 Ieithat. Mor rall o genedlaeth cilio gyda'r c名u Cullman a'n rhaid i meddwl i'r IMA sydd nesaf at eich mynd i'r hyn. IMA e� y bachwyr yw'n gweithio ar gyfer cy diagonale, ar ddiolcholiaeth ffaith ar gyfer y cordu anゴfnod erdog diolchol, ac yn adrwyddiant i ymgyrch, a'r tynnu o'r ysgolig yng Nghymru yn osir yn y dyfodol eich cyfnod sjagwyd, ac mae'r cyfnod o bwysig o'r megfath o'r 100 digyles ddweithogau hynny o rhan o aelod 11. change is the new normal over to Ena. I really have to change that biogathe beginning to sound not so good when it's 2011, right? So thank you very much for inviting me to speak today. And I'm sure you've had an interesting day with lots of challenges and lots of PowerPoint. So I thought given that I was the last speaker I would not do a PowerPoint presentation and just share some observations with you on technology and change and skills that are required to meet the challenges of the future and future organisations, so what I want to talk about is the fact that change is the new normal. When I was thinking about speaking today, I was remembering a conversation I had probably about 20 years ago with a friend of mine one evening and I remember saying to him that I thought you were supposed to get to a point in your career when you had things figured out kind of new what you were doing You were doing and things got easier. And he said to me, well, probably because he was a philosophy student. He said, why in earth do you think it's supposed to get easier? Life is hard. Right? That's the steady state. And once you've accepted life is hard, every day that you can deal with something and get on with it, makes it a little bit easier. And the same I think is true of change. We have become used to the comforting myth that for most of us in our working lives, there is a steady state. Rwy'n meddwl y gwasanaeth ffyrdd y gallwn yn fawr, er mwyaf arbennig hi'n gweld y cystraffod. Rwy'n meddwl ei fod yn meddwl am y raddiadau i'r gweithio gynnig, y fwrdd y byd. I ar gyfer rhefyd, y byddem yn gweithio ffyrdd y gwasanaeth, i gael gyd wedi i gael y mynd i ei gwybod, ac mae gennym eich meddwl y cysylltu, ac y gallwn eich meddwl i'r banc y coryir a gyda creu ffyrdd, a i gael eich meddwl i'r hiragion. Mae rhaid yn galwserau, ond y gweithio cyflawni a dweud o fod wedi'i sêch yn dod gweithio. Ond, os y gallwn weithgwch, iawn яr yng Nghymru, sydd yn yenghwyl fynd i ddechrau, maen nhw, yn dansu'r hynny'n ymhwyell o'r llythdoedd, eu rhain o'r wakrannu. Dwi'n golygu am ychydig, sydd wedi bod y cyfeisig ringy, a bydd o'n golygu'n aghaelio'r cyfrannu amgylch am yr unrhyw. Felly気 feddwyd wedi'u cyfnodd cyfnodd, dylai'r ysgrif iawn yn bryhau hyn ynglyn, a nhw'n ffordd cyflwyno i'r llwyddiad ym hyd yn ei gwrs, a'r gwaith yn ysgrif iawn ymddangos, yma yn y tŷmgyrch gwrs stymg, ond mae'n gydag y byd yn bryhau. Ac mae'r bwysig wneud, yn y gallu fwyaf maes y zidio croes ychydig yn yr ysgrif iawn, ac ydw i'r ffwyaf, yardsen gyhoful as a wast of navigating the future. I create the kind of individuals yw brif, where we're pretty much all familiar with. Those who not wisely and say of any new challenger or threat. That'll never catch on. That's a research issue. M Behind supper, that in fact change is the constant steady state and not the aberrations. Our professional lives churn with change, yn gŷch mewn gwerthu, cyflwyno, dweudau, gymeranfa wedi lleol gwerthu, byddai gyda'rolig yn bwysig, ond ond iawn yn gyfartyr. Ond wrth gwrs, dyna'r eraill mae'n bwysig. Bydd ni'n bwysig fel ddweud yn gwaith erbyn ar y cyfnod y bydd hynny'n gyfair, ale Chyflwyno'r Llywodraeth yn ymhyfrif yn ni. Nid i dweud i'r lleol yma, ac mae'n gwybod ymannu gwirionedd yn ymddangos gan gweithio'n gwybod hynny a gwroedd â'r hyn. o'r tyfnod i ddefnyddio'r gwahagwyr yn ymdyn nhw'n ddweud, i'n ddweud ar gyfer y dyfodol. Felly, y gwaith bwysig yw'r hyn o'r gweithio'r gweithio'r cymdeithasol yn gweithio'n dynai. A'r eistedd, mae'n cael ei wneud'n meddwl i'r gwasanaeth gwyrdd. Yn ystod, mae'r ffordd yn fwy o'r cyffwysgol, ac yw'r gweithio'r cyffwysgol yn yw 2006. Felly, mae'n cael ei ddechrau, ond yw'r parwysgau a'r gwelwch, ac rwy'n dechrau i'r gael ystod. Ond rydych chi'n ddim yn gallu'n rhaid oherwydd, ac mae'r ddechrau i'r gael ystod yn dweud. Ond rydyn ni wedi ddim yn gael'u. Yn ystod, rwy'n yn fyddiadau'r gael. Ac mae'n gwybod i gael ystod yn bwysig at y Llywodraeth ond mae'n gweithio gyd yn dda'r dwy o'r gael o'r gael o'r hwn. Ond rwy'n ddweud o'r cyfrifau ac yn dweud ond byddwch, Teimlo'n Llyfrgellun yn gwyst i chi gynnwys i ddeithaswyd â'r Llyfrgell yn hynny'n gwneud. Felly mae am ychydig yn ein lleol yn y gritig. Er mwyaf, mae'n ddweud mewn gwaith. Ond o'r Llyfrgell yn fwyaf, roedd esbu'r cywgir o'r wahanol munaf, oherwydd mae'n tyst yn fenywod, os nid yn ymdweud hynny, gyd-nid i mi yn gwirionedd. A'r ffynontin o'r gyrwm yw ysgrifennu chi'n g sexau'i gweithio, The evidence pretending that you were a supporting from the start and like, I was so all over that in 2006. So accept by the time you actually get to that stage, when you do get to that stage, others, your employees, your competitors, your children have already figured out exactly what the benefits of the new technology are and they've become versed in using it and they have changed their behaviour as a result of understanding what the technology can do and they're simply less inclined to respect your authority on the matter. So byt by bit, I think there is a chance that we can make ourselves irrelevant if we're now prepared to keep up with the challenges of that new world. So you have suddenly perhaps less standing in the conversation or suddenly your authority or the experience you've brought with you from the past doesn't quite count as much as it did before. And I think that's a deeply challenging thing for any professional to suddenly feel that in some way they're being left behind. And I remember very vividly when email came out, I had a colleague who used to use his computer to put his posted notes on it, right, because he thought, well, that email will never catch on. And he sort of surrounded himself with a bunch of other senior people in the organization who shared that same opinion, while everybody else, not necessarily younger, but perhaps a little bit more curious, simply got on with the business of getting to use email and actually find out what it was worth. So we need to understand that in a year over and change is the steady state. We need to be much more open and more curious and less dismissive and more reflective. And we have to accept what it's very difficult for any professional to accept when they've built their whole career on knowing what's best or knowing what's right, that we simply don't know what we don't know. And saying I don't know is the hardest thing for any leader to say because they're taught that knowing best is what gives us a competitive advantage. Whereas, in fact, being able to say I don't know, but I'm willing to listen and learn, is probably a far more useful leadership skill. So technology teaches us that if it teaches us nothing else. So products and services are developed at the speed of life. They provide solutions to problems we don't even know existed yet. So you think about the evolution of the disk drive or the floppy disk before laptops were invented when industry and governments were developing mainframes and servers with the capacity to store gigabytes of information. Who was going to use a little floppy disk that couldn't even store a megabyte? So this is what the writer Clay Christiansen calls the innovators dilemma. I'm sure you're all familiar with the book. So a disruptive force emerges in the market, but it doesn't seem like a threat because it doesn't look anything like you've seen before. So like that will never catch on. And by the time it gathers momentum and really does catch on, you don't have the skills or knowledge to turn the juggernaut that is your organization around quickly enough to adopt the new normal. So we do this not only in our professional lives, but I would argue in our personal lives. And I'm sure many of you who are parents will have experienced the confusion of understanding how children and young people actually acquire knowledge today. So I was certainly beaten down trying to say to my teenage son, you need to put together information as building blocks. You need to understand the basics because my learning was always about trying to digest facts and figures, whether that was in maths or science or history. And clearly as a child of the web, my son thinks I'm slightly insane because his question would be why on earth would he waste his time cramming his head with facts like because that's what Google's for. So he doesn't need to contain the same knowledge in his head as we had to carry around with this because it's just a click of a button away. And so the value that he will bring in the future to his organization is not that he can recite those facts and figures on the spot because like I said, they're a click away. But what interpretive skills he will bring to his organization or indeed to his own life in using that information. So the generation born after 1985 are a very different generation and a very different challenge for the organizations of tomorrow. I would point you to a piece of work you'll find online called We the Web Kids, which is written by the Polish author Peter Cerski. And he describes how those generation values differ. He says our view of the social structure is different from yours. Our society is a network, not a hierarchy. We are used to being able to start a dialogue with anyone, be it a professor or a pop star and we do not need any special qualifications related to social status. The success of the interaction depends solely on whether the content of the message would be regarded as important and worthy of reply. And if, thanks to cooperation, continuous dispute, defending our arguments against critique, we have a feeling that our opinions and matters are simply better, why wouldn't we expect to have a serious dialogue with government? So my point is, when change is the new norm, I'll beware, the organization who thinks that the old models of leadership of command and control will hold much sway with that generation. When we talk about new ways of working and new skills, we're not really talking about technology, you know, bring your own device, the cloud, mobile, because in the end technology is only technology. We're talking about a whole range of other skills that we need to develop. So if you're a leader in an organization, you need to become comfortable with uncertainty. You need to become really engaged with your workforce. And you probably need to accept the fact that leadership doesn't necessarily reside in the places it used to. It can be distributed all through levels of an organization at the outer reaches and on the front line. Successful leaders of the future, in my view, will understand that it is not sufficient with this new generation workforce to set out your strategy in the corporate boardroom and expect it to be delivered by slave deterrence just because you say so. Because this generation will expect you to explain it and defend it and discuss it in the open on blogs, to social media, and you will need to be prepared to change your strategy if they can demonstrate a better way. So Daniel Pink, who's the author of the book A Whole New Mind, talks about the most important degree for the corporate world in the future. He says it's not going to be the MBA. It's going to be the MAFA, which is a master of fine arts. And he talks about six senses that leaders need to be attuned to and to understand. It goes back a little to what Steph was talking about in terms of humour. But the six things he says are important are design, story, symphony, empathy, meaning and play. So that element of humour and fun and design is important. And these are the senses that we, the web generation value most highly and the lens to which they will examine their future employment paths. But there are rewards in adopting these types of approaches. And I think I'd look no further than the approach that has been taken by GDS where I worked under recently. So a lot of their output and approach and engagement is based around those principles of design and story and empathy with users. And if there was ever a more compelling argument for me or example that changes the new normal, it was recently reading a headline in the Financial Times that said government website wins design museum award. So I thought when is the last time we heard design and government and award in the same sentence. So that pretty much sums up the new normal for me. And so I just finished by saying we need to embrace change as a steady state and learn to be more comfortable about what we don't know. Because I think then we can face the future in the right frame of mind, ready to collaborate to meet the challenges ahead. Thank you. Thanks very much to Emma. Any questions? I just wondered if change is the new normal, is progress the new normal? Are they the same thing? Yeah, well perhaps. But I'm really just trying to make that point is I think most people think of change as aberration rather than a steady state. So yeah, but progress is the same thing. More questions? It's been quite a long day. It's on down here. Just remind people to say their name. Hi, I'm Charlotte G. I'm a reporter for Government Computing. I thought the generational thing you touched on was really interesting. And I was just wondering if you could elaborate a bit more on what differences you fundamentally see between how to manage different generations. I don't know that. Do you think there's a real difference? And if so, what are those key identifiers? Yeah, well I suppose it's because that generation have grown up off the web. So they don't see that as something distinct that they had to learn. I had to learn what was this internet thing and how did it work and how did it operate. And so they've lived most of their lives online. So all the meaningful things like meeting people, breaking up with people, all of that stuff. They're understanding of the acquisition of knowledge. For us, the opportunity to go to university or to access things that were locked inside a wall garden, there was a privilege that was attached to that. MIT now have their courses for free online. So ease of access of opportunities. So social status flattens down as well I think in terms of that, in terms of universities. So I think their expectation will be that they will search to find the answer that resonates with them and resonates with their community and their network, not necessarily the dictat that's handed to them. And so they will be much more free about contacting the chief executive if the chief executive is on Twitter. So they don't see that kind of barrier, that notion of worth and hierarchy and structure. So I think there will be challenges to bureaucracies and we're going to have to look at much more flat kind of working worlds. We have lived in a world where knowledge is power. Where there was that expectation that the senior manager, the CEO, had gone to Harvard, had gone to an elite university, had the right to be at that table because of that. Now when excellence is at a click away, average isn't going to color anymore. So I think people, there will be people who will rise and succeed in their careers because they are knowledgeable and they are networked more than because they feel they have a God given right to be there. So I think there's a huge challenge to just the notion that they will accept authority. So I'm not trying to suggest that all our future workplaces will be more like children, but you know what I'm saying? They won't just accept things because you say so. I think you're going to have to become much more robust and articulating why. With the increase in change and therefore the increase in transition from one technology to another, do you think we're going to come to a point where we're going to start to measure the cost of obsolescence? Yeah, I mean you wonder don't you? You wonder whether things will just become more interoperable. You know when the frictions that currently happen between not being able to access one technology on another, you know you suddenly become annoyed when you're on your iPad and you can't access flash or whatever because you know Adobe is having some sort of war with Apple. You think sort it out folks because this is affecting me. So I wonder you know will the cost be less if systems become much more interoperable? And I guess the cost of production of technology reducing all the time. So you know who knows you know there may be a sort of a natural exhaustion point. We might end up throwing all the kid out completely and saying go back to pen and paper. Okay, can we say thank you very much to Emma?