5

Evolving Teams and Managers for Dynamic Jobs

When Topia was in its infancy in 2012, we never had enough people or money to do the work we needed. We had three employees: me, Co-Founder Steve Black, and our first engineer, Peter Almasi. Yet we were trying to build a relocation software product, sign up partners to deliver relocations worldwide, design a brand, set up basic operations, build relationships with potential customers, write a business plan, raise investment, and much more. Each of us did many different things each day—we “wore many hats” in start-up parlance—based on the skills we had and what needed to be done. I was an extroverted ex-banker with an MBA, so naturally the business plan, customers, and finance areas fell to me. Steve was an analytical ex-consultant with an operational brain, so managing the day-to-day logistics and product development fell to him. Peter was a brilliant engineer, so writing our first lines of code and designing our security infrastructure fell to him.

Quickly, however, it became clear that we would need to augment the three of us with more people. At that point, we didn’t quite know what we needed in employees and we didn’t have the revenue to hire and pay more full-time employees. So we had to get creative. We went to my MBA alma mater, London Business School, and recruited a group of part-time interns. We went to freelancer platforms, ODesk and Elance, and hired remote workers to design basic web pages and marketing materials on demand. And Peter hired a set of contractors who helped us build our product and branding. We also knew that we would almost always lack the resources we needed (one of the cardinal rules of being an entrepreneur is that you always want more headcount than you have), so we also made automation a key part of our strategy, immediately building automated testing into our product to reduce the number of engineers we would need in the future, essentially pairing humans with machines.

While I went on the road to raise money and build relationships, Steve kept this diverse team of employees, interns, freelancers, contractors, and machines going—like a conductor managing a symphony of different instruments and personalities. He led projects, set objectives and deadlines, coordinated deliverables, fostered collaboration, and scaled hiring of freelancers up or down as needed.

We didn’t recognize it at the time, but in founding Topia like this, we had created a blueprint for F3 Companies amid the Talent Mobility Revolution. We were at the forefront of how F3 Companies would increasingly think about their workforce, teams, and jobs. We had employees, contractors, freelancers, and gig economy workers. We deconstructed work into projects and farmed work out to our diverse array of workers to achieve the highest quality and efficiency. At the same time, we thought often about automation—how could we pair humans and machines as a team—to provide more reliable software and services over time.

Today’s forward-thinking companies think about teams and management differently. Like Topia and certain of our customers, they are redesigning their roles, teams, managers, and career paths for the talent mobility era. They know that as fixed roles shift to dynamic jobs, project teams will continually and fluidly shift in composition as work gets started and completed. As automation and artificial intelligence progresses, they increasingly think of teams as including both workers and machines—whether full robots like at Amazon distribution centers and certain medical clinics today, or the artificial intelligence that drives things like automated testing at Topia.

In this world, companies also redefine the purpose of a manager. Like Steve, company leaders today are increasingly conductors of work and workers, coordinating the projects that need to get done, by when and by whom. The concept of a single manager who plans, assigns, and assesses all of an employee’s work is going away. Today’s employees have managers who coach them on career progression, but they work day-to-day across many project leaders who orchestrate work and assess performance.

To succeed amid the Talent Mobility Revolution, agility is key. Creating dynamic teams for dynamic jobs allows companies to harness disruptions and opportunities as they occur by finding the skills that they need when they need them.

Companies and business leaders who operate out-of-date work models with static teams and roles will be left behind. Business leaders who want to succeed in the twenty-first century must rethink their definition of the workforce, the composition of their teams, and the role of their managers. Only with this new agile model in place will leaders harness the Talent Mobility Revolution to drive employee engagement, accelerate innovation, and unleash growth. In this chapter, we look at how to rethink teams and management for the Talent Mobility Revolution.

Traditional Teams and Managers

Since Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776, companies have been designed on the premise that specialization—the division of labor—creates maximum efficiency and success. Today’s companies have developed along this model, and many traditional companies today retain this structure. But the Talent Mobility Revolution is throwing the design of traditional teams and traditional management on its head.

How Traditional Companies Designed Teams

Traditional companies have a set of specific functions with defined teams that carry out their work. Teams are composed with a set of traditional roles defined by a static job description (see Chapter 4 for further details on the shift from roles to dynamic jobs), and a hierarchy in which junior employees are managed by more experienced employees who are in turn managed by managers and executives. If employees perform well in their roles and gain the necessary experience at the company, they may be eligible for a promotion or a salary increase. Experience is generally dictated by the time that an employee puts in at a given role. This structure, colloquially called “climbing the company ladder,” has existed for much of the twentieth century—but in the twenty-first century, it must change.

Traditional teams were almost always made up solely of full-time employees. These workers were employed by the company—generally, dictated by an employment contract—and expected to work regularly in the office with regular hours, pay, and benefits. They had stable, predictable work and progressed through their career ladder over time. For the most part, these teams had the same people on them day in and day out—save for new employees who might be hired or those who may be let go. Occasionally teams would be augmented by part-time staff from a staffing agency, but for the most part, teams had few freelancers or gig workers. The team became an important sense of identity for employees, and much of an employee’s career revolved around working with and socializing with members of the team.

When I worked at Lehman Brothers in 2006, teams were set up like this. As a first-year banking analyst, I was initially hired to a pool of analysts that was staffed across teams. However, after a year on the job, we were all “verticalized”—that is, assigned to a set team with a set manager that we would work with each day. Each team had a clear career ladder with a defined team hierarchy where managers managed those junior to them and so on. These managers were responsible for planning, assigning, and assessing work for those who reported to them. If we did well as an analyst, we had the opportunity to be promoted from analyst to associate to vice president to senior vice president, and so on—all within that given team. The team became an important sense of my identity. We worked long hours together, ate together, traveled together, and self-segregated to sit together in broader all-office meetings.

Teams were specialized in a multitude of ways. We had functional divisions: investment banking, equity capital markets, debt capital markets, sales, and trading. In banking, we further specialized into “industry teams”—such as industrials, consumer products, energy, financial services, and real estate—and “country teams”—such as India, China, and Japan. The idea was that with this structure, we could bring multiple teams to a client offering both industry and geographic expertise. For millennial employees like me, it got boring fast—many of us wanted to learn a multitude of skills, industries, and geographies, not specialize at age 23.

During my time at Lehman Brothers, I can’t recall once meeting someone who wasn’t a full-time employee. Teams only had full-time employees. If we needed to get something done and the team didn’t have the skills to do it, someone had to learn (generally the analyst, e.g., me!) with a lot of late nights. There were no freelancers or gig workers to draw from.

Rachael King, Topia’s first VP People, recalls how traditional companies organized like this in the earlier part of her career, before joining Cisco and then Topia.

“Company org design started as a vertical structure where you reported in an upward structure with many levels and grades. The manager of this vertical controlled work, annual performance reviews, promotions, and so on. Virtually everything was done in this vertical team,” says King. “Companies then progressed into more of a matrix structure, where for example, I’d report into a global HR organization, but also into a location. This matrix has now evolved again into the project-based agile organizations we see as best practices today.”

How Traditional Companies Managed Teams

Traditional companies like Lehman Brothers set up hierarchies that managed a team. A traditional manager was responsible for planning, assigning, and assessing work. He generally came from the team itself, progressing through its hierarchy, and was a specialist in the given business area after years working in it.

Adam Smith hit on the concept of management in his discussions of specialized business and production functions in the late 1700s. But the concept of management that most traditional companies use today emerged through the Industrial Revolution and twentieth century. As large-scale production grew during the Industrial Revolution, companies needed to develop a system to coordinate teams across far-reaching organization. Managers emerged to make this happen. Teams were led by a manager, or set of managers, who were principally responsible for execution and output. By 1881, the first management school—Wharton School—had been founded, and by the early 1900s the term management was widely used.

Through the twentieth century, as knowledge work emerged, management evolved. Managers’ responsibilities evolved from being primarily focused on execution and output to a focus on coordinating and enabling knowledge workers. As noted by Rita Gunther McGrath in her Harvard Business Review article “Management’s Three Eras: A Brief History,” “The idea of what executives do changed from a concept of control and authority to a more participative coaching role.”^* With this shift, managers grew to be experts in their given business area—responsible for sharing their expertise and supporting employees to get their work got done.

At the same time, as companies grew global and more complex, company organizational designs were progressing from those of vertical, siloed teams to more of a matrix structure across functions and geographies, as Rachael King notes above. In these matrix structures, a manager may be responsible for the “terms and conditions” of employment and for coaching an employee on career progression, but might not be the same manager who is assigning work locally day-to-day. This evolution of org design and management was the prelude for the shift to the meritocratic, project-based org designs of the talent mobility era, where managers function principally as career coaches and work is assigned and assessed dynamically by different project leaders.

When I worked in real estate investment banking at Lehman Brothers, we had a traditional manager. He had worked at Lehman Brothers for more than a decade, climbing the ranks from entry-level analyst to senior vice president. By the time I worked for him in 2006, he was an absolute expert in real estate finance—managing his team through his knowledge, tenure, and relationships. He, and the ladder of managers below him, were responsible for planning our work, assigning it, and ensuring it got done on time. Today, he remains working in real estate finance with, presumably, an even greater amount of specialist knowledge and increasing management responsibilities. Many workers like me, however, would not follow this linear career path from entry level to manager in the same function.

“Company org designs are shifting, and with them, so are teams and managers,” says Rachael King. “The traditional matrix org design has now evolved into a project-based org design. Employees still have managers but they are more coaches, with work and performance managed across projects by the project leaders that employees work for. Their feedback is then combined into a type of composite review that the manager can deliver with some coaching and advocacy for the employee. Put simply, the manager is your sponsor; she is not the person you are working for day to day. We will see an increasing decoupling of the manager and ‘work leader’ in the Talent Mobility Revolution.”

Redesigning Teams for the Talent Mobility Era

Today’s forward-thinking companies are moving away from traditional teams and managers. Rather, they design teams like Topia did in our early years—with dynamic projects that are staffed by an expanded workforce and augmented by technology. These teams form dynamically as projects start and then disband as projects are completed, with workers moving to a new project, generally with a new team. To enable this agile organization, companies deconstruct their work into smaller chunks and strategically plan which projects are core to the business and should be done by employees, which projects are contextual for the business and can be done by freelancers and what work is repetitive and should be automated through technology.

Extended Teams, Extended Potential

As we discussed in Chapter 4, in the talent mobility era, the definition of the workforce has expanded to include all four types of worker classifications: employees, contractors, freelancers, and gig workers. This extended view of the workforce offers greater potential for companies and team leaders to tap into the skills they need to complete work and to continually engage existing employees with diverse, high value work. (For clarity, we use the term worker, while certain F3 Companies still use the term employee to refer to all classifications.)

When projects start, leaders tap into their full workforce to source the skills they need to get for their project teams. Project teams may be all employees, all freelancers and contractors, or a combination of both. Freelancers and contractors may work and collaborate regularly in the office with little outward difference from employees, or they may work independently and remotely, never meeting members of the team and collaborating through virtual work tools. Or, in certain instances, they may be gig workers who complete specific tasks—for example running errands for a company event—with both in-person interaction and remote work.

This diverse team composition means that team members work everywhere—for example, you may find a single team with some people working in the office, some working from home in a rural location, and some working from a remote part of the world. In this new world of work, companies tap into an extended talent pool from around the world, efficiently pairing the skills they need with the people who have them, no matter where they are located.

As noted by Accenture in its 2017 report, “Shaping the Agile Workforce,” “As talent and skills gaps grow, as many as 40 percent of companies experience shortages that drastically impact their ability to adapt and innovate.”^* And yet, many traditional companies continue to think about their workforce only as full-time employees who work from an office every day, and they continue to recruit for employees only from their local geographic area. At the same time, there are many qualified workers throughout the country looking for work, but not ready to move to high-cost, coastal urban locations where companies are generally located. With an extended definition of a team, companies can source talent from everywhere and provide vibrant job opportunities to skilled workers in other parts of the country. This is good for companies and good for the American economy.

Although this expanded view of work is new, the most innovative companies are starting to reframe their perspectives and gradually adopt freelancers as a part of their workforce. At Topia, we increasingly hired freelancers to augment our full-time employees as our company grew. As discussed in Chapter 2, as companies reorganize for talent mobility, they include contingent (freelance) workers as a part of their new talent mobility department remit, recognizing that leveraging this expanded workforce would be an important part of their future agile organization. Procter and Gamble (P&G), a customer of Upwork, has adopted an expanded version of the workforce for staffing certain of its product research and development teams. It leverages Upwork to augment its teams with freelancers, and 60 percent of products developed with this approach were done at a lower cost than traditional methods.^*

Still other companies in Silicon Valley have been designed with an expanded definition of the workforce in mind. Stella and Dot was founded in 2004 with a mission to create flexible economic opportunities for women. A part of this model was rethinking the definition of a workforce and how to enable it, something that many companies today are just starting to do.

Stella and Dot sells jewelry and accessories both directly to consumers online and through a large group of distributed sellers who are independent contractors. These microentrepreneurs manage their own sales and marketing, but the company provides merchandising, systems, and support for them.

Founder and CEO Jessica Herrin thinks about her full-time employees and independent sellers all as a part of the Stella and Dot workforce. “We completely view our sellers as part of our company—and we encourage our employees to do the selling experience also,” says Herrin. “Our workforce is a community. We enable our sellers with online training, regional field meetings and executive development opportunities. We also bring our top sellers together each year for an annual conference where our employees and sellers come together to hear about new product launches and participate in training sessions. I also travel regularly to our major field locations and meet with our sellers—they are very much a part of the company.”

Stella and Dot was far ahead of its time in 2004 when developing this model and provides learnings for how companies today should think about working with an extended workforce. An extended workforce allows companies to access a broader talent pool and augment skills on project teams, including matching open jobs in low unemployment markets with skilled workers in higher unemployment markets. Companies today—from Procter and Gamble to Stella and Dot—are leveraging extended teams for their business success.

Bob Moritz, Global Chairman at PwC, highlights why and how this shift is happening in the World Economic Forum’s article “4 Concerns That Keep CEOs Awake at Night”: “The competition for talent is as fierce as ever, as the global population ages, the nature of work changes and companies look for skills they need to grow—now and in the future. 77% of CEOs we surveyed voiced concern that the skills shortages could hinder their organization’s growth. . . . To find these employees, CEOs are increasingly tapping into a more diverse hiring pool—and looking across borders. They are also focused on the structure and future of work, including the gig economy with 28% of CEOs [already] relying more heavily on temporary workers.”^*

Worker and Machine Collaboration

Extended teams today are not only about including all types of workers. Agile companies also think about their teams as extending to the machines who contribute to them, increasingly robots and other forms of artificial intelligence. These machines augment the workers on the team, automating repetitive work tasks and providing real-time access to data that workers can use to make decisions. Today’s leaders think about human-machine interaction as a core part of their companies, training workers to be comfortable interacting with technology and staffing chunks of work across employees, freelancers, and machines. Leaders today must segment and understand work that requires uniquely human skills and work that machines excel at to create the most efficient teams to complete their projects. They do not think of work as a trade-off between workers and machines. Rather, like we saw in the early days of Topia, they know that growing artificial intelligence technologies can augment worker capabilities and be a powerful contributor to the modern team.

Today’s leaders also know that as technology advances certain workers’ jobs will be impacted by machines. But unlike technology advancements of yesteryear, in the Talent Mobility Revolution, these disruptions can be met with new opportunities for affected workers to use their skills in new jobs. Companies that rethink team composition and make investments in talent mobility and learning will succeed in the dynamic twenty-first-century business environment and support their workers through a changing economy.

Countless businesses are adopting human-machine collaboration as a part of their companies. Japanese holding company Fast Retailing, which owns popular clothing store Uniqlo, pairs workers with artificial intelligence on their teams, implementing an AI-enabled device for its shop assistants. The technology provides real-time data on inventory, orders, and returns, freeing assistants to have more informed conversations with clients. The company, which reported record sales and a profit increase of nearly 39 percent in its most recent financial year, plans to use AI to improve speed to market as part of its strategy to increase revenue by nearly 70 percent by 2021.^*

Like Fast Retailing, Morgan Stanley is also augmenting the work of its 16,000 financial advisors through the introduction of AI agents. These intelligent advisors continually learn about their clients and interact with their human coworkers to proactively recommend a range of options that take into account their clients’ changing financial situations. Financial advisors then recommend these options to their clients and are better placed to contact clients at the right time with more relevant advice. With human-machine collaboration, these financial advisors can spend their time focusing on their clients’ needs and interacting with them directly, relying on machines to do time-consuming pattern and trend analysis.^†

Accenture Research has shown the rapid growth of AI in business and the importance of worker and machine collaboration to modern teams in its surveys. In a 2018 survey of 1,200 CEOs and 14,000 workers about the future of human and machine collaboration, 74 percent of executives said that they planned to use artificial intelligence to automate some work tasks in the next three years, but 97 percent of them said that they planned to use these machines to enhance worker capabilities. Workers for their part were similarly optimistic—62 percent said that they believed intelligent technologies will create opportunities for their work. Most tellingly for teams of the future, however, 61 percent of senior executives said that the proportion of roles requiring people to collaborate with AI will rise in the next three years.^‡

“The opportunity for newly skilled individuals to collaborate with increasingly intelligent machines and software will accelerate the shift from an assembly line approach to a more fluid “assemblage’ of teams and technology, capable of higher levels of creativity and innovation,” write Accenture’s Paul Daugherty and Jim Wilson in Human + Machine: Reimagining Work in the Age of AI. Companies must ensure that, in this new era of worker and machine collaboration, all of their workers are trained in technology use and digitally fluent.

From Fixed Teams to Dynamic, Agile Teams

In the world of dynamic projects and extended teams of workers and machines, the concept of a fixed team goes away. Rather teams are now dynamic—forming with the people, machines, and skills needed to complete a project, and then “unforming” once the project is completed. To enable this, companies deconstruct their work into smaller chunks each with defined objectives and milestones to complete projects. Each project lasts for a particular amount of time—some happen over months, and some happen over years. When the project is done, the team is no longer needed. Both the workers and machine intelligence are free go and look for the next project where their skills are needed, leveraging the intelligent talent marketplace, as discussed in Chapter 4.

Companies must transform their company culture and operations to support this agile work. Like consulting firms who have long had a similar model, they hire employees with the explicit expectation that work will be dynamic and that they will be working across diverse teams, leaders, and projects with measurable objectives tied to them. They also set expectations that employees will work fluently with local and remote freelancers and artificial intelligence technologies as a part of their teams. They build staffing models around these dynamic projects and their talent marketplace, continuously allocating work on demand and creating teams to complete it. And they reinvent the concept of a manager to orchestrate this fluid movement of people and teams while balancing career and development conversations with employees.

Spotify is one of the most well-known agile companies, and one that we looked to at Topia in designing our product development teams. Spotify runs its product teams in “squads,” small, cross-functional, self-organized, and self-managing teams usually consisting of 6 to 12 people who own product objectives and work as an independent unit to complete them. The company organizes these squads into tribes—a group of squads—for work on a given product area. The leaders of these squads and tribes set overall objectives and ensure the best possible work environment, but unlike at traditional companies, they do not dictate and assign work. They let the autonomous teams figure out the best way to complete the objectives. When objectives are completed, squads will disband and move on to a new cross-functional squad with a new objective.

We looked to Spotify when we designed our product development model at Topia. Chief Product Officer and Teleport Founder Sten Tamkivi created small, nimble, and aligned teams comprised of different skills (e.g., engineering, product management, quality, subject expertise) with objectives and deliverables. We tried to keep these teams aligned in the same region to maximize time zone efficiency and collaboration.

We are in the early stages of traditional companies transitioning to this agile team model used by technology companies like Spotify. But as companies deconstruct their work, shift to dynamic project teams, and redefine their workforce, those that increasingly follow this model will be positioned for success.

Rethinking Management Amid Dynamic, Extended Teams

In traditional companies, managers have long run teams, due to their experience and expertise. Like my manager at Lehman Brothers, they have developed their careers in a particular function taking on greater numbers of direct reports and submanagers. They have planned and assigned work, often in a top-down structure, and at the end of year, assessed work performance in the annual performance review. However, companies today are rethinking the role of the manager amid dynamic jobs and teams.

From Traditional Manager to Manager Coach

The traditional manager is today splitting into two separate functions: a manager coach and a project leader. In traditional companies, managers both assigned work and held development conversations with employees. In today’s most innovative companies, we are seeing a decoupling of these functions—it’s often not the same person who is an employee’s assigned manager who actually leads the work that employee is doing.

One of the most important things to employees is their own development and progression. Even as we shift from fixed roles to dynamic jobs, employees still want conversations on their career and skills growth. They also seek coaching on professional development and navigating company dynamics, and they benefit from leaders who can advocate for them within the company. The best practice at today’s companies is to assign a manager to an employee, often the hiring manager, who is accountable for providing that employee feedback and supporting his development in regular conversations. This manager, however, is generally not the person who is working with the employee day to day as the leader of the employee’s project teams. In fact, in a world of dynamic projects, employees work across a diverse array of project leaders who plan, assign, and assess work for each project and team. Each employee’s manager receives performance feedback from these project leaders to create composite feedback to share with the employee in these development conversations.

In this model, management (the ability to share feedback and hold effective career and development conversations) becomes a skill. Like other skills, the skill of management can be applied across the organization and its employees.

Through nine years leading Topia, I consistently saw that, regardless of the nature of work and skills being developed, our employees always craved a manager to align with and support their career trajectory. The relationship between manager and employee is an important part of a fulfilling work environment. As we matured, we rolled out a model called Continuous Conversations where we encouraged managers to have monthly development conversations with employees, even if they might be working on a project led by a different person.

“Although work is moving to a more project-based model, as we see at Topia, managers still play a critical role for companies and employees,” says Jacky Cohen, Topia’s leader of People and Culture. “With more dynamic development conversations, however, companies must nurture manager skills so that managers can have these development conversations effectively. This is an emerging area, and one I’m looking at closely now.”

The Role of the Project Leader

While today’s managers lead employee development and feedback, project leaders lead project teams that complete the company’s work. Project leaders move away from a patriarchal view of leadership, where authority is derived by position and knowledge, to a meritocratic view of leadership, where communication, clarity, and transparency are king. They succeed by staffing the right skills on their teams, setting clear milestones and objectives, and managing their teams to successful completion of project deliverables. They create good working conditions (like at Spotify), share ongoing feedback, and motivate by giving team members autonomy, both in where they physically work and how they work. Confident that workers have the skills to complete their jobs, project leaders move from telling team members how to do something to telling them what they need to do. Then they give workers the autonomy to figure out how to complete the job, verifying progress.

Project leaders regularly share feedback on employee performance and work. This feedback goes into a composite view of each employee’s skills and contribution that is used to assess employee levels, compensation, and development paths, something we discuss in the next chapter. This forms the basis of the conversations that managers have with employees.

Some project leaders lead, while others work across multiple projects, often with overlapping dependencies and deliverables. Successful project leaders have great team-building skills and are able to pull together diverse workers from inside and outside the company and align them around a common project goal. They are high empathy multitaskers, able to orchestrate work across many parties, inspire collaboration, and share dynamic feedback on progress and performance to ensure projects are on track. When conflict arises between different team members, they defuse tension easily with their skills of compromise and communication.

Like Topia’s Co-Founder Steve Black in our early days, project leaders are more conductor than commander. They select workers to be a part of their dynamic project teams, intelligently pair them with technology, and then coordinate their diverse team members to ensure expectations are clear, collaboration is high, and deliverables are on time. Consulting firms have long had this model, where an “Engagement Manager” leads multiple different projects—often in different industries—with different people on each team. So, perhaps it’s no coincidence that Black came from a management consulting background!

This Talent Mobility Revolution is what I saw starting more than a decade ago at Lehman Brothers, a company built with traditional teams and managers. When I founded Topia, I knew that this model was outdated and wanted to do something different. To accelerate employee engagement, company efficiency, and innovation, I had to rethink the concept of a team and manager. Our teams would have employees, freelancers, and technology working seamlessly together. Our managers would be expected to lead career conversations. And our work would sometimes be led by project leaders. As our own company grew, I saw companies we worked with starting to shift to expanded definitions of teams and new expectations for managers. The companies that made this shift successfully would be best placed to harness the Talent Mobility Revolution to drive employee engagement, accelerate innovation, and unleash growth.

Rethinking teams and management for dynamic jobs is the fifth step for success in the Talent Mobility Revolution. But today, we are just at the cusp of this shift—and many companies remain tied to traditional notions about their workforce, team, and managers. To succeed in the twenty-first century, it’s time to rethink this.

_____________________________

^* “Management’s Three Eras: A Brief History,” Harvard Business Review, July 30, 2014, https://hbr.org/2014/07/managements-three-eras-a-brief-history.

^* Mary Lyons, Michael Blitz, and Nicholas Whittall, “Shaping the Agile Workforce,” Accenture, 2017.

^* Mary Lyons, Michael Blitz, Nicholas Whittall, “Shaping the Agile Workforce,” Accenture, 2017.

^* Bob Moritz, “4 Concerns that Keep CEOs Awake at Night,” World Economic Forum, January 16, 2017, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/4-concerns-that-keep-ceos-awake-at-night/.

^* Ellyn Shook and Mark Knickrehm, “Reworking the Revolution,” Accenture Strategy, 2018, https://www.accenture.com/t20180613T062119Z__w__/us-en/_acnmedia/PDF-69/Accenture-Reworking-the-Revolution-Jan-2018-POV.pdf#zoom=50.

^† Shook and Knickrehm, “Reworking the Revolution.”

^‡ Shook and Knickrehm, “Reworking the Revolution.”