Decision-making boardrooms often think about strategy in the following sequence: what, how, who
1) What will we do (strategic bets)?
2) How will we do it (operating model)?
3) Who will do it (leadership team)?
This sequence works for certain places, not necessarily so here
1) What will we do (strategic bets)?
2) How will we do it (operating model)?
3) Who will do it (leadership team)?
This sequence works for certain places, not necessarily so here
We try to apply frameworks that work for developed countries to emerging ones that have different dynamics. "Raising talent" here is exponentially harder than raising capital or securing topdown support or complex changes and alignment usually unimaginable elsewhere in the world
In a region that has abundant opportunity/potential but scarce talent, the most critical question in that chain is "who". Who will make it happen? Who will be able to execute these theoretical whats and hows, and potentially even change/improve them if they find better ones
The sequence works in countries with abundant talent (what -> how -> who) because there's scale; there's a relatively deep bench that can hit the ground running. In our part of the world, masterful strategies with impeccable whats & hows would falter at the who
"Who" is by far the strongest limiting factor of great and possible whats & hows here. We need to rethink the sequence, solve who right, and be pragmatic. Need step-change solutions to talent deficit. It takes a village. Let's integrate top global talent & invest in longterm bets
This is a universal problem that many around the world face to varying degrees, but the dichotomy we have in our part of the world between the abundance of opportunity and the scarcity of talent, especially given our economic & demographic makeup, makes it of paramount importance
Loading suggestions...