The company’s work in Germany is illustrative. It helped cut wait times, but at a cost.
(Bloomberg) -- Новые технологии могут захлестнуть инвестиционные банки, облегчив нагрузку рядовых сотрудников примерно на треть, прогнозирует McKinsey & Co. До нововведений, которые уже тревожат Уолл-стрит, остается всего несколько лет.Когнитивные технологии -- приложения и машины, которые выполняют задачи, когда-то требовавшие участия...
В развитом мире приносящая доход профессия считается одним из основных человеческих прав. Но что если в недалёком будущем в мире не останется достаточно работы? Некоторые экономисты прогнозируют именно такой исход, поскольку роботы учатся исполнять...
Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com, Like many industries today, the oil industry is trying to sell its many job opportunities to the fastest growing portion of the global workforce: Millennials. But unlike any other industry, oil and gas is facing more challenges in persuading the environmentally-conscious Millennials that oil is “cool”. During the Super Bowl earlier this year, the American Petroleum Institute (API) launched an ad geared toward Millennials, who now make up the largest generation in the U.S. labor force. “This ain’t your daddy’s oil”, the ad says, in what API described as “a modern look at how oil is integrated into products consumers use now and in the future supported by bold visuals.” Despite its pitch to speak the Millennials’ language and reach out to the elusive generation, the ad sparked anger with many consumers and viewers. Millennials continue to have the most negative opinion toward the oil industry compared to all other industries, and they don’t see a career in oil and gas as their top choice of a workplace. The oil industry’s talent scouting and recruiting methods of the past are failing to reach Millennials, who want their work to have a positive impact on society, various studies and polls have found—a rather big ask for the oil industry. This failure to reach the group that makes up the largest portion of today’s workforce—which now surpasses Generation X—points to a huge problem for the oil sector, as Baby Boomers move into retirement in droves. Not only are Millennials snubbing oil and gas because of its negative image, they also seek different job perks than previous generations sought, and in this regard, the oil industry will need to do more as it becomes increasingly obvious that Millennials want different things than what oil executives think they want. A total of 14 percent of Millennials say they would not want to work in the oil and gas industry because of its negative image—the highest percentage of any industry, McKinsey said in September 2016. Young people see the industry as dirty, difficult, and dangerous, according to an EY survey published last month. EY’s survey polled Millennials—the 20-to-35-year-olds today—as well as Generation Z coming after them, and found that younger generations “question the longevity of the industry as they view natural gas and oil as their parents’ fuels. Further, they primarily see the industry’s careers as unstable, blue-collar, difficult, dangerous and harmful to society.” In addition, two out of three teens believe the oil and gas industry causes problems rather than solves them, the survey showed. So ‘not your daddy’s oil’ is not sinking in with Millennials and Generation Z, and with many of them, it never will, despite the oil lobbies’ marketing efforts to try to make it sound like an attractive career path. According to executives polled by EY, the top three drivers for young people would be salary (72 percent), opportunity to use the latest technology (43 percent), and a good work-life balance (38 percent). But young people—although they are also prioritizing salary—have other views on what they look for in a job. Salary is still the top priority at 56 percent, but a close second comes good work-life balance (49 percent), with job stability and on-the-job happiness equally important at 37 percent. Executives are underestimating the importance of work-life balance and stability for Millennials, while overestimating the allure of technology as a factor. It’s not surprising that Millennials are not as attracted to the opportunity to use new tech as oil executives believe they are – Millennials generally don’t see technology as a perk, they take it for granted. Moreover, Millennials don’t see the oil and gas industry as innovative – a major driver of career choice among this generation. According to a recent report by Accenture, “Despite evidence to the contrary, many Millennials believe the sector is lacking innovation, agility and creativity, as well as opportunities to engage in meaningful work. In fact, only 2 percent of U.S. college graduates consider the oil and gas industry their top choice for employment.” Accenture is warning that ‘the talent well has run dry’ and said: “We believe the growing workforce deficit will, in fact, be a greater barrier to oil and gas companies’ upturn success than any deficits that might exist in capital, equipment or supplies.” The oil and gas industry is losing the competition for talent recruitment to industries that are more appealing to Millennials, and U.S. oil and gas firms will face the talent crunch first, according to Accenture. “Any mature industry has to think about the fact that there’s a new sheriff in town with new values, new spending habits,” Jeff Fromm, an expert in marketing to American Millennials, told Bloomberg. And if the oil and gas industry wants to get this ‘new sheriff in town’ on board, it needs to profoundly change recruitment strategies and talent sourcing. But with the negative image that is probably set to become even more negative—despite oil organizations’ marketing efforts—oil and gas has a huge workforce problem looming.
Authored by Lance Roberts of Real Investment Advice, Just recently, Bloomberg ran a fascinating article discussing a new study from the McKinsey Institute. “American manufacturing could be poised to rebound as technological disruption shakes up global production chains, but that will offer little relief to displaced factory workers, according to new research by the McKinsey Global Institute. Now, McKinsey sees conditions changing in a way that could favor U.S. producers: automation is weakening the case for labor arbitrage as wages rise in emerging market economies and developing market residents are coalescing into a new consumer class, among other factors. While the U.S. could seize on those manufacturing growth opportunities, especially if the government and companies invest to make production more competitive, there are catches. Importantly, production might bounce back without bringing a lot of jobs in tow. ‘Even if we rebuild factories here and you build plants here, they’re just not going to employ thousands of people — that just doesn’t happen,’ said report co-author and McKinsey Global Institute Director James Manyika. ‘Find a factory anywhere in the world built in the last 5 years — not many people work there.’” McKinsey is absolutely correct. While the President recently started a discussion on “Buy American,” most of the root belief in the efficacy of tax cuts, tax reform, and nationalism is rooted in the history of “Reagan-omics.” The thing most overlooked by the majority of economists, politicians, and commentators, is the stark difference in the underlying economic and monetary fundamentals which provided the massive tailwind Reagan’s policies that simply don’t exist currently. As my partner, Michael Lebowitz, illustrated previously: “Many investors are suddenly comparing Trump’s economic policy proposals to those of Ronald Reagan. For those that deem that bullish, we remind you that the economic environment and potential growth of 1982 was vastly different than it is today. Consider the following table:’” The issue of working harder, and earning less, continues to plague the economic minds driving both monetary and fiscal policy. Since the turn of the century, there has been a steady erosion of the growth rate in compensation as advancements in technology has limited the ability for workers to demand higher wages. Whether it has been McDonald’s installing kiosks to replace cashiers or manufacturing companies automating assembly line jobs, the decision simply comes down to which is more cost-effective to increase bottom-line profitability. The answer is always – automation. This is shown in the chart below from McKinsey which shows which industries are the most susceptible to automation. This continuing drive for profitability by reducing the cost of labor through increased productivity also explains the other conundrum of the “hidden unemployment.” Businesses remain keenly focused on the bottom line, particularly as payroll and benefit costs continue to climb each year, as aggregate end demand drags. However, if businesses can increase productivity without increasing employment those net gains flow directly to the bottom line. This attitude, of course, not only stifles the need for employment but also lowers wage requirements as the available labor pool competes for fewer jobs. Skills Lacking Bloomberg ran a second article recently discussing the second problem which is further suppressing wage growth – a lack of requisite skill sets. To wit: “A growing number of companies are finding it difficult to recruit skilled workers, which threatens to curtail profits and growth, according to a quarterly survey conducted by the Washington-based National Association for Business Economics. The results of NABE’s July Business Conditions Survey published on Monday showed that 34 percent of respondents have had trouble hiring skilled employees over the last three months, up from 27 percent in January. The Washington-based association polled 101 panelists, who are economists from companies and industry associations. In response, companies are sponsoring foreign workers, expanding their search and hiring more independent contractors, according to the survey. They’re also boosting automation, stepping up internal training and in some cases improving pay, Jankowski said. Perhaps at least partially as a result, more than a third of respondents cited labor costs as having the largest negative impact on their profits so far this year.” In a nutshell, there is the entirety of the problem and the reason why wage growth remains nascent. Mike Shedlock summed up what is going on, stating: It’s not just salaries. Obamacare and benefits are hurting many companies. Cheap money from the Fed keeps zombie companies alive. Cheap money from the Fed induced (and still does) over-expansion fast of food restaurants and retail stores of all sorts. Workers really are not worth benefit costs plus an extra 3% so companies seek to automate. Are McDonald’s workers worth $15? Please be serious. Amazon and online shopping are weakening retail profits. Increasing productivity, lowering costs and increasing profit margins. In a slow growth economy, this has become the clarion call to corporate CEO’s. This is why, as shown on Tuesday, that while earnings per share have exploded, actual revenue growth remains feeble. Working more and earning less. That is struggle faced by the average American today as each dollar buys less than it did before. Statistically, the economy may be recovering. However, for the average American it is a far more depressing reality. Capacity utilization still remains far weaker than at the peak of the last economic cycle and employment relative to the total working age population remains mired at lows. These components all feed back into the mental and financial state of the consumer which, in turn, impacts businesses future investment and hiring decisions – or lack thereof. The real story here is that there is little hope for an already struggling middle class to gain any ground in an economic climate that continues to stack the cards against them. But who knows, maybe someone will develop an “app” for that.
Технологии межпланетной передачи данных, прибор для сжатия атмосферы, клонирование видов — в материале от McKinsey & Company.
Job automation won't affect just factory workers. The release of a burger-flipping robo-cook gives us a glimpse into the future of work.
During nearly every discussion about organizational change, someone makes the obvious assertion that “change is hard.” On the surface, this is true: change requires effort. But the problem with this attitude, which permeates all levels of our organizations, is that it equates “hard” with “failure,” and, by doing so, it hobbles our change initiatives, which have higher success rates than we lead ourselves to believe. Our biases toward failure is wired into our brains. In a recently published series of studies, University of Chicago researchers Ed O’Brien and Nadav Klein found that we assume that failure is a more likely outcome than success, and, as a result, we wrongly treat successful outcomes as flukes and bad results as irrefutable proof that change is difficult. For example, when participants in one of the studies were presented with a season’s worth of statistics for a star athlete who had logged worse numbers than usual, the participants were quick to conclude that the player’s career had begun an irreversible downward spiral. But when presented with the stats of a historically average player who had a breakout season, the same people concluded that this boost in performance was nothing but a fluke. The researchers found the same negatively-biased evaluations in all sorts of situations: when pessimistic people try to become more positive, when angry bosses try to cut back on vein-popping outbursts, when B students try to become A students, when candy-cravers try to become lettuce-lovers, and when pundits are deciding whether the economy is primed for a rebound or a recession. In organizational change initiatives, our negative biases can create a toxic self-fulfilling prophecy. When a change project falls a day behind schedule, if leaders and employees believe that successful change is an unlikely outcome, they will regard this momentary setback as the dead canary in the coalmine of their change initiative. (Never mind the fact that three other initiatives are still on time or ahead of schedule.) Suddenly, employees disengage en masse and then the change engine begins to sputter in both perception and reality. The insidious myth that change initiatives usually fail is disturbingly widespread. Most experts, for example, state that 70% of change efforts fail, but a 2011 study in the Journal of Change Management, led by the University of Brighton researcher Mark Hughes found that there is no empirical evidence to support this statistic. In fact there is no credible evidence at all to support the notion that even half of organizational change efforts fail. Hughes traces the mythical 70% failure rate back to the 1993 book Reengineering the Corporation, in which authors Michael Hammer and James Champy stated: “our unscientific estimate is that as many as 50 percent to 70 percent of the organizations that undertake a reengineering effort do not achieve the dramatic results they intended.” From that point on, Hammer and Champy’s “unscientific estimate” took on a life of its own. A 1994 article in the peer-reviewed journal Information Systems Management presents Hammer and Champy’s estimate as a fact and changes “50 percent to 70 percent” to just “70 percent.” In Hammer’s 1995 book, The Reengineering Revolution, he attempts to set the record straight. “In Reengineering the Corporation, we estimated that between 50 and 70 percent of reengineering efforts were not successful in achieving the desired breakthrough performance. Unfortunately, this simple descriptive observation has been widely misrepresented and transmogrified and distorted into a normative statement…There is no inherent success or failure rate for reengineering.” Despite Michael Hammer’s clarification, the 70 percent statistic has continued to be cited as fact, including in Harvard Business Review articles and books. Granted, there is some ambiguity surrounding the success of change initiatives. For example, when consultants at McKinsey surveyed 1,546 executives in 2009, 38% of respondents said “the transformation was ‘completely’ or ‘mostly’ successful at improving performance, compared with 30 percent similarly satisfied that it improved their organization’s health.” Based on the numbers from the McKinsey study, it would be tempting to conclude that since only 30-38% of change initiatives are “completely/mostly successful,” then 62-70% must be failures. However, the McKinsey authors added that “around a third [of executives] declare that their organizations were ‘somewhat’ successful on both counts.” In other words, a third of executives believed that their change initiatives were total successes, and another third believed that their change initiatives were more successful than unsuccessful. But only “about one in ten admit to having been involved in a transformation that was ‘completely’ or ‘mostly’ unsuccessful.” Therefore, pointing to the McKinsey study as evidence for a 70% failure rate is like saying that every time a baseball player steps up to the plate and doesn’t hit a home run, that player has “failed.” But that isn’t true in baseball any more than it is true in organizations. The McKinsey results show that around 60% of change initiatives are somewhere between a base-hit and a home run, and only 1 in 10 are strikeouts. So what does this all mean? Change is hard in the same way that it’s hard to finish a marathon. Yes, it requires significant effort. But the fact that it requires effort doesn’t negate the fact that most people who commit to a change initiative will eventually succeed. This point has gone largely unnoticed by an entire generation of experts and laypeople alike. I am just as guilty of this omission as everyone else. But now that we know the truth, don’t we have a duty to act on it? Isn’t it time to change the way we talk about change? As leaders and consultants we need to be aware that our team members are not entering change situations with a blank slate. Two decades of hearing about mythical failure rates has planted the seeds of bias against success in our minds. And every time we say “change is hard” we water those seeds. The good news is that we can address this problem simply by flipping the script. In one of their studies, the University of Chicago researchers reminded study participants how most people do in fact successfully improve with a little bit of effort. In this study, the results were exactly opposite: study participants were quicker to notice changes for the better rather than changes for the worse. By priming people with a simple fact about the high probability of successful change, the researchers completely eliminated the negative bias. Couldn’t we do the same? Instead of pouring more gas on our burning platforms, we could remind ourselves and our teams that we have been learning new skills and adapting to new environments literally since the day we squirmed out of the womb. Every time we feel the impulse to say “change is hard,” we could make a different claim that is every bit as accurate: Adaptation is the rule of human existence, not the exception.
Marion Barraud FOR HBR To gauge the impact of diversity and inclusion efforts, companies typically track metrics on the hiring, attrition, promotion, and composition of the current workforce. While such statistics are useful, they don’t provide a fully accurate picture. In reality, diversity and inclusion are not merely the number of nonwhite male employees you have. Rather, a truly inclusive organization contains a diverse cross-section of employees who actually interact with one another. So how do you measure this? A venerable management tool — organizational network analysis (ONA) — can result in powerful visual representations of the way inclusion actually plays out in your organization. Recently, a large U.S.-based professional services firm we worked with unexpectedly learned the power of such pictures to map gender diversity. Using ONA, the company had originally been looking to identify influential experts in its workforce. To do this, it conducted a short, company-wide survey that was designed to collect network data. The survey, known as a name generator, involved several questions that provided information about a particular network relationship. For example, a decision-making network is identified by asking “Who do you go to most frequently to get help making an important decision?” And a trust network is identified by asking “Who in this organization do you believe has your back when things are tough?” The people named were then asked to identify people they trust and go to for help with decisions. This allowed the company to see whether the relationships are mutual. As the firm mapped this information, it made an unsettling discovery: Despite the company’s efforts to support diversity and inclusion, women employees were less likely to be involved in decision making and innovation than men. This finding suggested the company might be suffering the effects of unconscious bias among its staff, with employees subconsciously prioritizing the views and opinions of employees of the same gender as themselves. Before digging into the findings, it’s important to note some basic baseline information about the gender makeup of the firm: men outnumbered women five to one in terms of total population, and men represented 88% of the company’s partners. Even given these lopsided numbers, however, it turned out that women had fewer ties to their male colleagues than would normally be expected from a company with a comparable gender breakdown. They were more likely than men to be isolated within their teams or on the network’s periphery. This network map, where nodes are sized by “popularity” (number of incoming ties), provided the firm’s leaders with striking visual evidence of the problem. While it’s difficult to say with precision what an “ideal” network might look like when it comes to gender diversity, a healthier one would show women having a similar number of connections as men, and show fewer women isolated or on the periphery. Moreover, you would hope to see few areas of the network that were without women altogether. At the professional services firm, the analysis found that men were 5.6 times more likely to be connected to male colleagues than to female colleagues. And since the organization has far more men than women, it meant that women had far fewer connections overall. You might be asking whether you can attribute the discrepancy in connections to the lower number of women at the company. The answer is no, because each person, regardless of gender, can theoretically have any number of ties to people of the opposite gender. In addition, the analysis took into account the total number of men and women, adjusted for differences in counts, and then used statistical techniques to determine the extent to which the connections existed disproportionately between individuals of the same gender. Indeed, it is the magnitude of the difference between the expected number of connections and the actual number that signals you likely have a problem. Moving beyond the individual level, patterns at the professional services firm suggested that unconscious gender bias appeared also at the team level. Consider this map of one team’s decision-making connections, which reflected many teams across the organization. The largest central node represents a man, and ties exist among most of the men but only one woman (the largest of the three red nodes). And only two of those ties are reciprocated. The other two women on this team do not have any type of incoming ties, suggesting that their participation in the team’s decision-making processes is negligible. This overall lack of integration could be due to any number or reasons, but the bottom line is that such teams aren’t benefiting from the perspectives, experiences, or expertise of their female members. There are multiple other networks that can be mapped to provide a firm with more information about potential unconscious bias. For instance, the professional services firm mapped these three distinct webs of relations. In all three networks, large blue nodes represent men, both in the center of the network and on the periphery, although many men are also on the periphery and appear to be isolated. But the more worrying finding is the proportional discrepancy in the number of ties between individuals of the same gender and the number of ties between individuals of the opposite gender. In fact, a closer look at the data found that the decision-making network had 14% more ties between members of the same gender than would be expected if men and women were connected without considering gender. In addition, the innovation network had 22% more same-gender ties, and the emotional-support network had 27% more same-gender ties. In the innovation network, women are less central than men, are completely absent from some areas, and tend to have fewer incoming ties — meaning that relatively few people seek them out to discuss new ideas. (An exception is a peripheral cluster of women in the top of the idea-sharing map.) Across the organization, network analysis revealed that individuals were almost four times more likely to share new ideas with colleagues of the same gender and more than twice as likely to discuss important decisions with others of the same gender. Interestingly, in both these networks women had more connections with men than with other women, possibly reflecting where power and influence reside in the organization. Last, in the emotional-support network individuals are more than three times as likely to connect with employees of their own gender. The business benefits of a diverse workforce are well-known: A 2014 McKinsey study, for example, showed that companies in the top quartile of racial, ethnic, and gender diversity were 35% more likely to earn financial returns above the industry median. But it is important to understand that diversity is not just workforce composition; it is interaction as well. And if employees of different genders, races, and ethnicities aren’t working together, the benefits of diversity may be lost. Analyzing your employees’ connections can help provide visibility into how diverse your company really is, but acting on the insights provided by ONA is not easy — in this case it involves a fight against ubiquitous conscious and unconscious biases. Leaders of the professional services firm realized that since the issues are not limited to one team or one type of relationship, a broad effort is needed to combat unconscious bias and create a more collaborative, inclusive company. And while the company’s executives would be the first to admit they have not “solved” the company’s challenges of diversity (a claim precious few firms can make), the insights generated by the analysis have uncovered the specific contours of the problem and provided clearer direction for addressing it.
Наблюдательный совет ПриватБанка сообщил об избрании компании, которая будет отвечать за разработку стратегии финучреждения. Победителем конкурса стала McKinsey&Company, информирует пресс-служба банка. Сообщается, что помимо разработки рыночной стратегии оптимизации операций банка, которая одновременно обеспечит максимальную ценность […]
Правительство национализировало Приватбанк в конце прошлого года. Решили проанализировать, что с ним делать.
Наблюдательный совет ПриватБанка (Киев) определил McKinsey&Company победителем конкурса по отбору международно признанной компании, которая будет отвечать за разработку стратегии финучреждения.
Наблюдательный совет «ПриватБанка» 18 июля принял решение в пользу McKinsey&Company
Beijing’s push for electric vehicles is driving investor interest in lithium and lithium miners. The spot price of lithium carbonate – a compound used to create car batteries – has
The rise of — and demand for — contractors is starting to rewrite the rules of talent. Between 20% and 30% of the workforce in the U.S. and the EU15 are doing some type of independent work, according to the McKinsey Global Institute, and 42% of U.S. executives plan on hiring more of them in the coming years. This is in part because companies need to hire highly skilled people for shorter periods of time as work flows in faster, less predictable cycles. As a result, hiring managers are now tasked with finding, hiring and managing employees who run the gamut from full time workers to those in remote, flex, or contract roles. The catch is that hiring skilled contractors at scale is a fairly new phenomenon for companies, leaving many employers without a clearly defined path to find, attract, and hire top-notch people. Identifying people who are both open to new opportunities — and who are also open to contract work — can be challenging. To help companies better understand who contractors are, where they are in their career path, what they want out of their next jobs, and where they can be found, we recently aggregated and analyzed data from public LinkedIn profiles. We defined contractors as professionals who work on time-based (vs. project-based freelance) contracts. For example, a company may hire an accounts payable professional to help cover a particularly busy time period, or to backfill for someone on leave. Contractor status was determined through member-supplied position titles, and based on profile and behavioral analysis. Years of experience was calculated as the time between university graduation and the end date (if available, or current date if blank) of the latest position listed on each profile. Only profiles where these data were known or could be confidently inferred were included in the analysis — 6 million out of more than 500 million profiles on LinkedIn. While there’s still quite a bit we don’t know about contractors, our analysis does shed light on on who is working in that role and why. In addition, we’ve conducted a separate survey of contract workers to learn more about what they’re looking for in a role. Based on what we’ve learned, here are some tips that can help recruiters and hiring managers alike better understand the contractor mindset and develop strategies to integrate them into their workforce. Be open to industry transfers and a range of experience levels. Our data shows that 70% of contractors who switched jobs in the past year actually moved to an entirely different industry. So if you’re striking out in your search for people within your industry, you might consider looking elsewhere. For example, the health care, real estate, and construction industries gained contractors in the past year, while public safety, retail, and the arts lost them. So if you’re reviewing candidates for a project management role in the real estate field, don’t rule out folks who hail from a health care background, as long as they have the requisite, or transferrable, skills. And when it comes to experience, companies in the market for contractors shouldn’t limit themselves to more costly industry veterans. While a quarter of contractors in our sample did have more than 16 years of experience, 31% had been in their careers for four years or fewer, and 27% between five and nine years. Companies can find plenty of junior or mid-level folks who are willing to take on contract roles to gain both career flexibility and marketable skills. Search outside of traditional hiring hot spots to find hidden gems. While you’ll find the biggest supply of contractor talent — and the highest demand — in New York City and San Francisco, some cities have a larger supply along with a relatively low demand. Because of this, companies in these locations – Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Houston, Philadelphia, and Denver — will likely to have less competition. There is some good news, too, for employers who struggle to find contractors in their market: Our data also shows that many are willing to relocate. In fact, a full 13% of contractors who changed companies during the past year moved to a new region. Appeal to what contractors want from their careers. To attract great contractors, go beyond the assumed perks of flexibility and competitive compensation and address what made them leave their last role. Among the 600 respondents to our 2016 Talent Trends survey who identified themselves as contractors, a desire for more challenging work (30%), career growth and advancement (26%), and finding a culture and work environment they enjoy (23%) were the leading causes cited. They also value being able to contribute to the organization: 40% of contractors look for the ability to make an impact when considering a new role. Providing work that can fill these gaps could make you stand out from other prospects a contractor might have. Design competitive compensation. Contractors who responded to the Talent Trends survey said pay is their number one priority, but determining how to compensate contractors can be tricky. Different locations may pay the exact same skill sets differently based on cost of living, supply and demand, competition, and years of experience. In some industries, contractors earn 10% to 20% more than regular employees to make up for the lack of benefits received and to entice competitive talent. The best rate is achieved when negotiation ends with a result that satisfies both parties. Paying what can be perceived as too little or too much can cause resentment and dissatisfaction with work output or contract length from either party. In addition, contract professionals are often incredibly networked, and will likely get new offers during their engagement. Consider raising their pay rates above market to ensure project continuity. Finally focus on fairness, transparency, and inclusion. Start the relationship with a contractor with an honest appraisal of how you hope to work together and for how long. Don’t mislead by saying that a project or assignment should last 12 months when you know it will be closer to three, and be up front about the working conditions, what they’ll need to be successful, and how to work with the team. Also, while some contractors enjoy the ability to move from company to company, others hope contract work leads to full-time employment. Be realistic about whether there’s a chance to convert or if you are just looking for temporary help. And don’t forget: Give contractors the same respect you show your full time workers. Provide them with the tools they need to be successful and help them make connections internally. Create a welcoming atmosphere by including them in everything from all-hands meetings to informal gatherings. If you’re unable to be inclusive in all ways, be clear about why. As the nature of work continues to evolve, companies need the flexibility to evolve along with it. To find the contract help you need to remain competitive, there’s a lot you can do: Be prepared to look outside of the big markets. Tailor your messaging to speak to their career goals. Pay your contractors appropriately per market expectations. And of course, treat them with the same openness and respect as your full time employees. In doing so, you’ll attract, and retain, a powerful contractor workforce that can help drive your business and provide the flexibility you need to navigate changing market dynamics.
Despite rapid innovations in data processing and machine learning, many businesses have yet to make the leap from the Industrial Age to the Information Age, and the gap between technological and organizational progress is widening. Closing this gap requires much more than short-term fixes, like adopting new technologies. Businesses need to organize around long-term strategies for growth and partnership, in a sustainable way. The consequences for not doing so can be dire. Eastman Kodak is the textbook case for failing to prioritize an innovation agenda; business schools around the world study the ramifications of the company’s ill-fated decision to ignore the digital photography market until it was too late. It’s far from the only case of a failure to embrace a more digital approach; the larger shift to digital is changing the way every industry operates. Some industries, like photography and media, were impacted earlier. Others, like financial services, are only now experiencing this change in earnest. The common thread in each instance is that a failure to recognize signals and prioritize innovation over short term profits before it’s too late can have existential ramifications, and can cause negative ripples throughout broader capital markets. The future of financial services The financial services industry, a traditional laggard in technology adoption, is just now entering the digital phase. Signals abound: “fintech” companies are launching at unprecedented rates, with improved user experiences and more transparent practices. Banks are feeling the crunch; according to McKinsey, legacy financial institutions will see profits decline between 20-60% by 2025 if they fail to evolve digitally. Startups alone won’t fill that vacuum: stewards must emerge from the old guard of financial services. Insight Center Crossing the Digital Divide Sponsored by DXC Technology How the best companies get up to speed. The current innovation model in the finance sector is designed to generate the highest possible short-term returns. But investors and entrepreneurs in financial services will need to rethink those timelines if they want to be successful going forward: it’s unrealistic to expect the same hockey-stick growth as startups such as Slack or Airbnb. Vanguard might be a runaway success in the market with 20 million investors, but its success has been more than 40 years in the making. Taking a long-term view — planning for a viable business in the next decade, rather than the most profitable one in the next quarter — is the only way forward for financial services businesses. The industry involves such scale, regulatory intricacy, and organizational inertia that making substantive change will take time. CEOs will need to shift their mindset now if they want to avoid their own “Kodak moment.” Embracing innovation requires unconventional capital allocations that won’t always yield short-term profit, but which lend to exponential growth in the long run. It may not be a popular platform to adopt in the boardroom, but it’s imperative for the future of financial services firms. Recent actions by certain financial services firms — notably Goldman Sachs — give reason for hope. Beyond simply launching an “innovation lab” or investing untold sums in established startups, Goldman Sachs is prioritizing an innovation agenda over short-term growth. Its recent launch of Marcus, an online retail bank, is a particularly promising signal. While Marcus is far from profitability, Goldman has acknowledged its intention to stick with this model, recognizing that its existing playbook is not going to sustain another century of growth. Technology ≠ innovation Keep in mind that financial technology is a commodity. Anyone can acquire new technology. The true differentiator in financial services will come from having the vision and ability to execute change in this new landscape. Financial institutions need more technically adept, visionary talent if they are to survive the shift to the digital age and take the kind of risks necessary for long-term success. But instead of recruiting new talent, many of these institutions are losing people to the tech industry. Ninety-five percent of the banks surveyed by law firm White & Case said they will buy or invest in emerging technology companies in the next 18 months. But many are doing so for the wrong reasons, purchasing technology when they should be focusing on real innovation. The institutions that successfully cross the digital divide will invest in leaders who are building companies for the next 50 years, rather than for the next three to five years. This focus on people is key. For example, PayPal’s acquisition of Braintree didn’t just help the company modernize its online payment portal; Bill Ready (who was formerly CEO of Braintree) is now actively leading change and positioning PayPal for the future, as the company’s COO. Similarly, an incumbent doesn’t need to acquire an up-and-coming startup due to vastly superior technology or impressive growth numbers, both of which it can likely replicate with the requisite investment of time and capital. Rather, it should look to make such an acquisition for the dynamic leader at the helm, who likely has a more pro-innovation agenda and greater tolerance for short term failures in the pursuit of longer term goals. This simply isn’t in the DNA of most financial institutions, but it’s sorely needed. It’s for this reason that one can reasonably expect Vantiv’s recent move to acquire WorldPay Group — a deal which JP Morgan also allegedly pursued — as a signal for a broader rise in M&A activity in the financial services space in the coming months and years. The ecosystem approach to winning the long game Innovation in financial services will happen in part through the diffusion of new revenue models and technologies, combining entrepreneurial ideas with institutional and operational expertise. What’s needed is a concerted effort to invest in design thinking systems, and support for diverse and inclusive cultures that bring together people with divergent perspectives to share ideas and new approaches. The financial services industry is still in the early stages of digital transformation. Some organizations have been quicker to embrace this shift, while others remain firmly entrenched in Industrial Age mindsets. Goldman Sachs falls into the former category, and is providing a model for industry peers to emulate. Beyond simply nodding to the need for greater innovation, it has begun to take a series of bold, decisive steps that are atypical of financial services firms companies. From elevating its former CIO to CFO as it increasingly defines itself as a technology company, rather than a financial services firm, to emerging as one of the most high-profile advocates of cryptocurrency, it’s clear that the company is thinking in longer time horizons than quarter to quarter, or year to year. Some will follow this model and thrive, and others will fail to adapt and fade to irrelevance, but it will take some time until a clear picture of the new age of financial services emerges. Companies need to be laying the foundation for a more digital future now. This means a willingness to accept short term setbacks and, in some cases, sacrifice short term profit, with a steady eye towards big picture innovation goals (and with it, long term profitability). Jeff Bezos encapsulated this philosophy best in the letter he sent to shareholders just before Amazon’s 1997 IPO: We will continue to make investment decisions in light of long-term market leadership considerations rather than short-term profitability considerations or short-term Wall Street reactions… We will make bold rather than timid investment decisions where we see a sufficient probability of gaining market leadership advantages. Some of these investments will pay off, others will not, and we will have learned another valuable lesson in either case. It’s fitting that this conversation is happening almost 20 years to the day after the company’s public market debut. While financial services firms were unlikely to give much credence to the thoughts of a little-known tech entrepreneur at the time, they contained sage wisdom — which is even more prescient today.
Объёмы российской цифровой экономики в период 2011–2015 годов росли в девять раз быстрее, чем показатель национального ВВП, считают эксперты консалтингового агентства McKinsey & Company.
Бестселлер Мартина Форда "Восхождение роботов: технологии и угроза будущего без работы" назван лучшей книгой для бизнеса 2015 г. по версии издания Financial Times и консалтинговой компании McKinsey & Company.
Richard W. Fisher, President and CEOFederal Reserve Bank of DallasDallas, Texas February 11, 2014 - - - - - - - 05 Февраль 2014 О ценах на газ в США http://iv-g.livejournal.com/997777.html 23 Октябрь 2013 U.S. Natural Gas Proved Reserves, 2011. 2 http://iv-g.livejournal.com/956077.html 28 Август 2013 McKinsey: Five opportunities for US growth and renewal (Energy) http://iv-g.livejournal.com/931584.html 26 Август 2013 API.org: Инфографика о добыче сланцевых нефти и газа. 2 http://iv-g.livejournal.com/931067.html 24 Август 2013 API.org: Инфографика о добыче сланцевых нефти и газа http://iv-g.livejournal.com/929565.html 17 Январь 2013 IEA: World Energy Outlook 2012. Presentation to the press http://iv-g.livejournal.com/818512.html 26 Декабрь 2012 forbes: Влияние нетрадиционных газа и нефти на экономику США http://iv-g.livejournal.com/806390.html 25 Июль 2012 Занятость в США и добыча углеводородов http://iv-g.livejournal.com/715320.html 28 Март 2012 Citigroup report. Energy 2020: North America as the new Middle East http://iv-g.livejournal.com/633928.html