Change Management

Five years ago I would not have believed this. The biggest names in CPG are quietly taking food out of the center of the plate. Unilever is carving out an $8B ice cream portfolio to focus on beauty and wellness. Nestlé is leaning harder into health science. The categories with pricing power are not pantry staples. They are skincare, supplements, functional hydration, and performance nutrition. Why the shift is rational, not trendy: Food margins are getting squeezed. Trade down is real, private label is sharper, and price elasticity in core staples is hitting its ceiling. Health and wellness carry willingness to pay. Consumers accept a premium for outcomes, routines, and performance. They do not reward cost plus in pasta sauce. Loyalty is drifting in food. Promotions move share week to week. Self care and efficacy-led categories hold repeat. You can already see where momentum lives. L'Oréal skincare growth outpaced many classic food portfolios last year. The Coca-Cola Company is pushing deeper into functional and non-carbonated. PepsiCo’s most defensible engine is Gatorade’s ecosystem of hydration, not soda. These are not side bets. They are where pricing power and repeat accrue. What I am advising leadership teams to do now: • Reweight the portfolio. Map pricing power, repeat, and trade down risk by category. If the math says wellness and self care carry the margin story, allocate accordingly. • Build credibility before you buy it. If you are a food-first house moving into health, you need scientific muscle, regulatory fluency, and communities that care. Partnerships, acqui-hires, and advisory benches matter. • Treat personalization as a revenue lever. Recommendations, routines, and subscription logic are table stakes in self care. Own the data and make it useful. • Keep the core honest. Food will not disappear, but it must earn its space with cleaner RGM, fewer zombie SKUs, and real reasons to stick around outside of price. I am not declaring the death of food. I am pointing at where the next decade of pricing power is likely to sit. The winners will rebalance now, not after a third year of elasticities telling the same story. If you are leading a CPG portfolio, are you future proofing around outcomes and routines, or are you managing a slow decline in categories that no longer set the pace? #FMCG #CPG #ConsumerTrends #GrowthStrategy #Beauty #Wellness #RevenueShift #BrandEvolution

Scaling from 50 to 100 employees almost killed our company. Until we discovered a simple org structure that unlocked $100M+ in annual revenue. In my 10+ years of experience as a founder, one of the biggest challenges I faced in scaling was bridging the organizational gap between startup and enterprise. We hit that wall at around 100~ employees. What worked beautifully with a small team suddenly became our biggest obstacle to growth. The problem was our functional org structure: Engineers reporting to engineering, product to product, business to business. This created a complex dependency web: • Planning took weeks • No clear ownership  • Business threw Jira tickets over the fence and prayed for them to get completed • Engineers didn’t understand priorities and worked on problems that didn’t align with customer needs That was when I studied Amazon's Single-Threaded Owner (STO) model, in which dedicated GMs run independent business units with their own cross-functional teams and manage P&L It looked great for Amazon's scale but felt impossible for growing companies like ours. These 2 critical barriers made it impractical for our scale: 1. Engineering Squad Requirements: True STO demands complete engineering teams (including managers) reporting to a single owner. At our size, we couldn't justify full engineering squads for each business unit. To make it work, we would have to quadruple our engineering headcount. 2. P&L Owner Complexity: STO leaders need unicorn-level skills: deep business acumen and P&L management experience. Not only are these leaders rare and expensive, but requiring all these skills in one person would have limited our talent pool and slowed our ability to launch new initiatives. What we needed was a model that captured STO's focus and accountability but worked for our size and growth needs. That's when we created Mission-Aligned Teams (MATs), a hybrid model that changed our execution (for good) Key principles: • Each team owns a specific mission (e.g., improving customer service, optimizing payment flow) • Teams are cross-functional and self-sufficient,  • Leaders can be anyone (engineer, PM, marketer) who's good at execution • People still report functionally for career development • Leaders focus on execution, not people management The results exceeded our highest expectations: New MAT leads launched new products, each generating $5-10M in revenue within a year with under 10 person teams. Planning became streamlined. Ownership became clear. But it's NOT for everyone (like STO wasn’t for us) If you're under 50 people, the overhead probably isn't worth it. If you're Amazon-scale, pure STO might be better. MAT works best in the messy middle: when you're too big for everyone to be in one room but too small for a full enterprise structure. image courtesy of Manu Cornet ------ If you liked this, follow me Henry Shi as I share insights from my journey of building and scaling a  $1B/year business.

It’s easy as a PM to only focus on the upside. But you'll notice: more experienced PMs actually spend more time on the downside. The reason is simple: the more time you’ve spent in Product Management, the more times you’ve been burned. The team releases “the” feature that was supposed to change everything for the product - and everything remains the same. When you reach this stage, product management becomes less about figuring out what new feature could deliver great value, and more about de-risking the choices you have made to deliver the needed impact. -- To do this systematically, I recommend considering Marty Cagan's classical 4 Risks. 𝟭. 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 Remember Juicero? They built a $400 Wi-Fi-enabled juicer, only to discover that their value proposition wasn’t compelling. Customers could just as easily squeeze the juice packs with their hands. A hard lesson in value risk. Value Risk asks whether customers care enough to open their wallets or devote their time. It’s the soul of your product. If you can’t be match how much they value their money or time, you’re toast. 𝟮. 𝗨𝘀𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿’𝘀 𝗟𝗲𝗻𝘀 Usability Risk isn't about if customers find value; it's about whether they can even get to that value. Can they navigate your product without wanting to throw their device out the window? Google Glass failed not because of value but usability. People didn’t want to wear something perceived as geeky, or that invaded privacy. Google Glass was a usability nightmare that never got its day in the sun. 𝟯. 𝗙𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 Feasibility Risk takes a different angle. It's not about the market or the user; it's about you. Can you and your team actually build what you’ve dreamed up? Theranos promised the moon but couldn't deliver. It claimed its technology could run extensive tests with a single drop of blood. The reality? It was scientifically impossible with their tech. They ignored feasibility risk and paid the price. 𝟰. 𝗩𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝗗𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗵𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗲 (Business) Viability Risk is the "grandmaster" of risks. It asks: Does this product make sense within the broader context of your business? Take Kodak for example. They actually invented the digital camera but failed to adapt their business model to this disruptive technology. They held back due to fear it would cannibalize their film business. -- This systematic approach is the best way I have found to help de-risk big launches. How do you like to de-risk?

If #diversity, #equity, and #inclusion practitioners want to get ahead of anti-DEI backlash, we have to address an elephant in the room: no two people in the same workplace perceive their workplace the same way. I see this every time I work with client organizations. When asked to describe their own experience with the workplace and its DEI strengths and challenges, I hear things like: 😊 "I've never experienced any discrimination or mistreatment; our leaders' commitment is strong." 🤨 "I had a good time in one department, but after transferring departments I started experiencing explicit ableist comments under my new manager." 🙁 "I've never had anything egregious happen, but I've always felt less respected by my team members because of my race." Who's right? Turns out, all of them. It starts to get messy because everyone inevitably generalizes their own personal experiences into their perception of the workplace as a whole; three people might accordingly describe their workplace as a "meritocracy without discrimination," an "inconsistently inclusive workplace dependent on manager," or "a subtly racist environment." And when people are confronted with other experiences of the workplace that DIFFER from their own, they often take it personally. I've seen leaders bristle at the implication that their own experience was "wrong," or get defensive in expectation they will be accused of lacking awareness. It's exactly this defensiveness that lays the foundation for misunderstanding, polarization, and yes—anti-DEI misinformation—to spread in an organization. How do we mitigate it? In my own work, I've found that these simple steps go a long way. 1. Validate everyone's experience. Saying outright that everyone's personal experience is "correct" for themselves might seem too obvious, but it plays a powerful role in helping everyone feel respected and taken seriously. Reality is not a question of "who is right"—it's the messy summation of everyone's lived experience, good or bad. 2. Use data to create a shared baseline. Gathering data by organizational and social demographics allows us to make statements like, "the average perception of team respect is 70% in Engineering, but only 30% in Sales," or "perception of fair decision making processes is 90% for white men, but only 40% for Black women." This establishes a shared reality, a baseline for any effective DEI work. 3. Make it clear that problem-solving involves—and requires—everyone. The goal of DEI work is to achieve positive outcomes for everyone. Those with already positive experiences? Their insights help us know what we're aiming for. Those with the most negative? Their insights help us learn what's broken. The more we communicate that collective effort benefits the collective, rather than shaming or dismissing those at the margins, the more we can unite people around DEI and beat the backlash.

Actions to Reduce Scope 3 Emissions 🌎 Scope 3 emissions typically account for the largest share of a company's carbon footprint, covering indirect emissions across the entire value chain. Addressing them effectively requires a multifaceted approach that engages suppliers, customers, and other stakeholders. This framework outlines clear actions across key Scope 3 categories, ranging from procurement to investments. Each action is categorized into three progressive levels, encouraging companies to start with quick wins and advance toward deeper integration and systemic change. In purchasing and capital goods, strategies include substituting high-GHG materials and equipment, applying GHG criteria in investment decisions, and engaging suppliers to standardize emissions reporting. These measures aim to embed sustainability criteria across the sourcing process. For energy-related activities and transportation, reducing energy consumption, switching to lower-emission fuels, and electrifying fleets play a critical role. While some listed actions—such as on-site renewable generation—typically fall under Scope 1 or 2, they remain integral to broader decarbonization strategies. Operational waste and product lifecycle emissions require both upstream and downstream interventions. Companies can minimize waste at source, enhance recycling processes, and design for recyclability, ensuring materials remain in circulation and emissions are mitigated across product life cycles. Business travel, employee commuting, and leased assets offer opportunities to reduce emissions through virtual collaboration tools, promotion of public transport, retrofitting for energy efficiency, and improving facility operations—highlighting the value of internal policies and infrastructure upgrades. Downstream logistics and product use demand focused improvements in logistics efficiency and product energy performance. Encouraging efficient product use and adopting low-GHG energy sources can reduce the footprint associated with sold goods and services. Franchise and investment-related emissions emphasize the importance of supporting energy-efficient operations and prioritizing low-carbon investment portfolios. Channeling funding into clean tech and applying rigorous climate criteria to investment decisions are essential for long-term impact. The success of Scope 3 reduction strategies depends not only on technical interventions but also on clear governance and collaboration frameworks. Accurate data collection, traceability, and continuous engagement across the value chain ensure sustained progress. Comprehensive Scope 3 management is vital for achieving credible net-zero targets. This framework provides a roadmap to operationalize reductions, integrating climate action into the heart of corporate strategy and ensuring alignment with global decarbonization goals. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #emissions

"𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘱𝘶𝘴𝘩, 𝘸𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘴𝘩 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳." It’s an unspoken agreement in workplaces everywhere. Are you unknowingly igniting resistance instead of sparking change? 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝘂𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗼𝗼 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗱
 At City Hospital (a pseudonym used to protect confidentiality), the CEO, “Juliette Garnier” (also a pseudonym), believed decisive action would save the day. Faced with a funding crisis, she enforced a 10% budget cut across departments. Her intent? Keep the hospital afloat. The result? Chaos. Her leadership team froze in silence, employees raged in the corridors, and nurses threatened a strike over unsafe working conditions. Garnier had unknowingly stepped into what I call The 𝙋𝙪𝙨𝙝 𝘽𝙖𝙘𝙠 𝙋𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣: * 𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 = 𝗘𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘀 * 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲𝘀 = 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 The harder you push, the harder people push back. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗠𝗶𝘀𝘀 𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲
 Resistance isn’t about rejecting change. It’s about rejecting the way change is imposed. When people feel ignored, undervalued, or strong-armed, their silence or anger signals mistrust and resentment. The more forceful the push, the stronger the resistance grows. 𝗕𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻
 Garnier recognised the pattern and shifted her approach. Instead of enforcing change, she invited her team to co-create solutions. Within weeks, the same employees who had resisted her became her strongest allies, crafting a plan that cut costs without compromising care. The strike was called off, and trust was restored. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 
Leaders who force change light fires that burn bridges. Those who nudge—inviting collaboration and listening deeply—build lasting trust and sustainable results. Are you lighting fires or building bridges? Would love to hear your views: What strategies have worked for you to overcome resistance and inspire collaboration? 📚 For a systemic lens to creating lasting change, explore the ideas in my book, 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙃𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙈𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙩 𝙒𝙤𝙧𝙠.

🌍 Some companies aren’t waiting for the sustainability playbook to be written—they’re writing it themselves, through real and often difficult business model transformation. This recent Harvard Business Review article by Ivanka Visnjic, Felipe Monteiro, and Michael Tushman spotlights four such firms—Enel Group, Holcim, OCP Group, and Suzano. What they share is not a single blueprint, but a willingness to rethink how value is created, delivered, and measured across their organisations. They’re reshaping innovation portfolios ⚙️, building ambidextrous structures 🔁, and enabling experimentation at the edge 🧪—while keeping an eye on scale and integration. These are practical responses to a complex challenge, not abstract aspirations. One thing the article captures well is the real organisational work involved. Enel set up separate business units to explore new energy services. Holcim created a global programme to empower local plants with data and digital tools. Suzano is investing in community-based initiatives and backing them with budget authority, not just words. OCP’s internal platform, Le Mouvement, is turning employees into active designers of sustainability solutions. All of this takes place while navigating three tough but familiar tensions: 📉 Delivering on short-term performance while building for the long term 🌐 Driving global goals while staying grounded in local realities 🤝 Opening up to external partners while maintaining internal alignment These tensions can’t be eliminated—but they can be managed intentionally. And the companies profiled are showing that it’s possible to do so without losing focus or diluting ambition. For me, the article reinforced a broader point: sustainability, when taken seriously, demands organisational creativity—not just technical fixes or stronger targets. It requires rethinking capabilities, incentives, and learning structures across the organisation. And it often means questioning core assumptions about what business is for, and whose interests it serves. So the questions I’m left with are these: 🔹 Are we preparing our organisations—structurally and culturally—for this kind of transformation? 🔹 And are we willing to confront the uncomfortable trade-offs it inevitably exposes? I’d highly recommend this piece to anyone working at the intersection of strategy, innovation, and sustainability. It’s rich in insight and refreshingly grounded in real organisational practice: https://lnkd.in/dtEqnezP

Smart manufacturing isn’t just about doing things better; it’s about redefining what ‘better’ means in a digital, sustainable world. What began with Industry 4.0’s ambitious vision—cyber-physical systems, IoT, and connected factories—has evolved into something more grounded, accessible, and human-centric. While Industry 4.0 focused on possibilities, today’s frameworks, like CESMII’s First Principles of Smart Manufacturing, focus on practicality. These principles offer a roadmap to make smart manufacturing achievable for everyone: 1. 𝐅𝐥𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥-𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞: Seamless information flow enables fast, decentralized decisions with real-time visibility. 2. 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 & 𝐎𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝: Connected ecosystems collaborate to deliver products efficiently and on time. 3. 𝐒𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞: Systems adapt easily to changing demands, enabling broad adoption across the value chain. 4. 𝐒𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 & 𝐄𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲 𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭: Optimizes energy use and supports reuse, remanufacturing, and recycling processes. 5. 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐞: Ensures secure connectivity, protecting data, IP, and systems from cyber threats. 6. 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 & 𝐒𝐞𝐦𝐢-𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐬: Moves from static reporting to proactive, real-time, semi-autonomous decisions. 7. 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 & 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧: Empowers seamless communication across systems, devices, and partners. The shift reflects a decade of lessons learned: manufacturers need solutions that are scalable, resilient to disruptions, and environmentally responsible. CESMII doesn’t just ask, “What if?” It answers with, “Here’s how,” bridging the gap between visionary ideas and real-world implementation. 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝟒.𝟎 𝐯𝐬 𝐒𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬: https://lnkd.in/e2BRT5kX ******************************************* • Visit www.jeffwinterinsights.com for access to all my content and to stay current on Industry 4.0 and other cool tech trends • Ring the 🔔 for notifications!

Unfortunately, many organizations treat audits like a school exam they need to “pass”, not a tool to improve the security posture of the organization. The goal isn’t necessarily to fix the problems [ or keep ignoring until a real cyber-attack hits] but to tick boxes and get that stamp of “compliance” In some cases, auditors are handed a narrowly defined scope –while conveniently forgetting to mention messy departments, high-risk projects, personal data processing areas, or sketchy vendor deals. In my experience as well, often, unless I deep dive into questions, many organizations downplay risks and don’t acknowledge the personal data processing risks. Auditors can’t check everything, so some companies serve up carefully curated samples. Example – for a proof endpoint security, share a screenshot of EDR on one of the machines. This could be short-term win, long-term pain: These ignored risks can explode later as lawsuits, fines, or reputational disasters. When audits are rushed or superficial, trust in the system crumbles. Genuine audits demand transparency, empower whistleblowers, and actually fix what’s broken. Image courtesy: AI #audit #compliance #riskmanagement #soc2 #iso27001 #nist #grc #hipaa #itgc #itac

Transformation thrives when people are empowered to make the most of technology. 🚀 My recent visit to the Bosch production facility for automotive and eBike drives in Miskolc, Hungary, showcased this perfectly. I was deeply impressed to see firsthand how their progress in digitalization and the implementation of the Bosch Manufacturing and Logistics Platform (BMLP) is reshaping their manufacturing operations. BMLP is a globally standardized, open IT platform that connects all stages of production and logistics. During an insightful plant tour, I observed a successful example of how the platform leads to significant improvements in efficiency, quality, and data transparency across the plant. What stood out most was seeing the passionate and enthusiastic team at Miskolc leverage this technology in action and achieving great results towards operational excellence. Here are three key areas where BMLP is contributing to the plant’s digital transformation success, powered by our NEXEED IAS: 1️⃣ Enhanced Efficiency & Reduced Downtime: The module Shopfloor Management enables a closed PDCA cycle in production by consequent integration of all relevant information in one system. This leads to quick reaction in case of deviations to minimize downtimes and safeguard the daily performance targets.   2️⃣ Improved Product Quality: Continuous monitoring throughout production stages helps the team identify issues early, ensuring top-tier quality while driving process improvements.   3️⃣ Change Management: Change management plays a crucial role in digital transformation within a plant. As seen in Miskolc, effectively managing change ensures that the workforce is engaged, and equipped to embrace new technologies, driving sustainable success. In Miskolc we have seen solutions using gamification that help to involve all associates, making the transition both engaging and effective.   I was also excited to see AI in action with a live demo of 8D Analysis using GenAI, cutting failure analysis time by half. By automating the root cause analysis process, engineers are now spending less time on administrative tasks and more on proactive problem-solving – a great example of how technology empowers people. Beyond the production lines, the most rewarding part of the visit was engaging with the team. Their passion for digitalization, commitment to upskilling, and their drive for innovation truly brought home the message: technology is only as strong as the people behind it. A special thank you to the entire Miskolc team for the inspiring discussions and warm welcome – along with Volker Schilling, Klaus Maeder, Joerg Klingler, Volker Schiek, Norbert Jung, Stephan Brand, Aemen Bouafif, and everyone who joined us on this great trip. I’m excited to see what’s next on this incredible digitalization journey!