and able to respond quickly to new initiatives. ... The standardization and processes that help a mature organization can be deadly here.
...
To promote speed and flexibility, the culture needs to emphasize norms and values like initiative, experimentation, and speed. ... this is the alignment that promotes exploration. It's about search, discovery, autonomy, and innovation.
A couple of things are worth noting about these examples. First, although the alignments are very different, each is necessary for the successful execution of a particular strategy. When competition is based on efficiency and cost, the winner will most often be the organization that is most successful at reducing variance and promoting incremental innovation. When the market is changing rapidly, the alignment needed to succeed is one that is best able to experiment and adapt quickly. Second, attaining alignment is the primary role of the manager and it isn't easy. Setting up the systems and processes, structuring the work, motivating people and holding them accountable, and promoting constant improvement is a challenge. Third, the alignment that promotes success for one strategy may be toxic for another. And here is the rub: the alignment that makes a mature organization successful can kill an emerging business. And in the same way, the alignment that makes an emerging business work can make a mature business inefficient."
Pois, voltamos a Aristóteles::
"the alignment that has made an organization successful at one point may put it at risk in another. Great companies - those with a proud tradition - are potentially the most vulnerable to what we have labeled the success syndrome"
Não é impunemente que se tem sucesso. Por isso, não é fácil mudar.
Trechos retirados de "Lead and disrupt: how to solve the innovator's dilemma" de Charles A O' Reilly III and Michael L. Tushman.