Co-development, adapted to an international environment, has enabled the directors of a luxury brand to strengthen their leadership, solve real problems and improve cross-functional collaboration.
The context of this Codev
When I was asked to work in partnership with the head of training at an international luxury goods company, the challenge was clear: to continue to develop the skills of managers who had already benefited from every conceivable form of training.
These hand-picked participants were in charge of different fashion, perfume and cosmetics brands, worked in different countries in Europe and the United States, and had different areas of expertise (Finance, Supply chain, HR, Marketing, Retail, etc.).
In all sectors with a strong brand culture, the need to set an example, to manage the brand image and the quest for excellence are omnipresent and require strong and creative relational management. Cultural diversity, geographical distance and the need to preserve the uniqueness of the parent company's values add a further layer of complexity to team management and decision-making.
The client wanted an approach that would meet these high standards, combining depth of analysis, concrete impact on their professional practices and respect for the corporate culture, while adapting to geographical constraints and common post-Covid challenges.
The challenges of co-development
Given the complexity of their global structure and the unique dynamics of each team, the aim was not to train managers in new techniques. It was to help them:
- develop new softskills, in particular strengthening cross-functional leadership in change management.
- I often feel alone when faced with difficult decisions, and I don't always know who to share my doubts with", confided one of the participants before taking the plunge. "I often feel alone when faced with difficult decisions, and I don't always know who to share my doubts with", said one of the participants before getting started.
They rarely had the opportunity to discuss their practices with their peers. And even less so in a safe, non-political environment. The aim of the co-development programme was to provide them with this space for peer learning, in a very different way from group coaching.
The approach proposed for this co-development
In this context, a structured process that allowed participants to draw on their respective experiences and perspectives seemed the most appropriate. The process was spread over four months, with six volunteer participants from several countries taking part by videoconference. Highlights :
- Session 0 - Briefing The aim is to provide a framework, clarify the rules of co-development and define everyone's expectations.
- Sessions 1 to 4 - Codev Each 2-hour session saw one participant play the role of "customer" and share a real, strategic issue. The others played the role of 'consultants', giving advice, feedback or examples of proposed actions. Examples of cases covered included the need to reduce budgets while maintaining deadlines, difficulties in coordinating subsidiaries in several countries, problems of international coordination in joint purchasing processes, difficulties in achieving internal inclusion objectives within multicultural teams, high pressure linked to the internationalisation of a support department, and so on. They all realised the extent to which they shared common management and leadership challenges, despite their different brands and regions.
- Session 5 - Debriefing The group's role is to provide a collective assessment, to take a step back from what has been learnt as a customer and consultant, and to evaluate the system.
The method, inspired by Payette and Champagne, is based on collective intelligence: each customer takes it in turns to present a real problem, the rest of the group asks questions, makes suggestions and then everyone commits to concrete actions. I made sure that everyone felt both involved in and benefiting from the process. From a distance, a secure framework was essential to create a climate of trust: confidentiality, active listening, fair speaking time, and the use of appropriate digital tools, particularly for reformulating issues in writing to anchor discussions. In practice, despite overloaded agendas and a daily stream of unforeseen events, it was rare for a participant to be absent for a session.
The progress made by participants in this codev
This type of programme, focused on professional practice, is not simply a "time for exchange": it is a strategic tool for managerial and leadership development. It has as much to do with attitudes as with practices, in line with the standards of excellence of high value-added brands.
From the second session with the first cohort of participants, I observed an evolution in the interactions. They began to move away from a purely analytical posture and began to really listen.
- Ability to formulate a concise request: participants (re)learnt to set out their questions and doubts and to ask their peers in a structured and concise way.
- Active, non-defensive listening: acting as "consultants", participants improved in the art of asking powerful, non-judgmental questions. As one participant told the group at the debriefing session: "This programme has given me allies where I saw competitors.
- Problem-solving skills: the sessions also improved their ability to approach problems from several angles and to think more creatively, as a source of ideas. The participants were all surprised by the "immediate applicability" of the solutions and actions proposed by their peers.
Today, I know that with each new cohort of participants, several of them continue to contact each other outside the sessions, proof that a network of trust has been created. And for the company, this means better cross-functional networking and a greater ability to support the transformation, as the cohorts follow one another and the participants recommend this approach internally.
The key success factors of this codev
The success of this programme is based on several methodological choices. Firstly, my position as coach: guarantor of the framework, facilitator, but never prescriber. From the outset, I established a climate of trust with the managers, reminding them of the rules of confidentiality and encouraging benevolent neutrality. The remote format, chosen for everyone, put all the participants on an equal footing, avoiding the creation of sub-groups or the isolation of some. Co-development proved particularly well-suited to this demanding international environment, because it promotes the co-construction of good professional practice and respect for cultural identities. Finally, the collective debriefing enabled the impact to be measured, successes to be shared, and learning linked to their common challenges to be anchored.
