Показаны сообщения с ярлыком future. Показать все сообщения
Показаны сообщения с ярлыком future. Показать все сообщения

пятница, 2 декабря 2022 г.

The Marketing Strategy of the Future

 


Written by Nick Hague


What does the marketing strategy of the future look like?

B2B’s top 3 marketing trends from 2020 give us an insight:

  1. Customer experience and innovation are still key. Both remained top priorities from 2019. Focus on your customer’s journey and serve them a quality product.

  2. Purpose-driven marketing is more important as customers look for brands that align with their values. How can you service your customer’s emotional needs as well as their physical ones?

  3. Segmenting existing markets is less valuable than generating demand in new ones. Companies focusing on new opportunities are coming out ahead.

Customer needs are changing. They don’t want another generic marketing campaign.

Winning brands are mission-driven, provide thoughtful experiences and have a keen focus on the future.

The lesson?

Take note of what’s changing today,

And use it to create the marketing strategies of tomorrow.

http://bit.ly/3isaDO1

пятница, 26 апреля 2019 г.

The Future of Organizations According to the WALL STREET JOURNAL


The future of organizations depends on skillful, empowered middle-managers. (WSJ – subscription required.)

Successful managers*:
  1. Motivate employees to act.
  2. Engage employees with purpose.
  3. Drive outcomes assertively.
  4. Paddle upstream successfully.
  5. Create accountability.
  6. Build relationships that foster trust, openness, and transparency.
  7. Choose productivity over politics.
*Adapted from Gallup
Google’s best managers:
  1. Coach
  2. Don’t micromanage.
  3. Show concern for success and wellbeing.
  4. Drive for results.
*Adapted from re:Work

Roadblocks to successful management:

Being pulled from both sides disempowers middle-managers. Upper-management wants one thing. Front-line employees want something else.
The knot in your stomach comes from feeling pulled in conflicting directions.
Pressure for short-term success causes conflict between front-line employees and management. People grow weary of today’s “crisis” when they know another “crisis” is just around the corner.
Lack of authority to act on input disempowers middle-management.
“We found that managers face two distinct hurdles: They are not empowered to act on input from below, and they feel compelled to adopt a short-term outlook to work.” HBR

Puppets or empowerment:

Don’t expect high performance when you treat middle-managers like puppets and front-line employees like tools.
Micro-management from upper-management paralyzes middle-management.
“… it is unreasonable to ask managers to solicit and encourage ideas and input from employees when they are not empowered themselves and are asked to focus on short-term outcomes.”

3 conversation starters for your next meeting:
  1. How might we give more autonomy to middle-management and satisfy the concerns of upper-management at the same time?
  2. What does an empowered middle-manager look like?
  3. What long-term goals might guide our actions today?
Confidence correlates with competence AND control.
Initiative requires autonomy.
Seeking input is futile when crisis-goals dominate organizational life.
“… managers in the low empowerment condition were 30% less likely to seek feedback from their employees than those in the high empowerment condition.”

What do successful middle-managers do that makes them successful?

How might organizations empower middle-managers?

Just a thought: It’s interesting that flat organizations are eliminating middle-managers.

Dan Rockwell

пятница, 6 октября 2017 г.

The Flare and Focus of Successful Futurists


The ability to plausibly forecast the future requires alternating between broad and narrow ways of thinking.



Futurists are skilled at listening to and interpreting signals, which are harbingers of what’s to come. They look for early patterns — pretrends, if you will — as the scattered points on the fringe converge and begin moving toward the mainstream. The fringe is that place where hackers are experimenting, academics are testing their ideas, technologists are building new prototypes, and so on. Futurists know most patterns will come to nothing, so they watch and wait and test the patterns to find those few that will evolve into genuine trends. Each trend is a looking glass into the future, a way to see over time’s horizon. This is the art of forecasting the future: simultaneously recognizing patterns in the present and thinking about how those changes will impact the future so that you can be actively engaged in building what happens next — or at least be less surprised by what others develop. Futures forecasting is a learnable skill, and a process any organization can master.
Joseph Voros, a theoretical physicist and senior lecturer in strategic foresight at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia, offers my favorite explanation of futures forecasting, saying it informs strategy making by enhancing the “context within which strategy is developed, planned, and executed.”1 The advantage of forecasting the future in this way is obvious: Organizations that can see trends early can better prepare to take advantage of them. They can also help shape the broader context, with an understanding of how developments in seemingly unconnected industries will affect them. Most organizations that track emerging trends are adept at conversing and collaborating with those in other fields to plan ahead.
Although futures studies is an established academic discipline, few companies employ futurists. That’s starting to change as more leaders become familiar with the work futurists do. Accenture, Ford, Google, IBM, Intel, Samsung, and UNESCO all have had futurists on staff, and their work is quite different from what happens within the traditional research and development (R&D) function.
The futurists at these organizations know that their tools are best used within a group — and that the group’s composition matters tremendously to the outcomes they produce. Here’s why. Within every organization are people whose dominant characteristic is either creativity or logic. If you’ve been on a team that included both groups and didn’t have a great facilitator during your meetings, your team probably clashed. If it was an important project and there were strong personalities representing each side, the creative people felt as though their contributions were being discounted, while the logical thinkers — whose natural talents lie in managing processes, projecting budgets, or mitigating risk — felt undervalued because they weren’t coming up with bold new ideas. Your team undoubtedly had a difficult time staying on track, or worse, you might have spent hours meeting about how to have your next meeting. I call this the “duality dilemma.”
The duality dilemma is responsible for a lack of forward thinking at many organizations. It contributed to the decline of BlackBerry Ltd.’s smartphone business; the company (formerly known as Research in Motion Ltd.) never had an executable plan to remake the phone’s form factor and operating system in the age of the iPhone. Right-brained creatives wanted to make serious changes to the phone, while left-brained process thinkers were fixated on risk and maintaining BlackBerry’s customer base.2 The future of the business hinged on the company’s ability to bring both forces together to forecast trends and plan for the future.
BlackBerry’s experience suggests that forecasting the future of a product, company, or industry should neither be relegated to inventive visionaries nor mapped entirely by left-brain thinkers. Futures forecasting is meant to unite opposing forces, harnessing both wild imagination and pragmatism.

Turning a Dilemma Into a Dynamic

Overcoming the duality dilemma — and getting full use of both your creative- and logic-oriented team members — in order to track emerging trends and forecast the future is possible. But counterintuitively, it’s a matter of highlighting — rather than discouraging or downplaying — the strengths of each side. Stanford University’s Hasso Plattner Institute of Design (also known as the d.school) teaches a brainstorming technique that addresses the duality dilemma and illuminates how an organization can harness both strengths in equal measure by alternately broadening (“flaring”) and narrowing (“focusing”) its thinking.3
When a team is flaring, it is finding inspiration, making lists of ideas, mapping out new possibilities, getting feedback, and thinking big. When it is focusing, those ideas must be investigated, vetted, and decided upon. Flaring asks questions such as: What if? Who could it be? Why might this matter? What might be the implications of our actions? Focusing asks: Which option is best? What is our next action? How do we move forward?
The forecasting method I have developed — one, of course, influenced by other futurists but different in analysis and scope — is a six-step process that I have refined during the past decade as part of my work at the Future Today Institute. The first four steps involve finding a trend, while the last two steps inform what action you should then take. (See “A Six-Step Forecasting Methodology.”)

среда, 7 сентября 2016 г.

3 Strategies for the Futuristic Business

Картинки по запросу бизнес

The future of your business is exciting: lab-based thinking, remote and global employees, and a strategy of adopting smart tech. However, with amazing innovation come new challenges to navigate. 74% of business and HR leaders rate their work environment as “complex” or “highly complex”, according to this Deloitte study.
So how to tackle the future? Sage offers three strategies to build tomorrow’s success.

1. Start Thinking Like a Lab

Consider the way a factory runs: cookie-cutter clock-punching setup where people are reliably churning out the status quo. That’s fine for some businesses, but if you want to surge into the future at the top of your industry, your business might want to operate like a science lab. Make a hypothesis, and come up with a way to test it. Will our newsletter be opened more if we send it on a Saturday afternoon? Do our sales prospects respond better to a product brochure with less text on it? Are our internal processes more efficient if we use IM instead of email? 
See what works, make a new hypothesis, and test it again. Get every employee involved in this kind of creative, critical analysis. Before you know it, they’ll be making incremental improvements regularly in every part of your operations—and you’ll see the difference in your bottom line.

2. Get Out of the Office—For Good

News flash: it’s 2016. We have the technology to conduct business from anywhere—there’s less and less need to have every employee at their desks from 9 to 5, Monday through Friday. Your employees know that, so offer them some flexibility. Consider offering work from home options a few days a month, or relocate the whole team to a cool co-working space for an afternoon, just for a change of scenery. These small changes will help everyone feel a little more balanced, and balance means a happy employee.
Another way to “get of the office” in the future is to consider employees from places other than your neighborhood. With cloud-based business apps and video conferencing options galore, there’s no reason you can’t hire the most qualified person for the job—even if they live two time zones away. This kind of thinking will help your business meet the future head-on with the right people on your team, no matter where you’re located.

3. Adopt Smart Tech

The last few decades have been characterized by explosive, unprecedented tech growth and adoption. Keep up with the latest developments, because it can give you an edge on every competitor who’s just doing things the old way.
Build new technology into the core of your workflow. For example, a cutting edge payroll system can save your team tons of manual entry time, and a killer ERP can make your project estimates better. Whatever your industry, the right technology will eliminate frustrating, low value tasks and free you up to run and grow your business the way it deserves.

воскресенье, 7 декабря 2014 г.

Will Human Resource Development Survive?



by Darren C. Short, John W. Bing, and Marijke Thamm Kehrhahn

We, the authors, experience human resource development (HRD) as a paradox. This is a time when HRD appears to be at its strongest in terms of publications and research outputs and when the environment appears right for HRD to demonstrate clear value-added to key stakeholders. However, in other ways, HRD appears inner directed and without substantial impact: publications seem to preach to the converted; HRD research and, to some degree, practice appear divorced from real-time problems in organizations; HRD professionals see their work being completed by those from other professions; there is limited evidence that HRD has really moved far from the fad-ridden gutters of false short-term training panaceas; and practitioners are still measuring training person-hours rather than the relationship between learning and productivity.

Every year, the members of the ASTD Research-to-Practice Committee are given an opportunity to write an editorial for HRDQ. Two years ago, Dilworth (2001) described the committee’s work in exploring the future of HRD. Last year, Short, Brandenburg, May, and Bierema (2002) summarized the main trends identified by that work, focusing on the implications for HRD of the increasing pressure for organizations to deliver shareholder value, the trend toward globalization, and the need for just-in-time products, services, and solutions. Since then the work has been extended and prepared for publication in a forthcoming issue of Advances in Developing Human Resources.
From this body of work a number of major challenges have emerged. These are macro issues that address the question: What challenges must the HRD profession overcome to ensure the effectiveness and success of the field in the coming years? Here, we set out challenges to provoke thought and action. Our intention is to encourage HRD’s multiple stakeholders to join in a spirited discussion on the future of HRD.

Challenge 1: Responding to Multiple Stakeholders
The ongoing critical debate about whether corporations have a responsibility to a wider group of stakeholders beyond their focus on shareholders continues to capture attention (May & Kahnweiler, 2002). HRD practitioners are caught up in the shareholder-stakeholder debate, in part because they are responsible for the learning supply chain that supports organizations. HRD cannot blindly focus on shareholder value alone if it must also respond to learning supply chain stakeholders, including primary, secondary, postsecondary, and postgraduate education institutions; continuing education, training, and development entities; just-in-time knowledge delivery systems; and other learning solutions both inside and outside corporations. As companies proceed from manufacturing to "mentalfacturing," not to take a strong position in support of the interests of learning supply chain stakeholders is as reckless as it would be for a senior supply chain manager to disregard the various contributors to the manufacturing supply process.

The suggestion that HRD orient itself to multiple stakeholders implies that HRD professionals should promote corporate accountability beyond shareholders to communities and societies (Kaufman & Guerra, 2002). Perhaps HRD professionals will be able to educate the organization on the meaning of social responsibility and its relationship to corporate performance, while demonstrating effective strategies for addressing multiple needs and negotiating various stakeholder interests. No doubt, there is risk in taking a bold position in favor of stakeholder interests, but the risk is greater in doing nothing.

Challenge 2: Measuring HRD Impact and Utility
To establish themselves as key players in the development of organizational strategy, HRD practitioners must demonstrate how what they do correlates with the productivity and welfare of the company (Russ-Eft & Preskill, 2001; Swanson & Holton, 1999). The future of HRD depends to a great degree on the extent to which the value it brings can be confidently measured. We believe that a focus on demonstrating impact and utility will not only lead to greater overall influence of HRD on the organization but will strengthen HRD’s reputation as a legitimate profession. Therefore, over the next decade, linking learning and human process to performance and measuring learning, human process, and the resulting change in performance are crucial challenges to the field. Well-designed studies linking learning to productivity will be critical to these efforts.

HRD professionals must become skilled systems thinkers who can design and conduct measurement and analysis across the organization and pinpoint the influences of HRD efforts on employee productivity and organizational performance, linking past research results to current practice. HRD professionals must have the skills to identify valid measures of learning and growth and develop meaningful and accurate interpretations, while being ever mindful of the myriad of intervening variables that can influence learning and performance curves in work settings (Preskill & Russ-Eft, 2003). Ethical engagement in measurement work will maintain integrity around the complexity of learning and performance processes and will protect against laying shortfalls on the backs of learners and those who facilitate their learning.

Challenge 3: Orienting Toward the Future
We are concerned about how little time HRD spends focused on the future. Its research and theories struggle to keep up with the present, let alone anticipate what may be needed in the coming months and years. The void is filled by the fads, which falsely offer panacea solutions and lead to the poor reputation of HRD in delivering real long-term outcome benefits. To put it another way, HRD contains some products that are "quick-fix, flavor-of-the-month, buzz-worded remnants of a slick sales job" (Leimbach, 1999, p. 1).

Yet practice desperately needs to benefit from research and theories that apply to leading-edge issues. The challenge to HRD researchers is to anticipate what research is needed and how it can contribute to HRD practice in one, two, or three years, and then to make it available in ways that maximize the likelihood that research findings influence practitioner behavior. The ability of our profession to be consistently ahead of the game will elevate the status of HRD as a key investment in the knowledge economy.

It is just as easy to be critical of HRD practitioners for failing to focus on the future. Many are running learning activities that are out-of-date relative to new business strategies and new knowledge about learning, and the same practitioners are often late to the table when it comes to discussions on the potential learning implications of likely business decisions. The challenge to HRD practitioners is to be strategically proactive rather than reactive.

Challenge 4: Focusing on Problems and Outcomes of HRD Practice
Organizations are arenas with real problems that cry out for solutions. Yet the field of HRD appears to get lost in exploring its own processes. A glance through published research shows a wide variety of research agendas in HRD, but how many of them are focused on solving real problems that matter to stakeholders outside HRD? Chermack and Lynham (2002) listed the top twenty symposia topics from past conferences of the Academy of Human Resource Development. Included in the list are such internal process issues as core directions in HRD, university HRD programs, and advancing the profession through journals. Absent from the list are the major trends identified by Short, Brandenburg, May, and Bierema (2002): the increasing pressure for organizations to deliver shareholder value, the trend toward globalization, and the need for just-in-time products, services, and solutions.
By focusing on outcome-level problems and determining the HRD contribution to the solution, HRD is forced to think systemically and deliver a major contribution. HRD authors need to cease writing for the converted and seek a significant contribution in the world of those who are yet to be converted and those who could be labeled as being unaware that HRD could have any role in finding the solution to their problems.

The challenge to practitioners is to move beyond a silo mentality in which solutions can be found only within HRD and to embrace a perspective that organizational problems are systemic and require systemic solutions. This requires that HRD practitioners work in problem-focused, solution-driven, multidiscipline teams within organizations.

Challenge 5: Achieving Professional Recognition
HRD is a relatively young field. Few outside HRD consider it a profession. Chalofsky (1998) argued that HRD had yet to reach the level of a mature profession because practice is based on guesswork and not on theories tested by research, practice is based on research and thinking that are at least ten years out of date, and practice is based on what the client wants rather than on what works.

As long as HRD is seen as fad driven and reactive and those who lack a sound understanding of core HRD theory and practice fill HRD jobs, then HRD will be viewed as secondary to other professions in organizations. Although it will mean painful effort, either further professional development of practitioners or the loss of existing people, HRD as a profession needs to take specific steps to increase its credibility in organizations and its recognition as a discrete field of research and practice.

Efforts to build professional recognition will require HRD to construct a sound theory base and apply those theories in practice. As Swanson (2001) stated, "HRD practice does not come close to what we know from sound theory" (p. 309). The efforts will also require a sound education for HRD professionals with accompanying professional recognition and continuing professional development, and ethical standards that are understood and applied by professionals and overseen by professional bodies. More important, as we promote awareness and recognition of HRD as a profession, we must keep our focus on values, ethics, the quality of practice, and a set of competencies through which both research and practice can be undertaken, and avoid investing energy in the building of bureaucratic processes of credentialing and standardization.

Conclusions
HRD is a relatively young field, and there are significant challenges to its future. Failing to acknowledge these challenges will increasingly marginalize HRD within organizations. The tasks seen as central to the HRD profession will be taken on by others who work in professions more focused on delivering and measuring outcomes, thinking and working systemically, with a sounder theoretical base, with clear standards and ethical codes, with stronger professional bodies and competent practitioners. HRD will be left on the sidelines: a gradually shrinking number of people who write for themselves, focus on internal process issues, and react ineffectively to demands long after they have been formulated.

We invite all those with a stake in the future of HRD to join together to grapple with the critical challenges that face our field, engage in deep mean-ingful dialogue about the challenges, and construct workable, effective, and immediate approaches to addressing the challenges to secure the future of HRD. Our goal is to banish complacency and to encourage dialogue. HRD’s human resources are impressive; they must now be focused.

References
Chalofsky, N. E. (1998). Professionalization comes from theory and research: The "why" instead of the "how-to." In R. Torraco (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development. Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.
Chermack, T. J., & Lynham, S. A. (2002). Assessing institutional sources of scholarly productivity in Human Resource Development from 1995 to 2001.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13 (3), 341–346.
Dilworth, R. L. (2001). Shaping HRD for the new millennium. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12 (2), 103–104.
Kaufman, R., & Guerra, I. (2002). A perspective adjustment to add value to external clients, including society.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13 (1), 109–115.
Leimbach, M. (1999). Certification of HRD professionals, products and academic programs. In K. P. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development. Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.
May, G., & Kahnweiler, W. (2002, July). Shareholder value: Is there common ground? T+D, 56, 44–52.
Preskill, H., & Russ-Eft, D. (2003). A framework for reframing HRD evaluation, practice, and research. In A. M. Gilley, J. L. Callahan, & L. L. Bierema (Eds.), Critical issues in HRD: A new agenda for the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Press.
Russ-Eft, D., & Preskill, H. (2001). Evaluation in organizations: A systematic approach to enhancing learning, performance, and change. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Press.
Short, D. C., Brandenburg, D. C., May, G. L., & Bierema, L. L. (2002). HRD: A voice to integrate the demands of system changes, people, learning, and performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13 (3), 237–241.
Swanson, R. A. (2001). HRD and its underlying theory. Human Resource Development Interna-tional,4 (3), 299–312.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F., III. (1999). Results: How to assess performance, learning, and perceptions in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

This Editorial originally appeared in the Fall 2003 Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14 (3), pp 239-243.

вторник, 25 ноября 2014 г.

Management intuition for the next 50 years




The collision of technological disruption, rapid emerging-markets growth, and widespread aging is upending long-held assumptions that underpin strategy setting, decision making, and management.

September 2014 | byRichard Dobbs, Sree Ramaswamy, Elizabeth Stephenson, and S. Patrick Viguerie

Intuition forms over time. When McKinsey began publishing the Quarterly, in 1964, a new management environment was just beginning to take shape. On April 7 of that year, IBM announced the System/360 mainframe, a product with breakthrough flexibility and capability. Then on October 10, the opening ceremonies of the Tokyo Olympic Games, the first in history to be telecast via satellite around the planet, underscored Japan’s growing economic strength. Finally, on December 31, the last new member of the baby-boom generation was born.
Fifty years later, the forces symbolized by these three disconnected events are almost unrecognizable. Technology and connectivity have disrupted industries and transformed the lives of billions. The world’s economic center of gravity has continued shifting from West to East, with China taking center stage as a growth story. The baby boomers have begun retiring, and we now talk of a demographic drag, not a dividend, in much of the developed world and China.
We stand today on the precipice of much bigger shifts in each of these areas, with extraordinary implications for global leaders. In the years ahead, acceleration in the scope, scale, and economic impact of technology will usher in a new age of artificial intelligence, consumer gadgetry, instant communication, and boundless information while shaking up business in unimaginable ways. At the same time, the shifting locus of economic activity and dynamism, to emerging markets and to cities within those markets, will give rise to a new class of global competitors. Growth in emerging markets will occur in tandem with the rapid aging of the world’s population—first in the West and later in the emerging markets themselves—that in turn will create a massive set of economic strains.
Any one of these shifts, on its own, would be among the largest economic forces the global economy has ever seen. As they collide, they will produce change so significant that much of the management intuition that has served us in the past will become irrelevant. The formative experiences for many of today’s senior executives came as these forces were starting to gain steam. The world ahead will be less benign, with more discontinuity and volatility and with long-term charts no longer looking like smooth upward curves, long-held assumptions giving way, and seemingly powerful business models becoming upended. In this article, which brings together years of research by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) and McKinsey’s Strategy Practice,1 we strive to paint a picture of the road ahead, how it differs from the one we’ve been on, and what those differences mean for senior executives as they chart a path for the years to come.

Forces at work

In an article of this length, we can only scratch the surface of the massive forces at work.2 Nonetheless, even a brief look at three of the most important factors—emerging-markets growth, disruptive technology, and aging populations—is a useful reminder of the magnitude of change under way.
Dynamism in emerging markets
Emerging markets are going through the simultaneous industrial and urban revolutions that began in the 18th century in England and in the 19th century in the rest of today’s developed world. In 2009, for the first time in more than 200 years, emerging markets contributed more to global economic growth than developed ones did. By 2025, emerging markets will have been the world’s prime growth engine for more than 15 years, China will be home to more large companies than either the United States or Europe, and more than 45 percent of the companies on Fortune’s Global 500 list of major international players will hail from emerging markets—versus just 5 percent in the year 2000.
The new wave of emerging-market companies now sweeping across the world economy is not the first. In the 1970s and 1980s, many US and European incumbents were caught unaware by the swift rise of Japanese companies that set a high bar for productivity and innovation. More recently, South Korean companies such as Hyundai and Samsung have shaken up the leading ranks of high-value-added industries from automobiles to personal electronics. The difference today is that new competitors are coming from many countries across the world and in numbers that far outpace those of past decades. This new wave will be far tougher on some established multinationals. The shift in the weight of the global economy toward emerging markets, and the emergence of nearly two billion consumers who for the first time will have incomes sufficient to support significant discretionary spending, should create a new breed of powerful companies whose global expansion will take place on the back of strong positions in their home markets.
Within those markets, the locus of economic activity is also shifting, particularly in China (Exhibit 1). The global urban population is growing by 65 million a year, and nearly half of global GDP growth between 2010 and 2025 will come from 440 cities in emerging markets. Ninety-five percent of them are small and medium-sized cities that many executives haven’t heard of and couldn’t point to on a map: not Mumbai, Dubai, or Shanghai, of course, but Tianjin (China) and Porto Alegre (Brazil) and Kumasi (Ghana), among many others. Hsinchu, in northern Taiwan, is already the fourth-largest advanced-electronics and high-tech hub in the China region. In Brazil, the state of Santa Catarina, halfway between São Paulo and the Uruguayan border, has become a regional hub for electronics and vehicle manufacturing, hosting billion-dollar companies such as WEG Indústrias.


Exhibit 1



Previously unknown cities are becoming significant economic players in many emerging markets, particularly China.

Technology and connectivity
From the mechanization of the Industrial Revolution to the computer-driven revolution that we are living through now, technological innovation has always underpinned economic change and disrupted the way we do things. But today is different—because we are in the “second half of the chessboard.” The phrase comes from the story told by Ray Kurzweil, futurist and director of engineering at Google, about the inventor of chess and the Chinese emperor. The inventor asked to be paid in rice: a single grain on the first square, two on the second square, four on the third, and so on. For the first half of the chessboard, the inventor was given spoons of rice, then bowls, and then barrels. The situation changed dramatically from there. According to one version of the story, the cost of the second half of the chessboard bankrupted the emperor as the continued doublings ultimately required 18 million-trillion grains of rice, enough to cover twice the surface area of the Earth. Similarly, the continuation of Moore’s law means that the next 18 months or so will bring a doubling of all the advances in computational power and speed we’ve experienced from the birth of the transistor until today. And then it will happen again. We’re accustomed to seeing Moore’s law plotted on a logarithmic scale, which makes all this doubling look smooth. But we don’t buy computers logarithmically. As power increases, prices decrease, devices proliferate, and IT penetration deepens, aggregate computing capacity surges at an eye-popping rate: we estimate the world added roughly 5 exaflops of computing capacity in 2008 (at a cost of about $800 billion), more than 20 in 2012 (to the tune of just under $1 trillion), and is headed for roughly 40 this year (Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2



Businesses and consumers will add roughly 40 exaflops of computing capacity in 2014, up from 5 in 2008 and less than 1 in 2005.

These extraordinary advances in capacity, power, and speed are fueling the rise of artificial intelligence, reshaping global manufacturing,3 and turbocharging advances in connectivity. Global flows of data, finance, talent, and trade are poised to triple in the decade ahead, from levels that already represent a massive leap forward.4 For example, less than 3 percent of the world’s population had a mobile phone and less than 1 percent was on the Internet 20 years ago. Today, more than two-thirds of the world’s population has access to a mobile phone, and one-third of it can communicate on the Internet. As information flows continue to grow, and new waves of disruptive technology emerge, the old mind-set that technology is primarily a tool for cutting costs and boosting productivity will be replaced. Our new intuition must recognize that businesses can start and gain scale with stunning speed while using little capital, that value is shifting between sectors, that entrepreneurs and start-ups often have new advantages over large established businesses, that the life cycle of companies is shortening, and that decision making has never had to be so rapid fire.5
Aging populations
Simultaneously, fertility is falling and the world’s population is graying dramatically (Exhibit 3). Aging has been evident in developed economies for some time, with Japan and Russia seeing their populations decline. But the demographic deficit is now spreading to China and will then sweep across Latin America. For the first time in human history, the planet’s population could plateau in most of the world and shrink in countries such as South Korea, Italy, and Germany.

Exhibit 3



Aging populations in much of the developed world and China will create long-term growth headwinds.

Thirty years ago, only a few countries had fertility rates considerably below those needed to replace each generation (approximately 2.1 children per woman), comprising only a small share of the global population. But by 2013, about 60 percent of all people lived in such countries.6 This is a sea change. Germany’s Federal Statistical Office expects that by 2060 the country’s population will shrink by up to one-fifth and that the number of people of working age will fall to 36 million (from roughly 50 million in 2009). Thanks to rigorous enforcement of the one-child policy, the size of China’s core, working-age population probably peaked in 2012. In Thailand, the fertility rate has fallen from 6.1 in 1960 to 1.4 in 2012. These trends have profound consequences. Without a boost in productivity, a smaller workforce will mean lower consumption and constrain the rate of economic growth. (For more on these dynamics, see “A productivity perspective on the future of growth.”)

The great collision

Declaring an inflection point, particularly when the underlying forces at work have been operating for some time, is a major claim. What justifies it, we believe, isn’t just the growing pace and scale of these forces, but the ways in which they are coming together to change the dynamics we are accustomed to experiencing on both the demand and the supply side of the global economy.
On the demand side, since the 1990s we’ve been enjoying a virtuous cycle of export-led emerging-market growth that created jobs, raised incomes, and generated enormous opportunities in those markets, while also reducing prices for goods in developed ones and enabling faster consumption growth in the West. For example, in the United States, real prices for nonpetroleum imports fell more than 30 percent between the early 1990s and today. As emerging markets get richer, it will be harder for them to play the low-cost-labor arbitrage game, making it critical for local consumers to emerge as growth drivers in place of ever-rising exports to developed markets. It will also be harder for Western consumers to continue enjoying de facto gains in living standards resulting from ever-falling import prices. As all this happens, trade between emerging markets, already on the rise, should continue growing in importance.
On the supply side, we’ve been operating for many years on a two-track productivity model, with developed markets continually pushing forward and emerging markets playing catch-up. Emerging markets are still less productive than developed ones, and those with capital-intensive catch-up models will find them difficult to maintain as their economies become more consumer and service oriented. As anyone who has seen row after row of empty brand-new high-rise apartments in overbuilt Chinese fringe cities can attest, the transition from investment-led growth is unlikely to be smooth, even for countries like China with explicit policies aimed at shifting to more consumer- and service-oriented economies. On the other hand, digitization and mobile technologies should provide a platform for product and service innovation, as we are already seeing in Africa, where 15 percent of transactions are carried out via mobile banking (versus 5 percent in developed markets), and in China, where Alibaba has proved that consumer online markets can take on unprecedented scope and scale.
How these interdependencies in supply and demand will play out is far from clear. We’ve modeled optimistic and pessimistic global GDP scenarios for a decade from now. They diverge by more than $17 trillion,7 a spread approaching the size of current US GDP. Variables at play include the pace and extent of the shift to emerging-market consumers as the critical global growth engine, the adjustment of developed markets to a world where they can no longer draft off the combined benefits of low-cost imports and low-cost capital enabled by emerging markets, and the emergence of new productivity solutions as developed and emerging markets alike try to advance the frontier in response to their demographic and other growth challenges.
It’s likely that different regions, countries, and individuals will have different fates, depending on the strength and flexibility of their institutions and policies. Indeed, we’re already seeing this in portions of Southern and Eastern Europe that remain mired in recession and debt and in the United States, where some local governments are on the verge of failure as their economic bases can’t keep up with the needs of their aging populations. Similarly, as aging boosts the importance of productivity-led growth in many emerging markets, progress will be uneven because many known productivity solutions depend on effective regulatory regimes and market mechanisms that are far from standard in emerging markets.
Given the multiple stresses that are occurring at once in the global economy, we should not expect uniform success—but neither should we become too pessimistic. The massive pressures created by the dynamism of emerging markets, technological change, and rapid aging will help stimulate the next era of innovation and growth in a variety of areas. They will include the more productive natural-resource use that will be necessary to support the world’s growing global consuming class, the more efficient use of capital, and the more creative management of talent.

Management implications

Emerging on the winning side in this increasingly volatile world will depend on how fully leaders recognize the magnitude—and the permanence—of the coming changes and how quickly they alter long-established intuitions.
Setting strategic direction
McKinsey research suggests that about two-thirds of a company’s growth is determined by the momentum—the underlying growth, inflation, income, and spending power—of the markets where it competes. Harnessing market momentum in the years ahead will require covering more geographies, more industries, and more types of competitors, prospective partners, and value-chain participants—as well as more governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders. Rather than thinking of a primary national market broken into three to five value segments, tomorrow’s strategist must comprehend a world where offerings may vary by city within a country, as well as by distribution channel and demographic segment, with aging and income inequality necessitating increasingly diverse approaches. All this will place a premium on agility: both to “zoom out” in the development of a coherent global approach and to “zoom in” on extremely granular product or market segments.
The importance of anticipating and reacting aggressively to discontinuities also is rising dramatically in our increasingly volatile world. That means monitoring trends, engaging in regular scenario-planning exercises, war-gaming the effects of potential disruptions—and responding rapidly when competitive conditions shift. For example, few of the traditional mobile-phone manufacturers protected themselves against Apple’s disruption via the iPhone. Samsung, however, managed to turn that revolution into an opportunity to rise dramatically in the mobile-phone league tables.
Finally, the strategist increasingly needs to think in multiple time frames. These include a company’s immediate tactics and ongoing improvements to counteract new competitive threats, market selection and emphasis given current capabilities and competitive positions, investments to enhance capabilities within the current strategic construct and to enable entry into adjacent markets, and, for the longest term, the selection and pursuit of new, long-lived capabilities. The latter point is worthy of emphasis—advances in technology and the interconnectedness of geographic and product markets make the half-life of “normal” competitive advantages very short indeed. This puts a premium on the selection and development of difficult-to-replicate capabilities. (For more, see Dan Simpson’s essay in “Synthesis, capabilities, and overlooked insights: Next frontiers for strategists.”)
Building new management muscle
It will be increasingly difficult for senior leaders to establish or implement effective strategies unless they remake themselves in the image of the technologically advanced, demographically complex, geographically diverse world in which we will all be operating.
Everyone a technologist. Technology is no longer simply a budget line or operational issue—it is an enabler of virtually every strategy. Executives need to think about how specific technologies are likely to affect every part of the business and be completely fluent about how to use data and technology. There is a strong argument for having a chief digital officer who oversees technology as a strategic issue, as well as a chief information officer, who has tended to be in charge of the nuts and bolts of the technology the company uses. Technological opportunities abound, but so do threats, including cybersecurity risks, which will become the concern of a broader group of executives as digitization touches every aspect of corporate life.
Managing the new workforce. Technology is increasingly supplanting workers, and the pace of IT innovation is transforming what constitutes work as well as how, when, and where we work. MGI research suggests that as many as 140 million full-time knowledge workers could be displaced globally by smart machines—at the same time aging workforces are becoming commonplace and labor shortages are emerging for pockets of technical expertise. New priorities in this environment include ensuring that companies are using machine intelligence in innovative ways to change and reinvent work, building the next-generation skills they need to drive the future’s tech-led business models, and upskilling and retraining workers whose day-to-day activities are amenable to automation but whose institutional knowledge is valuable. (For more on artificial intelligence, see “Manager and machine: The new leadership equation.”)
For workers with more replicable skills, there’s a danger of doing less well than their parents—which will create social stresses and challenge managers trying to energize the entire workforce, including employees dissatisfied about falling behind. Developed and emerging markets will experience different flavors of these issues, making the people side of the equation particularly challenging for geographically dispersed organizations. (For more, see “The past and future of global organizations.”)
Rethinking resources. The convergence of IT and materials science is spawning a surge in innovation that will dramatically change when, where, and how we use natural resources. In their new book Resource Revolution, our colleague Matt Rogers and his coauthor, McKinsey alumnus Stefan Heck, argue that combining information technology, nanoscale materials science, and biology with industrial technology will yield substantial resource-productivity increases. Taken together, those improvements represent an extraordinary wealth-creation opportunity and will be the key to achieving high-productivity economic growth in the developing world to support billions of new members of the global middle class. Capturing these resource-technology opportunities will require new management approaches, such as substitution (replacing costly, clunky, or scarce materials with less scarce, cheaper, and higher-performing ones), optimization (embedding software in resource-intensive industries to improve, dramatically, how companies produce and use scarce resources), and virtualization (moving processes out of the physical world).8
Breaking inertia
Change is hard. Social scientists and behavioral economists find that we human beings are biased toward the status quo and resist changing our assumptions and approaches even in the face of the evidence. In 1988, William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser, economists at Boston University and Harvard, respectively, highlighted a case in which the West German government needed to relocate a small town to mine the lignite that lay beneath. The authorities suggested many options for planning the new town, but its citizens chose a plan that looked “extraordinarily like the serpentine layout of the old town—a layout that had evolved over centuries without (conscious) rhyme or reason.”9
Businesses suffer from a surprising degree of inertia in their decisions about how to back up strategies with hard cash to make them come to fruition. Research by our colleagues showed that between 1990 and 2010, US companies almost always allocated resources on the basis of past, rather than future, opportunities. Even during the global recession of 2009, this passive behavior persisted. Yet the most active companies in resource allocation achieved an average of 30 percent higher total returns to shareholders annually compared with the least active.10 The period ahead should raise the rewards for moving with agility and speed as digitization blurs boundaries between industries and competition in emerging markets heats up.
It would be easy, though, for organizations and leaders to become frozen by the magnitude of the changes under way or to tackle them on the basis of outdated intuition. Taking the long view may help. In 1930, the great British economist John Maynard Keynes boldly predicted that 100 years on, the standard of living in progressive countries would be four to eight times higher. As it turned out, the upper end of his optimistic expectation turned out to be closer to the truth. Those who understand the depth, breadth, and radical nature of the change and opportunity that’s on the way will be best able to reset their intuitions accordingly, shape this new world, and thrive.
About the authors
Richard Dobbs is a director of the McKinsey Global Institute, where Sree Ramaswamy is a senior fellow; Elizabeth Stephenson is a principal in McKinsey’s Southern California office; and Patrick Viguerie is a director in the Atlanta office.