Skip to content

Les décrocheurs et la persévérance scolaire : une erreur de fond dans le choix d’une solution

Vous pouvez dire que ce n’est pas de mes affaires parce que je ne suis pas un parent. Mais la pédagogie est justement mon domaine d’expertise. Je me vois donc dans l’obligation d’exprimer ma profonde inquiétude sur la dernière initiative gouvernementale de restreindre le décrochage scolaire par la persévérance scolaire. C’est une erreur de vision stratégique, une erreur au niveau de la symbolique, et c’est malheureusement une erreur de jugement.

Peu importe ce que nous pouvons réaliser en classe, les programmes scolaires ne seront jamais assez intéressants pour capter toute l’attention des enfants, bien que nous devons tenter de le faire. C’est ce que nos enseignants accomplissent chaque jour. Leur travail est de transmettre leurs connaissances avec passion. Certains le font mieux que d’autres et c’est normal. Mais cela demeure quand même un objectif quotidien. Le prof doit faire en sorte de garder les esprits des jeunes concentrés et engagés dans leur responsabilité première : apprendre pour préparer leur futur. C’est une responsabilité que le peuple a mandatée à l’état, soit de  définir le rôle que l’enfant doit assumer.

Alors pourquoi y a-t-il hémorragie de décrocheurs?

La cause n’est pas la qualité de l’enseignement. Ce n’est pas non plus l’ennui ou le découragement des garçons. Ce n’est pas non plus parce que les familles n’encouragent pas leurs enfants.  Ce n’est pas parce que les enfants préfèrent l’argent à l’étude. Et ce n’est certainement pas parce que nos enfants manquent d’ambition.  Ces excuses historiques sont absurdes : tous les enfants veulent apprendre et se développer. C’est dans leur ADN. Ils sont tous programmés ainsi.

À mon avis, nous n’avons pas encore identifié le cœur du problème. L’aliénation des enfants et le manque de focus sont les symptômes d’un plus grand problème, celui que nous avons refusé de reconnaître parce qu’il remet en question notre relation, comme société, avec nos enfants. En fait nous les traitons comme des petits adultes. Nous sommes devenus leurs amis plutôt que leurs parents. Nous raisonnons avec eux, au lieu de faire preuve d’autorité. Nous leur laissons prendre des décisions qui détermineront leur avenir. Cela est clairement un échec. Et c’est pourquoi nous avons une hémorragie de décrocheurs. Les enfants décrochent parce qu’ils le peuvent, parce qu’ils ont le choix.

Et voilà que nous proposons comme contre-mesure à ce problème important et incontestable,  une stratégie basée sur la persévérance. Comme si l’encouragement peut magiquement parer le découragement et annulez l’option de décrocher.

Au cours des vingt dernières années, l’école est carrément devenue une option pour les parents, pour les profs et nos enfants. Aujourd’hui, les enfants ont le choix de laisser tomber, d’abandonner, de décrocher pour toutes sortes de raisons. Malheureusement, notre culture a institutionnalisé cette option. Nous sommes devenus nous même, comme adulte, allergiques à la discipline et au contrôle. Nous désirons les options. Nous voulons être libres de choisir. Malheureusement, les enfants ne peuvent pas gérer leur vie avec des options parce qu’ils ne peuvent pas anticiper les conséquences à long terme de leurs actions. Ils ont besoin de conseils. Ils ont besoin de discipline et de limites qui génèrent, paradoxalement, une plus grande autonomie: celle d’être libéré du stress de choisir de rester ou pas, et de trouver le bonheur là où ils sont et se concentrer sur leurs études.

Pour nous, l’éducation est un droit imprescriptible : pour les enfants de nations moins fortunées, l’éducation est un objet précieux. Ici, l’école est obligatoire. C’est la loi. L’éducation n’est pas une option. Ce qui est ironique est que ministère de l’Éducation l’a mal compris. L’éducation ne requiert pas de la persévérance parce, ici, aujourd’hui, c’est une obligation. Le ministère doit être moins politiquement correct et plus courageux. Nous devons aider nos enfants à faire face à la réalité : ils n’ont pas le choix de décrocher. Aller à l’école n’est pas une option. Notre société a besoin d’hommes et de femmes préparés à jouer leur rôle dans la société. Nous devons garder nos enfants à l’école!

André John Haddad

Posted in Management ideas.

Tagged with , .

1 comment

By André Dusault – February 26, 2011

Egypt’s changing of the guard: a challenge for change masters

I’ve been to Egypt and other Middle Eastern dictatorships too many times to believe Egypt and her neighbors are ready for democracy. In my mind, democracy is an art form and a culture, just like in business when a CEO says it’s time to be quick and agile. It doesn’t happen because one thinks hard about it.

It’s not about free elections
I feel many of us want to believe that democracy starts with elections. We believe that cultural change will follow the vote. I really can’t fault anyone for thinking that way. It makes sense. I want to believe it myself. Because it’s simple, and because it’s black and white, politically correct and, it fits well in western nation-building philosophy.

The rehabilitated nations of the Middle East once freed from their current bosses will most likely move towards another form of dictatorship, maybe theocracies. I’m sorry to say that that reality hasn’t yet been successfully demonstrated, anywhere. No matter what the Canadian or US Constitution says. From a social historical point of view, democracies were not built on free elections, where a people chose their own government. It was built on simpler bricks: people’s capability to earn a decent living in a safe place.

First a decent living, then the rule of law (even under dictatorships). Flanked by reliable infrastructures, we get democracy. It’s a process. Democracy surfaces into all kinds of shapes: free speech, free thought, a good life, inspiring art, money, blogs, books, movies, the Internet and crime.

As I said, Egyptians may vote as much as we would like them to. But what’s really in play here is Egypt’s 60 years of inefficiency and embedded corruption. With no resources available to them to renew their nation, and an economy on life-support since Nasser, the next elections, that could appear OK, will lead that nation straight into another dictatorship, hardly what they asked for or deserve.

Unfortunately I have no doubt about that outcome. And that’s almost a certainty given that Egypt’s  education system is based on 7th century dogma.

What we have and will witness in the short term, call them nation changing events, courageous as they are, will take the Middle East’s new leadership in a renewed confrontation with Israel. I’m afraid, and sorry to say, that an inevitable and insoluble train wreck is in the offing. The confrontation will probably take shape in Jerusalem.
Andre John Haddad

Posted in Country visits, World economy.

Tagged with , , .

1 comment

By André Dusault – February 13, 2011

INNOVATION & TECHNOLOGY: ARE WE ON TRACK TO LOSE THE SECOND GLOBAL BATTLE?

The integration of the BRIC nations to global commerce during the last decade of 2000-2010 has been highly disruptive to Canadian manufacturing companies across the nation.  Many SME have lost their competitiveness, profitability, market share or simply disappeared when whole industries were caught unprepared by new game changers in manufacturing.  In a nutshell, we have lost the first globalisation battle in manufacturing to China and India.  Even smaller nations, for example from ASEAN, have seen their manufacturing productivity grow dramatically.

The next decade (2010-2020) will see the rise of an equally important challenge to the competitiveness of Canadian firms:  Technology and innovation.  There is now a greater intensity of innovations and technologies in products and services, shortening not only product life cycles but also product development cycles.  The launching of new products and services is done at an exponential rate in many sectors, such as media, healthcare delivery, consumer electronics, while distribution has been permitted to expand globally with a large array of free trade agreements.   Technological innovation is simply accelerating.

Worldwide R&D budgets have in the past 10 years doubled to about $1.2 trillion, with the top three countries being the USA ($400 bn), China ($154 bn) and Japan ($ 144 bn).  As a reference, total R&D expenditures in Quebec, private and public, are estimated at $ 10 bn, a drop in the bucket.  The innovative challenge is not just only financial but also human.  John Gapper, from the Financial Time, was highlighting the fact that China was enrolling 15% of the world’s university students and 40% of new degrees there are in science and engineering, compared with only 15% in the US.  Meanwhile 68% of US engineering doctorates are now awarded to non-US citizens.   These figures point to a potential paradigm shift in technology and innovation for the next 10 years. 

We mostly promote in Canada Science and R&D programs as our innovation drivers.  Asian competitors focus their innovation efforts on product driven technologies; a subtle but critical difference.  For instance, Japan has traditionally had a weak culture of venture capital, for the good reason that industry leaders were charged to incorporate process technologies and develop product technologies.  They have thus been able to capture ‘fields of technologies’ and keep the edge in a number of industries such consumer electronics, cars, advanced materials, robotics, etc.  Many other Asian nations are following a similar pathway whereby technology and R&D priorities are integrated into industrial policies.

This is raising a number of critical questions for us, if we are not to be left behind by large nations, like China and India, but also by smaller nations like Sweden and Singapore.  

1. Where do we invest our collective R&D tax dollars, in which technology fields, and in which labs, private or public?  Not all R&D budgets and strategies yield the same results. The commercial impact of these large investments has been so far rather disappointing.  Technology clusters have successfully driven lab discoveries and inventions.  But our record in nurturing emerging technologies and start-up companies, build them into commercial entities, and bring their new technologies to markets has so far been well below the expectations entrusted in the large public sums dedicated to venture capital.  We have developed a lot of technical objects that have failed to find markets and customers.  High tech ecosystems and clusters are by definition high risk proposals to market technological innovations.

2. Canada has often been a preferred location for R&D centers of multinationals.  Canada had a pool of qualified scientists, an advantageous R&D tax credit system, and a work ethic that moulded well to multinational cultures.  This worked well before the rise of China and India.  For the last ten years, multinationals have shifted not only production activities to these new countries, but increasingly R&D centers as well to meet the conditions required to win big orders in China and India. R&D investment in the local country is just one of a series of conditions to net large government contracts.  In fact we are witnessing a new geographical distribution of technology innovations, driven by R&D dollars, scientific talent, and entrepreneurship.  For instance, Huawei, a Chinese telecoms manufacturer, claims that its R&D engineers cost 40% less than in the West, and work 40% more hours.  We are at risk of seeing our own position in the field of R&D labs gradually but steadily erode.

3. Finally, and perhaps more importantly, Canadian companies are shy to invest in technologies and R&D. Small size has often prevented SME to buy into cutting edge technologies, either in production or product development. While most commercial innovations usually require some prior R&D bench work, either completed internally or externally, the opposite is far from being a reliable indicator. Mere R&D budgets are not a good predictor of commercial innovations.  Management practices affecting innovation are in the midst of profound changes.  Companies need to learn new skills and competencies to improve their innovation output and commercial success, such as client driven innovation tools, product development, leadership in exploiting and adapting new technologies, open innovation, etc.

We may think that the horizon to address such a culture change in our companies provides us with plenty of time ahead of us.  But the fact is that the emerging champions from the emerging countries are fast learning to innovate in their own ways and expand internationally.  The second global battle is engaged. 

André Du Sault

ADS teaches ‘Mastering Innovation’ for executives with his partner, André Haddad.  He also teaches ‘Management practices in Asia’, at McGill.  The combination of the two provides a unique perspective.

Posted in Innovation & organisation, Strategy & globalisation.

Tagged with , , , , , .

2 comments

By André Dusault – February 3, 2011

Field trip to Germany (12.10): The new fault line in Europe connects to Berlin.

Berlin, 15-21 December. 

Checkpoint Charlie is now just a dot on tourist maps.  The Berlin wall, long a symbol of the cold war, rests in the minds of the older generation. Since its fall, some 20 years ago, Berlin has embraced modernity in art, architecture, politics and economics.

The German economic model has particularly impressed.  From 1990 to 2000 the country was able to absorb a sudden reunification, then both a meaningful fiscal shock to the nation and a competitive shock for German enterprises.  The next period of 2000 to 2010 also bore challenges:  The international rise of China and India, coupled with a particularly nasty financial crisis.  Yet at the close of 2010, in the midst of a shaky Euro, Germany stands in pretty good shape.  It is coming out as one of the winners in the rise of Asia, and a strong survivor of this financial crisis.     

The German export machine, the world’s second largest, is romping along nicely, accounting for about 55% of the total Euro zone exports. The trade balance, at around +210 $bn, sustains a current account surplus of +5% of GDP.  Growth in GDP should hit 3.5% in 2010 and a slower 2.0-2.5% in 2011.  Unemployment stands around 7.5%, high enough for grumbles, but far lower than the socially-shaking 20% found in Spain. Government debt is at 80% of GDP, slightly lower than Europe’s average at 83%.  The German business model of consensus, wage discipline, high product quality and steady determination has worked wonders in the last 20 years.

Success used to translate into a stronger Deutsch Mark. Today, success means as well being pinned down to the fault line in the Euro zone: Stress in the banking systems and excessive government debts shaking confidence in the Euro.  The rest of Europe needs today, more than ever, a strong German economy; so the German banking system needs to pass through the forthcoming debt restructuring in decent shape.  Germany needs a surviving Euro, otherwise they will be dragged down in the flames as well.  Inevitably, one way or the other, the fault line reaches Berlin.  Yet it is somehow comforting to see Germany in the driver’s seat:  We know full well that the option of muddling through will only be tolerated for just a while; and that any form of fiscal integration or reform in the monetary union will require flexible consensus and determination; two qualities akin to modern Germans. 

As the events roll out in 2011, what are we to find out: A more European Germany or a more German Europe?

Andre Du Sault

Posted in Country visits, World economy.

Tagged with , , .

1 comment

By André Dusault – December 27, 2010

Une nouvelle étude sur les CFO: Comment devenir ‘lean & strategic’ dans un environnement globalisé.

Les pressions s’accumulent sur les épaules des CFO et leurs défis professionnels s’accentuent.  Dans un monde d’affaires de plus en plus compétitif, les chefs d’entreprises cherchent à devenir plus stratégiques, conscients des pressions et des choix de croissance à faire.   C’est toute l’équipe de direction qui est appelée à évoluer dans leurs rôles: D’experts techniques à copilotes stratégiques.

Est-ce que les CFO ont aujourd’hui les outils et les habilités pour rencontrer les nouvelles exigences de leur poste en entreprise?  Comment construire des fonctions Finance productives (‘lean’) tout en ayant les ressources pour avoir un impact stratégique sur l’organisation?  Comment trouver un équilibre entre la stabilité espérée dans les systèmes de base de l’entreprise et les exigences d’une organisation agile et de plus en plus branchée en réseaux?  Quel devrait être le rôle du CFO dans l’expansion internationale des entreprises?

Nous avons entrepris une étude sur les nouveaux rôles des CFO et nous entamons la phase finale de cette étude.  Nous aimerions encore interviewer quelques CFO d’expérience.

Nous vous invitons à prendre connaissance du lien sur cette étude.: http://www.dusaulthaddad.com/index.php/fr/recherches/cfo.

André Du Sault

Posted in CFO & treasury, Management ideas.

Tagged with , , , .

1 comment

By André Dusault – December 6, 2010

ECHOES OF PAUL KENNEDY: VOLATILE MACROECONOMICS, IN SIGNALS TO A POWER SHIFT

The recent G-20 summit has marked a defining moment.  We know the rise of Asia is shifting the global landscape, politically and economically.  But the summit has made it clearer than ever to the western public that Asian countries have the means and weight to support their own national interests.  In a new multi-polar world, the forces at play are more complex and nuanced.  Most economic problems are now unlikely to be solved with magic bullets, or unilateral shoving or bullying. 

In the field of economics, much uncertainty lies ahead.  There is a great deal of disparity in economic prospects amongst the large trading blocks of Asia, Europe and the Americas.  Scenarios about growth, inflation and long term interest rates, and notably exchange rates, keep changing every quarter.  While many countries have so far resisted the siren call of protectionism, policies and politics have in the short term ruthlessly focused on exchange rates.  Exports are deemed to be an important key to the exit strategy out of the financial crisis.   In a slow motion deployment, countries are still responding to this prolonged financial crisis:  Quantitative easing (QEII) in the USA, debt restructuring and budget cuts in Europe, and tackling overheating in Asia.  At this stage of the crisis, we are only sure that it is setting the stage for further episodes.

QE II is the second response from the Federal Reserve in this financial crisis.  The short term impacts of QE II were well anticipated by the markets:  a drop in the US dollar, a lower interest curve, a stock market rally and a rebound in commodities.  Yet it remains speculative to predict the likely outcome of QE II in the medium term.  A string of renown economists (among others Krugman, Stieglitz, Brittan, Roach, Roubini…) have voiced concerns about the effectiveness of QE II to jump start the American economy.  Moreover, other countries will not remain idle to this American policy.  So what can we expect about the American economy?

One of three scenarios is likely to take hold in the next couple of years:  1. The American economy gets back on its feet and cures its financial system, 2. The USA falls into a decade long pattern somehow similar to Japan in the 1990s, 3. The USA experiences a steady decline from now on.

SCENARIO 1:  Resilience trumps the doubters

The resilience of the American economy has long made the envy of other nations.  Several factors have underpinned this capacity to spring back after major setbacks:  Inventive minds giving birth to new technologies, a power to attract the best brains, a financial system backing entrepreneurs, a mobile and educated workforce, a bevy of competitive companies, a large domestic market to induce scale, and a military force to sustain security and national interests.  Now, this past recession was no ordinary slow down.  It deeply hurt federal institutions, states budgets, industries and flagship companies.  The central question is about whether the financial crisis has permanently damaged the American model and its intrinsic resilience?   Whatever the answer, the coming back will require hard work, sacrifice and deft fingers to manage the right balance between short term stimulus and  a credible medium term fiscal plan.  It is thus quite possible that the USA will regroup politically, pull economically ahead (albeit slowly) and manage enough growth to tackle the extended deleveraging phase.   This is the wish of the several key trading partners to the USA.  Much is at stake in this recovery.

SCENARIO 2:  Muddling through for a while, Japanese style

It is equally possible that things will not move so fast and so positively for the American economy.  The headwinds are strong.  Economic growth has in the past ten years shifted away from the axis of Europe-America, to Asia and other emerging blocks.  Technology and innovation are spreading fast to other nations.  Healthcare and education standards will suffer in the near term at state levels.  Household mobility is hampered by the real estate mess.  In fact, the American middle class ended up the first decade of the 21st century in pretty bad shape.  Paul Volker recently commented on the largest ever wealth transfer in America, taking place in the same decade, from the middle class to the rich class. 

The Japanese went through a similar financial crisis in 1990. The post-bubble headache lasted a good ten years: Low growth, high indebtedness, bouts of deflation, deep social changes, etc.  The pillars of the Japanese model, which had so much frightened the West for a couple of decades, were irreparably weakened as a result. But as much as the Japanese economy finally recovered around 2003-2005, the ageing curve was catching up with the country.  GDP per capita has now started to fall in Japan. 

For America, this is a scenario of relative decline, for a period of 5 to 10 years, but with the strength to remain a top tier power across the board. 

SCENARIO 3:  Past the tipping point?

Are we now possibly witnessing TWO earth shaking moments in this generation?  The first, anchored in the fastest and largest industrial revolution of all times, is the return of China as a world economic power. And the second could be the recent peak of American power, slowly and steadily evaporating before our eyes.   We should by no means jump to pessimistic conclusions just because a country is going through a very tough patch.  But the words of Paul Kennedy, in his seminal work of 1988 (The rise and fall of the great powers; P. 533) have a ring of truth that such a scenario should not be discarded too lightly either:

“For it has been a common dilemma facing previous ‘number-one’ countries that even as their relative economic strength is ebbing, the growing foreign challenges to their position have compelled them to allocate more and more of their resources into the military sector, which in turn squeezes out productive investments and, over time, leads to the downward spiral of slower growth, heavier taxes, deepening domestic splits over spending priorities, and weakening capacity to bear the burdens of defence. “

There is a sense of vulnerability clouding the American economy, shared by many observers.  We hope it recovers ground and strength, but we cannot be certain that it will in the current global context.  We can only be sure that QE II will bring its share of unpredictable events in the next few years, as they unfold and possibly take us by surprise. 

This is not what companies wish for, accustomed to deal with macroeconomic variables only once a year, at budget time.  But that is the picture they will face:  A certain level of global uncertainties, driven by competing geopolitics, trade imperatives, glowing bubbles, and shifting alliances.  

Boards, CEOs and CFOs will need to track on a regular basis (monthly or quarterly) those fundamental changes as they affect interest rates, exchange rates, patterns of trade and investments, etc.   Macroeconomics is moving up to the strategic level:  Turning points, potential crises, growth opportunities or market destruction will stray the path ahead.

André Du Sault

Posted in CFO & treasury, World economy.

Tagged with , , .

2 comments

By André Dusault – November 22, 2010

LOCKED INTO A PATTERN, BOARDS NEVER REACH STRATEGY


As little as 10% of private company boards have a clear agenda on strategy today. Our experience and recent study tell us this is not new in the governance landscape. Yet in the business landscape, strong winds of pressure keep blowing: globalisation, the digital economy, the mutation of customers, etc. Boards are thus foregoing a critical role in creating value: Strategy assembling. The reason for that is that boards are locked into a familiar pattern that is blocking them to fully play their role. In some cases, it may lead to insolvency.

Most boards in existence have actually been created in the last century, when the state of business pressure was not as high as today, and when business was mainly conducted with a continental mindset. Boards were often set up in relative haste, with the prime matter of distributing control on the board, dominating the initial steps. Not surprisingly board performance varied between a ‘rubberstamping’ version to a mixed bag of ‘cat and mouse’ practices. In most cases, board members have been happy to play the role of checkers of financial statements, or the protecting guardians of rules and regulations. Little time and few incentives were dedicated to reaching the strategic agenda. This is a common pattern, still persisting to this day. Yet a strategic board is not a superfluous option today. It is a powerful and necessary tool to respond to business changes and challenges.

Breaking that established pattern is about looking at three specific points of resistance and installing new practices: 1. The initial set-up; 2. Board evaluation; 3. Introducing the strategic agenda. The following comments are inspired by our study conclusions, recently posted on our website.

1. Nurturing a fledging board: Many entrepreneurs are plain hesitant to set-up a board of directors in the first place. They see plenty of bad boards and wonder why they should get into something that is not serving them and that is more likely to turn into a burden. The contract between transparency from management and true engagement from the board members is rarely consumed when the abiding rush in setting up a board is not resisted. When “control” issues dominate (and just think about the monster ‘shareholders’ agreements you have probably seen) both sides are doomed to be disappointed. Thoughtful planning and sequencing at the outset, before the board is created, is not wasted: The standards of the initial set-up will quickly determine the level of performance of the board, which plateaus early on.

2. Raising performance standards: The board soon learns to live with its practices, good and bad, and its installed routine. A poor set-up usually leads to the inclusion of some faulty processes, disruptive behaviours, and bad thinking permeating the board routine. It is the sad fate of a majority of boards. We have come across numerous boards that were qualified as “toxic”, “frustrating”, and a “waste of time”. The amazing thing is that board performance is relatively easy and inexpensive to correct. What is missing is the will and the incentives to undertake a performance review. Raising board standards is often a prerequisite to introducing the strategy agenda.

3. Introducing the strategic agenda: Not surprisingly, and given the current state of affairs on boards, there is also much resistance to introduce strategic concerns on the agenda: Overt resistance from management, and covert resistance from board members. Management sees a “golden cage” in strategic planning, while independent board members are often reluctant to “own” the corporate strategy. Too often the board is happy to settle for a weak SWOT analysis, or a stretched budget. A rigorous peek into the future is missed out. Again a proper roadmap can help clarify the roles for both management and board members at the time when the board contemplates the process of strategy assembling. We have written an article on the topic: “A time for boards to renew strategy”, which reviews in greater details what it takes to get on with the strategy agenda.

Small and large companies alike are caught into a locked pattern of managing the status quo. Technical changes are resisted, market changes are missed out, and cost cutting overtakes strategic insight. The recent examples of GM, Readers Digest and a score of others illustrate the consequences of not breaking the pattern at board level. New boards should beware.

André Du Sault.

Posted in Governance, Strategy & globalisation.

Tagged with , , , .

No comments

By André Dusault – November 1, 2010

Chronique à l'Ambaq (stratégie et mondialisation): Surprises dans notre sondage sur la mondialisation, et quelques conseils


Les réponses de plus de 80 exécutifs à notre sondage sur la mondialisation, soulèvent quelques surprises et réflexions. Le sondage, distribué et mis en ligne sur le site de l’Ambaq un peu plus tôt cette année, contenait 18 questions touchant à la mondialisation, la concurrence et les compétences individuelles. Le sondage visait simplement à mesurer l’état de préparation face à la mondialisation et les écarts notables. L’évaluation du questionnaire se faisait sur une base de réponses simples: ‘En accord’, ‘En désaccord’, ou ‘Ne sais pas’. Nous avons pris plaisir à jeter un regard sur les résultats, mais nous n’avons pas la prétention d’en tirer plus que des observations empiriques intéressantes et des pistes de réflexion à suivre.

A première vue, les réponses apparaissent tout à fait en lien avec la formation des répondants: le MBA. Mais en y creusant d’un peu plus près, de nouvelles questions surgissent rapidement: Seraient-ce des avertissements dissimulés entre les lignes? Dans le portrait global du sondage, il en ressort que les exécutifs semblent avoir une bonne vision périphérique de leurs affaires, dans un contexte ‘pour aujourd’hui’. Ils sont familiers avec la stratégie de leur entreprise, les concurrents, les plaintes de clients, les compétences actuelles, etc.

Néanmoins les résultats du sondage associés à deux champs de compétences qui se retrouvent en ascension dans les entreprises comme outils de compétitivité, soient l’innovation et les habilités internationales, semblent nettement plus préoccupants. Ces compétences, dites ‘transférables’, seront aussi importantes pour les entreprises de demain que pour les individus. Elles devront intégrer l’arsenal de talents des exécutifs d’ici 3 à 5 années.

Passons en revue les quatre questions qui ont reçu le plus de réponses de type ‘Je suis en accord’. Nous y mettons notre grain de sel et offrons quelques brefs commentaires et conseils.

1. Je connais les compétences que mes employés doivent développer aujourd’hui pour que mon entreprise puisse faire face à la compétition (73% en accord)
C’est un résultat qui à première vue apparaît réconfortant en ce que les entreprises savent s’adapter. En contrepartie, seulement 29% des répondants croient ‘posséder l’arsenal d’habilités et de talents pour faire face à la compétition internationale’. Dans la mesure où cette compétition internationale continuera de se manifester dans nos marchés à court ou moyen terme, cela demeure une réponse inquiétante. D’ailleurs près de 50% des répondants croient que ‘nous avons des choses indispensables à apprendre des entreprises asiatiques’, et environ 45% des répondants ont déjà vu ‘des répercussions sur leur travail par l’intégration de la Chine et l’Inde au commerce mondial’. Avec la compétition internationale littéralement à nos portes, est-ce que la volonté d’acquérir ces nouvelles compétences sera au rendez-vous? Sera t’il possible d’identifier les compétences requises à l’organisation dans cet horizon de 3-5 ans si une veille d’intelligence d’affaire n’est pas déjà mise en place? Dans le dernier numéro du Bulletin de l’Ambaq, nous avons esquissé quelques unes de ces nouvelles compétences.

2. Je connais la stratégie de mon entreprise (72% en accord)
Dans le sens instinctif des affaires la majorité des exécutifs peuvent s’identifier à la stratégie de leur entreprise, même si celle-ci est rarement communiquée par écrit aux cadres, et encore moins à l’ensemble des employés. Les stratégies d’entreprise se résument assez souvent aux grandes lignes de ‘Ce que nous allons faire dans la prochaine année’. Si nous demandions aux employés à quoi ressemblerait leur organisation dans 2-3 ans et quel serait leur contribution dans l’exécution de la stratégie, nous aurions peut-être un autre résultat au sondage sur cette question.

Ailleurs dans le sondage 65% des répondants disent ‘connaître la principale critique que leurs clients font à l’égard de leurs affaires’, ce qui est en fait assez élevé. Nous espérons simplement que leurs entreprises y répondent. Par contre seulement 50% disent ‘connaître la durée de vie de leur offre produit-service avant qu’elle ne perde sa différenciation et compétitivité’. La moitié demeurent donc exposés à ce que des compétiteurs plus innovateurs qu’eux ne les surprennent. Finalement, seulement 45% affirment ‘avoir suffisamment de temps pour se poser les bonnes questions sur l’avenir de leur organisation’. Vraisemblablement, certaines de ces stratégies affirmées dans ce groupe de 72% devront être révisées.

3. Je peux nommer mes concurrents à l’étranger (70%)
En appui à cette affirmation, 65% des répondants pourraient ‘identifier les produits-services des concurrents qui auraient le potentiel de prendre une part de marché et de créer des difficultés dans les 12 prochains mois’. Alors que nos exécutifs se maintiennent à l’affût de la concurrence, seulement 27% répondent qu’ils savent ‘où pouvoir faire faire la fabrication de leur produit-service à meilleur coût et/ou à meilleure qualité’. On dénote ainsi un certain attachement à ses façons de faire, et une hésitation à puiser dans les opportunités qui pourraient cependant déranger les zones de confort.

Nous savons par expérience et par observation que l’intensité compétitive se développe de façon alarmante dans les nouveaux pays émergents (‘where you eat what you kill’). Les nouveaux champions de ces pays sont agressifs, confiants et sans peur. Ils partent à la conquête du monde avec un esprit compétitif. Notre culture moderne des affaires au Canada n’est pas tout-à-fait alignée sur cette même mentalité. Il faudra s’attendre à des surprises de la part de ceux qui se seront vraiment centrés sur leurs clients, et qui sauront utiliser de nouvelles formules et technologies pour s’ajuster aux besoins des ceux-ci. En d’autres mots il faut aussi savoir que la compétition pourrait émerger de quartiers inattendus!

4. L’innovation devient un enjeu concurrentiel pour mon organisation (67% en accord)Soit, l’innovation est à la mode. Derrière ce mot, on imagine cependant une typologie assez variée chez les répondants: Nouveaux produits, plus grande agilité d’entreprise, processus internes améliorés… Mais moins de 50% de ceux qui ont répondu être ‘En Accord’ que l’innovation est un enjeu concurrentiel, affirmaient ‘savoir clairement distinguer la créativité et l’innovation’ dans une autre question. On reconnaît l’importance de l’innovation, mais on ne sait pas encore comment vraiment s’y prendre pour être plus innovant. L’innovation demeure un outil et un processus nébuleux malgré son importance croissante.

Les exécutifs d’aujourd’hui semblent encore plus disposés à pousser l’efficacité de leurs organisations et à la restructurer via le contrôle des coûts qu’à explorer de nouvelles avenues innovatrices en organisation et modèle de croissance. On demeure dans une zone de confort contrôlée. Cette approche devrait tenir le coup jusqu’au prochain choc compétitif, mais après?

Pour terminer, la question qui a soulevé le plus de réponses de types ‘En désaccord’ ou ‘Ne sais pas’ a été la suivante: ‘Je sais combien de temps il me reste avant que mon poste ne soit modifié ou aboli’ , à 74% des répondants. Nous sommes probablement à la fois trop occupés au travail, confiants dans nos entreprises, et naïfs de ne pas y penser.

André Du Sault
André J Haddad

Posted in Management ideas, Strategy & globalisation.

Tagged with , , , , .

No comments

By André Dusault – October 21, 2010

Paradise lost?


Dear Blogger,
This is a first for me, I mean actually blogging about my vacation, a holiday, a retreat away from home, an escape from routine. But let me come to the point: Paradise Lost is not a work of fiction, it’s a reality.
In Hawaii as well as Tahiti, one has to hunt for anything actually manufactured there. Hunt, meaning to shop around and ask: “Is this made here?”
The answer is quick and firm: “Yes of course.”
But that’s not true. The man lies. The tag says it (whatever that is) has been designed here…
When you confront the sales person, the response is also very quick and firm: “Oh… I didn’t know that. Duh.”
Souvenirs, knick-knack, gifts, art, jewellery and clothing… found in paradise are made elsewhere, in China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam…
So what are the two most important questions we should be asking ourselves about our business plan?
a. Are there any parts of the market place that are still protected from foreign competitors?
b. Can one protect his or her business from the competition, in a very, very, local market?

Here, for your enjoyment, is a definition of a protected market:

A protected market is defined as one defended from the competition. This concept dates back to the 18th century, where Adam Smith, a Scottish philosopher and a founder of political economics and the 19th century English economist Alfred Marshall, as well as many others, considered the repercussions of flawed competition, trade restrictions, etc… as a way to protect certain markets from the competition.

How old is protectionism? The answer is rather simple. Protectionism has its origins as far back in time as when commerce happened between tribes, villages, protecting trade routes and suppliers, city states, etc… As you may well know, market protection also comes in all sizes and shapes, and as recently as 2001, these protections were in play worldwide, in spite of commercial treaties and, they more or less had some level of success.

But today, some would have us believe that naturally protected markets still work. Regrettably, I beg to differ. A carefully crafted Tahitian wooden turtle, truly local, with the word Tahiti carved on the animal’s belly, is in fact, manufactured in Indonesia. And so, as incredible as it may seem, even very local markets, tiny ones, miniatures, small, insignificant, call them microscopic markets, are not protected any longer from the competition.

What we are seeing are predatory behaviors. They are the standard of commerce, being installed, worldwide, no holds barred.
Paradise is indeed lost, because it’s gone global!

Andre J Haddad

Posted in Country visits, Management ideas.

Tagged with , , .

2 comments

By André Dusault – October 14, 2010

Currency tensions: Politics running ahead of policies


Stephen Roach, in a recent article in the New York Times highlighted the structural problem affecting the mother of exchange rate tensions: The fixed US$ – Yuan rate. The two biggest economies on the planet have structural disparities that need to be fixed, because they are not sustainable even within an horizon of two years:
Consumption: 70% of GDP in the USA, 35% in China.
Investment: 12% of GDP in the USA, 45% in China.
Exports: Trade deficit of US$ 600 bn, a surplus of US$ 180 bn in China.
Savings: Currently in the range of 3-5% of GDP in the USA, and 54 % in China.

Both countries need to undertake new policies to correct their part: The USA must save more and consume less. And the government must provide the stimulus to compensate for less consumption. Congress seems hesitant to back these policies. China must consume more and rely less on investment for economic growth. Yet to a large extent, the Chinese stimulus was mostly driven by investment. For a policy change in China, we will have to wait and glance into the next 5-year plan of 2011-2016. All in all, this is the gap in policy that needs to be closely watched in the future.

In the meantime politicians in both countries are pressured by the unemployment rate and the creation of employment. Mid-term elections are coming in the States and the likelihood of a meaningful additional stimulus looks slim. Meanwhile in China, the politicians’ eyeballs are fixed on forthcoming urban migration in the order of a hundred million people scheduled to take place in the next decade. This provides all the incentives to keep the exchange rate locked with the US$ to create the jobs on such a scale. They are understandably nervous to move their exchange rate to the extent demanded by other nations.

The result is that politics are running ahead of policies. The Americans are now playing the currency war: The US$ is dropping in the face of economic slowdown and weak resolve at the Fed. Asian countries with their ‘managed currency programs’, will manage. China will not move, and Europe is now left wondering what to do next.

The pressures are mounting for a compromise.

Posted in CFO & treasury, World economy.

Tagged with , , , , .

No comments

By André Dusault – October 8, 2010