DOC

Mr

By Sean Carter,2014-09-18 00:27
101 views 0
Mr. Carl Stern, Mr. David Michael, Mr. Wu, Prof. Hu, Prof. Wang, Students, Teachers, Ladies and Gentlemen, Tonight we are having a very good opportunity to invite Mr. Stern, President and CEO of the Boston Consulting Group, BCG to come here to give us a talk on the Global Trends in Competitive Business Strategy. As everybody knows, BCG is ..

Mr. Carl Stern, Mr. David Michael, Mr. Wu, Prof. Hu, Prof. Wang, Students, Teachers,

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Tonight we are having a very good opportunity to invite Mr. Stern, President and

    CEO of the Boston Consulting Group, BCG to come here to give us a talk on the

    Global Trends in Competitive Business Strategy.

    As everybody knows, BCG is a leading global strategy and general management

    consulting company whose mission is to help leading corporations in the U.S. and

    other countries create and sustain competitive advantage. As a truly international firm,

    her strong global presence offers clients and employees a wealth of cross-cultural

    perspectives.

    Carl Stern joined the Boston Consulting Group in 1974 and led the Chicago

    office fro ividing his time between management responsibilities and advising a small

    number of long-term clients. m 1981 to 1991. He was elected President and CEO in

    1997 and assumed these roles in January 1998. Previously, he served as co-chair of

    BCG‟s Americas Region, d

    Tonight Mr. Stern will be focusing his lecture on the Global Trends in

    Competitive Business Strategy. Among all issues he will discuss, many are related to

    change. Thats likely a very important subject of matter not only for the consulting company but also for every one of us sitting here tonight. So let us give Mr. Stern a

    warm welcome for an excellent lecture.

********************************************************************

    Thank you very much, Prof. Yang. Thank all of you for coming. Its really quite

    an honor for us at BCG to have this opportunity to build our relationship with you. We

    have the highest respect for Peking University. We hope this is a step in building a

    closer relationship over time.

    In thinking about what to speak with you about tonight, it occurred to me that you

    probably heard quite a lot about the WTO and whats needed for China to step up to

    the caliber of competition youre going to be facing in the future. In fact such an

    obvious topic that I suspect youre really sick of hearing about it, and certainly sick of

    hearing westerners lecture you about it. So Im not going to do that, Im going to

    basically start from the premise that you have already in China----a foundation of

    various good companies and a few great ones. But as you globalize as you will,

    youre going to face a different kind of challenge. At time that you are ready to be out

    there and leading these companies, the challenges will be quite different, will be of

    much higher order. The kind of challenges that are facing the CEOs of the leading

    global companies today are basically those kinds of challenges that I want to talk to

    you about tonight.

    I want to start with competitive strategy for a variety of reasons, partly, of course,

    because the BCG is good at it. BCG was a pioneer in competitive business strategy,

    which I think, you all know. Both competitive strategy implies individual businesses

    and the whole notion of large companies portfolios of those businesses. The strategy is all about competitive advantage. Competitive advantage, I think, has suffered a bit

    of bad name in the last few years particularly during the Internet boom when people

    started to realize that the pace of change was getting so fast that competitive

    advantage was becoming more and more difficult to attain and harder still to defend.

    And so I think it was a fair thing to say that it was harder and harder for companies to

    gain and defend competitive advantage, but what the Internet era also proved beyond

    doubt is that it may be true but without competitive advantage, youll get nothing,

    nothing at all. And so we saw that during the Internet period those companies that

    failed to either gain or maintain competitive advantage business model simply

    disappeared.

    Strategy is in fact about competitive advantage. That means its about winners

    and losers. To dramatize that point, let me just give you some data, some data I look at

    recently though I found quite astonishing although I suppose at back of my mind I

    knew it. But they are something about seeing the numbers that really brings at home. I

    had an occasion to look a few weeks ago at the original Fortune 500 list now. As you

    may know, Fortune is a magazine in the U.S. and for it turns out almost 50 years has

    published a list of the top 500. It started as the top 500 industrial companies, and

    nowadays of course, includes non-industrials as well. I took just the top 100 of those

    for simplicity. How many companies of the original Fortune 100 do you reckon are

    still on that list today? 50 years ago, 1955, almost 50 years ago. The answer turns out

    to be 17. Only 17 of the first Fortune 100 remain Fortune 100 companies today. 33 of

    them are still in existence but didnt keep pace so they are either on the Fortune 500 list or below it, but they are still in existence as companies. Fully half, 50 exactly

    dont exist any more. 6 of them went bankrupt, and 44 of them were acquired by

    somebody else. So I think this is an illustration of what Joseph Schumpeter, a

    well-known western economist termed creative destruction.

    And the case I want to make to you tonight is that creative destruction has never

    been more vicious than it is today. Things are moving faster, new competitors are

    emerging faster, and therefore for existing company, the challenge of continuingly

    adapting, continuingly renewing yourself is absolutely critical. I think that we all are

    pretty familiar with the need to adapt. The business environment is faster, is more

    efficient, more complex, its global. Value chains are continuingly being torn apart,

    redesigned and rebuilt. Competitive advantages therefore are harder to gain, harder to

    sustain. But in an environment like that, its even more critical than it was before. You can think about it as a constant battle. When I joined BCG, I thought the objective of

    strategy was to play for a favorable end game. Today I know that idea was wrong.

    There is no end game in business. Its just after you won a sub-game if you will, there is just the next struggle. And its like that. So I think as leaders we can forget about notions of stuenship and of having a nice time at the end of ones career guiding the

    company for a while before passing that on to one successor. Every generation of

    management will have a challenge that threatens the very existence of the company.

     Now if the need for change is greater than ever, I think that its safe to say that

    the difficulty of affecting change is higher than ever. Basically methods are evolving

    as fast as markets. There is more complexity to be coped with, there is less

    compliance on the part of our organizations these days. And there is a hike of a lot

    more creativity out there in our employees. I dont know whether youve gone

    through these transitions in China or not as yet. But it is a very obvious trend in the

    West and if you havent, you will go through this. Basically social forces are changing

    peoples receptivity to just following orders. People these days in my company and in

    my clients companies are looking for more out of life, and looking for a lot more out

    of their companies. They are what one writer has called a new emerging creative class. These are people who rebel against control, rebel against bureaucracy, and

    rebel against structure. Employees used to be loyal to a company. Today in the West

    there isnt so much company loyalty any more, there is loyalty to a profession or

    loyalty to a place. Mobility is very high. People are willing to take risks, willing to

    move in order to build their capabilities, in order to build their personal brands. So I

    think we are looking at a work force in the West that needs to be motivated very

    differently than my generation was motivated. So we are in a situation where the need

    to change is greater than ever, and the difficulty of changing is higher than ever. And

    all I can tell you is as the business world continues to grow faster and more complex,

    the challenges that threaten the very existence of our companies will come at you fast

    and furious. And survival of even the strongest company is no longer assured.

    Now thinking back to those 50 companies, those 50 out of 100 that didnt make it.

    I think its worth contemplating why. Just think for a minute why companies of that

    stature might have failed cause after all they had enormous amount going for them,

    didnt they, the advantage of competency, the advantage of skill, the advantage of

    brand. All of these things, and yet they didnt make it. Obviously one explanation might be that the companies simply didnt prove equal to the challenge. I think that actually is fairly rare in terms of overall capability for after all, if you are one of the

    largest companies in the world, how can you possibly lack the resources, how can you

    possibly lack the capabilities? I think actually its something else probably. It could be that companies in this situation misperceived the threat, either they didnt see it

    coming or they saw it wrong. An interesting example and I suspect that many of you

    have known something about this. Is anybody in the audience that works for Motorola?

    Because I know there are a number of people in your school from Motorola. Think

    about Motorola, and think about how this might happen. Motorola is a truly great

    company, a company that has adapted itself to change over and over again right from

    its founding. In fact it was founded by a guy that had a product that was guaranteed to

    have a life cycle of only 12 months. So the whole idea of needing to reinvent the

    company was part of the DNA of Motorola from Day One. And yet Motorola, the

    leader in cellular telephones, missed the shift from analogue to digital. Think for a moment about that. How could that happen? Clearly I dare say it wasnt an

    intellectual matter, it wasnt a technological matter. Clearly they had the technology,

the capability and the engineers. So it must be behavioral. It must have something to

    do with either the wrong people not seen or incapability to mobilize the resources

    going in different directions than the traditional success of the company.

    Threats are particularly difficult for big companies to perceive because many

    threats start on the periphery of the organization, far from the center. Especially in

    todays complex global world, its very difficult sometimes to see whats coming. As

    one of my clients said about one of his businesses, the trouble with this business is

    that you never see the bullet that kills you. And I think that is true more and more the larger organizations get, the more complex they get and more geographically far

    from they get. So I think one of the reasons that companies fall by the way side is

    simply that they misperceive a threat that possibly starts on the periphery. I think the

    second reason is, and perhaps this applies to Motorola as well is even more overtly

    behavioral. Thats the organization simply succeeds in avoiding confronting the

    challenge. Engages in avoiding behaviors of one kind or another either deny the

    reality of the threat or finding convenient excuses not to respond today.

    I think that its inevitable that over the next five to ten years, all of Chinas great

    companies will face what I call the adaptive challenge. I want to spend just a second

    on defining my terms. I think there are two kinds of challenges. There is adaptive one

    and theres routine. Routine challenges are real challenges, are challenges where the

    organization possesses the records of knowledge to act on and basically has processes

    to diagnose any issue that comes up and establishes procedures and rules for dealing

    with those issues. Dealing with issues like that probably represents 99.9% of the work

    of the 99.9% of the people in the company. Its what you do every day. And its not

    unchallenging and it can be very difficult work. But its work where essentially the

    perimeters of the issue are known, and the procedures for dealing with the issues are

    known. Adaptive challenges are different. Adaptive challenges are basically

    challenges that require collective organizational learning if you cannot meet the

    challenge. Generally they arise because there is a gap between reality and beliefs

    about how the world works or occasionally conflicting beliefs in dealing with the

    particular issue. And for those kinds of challenges, its not just a matter of efficiently executing a procedure that the organization knows how to do, and the part of people

    that are designed to deal with them. But rather it requires organizations to change

    their beliefs and to change their behaviors in the fundamental way. What I want to

    reassert to you and I want to challenge you with is that for the CEOs of the future, I

    believe getting your organizations to confront the one or two adaptive challenges that

    really are key to the organizations renewal in your period of five to ten years at the hub of the company like that. That is the job of the CEO. Now there are other jobs the

    CEOs might have, but I just want to tell you that they are not very important. If I

    think about how I spent my time, I have to tell you that probably 80% percent of the

    management activity just isnt very important. Im probably lucky in that I probably spend, because of the kind of company Im fortunate enough to be able to lead. I probably spend about 20% of my time thinking about and talking about and getting

    the organization to act on adaptive challenges. I think thats probably ten times the amount of time that most CEOs get to spend on it. Yet that is the only thing that really

    counts. So I think that is going forward going to be the job of the CEO and the only

    job of the CEO that really matters. And Im the fortunate one that end up spending the

    tiny sliver of their time on.

    So the question is all right: HOW? How should a CEO go about ensuring that his

    organization meets these adaptive challenges? As you think about it, its actually interesting its fairly counter-intuitive list, and it is a list of things you dont see a lot in management textbooks. You see them in some leadership textbooks, but not many.

    And I think you have to start by realizing, first of all, that you cant do it yourself. Organizations these days are just too big, they are too far flung. If change occurs on

    the periphery afar from your sight, you need the organizations help to detect that bullet that might kill you.

    Also, given the word we are talking about is adaptive change, its the organization that actually has to do the work, it the organization that has to learn and the

    organization that has to adapt. The CEO realizing what to do will not get a job like

    this done. So successful adaptation requires the organization to learn if it is to change

    to meet the challenge.

    And therefore, the CEO needs not only persuasive power but help. That means,

    this is something that I think is something Chinese companies are going to have its

    fairly immediate next challenge. This means that CEOs need to encourage, develop

    and protect a large number of leaders that are dispersed throughout the organization.

    The notion of directing a large organization from the center and being the leader,

    forget it. In a large complex global organization, its simply one work. You wont see the bullet thats heading for you and you wont be able to mobilize the organization by

    yourself, so you must have leaders dispersed around. This is easy to say, and its obviously intellectual. It turns out that it actually rather hard to do because the kind of

    people that you need to be these leaders throughout the organization are not the

    worlds most easy people to deal with mainly because they tend to be truth tellers.

    And truth tellers, frankly, are a pain in the behind. They are hard to manage, very hard

    to manage. Therefore, they are extremely unpopular in general with their peers and

    with their immediate superiors. Yet they are the people that represent the sort of

    informal organization that doesnt appear on the organization chart. They are the notes of influence networks. These are not easy people to deal with. They are in general

    what I call outlaws----people that are damned good, so you tolerate them, but only

    barely. They dont much like hierarchy, and they dont much like structure. They like to do their jobs better than anybody else and tell you things that you dont want to hear. And most people tend to reject folks like this.

    But to the CEO who is trying to detect and motivate the organization to confront

    the adaptive challenges. These people are really your only alliance and certainly your

most valuable ones. Youve got to enlist them, and quite honestly youve got to

    protect them because the organization will otherwise kill them. Now you need to

    listen to people like this very carefully. But of course you dont want to act on everything they say. One of the things about these people is that they tend to be very

    sensitive instruments, which means that theyll tend to overreact. Everything is a threat. While most people dont perceive any long-term threats, they tend to perceive

    too many. And so you need to lean against the wind a bit when these people start

    telling you about all the disasters before the company. And you need to test the signals

    that they send very carefully.

    Having done that, I think, the third thing the CEO needs to do is be the one to

    actually screen the incredible flood of information that assaults people these days and

    identify the few occasional challenges that would really change the organization for

    better or for worse, identify what I call the adaptive challenges. How tight should your

    screen be? Actually very tight, because we are talking about the kind of thing for

    which if ever the CEO stays in the job for ten years, its less than that probably today. But if ten years were the time horizon, I would better there are not more than two of

    them, two challenges of this nature in the average CEOs term. But those two challenges are really important, and you have got get those right.

    Once youve identified challenges like that, its your job to focus the organizations attention on it. I think there are a lot of things written about the power

    of the CEO, and the frustrations of the CEO. But something that is probably

    underestimated in terms of power is the ability to command the organizations

    attention. Thats something that CEO has and nobody else has, the ability to mobilize

    all the communication channels, and therefore talk to everybody in the company at

    once, get everybody on the same page. Obviously doing this, especially for a message

    that people dont much want to hear, requires constant and very competent and skilled

    communication. But it also requires a couple of other things. First, it requires a sense

    of timing, if you think about it. Or there is a right time to confront an organization on

    the difficult issue. And there is a wrong time. This is why in management texts, a lot

    of times people say you need create crisis. But the reason you need to create crisis is

    to get an organization ready to receive information that the organization might

    otherwise reject. Sense of timing, knowing when the issue is ripe. You see this a lot in

    the political arena in the East and the West where issues either get on administrations

    agenda or forced on that administrations agenda of the wrong time. When President

    Clinton, in his first week, was basically maneuvered by his republican opponents into

    putting a campaign pledge he made regarding gays in military on the agenda of the

    first week of his administration, obviously idiotic, obviously a very bad mistake. This

    was a kind of issue that simply wasnt appropriate for the first week of a new

    administration. Maybe a perfectly good issue, but not one that was ripe. Contrast that

    with the way, for example, President Johnson in U.S. handled civil rights legislation.

    He timed it just right in terms of when a ground swell of violence peak. Thats when

    he introduced the required legislation. Im sure in Chinese contexts, there are plenty

of examples of both bad timing and good timing. But you cannot get the organizations

    to change if they are not ready. And one of the most important qualities of CEO or a

    politician, a political leader can have is a sense of time of knowing when the issue is

    ripe. And then once you got your organization focused on one of these challenges,

    youve got avoid distractions. There will be a hundred reasons to confront issues that

    are more tractable, issues that are just a lot less painful to confront. And at all times,

    people will be wanting to go off on these tensions. Its the CEO s job to keep them

    focused on the important adaptive challenges, without which the company will falter.

    The fifth thing that I think the CEO needs to do is to essentially resist a certain

    matter of avoidance behaviour on the part of the organization. I need to remind you is

    that the challenges we are talking about here are the ones that require the organization

    to adapt and to learn, not the CEO. But organization dont like changing when they

    need to. Its a generally held view that people dislike change, I dont think thats true.

    People change all the time. People change all sorts of things. What people really

    dislike is being changed. And the problem with reacting to the adaptive challenge is it

    can fail the organization like changes being imposed on them. And confronted with

    that, it is natural for organizations to avoid. The CEOs got to fight them, got to fight

    all the avoidance reactions, and in particular one kind of amusing but deadly one

    which is delegation of works. Faced with the difficult task, the organization will try to

    delegate it to the CEO. This is natural, you see it in the political sphere all the time.

    When countries are in crisis, they look to their leaders. When countries are in crisis, it

    is in fact the populace in general that needs to work, and needs to adapt, it is the

    leaders job to help the populace understand that and actually get on with it. Now

    obviously delegation of works, over-reliance on the leader to save us is a disaster

    when it comes to adaptive works because the organization has got to change beliefs

    and behaviors. And in today s world, where you have very creative someone hierarchy- haters out there, These creative people wont change unless they are

    convinced. So it is the leaders job to articulate these challenges and then to push the work done to the organization. That, I think is a different picture I suspect of the job

    of the CEO than you probably get as a routine matter in business school. But I think

    as you look forward, and as you envision the world continuing to get ever faster, ever

    more complex, and you tend to see employees being better and better, smarter and

    smarter, more and more creative, and less and less interested in merely carrying out

    orders in a hierarchally responsive fashion. I think its very clear that if the

    organization are going to rise to that kind of challenges that threaten their very

    existence. Youre going to see the CEOs job description change dramatically in the

    direction that I just described.

    Thank you very much.

Ill be happy to address any questions you have on what I discussed, on how any of all

    is applied to China or on consulting or on anything else.

    1. Q: First of all, I enjoy your wonderful and insightful lecture. My question is there

    are many great books on management consulting, on strategy for example. In the

    West, there is one book called The Prince Macky. In China, this book is called The Art of War by Sunzi. I wonder those two of many great books on strategy, what

    kind of role do they have in todays consulting business?

A: I think that books of that nature tend to be evergreen. Obviously some advice

    the Macky give is probably less relevant today, but most of the thinking

    underlying it is quite good. Sunzi is particularly very much relevant today. I think

    the one thing I would like to say is that most of reasoning from the military

    sphere to the business sphere tends to overemphasize the strength of the position

    and underemphasize the importance of mobility. But thats a gross generalization. I think in general in todays world, mobility is more important relative in the

    classical times. Therefore, the folks that we are writing for military or statecraft

    analogy dont pot over perfectly, but most of the basic insights are very sound.

    2. Q: I just want to take the liberty to ask the second question. Youve talked about the adaptive changes for organizations. What about the adaptive changes for the

    behavior of young consultants joining the companies in the United States and also

    in the country you are visiting now? So what advice would you like to give to the

    new MBA students in terms of preparations they need to make for the consulting

    career in the current very much changed environment? Thank you.

A: I think that the advice I would give is just to be a sponge, to take in lots of raw

    experiences as varied as possible. People speak of today as the age of

    specialization. I dont know where all of you are on that or what China in

    general is on. But certainly in most places people are talking about this being the

    age of specialists. I guess my main message would be to you is dont listen to

    that. This may be the age of the specialist. But actually specialization is the

    enemy of really high quality thinking, at least in business. What I tell new

    consultants, by the way, not everybody in my company agrees with me. Probably

    most people disagree with me. It is easier to make a living as a specialist, but it is

    harder to become a leader as a specialist. If you think about it, there is a fellow

    actually who has written about the consulting industry, that has a chart that

    attempts to show the importance of various aspects of the consulting offering to

    the client relationship year by year. So in year zero when youre just starting, expertise is what counts, because expertise is what the client buys, because the

    client doesnt have anything else to buy. If you look at year Five, expertise plays

    almost no role in the relationship. Its more the personal stuff. Its things like trust, its things like more generalized business judgment. Thats one lens. Im going to give you a slightly different one. Think about CEOs. Very few CEOs got selected

    because of their definite specialty. The CEO got selected because he or she was

    good at business judgment, which comes from pattern recognition. Pattern

recognition comes from seeing a wide variety of things, so that when you see

    something strange, you could ask this question what is this actually the example of? And the broader youre repertoir, the better you are going to be as figuring

    out what actually is going on and making the right business judgment. If you are

    going to be an entrepreneur, its kind of classic there, isnt it? Entrepreneurs often start life as specialists----they invent something or whatever. If they are engineers

    and they invent something and they involve venture capitals, which most of them

    do in the West, then the one thing that is almost cliché is by the second round of

    financing, the venture capital will kick the founder out, and replace him or her

    with somebody who knows business. So I think that if I were to give advice, is to

    avoid specialization, learns to think inductively rather than deductively, which is

    very difficult to do. And to feed that aptitude, get a wide variety of exposure and

    experiences as you possibly can. Thank you.

    3. Q: I have a little challenge for your adaptive challenge concept. From my

    observation, as McDonald entered China, many things are not adaptation. Rather,

    they just want to establish their standard. The same thing happened when the U.S.

    waged a war against Iraq, maybe its not a good thing to talk about politics. Thats

    not an issue of adapting something to Iraq. They want to inject their countrys

    concept. In talking about adaptive challenge, you saw something for developing

    countries to learn from the developed countries, but there is little adaptation for

    the developed countries to the developing countries. Another example is about

    YAHOO in this information era and Mr. Yang Zhiyuan. They established a new

    concept to meet this challenge. So this is adaptation plus concept establishment.

    This is my whole observation of the things.

    A: Well, I wont respond on the political side. I dont entirely disagree with you. I know, the McDonalds is widely held to be something more than they are. People

    think of them as a symbol of America or American cultural imperialism. You

    know, all they are trying to do is be a business. I dont think they have a political agenda. I think they merely want to make money. ??, which isnt to say that they do it well everywhere they go. Im quite sure that they have no political access to

    ground. Theyre having enough trouble just making money. I guess I have

    something to say on the Yahoo point. I agree with you about the point that youre

    making. But I want to distinguish between innovation and adaptation. I think

    Yahoo actually is an interesting place in that they had the original idea or at least

    the first really successful adaptation of that idea commercially. But they are under

    threat, right? With Google and others to tap the advertising revenue. So my point

    is that the problem of adaptation is only a problem for the successful innovator.

    Having innovated once, the trick is either can you do it again or can you adapt

    whatever it is that made you successful to new challenges. In the case of Yahoo,

    its not clear yet, although so far theyre doing the decent job theyve corporated google. Well see its a very dynamic field. Well see whether theyll be

successful in continuing to adapt as more challenges come at them. I think

    innovation is one way out, one way of adapting. But what we are talking about is

    what after you innovated successfully and when the challenge comes can you

    figure out how to change. Thats actually even more difficult than innovation.

    4. Q: Thank you very much for your irrigative speech. Im a student from the International Communication School. So my question is very specific. You have

    mentioned that the first thing the CEO must do is to create a large number of

    leaders providing him with organizational helps. My question is within such a

    large international company like yours, have you ever faced such kind of

    questions that a large number of local leaders may be sometimes affected greatly

    by their cultural background and have conflicting views and create such kind of

    turmoil issues. If you have ever met this kind of situation, please specify. Thank

    you.

    A: Well, I think all of the CEOs of BCG would say that theyve got lots of help. Some of it is desired, and some is not. I think, BCG is a very unusual company

    for a variety of reasons. We are a partnership, but one which is totally flat. So we

    vote on most big issues that confront the firm. And its one person one vote. So the day you are elected partner, your vote counts exactly the same as mine. Its

    not weighed by seniority or equity interest or anything else. These days as you all

    know, governance, corporate governance is a big issue with clients. So clients

    want to engage me all the time for discussions of corporate governance. Thats

    the way just sort of getting the cooperation started. They often ask me to explain

    BCGs governance model. When I tell them that our model is pretty strict, there

    are just under 400 partners, all of them report to me and I report to them. And

    everyone of them is on my board. They say, Thats great! Lets talk about something else. We clearly have a culture which actually purposely multiples the

    leadership platforms around the world. So I would say that of the 400 partners,

    100 of them, at least have some sort of responsible leadership role in either

    geography or practice area at any given time. So we certainly practice that

    particular thing. That has been said that I think it is worth noting that on the

    question of true adaptive changes. I believe in our 40 years history, we only had one. That was in the early 80s. We started life as a strictly intellectual sort of

    place that built the company basically on innovating, on strategy concepts and

    business, which is the start of BCG. Strategy is well developed in other

    disciplines but not in business. And the way we built the company was to actually

    pioneer in that. We became not to satisfy in the early 80s with the kind of impact

    we were having, because we were too academic, too intellectual. So we changed,

    we decided that we were going to adapt from essentially an intellectual boutique

    to a true clients service organization. And I believe the last 20 years of BCGs

    history has been implementing that single adaptive change. So thats the BCGs

    view on what I just said. I think that we were lucky in that our industry has grown

    at double-digit rates for the entire 40 years of our history and weve grown faster

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com