Translator: Robert Tucker Reviewer: Nadine Hennig
Hello!
I'm sure you will know that terrible feeling that creeps over you
when your identity,
that which you believe to be incontrovertibly yours,
is defaced.
When that which we believe to be particularly us
is challenged by people around us.
I get this feeling, for example, when someone says:
'Oh, you're just one of those business consultancies
that only makes for greater confusion.'
How do such experiences come about?
It's because identity isn't always what we think it is:
highly autonomous, self-asserting.
Rather, identity is always dependent
on that by which we define ourselves
being accepted by those around us.
Identity is therefore created in dialogue.
And that doesn't apply just to us, but also to companies.
Companies put forward their identities in their corporate policy,
vision or mission,
but for the development of this identity
they are dependent upon the perceptions of those they deal with,
that is, of customers, analysts, suppliers.
So, they are dependent upon those with whom they interact,
and they depend on technology.
When it comes to technology, it is its relationship to digitalization
that influences the identity of a company in many ways.
I've picked out three influences.
Firstly - and this explains the somewhat awkward title of my presentation -
digitalization results in the identity of companies
becoming far more fluid.
What do I mean by that?
Digitalization 'dematerializes' companies.
Up to now, it was the case
that companies largely consisted of factories and machines.
In the future, it will be more the case
that companies consist of employees and code.
They are then much easier to change;
their identity has become much more malleable and fluid.
As an actual example:
I recently spoke with a manufacturer of plastic parts in the Swabia area,
and they said: Yes, we make plastic parts
for the automotive industry and the medical field.
I wondered, 'Why?'
Because that's what their machines make.
Their identity is determined by their machines.
In the future, this manufacturer of plastic parts
will only have a CAD program and capable technicians
who send the diagrams of desired plastic parts
directly to the 3D printers of its clients.
That is, suddenly its identity is unlimited.
First point.
Second point.
This increase in design power that the company director,
the company, has
that relates to its identity,
is on the other hand again also restricted by digitalization.
Because, as we have said,
what is also important for its overall functional identity
is also its external perception,
and its external perception is reinforced by digitalization,
particularly by digital communications media.
Deutsche Bahn, for example,
writes an awful lot in its company policy
about its focus on customer satisfaction, reliability, punctuality.
Nothing anyone reads on the Facebook page of Deutsche Bahn
when they look at all the dissatisfied comments.
And thirdly, digitalization also results in the rapidity of change
being extremely increased.
Up to now we have had a technological leap say every ten to twenty years,
and companies have had time in the interim to work on their identity.
That is, to consider whether a technological leap
is of consequence to their identity and to adjust it as necessary.
Today they can scarcely keep up.
First, we had the Internet, then the mobile,
then virtual reality, then 3D printing,
then the Internet of things, soon we'll have 'beaming'.
How is one supposed to adapt one's identity at all?
In practical terms, it has even the effect, in some industries,
that it leads to real loss of identity,
in the media industry, for example,
and there in particular regarding regional newspapers.
Take, for example, the Cologne 'Express' or the 'Rheinische Post'.
Regional newspapers -
we'll take a fictional example so as not to take any particular one -
we'll take the 'Dependable Local News',
the 'DLN' for short.
The DLN has had a monopoly
on local information for at least 60 years.
From this it draws its identity.
That is, it defined itself
by its supremacy over interpretation of, and information on, the news in the area.
The publisher made every effort to ensure
that nothing happened in the region without it appearing in the newspaper.
And the editorial office thought
there's no other way to look at the world,
other than the one they set forth each day on the pages of their newspaper.
And then came the Internet.
Ho, ho! Help, what's to do!
Then there were suddenly bloggers who personally reported on meetings
that the publisher really did not wish to see about on his pages.
Or editors had suddenly to be confronted publicly
with uncensored reader comments on their websites,
while before they could so easily just select out readers' letters.
Which means the whole identity,
that of supremacy over information and its interpretation, is lost -
for the DLN, for the publisher, for the editors.
So, what's to be done?
Many publishers remain in the situation somewhat paralysed by shock,
and to begin with doing nothing
because they don't know what they should do.
That's mostly publishers run by a third or fourth generation
who do not know about this problem.
But doing nothing doesn't make it - for two reasons.
First of all, we've seen, we have an important external component.
If the publishers themselves don't work on their identity,
then their identify establishes itself by itself,
with nothing they can do about it.
Stupid.
Secondly,
an identity is also needed just now in these so dynamic times
that can direct all the strengths of the company in a given direction.
This means that the publisher actually has no choice
other than searching for another identity, and working on that identity.
But in these dynamic times where everything flows,
where everything is fluid:
Just what is it that can be depended upon enough
that it can really form the basis for an identity?
What is the guiding star
in whose direction the publisher can align the new identity of the DLN?
He can, of course, make himself out as the guiding star and say:
'It's us, the DLN, who always find new ways
to obtain local information and bring it to the consumer.'
It certainly speaks for dependability.
But is it concrete enough as a guide for the employees?
And will it also be the case
that the customers of the DLN, the old DLN, will buy it?
Probably not.
But regarding customers, the second option
is to have the customer himself and his wishes be the new guiding star.
That is, the DLN could put themselves forward like this:
'It's us, who for the people, the inhabitants of our region,
make all the information available they need to live their daily lives,
in whatever form, with whatever technology.'
That is practical, it is orientating, and it impresses dependability.
And indeed many companies that understand the digital world
define themselves just in that way.
Facebook says for example: 'We want to make useful products
that enable people to share information.'
Google says: 'We do everything that is necessary
to enable our customers to put together the information available in this world.'
And even Microsoft has caught on and says:
'We are the productivity platform
that allows everyone and every organization
to achieve more.'
What do all these proclamations have in common?
They put forward a sphere that gives a very clear picture
of that for which the company considers itself responsible.
And within this sphere of responsibility
it aims to best meet the needs of its customers
in whichever way.
It aims to always add maximum added value.
And if we now return to ourselves:
Would that not also be a solution to our problems?
So if someone says to me again, 'Pff, you're nothing special',
can I not consider
in what way I feel 'responsible' towards that person,
whether it's delivering good work, setting boundaries or providing support?
And can I not take it upon myself to give maximum added value there?
If I do that, and if I succeed,
then, in that moment,
how I define myself and how I'm perceived are in agreement,
and I have a working identity again.
That is, identity is created through dialogue,
and its value is functional effect.
Thank you.
(Applause)