Организации рискуют проиграть, если игнорируют сигналы от клиентов в эпоху нестабильности

MAP Insights By Alma Rita R. Jimenez Most strategic planning starts with assumptions — what triggers demand, how markets will behave, how much capital will cost, the pace with which technology will evolve, how the government will move. What if our biggest strategic risk is not in missing the signals, but interpreting it through outdated assumptions? WHEN ASSUMPTIONS BREAK The times no longer make predicting the future easy. The more important concern is recognizing which assumptions are already beginning to give way and periodically examining those upon which strategies are built. Which has the weakest evidence behind them, and what is the consequence if they were wrong? How much of strategy is really the courage to admit that something we believed yesterday is no longer true? The age of flux is not just about whether the world is changing — obviously, it is. The question is whether organizations recognize when their environment is disrupted enough to trigger concomitant change in what they do. Scaling the next inflection point is not just about finding opportunities — it is about whether they can move quickly and decisively enough to convert the recognition into transformative actions. The hardest part is not seeing the signals but accepting the implications. An organization can be aware but remain inactive, informed but unchanged, data-rich but insight-poor, and insightful but indecisive. Therein lies the leadership dilemma. If leaders act too late, they will be asked why did they not see it coming. If they act too early, they will be questioned about spending money on something that may never happen. What is oftentimes overlooked is that the answers might not be about predicting the future accurately, but in building organizations capable of testing possibilities and learning quickly. It is not about moving fast but creating enough room to experiment before certainty arrives. READING THE SIGNALS START WITH LISTENING A thousand things change every day, and most are just noises. The arduous work is sifting through the signals and identifying when something that appears incremental is altering the trajectory of a system. These inflection points can look like many disconnected developments, or they may remain invisible even while you are already in the middle of these. Sometimes the signals can come from somewhere seemingly unrelated — a demographic shift, a change in consumer behavior, a new financing mechanism, a regulatory experiment, a technology being adopted in another sector, a social expectation that has not yet become a commercial imperative — then suddenly something connects. The business history is littered with the stories of many companies that did not listen and became dispensable when the gravity shifted. Listening is the easy part. Surveys can be collected, focus groups can be conducted and market studies can be commissioned. Organizations create dashboards, do data analytics, organize customer experience departments, and today, there is AI — they all provide so much information yet remain impervious — because information threatens existing assumptions. The problem then is not about what is known, but about the willingness to do something about it. MAKING THE LISTENING COUNT The big ask is to listen without defensiveness because data only becomes useful when organizations are psychologically prepared to accept what it says. There must be mechanisms that would allow them to continuously detect, interpret, respond and act before the gap between what the market needs and what are provided becomes too large to recover. And perhaps, that may be the most dangerous state — knowing exactly what needs to change yet continuing to do what had always been done —because acting on information requires accepting responsibility for what it means. That can be uncomfortable but that also presents an inflection point — that moment when the evidence becomes impossible to ignore, and organizational response can determine whether it adapts or gets disrupted. BEGIN WITH THE CUSTOMERS One of the simplest and most underused management disciplines is to begin with what the people we serve tell us about our performance. I have never been particularly enthusiastic about management meetings but in the many years I had to sit countless times for these, I preferred to begin with only one document — the patient satisfaction survey — the management dashboard I used long before they became fashionable. It is an automatic audit of internal reports rendered because the respondents either validated or contradicted them. The survey is not just a token show that we solicit feedback to measure satisfaction. It is an underrated organizational diagnostic instrument. Every negative response is not merely a complaint. It is a signal of an organizational failure somewhere in the internal value chain. The logic essentially is if the organization exists to serve people, shouldn’t those people be the starting point for evaluating whether the organization is doing its job? ORGANIZATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY IS ABOUT RESPECT Every commercial exchange carries an implicit obligation — that when someone gives us their hard-earned money in exchange for a product or service, we owe them our best effort to deliver that service well. Organizational accountability is about respect. Every customer that pays does not only transfer money. They are giving us their time, effort, trust and choices. A company’s obligation is to honor that exchange by delivering what is promised — and by caring enough to notice when it does not — whether in poorly done product, bad service, system loss, or bad network coverage. There must be a distinction between the cost of doing business which is reasonable, and the cost of failing to do business well that becomes the customers’ burden. What costs are we asking our customers to bear today that, with better management, should really be ours — inefficient processes, poorly designed systems, technology not properly integrated, unnecessarily long waiting times — who should pay the cost? When an organization has power over customers, inefficiency is not neutral if the organization can simply transfer its cost to them. In the end, the respect equation is really simple — listen to what the people tell us; respect what we hear; and when the evidence says something must change, do not make the people who trusted us pay for our failure to act. The landscape has changed and made more complex by disruptions that are no longer isolated. They come with overlapping and interconnected transitions. The challenge is no longer simply managing change but getting ahead of it in an environment where uncertainty is a defining feature. Most of the time, however, organizations do not fail because they cannot see the change. The failures happen because they do not act on what they see. Perhaps that is the real flux — what responsible leadership require we do when the world and the people we serve are telling us that something must change. Please join the MAP’s 24th International CEO Conference on “In the Age of Flux: Scaling the Next Inflection Points” at Shangri-La The Fort on Sept. 8. On Sept. 9, the East Asia Business Council Philippines’ 1st Business Summit on RCEP will be held in the same venue. This is co-presented by MAP. For registration details for these two events, please contact: <[email protected]> or <[email protected]>. Alma Rita R. Jimenez is chairman of the MAP CEO Conference Committee, co-vice chairman of the MAP Trade, Investments and Tourism Committee, president and CEO of Health Solutions Corp. and former undersecretary of the Department of Tourism.