McKinsey on OrganizationAn in-depth look at the challenges facing senior managers   Published by The McKinsey Quarterly   ...
1Leading change: An interview with the CEO of P&GRajat Gupta and Jim Wendler                            almost 70 percent,...
2Leading change: An interview with the CEO of P&GOver time, however, the desire to compete in this             Achievable ...
3Leading change: An interview with the CEO of P&Gtechnologies, and capabilities—and focused his            that they don’t...
4Leading change: An interview with the CEO of P&Gthe next month talking with consumers at sales       One of the classic p...
5Leading change: An interview with the CEO of P&GThis reassurance, like the intensive coaching         team that designed ...
6Leading change: An interview with the CEO of P&Ga decade or two. It’s clear that Gillette and P&G          needed to coac...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

2005 leading change interview with p&g siom

886 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
886
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2005 leading change interview with p&g siom

  1. 1. McKinsey on OrganizationAn in-depth look at the challenges facing senior managers Published by The McKinsey Quarterly July 2005 Studio/Lab, ChicagoLeading change:An interview with the CEO of P&GAlan G. Lafley discusses how to stretch a company’s aspirations without overpromising.Second in a series of interviews with leading executives on change management.Article at a glanceIn this interview, Alan G. Lafley, CEO and longtime insider, recounts how he orchestrated recentchange at P&G.Lafley describes his role helping managers to make strategic choices by challenging their deeply heldassumptions. Aspirations, he insists, should involve stretching but still be achieveable.One danger during a turnaround is that managers and employees can become so overwhelmed bythe breadth of change that the organization freezes. Reaffirming the positives can help.While many companies assume that outsiders are needed to shake things up, Lafley argues his 25 yearsin operations give him a depth of understanding that allows for ‘more intelligent’ risk taking.
  2. 2. 1Leading change: An interview with the CEO of P&GRajat Gupta and Jim Wendler almost 70 percent, to $9.8 billion, and revenues increased by almost 30 percent, to $51 billion.Outrageously high targets for revenues, earnings, Investors have embraced P&G’s future thanks toand market share; a bold vision based on a new products ranging from Swiffer (a sweeperstriking new business model or groundbreaking offering for hard floor surfaces) to Actonel (atechnology; major strategic moves, such as prescription medication for osteoporosis), asacquisitions or partnerships, that change the game well as innovations in a wide range of establishedin an industry; a new CEO, freshly arrived from brands. Lafley’s announcement of the $54 billionthe outside and committed to shaking things up. acquisition of Gillette, in January 2005—by far theSuch shocks to the corporate system are widely largest in P&G’s history—has been well receivedassumed to be necessary for transforming a by investors and analysts, who are generallycompany’s performance. skeptical about major deals.Yet Alan G. Lafley’s first five years as CEO of P&G Executing with excellenceshow that none of these things is strictly necessary The full story of P&G’s turnaround is packed withfor achieving this sort of change. A large global complex, interlocking decisions about brands,company that has stumbled and lost some of its personnel, technology, markets, facilities, andconfidence can be led to new levels of performance much else. One of the strongest patterns isthrough a more subtle form of leadership exercised Lafley’s approach to raising aspirations: he agreesby a long-term insider. Lafley’s experience sheds with Lou Gerstner that strategic visions can be aparticular light on two of the biggest challenges distraction, so he has never offered one. Lafleyfacing CEOs in this situation: the pace of change also seconds Lawrence Bossidy’s belief thatand the need for ‘stretch’ aspirations. companies should aim to achieve great execution but insists that the real challenge is to “unpack”Lafley recalls vividly the market’s initial this idea. “Bossidy’s right—in the end, it’s aboutdisappointment when he took the helm, in June executing with excellence. But you can exhort2000. “I remember being in the basement of the all you want about excellent execution; you’retelevision studio here in Cincinnati at 6 PM on not going to get it unless you have disciplinedthe day [my appointment] was announced. I was strategic choices, a structure that supports thethe deer in the headlights, being grilled about the strategy, systems that enable large organizationscompany and about why it was doing so badly. And to work and execute together, a winning culture,the stock price had gone down a few bucks that day and leadership that’s inspirational. If you have allbecause I was a total unknown.” The appointment that, you’ll get excellent execution.”of a prominent outsider, such as Robert Nardelliof Home Depot or James McNerney of 3M, might Lafley emphasizes the key difference betweenhave pushed up the company’s shares because the a true transformation and incremental businessmarket assumed that an insider wouldn’t drive the building by describing the role he played duringlevel of change required. Under his predecessor, his first 15 years with the company: “That wasn’tthe hard-driving insider Durk Jager, the company transformation. No, the game then was: takehad issued three profit warnings in four months. another half a share point and another half aOn one momentous day, its shares fell by a full margin point, build to a 50 percent market share,30 percent. No wonder investors thought a more and take 85 percent of the profits and returns thatdramatic gesture was needed. are outsized in that industry. It was very much like classical military strategy, where you justFive years later, the markets are looking at Lafley keep putting on pressure, you just keep extendingand P&G very differently. From fiscal years 2000 the lines, you just keep rolling up the weakestto 2004, the giant company’s profits jumped by competitors, and so on.”
  3. 3. 2Leading change: An interview with the CEO of P&GOver time, however, the desire to compete in this Achievable aspirationsway can erode into complacency, which Lafley Lafley argues that although aspirations shouldhas consciously tried to avoid. “You can get used stretch a company, it is counter-productive toto being a player without being a winner. There’s overpromise. “As a new CEO, I took P&G companya big difference between the two. So I became goals down to 4 to 6 percent top-line growth, whichinterested in transforming players into winners.” still required us to innovate to the tune of one to twoOnce a company’s culture has changed so much points of new sales growth a year,” as well as somethat being a mere player is acceptable, Lafley market share growth and, on average, a point ofargues, the culture must be transformed. At that growth from acquisitions. “And then I committedstage, just trying to improve the numbers isn’t to stretching but achievable double-digit earnings-enough. Deeper change is required. per-share growth.” The share price went down again “because the first thing I did was to set lower,Sometimes the need for a change is obvious from more realistic goals.”a company’s competitive position. Lafley recallshis years heading P&G’s Asian operations: “We Nonetheless, these were indeed stretch goals,were the last into Asia. We were a small player Lafley believes, because he had still publiclythere in comparison with Unilever, which had been committed the company to growing faster than itthere at the time of the Raj, and Nestlé, which had had in recent years and faster than the industrybeen there since 1900.” In such an environment, as well. Moreover, he and his leadership teamP&G had to transform its performance just to set internal goals higher than those announced ������become a serious player. But in other parts of the externally. ���������������company—such as beauty care, which Lafley randuring the ��� before he became CEO—P&G’s year Lafley reined in the company’s aspirations in a ��������������performance, though lagging, was still thought to second, more subtle way: he defined what he �������������������������������������������������� calls “the core”—core markets, categories, brands,be respectable. Lafley set out to change that view. ���������������� ������������������������������������������������ ��������� ������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������� � � ����������������� �������������������� � ����������������������������������������������������������������������� � ����������������������������������������� � ����������������������������������������������������������������������� � ����������� � ����������������������������������������������������������������������� � �������������������������������������������������������������� � �������������������������������������������������������������� � ����������������������������������������������������������������������� � � ����������������� ���������� ���������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������� ������������������������������������ �������������������������������������� �������������
  4. 4. 3Leading change: An interview with the CEO of P&Gtechnologies, and capabilities—and focused his that they don’t always take the time to stop, think,near-term efforts entirely on that. P&G’s markets and internalize. They have to figure out what itand operations, he determined, were too vast all really means because I cannot call out theand diverse to be turned around all at once. This strategy for a business. I want them to use thedecision meant, among other things, that only same basic model and the same discipline toa fraction of the more than 100 countries where make the right choices for, say, the Philippines,”P&G operates would receive significant attention where P&G has a half-billion-dollar business—ainitially. “So we called out ten priority countries, sizable operation but only 1 percent of theand people said, ‘Oh, I’m not on the list.’ I just told whole. “I want the manager there to think verythem, ‘Just keep doing a good job where you are.’” consciously about what kind of culture is going to be a winner, what kind of capabilities areWhile management literature has emphasized the needed, and so on.”necessity of defining the core, Lafley underscoresthe importance of actually communicating the Coaching and coaxingdefinition clearly. Indeed, he says that the need to So Lafley insists that he can’t babysit thecommunicate at a Sesame Street level of simplicity businesses: to a large degree they must definewas one of his most important discoveries as CEO: their own future, while he plays the role of coach. But coaching at P&G doesn’t mean coddling. On“So if I’d stopped at ‘We’re going to refocus on the the contrary, Lafley demands that his managerscompany’s core businesses,’ that wouldn’t have take on the responsibility of making toughbeen good enough. The core businesses are one, strategic choices. “Most human beings and mosttwo, three, four. Fabric care, baby care, feminine companies don’t like to make choices. And theycare, and hair care. And then you get questions: particularly don’t like to make a few choices that‘Well, I’m in home care. Is that a core business?’ they really have to live with. They argue, ‘It’s much‘No.’ ‘What does it have to do to become a core better to have lots of options, right?’”business?’ ‘It has to be global leader in its industry.It has to have the best structural economics in its Those extraneous options have a way ofindustry. It has to be able to grow consistently at reappearing on the table after they have beena certain rate. It has to be able to deliver a certain dismissed. Lafley therefore insists on a “not-docash flow return on investment.’ So then business list” as an end product of the strategy process.leaders understand what it takes to become a “For example, when we chose our corporate-core business.” innovation programs, we cleared the deck of a lot of other stuff that we were then doing. So we’dWhy is such excruciating repetition and clarity have a list of all the things that we’re not going torequired? After all, as Lafley proudly notes, P&G do. And if we caught people doing stuff that weattracts the best and brightest from the world’s said we were not going to do, we would pull thefinest universities. One obvious reason is the budget and the people and get them refocused onsheer scale and diversity of the workforce. The what we said we were going to do.”company’s 100,000 people come from more than100 cultures, and for many of them English is a To help managers make these strategic choices,second language. leaders must sometimes challenge deeply held assumptions. Lafley recalls a first meeting withAnother reason is the need to unclutter the his cosmetics managers in Japan after he tookthinking of employees so they can focus on the over Asian operations. He was known around thecritical business of problem solving that Lafley company for his work with the Tide brand, “so thiscan’t do for them. “They have so many things guy said, ‘You know, this is nothing like laundrygoing on in the operation of their daily businesses detergent,’ and smiled.” Lafley spent much of
  5. 5. 4Leading change: An interview with the CEO of P&Gthe next month talking with consumers at sales One of the classic problems facing any CEO duringcounters and in their homes and then reported a turnaround is the possibility that managersback to his team, “Do you know what I’ve and employees become so overwhelmed by thelearned after 30 days? Cosmetics is everything breadth of the changes facing them that they can’tlike laundry detergent! You need to know who achieve any change at all. The organization freezes,your consumers are—intimately. You need to as though in shock. Lafley, after all, had taken overunderstand not just their habits and practices a 163-year-old company that was accustomed tobut their needs and wants, including those leadership in most of its markets and had beenthey can’t articulate. Then you’ve got to delight famous for its cultural pride and self-confidence.them with your brands and your products.” “Then all of a sudden,” he notes, “all that had beenLafley was determined not to allow the mystique shattered.” Although this slump wasn’t P&G’sof cosmetics to prevent the team from adopting worst in living memory—that came in 1984–85,classic P&G practices that had built the company when the company’s earnings dipped below thoseand were fully applicable. A significant result of the previous 12 months for the first time in manyof this process was the decision to promote years—it was perceived by outsiders as the worst.the SK-II skin care line, which became one of the “Because of the role of the press, it was a morecompany’s most successful in recent years. public failure.”Act as a role model Yet Lafley realized that P&G, though struggling,Being a role model is of course especially was in better shape than press reports suggested.important when a CEO makes tough demands In particular, he recognized that the company’son managers. P&G’s managers expect Lafley culture, far from being a hindrance, was an assetnot only to make the same kinds of strategic that could be leveraged in a transformation. Sochoices he requires of them but also to act he reversed his predecessor’s sharp critique ofconsistently on those choices. Lafley therefore the culture and affirmed its competitive value inrecognizes that he must be ready for moments discussions with managers and employees acrossof truth that can alert the organization to his the company.own deep commitment to P&G’s aspirations. “I started with P&G values and said, ‘Here’s what’sSuch moments came early in Lafley’s tenure. He not going to change. This is our purpose: tohad to decide whether to go ahead with strong improve the everyday lives of people around themarketing support for the launch of several new world with P&G brands and products that deliverbrands (Actonel and Torengos in the United States, better performance, quality, and value. That’sand Iams in Europe). “Profit pressure was severe. not going to change. The value system—integrity,We had just missed earnings two quarters in a row, trust, ownership, leadership, and a passion forand the new brands would need strong, sustained service and winning: not going to change. The sixsupport because they were going up against guiding principles, respect for the individual,market-leading competitors. But innovation is and so on: not going to change. OK, so here’s theP&G’s lifeblood, and the businesses believed in stuff that will change. Any business that doesn’ttheir products—all of which tested better than have a strategy is going to develop one; anythose of competitors— and in their brands. So business that has a strategy that’s not winningwe locked arms and we went ahead. When I look in the marketplace is either going to changeback now on those early weeks, it’s clear that its strategy or improve its execution.’ And so on.I had to make choices like these to convince P&G So I was very clear about what was safe andmanagers we were going to go for winning.” what wasn’t.”
  6. 6. 5Leading change: An interview with the CEO of P&GThis reassurance, like the intensive coaching team that designed it. Rather than abandonabout strategic choice and its consequences, Jager’s new organizational structure, Lafley usedwas certainly a positive factor. Both helped the it to support his own theme of returning to acompany raise its sights again. stronger consumer orientation. The new market- development operations were charged withKeep innovating winning the first moment of truth, the new globalUltimately, aspirations are energizing only when business units with winning the second. The newthey are grounded in new ideas that can help structure, says Lafley, then “had a simple reasona company win in the marketplace. Successful for being,” and another apparent liability becametransformations always have a strong content an asset for the transformation.dimension—particularly, of course, at companieslike P&G, where constant product innovation is More generally, Lafley strongly credits Jager witha central element of strategy. Lafley, however, moving P&G toward a more external focus. Jagerbelieved that the pendulum had swung too far had begun to promote what the company callstoward technology during the heady new-economy “connect and develop”—that is, the pursuit ofyears. At one point, the annual budget for “skunk more externally sourced innovation. Currently,works” technology—experimental projects outside 25 percent of new products and technologiesthe mainstream businesses—had reached $200 come from outside the company, but Lafley wantsmillion. “We were spending more than tech to raise that to 50 percent, so that “half wouldcompanies were on this kind of stuff,” he observes. come out of P&G labs and half would comeThus P&G, which business schools treated as the through P&G labs, from the outside.”classic example of a company that builds all ofits processes around consumer “pull,” was now Lafley is pushing for more exposure to the“pushing” technology into the market. This was outside world in other ways as well—for example,certainly one way to develop new ideas, but not by establishing strong relationships with externalnecessarily winning ideas. designers, distributing product development around the world to increase what P&G callsDurk Jager had excited P&G people with these “consumer sensing,” and even bringing Johninvestments. Lafley describes that approach as Osher, who invented the Crest SpinBrush electric“forward to the future,” which he contrasts with rotating toothbrush, inside the company for ahis own “back to the future” mind-set: “I wanted period to help make it more innovative. All ofto put consumers front and center and get back these moves have increased the flow of newto asking, ‘Who are they and what do they want?’ ideas.Find out what they want and give it to them.Delight them with P&G products. So I have this That flow should surge again with P&G’sincredibly simple saying: ‘The consumer is the acquisition of Gillette. Like most major deals,boss.’ And there are two moments of truth—when this one is intended to create value in a numberconsumers make their purchase decision, and of ways, including relatively straightforwardwhen they use the product. If they’re delighted at cost efficiencies. Lafley has concrete ideas forthe second moment of truth, they’ll repurchase strengthening Gillette’s brands too. He believesour brands and hopefully begin to use our that increased innovation will be the mostproducts regularly.” significant factor in the longer run, though he concedes that it is difficult to predict, at this earlyWhen Jager left the company, news accounts cited stage, exactly what form innovation will take:his global reorganization as a major contributor tohis departure. Lafley, however, not only supported “My aspiration is that this deal will acceleratethe reorganization but had also served on the the growth and development of our company by
  7. 7. 6Leading change: An interview with the CEO of P&Ga decade or two. It’s clear that Gillette and P&G needed to coach the organization.are two of the strongest innovators in consumerproducts. Gillette’s a company, like us, built on Although Lafley needed a period of crash learninginnovation in their core businesses. So I’m hopeful as CEO despite his 25 years as a P&G operatingthat we’ll learn a lot from each other. They’re manager, he credits his experience with givingmechanical engineers, we’re chemical engineers. him insights into ways of transforming theI’m very hopeful that this combination will open up company. “You need to understand how to enrollnew businesses to us. If you put mechanical and a leadership team and then an organization, howchemical engineers together, they’re going to see to operationalize the strategy, how to get thethings that we don’t see today, because our view of accountability that you want all the way down thethe world is bounded.” organization. The more deeply you understand something, the more willing you are to take risksLafley clearly has strong faith in the transformative and the more intelligent those risks are.” Hispower of learning—a faith evident not only in his deep knowledge of the company, he says, “meantaspirations for the Gillette deal but also in the I knew how and when we could take risks andcoaching role he regularly assumes with managers. stretch ourselves to go for peak performance—It is clear, as well, in his initiatives to expand P&G’s without breaking down.”formal management and leadership training: forexample, he founded the company’s college for Does a radical change agent lie behind the culturalgeneral managers and teaches leadership. conservatism? Lafley paused at the “radical” label because, at least until the Gillette deal, theHis coaching role has also shown him the transformation had been the cumulative effect ofimportance of his own learning experiences. The a series of small, interlocking changes. No singlefirst months after Lafley’s appointment as CEO dramatic event during the past five years defineswere particularly difficult in this respect: although the period, just as no evocative vision statementhe had experience selling the full range of P&G served as its road map. “I guess I’m a serialproducts during his stint as leader of the North change agent,” Lafley says.American market-development operation, helacked a deep understanding of about half of thecompany’s businesses. Some things he learned Rajat Gupta is a director in McKinsey’s Stamford office, and Jim Wendler is an alumnus of the London office andduring this period were bracing: “I discovered that an adviser to the firm.the cupboard was bare on the technology side in Copyright © 2005 McKinsey & Company.one business, that we didn’t have the leadership All rights reserved.we needed in another business, and that we didn’tknow what the strategy was going to be in a thirdbusiness.” He was learning, in effect, what was

×