Latest news with #businessStrategy
Finextra
07-07-2025
- Business
- Finextra
The Walls Within: Why Organizations Cling to Data Silos in the Age of AI: By Erica Andersen
The promise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is tantalizing: smarter decisions, streamlined processes, and unprecedented insights. The promise is transformative. From predicting consumer behavior to automating complex tasks, AI offers a tantalizing glimpse into a future of unprecedented efficiency and innovation. Yet, despite this allure, organizations are often hesitant to embrace the full power of AI across the entire enterprise. Instead, we see a persistent trend: the deliberate creation and maintenance of data silos, where information remains walled off, and AI's access is carefully restricted. This isn't necessarily a sign of technological backwardness or a lack of vision. Rather, it's a complex tapestry woven with threads of business strategy, legal compliance, technical limitations, and ingrained organizational culture. This article delves into the multifaceted reasons behind this phenomenon, exploring why organizations are choosing to keep their AI contained within the familiar confines of their data silos. The Security Fortress: Protecting Data in a Vulnerable World At the heart of this reluctance lies a deep-seated concern for data security and privacy. Organizations are acutely aware of the potential for catastrophic data breaches, and the implications are severe. Protecting Sensitive Information: The risk of exposing sensitive information like Personally Identifiable Information (PII), financial records, trade secrets, and intellectual property is a constant threat. Restricting access is a fundamental strategy to minimize the "attack surface" and reduce the likelihood of a breach. This includes not only protecting against malicious actors but also accidental disclosures, which can have significant legal and reputational consequences. The risk of exposing sensitive information like Personally Identifiable Information (PII), financial records, trade secrets, and intellectual property is a constant threat. Restricting access is a fundamental strategy to minimize the "attack surface" and reduce the likelihood of a breach. This includes not only protecting against malicious actors but also accidental disclosures, which can have significant legal and reputational consequences. Compliance is King: Navigating the Regulatory Minefield: Regulations like GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act), HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), LGPD (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados - Brazil), and industry-specific mandates demand robust data privacy and security measures. Maintaining data silos is often seen as a practical way to simplify compliance by limiting the scope of data that needs to be protected. Regulations like GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act), HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), LGPD (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados - Brazil), and industry-specific mandates demand robust data privacy and security measures. Maintaining data silos is often seen as a practical way to simplify compliance by limiting the scope of data that needs to be protected. Unauthorized Access: A Primary Threat: Data silos create physical and logical barriers, making it significantly harder for unauthorized individuals or external actors to access and potentially misuse sensitive data. This includes implementing robust access controls, multi-factor authentication, and regular security audits. Data silos create physical and logical barriers, making it significantly harder for unauthorized individuals or external actors to access and potentially misuse sensitive data. This includes implementing robust access controls, multi-factor authentication, and regular security audits. Ethical Usage: Maintaining Control and Addressing Bias: Organizations want to ensure their data is used ethically and in accordance with their policies. Restricting access to AI models is a key mechanism for enforcing this control. This includes: Bias Detection and Mitigation: AI models can perpetuate biases present in the training data. Silos allow for careful curation of data and the application of bias detection and mitigation techniques. Explainability and Transparency: Organizations must be able to explain how their AI models make decisions. Silos can facilitate the development of explainable AI (XAI) by limiting the complexity of the data and the scope of the models. Accountability and Responsibility: Clearly defined roles and responsibilities are crucial for AI governance. Silos can help establish clear lines of accountability for data usage and model performance. Organizations want to ensure their data is used ethically and in accordance with their policies. Restricting access to AI models is a key mechanism for enforcing this control. This includes: The Competitive Edge: Data as a Strategic Weapon Beyond security, the desire to protect competitive advantage and intellectual property is another driving force behind data silo maintenance. Proprietary Data: The Secret Sauce: Data can be a valuable asset. Organizations may want to keep their unique data private to maintain a competitive edge. AI models trained on distinctive datasets can be a significant differentiator. This requires careful consideration of data licensing, access controls, and the potential for reverse engineering of AI models. Data can be a valuable asset. Organizations may want to keep their unique data private to maintain a competitive edge. AI models trained on distinctive datasets can be a significant differentiator. This requires careful consideration of data licensing, access controls, and the potential for reverse engineering of AI models. Trade Secrets: Guarding the Jewels: The data used to train AI models can reveal valuable insights and trade secrets, offering competitors a roadmap to replicate innovations. Restricting access helps prevent reverse-engineering and exploitation. This includes implementing strict non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and protecting the intellectual property rights associated with the AI models and the underlying data. The data used to train AI models can reveal valuable insights and trade secrets, offering competitors a roadmap to replicate innovations. Restricting access helps prevent reverse-engineering and exploitation. This includes implementing strict non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and protecting the intellectual property rights associated with the AI models and the underlying data. Data Leakage: Preventing Spills: Data silos act as barriers against data leakage, preventing valuable proprietary information from falling into the hands of competitors or external parties. This includes implementing robust data loss prevention (DLP) measures and monitoring for suspicious data activity. The Governance Imperative: Maintaining Control and Quality Organizations also prioritize control and governance over their data, recognizing the crucial role these play in the success of AI initiatives. Data Quality: A Foundation for Success: Organizations want to maintain control over the quality of the data used for AI training. Silos allow for better data governance and quality control within each department or function. This includes implementing data validation rules, data cleansing processes, and data governance frameworks. Organizations want to maintain control over the quality of the data used for AI training. Silos allow for better data governance and quality control within each department or function. This includes implementing data validation rules, data cleansing processes, and data governance frameworks. Accuracy and Reliability: The Pillars of Trust: Data accuracy and reliability are critical for AI model performance. Silos can help ensure that the data used for training is accurate and reliable, reducing the risk of biased or inaccurate results. This includes implementing data quality metrics, data lineage tracking, and data auditing processes. Data accuracy and reliability are critical for AI model performance. Silos can help ensure that the data used for training is accurate and reliable, reducing the risk of biased or inaccurate results. This includes implementing data quality metrics, data lineage tracking, and data auditing processes. Responsible AI: Managing the Lifecycle: Restricting access to data allows organizations to better manage the development, deployment, and monitoring of AI models. This helps ensure that models are used responsibly and ethically. This includes: Model Monitoring: Continuously monitoring AI model performance and identifying potential issues, such as drift or bias. Model Versioning: Tracking different versions of AI models and the associated data used for training. Model Auditing: Regularly auditing AI models to ensure compliance with regulations and ethical guidelines. Restricting access to data allows organizations to better manage the development, deployment, and monitoring of AI models. This helps ensure that models are used responsibly and ethically. This includes: The Technical Hurdles: Navigating the Complexities Beyond the strategic and legal aspects, technical and practical considerations also contribute to the prevalence of data silos. Integration Challenges: A Complex Undertaking: Integrating data from multiple sources can be incredibly complex and time-consuming. Organizations may lack the necessary infrastructure, skills, or resources to effectively integrate data across silos. This includes challenges related to data format compatibility, data semantics, and data governance. Integrating data from multiple sources can be incredibly complex and time-consuming. Organizations may lack the necessary infrastructure, skills, or resources to effectively integrate data across silos. This includes challenges related to data format compatibility, data semantics, and data governance. Data Standardization: A Formidable Task: Data from different sources may be in different formats or use different standards, making integration a challenging undertaking. This requires implementing data standardization processes, data transformation tools, and data governance frameworks. Data from different sources may be in different formats or use different standards, making integration a challenging undertaking. This requires implementing data standardization processes, data transformation tools, and data governance frameworks. Scalability and Performance: Managing the Volume: Integrating and processing large volumes of data can strain infrastructure and impact performance. Silos can help manage data volume and improve performance. This requires implementing scalable data storage solutions, data processing frameworks, and data optimization techniques. Integrating and processing large volumes of data can strain infrastructure and impact performance. Silos can help manage data volume and improve performance. This requires implementing scalable data storage solutions, data processing frameworks, and data optimization techniques. Legacy Systems: The Weight of History: Many organizations have legacy systems and infrastructure that are not designed for easy data sharing, adding another layer of complexity. This requires modernizing legacy systems, implementing data integration solutions, and gradually migrating data to more modern platforms. The Human Factor: Navigating Organizational Dynamics Finally, organizational culture and politics play a significant role in the decision to maintain data silos. Departmental Autonomy: Protecting Territories: Departments or business units may want to maintain their autonomy and control over their data, viewing it as a valuable resource. This requires fostering a culture of collaboration, promoting data sharing best practices, and establishing clear data governance frameworks. Departments or business units may want to maintain their autonomy and control over their data, viewing it as a valuable resource. This requires fostering a culture of collaboration, promoting data sharing best practices, and establishing clear data governance frameworks. Fear of Misuse: A Valid Concern: Some individuals or teams may be hesitant to share their data due to concerns about how it will be used or the potential for negative consequences. This requires establishing clear data usage policies, implementing data access controls, and providing training on responsible AI practices. Some individuals or teams may be hesitant to share their data due to concerns about how it will be used or the potential for negative consequences. This requires establishing clear data usage policies, implementing data access controls, and providing training on responsible AI practices. Lack of Trust: A Barrier to Collaboration: There may be a lack of trust between different departments or teams, making them unwilling to share data. This requires building trust through open communication, transparency, and collaborative projects. There may be a lack of trust between different departments or teams, making them unwilling to share data. This requires building trust through open communication, transparency, and collaborative projects. AI Anxiety: A Shift in Power: A department might fear that sharing data will lead to a loss of control or power, or that AI will replace human workers. This requires addressing these concerns through clear communication, providing training on AI technologies, and demonstrating the benefits of AI for both individuals and the organization as a whole. Highlighting how AI can augment human capabilities and improve job satisfaction is crucial. In Summary: A Delicate Balance The desire to maintain data silos in the context of AI adoption is a complex issue driven by a combination of factors, including data security, competitive advantage, regulatory compliance, technical challenges, and organizational culture. While data silos can offer benefits in terms of control and security, they can also hinder innovation and limit the potential of AI. Organizations must carefully weigh these competing considerations when developing their AI strategies, striving to find a balance that maximizes the benefits of AI while mitigating the risks. The future of AI adoption lies in finding innovative ways to navigate these complexities, fostering collaboration while safeguarding the valuable assets that organizations hold within their walls. This includes exploring strategies such as:
Associated Press
07-07-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
MRS Business Professional Announces Monica Romelina Sijabat as a Global Leader in Taxation and International Law
Dr. Monica Romelina Sijabat, a trailblazer in taxation and international law, is recognized for her global influence, prestigious awards, and contributions to business and economics. United States, July 6, 2025 -- Dr. Monica Romelina Sijabat: A Global Authority in Taxation and International Law Dr. Monica Romelina Sijabat is making significant strides in the fields of taxation and international law, setting new standards for business and economic policy worldwide. As the Founder and Owner of MRS Business Professional, Dr. Monica Romelina Sijabat has emerged as a leading expert, recognized for her unique blend of legal expertise and global insight. With numerous prestigious awards under her belt and recognition from industry giants, she continues to shape international legal practices and business strategies. Unveiling a Legacy of Excellence in Law and Commerce Dr. Monica Romelina Sijabat's career is defined by an unwavering commitment to advancing the understanding and practice of taxation and international law. Her journey has been marked by significant milestones, including her recent appointment as a representative of the Harvard Kennedy School in Washington DC in September 2024, where she represented global leaders in commerce and taxation law. Her influential speech and presentations garnered praise from industry leaders, reinforcing her standing as a global thought leader in her field. Dr. Monica Romelina Sijabat's global influence has been recognized through multiple awards, such as the Top Awardee Champion honor at a global lawyer competition in New Delhi, India awarded to her by the General Attorney of India in March 2024. Additionally, she received the Hallmark Award from a Supreme Court Judge in New Delhi, India in May 2025. These accolades, coupled with her continuous presence at international forums, reinforce her position as a visionary leader in international law. Recognized for Exceptional Contributions to Taxation Law and Business Through her strategic initiatives and deep expertise, Dr. Monica Romelina Sijabat has helped businesses navigate complex international taxation frameworks. Her work focuses on ensuring businesses align with ever-evolving global tax regulations while optimizing their financial business strategies. As a thought leader with integrity, she regularly participates in high-level conferences and events, such as the Women Leader 2024 Award in Bangkok, Global Visionary Leader in Dubai at April 2025, Doctorate Award in International Law and Economics from Mexico in July 2024 and the prestigious Global Icons in December 2024 alongside NASA astronaut Sunita Williams. Dr. Monica Romelina Sijabat's approach to taxation law is not just about compliance; it is about creating value for businesses in a globalized economy. Her impact has been felt across various sectors, including business development, finance, and policy. She continues to inspire future generations of legal professionals and entrepreneurs through her vision and leadership. Awarded Best Global Leader in Tax Attorney in the United States for 2025 MRS Business Professional is also proud to announce that Dr. Monica Romelina Sijabat has been named the Best Global Leader in Tax Attorney in the United States for 2025 by the Evergreen Awards. This prestigious award is a testament to Dr. Monica Romelina Sijabat's enduring influence and expertise in international taxation law. As the founder of MRS Business Professional, Dr. Monica Romelina Sijabat has proven herself as a prominent figure in the field, constantly advancing standards and shaping the future of global business practices. Dr. Monica Romelina Sijabat's accomplishments include her impactful work in the transformation of international tax frameworks and her significant contributions to improving business operations globally. Through this award, her work has been celebrated for its originality, precision, and long-lasting effects on both legal and economic systems. A Commitment to Economic, International Taxation and Legal Innovation Dr. Monica Romelina Sijabat's thought leadership extends beyond awards and recognitions. Her ongoing work, including her upcoming keynote speech in New York in June 2025, San Francisco and Houston Texas in November 2025 reflects her deep commitment to the future of international business law. By addressing complex global issues and fostering dialogue, she has become an invaluable voice in international forums, helping to shape the future of commerce, economic and taxation law. Her influence on both the legal and business communities is underscored by her being named a Visionary Leader 2025 at the Business Frontier event in Dubai, where she was presented with an award by the Lieutenant of the Dubai Police and also an award as Women Leader in Excellence Professional Services by the South Africa Ambassador at Bangkok Thailand. These recognitions reflect not only her exceptional legal expertise but also her contributions to fostering global economic growth and stability. The Future of Taxation and Business Law Dr. Monica Romelina Sijabat's story is one of remarkable achievement, resilience, and dedication to improving global tax systems and business practices. As she continues to receive top-tier awards and recognition, her influence in taxation and international law will undoubtedly expand, shaping policies and strategies for years to come. About MRS Business Professional MRS Business Professional, founded by Dr. Monica Romelina Sijabat, is a leading consultancy and legal firm specializing in international law, taxation, and business strategies. With a global presence and recognition, the firm offers expert services to businesses navigating complex legal frameworks and economic challenges worldwide. Media Contact: Monica Romelina Sijabat Founder & Owner, MRS Business Professional Phone: +1 571-267-8665 +628118588889 Email: [email protected] ; [email protected] Contact Info: Name: Monica Romelina Sijabat Email: Send Email Organization: MRS Business Professional Website: Release ID: 89163990 In the event of encountering any errors, concerns, or inconsistencies within the content shared in this press release, we kindly request that you immediately contact us at [email protected] (it is important to note that this email is the authorized channel for such matters, sending multiple emails to multiple addresses does not necessarily help expedite your request). Our dedicated team will be readily accessible to address your feedback within 8 hours and take appropriate measures to rectify any identified issues or facilitate press release takedowns. Ensuring accuracy and reliability are central to our commitment.
Yahoo
05-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Greatland Resources Limited's (ASX:GGP) stock price dropped 4.0% last week; individual investors would not be happy
The considerable ownership by individual investors in Greatland Resources indicates that they collectively have a greater say in management and business strategy A total of 25 investors have a majority stake in the company with 47% ownership 14% of Greatland Resources is held by Institutions AI is about to change healthcare. These 20 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part - they are all under $10bn in marketcap - there is still time to get in early. If you want to know who really controls Greatland Resources Limited (ASX:GGP), then you'll have to look at the makeup of its share registry. We can see that individual investors own the lion's share in the company with 53% ownership. That is, the group stands to benefit the most if the stock rises (or lose the most if there is a downturn). As a result, individual investors as a group endured the highest losses last week after market cap fell by AU$194m. Let's delve deeper into each type of owner of Greatland Resources, beginning with the chart below. Check out our latest analysis for Greatland Resources Institutional investors commonly compare their own returns to the returns of a commonly followed index. So they generally do consider buying larger companies that are included in the relevant benchmark index. As you can see, institutional investors have a fair amount of stake in Greatland Resources. This suggests some credibility amongst professional investors. But we can't rely on that fact alone since institutions make bad investments sometimes, just like everyone does. If multiple institutions change their view on a stock at the same time, you could see the share price drop fast. It's therefore worth looking at Greatland Resources' earnings history below. Of course, the future is what really matters. Hedge funds don't have many shares in Greatland Resources. Wyloo Consolidated Investments Pty Ltd is currently the company's largest shareholder with 16% of shares outstanding. In comparison, the second and third largest shareholders hold about 10% and 10.0% of the stock. A deeper look at our ownership data shows that the top 25 shareholders collectively hold less than half of the register, suggesting a large group of small holders where no single shareholder has a majority. Researching institutional ownership is a good way to gauge and filter a stock's expected performance. The same can be achieved by studying analyst sentiments. There are a reasonable number of analysts covering the stock, so it might be useful to find out their aggregate view on the future. While the precise definition of an insider can be subjective, almost everyone considers board members to be insiders. The company management answer to the board and the latter should represent the interests of shareholders. Notably, sometimes top-level managers are on the board themselves. Most consider insider ownership a positive because it can indicate the board is well aligned with other shareholders. However, on some occasions too much power is concentrated within this group. Our data suggests that insiders own under 1% of Greatland Resources Limited in their own names. However, it's possible that insiders might have an indirect interest through a more complex structure. Keep in mind that it's a big company, and the insiders own AU$46m worth of shares. The absolute value might be more important than the proportional share. It is good to see board members owning shares, but it might be worth checking if those insiders have been buying. The general public, who are usually individual investors, hold a substantial 53% stake in Greatland Resources, suggesting it is a fairly popular stock. With this amount of ownership, retail investors can collectively play a role in decisions that affect shareholder returns, such as dividend policies and the appointment of directors. They can also exercise the power to vote on acquisitions or mergers that may not improve profitability. Our data indicates that Private Companies hold 23%, of the company's shares. It might be worth looking deeper into this. If related parties, such as insiders, have an interest in one of these private companies, that should be disclosed in the annual report. Private companies may also have a strategic interest in the company. It appears to us that public companies own 10% of Greatland Resources. It's hard to say for sure but this suggests they have entwined business interests. This might be a strategic stake, so it's worth watching this space for changes in ownership. I find it very interesting to look at who exactly owns a company. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. For example, we've discovered 3 warning signs for Greatland Resources (2 are a bit concerning!) that you should be aware of before investing here. But ultimately it is the future, not the past, that will determine how well the owners of this business will do. Therefore we think it advisable to take a look at this free report showing whether analysts are predicting a brighter future. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Yahoo
01-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Can Axon Enterprise Sustain EBITDA Margin Momentum Amid Cost Pressures?
Axon Enterprise, Inc. AXON achieved a solid adjusted EBITDA of $155.2 million in the first quarter of 2025, which increased 9.6% year over year. The company's adjusted EBITDA margin reached 25.7%, reflecting an increase of 200 basis points (bps). This improved margin not only reflects its strong operational efficiency but also benefits from the continued adoption of its premier products and rising operating expenses, AXON's adjusted gross margin grew 40 basis points to 63.6%. The improvement in margins was driven by higher revenues generated from robust sales of TASER 10, Axon Body 4, personal sensors and platform sensor products. It's worth noting that the company reported revenues of $603.6 million in the first quarter, which increased 31.3% year over Enterprise's focus on effective cost management and revenue improvement is likely to expand its margin performance. For 2025, AXON currently expects adjusted EBITDA in the range of $650-$675 million, higher than its previous outlook of $640-$670 million. The updated guided range implies an adjusted EBITDA margin of approximately 25%. It's worth noting that, effective first-quarter 2025, Axon Enterprise realigned its business segments. This realignment is expected to enhance the company's visibility into segment-specific performance and enable it to effectively manage its costs. This strategic move will likely support Axon Enterprise's ongoing margin improvement and operational efficiency. While AXON is putting its best foot forward to improve margins, the road ahead for its peers like Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. KTOS and Teledyne Technologies Incorporated TDY looks bumpy as they struggle to maintain healthy its major peers, Kratos Defense is facing cost pressure. In the first quarter of 2025, its cost of sales increased 11.1% year over year, while its SG&A expenses rose 4.8%. Kratos Defense's gross margin declined 30 bps to 24.3% in the Technologies' cost of sales rose 7.8% year over year in first-quarter 2025. The company's SG&A expenses also increased 6.5% year over year. Teledyne Technologies' gross margin declined 320 basis points to 42.7% in the same period. Shares of Axon Enterprise have surged 48.3% in the past three months compared with the industry's growth of 22.5%. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research From a valuation standpoint, AXON is trading at a forward price-to-earnings ratio of 115.81X above the industry's average of 48.85X. Axon Enterprise carries a Value Score of F. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research The Zacks Consensus Estimate for AXON's 2025 earnings has declined 0.8% over the past 60 days. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research The company currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Teledyne Technologies Incorporated (TDY) : Free Stock Analysis Report Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. (KTOS) : Free Stock Analysis Report Axon Enterprise, Inc (AXON) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Forbes
23-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Serving Not Selling: Why Management Consultants Shouldn't 'Sell'
Management Consultants Earn Opportunities for Serving Clients, Selling Creates Problems In 1997, I got into an elevator on the thirtieth floor of an office building in Chicago. I was in my second month at a large firm of management consultants, known for its strong organizational culture. A passer-by walks past a strong design of the front entrance of a retail shop in London. (Photo by ... More Richard Baker/In Pictures Ltd./Corbis via Getty Images) In my first week, I began working with David, a newly elected partner, on a proposal to a company in Columbus, IN. Our mission was to build the company's strategy for innovation and growth. I was more excited by the proposal than anyone else on the team. It fueled a career-long fascination with building new businesses in established organizations, has led me from this consulting firm to IBM, and later to Change Logic. When I entered the elevator, there was David. I immediately asked him, 'Hi, did we win the business?' He looked at me gravely and replied, 'No, but we do have the opportunity to serve.' Management Consultants Should be Serving Not Selling I've told this story many times over the years to illustrate how norms get passed on in strong organizational cultures. However, it makes some audiences laugh loudly. One sales leader told me: 'You are getting paid to do a job; of course, you are selling something!' It sounds like a management consultant's deceit, like saying 'synergies,' when you mean 'layoffs.' Others respond with a witty wink, 'Yes, I'll try to remember to say that next time!' However, to me, this is neither a deceit nor just a choice of words; it is one of my values. A value is something that we believe to be good and true. In most human societies, cheating and lying are considered wrong and it is a breach of values to lie or cheat. Of course, there is still plenty of both going on, but we are discrete enough to hide or camouflage these behaviors because they are socially unacceptable. This, in turn, creates social pressure that suppresses the incidence of lying and cheating. The same is true when we are talking about selling a project at my consulting firm, Change Logic. If a member of my team says that they want to 'sell' a project to client, for me that is the same as saying, 'I want to lie or cheat.' It is a breach of our values. We use the language of serving not selling as a representation of our fundamental beliefs. It is not a deceit or an optional choice of words; it is a value. Selling Assumes Management Consultants Have the Answers The value of disapproving lying and cheating is self-interested. We know that human society would struggle to operate without trust. We are still concerned about cheats, but we know that the consequences of offending the social norms are unacceptable to most people. The same is true for the value of service over selling. It serves a purpose in my business. I have the privilege of advising CEOs and senior teams in many firms on how to manage significant issues related to the future of their organizations. My colleagues and I can play this role only because the client trusts that we are motivated by a desire to see them succeed. They do not have to second guess our advice by wondering: 'Is this advice about selling me another project?' Several years ago, I received an acquisition approach from a firm that builds technology products for other companies to take to market. They knew of our work on innovation strategy and saw an opportunity to move 'upstream.' The next day I had breakfast with a client CEO. We had helped his insurance firm to build a new healthcare unit. I asked him what he thought of us expanding our capabilities so that we could offer more of a 'turnkey' solution. He was firmly against this idea. 'Andy, then you couldn't be objective in your advice. What they do is available from lots of firms, what you do is rare, and I don't want to lose it.' Trust is hard to earn. Senior executives are battle hardened. They know that professional services firms are designed to build a 'book of business' at client accounts. They use tactics like the 'diagnostic' to find all the things that are wrong with a client's organization that they can fix. Unsurprisingly, the problems identified during this 'analysis' are often much greater than the client ever imagined. This softens up the client and convinces them to pay just a fraction of the value in consultant fees. Once they have secured the new account, it is a matter of 'land and expand.' Building relationships across the organization to secure new 'mandates' and position the firm for long-term incumbency. Key to this strategy is a relentless focus on what the client cannot do, why they need help to achieve their goals. These selling oriented practices erode trust. The consultant is on a self-oriented agenda of generating revenue. Selling and Serving are Not the Same Of course, I want more revenue for my company. I think my team does amazing work that benefits a wide range of clients seeking to ignite innovation to generate growth. However, if my relationship with my clients is motivated by selling a project, then my work becomes about driving my own success. If I put that objective ahead of my client's interests, then I risk violating their trust in me and undermine my ability to do the work. A counterpoint to this logic could be this: we make sure we sell the right things and so our interests are always aligned with those of our clients. The argument goes on, 'You may not like the word selling, Andy, but it doesn't really matter as long as I do not sell the client something that they do not want.' This is a self-serving argument that betrays a lack of humility. It assumes you start with an answer to sell. That from the beginning of a relationship, a consultant already knows what the client needs, and just has to get them to 'buy' it. It changes and distorts your choices as a consultant to have a ready-made solution to sell, because you are only listening to match the client's needs with what you've got to sell. The argument that selling and serving are the same is the conceit. Serving Requires Management Consultants to be Humble I try to start with the assumption that my clients are smarter than me, know their business better, and are fully capable of achieving good outcomes. I can help them go faster, do better, and be more motivated to succeed, but that doesn't mean I know more. This opens up rich possibilities for co-creation with clients, where they are owning the work from the beginning, shaping and designing solutions to important challenges. It also means that from the start of the relationship, you assume that one day it will end. Your clients will be more capable and not need an outside firm to support them. This focuses consultants on client impact - how are we leaving them more able to achieve the results they are seeking - rather than on how we can engineer situations to extend our mandate. This sounds non-commercial logic. In fact, it is deeply commercial. I truly believe that the reason my firm is still in business after almost 20 it was founded is because of its values and how they inform behaviors. The value of serving, not selling, allows us to build long-term, trustful relationships with our clients that would be the envy of many much larger firms. Of course, we want to be commercially successful, but if we let that be our driver then we will lose our values and with it our license to serve. It is easy to check my LinkedIn profile and see that I used to work for McKinsey. They have been embroiled in a series of ethical controversies. They articulated strong values, but it proved to be incredibly hard to sustain these at scale across a global organization. There is a difference between your espoused values (what you say) and your values-in-use (what you do). You only know if you are living your espoused values when they come under pressure and there is a risk of you breaching them. If management consultants always think they are living their values, then it is likely they are not. An unexamined value is of no value at all.
