It seems too easy, and almost cliched these days, to bash the banks. And yet, astonishingly, just when you think you’ve heard the worst of it, some new piece of information comes to light that shows just how sick and rotten banking is right now. I fully understand, of course, that not every banker is corrupt and that not every bank is rotten all the way through. But as with so many lawyer jokes over the years, it’s beginning to feel like 99% of banks are giving the 1% of good ones a bad name.

Maybe it’s helpful to be more specific about my issue today. My scorn is directed mainly at the large, global investment banks, or large banks with investment arms. These banks have shifted over the past decade or so from institutions that provide the oil that makes the economy run smoothly and morph into profit-making and profit-hungry players in their own right (and players that add no physical value to the economic system at that). They’ve also been the chief catalysts behind pushing executive pay into stratospheric (and catastrophic) heights, and building an unhealthy culture of excessive pay for a few individuals who are not similarly ‘punished’ for losses and the risks they take. They seem to have no sense of shame that they needed to be bailed out by the public that they no longer serve in many countries around the world. They have deliberately misled customers – and, in some cases – actively reducing client’s profits in favour of their own. The list of charges is seemingly endless.

But, then, a few days ago, Goldman Sach’s lawyers accidentally released a series of internal documents that they had been spending millions of dollars to keep private over many years. It’s easy to see why they didn’t want these communications to be made public. They show a systematic failure of ethics, a widespread disrespect for the rule of law and a fundamental disregard for delivering value to clients. These specific documents shine the spotlight on the issue of ‘naked short selling’ (often thought of as a ‘myth’ in banking circles), but they are damning and embarrassing on so many levels for Goldman (and by implication, other banks like Goldman).

Read Common Dreams’ report on these released documents. At very least, banks should “do no harm”, and yet it seems they’re actively and deliberately causing damage to our world.

This story really just makes me sad. And I feel kind of helpless. If there was another industry so roundly screwing the planet, there’s be an outcry and pressure groups pushing for change. With all due respect to the “Occupy” and the 99% movements, we need more than a few hippies camping out somewhere – we need high level economists, politicians and business leaders to take a stand here. But, as Goldman’s documents show, these people are often bent by the money and power at play in the system. We also need those good people who work for banks to stop being either defensive or ignoring the issue and start to fix their industry from inside.

Banking is in trouble, and the system is rotten. Change must come.

For those inside banking right now, you must realise, surely, that each time banking as a whole gets hit with another jaw dropping issue like this, another nail goes into your industry’s coffin. All around the world, non-banking competitors are gearing up to ambush your industry: mobile phone operators, Google, Amazon, retailers, technology companies and governments are all eagerly seeking ways to replace you. Don’t be fooled: your industry is not bullet proof and it is not unassailable. Change will come, but meanwhile bankers are sleep walking into an agonising, slow death in which they do serious harm to all around them.

What can we do? What can we do if we do it together? How can we get the rich and powerful to join us?

In partnership with our business television friends at yourBusinessChannel, we’re pleased to bring you TomorrowToday TV.

On this channel, we feature a selection of short video clips from business experts to get you thinking further about various aspects of the new world of work. The experts featured on this business tv channel are from a diverse range of specialist fields and are at the leading edge of the industry they’re in – either at the forefront of change, or driving it into their industries.

The channel will feature regularly updated content, including contributions from our own panel of experts and the TomorrowToday team.

Bookmark TomorrowToday Business TV now, and visit us regularly!

For even more insights, specifically on the role of digital in the new world of work, see Dr Graeme Codrington who is being featured on yBC’s Digital Transformation TV channel.

1. A 5% reduction in the customer defection rate can increase profits by up to 95% – Bain & Company
2. It costs 6 – 7 times more to acquire a new customer than retain an existing one – Bain & Company
3. An average company loses between 10 – 30% of its customers annually – McKinsey
4. A customer is 4 times more likely to defect to a competitor if the problem is service related than price or product related – Bain & Company
5. 68% of customers leave because they were upset with the treatment they received whilst speaking to customer services – US Chamber of Commerce
6. The probability of selling to an existing customer is 60 – 70%. The probability of selling to a new prospect is 5-20% – Marketing Metrics
7. 96% of unhappy customers don’t complain, however 91% of those will simply leave and never come back – 1^st Financial Training services
8. A 2% increase in customer retention has the same effect as decreasing costs by 10% – Leading on the Edge of Chaos, Emmet Murphy & Mark Murphy
9. A dissatisfied customer will tell between 9-15 people about their experience. Around 13% of dissatisfied customers tell more than 20 people. – White House Office of Consumer Affairs
10.  55% of customers would pay extra to guarantee a better service – Defaqto research

 For more see “50 Facts about Customer experience” (http://returnonbehavior.com/2010/10/50-facts-about-customer-experience-for-2011/ )

Ron Johnson, who created The Apple Store, said “A store has got to be much more than a place to acquire merchandise. It’s got to help people enrich their lives. If a store just fulfills a specific product need, it’s not creating new types of value for the consumer. It’s transacting.”

It sounds like a lot to ask – but if a store doesn’t offer more than product, why wouldn’t a customer just stay at home and buy online?  Of course, most retailers have to develop a strategy that works across both online and bricks-and-mortar – and an experience that is aligned for the customer.

A few are already doing it well.  One great example is C&A in Brazil, which has found a way of bringing online and offline experiences together by displaying Facebook ‘likes’ for products in-store. See how they do it here. In the US, JC Penney’s giant in store findmore touch screens allow shoppers to view the retailer’s full online offering, check stock levels in stores, share products with friends and scan product bar codes to access additional information and recommendations.  And take a look at the awesome Nike FuelStation recently opened in London, which takes customer experience to a whole new level.

New and innovative methods of payment are being launched across the globe that will alter the way we transact with retailers and offer a huge opportunity to build loyalty. Starbucks, for example, has introduced a sophisticated mobile app and payment system that lets customers load cash onto their mobile phone, which then displays a barcode baristas can scan at the register.

Amazing developments – but perhaps not yet our day-to-day shopping experience.  There is a great deal of ground for a lot of retailers to catch up – and they need to do it quick.

This is such a dynamic sector that TomorrowToday’s has asked its Strategic Insights team to delve deeper into everything retail so that we can get a fantastic understanding of what the future looks like.. If you have any great examples to share with us, please do!

The world we live and work in has become increasingly complex in the past two decades. Rapid advances in technology, together with globalization and fast growth all combined to rewrite the rules of success, failure and organizational design. The result is that in most multinationals we now have very complex matrix reporting structures, a proliferation of geographically dispersed teams, managers who would not be able to complete the work of absent team members, and more stress and pressure than ever before.

In this environment, we have no choice but to rely on others for our success. This is raising the premium on at least three aspects of this new world of work: computers, connections and collaboration. A high tech world is still high touch, and demands high trust.

High Tech

It’s almost impossible to imagine that a little over two decades ago we had no mobile phones, no Internet, no email and no 24-hour TV news channels. In less then one generation we have revolutionised communication and initiated significant change in every aspect of our lives. Initially it seemed that the revolution was simply to speed up everything we had been doing, but increasingly we’re discovering that advances in computing power, processing speed and bandwidth, also allow us to do different things and to do what we do in entirely different ways.

Companies are only just beginning to discover the benefits of this high tech world. Many organisations still fear it, banning Facebook, YouTube and Skype, and limiting access to the digital world during office hours. Some have begun to experiment with using technology to enhance what they do already, including video meetings, in-house instant messaging and document management.

But only a very few are truly stepping into this high tech world and trying to take advantage of issues like “big data” (our ability to harvest, process and utilize hundreds of thousands of data points, and use algorithms and intelligent systems to look for patterns in the data that can influence our decision making), social business (using the concepts underpinning social media to devise entirely new approaches to all aspects and functions of business), BYOD (bring your own device, as companies stop insisting on specific hardware or uniform platforms for staff) or truly mobile, cloud-based, digital communications (that will free people up from needing to be in any specific location).

High Touch

One of the key reasons the high tech world is not being properly embraced is because of the fear that especially senior leaders have about losing control. Most of these leaders grew up in a world where control was imposed by being physically present. “Super-vision” was exactly that: over-sight of people physically present. There is, of course, a negative side to this approach to control and management.

The positive side is that most people need some form of human contact in order to function effectively anyway. In a high tech world, we need to find ways to continue to be high touch.

And this, paradoxically, is what the last few years of computing advances have begun to enable. For example, consider the rapid uptake of social media. Facebook is closing in on one billion users. This is not because Facebook is a brilliant piece of software. Facebook does not exist because some nerdy software programmers got the coding just right. Facebook exists because it is the best tool we’ve ever invented to get people to do what people want to do naturally: to connect. The most successful technology companies these days are successful precisely because they enable connection, belonging and “high touch”.

In the business world, the recent global economic crisis has caused companies to pull back on travel and shift towards more virtual meetings and conference calls. Many people are discovering that these do in fact create a connection, and that technology – properly used – can enable “high touch”. It might not be as good as being in the room with someone, but it’s better than we’ve ever had before.

In addition, we’ve also just recently brought the technology to a point where it is both useful and painless to use. This can probably be most attributed to the Apple iPad. The first iPad was only launched in April 2010 (I wonder how old you thought iPads were?), and has been followed by a host of copycats. These handheld, mobile, smart devices are not just easy to use, they are delightful to use. In April 2012, mobile devices accounted for 10% of all Internet traffic – a doubling from the same time the year before. By 2020, mobile Internet will be by far the dominant form of online usage, with online communication being the now.

And so, possibly, the confluence of rapidly advancing technology and an economic downturn have ushered in a new world of work.

High Trust

In this new world of work outlined above, the most important currency is trust. This is true for anyone trying to sell anything. It is also true for teamwork, management and leadership. And it is absolutely essential for almost any business activity these days. The higher the complexity of a task or function, the more we need to rely on others and to collaborate, and this requires trust. High trust!

Unfortunately it seems that the transparency, immediacy and openness of this new digital age has led to a dramatic decrease in trust. Trust is even more scarce than attention, and that’s saying something these days. For teams to be successful, they therefore need to use a combination of high tech and high touch to develop high trust. This needs to be a conscious and deliberate team focus.

Trust is tricky to define. There are two parts to it: there’s a “feeling” part that indicates trust exists and a “performance” part based on one’s track record that confirms the trust. Trust is built and maintained by many small actions over time: it takes a long time to build, and can be shattered in an instant.

There are many practical steps a team or group of people can take to develop trust, but the first and most important of these is to make every effort to see the world through other people’s eyes. Every one sees the world through a series of “lenses” conditioned by their own set of circumstances. These lenses include the viewpoints of different cultures, genders, religions, personalities, generations and learning styles. In a business environment, we can also add the lenses of different regions, functions, job outcomes and seniority.

There are no quick solutions here. Teams need to take the time to identify and become comfortable naming and accepting each other’s lenses. We must each firstly acknowledge our own lenses, and accept that we may have blind spots and biases that influence how we feel and perform (the two aspects of trust). This can be done using profiles. Our team has enjoyed using the Enneagram as a personality profile, Belbin’s model of team functioning and a model of cultural diversity developed by our Asia team member, Professor Nick Barker. You can find insights into these aspects of diversity and difference at our blog.

But, of course, there are many other models that can be used to achieve the same result. However your team does it, this is the starting point: to identify your key lenses and be comfortable owning how these lenses affect you and your reactions.

This allows you to then move to the second step, which is to accept other people’s lenses, or to see the world through other people’s eyes. In our team, we have a simple rule at this stage: we do not question motive. When someone else does something we don’t understand or agree with, we may not (initially) question their motives. We have to assume that we do not understand, but that they had the team’s best interests at heart. We then connect with that person to discover why they did what they did, and, in the words of Steven Covey in his best-selling book, “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People”: “Seek first to understand, then to be understood” (this is Habit 5 in his list).

The third step is to decide what adjustments need to be made. In some instances, one or other of the parties involved in a disagreement will need to change. Sometimes both parties need to make adjustments. But interestingly, quite often, neither party needs to change. Each one has an aspect of the whole picture, and in a complex world we are often faced with paradoxes that cannot be easily resolved in one-size-fits-all solutions. This is the real value of true diversity – not that we all end up agreeing, but rather that we end up in a position where we can hold different viewpoints in harmonious tension with each other. This is when trust is most in evidence in a team. And most needed too.

Trust emerges over time in a team that is committed to relying on each other, working together to achieve a common purpose, and insistent on dealing honestly, openly and immediately with misunderstandings and concerns.

Working together in a new world of work

In a high tech world, driven by unprecedented computing power, we need to learn how to connect and collaborate more effectively. Our old ways of working, and outdated approaches to teamwork are proving ineffective and counterproductive in this new world. We need to take some time as teams to develop our abilities to “touch” and “trust”.

There are no short cuts available to achieving this, but the benefits when it is done are enormous. Teams will be more effective and more resilient, and will be able to better retain and engage their members. This is everything that businesses and leaders everywhere want. High touch and high trust in a high tech world are the only ways to achieve this, and leaders need to make these a priority.

Dr Graeme Codrington is an international partner of the strategic insights firm, TomorrowToday. He his a researcher, author, presenter and expert on the disruptive forces shaping the world of work. He can be contacted at graeme@tomorrowtoday.uk.com

Scott Thompson is the CEO of Yahoo, a position he has held since January, after moving from PayPal. An activist shareholder recently discovered that Scott has falsified his CV and bio, claiming to have a BA in Computer Science when in fact he only has a BA in Accounting.

The press over the last few days have reported that he has apologised to Yahoo staff. This is not really the case. He has apologised to them for how the issue is affecting the company and their ability to focus on their jobs, but he has not admitted any error (although there clearly is one), nor any wrongdoing (again, that seems clear). Read ComputerWorld UK’s reporting of this here.

What should be done now? Well, it depends really on how this happened. I agree with the sentiments in this report from the Washington Post, which suggest that his knowledge of the error is a vital factor.

But my own advice is simpler still. He should resign or be fired. Yes, he should do so because he lied. That would be enough reason. But I suggest that there is an even better – and bigger – reason to do so.

As the head of an Internet search and information company, the fact that he thought he could get away with a falsification of this nature is an indication of a gross misunderstanding of the new rules of the new world of work. Transparency, openness of data, and the power of the small people to uncover injustice and untruth, are all ubiquitous and part of the new operating system of the world we’re busy constructing. To ignore this, or worse, to think that you can outplay it, is indication of a person unfit to make be making leadership decisions in this type of company.

How long is it going to take big companies and big men to realise that we live in a wikileaks world?

Yes, he lied on his CV, and so Scott Thompson should go. But he also clearly doesn’t understand the world he was supposed to be shaping. And for that reason alone, Yahoo should say goodbye.

My colleague, Mike Saunders, had a baby yesterday (technically, it was his wife, but you wouldn’t know it from his reporting of the event ). Congratulation, Mike. Here’s a quick thought for him as he makes a very important early parenting decision.

Dear Mike,

Congratulations on the birth of your new baby. You’ve probably already made this decision, but you have a few days before it becomes official, so I hope you don’t mind me making a suggestion about the name of your new child. Simple, really: make it unique.

In the Internet age, a unique name is a HUGE advantage. You should know. Are you “Mike Saunders“, the rock critic and the singer of the Californian punk band Angry Samoans? No. You must be one of the 26 professionals called Michael Saunders on LinkedIn? But which one?

So, as a digitally savvy, new world of work enabled Dad, please do your homework before choosing a name for your new son. A quick search tells me you shouldn’t choose Floyd, Steve, David, or… well you get the point.

Really, a unique name that cannot be confused with someone else, is a real and genuine asset in our connected world.

Parents, take note: the name you give your child makes more of a difference now than it ever has.

Just one of many significant – and NEW – parenting decisions you need to know about.

All the best, from (the one and only) Graeme Codrington (not the Graham Codrington who works in England in the insurance industry ).

My colleague, Saffron Baggally, runs our training company in South Africa. She recently had some excellent insights on the information and communication revolution we’re living through. I know you’ll enjoy her thoughts:

In the 21st century I think we are all acutely aware of the significance of communication. It is all around us, in so many forms: face to face (both verbal and non-verbal or our body language), written, in various forms in the media; and digital, just to name a few. Therapists talk about the need for it in all relationships. Managers talk about the need for it in and amongst their teams. Parents and teachers urge their children and students, respectively, to trust them enough to feel free to do it. Thousands of people go to training every day on how to communicate better. In the world of work we talk about learning ‘soft skills for improved communication’ in order to get ahead. At TomorrowToday we often talk about the fact that we are living in a connection economy; and that our ability to build relationships with people will increasingly become a differentiator for us and our organisation, so we urge people to learn new ways of communicating. We talk about finding adaptable and flexible ways to communicate with others in the face of increasing diversity. We remind leaders they will have to learn to communicate differently because of a changed work force and work place. Billions of emails (lots of them spam) get sent everyday, alongside probably trillions of instant messages.We live in an age saturated by information and we are obsessed with finding ways in which to communicate differently, more effectively, more efficiently, with more empathy and productively. In fact, we are even asked to communicate more inventively and creatively too.

A friend of mine was telling me the other day that he had been on a conference call, whilst driving home from work in Johannesburg (SA), with three other people. One was in Washington (USA), one was in New York (USA) and one was in London (UK). This is the amazing part about using technology for communication; and the aspect of our ability to communicate that has (and will continue) to change everything in our professional and personal lives. Not only were all four participants on the conference call all thousands of miles away from one another, but the conversation was happening for my friend from a moving car!

This got me thinking. What impact does technology, in the context of communication, have on every facet of our lives? The answer is: a HUGE impact. The second question is: is this the first time this has happened to society? And the answer is, no. The last question is: HOW does communication; and the tools we have to govern the way we do it, affect the make-up of our society; and ultimately, the make-up of organisations in the new world of work? And then one has to wonder how the changing face of oranisational structure affects organisational culture, which will have already been affected by changes in social value systems, which would largely have been changed because of technology and the new modes of communication it offers. So, I began to contemplate the significance of communication in designing the fabric of our social structures through out history.

I started with the hunter-gatherer economy; and I wondered if they had any mode of communication apart from verbal and non-verbal face to face communication. Communication played a significant and fundamental part in their survival. Whether their communication was simply hand gestures, conversations, story-telling, displays of how to do things through observation for learning, or ritualistic communication, the point is, that people in hunter-gatherer societies remained close-knit communities. This was largely influenced by a need to stay close to one another because the only way they could communicate with one another was face to face. They were not even writing things down. Populations were small (especially relative to today) and communities were nomadic. So their communication methods played a large role in the way in which their society and social interactions were set up.

During the agricultural economy there were very significant changes in communication, which would also radically change society. Like all social and economic eras this time had many faces, but latterly this society was very class-based, with a huge distinction between the rich (landowners) and poor surfs. But in approximately 1440 something would change society as it was then as significantly as the Internet has changed society in the 20th century. That something was the invention of the printing press. Now, written documents could essentially be mass-produced in an assembly line-style way, as apposed to having to be hand-written by a learned few. Like all things (like the Internet in the last 30 years) the printing press took some time to evolve in to it’s final state. At first it’s existence did not directly affect the masses, but certainly by the time of the Renaissance is had significantly impacted communication methods in Europe. The production of books had grown like wild fire. Suddenly information could be distributed to the masses, democratising knowledge, and to a large extent secularising information and education. The Reformation threatened the power of the church and political authorities, because ordinary people’s literacy levels improved, which paved the way to the rise of a middle class. Increased cultural awareness of cultural difference gave way to nationalism and the utilisation of European vernacular languages, which meant Latin would lose it’s wide-spread use. Perhaps this era sewed the seeds for the knowledge-base society we live-in today.

The next major change in society is known as the industrial era or economy. In his book ‘The Meaning of the 21st Century‘, James Martin talks about the Industrial Revolution and the 21st century revolution as balancing one another. Because the ‘Industrial Revolution started the extraordinary events of the last 250 years and the 21st century revolution will gain control of those events so that they don’t destroy us’. I would argue therefore that the world we know today started evolving 250 years ago; and that the two major defining moments for communication and social structure were the Industrial Revolution and the Second World War. Both these events evoked huge progression in the communication space; and this, along with the extraordinary inventions of the 19th and early 20th century (like the telephone, for example) would pave the way towards the next significant age, known as the information era or economy.

The information age is so called because it coincides with the rise of the computer, which was the primary vehicle through which information would be distributed. During; and just after, the War there was a boom in the invention of communication devices as tools developed for the military were released for public use. Besides the telephone, there was now telegrams, the telex, typewriters and radios. Before long the television and fax machines would also play a role in changing the fabric of society.  This was the beginning of globalisation, the multi-national corporation, proper education for all and mass production of consumer goods. This would radically change people’s lives both personally and professionally.

We know live in a connection economy and one can see how our society (and organisational structure) has evolved out of the information era. In a world of instant messaging, social media, mobile phones, iPads, Google and YouTube, for example, we have never had so much access to communication. We now have family members and close friends who live on the other side of the world, but with whom we can communicate within seconds whenever we need to. We have also never had so much access to free and available information, which I believe is one of the biggest influences on shifting organisational structure. Now more than ever, people inside businesses need to know. Because a) we are used to multiple methods of communication and b) we can communicate 24/7 with anyone in the world. This shift from hierarchical organisational structures, where only the top echelons knew what was going on, into organisations being a lot more egalitarian and collaborative is happening and must happen, but it is also the most significant thing that has happened because of the way we communicate differently in the new world of work.

It is profound to think of how our methods of communication can affect our gender, generational and cultural value systems also, and we see this in how these three pillars of society are broadly reshaping institutions, both family and organisations.

What is “strategy”? This is a question that numerous executives, academics and scholars have asked. Countless books, papers and dissertations have been written about the subject. S+B Magazine recently wrote a short article on the subject titled Strategy: An Executive’s Definition and they have devised one of the simplest and yet best summaries of what strategy is. They define it using an easy to remember framework based on three parameters.

Strategy is the decisions that executives make about 1) Where to play 2) How to play 3) How most effectively to play (How to maximise value)

This is a simple and powerful way to think about strategy. Strategy is different from vision, mission, goals, plans and tactics although these need to be interlinked for a cohesive organisation to function.

As a leader are you asking yourself the questions:

1. Where are we playing?
2. How should we play?
3. What is the most effective way to play?

These are three questions an executive team should be asking and sense checking each month because in a world that is constantly changing where, how and what you play should change as markets, competitors and customers around you change as well. As Booz & Co the arthurs of S+B Magazine put it:

In the end, to define the fundamentals of your business strategy, you need only to answer three questions:

1. Who is the target customer?

2. What is the value proposition to that customer?

3. What are the essential capabilities needed to deliver that value proposition?

Without clear and coherent answers to these three questions, you may have an exciting vision, a compelling mission, clear goals, and an ambitious strategic plan with many actions under way, but you won’t have a strategy

Play is important.

For any child, play is serious stuff and central to their daily activities. We have lots of expressions that would underscore the importance of play (all work and no play makes Johnny a dull boy is one I recall). But as adults we don’t really believe it. At least not if we are to be judged by our responses to, ‘Dad, can you come and play?’ Somehow that question always seems to arrive at the most inopportune moment and somehow we repeatedly hear ourselves respond, ‘Not right now’, or ‘I’m busy but I’ll come in a little while’, only never to get around to it. Our schedule always assumes priority over the little people’s agenda and timing. Well, they will learn not to ask when they can see I am busy, we reason.

A recently overheard conversation between a friend and his three-year-old daughter: ‘Dad, you won’t work at my party, will you?’ Or the conditioned response closer to home of, ‘Dad, I know you will probably say no, but . . .’ When I hear that precursor it wrenches at my heart because there is no hiding or denying the poor track record that has prompted such an approach.

The next stage is even worse. It is when they don’t ask at all. And when you wake up to what you have missed, it is too late and it is the little people who have grown up and are now themselves too busy. And there is no going back.

It seems that along the way we are taught that adults don’t really play, well, certainly not leaders at any rate. Leadership is serious stuff – there’s no denying that. But leaders, more than most, need to play. And I am not just talking about adult play here because we give that important names like vacation, rest, retreat, sport, entertaining clients and so on.

I’m talking about down-to-earth, knee-dirty type play. Engaging with a little person and accepting their invitation to enter their world where you could become anyone and anything. Why, just the other day I became Spiderman. I have always wanted to be Spiderman and for a few special moments I was . . . until that is the game’s plot required a tree and so the intrepid (and well cast) Spiderman was, like it or not,  turned into a weeping Willow. . .

From time to time leaders need to engage in the magical world of make-believe, to indulge in a game of cards or monopoly, to pick up the bat and ball and be the first to holler, ‘Let’s go play!’

Finding games to play with the little people at home is easy – just let them lead and I bet you will be the first to make the ‘time-out’ call. In the serious world of corporate life the play is there – it is just that it has been neglected for so long that it might require time and care to restore it to its rightful place.

But don’t worry. There will be others who, if asked, will know what to do, and here’s a tip: let them decide the play.

I know of a international software company who used ‘play’ to help create their very serious stratgy. It was a playfully serious company to begin with but the strategy formulation was centred around a storytelling theme and at one stage, involved fancy dress and play acting. It worked. I am involved with another company, this time one that plays in the insurance field, who created deliberate space for play in the the midst of their serious work. They are now thinking of including surfing as part of bringing to life the metaphor they hope will guide them into their future. I know of a call centre that has created access to various computer games for their staff to play. Play is important. When did we stop believing that as adults?

I was once shown around a very well organised preschool crèche. It catered for a sector of the community that did not have much cash to spare but who were nonetheless fiercely proud of appearances and making the most of what they had. This was reflected in the dress code of the kids who arrived each morning. Each child wore shoes, for to go barefoot was considered a sign of poverty, something that their parents wanted to avoid at all costs. Because of this prevailing social mindset, taking one’s shoes off during the morning (and for some the entire day) was considered poor form. If the parents were to arrive and see their kids without shoes they would voice their displeasure to the principal. But here was the problem and dilemma for the principal and her staff. Playing while wearing shoes was problematic. The jungle gym, the sandpit and various other play activities were best done without shoes. In fact, she explained, going barefoot in such instances was important in the kids’ development as they learnt to feel different textures with their feet. Yet for the sake of appearances they were denied this opportunity and it seemed that no amount of explanation was going to persuade the parents otherwise.

It occurred to me that many leaders are subjected to the same restrictions as those kids. They are leading with their shoes on when the situation calls for ‘barefoot leadership’.

I wonder what those ‘shoes’ are for you? I also wonder what it would be like for you to try going barefoot for a while?

And yes, you can take that as a dare! Go on then… I dare you!

I am sitting in a presentation by Gabor Varjasi, Head of Competency Development and Strategic HR at MOL Group. This is at Stamford Global‘s Talent for Tomorrow conference in Vienna.

MOL have a similar problem to many companies around the world who need to attract young people (often called Generation Y) to join their companies, especially those that need to recruit young people with skills and qualifications in natural sciences. MOL is in the oil industry, and needs significant numbers of engineers and scientists.

They identified that there were not enough science students qualifying from universities in Hungary, their primary country, but also across the whole region they work in. This cannot be fixed with better recruitment strategies or poaching from competitors. So MOL decided to do something about the source, and get involved in high schools and universities. They wanted to promote sciences as a viable and exciting choice for young people.

They did this by engaging with teachers, parents and students. They created resources for schools to use in the teaching of science (called Junior Freshhh), and made this freely available to use.

They then created an online competition in the form of a simulation game aimed at university students. See Freshhh EDU (http://www.freshhh.net). 35 universities entered in 2007, growing to over 200 in 2011 (the 2012 version is ongoing), with over 600 different 3 member teams participating in 2011. The competition is based on real oil and gas industry issues, and can be used as teaching tools by the universities. It is fully integrated with social media, and uses high quality videos throughout. Those videos and the game scenarios become available to educators after each year’s competition is over.

Is this just fun?

No! Over the lifetime of this graduate game, MOL has employed more than 900 of the participants in the game from 2007-2011, and these students have a 90% retention rate in the business (it’s worth reading that sentence again! MOL have won awards for recruitment and retention because of this!). Some of the people (close to 5%) who were employed in 2008 are already in managerial positions.

This is gaining momentum, with 200% growth per year for 2010 and 2011, and this expected to increase further. They have saved over € 500,000 in recruiting costs. And the cost of game has been € 65,000 so far. An unbelievable ROI.

The big lesson though is that it took four years to see any value from the investment. And it will take the rest of this decade to discover whether the long term objective of getting young people into engineering will bear fruit. At this stage, all the signs are good. MOL’s Facebook page has huge activity, and parents, teachers and young people are all actively engaged.

This is the type of long term thinking more companies need to engage in.

The global economy is set to quadruple over the next 30 years as the impact of burgeoning cities is felt on the global economy. Most of this growth will come from cities in the BRICS nations. Are you ready for the next economic boom?

Here are some headline facts:

• The top 100 cities will account for 35% of global growth
• The top 600 cities will account for 61% of global growth
• The top 2000 cities will account for 74% of global growth
• Growth in Megacities is slowing allowing for midsize cities to catch up. This changes dramatically where your products need to be if you want to ride the next wave of growth.
• Emerging market cities in the top 600 will account for 45% of future global growth
• Compared to only 16% of future growth coming from top 600 cities found in developed economies
• The city 600 populations will grow at a rate of 60% faster than global world population
• By 2025 the emerging markets will have more middle income households (with incomes above $20,000) than will developed economies

It is clear that the world is being turned upside down with economic power moving south, distinctly east and rapidly towards cities.

What are your views on the future of cities? Is your company adjusting its strategies to capitalize on this next economic boom? TomorrowToday has the expertise to help you understand these changes. Contact James Dunne to discuss your requirements.