Yves Morieux (SKEMA 1983)

“TRANSFORMATION

RESULTS FROM A

FEELING OF
HELPLESSNESS
& SUFFOCATION.”

A specialist in corporate transformation dynamics, Yves Morieux (SKEMA 1983), Senior Partner Emeritus at the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), explores the underlying reasons for the frequent failure of organisational transformations. For him, the challenge is to reject ready-made methodologies and rethink the way companies approach their problems and mobilise their resources.

interview by Antoine Boitez

Can you tell us about your vision of company transformation and why you think it is so crucial today?

Company transformation is central to strategic discussions because organisations are facing unprecedented levels of complexity, whether this is due to digitisation, climate challenges or stakeholders’ evolving expectations. However, what has struck me in my career is the repeated failure of attempts at transformation. According to studies carried out by observers and leading consultancies (Kotter in 1991, McKinsey in 2006 and BCG in 2016), between 60% and 80% of transformations do not achieve their goals. This reveals a fundamental pitfall: companies don’t always understand the nature of the problems they are trying to solve.

Transformation cannot be boiled down to standardised frameworks or a series of steps. It requires a detailed understanding of the issues specific to each organisation, and that’s the real nub of the matter.

« If you define your problem inaccurately, the solution will be useless. »

You say that companies often feel stuck or overwhelmed by their
current challenges, which spurs them to evolve. Is transformation driven by frustration?

Transformation and change result from a feeling of helplessness and suffocation. This happens when companies feel powerless to achieve their goals in terms of growth, innovation, productivity or safety. At the same time, this helplessness may stem from layers of solutions accumulated over the years, which are often ineffective or even counterproductive. This twofold constraint makes the organisation realise that it is stuck in a dead end. This is where transformation comes in, often triggered by a crisis, like a faulty product, a loss of shareholder confidence, a competitive threat or global issues such as climate change. It is these crises that reveal how urgent it is to change. You can’t ignore a crisis. By definition, it compels us to react.

However, it’s also important not to go off on the wrong track. Decline for example, or nonhierarchical models. In my view, these approaches are misguided. The commitment and risk-taking needed for transformation must be underpinned by clear, ambitious objectives, often linked to some form of growth, which could be economic, social or environmental. Without this, it becomes impossible to mobilise teams.

« Complexity is not a problem in itself; what causes problems is how it is managed. »

You stress that transformation has to start with a clear definition of the problem. Why can this be such a difficult stage for companies?

Too often, companies see defining the problem as a formality. It’s known as a “phase zero” or “Smart Start” – terms that minimise the importance of this stage. However, to quote Gaston Bachelard (a French philosopher of the first half of the 20th century – Ed.), “Nothing is given. Everything is constructed.” Defining the problem is an act of intellectual construction, and that’s where it all begins. A railway operator wanted to reduce the time spent on reporting, particularly through the use of digital technologies. An analysis showed that 80% of this reporting consisted of directly or indirectly dealing with train delays. So the real problem was not “How can digital technology simplify reporting?” but “How can we get trains running on time?” A more complex task, but also more motivating for everyone and ultimately successful. When trains arrive on time, less time is spent dealing with delayed trains, and this creates more value for customers and teams.

Defining a problem is not a simple matter. It requires a cross-functional analysis, as transformation issues affect several areas: finance, human resources, production, marketing, etc.

What do you think of the methods put forward by consulting firms, and the proliferation of frameworks? Why are these tools not enough?

In an article in Harvard Business Review, I explained that the complexity of competitiveness issues has increased sixfold over the past 60 years. The response has been the proliferation of frameworks – for strategy, structures, processes, competences, leadership styles, etc. with frameworks of frameworks. We have made tools more complicated, but complication does not help us deal with complexity. In the same article, I showed that internal complexity increased 35 fold over the same period: external complexity squared, more or less.

Rather than piling on ready-made solutions as issues become more complex, we need to ask questions that help us understand the specific characteristics of each company and create synergy between the different stages of transformation.

You emphasise the role of leadership in transformation. In your view, how much should senior management be involved?

Leadership is a prerequisite for any successful transformation. The President & CEO and the executive committee must take direct responsibility for the transformation. This responsibility is too often delegated to a dedicated body that has been added on. This leads to failure, because change must be driven by those with the power to make decisions.

Leaders must put transformation on the agenda of every strategic meeting, ensure that all executive committee members contribute to it, and evaluate them according to their impact on the transformation. They must also be prepared to question themselves, because successful transformation often involves changing well-established power structures.

In your experience, have you seen any transformations that have truly leveraged internal resources?

This is one of the keys to success. The most apposite solutions often emerge from the operational level. The teams on the ground, i.e. those who work directly with products, customers or processes, are the people who possess the most valuable information. However, in order to exploit these internal resources, governance needs to facilitate the flow of information. Managers must make good use of these contributions and ensure that they are actually fed into the decision-making process. Too often, internal resources are under used because decision-making processes remain too compartmentalised.

You cite the example of the sociologist Bruno Latour, who emphasises the importance of analytical description.
Can artificial intelligence (AI) strengthen or weaken this analytical capability in the context of organisational transformations?

This is a key question, as AI is an ambivalent resource. On the one hand, it has the potential to accelerate analytical processes by processing data quickly. But in reality, what I see is that AI is often used as a shortcut that weakens analytical stringency. Take ChatGPT: previously, professionals would spend weeks analysing interviews, extracting lessons from them and structuring them. Today, in just a few hours, ChatGPT can generate a summary and ready-to use slides. But the problem here is that speed comes at the expense of observation and indepth understanding.

Bruno Latour, professor at Sciences Po, asked his students to observe metro stations in meticulous detail: how long a train stops, the illumination level in terms of lux and the speed of the turnstiles. This type of detailed description provides a real understanding of behaviours. If we don’t learn to observe, we won’t know what prompt to give an AI. What we will lose is the ability to question and interpret data in depth. I call this the “corruption” of technological tools.

You say that complexity has become a major challenge for businesses. How can they deal with it without lapsing into hasty simplification?

Complexity is an unavoidable reality. Attempting to deny or circumvent it through over-simplification is a mistake. What is needed is a “smart simplification” approach: not adding structures or procedures for each new challenge, but improving interactions between existing entities. This also makes it possible to eliminate anything that complicates matters.

Instead of increasing the number of reporting tools or hierarchical approvals, companies need to strengthen cross-functional cooperation. This requires more smoothly flowing information and greater accountability from teams. The ability to deal with complexity is a source of competitive advantage, thanks to an ecosystem where each party contributes to the whole.

« 60% to 80% of transformations fail because we focus on the method, not the problem. »

Yves Morieux

IN A GLANCE

1986–1990

Project Leader, Arthur D. Little, Paris and Cambridge (Mass.).

1990–1995

Director, Stratema SMG (Franco-Swedish consulting firm)

1995–2023

Managing Director & Senior Partner, BCG

Specialist in organisational design and complexity management; creator of “Smart Simplicity”
BCG Fellow, Director of the BCG Institute for Organisation
Multiple internal awards for his intellectual and strategic contributions

1997- TO THE PRESENT DAY

Professor at Sciences Po Paris (Master of Public Affairs, Executive Master)

Classes on organisations, decisionmaking and leadership
Lectures for internal Masters programmes (Johns Hopkins, Stockholm School of Economics)

2024- TO THE PRESENT DAY

Senior Advisor, Boston Consulting Group (BCG)