A graduate of HEC and Dauphine, Sylvain Chapuis has led multi-service private healthcare groups and a medical laboratory. These various experiences allow him to take a particularly interesting perspective on the consequences of the coronavirus crisis in terms of business management and governance.
Click here to read Sylvain Chapuis' first column
Sylvain Chapuis
« Governing is about foresight ». This adage, as old as the world, underlies every thought and therefore every action of a leader.". But today, when all our reference points are being shaken, when the principles of yesterday that allowed us to imagine, to plan and therefore to decide for tomorrow no longer apply, how should we prepare ourselves, how should we organize our businesses?
This central question, at the heart of our reflections, is not actually that simple. Many economists have tried to predict the scenarios of tomorrow’s recovery.
Everyone agrees that this return to normalcy will not be in a «V» shape as had been hoped for, but at best in an «U» shape and at worst in an «L» shape. Whatever the scenario, this recovery will be long and no company will be immune to the impact of COVID-19.
In an article in Opinion, Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet gives us a «view of New York during the lockdown.» In conclusion to this look, she offers us an opinion that should make us all think: « All of this will not be a temporary situation, in any case. Here we are talking about a «reset»: «when will we reset and into what?» This is the whole difference between a crisis and a catastrophe. The first one, once over, allows for a return to normal. The second plunges us into a new world. We’ll have to invent it. »
If this world has to be invented, that means that no one has the recipe for tomorrow today, and if everyone gives their opinion and makes their predictions, no one knows exactly what it will turn out like.
Trying this exercise therefore involves using a crystal ball, which is not exactly the main talent a leader wants to highlight.
We can nevertheless imagine that This «catastrophe» is expected to profoundly affect our societies in at least three ways that directly concern the management of our companies..
The consumerist behavior of our society
Lockdown, which currently affects more than 50% of the global population, has radically changed the way we consume.
Many press articles have commented on the impact of this lockdown and the refocusing of consumers on products to the detriment of others. The point is not to repeat them, but rather to emphasize that this crisis will bring about profound but above all lasting changes, and that all our companies will, in one way or another, be affected by it.
There is no need to be a great scholar to realize that our customers of today will no longer have the same expectations tomorrow. These expectations will also be expressed in terms of the type of products or services, their origin, and their relative or marginal usefulness.
It is always striking to see how a change in consumer perception can have incredible consequences for a company. One particularly poignant example has emerged in recent years under the pressure of the consumer.
The « flight shame, or the shame of taking the plane » suddenly took on greater importance in the public debate, alongside environmental concerns, to the point of causing concern among the major airlines. Anne Rigail, CEO of Air France, even spoke of a « Stigmatization of air transport ».
In an interview with Figaro, Hubert Védrine said the following, a very apt phrase that perfectly illustrates the problem we are facing and that must make us think:« Isn’t this a carefree, hedonistic, individualistic and festive way of life that is being called into question? ».
Therefore, every responsible manager must, starting today, question the perception that his customers will have tomorrow of the products and/or services he offers.
Anticipating changes and adaptations will then be, not only a matter of success in tomorrow's recovery, but perhaps also a matter of survival...
The globalist vision in the face of the return of economic nationalism
Jean Fourastié, a great French economist, theorized in his book « The great hope of the 20th century »that the economy is composed of three major sectors of activity: the primary sector, agriculture, the secondary sector, industry, and the tertiary sector, services, and that there is a law that states that in its evolution, every society inevitably passes from the primary sector to the secondary sector, then from the secondary sector to the tertiary sector, so that a modern country is a society «post-industrial» where all activities fall within the tertiary sector.
That’s how, at the turn of the 70s, Globalization has therefore led our companies to relocate their production activities to an excessive extent.. France was one of the developed countries that used these means most extensively, and today our industry has been dramatically reduced, by a ratio of one to two, compared to Germany or Switzerland.
The news of recent weeks illustrates this phenomenon once again, whether it be our medicines, which are predominantly manufactured in India, our ventilators, which are built in Germany or Switzerland, or our masks and gloves, which are manufactured in more than 90% in China.
Emmanuel Macron, in his speech of March 16, 2020, is not telling us anything else either.« Delegating our food, our protection, our ability to heal, our living environment, in essence, to others, is madness. ».
Although this notion of economic patriotism is far from being new, it has been particularly highlighted in recent years. From Arnaud Montebourg, a champion of the « made in France »To Donald Trump with his« Make America great again » (« Let us give America its greatness back »), all of them have carried this idea of the end of happy globalization and a return to nationalism or even economic imperialism.
In this regard, it is striking to see in our countries that this idea has developed in parallel with a disappointment among the middle classes leading to populism, which is not without explaining the election of a Donald Trump or a Jair Bolsonaro. Brexit.
Although this reindustrialization has begun, it is expected to expand significantly thanks to public policies at the national and European levels and to the consumer’s desire to prioritize local products.
A perfect example of this economic will is the project known as « Airbus of batteries » aimed at restoring independence to Europe in the face of the United States and China, where Bruno Le Maire said that « this project of European electric batteries » represented « Much more than an industrial project. We mark our determination to build technological, economic and industrial sovereignty for the European continent ».
Once again, It is therefore essential to question the impacts on our companies of this rise in economic nationalism., which concerns either the production tool or the perception of the company by public authorities, as well as the view of the client, consumer, voter or simply a patriot, who« in the end »will be the ultimate arbiter of this fundamental movement.".
The relationship to work and to one's company in our organizations
Business organizations have evolved profoundly over the last twenty years. While we all know the classic or pyramidal organizations, which are directly derived from Taylorism, where communication is downward and the hierarchical structure is well established, all our companies have adapted to organizations symbolized by lean management or agile management.
These adaptations, although not without difficulties and are still largely ongoing in many companies, have been made necessary, on the one hand, by an exacerbated competitive environment imposing a permanent adaptation on the company and no longer allowing for fixed and downwardly moving organizations, and on the other hand, by the expectations of the employees who have evolved profoundly.
No corporate organization can ignore today the different managerial expectations among employees belonging to the so-called Generation X (1961-1980), Generation Y (1981-1995) or Generation Z (>1995).
In recent years, this phenomenon has greatly intensified and it is now even common to see employees waiting for their company to give meaning to their work, to provide them with a «sense of purpose.” societal »and not just economic.".
This catastrophe highlighted the fragility of our organizations in the midst of a whirlwind of contradictory directives. On the one hand, we are asked to stay at home by stopping work or teleworking, while on the other hand, the companies indispensable to the daily life of the country are asked to continue working.
At the same time, many companies have decided to adapt and respond to this crisis by committing themselves to the public interest.
Of course, we all sympathize with our caregivers who work day and night and risk their lives. But we can also see in articles and comments on social media the recognition given to other public service missions, such as drivers, garbage collectors, cashiers, etc.
Who hasn’t heard of LVMH announcing that it would manufacture large quantities of hydroalcoholic gel at three of its perfume and cosmetics production sites (the Dior, Guerlain and Givenchy factories), a decision taken by the CEO himself, Bernard Arnault?
Who can believe in the end of this crisis when our employees will resume their way back to their offices, factories, and businesses, without aspiring to believe in anything else, wanting to believe that their work is not just « food » ?
More than ever, this crisis will be a revelation for our companies, and leaders who fail to address it will be seen as out of touch with their employees, who are seeking a deep commitment and meaning in their work.
In this regard, the Pact Law, derived from the Sénard-Notat report, provides us all with the tools to rethink the raison d’être of our companies, or even, for the most advanced, the possibility of becoming mission-driven companies in order to solve a societal or environmental problem.
It is therefore urgent for each of us to properly assess this phenomenon that will only continue to accelerate and to reflect on the expectations that our employees will undoubtedly express, without forgetting that we are increasingly in a skills-based society that, in this respect, is close to full employment, and that today we are all faced with the challenge of attracting and retaining talent.
This attraction, at a time when Generation Z is emerging and their expectations are being expressed, will therefore not be without profound consequences for our organizations and the way we approach work.
I strongly believe that the need to reinvent oneself is not exaggerated, and although this crisis is not in itself the cause of everything, it is nevertheless a significant factor. revealer of a number of fractures that have appeared in recent years.
Indeed, for each of the three points discussed, we can see that this phenomenon existed in a more or less latent state and that, regardless of this crisis, it would eventually emerge on its own.
But the combination of these three elements, coupled with a crisis of such magnitude, sweeps away so many acquired certainties that the upheavals will be profound.
Without casting blame on China or any other country, it is no longer unthinkable to imagine a customer, a responsible consumer, preferring to buy « useful » goods produced by a French company, encouraged by public policies to manufacture in France…
Of course, these important changes will not happen all at once; they will not be the subject of a grand « big bang »From our leaders, whether political or economic, but rather from an unstoppable evolution that stems deeply from societal expectations that are now set to become increasingly strong.