 Well good morning, I'm Patrick Fowles from the Economist magazine and welcome to you all. I looked at my phone this morning and it was minus 16 degrees centigrade, so welcome to the warm embrace of our event this morning. One of our panelists Bernadette told me she lived in Moscow once and apparently it's colder than Davos just today, but only just. We're here to discuss humans 2.0 and really a discussion about technology jobs and the workforce and although here at Davos over the next few days I'm sure we're going to hear about how globalization and trade have caused a huge social backlash. In fact a probably more important trend in the world is how technology rather than trade is going to influence the workforce and citizens around the world and that's what we're here to chew over. A few points of logistics first, could I thank our supporting organizations, the Brightline Initiative, BCG and the Project Management Institute and this event is a sequel to one we did last year called the Business Case for Openness which if you're interested we can get a web link for you for that and lastly if you feel like it there's evaluation forms lurking somewhere around your breakfast tables and if you feel like tweeting it's hashtag Econ Business Case. Now next I'm going to invite Joseph Cahill who's the senior vice president of the Project Management Institute on stage for a few remarks, Joseph. Thank you Patrick and thank you everybody for being here this morning bright and early in the cold weather. I'm happy to be here to introduce the panel discussion that you're going to see shortly supported by the Brightline Initiative, the Project Management Institute, PMI and the Boston Consulting Group. Today's theme is humans 2.0, designing and implementing a future proof strategy. PMI has been a proud partner with other leading organizations in standing up the Brightline Initiative and Coalition. The Coalition is focused on the very issue of effectively implementing strategy. Brightline was created to work with C-level executives to promote and better understand what it takes to move ideas into reality. The organization has conducted extensive research on how organizations can bridge the gap that often exists between designing and implementing strategy. The challenge has become all the more daunting in the context of the fourth industrial revolution. Indeed, the World Economic Forum will be discussing these issues this week. As a member of the WEF Regional Business Working Groups, PMI supports WEF in helping developing countries overcome challenges of establishing and growing their infrastructure. Thus ensuring incoming companies can become operational quickly. Indonesia, for example, we're proud to be a part of a project that's created a go-to-market plan to build a teaching hospital in the Sam Ratelangi University and to develop urban transport in the city of Medan. And in Vietnam, we are part of a proposal to drive investor support in Vietnam's national infrastructure plan. This kind of support is critical as companies grapple with the challenges of the fourth industrial revolution. Organizations in this new era are doing everything they can to gain or retain competitive advantage in the face of radical disruption, much of it brought about by emerging digital technologies. Research shows that while nearly 80 percent of organizations have undergone a digital transformation, only about 25 percent of these projects have yielded tangible results as compared to the original goals. We believe that this problem has deep roots and it's related not to the strategy but more to the broader disconnect between strategy and implementation. In the recent Brightline study, 59 percent of senior executives admit that their organizations struggle to bridge the gap between strategy and implementation. It's easy, of course, to be enamored with new strategies and great new technologies, but it's much more important to recognize that all strategic change is implemented through action plans and projects themselves. And that leads us to the topic of today's discussion, humans 2.0, designing and implementing a future-proof strategy. Because at the end of the day, people are the critical link between the strategy design and the implementation. They turn the grand strategies into organizational results. But people come with a mix of motivations, behaviors, and interests, and many of them very well view transformational change as a threat to themselves and their families that adds to the complexity of implementing strategic change, and it makes managing the human dimension of change all the more challenging and all the more important. We're going to spend the next hour discussing these issues, how to harness the power of people to design and deliver a future-proof strategy, and how our workforce will shape and be shaped by the powerful technologies that are increasingly in play in our business world. The economist has assembled an outstanding panel here representing a broad range of perspectives and industries. I look forward to the discussion and the important insight that I know will hear in this room today. Thank you very much. Thank you for that. If I could ask our panelists to come on stage, please. Okay. Well, just to set the scene, the typical estimate is roughly 15 to 30 percent of jobs at the moment will be disrupted or face some kind of threat over the next 10 to 15 years. We're delighted to have the panelists we've got here in large bulk because they represent a very large number of people in terms of the companies they work for. If you look across this group of people, there's 150,000 people working under the companies that they're managing, and the total wage bill they pay is over $10 billion a year. We really have a brilliant kind of snapshot of the world of employment, and as you know, most of them are active across the world. So can I ask, first of all, each of you to introduce yourself, and Anne, why don't you go first? Thank you, Clashie. My name is Anne Cairns, and I'm the vice chairman of MasterCard. My name is Christophe Catois. I'm the CEO of Fadeco Group in France. My name is Rhynastraq. I'm a senior partner at the Boston Consulting Group. It's Bennett at Whiteman. I'm an MD in Global Services for BT. OK, excellent. Now, there's only one person on this panel who has done a TED talk, which has 1.7 million hits. I think TED talks last for 10 minutes. So, Raina, I'd like you to give us some of the same themes that are kind of mega-trends in the world of employment, but please don't take the 10 minutes to take a couple. Actually, 12 minutes. Now, when we speak about the future of work, you have to understand really what kind of mega-trends are hitting our workforce. And we did a large study last year in trying to understand hundreds of mega-trends, and we clustered them in four big change drivers and 12 disruptive forces. Number one is shifts in technology and digital productivity. So, automation, AI, robotics, analytics, number two, data, access to people, et cetera. So, the first three things are all about digital, and this is probably the mega-trend of mega-trends. Second change driver, we see shifts on ways of generating business value. So, simplicity and complexity. The world is becoming more and more complex. How could we answer as an organization in a simplified way? Agility and innovation. So, Agile, every company wants to become Agile, big mega-trend. And the consumer itself and himself and herself are changing rapidly. So, these are six change drivers and disruptive forces on the demand side of work. You also see similarly six on the supply side. So, one is shifts in ways in resource distribution. So, demographic aging. I'm 54, I will turn 55 this year. You look much younger, I promise. And that means I was born in 1964, and 1964 was the year with the highest birth rate ever in Germany, 1.3 million. Last year we had half of this number. So, demographic, a big, let's say, mega-trend. On top we have a huge skill in balances. So, big shortfalls here, big surpluses there. And we have new centers of powers. Then we see shifts in workforce values and culture. So, diversity and inclusion. Big topic today will continue. Entrepreneurship and individualization, big trend. And finally, people are looking for purpose. So, purpose and well-being. These are what we would call 12 disruptive forces that will change the way we work in the future significantly. And some will come with an exponential kind of speed. And one of your competitors who I won't name has made a series of what I would say relatively sort of apocalyptic predictions about what all of this means. So, automation will destroy lots of jobs. Do you have a similar analysis or do you skew more towards- I would say I see a little bit more positive. We published a report last year with the World Economic Forum which we called Eight Futures of Work. There's not only one because nobody really knows what will happen. And we looked at three influencing factors. One was about talent mobility, high and low. One was about skill evolvement, high and low. And one was about technology acceleration, high and medium. So, two times two times two, eight different scenarios. And there's one what we would call a robot replacement scenario where robots take over. But there's also one what we call an age child adapter. So, where people will adapt and we are not exposed to this future, we can shape this future. So, we have a much more positive perspective on how the world will develop. And in certain areas, yes, we have a lot of challenges. But also in the past, we have captured this somewhere. So, I don't see mass employment around the corner. OK, well, we're going to find out if our other panelists agree with that. Before we go on to their sense of the future, I thought it would be useful actually to have a sanity check on what's happening right now in these three businesses. Is there a huge sense of disruption on the number of jobs changing and so on? And can you give us a snapshot of MasterCard over the last couple of years in terms of the workforce and what are the obvious things happening and how positive or believed as the picture seems? Well, I'm glad to say that MasterCard's actually in a growth business. And we've been growing good double digits over the last few years. And as a result, I joined in 2011. I think we had about 5,000 in the workforce then. And it's now gone up to about 14,000. And the reason for this is, of course, what we're seeing is a big shift from cash to electronic payments everywhere in the world. That shifts continuing because still today, 85% of the world's consumer payments are done in cash. But when you think about it, you can't go onto the internet and buy anything with cash. And therefore, there's a big trend in e-commerce and things are digitizing. Many people in the world now have mobile phones and they're making their payments this way. We've got 2.5 billion consumer products out there in over 200 countries. And so that trend is continuing. And it's driving the business to big growth. And also, the other thing that's happening, and this is a sort of demographic link, is that urbanization is accelerating. And we know that 70% of the world's populations are going to be living in cities. And therefore, what we're seeing is things like mass transit systems, for example, the London Underground, has gone completely contactless. And so people are using their cards, their telephones to walk through barriers to actually have an everyday experience. And that's not just happening in London. It's happening in St. Petersburg. It's happening on the Manling Ferry in Australia. And it's these kind of trends that are driving our business. And so the number of employees is going up. And what's the typical quality of jobs? Has the balance shifted away from rich Western countries to emerging ones? Can you give us a sense of? Well, certainly the emerging markets are growing faster. They're just accelerating. And that's because they had a very high percentage of cash. And we're committed to actually bringing in the next half a billion people through financial inclusion into the financial economy. And already, we've got 370 million since we started that in 2015. And so we are seeing a shift to digital, very strong. We're also, as I said, seeing mobile come through. A great uplift in e-commerce going two or three times as fast as just the normal payments. And so therefore, all of the things that you need to identify people, such as digital identity, such as using artificial intelligence to protect you against cyber crime and fraud and so on, all of these things are happening simultaneously. So yes, there are many people in our company who are very skilled in these areas. And actually, we're acquiring companies such as new data and Briterion in the artificial intelligence space. So interestingly, perhaps the kind of bright side of the employment market at the moment. Kristoff, again, I had your headcounts gone up from 32,000 to 34,000 over the last five years. So again, the picture doesn't seem particularly bleak. So tell us a bit more about it. Yeah, when we speak about disruption, for sure, you have two challenges in front of you. The first one is the quantity of jobs. But the second one is the quality of jobs. And for sure, the value is in the middle. If I take the example of our company, till 50 years, we are a big player for executive, blue-collar, white-collars, but just with the intermediation between candidates and clients. And with those new challenges we have to face with, we have a lot of companies asking us to participate to the professional orientation, to the upskilling, reskilling, to the idea to coach people because they feel sometimes a little bit alone because they see the articles in newspapers and they need to understand what about me. And clearly, our jobs and our value has evolved. So that's why, at the end, probably we have a big digitization for us. In France, for example, we have 30 million papers we have digitalized. So for sure, it's probably 5%, 6% of productivity gains, but at the same time we have invest in training, in coaching, in orientation. So at the end, that's why we increase the number of accounts we have in our company, fueling our clients with another value in the process of delivery. And we can see the same for our clients. If I take just an example, when we work with aeronautics, for example, with Saffron, it's a big player in Europe. Saffron has difficulties to recruit people because they make the way to produce a service in a different way with automation. But at the same time, the main challenge today is to attract the right talents first and to recruit in a different way, not to recruit resume or experience, but talent, potential, and after to invest on those talents. And clearly, at the end, you can have more accounts, but probably the content is not exactly the same. The question is just a question of timing, because during the transition, and we see that in the automotive, for example, sector, you need to manage properly this transition before and after. So to ask a blunt question, if the number of people is going up, is your overall wage bill going up as a company, in effect, is the average wage going down? Exactly, because the value is increasing. So you can deliver at the beginning of the story, people are a little bit afraid by the change. But at the end, if you provide them the facts how to reskill and upskill themselves, you give them more employability, and they can feel that their value in the company is much more higher than before. And for sure, the expectation for better wages is behind. And it's what I call the social contract. And today, especially in France, the yellow vest movement, the question for people in the street is, I am confident in the idea that tomorrow will be better than today or in the past. And they are a little bit afraid because this social contract is not always very clear for people. And training is a part of this contract. And social protection is also probably a part of this contract. And when you have so many freelancers, platforms, and so on, the question is to have the same contract for everybody. And today is not the case in mainly countries. And it's a question for us. And it's a question for the countries also. OK. Banerjeev, I think we're headhunted from Cisco and arrived at BT only a few months ago. But give us a sense of what's been happening in the group. I mean, it's obviously a big sort of incumbent business, which I think used to have a couple of hundred thousand employees if you go way back. But what's the picture in terms of people management at BT at the moment? Yeah, so the two words I would use about BT at the moment is opportunity and change. And I think that's prevalent for most of the businesses that I've just heard from here. So like many businesses picking up on the trends, when you're actually changing technology and cloud is very prevalent in our world, you have to change your underlying processes that go with that business as well. So what I see happening in BT now is that we're really focused on the customer and the voice of the customer, because we need to talk to the outcomes that those customers are trying to drive. And it's not just about selling the technology. It's about selling an outcome that's going to be great for that business. So certainly in the global business, we're actually moving to big vertical plays where, currently I'm running the transport logistics and manufacturing area, and it's being able to talk the language of the customer. Now what that has meant is we need different skills in the business. And this is where I come back to the opportunity and change. Because for many of our employees, that causes change. But BT is such a responsible employer, change and opportunity may be outside of BT. And BT have been doing a lot of retraining so that people can actually move to jobs which, as I say, may be outside of BT. There's also been some great packages around allowing people to actually take early retirement. But at the same time, we're bringing in lots of early in career or second-jobbers into our business, so you're actually seeing a real shift in what's actually happening. So as a leader in the business, you've really got to think about how you lead your people through this. I think you actually talked to that. People never ask that question, what about me, but they're always thinking it. So as leaders, I think it's really important that we show them, we show everyone where we're going and we take everybody with us as well. Can I ask internally, do you sit down maybe once or twice a year, do you anticipate doing this? And kind of taking a five or ten year view of the workforce and its size, the mix of people. I mean, do you do that kind of medium term? I wouldn't say ten years, by the way. I think three to five years really is the horizon. However, you've got to start now. We've got to bring that diversity into our business. We've got to have a brand that's going to attract people to want to work with us. But you also, I'm finding, we've got to be very aware of people will not stay in the same job for years and years and years. It's a very mobile workforce. So actually with our graduates, we encourage them to work with all the graduates in other companies. Because I know I'm going to lose some graduates to other companies, but I'm going to gain some as well. So it's a very fluid workforce. But I think the other thing with the five-year horizon, we're often building the plane in flight. So you have to be able to take new impacts as they come along and maybe adjust your course. But then you are, I would say, a little bit an exception because we've done also a lot of analysis on strategic workforce planning. And in most companies, it's actually in its infancy. Most companies have just headcount planning, no differentiation by job families or something, very often a very short-term planning horizon. They're not a clear-demand model. So in terms of strategy changes, if technology changes, what does this mean in terms of other skills? So Reyna, tell us what they should be doing. I mean, if you could play God. I would say in the next decade, strategic workforce planning will become more important than financial planning. And when you speak about this, we usually see six models. You have first, you have to introduce job families. Existing ones, but also new ones. You have to design as data engineers, et cetera. Then you have job families, just explain all that as for the uninitiated job. Did you say six job families? No, I said let's say job families. So you have to cut your overall workforce, 100,000 people across, I don't know, 200, 300 or so job families. Then you have to simulate workforce supply. So taking attrition, retirement into account. How will your workforce develop if you do nothing? Then you have to build a workforce demand model. So taking into account new technologies, productivity, strategies, what does this mean in a quantitative way on my workforce? So what kind of new job functions do we need, et cetera? And here, nobody knows the future, exactly what will happen in five years. You have to run certain scenarios. And then if you take supply minus demand, you get a gap analysis, and from there you can start all your initiatives. Where to recruit, where to cross-qualify, where to outsource, where to also reduce capacity, and to derive what we would call non-recreate measures. So that are relevant in several scenarios around the world. And therefore HR has to become also a little bit more analytical in the future. And how many companies have you done this at, or been asked to come in and help? We have done this probably for 50 years. So a colleague, two colleagues of mine and I wrote and have a business review about this in 2008. But I would still say in a lot of companies, it's still in its infancy. When you have done this exercise, are the board and C-suite of the company typically surprised by the conclusion? Yeah, because usually HR, or the HR department, argues a lot from the gut field and not with numbers. But if you have clear numbers on the table, also for certain scenarios, I think you get much more by in certain initiatives, on rescaling, on recruiting in other areas. And what are they usually most surprised by? They are surprised. So overall, they probably know I have an overall shortfall, or I have an overall surplus. But you have to, what we would call, de-average the problem. You find huge surpluses here, and in some other job functions, huge shortfalls. And therefore just looking at the average doesn't tell you a lot. So this de-averaging is something where companies are a little bit surprised, because it's a mixture of growth, technology, demographics, and you can't do this from your gut field. And back on the envelope. I completely agree with that. And I think that it's the measurement that's really important. And getting down to the absolute details of what you're trying to do. I know before we IPOed in 2006, all we were owned by the banks. And so our customers were all banks. And then we said, you know, we want customers that are airlines and tech companies and a whole different client base. And we recognize we had to bring in people into our company that were experts in that space. The other thing that we saw was that actually our average age was very high. But today we have 50% millennials, but that didn't happen by accident. We said, we have to be hiring a younger workforce. We have to be hiring from much more diverse backgrounds, not just industry, but also people. And we did the returners to work programs and so on. And we measure all sorts of things in terms of, you know, what's the makeup of our workforce? How many people have we got in artificial intelligence? How many people have we got from different backgrounds, from different ethnicities, different gender? You know, what's the real mix? And is it reflective of our business around the world and where we think that business is going in the next five years? Because I agree with Bernadette. Planning a 10-year horizon is actually quite difficult in this space. And does the board of the company look at this sort of analysis? They look at those analysis annually, the board. Sort of at the end of the year, they go through quite comprehensive because obviously there's the Noms and Rem's committee and in that committee they look at it and then it goes up to the board. But the senior executive, the Exco, the management committee, actually look at it much more frequently than that. With the sort of analysis that Raina's talking about? Absolutely. Now, we're in a lucky position because, you know, as you know, although we're in this sort of very big business with 14,000 people, it's not the same as having to do that analysis across 140,000 people or more. So, you know, we include that HR analysis as part of all of the other things we measure in the company such as the financials, such as the flow, how many transactions are you doing? We actually have monthly reports on all of this. Okay. Yeah. Yes, I completely agree with the idea. It is that a few companies have workforce planning and it's methodology. And this methodology has been applied during a long time in the financial part, but in the HR part, it wasn't the case. So now it's the exception and not the rule and it should become the rule. Why? Because even if we can't see the world of work in 10 years, it's very difficult to imagine everything for sure. You have some key points, sustainable one, and you can go cross in the long-term range. First, we, as you mentioned it in the diversity, you can recruit people based on soft skills and potential because now you have to invest a lot on art skills, each five, 10 years depending on the industry where you belong, but at the same time if you have the right traversals, clearly you have the asset in your company, your main capital in order to make sure they will evolve with the company and they will help the company to evolve. So first, how to assess those soft skills and how to take those soft skills into account when you recruit people, experienced guys but also young people. And today it's not the case in companies. People are recruited more resumé than potential. So it's the first part. The second part, and it's a big question in many countries where we work. The second one is who is in charge of the training? Before sometimes it was the government, sometimes it was initial education, sometimes it was a company. But the company was the exception, except art skills. And today the question for our company is to take the responsibility to plug inside the company some training companies inside with an open area for subcontractors, for key partners in order to make sure that those art skills will evolve and we plug those evolution inside the human capital of the company. And probably the last part is to make sure that the management is based on what we call in France the entreprise liberer, I don't know, the translation liberated company. You have a very horizontal management, no less management, but the management is a coach. And his job is to make sure that people are accountable because he plugs all the know-how in order to make the decision locally and to fill the weak signals because a lot of changes are coming from the field from our clients and to fill them you need to make sure the people at the first level of the company feel the trends. And not only the mega trends, the mega trends are important but in your business you need to fill each detail because at the end it's a question of competitive advantage and probably the human capital is the first competitive advantage of a company. But you have to apply that. So no visibility on the long term but we can have some traversal to invest in and company are accountable of the training. And just to go back to one of the points you made at the beginning. So how on earth do you recruit people based on the potential rather than the CV? I mean, how do you actually do that? It's a war, it's a battle today because if you take only the order each time you feel you have exactly the same picture three, five years of experience, diploma or qualification and nothing about talent or potential, collaborative, creative, sometimes team spirit or not depending on the job you will apply. And whatever the job in the company you need one or the other. So today you have a lot of assessment tool but you need to simulate to make sure people are for example in an area and you simulate a real situation in order to make sure you understand how they react in a specific situation you reproduce. And here today it's probably 15% of the recruitment are based on this methodology. 85 on the previous one and clearly it's a job for us as a company. So 15% are the sort of potential candidates. Exactly. And you see that because in all countries especially in Europe the unemployment rate for youth is much more higher than the one for experienced people. It's not a question of potential. So those persons are our children. We know they have a potential but today when you recruit through a resume you don't see anything and that's a point. Can I pick up on that point as well? One of the difficulties we've got is we don't know what those jobs are also gonna be. I saw a stat, I believe that in kind of the last 30 years that 50% of all new jobs are brand new job titles. So we kind of all know about data scientists. And I think your recruitment has to start further back. We work with girls in coding. We spend lots of time in schools. And I think that's so, so important and I'm sure we're gonna talk about education because I think we have to change how we actually educate our children. But I completely agree that we are the parents that are teaching our children today different things. And I think the other big kind of trend I see is that all companies need to be tech companies. I mean, you talked to that, Anne. You know, every company I talk to has to have that kind of tech at the heart of what they're doing today. And I know I was talking to Starbucks and do they sell coffee? Well, they talk more about their app than they actually talk about the coffee. You know, and the app is where they grow. The app bloke. Yeah, but that's where their growth business is. So I mean, we've got all these different dynamics that are actually happening in the business. But I think we come back to people are gonna have to get used to training their whole life. I think it's Gartner saying continuous next at the moment. And that's how it's going to be. You're not going to train for one job and stay with that. It's gonna be this continuous learning. And we need to think how we're gonna deal with that both as employers and also as a society. Okay, well, I'd like to turn to a sort of slightly different element of this. And it was really to use blunt language what the mood of the workforce is like. And I mean, from where I sit, it seems incredibly confusing. So, you know, on the one hand, unemployment is falling. It's around the Western world and is very low in some countries, particularly in the US. On the other hand, you've seen the rise of sort of cultural concerns among the workforce about diversity, about political stances of companies. And on the sort of other element is the sort of populist mood that takes place. And you know, some of the people wearing yellow vests also presumably work for a deco, for example. So I wondered if you could give us a sense of what, or your senses as managers of what the people on the ground actually are thinking. I mean, they're faced with quite a confusing set of messages about the security and prospects for their job. And why don't you start? Well, you know, to pick up on Bonadette's point, I think that what people are actually thinking is that they need to actually keep themselves broad and they need to be continually learning. And I think they recognize that it's a good thing to move from one department to another department, not just departments, but maybe moving from the front of the business into the operational side of the business, maybe moving countries so that they have skills that work in different parts of the world. I think this is actually recognized by the workforce today. In some cases, welcomed by them. In other cases, people are concerned if they want to stay in the same place. So that actually gets raised. I think also that we're seeing people, it's interesting this thing about retraining because I know myself that I changed from an engineer to a banker, to a restructureer, to somebody in a consumer tech business. And obviously over a number of years, but it's not that easy to do. Yeah, it's just more painful when they're saying, oh, yes, let's just change. It's quite daunting. I was just reading, the author of Sapiens has just produced a new book called 21 Lessons. And in that, he was talking about when drones came in, they needed something like, I don't know, 30 operators, 80 engineers. And they were finding they had skills shortages to actually operate these machines that aren't actually flown by people. And so I think that the need to change and the need to develop new skills is there. But I think there has to be a sort of time allowed to actually allow that retraining to occur. Having said that on the positive side, I think there's a lot more varied job opportunities today. I mean, Bernadette said 50% of jobs, whether they've got new titles or they're new jobs, you know. The titles will be more important than the title was before. We know that. I think a lot of people joining companies today welcome the idea that they're not going to be in the same job and there's going to be a lot of opportunity to grow. So I think there's both sides to the point. Rainier, you do these big surveys as well, perhaps you could respond, but mention also the surveys you do of workforces and the kind of stuff. Actually, as a consultant, you always get to provide some piece of data, so. We always believe it. Actually, this is a big study that we did last year. It was actually the largest jobseeker study in the world, where we asked 366,000 jobseekers where they would like to work, what is important for their job, what kind of job preference they have. And if you, let's say, speak about job preferences, out of a list of 26 topics. The top three had something to do with culture. Number one was relationship to colleagues. Number two was work life balance. Number three was relationship to the boss. So one and three is the microclimate. And therefore, also in recruiting, you have to, let's say, offer a personal touch, because people will want to see how you work in your company. Number four actually was, what are my training opportunities? And number five, what are my career opportunities in this area? And then the financial stuff, compensation, et cetera. But it's a lot about culture, how you work in what kind of working environment. But this sense that some of the stuff people talk about at Davos, like automation, I mean, if you actually ask the workforce in large numbers, so pull them using a good methodology, does that pop up as a concern they actually have? Yeah, absolutely, it is a concern. But a lot of people also see an advantage there. Out of the 366,000, we also asked who has already capabilities in AI and robotics, et cetera. And more than 20,000 said, they have, let's say, gained some experience in this area. And investing in themselves, also as a company, let's say, offer some investments, is an opportunity to prepare for this future of work. So I think the younger generation don't see this so much as a threat, more as an opportunity to contribute in some areas. But you're right about the culture. I mean, it seems to me, even more in the younger generation, they want to join companies that they think the values are good, they like the people in there, they're connecting. It's very real. Absolutely. And they say that when you're interviewing them. Absolutely. I mean, I know my daughter who's 25, she was offered sort of five jobs when she came out of business school. And she actually turned jobs down because she said, I didn't like those people that I met that were interviewing me. Who was like, wow. It's kind of quite enlightening, to be honest. Yeah. Crystal, going back to just the mood of the employee, I mean, realistically, how accurately can one gauge it? But tell us what the signals you're getting are about how they feel. Just before signals, just, I don't have any statistics because I'm not a consultant, but I work with consultants because I need statistics sometimes. But I completely agree. You are looking for a boss, a culture, and the quality of the project, that's all. Right. And you mentioned one thing in the, and I will speak about the mood after. Yeah. One mega trend is individualism. And people are looking the best for themselves before. And what you mentioned, they are not afraid about flexibility, for example, but they need to have the right boss, the right purpose, the right project, and clearly the right culture. But at the end, if they don't have one of the recipe, they leave. There's no problem. The question for them, and that's the question, that's why the mood is not so optimistic today, is to say, okay, if I put myself in the shoes of the future of work, I don't know exactly what will be the coaching, the methodology, the training I will have. Because today, our organization are hierarchical. You have a lot of people explaining you have to deliver a job and a result. But the time dedicated to the personal development is not so important. Just statistics, I take one. Just one. In France, 15% of people are trained once a year. 15, it's nothing. So 85% of people have no training in a year. So imagine it's impossible. That's why I think some decisions have been made and in France were nice things, but also some weaknesses. But among the different improvements, now people have the ability to have a personal account with training funds plugged by the company. It's good because they can pay by themselves, orientation, and training. They need a coach sometimes, for sure. That's why you can buy also professional orientation. But those people, these individualists, are able now to invest on themselves. And I think it's very important because the company doesn't know anywhere. Sometimes people are coming from finance. They want to plug in marketing or in the operations, and they are not afraid by the project. They love the project, but they need to have the tools, the methodology in order to make sure it's not a dream or a concept, but we implement it properly. So I think in the mood to solve this issue of the mood, we need to equip them and to invest as a company on themselves. And that's a question today from a point of view. But is that, do you want to say anything? I do, and help me with the start here. But I believe it's somewhere between 8% and 13% of the workforce are actually engaged, which means 87% at best aren't. I mean, that's something really... Then we would even say some are disengaged and some are even actively disengaged, which are disengaging others. Disengaged areas. I just got worse. That's a very light way to describe it. But how scary is that? I mean, that's about us. That's about us as leaders in these businesses. So I think that personal responsibility we have to take on board. And I think training's really important. Going into a new company, that personal touch I found has really helped me. And it's kind of weird. It's those weird things about walking the floors, which you kind of almost think will go away. But I think even though we have lots of home workers, people want that sense of belonging and community. And they always, I think they want to see that what they're doing is meaningful work. And that means that you as a leader, you have to connect that to the overall strategy where the company is going and back to the values that that company has. And like you, Ann, I'm seeing that. When I'm interviewing people for roles, they really care what you stand for, not only as a leader, but as a company. And people want to know that. And I think we really have to think about that. When we're recruiting, are we recruiting leaders who can take us into the future? Not just for now, we've got to think about what that looks like in the future as well. Okay, we're going to move on to Q&A. Before we do that, I want to ask one final question on the list, which is actually a rather important one, but please try and answer it relatively briefly so we have some time for questions. In essence, it is that if the workforce is changing and possibly the number of people that companies employ is going down, or there is a large amount of churn, to what extent is it the responsibility of your businesses to actually mitigate that? I mean, to put it crudely, in a sense, it could actually be quite good for shareholder value in the sense that for many companies, you become a more capital intensive business. A headcount goes down over time. More things become automated, and in essence, it might be good for profit margins. Against that, clearly you have some kind of social contract and license to operate. So how on earth do you balance the two and where do you draw the line? And again, just briefly give us a flavor of how you grapple with that dilemma, and would you like to give an answer? Only one counter argument. I'm sorry? Actually, you mentioned, for example, that we are evolving where capital is more intensive than people. Actually, we looked at this number. Personal costs divided by capital-related costs. Over the last 15 years, and we don't see a shift. Well, I assume, though, all of the prediction of automation are based around that concept. Absolutely, but on top, we still need people in certain areas. So we don't see this historically. We see the internet with everything that we say. We replace, yes, we replace people by robots, et cetera. But on top, we need other people. And therefore, we don't see this huge technology. To respond to that, right, an individual in your world where the technology destroys old jobs, but new types of employment are created to compensate, it is still the case that individual companies will be in a situation where old forms of employment are created, and then new businesses will be created to soak up the jobs lost. So even in your optimistic world, companies, individual firms, will be faced with a dilemma of how to cope with potentially a shrinking workforce at their individual firm. And can you talk a bit about what you regard your responsibilities are? And again, sorry. Yes, it's fine. Well, look, it's difficult for me to put this in the context of MasterCard. Right, because you're great. We're a growth company, and there's only 14,000 of us, but we're in 210 countries and territories. Our business is growing strong double. So there is no dilemma. So there isn't a dilemma in terms of our workforce. What I would say is, because we think of society as a whole, we are actually looking at how we create inclusive growth for people around the world. And that's the whole thing about bringing in these extra half a billion into the financial system, giving them digital identities, but it's not just being part of that system. It's really allowing them the ability to run their businesses, their small farms or wherever they are, in a way which works for them and actually causes growth economically for them around the world. And actually, we're in a good position in that respect, because this is driving our values. And it's making people feel very positive by having an impact. It's giving us that. Yeah, yeah. Sorry, it's not a negative. That's OK. The internet of things, though, is going to be very interesting and is going to change the way that's happening. I think three things. The first one is to follow the idea to grow in the long-term range and sometimes to avoid to have only a short-term view on profitability first. Second, I think social responsibility is more linked to diversity, inclusion first, and also the way to plug training in order to keep your employee employable, not only inside your company but also outside your company. And I think the responsibility is this one. And the third one, sometimes to think about value. For example, for banking and insurance, we imagine it in different countries to decrease the headcount by three, four persons per year. And I see a lot of banking now investing on the welcoming place just to create the empathy and the trust with the client. It's a new way to do business. It is not only automation, but it's human touch. And I think if you put this human touch in the middle of the project, clearly you'll find new way to use those very nice qualities like empathy. Quick answer. Absolutely yes. I think we all have a responsibility to keep training our own individuals in our company and having that broad skill set as you talked about. But I think as we go forward and talked about actually employing technology people in her business, we all live in these ecosystems. And our employees are going to be moving around within these ecosystems. And back to the trust, we will be selling to people or buying from people who've worked with us. So I think we've got to build a much more harmonious way of doing this. And I do think we have an absolute responsibility to do it. OK, let's see if there are any questions from the audience. I'm not sure. There is a roving mic here. Can you put your hand up if you'd like to ask the panel a question? Lady here. Hi, good morning. Thank you for an interesting panel. I do have a question around you're talking about purpose-driven companies and business shift. So how I'd like to dig a bit deeper. How do companies prepare for that? Because it is statistically proven that the new generation is looking for purpose within their new employment and work every day. I think the important thing is that you shouldn't do something that doesn't fit with the core business of your company. You need to do something that's sustainable. And so therefore, you have to identify what business am I in? What value can I bring to the world? What impact can I make with that? And interestingly, I was in Israel recently and I was talking to Sir Ronald Cohen. And he is a firm believer that businesses are just not going to be measured by their bottom line, but also by the social impact they bring. And it will be a measure and it may be combined. And that a business that's generating 10 billion a year but having no impact or negative impact is not going to be worth as much as a business generating 10 billion a year but having that positive social impact. But I think it's being true to who you are. So with us, obviously we're in the technology payments business. We're connecting up millions of people around the world because actually that works for our business. It's important for us to have flows. It's important for us to grow our consumer base. And it just makes total sense strategically while also being good for them. It's a win-win situation. To give another pillar, I think. I joined this company 25 years ago as a apprenticeship. And I live in this company because the purpose is to find a job to people who doesn't have any job. And today it's to make the future work for everyone. And when you work on this purpose with your team, you gather all your teams. You work on this point. And you try to understand what the first level of the company creates a motivation. The idea to wake up very soon in the morning just to apply your job. You understand that probably the stronger motivation pillar is this one. And above all, I think this point is clearly a big point. And probably there's sometimes a contradiction with social responsibility, policy. Sometimes we communicate a lot and we need to be more simple on the way to explain things outside and inside. I've been also 25 years with BZG. Congratulations to you. Thank you both for your attention. I've led our HR topic for also 10 years. But I'm also leading our social impact practice in Germany. As we're doing a work, pro bono partly, for a safe children's world food program, et cetera. And if I see the consultants working for BZG also in the recruiting process, a lot of people are interested in this work. So to make the world a better place is absolutely in the DNA. And as a company, you have to offer something there. Otherwise, it's extremely difficult. So this purpose is so important for the younger generation. But also, it gives you a much better feeling as a company also in terms of improving the world. OK, should we go for another question? Please put your hand up if you'd like. Gentleman here first, and then we'll go on to you. My name is Rajat Pargav. I'm from Hiromoto, India. And my question is the other mega trend that we see is protectionism clamping down of trade flows, which is leading to, let's say, lack of generation of jobs in certain parts, like IT services jobs in India, or may lead to forceful job creation in some other parts, like manufacturing jobs in the US if it's going to happen. So how do you see this mega trend, and what impact does it have on the future of jobs and the skills required? Anyone would like to take that protectionism? We see this also a little bit in our study. So in this workforce study that we did with the 66,000 job seekers, we asked all about mobility. And we asked the same question four years ago. And we saw that overall mobility also dropped from 60 something percent to 57%. So we see a little bit assigned there in some areas. But still some of the countries and some of the cities are still very attractive for a lot of people, even with protectionism in certain areas. But absolutely, I would say talent mobility is a major lever also to close the talent gap in the future. And therefore protectionism is absolutely the wrong way. But I think the impact is very negative at the end. When you see Brexit, for example, you have a lot of freelancers now everywhere in the world working for different companies everywhere in the world. And you need to make sure that the social package, the local one, is the right one. When you have protectionism, the question of people is, is it a nice contract I could have in this country? Is it or not? And if it's not, you don't join this country. And yesterday we delivered the GTCI study. And we see that all the countries who are very open attract a lot of talents and are more competitive and they grow faster. So clearly it's a rationale. And behind this rationale, the question for those countries who adopt protectionism, it's very popular for the short term. But for the long term, probably it's not good for the growth because of human capital attractivity. I think the interesting thing about the political situation is that now big global corporations and companies that want to make everything work in a global way around the world and be connected are actually stepping up more and taking that role as governments move back. So we're seeing a bit of a shift. Okay, I think there was a gentleman through there. Morning, I'm in Amazon with Opportunity Network. In the recent years, we observe a lot of workers that are not really employees of the company. Words like freelance and temp workers have become more and more household. So I think my question is twofold. In one way, do you see that trend continuing and why? And the second is, is it important to make those types of employees part of the company or is there a clear line between employees and non-employees? Thank you. I think it's a very good question. First, the trend is increasing very fast. Everyone in the world, it was the case in some countries like US, like UK. Now it's also the case in a more conservative place for work like France, for example. So the trend is clear. Why? Because you need agility and agility needs requires to have in front flexibility. So that's the point. Two points. The question of companies and especially from the HR is how to create the community with those people. We speak a lot about the culture and if you don't want to dilute your culture, probably there's a challenge for the company to know how to integrate those skills but also those people as a part of the culture of the company. It's a key challenge. And today it's not as easy. We are in a transition phase first. And the second for those people is very important also that the company feel accountable for those people also because if they don't plug any employability, training, social package, clearly sometimes you can have a rupture. And when you have a rupture and you have a freelancers, it can be dramatic for the future. And it's a question of social responsibility also. So trends is increasing clear and there's a responsibility for companies to integrate them, to know how to plug the culture and to product them. I also think we need to think about flexible working as well because some of the reasons that people do go freelance and I do see that increasing is because we don't offer the flexible working that maybe people need. So I think there's some things there as well. But I also see that the kind of sharing society that we're moving to I think is increasing the rate of change into that. My son doesn't have a car, which is just bizarre to me. Because when you were 17, the first thing you wanted was a car. But he just goes, well, I can have an Uber. I can get around. And I think we'll see that more and more. But back to the other question about meaningful work and a sense of purpose, we're also starting to see that some of our freelancers have got second jobs. So they're actually engaging in their passion as well as doing their work. And sometimes the lines are blurred, but they're definitely making more time to follow some of the passions as well. It's a good point about the gig economy. I mean, that's been rising very quickly. And it's been very interesting for our business because obviously we've been thinking, how do you make sure that Uber drivers get paid, Lyft or Grab or whatever car companies they are? How does Airbnb work around the world? And if this whole gig economy is taking off in a huge way, and it's creating jobs, it's creating many other things as well, and it's creating business opportunities. We're certainly sort of embedding new products so that we can allow a driver to be able to get paid for each fare that they take, instead of having to wait for a week and so on. So it's accelerating the rate of change of how you actually live your life and how you manage your own money flow even. Quite interesting. Whole new topic. Yes, well, unfortunately, with 41 seconds to go, we're going to have to lie over. That's it in terms of time. This will be open for another half an hour if you want to hang around and chat with people. Could I, again, please thank our partners, the Brightline Initiative, BCG, and the Project Management Institute. And just to remind you again, there's also forms, evaluation forms you can fill out. Before we go, one last question to each of you and, again, keep your answer very short. In five years, do you think the employment market for the typical Western worker will be better or worse? For most people, is it going to be better or worse? Bernadette? We have to make it better. I come from Germany. There's this question. Are we running out of jobs before running out of people or running out of people before running out of jobs? My belief is in Germany we will run out of people before running out of jobs. So it will be from an employee perspective better if you have the right capabilities. Same from my point of view, it will be better because people are aware the world is changing and they want to invest on themselves. And companies are aware human capital is much more important than any asset in the company. And it's you. I think it will have to get better. I think that you can't have the internet of everything without having the inclusion of everyone. So that will happen over the next five years, I hope. OK, Bernadette, Rainer, Christoph, and thank you very much indeed. Thank you.