Digital destruction instead of digital transformation!

Companies are finding it incredibly difficult to meet the challenges of digital transformation. I have spent the last few years fighting to convince decision-makers to invest in digital initiatives, to break new ground, to develop new business models, to try to become better. The results are sobering. So why all this?

(Reading time: 5 minutes)

Lazy compromises

I think most larger companies are completely missing out on the digital transformation. Although more and more digital work is being done, and we in the digital industry are benefiting from this to a great extent, many projects are simply lukewarm coffee.

The top execs never tire of traveling to Silicon Valley and then mention Uber, Airbnb, Apple and all these examples that are really taking off as soon as they are allowed to say something somewhere. But they don’t really break new ground themselves.

Unconventional business models + technology + risk + risk + risk = disruption

And so these managers talk about disruption and their visions and whatnot. They make flimsy comparisons such as Airbnb being the largest hotel provider but not owning a single hotel room.

This shows one thing above all: these people usually have no idea what they are talking about. They simply mix everything together – new technology, all the Silicon Valley hype and their meagre digital business.

However, when it comes to really creating the conditions within your own company to move into the future, the result is usually only “me-too” projects. We have to have an app now, an online store. Our online sales are already at 15%. Our digital maturity is 80% compared to our competitors. Yay!

That’s much better than doing nothing at all. Of course it is. But you have to understand that really resounding business models such as Airbnb, Uber, etc. don’t have that much to do with technology to begin with.

It is more the case that at the beginning there is a concept that provides a service in a way that is better for everyone. And along with these savings for everyone, a margin is skimmed off for the company.

It is clear that such ideas can only be turned into reality once the corresponding digital technology is available and accepted. However, they are not the core of these business models.

The third component is risk. Bringing truly resounding business models to the ground always involves a lot of risk. And it is simply the case that it is much more difficult for existing players to take high risks. The fear of loss is too great. So great that it is sometimes forgotten that without “reinventing yourself” you are also dead in the medium term.

Why all this?

In this environment, I’ve lost the desire to help people take baby steps. Just because they don’t dare to do anything. And I’m not someone who takes risks lightly. On the contrary. So it’s not that I don’t have a little understanding.

In my coaching sessions, I often meet decision-makers who are very open to more radical options. We weigh things up together and sketch out really potent models. In most cases, however, these models deliberately remain in the drawer. Quite simply because the company is not yet ready for such a step. I think that’s legitimate.

But these people also don’t spout “Airbnb phrases” or “we are the next Amazon in area XY” at any events. They know too well that their organization is still standing in its own way. And they are working on it.

Nothing must, everything can

If I look at all this from a slightly broader perspective, it’s not at all the case that every company has to digitize itself. Companies are a means to an end. Only those that can adapt well to change will survive.

Of course it’s not great for entrepreneurs when their companies go under. But in the vast majority of cases, they themselves are simply to blame. And they will now say that the employees are the ones who suffer. That may well be true.

But I like to take a more differentiated view. Because by maintaining old structures and companies, precisely those that do not adapt, we are considerably increasing the social fall height of people. There is nothing worse in this respect than structural subsidies. They all come to an end sooner or later.

And with them many people who have become accustomed to the subsidized economic reality. This is precisely what is causing the high level of collateral social damage.

Fail Fast FTW!

I am more in favor of companies that do not move going down as quickly as possible. This will reduce the total cost of upheaval and free people from “misleading” structures.

These people, once they have picked themselves up and shaken themselves off, are the breeding ground for new, pioneering companies. Not all of them, of course, and certainly not all of them happily.

But the majority of them are taken up again by new companies. Companies with a future. And let’s not kid ourselves, it’s like everything in life: When you experience something for the first time, it’s drastic. But if you go through it 4 times, you deal with it in a much more relaxed way. It’s the same with job changes. Not nice but doable.

And it favors the process towards a new, more flexible world of work. A working world in which there is not ONE training program and ONE career in ONE company. But different ones.

Seen in this light, I’m no longer so sure that all companies need to “master” this digital transformation. Perhaps it is better that a significant proportion of them perish. So that new things can emerge from their ashes.