The first knowledge-management challenge faced by Danone is the tension between the top-down
approach and the bottom-up-induced frontline managers’ autonomy. Although Franck Mougin
perceived the decentralization strategy as essential to Danone’s success, it caused much confusion
amongst the frontline managers as they lacked directions from the headquarters. Consequently, the
limited horizontal communication between the CBUs negatively impacted the knowledge transfer
between them.
Secondly, there is a clear lack of IT involvement in the management of knowledge transfer. According
to Mougin, “using technology, uploading files, and building databases was not the optimal path for
Danone” (p.8), thus the key learnings were not collected or categorized in any formal databases.
Although most employees in the organizations felt more comfortable talking to each other in person
rather than using online means, the lack of knowledge databases had its repercussions on
implementing the shared practices. Based on the follow-up after a marketplace that took place in
Marocco, it can be seen that 28% of marketplace participants had no intention of implementing the
practice (figure 10 in the case).
The Networking Attitude program is seen as highly successful by 86% of general managers and surely
benefits Danone in terms of knowledge transfer: “Tangible results proved that people from different
divisions benefitted from each other’s experiences” (p.11). Referring to the building blocks of the
learning organization proposed by Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino (2019) as essential means for
organizational learning and adaptability, it can be said that Danone aims to be a learning organization.
Block 1 seems to be implemented well since the informality of the Networking Attitude’s social
initiatives creates a safe learning environment. On the contrary, block 2 is definitely missing as the
results of learnings are not measured, nor is there any systematic process for gathering the shared
knowledge. Block 3 is applied to some extent, namely, there is an effort from the program leaders to
support knowledge sharing and communication between the managers. At the same time, exchanging
knowledge within teams was not encouraged by the managers as they feared growing irrelevant, was
the team to find a solution on their own.
Consequently, the company needs improvement in the area of these two blocks to succeed. Although
Mougin and Benenati are reluctant to implement formal processes for knowledge sharing and
management, as Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino (2019) argue, “knowledge must be shared in systematic
and clearly defined ways, for maximum impact” (p.89). Additionally, the front managers should actively
listen and question their employees to foster learning among them.
Considering the analysis of advantages and disadvantages of all three options (appendix 1), Mougin
and Benenati should go wider. Networking with suppliers could help Danone secure the most efficient
partners while incurring low costs. Moreover, this would give the company an opportunity to ask
consumers for first-hand feedback on products while in the development stage, which would give
Danone a huge advantage in the highly competitive FMCG sector.
approach and the bottom-up-induced frontline managers’ autonomy. Although Franck Mougin
perceived the decentralization strategy as essential to Danone’s success, it caused much confusion
amongst the frontline managers as they lacked directions from the headquarters. Consequently, the
limited horizontal communication between the CBUs negatively impacted the knowledge transfer
between them.
Secondly, there is a clear lack of IT involvement in the management of knowledge transfer. According
to Mougin, “using technology, uploading files, and building databases was not the optimal path for
Danone” (p.8), thus the key learnings were not collected or categorized in any formal databases.
Although most employees in the organizations felt more comfortable talking to each other in person
rather than using online means, the lack of knowledge databases had its repercussions on
implementing the shared practices. Based on the follow-up after a marketplace that took place in
Marocco, it can be seen that 28% of marketplace participants had no intention of implementing the
practice (figure 10 in the case).
The Networking Attitude program is seen as highly successful by 86% of general managers and surely
benefits Danone in terms of knowledge transfer: “Tangible results proved that people from different
divisions benefitted from each other’s experiences” (p.11). Referring to the building blocks of the
learning organization proposed by Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino (2019) as essential means for
organizational learning and adaptability, it can be said that Danone aims to be a learning organization.
Block 1 seems to be implemented well since the informality of the Networking Attitude’s social
initiatives creates a safe learning environment. On the contrary, block 2 is definitely missing as the
results of learnings are not measured, nor is there any systematic process for gathering the shared
knowledge. Block 3 is applied to some extent, namely, there is an effort from the program leaders to
support knowledge sharing and communication between the managers. At the same time, exchanging
knowledge within teams was not encouraged by the managers as they feared growing irrelevant, was
the team to find a solution on their own.
Consequently, the company needs improvement in the area of these two blocks to succeed. Although
Mougin and Benenati are reluctant to implement formal processes for knowledge sharing and
management, as Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino (2019) argue, “knowledge must be shared in systematic
and clearly defined ways, for maximum impact” (p.89). Additionally, the front managers should actively
listen and question their employees to foster learning among them.
Considering the analysis of advantages and disadvantages of all three options (appendix 1), Mougin
and Benenati should go wider. Networking with suppliers could help Danone secure the most efficient
partners while incurring low costs. Moreover, this would give the company an opportunity to ask
consumers for first-hand feedback on products while in the development stage, which would give
Danone a huge advantage in the highly competitive FMCG sector.
