If you’re changing everything, don’t ask for permission

The profound transformation of a complex corporate environment is not a casual endeavor. It’s neither a slow process of constant refinement nor the kind of change that can emerge after long and difficult gestation periods. What defines a successful evolution is its disruptive, almost sudden force.

It’s what Gianfranco Chimirri, Chief People, Culture, and Agile Organization Officer at SACE, tells us in an interview. With over twenty years of experience in corporate transformations, Chimirri has little doubt about how, regardless of the type of organization, this characteristic is a common denominator.

Due to (almost organic) internal resistance, revolutionizing a cultural model is less about willingness and more about courage, and understanding how radical change is a choice deeply tied to the core business. With a precise framework that, in the case of SACE and its Flex4Future program, begins with two main vectors: (new) values and strategy.

The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

MAIZE: We know SACE has launched the Flex4Future initiative, which includes flexible hours, no clock-in requirements, activity-based remote working, and a four-day week, with 36 instead of 37 working hours. Where did the idea of experimenting in this direction come from? Was it a proactive or reactive choice?

Gianfranco Chimirri: These are all choices that happen within a larger context, as part of a radical change. Deciding to undertake it means resetting an existing model — with all its cultural stratifications and benefits, the status quo, the comforts, etc. — and implementing a new one.

We face two challenges today: market and technology. In particular, SACE operates in the financial services industry, which is the most impacted by the advent of generative artificial intelligence after tech. The challenge lies in meeting the company’s expectations when it invests in the most advanced technologies, such as generative AI. I invest in technology and expect a return in productivity and for the business to grow and become more profitable; but the numbers today tell us this is not happening — quite the opposite, in fact. Companies aren’t yet capable of accompanying investments in technologies that drive the adoption rate with a transition as smooth as possible but nonetheless systematic and strategic, moving people from job skills in low demand toward job skills in high demand.

We’re doing it because, to date, we’ve been the only company in Europe to implement an end-to-end skill-based model, which means completely rethinking all management processes around not roles but skills. In a skill-based model, a person isn’t identified by their role, but rather as an individual, a unique portfolio of skills — wherever they were acquired — that can create value in several ways within the organization. The uniqueness of the person is what’s valued. This allows the company to have a future-proof workforce, where the more technology you input and the more you train people — moving them from disappearing roles to emerging ones — the more your competitive advantage grows. In this regard, SACE is a global benchmark.

MAIZE: Let’s dig a bit deeper into the details. Can you explain the practical implications better?

GC: There’s certainly an element of an agile organization, i.e. one that’s adaptable, fast, and that needs fewer layers: we went from 7 to 3. When you decentralize decision-making, all the approval and control activities are no longer needed. And the leadership model changes, too, from control-based to service-driven. We’ve redesigned the organization not by functions but by value streams, implementing a clear model with a logic of activities and outputs as the results of performance management. It’s a whole different story.

We’ve put generative AI at people’s service. Not just from a skills perspective, but also in using technology as an enabler of a radical flexibility model, which in turn is another element of competitive advantage, as it increases wellbeing and productivity. And this brings me to our Flex4Future model, which includes unlimited, activity-based remote working, schedule flexibility, and a four-day week. This doesn’t mean never coming back to the office again, but choosing where to work based on the activity at hand.

The four-day workweek exists alongside the integration of generative AI. The underlying pact between us and our people, which led us to achieve 97% adoption, was that all the time you free up with artificial intelligence becomes yours. And you can do four things with it: use it for your wellbeing, invest it in training, use it for high-value-added activities, or give it back.

Meaning that, through Flex4GivingBack — a Flex4Future spinoff program — it’s possible to use the day off in the four-day week for volunteering activities and to give back time and capacity to those less fortunate, either individually or in teams. The underlying philosophy being that time is not the measure of value.

MAIZE: An important paradigm shift, moving from focusing on the how to the what.

GC: Exactly. I don’t care how much you work. In this model, the measure of value is the outcome. So, as long as the team performs, it can comfortably self-organize and manage both activities and time. We obviously have metrics telling us we’re going in the right direction, too, like productivity increasing by 25% last November. We’re in the second of our three-year industrial plan, INSIEME2025, and many goals have already been achieved and surpassed. Indeed we’re already thinking about the next, much more ambitious plan.

This model is extraordinarily successful but I want to emphasize that it’s not merely an HR strategy. It would be reductive to define it as such. This is a model that determines SACE’s business competitive advantage, today but especially tomorrow. In Italy, however, there remains a fundamental misunderstanding, both practical and narrative, regarding everything that revolves around remote working, flexibility, etc. It seems to be either a gift to give employees or a necessary cost, a bit like training was a few years ago. No one has been able to frame it in terms of competitive advantage instead.

But that’s exactly the model that is now necessary. One that says: I don’t care how much you work, so coordinate with your colleagues on where to work and when, based on objectives and needs. The company measures you on your goals, and asks you to be accountable — because a model where there’s freedom is a model where there’s accountability.

MAIZE: Many of the companies we’ve spoken with abandon at birth the idea of a mindset switch, of evolving collaboration methods and all the practical ways of thinking about work, because they perceive it as too massive and excessively complicated a change. So how did a firm like SACE actually do it? What approach did you adopt?

GC: I’ll answer as a transformation person: if you want to make a profound transformation, you have to do it quickly.

When you hear “Ah, yes, we’re now starting with the skill-based organization, then we have a three-year plan…” etc. you know the program is DOA — at least if the intention is to make a breakthrough. For that you need such speed that the organization can’t develop sufficient resilience to stop itself.

We began by creating the cultural model, the leadership model, and the value system, wanting to redefine the company’s purpose and mission. So we started with a new framework, based on values and strategy. Then we moved to the execution part. Now, let me say that as long as you’re working on the framework, it’s a neverending honeymoon phase. People say “Wow, that’s awesome” because you’re just painting this beautiful abstract picture, but nothing’s actually changing yet. When changes began to take effect, resistance — which does and always will exist, from those who want to maintain the status quo — absolutely came out swinging.

MAIZE: Can you give us more direct examples of change?

GC: Take performance management: at some point, employees are told that 50% of their performance review’s total weight now depends on their skills and how they embody the company’s values. So, if you’re not a role model, you can be the company’s best performer, but you’ll never get a raise. This changes things.

Another big difference is no longer having a job title that defines you. Culturally, especially in Italy, people introduce themselves with their job title even outside work contexts. Removing it creates an identity crisis. People ask themselves: “Who am I?” And the answer is that you are you, with your unique portfolio of skills. Beyond the position you hold now or will in the future, you possess a custom set of skills and can create value in the organization in multiple ways. And this makes careers dynamic, flexible, fun in doing projects.

This model, obviously, dismantles traditional ones so much that it can frighten companies. You need a senior management team that strongly believes in such changes, and one with broad enough shoulders to overcome moments of significant resistance, chaos, and uncertainty. Companies struggle to stay on course.

Then there’s another issue they forget, which is that… there really aren’t many alternatives. If productivity isn’t improving, investing in technology isn’t enough: you need the courage to implement a model that enables this transition deeply, where roles must change. You need to invest in people’s skill sets, the organization needs to be faster, communication must take another form.

So, to summarize: you need to be fast, brave, and able to hold steady, because the journey is anything but easy.

MAIZE: The fact that a large company like SACE successfully went through such a radical mutation is indeed one of the aspects that surprised us most. And hearing you, it might seem sensible to think that, in principle, everyone can try. So why doesn’t this happen? Is it really just a lack of will, of awareness?

GC: There are two reasons why these things don’t get done: the first is that Human Resources don’t know how to speak the language of business. And if you find it challenging to explain to your CEO that an organizational transformation is a competitive advantage for the business, it won’t happen.

MAIZE: And why don’t they know how to speak the language of business?

GC: Because they’re not at all familiar with it. They don’t have that type of mindset, that type of preparation. Human Resources typically have a significant structural limitation: they’re seen as a technical function, not in the room where decisions are made. They’re summoned on demand, only if needed, and have neither the authority nor the necessary courage to be the engine of transformation. And this brings me to the second reason: assuming HR does manage to convince the CEO, is it able to actually make it all happen? To think of a strategy and then implement it?

There’s also a third element, I reckon, which is that the HR function itself says “Why should I bother?” So things continue until transformation becomes inevitable, and the CEO realizes it on their own.

MAIZE: In designing these major changes at SACE, were there any models that particularly inspired you, or that you specifically referenced?

GC: On the topic of technology, no. It was an intuition, consistent with everything else. On the general model and aspects of freedom and accountability, however, I had the certainty of something that works because I’ve experienced it firsthand. I’ve seen successful global companies and extraordinary leaders who have always thrived in a culture of distributed leadership, freedom and responsibility, psychological safety, inclusivity… they’re rather solid models.

Then there’s the implementation part, because naturally you can’t just copy and paste. You can be inspired by a philosophy, sure, but you then need to know how to apply it to the context in which you operate, the specific type of company. Skill-based or agile models, AI tools, remote working: everyone has access to these things, but it depends on how you adopt them.

Our remote working model, for example, is technically identical to how it was before: 60% at home and 40% in the office. In the past, however, people often chose different days and some colleagues wouldn’t see one another for years. If you instead care to explain that working together in teams on innovation and creativity has value — also from a social perspective — it becomes much easier to ask people to come to the office together during activities where co-presence tangibly brings out that value.

What’s created in those two days – being with the team, working together on strategy, engaging with colleagues – is enormously different from before. It’s culture that makes the difference in terms of value. Beyond that, well… work from wherever you want!