A successful transformation is not a question of technology, nor of willpower. It is a question of coherence.
Coherence between what leadership decides, what the organisation is structurally capable of producing, and what individuals actually do on the ground every day. When these three levels are aligned, transformation moves forward. When one of them slips, it derails — sometimes slowly, sometimes abruptly, always at a cost nobody had anticipated.
That coherence is what we build.
The R6 method rests on a simple observation: every organisation functions simultaneously on three levels that must speak to each other.
The strategic level — what the organisation chooses to be and to do: its posture toward the market, how it coordinates its stakeholders, its mode of value creation.
The organisational level — what the organisation is structurally capable of producing: its processes, its cooperation mechanisms, its capacity to transform or to hold a steady course.
The individual level — what people actually do in the field: competencies in action, observable behaviours, the reflexes that make or break a strategy.
These three levels are not independent. Strategy exerts downward pressure: it requires specific organisational capabilities and individual behaviours. Individuals and the organisation exert upward pressure: they make the strategy viable — or they condemn it.
Misalignment between these levels is not an anomaly. It is the norm in any living organisation. What distinguishes transformations that succeed is that they detected and addressed it before the project was launched.
Certain pathologies recur. We recognise them immediately in the field.
Strategy without capacity. Leadership declares an ambition — to innovate, to digitalise, to expand internationally — without the organisation having the processes or cooperation mechanisms to absorb it. The strategy stays in the presentations.
Organisation without behaviours. New processes are put in place, tools are deployed. But individuals continue working as they always have, because nobody has changed what is concretely expected of them. A change of surface changes nothing beneath.
Behaviours without strategy. Competent, committed, hard-working teams — moving in directions that do not converge. Energy dissipates for want of clear, coherent direction.
In each of these cases, the problem is not where it is usually sought. This is why standard solutions — a training plan, a new organisational chart, an additional tool — change nothing.
We intervene in three stages.
Systemic diagnosis. We explore all three levels simultaneously to identify real misalignments — not the visible symptoms, but the structural breakdowns that produce them. Does the strategy say the same thing as what the organisation actually produces? Are individual behaviours consistent with what the strategy requires of them?
Mapping and prioritisation. We rank misalignments by severity and impact on the project. Some are critical and must be addressed before any deployment begins. Others can be managed along the way. This triage prevents dispersion of effort and concentrates resources where they produce a real effect.
Iterative support. The action plan is deployed with regular verification loops. A transformation is steered over time: we adjust as the field reveals its realities, keeping S-O-I coherence as the permanent compass.
You avoid investing in what your organisation cannot absorb. This is often the most profitable decision — not to launch, or to recalibrate before launching.
You stop treating symptoms. Chronic delays, resistance to change, stalled projects: these phenomena almost always have a precise structural cause. The R6 method locates it.
You move faster on the next transformation. An organisation that has navigated a transformation with this method has a shared language and a common reading of how it functions. Every subsequent project benefits from it.
Strategy / organisation misalignment. A company plans an innovative e-commerce deployment. The diagnosis reveals that its internal coordination mechanisms cannot handle the operational agility the project requires. Rather than launching and suffering the consequences, the company holds its ambition, but restructures its organisation and puts in place an acculturation programme so that individual behaviours support the strategic vision. The ambitious objective is reached — and the loss avoided far exceeds the cost of the diagnosis.
Organisation / behaviours misalignment. Chronic delays are paralysing production. The diagnosis identifies a structural deficit of cooperation between two key teams — not a people problem, but a problem of divergent logics. One side is oriented toward process mastery, the other prioritises delivery above all else: two incompatible priority systems generating recurring tensions and considerable wasted time. Putting in place mechanisms that balance results and process generates immediate gains — no new hires, no new tools, and above all, the tensions subside.
Strategy / behaviours misalignment. An innovation strategy — the implementation of a computer-assisted maintenance management system (CMMS) — stagnates despite competent staff and committed resources. The audit reveals the paradox: the organisation implicitly rewards reliability and procedural conformity, qualities that are invaluable in steady-state operation, but that inhibit precisely the behaviours innovation requires — testing, failing, learning, starting again. People are not resisting change; they are responding to the real signals the organisation sends them, which contradict the stated strategic direction. HR policy is reoriented to resolve this contradiction: evaluation criteria are revised, protected spaces for experimentation are created, and risk-taking is explicitly recognised. The dynamic restarts.
We work with organisations of all sizes, across industry, retail and services, in New Caledonia and internationally, including remote engagements.
Planning a transformation? Let's begin by checking that all three levels are ready.