What happens to Conad?
Conad between past, present and future. The point of Mario Sassi, author of Blog-Notes
In the cooperatives belonging to the Conad Consortium it is already time for financial statements. The data is good. Each within its own perimeter is achieving its objectives. In the theoretical competition with Selex, the national consortium aims to reconfirm itself in first place. I have always liked Conad's concreteness, the cooperative values that characterize it and make it similar to other international realities in which I have had the opportunity to work.
Luca Panzavolta CEO CIA Conad summarized it very well: “Cooperation is not just a way of doing business, it is a lifestyle. It is a way of thinking that puts the person and their growth at the centre, which values teamwork and collaboration. It is a model of sustainable development that places the well-being of members, employees, the territory and the environment at its centre." It is a reality that should be characterized by a "genetic" difference compared to a multinational or a private company.
Listening, convincing, sharing, negotiating and engaging are daily practices. Thinking about the future not only of individual entrepreneurs but of the entire system is a collective duty which is the basis of the cooperative logic and which differentiates it from other entrepreneurial models. This is why I am perplexed when I hear about opposing majorities and minorities in its internal government. As if, operating in Milan, Trento or Palermo (to give an example) were in itself a sufficient element to fuel an infinite role play which, rather than the future of the consortium, aims to perpetuate the eternal present of those who govern it . Above all because the real risk is that each cooperative gets used to doing without the other cooperatives. The exact opposite of the constitutive spirit. A step backwards that would condemn Conad to a "cosmic regression" by re-proposing a scheme where relationships between shareholders become less and less engaging and more and more formal.
Some time ago I wrote: “It is clear that the true strength of a polycentric system, made up of multiple souls and 5 large cooperatives, such as Conad, lies only in unity and teamwork. If it fails, different visions and interests emerge which make governing the System difficult. The search for responsibility for others risks becoming the hallmark of the profile and behavior of those who struggle to move at those altitudes."
Francesco Pugliese has been gone for a year now. The new President, the 5 presidents of the cooperatives and the operational General Manager lead Conad with confidence. The results are in line with expectations. Ordinary management, both in the individual cooperatives, and the support from the Bologna office remain of an excellent level. Conad's problems are certainly not in the numbers. Selex has equally good ones and the other power plants, too. In fact, the difference between the different models is only made by the growth strategies. Long-term goals. And it is on this that Conad competed with itself under Pugliese management.
Although prepared to manage the assigned perimeter, the leaders of the five cooperatives had well understood (some more or less) their limits. Managing a few billion in turnover or climbing beyond twenty and more, thinking about the future, is not the same thing. Also for this reason the strategy had, in fact, been "outsourced" over the years to Francesco Pugliese who, although interpreting it with a certain roughness, guaranteed alignment between the results obtained by the individual cooperatives and that image of compactness and vision of the future necessary to transform a sum of positive numbers into an internal climate, sense of team, goals to achieve and strong external projection. The Auchan affair represented the litmus test. A complex operation, difficult on a social and economic level but necessary in terms of growth and visibility on a national level. However, on a political level, it is far from the scope of competence and action of individual cooperatives.
And, in that operation, as in all complex M&A cases, in addition to those who share with conviction, there are often internal critical leaderships who interpret the most delicate steps in a pessimistic key and who resentfully experience the distance with those who try to achieve the 'objective. Francesco Pugliese was not simply the designated leader to whom the cooperatives had entrusted, over the years, the strategic thinking that they were unable to sustain, nor the so-called "Mr. Conad" of the prevailing narrative. Although it grew internally, it was substantially independent from the polycentric leadership of the consortium. I would define it, if I pardon the hyperbole, as a real asset that brought political/institutional value and strategic thinking to the System independently of that generated by Conad. Asset that was lost with its exit. The baton was then passed to Mauro Lusetti and Francesco Avanzini, figures with an excellent profile but different from those who preceded them.
It is therefore the task of those who remain to build another equally performing reality on the level of the consortium as a whole without pretending to compare or judge those who are (only) called to implement a strategy but not to define it. I understand the five presidents who have their cooperatives, their entrepreneurs and their territorial success to protect with the results that undoubtedly exist. As well as the legitimate question of why they should look up beyond the next ten years when things are going well and many of today's same protagonists won't even be around anymore.
So why worry about such a distant future? Because "there is no favorable wind for the sailor who does not know where to go" Seneca reminds us. The strategic vision serves to define objectives and direct one's energies. Every step towards reaching the goal brings confidence, a sense of community, a desire for commitment and personal involvement. You feel part of a big project. Having unclear short-term objectives that are not very engaging for the entire team risks losing direction, decreasing enthusiasm and pitting people against each other in search of easy culprits, at the first difficulties. The difference between an important purchasing center and a unitary company with its defined boundaries is all here.
For a purchasing center, tactics inevitably prevail over strategy because different strategies can coexist within it. For a company that wants to think as a unit, the opposite is the case. The strategy represents the destination and the way in which you want to reach a point, while the tactic describes the specific actions that must be taken along the way. Conad must make a virtue of necessity. Having been alienated for some time now, "the Pugliese asset" must abandon the rearguard wars between majorities and supposed minorities, get around a table and start a profound reflection on the future of the sector and their desired positioning. Another thing compared to the commitment of the members to continue to ensure leadership on the financial plan. Above all, the internal actors of that future should be involved. Starting with the youngest entrepreneurs. And it is on this that the necessary generosity of those who govern cooperatives should be highlighted.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/economia-on-demand/che-cosa-succede-a-conad/ on Mon, 24 Jun 2024 04:36:10 +0000.