Strategic Consulting: Right to Exist

In recent days, I attended an extensive presentation on medium- and long-term corporate strategy, and I was struck by the contrast between two worldviews presented by different speakers. I was also impacted by the use of the expression “right to exist,” a powerful phrase that raises a fundamental question: What factors determine the viability of a company in the medium and long term, and what can be done to guarantee it? This article will take on a philosophical tone, but I will conclude by descending to a more concrete level.

One of the speakers advocated for securing this “right to exist” through excellence in the use of knowledge. They proposed analyzing the future by more effectively utilizing the information available in the present, characterizing different probable scenarios, and adapting the corporate strategy to each one to ensure the company’s viability in any situation. Although the language was moderated, this was the underlying perspective: through knowledge, the right to exist is achieved.

The other presentation focused on the importance of corporate culture, emphasizing ideas from the dominant paradigm of the past decade: limiting hierarchy, fostering horizontal cooperation, etc. In this approach, “culture” emerges from social interactions within a given structure. The structure can encourage or suppress individual expression, and from the space allowed, “customs and practices” arise, i.e., culture. If one wants to engage the individual in their work, a healthy culture must be fostered, which would guarantee the company’s prosperity. Thus, its “right to exist” comes from the engagement of all its members.

I think both proposals have valid elements, but they also present significant shortcomings. At their core, they share an idealistic, voluntarist approach that offers a set of concrete measures without incorporating the mechanisms of verification and continuous adaptation that characterize living beings. This concept of “right to exist” is not exclusive to the business world; we also see it reflected in nature. Just as we recognize an inherent right to exist in living beings, companies must justify their existence by offering a real service to life and the environment. The right to exist is granted by the “truth” that is expressed, understanding “truth” as the flip side of “life.” What has life is true; what is true, has life. In a company, this truth comes from its internal and external coherence: how it maintains its unity and capacity for action. Maintaining this coherence requires continuous evaluation, and for that, a clear data strategy is essential.

Let us start from the premise that we broadly recognize the right to exist of living beings: humans, animals, and the planet itself. We spontaneously recognize this right and work to preserve it. It is the drive for life that beats within us, and we also see it in others. As we refine our awareness, we recognize this drive in animals, plants, ecosystems, and the beauty of natural landscapes. There are always destructive forces, but they are confronted by the vital impulse as long as it persists.

Then there are artificial structures, created by humans. Among them are the ones that concern us: companies—the gathering of a group of people to execute a common project that they could not accomplish individually. From my perspective, the “right to exist” of a company stems from its ability to serve that which we recognize as possessing an innate right to exist. This is its “truth” (or lack thereof). A company that does not provide a real service to “life” ends up being swept away by the forces that preserve life. If we recognize that the drive for life is innate, we conclude that these forces act instinctively or even spiritually, transcending simple individual rationality and manifesting in movements and trends that, mysteriously, aim to preserve life by combating disease.

Returning to the concrete, the great shortcoming of the knowledge-centered approach is that it seeks an opportunistic and blind adaptation to the environment, without internalizing the commitment to the “truth” of serving the vital drive. On the other hand, the culture-centered proposal presents an ideological preconception that does not evaluate outcomes. Therefore, a data strategy is essential, both for data from the company’s external interaction (how well its products serve society) and internal functioning data (how well the company serves its individuals and what frictions exist in research, development, and production processes).

I will continue addressing these topics in future articles, with more concrete proposals such as user experience or quality controls. But to conclude here, I want to emphasize my main intuition: knowledge must be supported by a data strategy aimed at determining the truth. This should promote, both in internal culture and in the products offered to society, an authentic culture of respect for the subjects of the right to exist: human beings and the planet as a whole. It is about offering a true service that increases the well-being of the customer, always considering social impact and the planet’s sustainability.

We live in times of profound change, with significant movements in the individual, social, cultural, geo-economic, and geopolitical realms. To navigate through these times, it is crucial to implement a clear data strategy, used for continuous evaluation guided by a genuine purpose of serving life.