Value Architects in Cairo

November 16, 2026 at Cairo, Egypt

The New Strategic Role for HR and Chief People Officers

When Netflix was still known for sending DVDs through the post, its leaders faced a question that would define its future: what kind of company could keep changing its business before the market forced it to?

Patty McCord, its Chief Talent Officer, did not answer with a conventional HR programme. Working with the leadership team, she helped articulate a different way to run the company. Netflix would seek exceptionally strong teams, give people the context to make decisions, expect candour and place substantial responsibility with employees. Its culture was intended to help the business adapt as it moved beyond the model that had made it successful.

The choices were demanding, and some remain controversial. But McCord’s contribution demonstrated something bigger than an innovative talent policy. She helped shape how Netflix would operate. The former Chief Talent Officer says she spent fourteen years helping the company grow from DVDs by post to streaming; Netflix’s current culture memo still places excellence, judgement and strong teams at the centre of its approach.

That is the opportunity now facing Chief People Officers. Their defining question is no longer simply, “How do we find and support the people our strategy requires?” It is, “What must this organisation become to create value in a changing world—and how do we build it?”

The distinction matters. A company cannot become a provider of integrated solutions while its people are organised and rewarded to sell individual products. It cannot innovate through an ecosystem while employees are judged solely on what their own division delivers. It cannot gain much from AI if it adds tools to work designed for another era. These are business model and operating model choices, with people at their centre.

The CPO who helps make those choices is a value architect. This leader works with the CEO, CFO and business heads to connect changes in markets and technology with changes in capabilities, structures, decisions and leadership. The aim is both to improve performance now and to build the potential from which future performance will come.

Ten contributions define the role: anticipate, adapt, integrate, partner, innovate, connect, augment, develop, lead and create value. They form an agenda for strategic transformation, rather than ten additions to an already crowded HR workload.

Anticipate: See what the business will need to become

Most workforce plans begin with existing jobs. They estimate how many people will be needed, where vacancies may arise and which skills are in short supply. This helps a business manage today’s operations. It tells leaders less about the work that will matter tomorrow.

A value architect starts further upstream. How are customer needs changing? What are competitors making possible? Which technologies alter the economics of a product or service? Where might the next source of growth come from? Only then can the organisation ask what people and capabilities it will need.

DBS offers an example. The bank’s digital and AI ambitions carry consequences for roles, career paths and skills. DBS reported that it had identified more than 11,000 employees for deeper upskilling or reskilling in roles significantly affected by AI. Its description of Group HR head Lee Yan Hong’s remit links workforce transformation with leadership, culture, organisational growth and career resilience.

The strategic value lies in acting while choices are still open. A bank that can see how work is changing can decide where to retrain, recruit, redesign roles or develop partnerships. One that waits for skills shortages to appear has fewer options and less time.

CPOs should therefore bring capability scenarios into strategy discussions. If this market grows, what must we learn to do? If AI takes on a substantial share of current tasks, what human work becomes more valuable? If a new customer need emerges, where are we least ready to respond? These are questions about the company’s future, expressed through its people.

Adapt: Change how decisions and work flow

Organisations regularly declare that they need to be more agile. They redraw reporting lines, announce flatter structures and launch new ways of working. Yet a new chart may leave the barriers to action intact.

Where are decisions delayed? Can people move towards a fast growing opportunity? Are teams organised around the way customers buy? Do incentives reward collaboration, or encourage each function to defend its own targets? The value architect helps redesign these conditions, then tests whether the changes improve speed and results.

Netflix shows how far an operating model can depart from standard practice. Its emphasis on giving people context and expecting them to exercise judgement is reflected in its approach to work decisions, including its concise guidance on business expenses. That approach depends on capable people, clarity of purpose and managers willing to give up some control. It is not a policy to copy in isolation.

The wider lesson is that adaptability must be designed. A company cannot demand faster responses while keeping every significant decision at the centre. It cannot invite initiative while punishing reasonable experiments that fail. The CPO can make these contradictions visible and help leaders resolve them.

Integrate: Turn acquisitions into new capabilities

When companies announce acquisitions, they often promise growth, access to technology, new markets or valuable talent. Once the deal closes, integration teams understandably concentrate on systems, reporting lines and cost savings. The capabilities that justified the purchase can receive less attention.

A strategic CPO joins the conversation before the deal is done. Which knowledge is concentrated in a few people? What relationships make the acquired business valuable? Which of its ways of working should be preserved, and which must connect with the wider group? Who will lead across both businesses?

The goal is more than retaining employees. A buyer may keep the people it acquired yet lose their ability to innovate if it buries them in unfamiliar processes. Equally, protecting every difference can prevent the combined company from delivering the promised value. Integration requires deliberate choices about shared purpose, decision rights, incentives and collaboration.

This is why people due diligence belongs beside financial and commercial due diligence. The question is not merely whether two cultures are compatible. It is whether the combined organisation can create something neither business could achieve as effectively alone.

Partner: Build capability beyond the payroll

In many sectors, a company’s most valuable work depends on people it does not employ. Suppliers contribute expertise. Start-ups bring new technology. Universities develop knowledge. Customers help shape solutions. The business may own the relationship, but it does not own every capability within it.

CPOs can help leaders decide what the organisation needs to build itself and what it should access through others. They can develop people who know how to work across organisational boundaries, clarify who makes joint decisions and examine whether incentives support the partnership.

This matters because ecosystem strategies often fail at the level of everyday behaviour. Leaders praise collaboration, but teams are rewarded for guarding information or maximising their own unit’s results. An employee who invests time in a shared opportunity may struggle to show its contribution in a conventional performance review.

A value architect makes partnering a capability. The measure is whether the organisation can combine knowledge and resources to deliver opportunities that would be out of reach on its own.

Innovate: Put experimentation where the knowledge is

Companies frequently ask employees to be more innovative while designing work that leaves little room to test anything new. Budgets are committed to existing activities. Targets favour predictable delivery. A useful insight from a customer service team may have no path to the people who could develop it.

The CPO can help create the conditions for innovation across the business. This means assembling people around significant customer, social or environmental challenges; giving them access to different kinds of expertise; and enabling them to run disciplined experiments. It also means distinguishing a thoughtful test that failed from carelessness.

Innovation does not require every employee to become an inventor. It requires the organisation to notice emerging problems, connect ideas and act on what it learns. The people function has a role in each step: who works together, what they are allowed to try, how managers respond and how successful experiments become part of normal operations.

The strategic question is whether the organisation can turn insight into new revenue, relevance and impact before a competitor does.

Connect: Make the brand promise real for customers

A business may promise to become a trusted adviser, solution provider or long term partner. Its customers will judge that promise through their experience with its people.

Consider a manufacturer that wants to sell outcomes instead of equipment. Sales teams must understand the customer’s operations. Engineers and service teams must solve problems together. Account managers need to manage relationships over time, while contracts and rewards must reflect the outcomes delivered. A new sales presentation will achieve little if the organisation continues to behave like a product supplier.

The CPO can connect customer strategy to workforce design. Which capabilities produce a better customer conversation? What decisions should frontline teams be able to make? Where does a handover between functions weaken the relationship? How should commercial and delivery teams share responsibility?

This takes people strategy beyond internal measures alone. Engagement and retention matter, but the board also needs to understand how people choices affect trust, service quality and customer lifetime value.

Augment: Redesign work around human judgement and AI

AI creates a tempting shortcut: introduce tools, train employees to use them and count the hours saved. Some benefits will come that way. The larger opportunity requires organisations to reconsider the work itself.

Which tasks can an AI system carry out reliably? Where must a person check its output? Which decisions call for empathy, ethical judgement or accountability? What happens to junior employees if the routine tasks through which they once learned their profession disappear? Who is responsible when an AI assisted decision harms a customer?

IBM has used its own HR function to explore these questions. CHRO Nickle LaMoreaux has described the use of AI in HR services, alongside a shift towards skills and continuous learning. IBM’s account of its transformation shows how routine enquiries can be handled differently and how employees’ access to support can change. These are company reported experiences, rather than a guarantee of comparable returns elsewhere.

The CPO’s contribution is to work with technology and business leaders on the design of human and AI work. Productivity matters, but so do decision quality, trust, learning and the capacity to change again when the technology improves.

Develop: Make skills mobile

Learning creates business value when people can apply what they have learned. Yet development programmes often end with a course completed, while opportunities remain locked inside departments and formal job descriptions.

Unilever has experimented with ways to connect skills and work. Its FLEX Experiences marketplace allows employees to take on projects alongside their regular jobs, helping them build capabilities through practice. Its U-Work model has explored flexibility combined with a measure of employment security. These initiatives have evolved over time, including during Leena Nair’s tenure as CHRO; they illustrate organisational choices rather than the achievement of any one individual.

A value architect looks at the movement of skills, not only their supply. Can an employee in a mature business help develop an emerging one? Can teams draw on expertise from elsewhere in the company without a lengthy transfer process? Are managers encouraged to release talented people for more valuable work?

This creates benefits for both sides. Employees see a credible future within the organisation. The business can move capability towards opportunities before it has to buy every skill from the market.

Lead: Grow leaders who perform and transform

Most leadership systems are good at recognising people who deliver within the existing model. That remains essential. Reinvention also requires leaders who can question that model, build new capabilities and bring others through change without abandoning current performance.

Such leaders need more than a workshop on change. They need experience making choices under uncertainty, working across functions, integrating different teams and deciding when to stop activities that once succeeded. They must be able to give people enough direction to act while remaining open to what the organisation is learning.

The CPO should examine where these capabilities are developed and rewarded. Does succession planning identify leaders who can build a new business, as well as run an established one? Does promotion depend on developing talent for the wider organisation, or chiefly on retaining it within a division? Are leaders held accountable for the opportunities they create for others?

Netflix’s approach offers one answer to its own circumstances: put substantial weight on the quality of the team and the judgement of its members. DBS illustrates another: connect leadership development to a bank changing its skills and technology. Neither model should be universal. Both recognise that transformation depends on how leaders work with people, not simply on what leaders announce.

Create value: Show how capability changes outcomes

HR has become better at reporting its activity. Boards can see hiring times, training participation, employee sentiment and turnover. They should continue to see these measures. They also need to know whether the organisation is becoming more capable of delivering its strategy.

The right measures follow the business choice. If the strategy depends on solution selling, can teams win and deliver more valuable customer relationships? If an acquisition was intended to bring innovation capability, is the combined business producing it? If AI has changed a workflow, have quality, speed and customer outcomes improved? If adaptability is the goal, how quickly can the business redirect people towards a new opportunity?

People choices rarely cause a financial result on their own. The CPO need not claim that they do. A stronger approach is to make the logic testable: this is the opportunity; these capabilities and organisational changes are required; this is what we will invest; and these are the outcomes we expect to improve. The CEO, CFO, business leaders and CPO can then review the evidence and adjust together.

This changes the strategic conversation. Instead of asking HR to calculate the cost of delivering a predetermined plan, leaders ask what the organisation is capable of becoming, what holds it back and where investment in people could unlock the greatest value.

The transition will not happen through a change of title. It begins when CPOs enter strategic discussions early enough to shape the choices, bring a rigorous view of future capabilities and accept shared accountability for business outcomes. It also requires CEOs to recognise that a strategy and the organisation capable of delivering it must be designed together.

Patty McCord’s work at Netflix was distinctive because people decisions became part of how the company intended to compete and change. The next generation of value architects will apply that level of strategic ambition to challenges ranging from AI and acquisitions to ecosystems, customer relationships and new sources of growth.

Their task is to help businesses perform today while building what they can become tomorrow. That is the new strategic role for HR, and a more powerful definition of the value a Chief People Officer can create.

For decades, human resources has been trying to earn its seat at the top table. The future demands something more ambitious. HR should not merely have a seat at the table. It should help decide what the table looks like, who needs to sit around it, what capabilities they bring, and how the organisation itself must change.

This is because the biggest challenge facing organisations today is no longer simply finding and retaining good people. It is building an organisation capable of continuously reinventing itself.

Artificial intelligence is transforming almost every activity. Skills are becoming obsolete faster. Traditional career paths are fragmenting. Employees expect greater autonomy and meaning. Companies increasingly need capabilities that sit beyond their organisational boundaries. Meanwhile, strategy itself has become more dynamic: organisations must simultaneously perform today and create tomorrow.

All of this puts people, organisation and capability at the centre of competitive advantage. And therefore HR should be moving from the margins of strategy to its heart.

The question for the CHRO is no longer simply “How do we support the business?” It is “What kind of organisation will we need to become?”

That is a profoundly different mandate.

The organisation is becoming a platform

The traditional organisation was designed for stability. It divided work into jobs, grouped jobs into functions, connected functions through hierarchies and controlled them through processes, budgets and reporting lines. People were recruited into positions and typically progressed upwards through increasingly senior versions of broadly similar roles.

That architecture made sense when markets changed relatively slowly and knowledge resided predominantly inside organisations.

Neither assumption holds anymore.

Increasingly, the most valuable capability of an organisation is its ability to assemble the right combination of people, technology, knowledge and partners around an opportunity — and then reassemble them when the opportunity changes.

The organisation therefore starts to resemble a platform for talent rather than a container of jobs.

Instead of asking, “Who has this job?”, leaders ask, “What capability does this opportunity require, and where can we find it?”

Instead of employees belonging exclusively to departments, people can contribute to projects across functions and geographies. Instead of careers being defined by promotions, they increasingly become portfolios of experiences, skills, projects and relationships. Instead of organisations assuming they must own every capability, they can access expertise from employees, freelancers, partners, universities, start-ups and increasingly intelligent machines.

Unilever was an early pioneer of this model. Its FLEX Experiences platform uses AI to connect employees with projects and opportunities around the company, based on their capabilities and aspirations rather than simply their current job titles. An early trial involving more than 20,000 employees across over 90 countries unlocked more than 60,000 hours of talent in just two months.

The principle behind it was more important than the technology: people are more than their jobs.

Unilever subsequently extended this philosophy through U-Work, an employment model sitting between conventional employment and freelance work. Participants remain connected to Unilever, retaining elements of security and benefits, while working more flexibly on assignments. The company’s Future of Work programme explicitly explored the idea of accessing talent rather than assuming every capability must be permanently owned.

That is a glimpse of a different organisational architecture.

Schneider Electric has pursued a similar idea through its Open Talent Market. The AI-enabled platform connects employees with full-time positions, part-time projects, mentors and learning opportunities based on their capabilities and ambitions. By the end of 2023, more than 85% of its employees were participating, with 34,000 development opportunities generated since the programme began.

The significance goes beyond internal mobility. Talent becomes visible. Opportunities become visible. Skills become fluid. Organisational boundaries become more permeable.

The company becomes a marketplace of human potential.

From workforce planning to capability orchestration

This changes one of HR’s most fundamental responsibilities.

Traditional workforce planning asks how many people the organisation needs. Future workforce strategy asks what capabilities the organisation needs, where they can come from, and how rapidly they can be redeployed.

Headcount becomes less useful as a strategic metric.

Imagine two organisations employing 50,000 people. One knows their job titles, grades, locations and salaries. The other understands thousands of underlying skills, experiences, relationships, aspirations and learning trajectories — and can use AI to connect those capabilities dynamically with emerging opportunities.

They might have identical headcounts, yet radically different organisational potential.

HR therefore needs to develop something closer to a real-time capability map.

What capabilities do we possess today? Which will become more valuable? Which are declining? What do emerging technologies make possible? Where are the hidden capabilities within our people? What expertise could we access externally? Which combinations of human and machine intelligence could deliver something neither could achieve independently?

This is why the emerging skills-based organisation matters.

Jobs are bundles of activities. AI is beginning to unbundle them.

Some tasks can be automated. Others can be augmented. Some become more important precisely because machines cannot perform them well. Entirely new activities emerge because AI makes them possible.

The unit of organisation consequently shifts progressively from the job towards the task, skill and outcome.

HR’s opportunity is to orchestrate these components dynamically.

AI should reinvent work, not just automate HR

There is an irony in much current discussion about AI in human resources.

HR departments enthusiastically explore AI for recruitment, employee queries, performance management, learning recommendations and workforce analytics. These applications can be useful. But they risk missing the much bigger opportunity.

The strategic question is not “How can HR use AI?”

It is “How will AI change work, organisations and human potential?”

That question belongs at CEO and board level — and HR should be leading the answer.

Every function needs to rethink its work. Marketing teams can use intelligent agents to research markets, create content and personalise interactions. Finance can automate analysis and scenario modelling. Software developers can work alongside coding agents. Scientists can use AI to explore enormous possibility spaces. Customer-service employees can have real-time intelligence alongside every conversation.

This does not simply create productivity.

It changes what people are capable of achieving.

The old automation question was: What can machines do instead of people?

The more interesting augmentation question is: What can people now do that they could never do before?

That distinction should become central to the future HR agenda.

The goal is not a human organisation with some AI added to it, nor an AI organisation with fewer humans left inside it. It is to create what we might call an intelligent organisation — one that deliberately combines machine intelligence with distinctly human capabilities.

Machines bring extraordinary processing power, pattern recognition, memory, prediction, simulation and increasingly autonomous execution.

Humans bring curiosity, imagination, empathy, judgement, purpose, moral responsibility, social intelligence and the ability to make sense of ambiguity.

Competitive advantage increasingly comes from designing the interface between them.

Humanity becomes more important, not less

Paradoxically, the more intelligent machines become, the more important the distinctive qualities of humanity become.

When information is abundant, judgement becomes valuable.

When content is easy to generate, originality matters more.

When algorithms optimise what already exists, imagination becomes essential for creating what does not.

When machines can imitate communication, genuine empathy and trust become more distinctive.

This changes the development agenda dramatically.

For years, organisations separated technical skills from “soft skills”. The terminology itself reveals an outdated hierarchy. Analytical and technical capabilities were considered hard and economically valuable; curiosity, empathy, creativity, collaboration and courage were somehow softer.

In an AI-rich world, many supposedly hard capabilities become increasingly accessible through technology. The deeply human ones can become harder to replicate and therefore more valuable.

HR should consequently become the guardian and accelerator of human advantage.

Learning should move beyond courses and catalogues towards experiences, experimentation, coaching, projects and communities. Leaders should be evaluated not simply on the results they personally deliver but on how much capability they unlock in others. Organisations should measure not merely employee engagement but energy, adaptability, learning velocity and the movement of talent towards opportunity.

The goal is no longer simply skilled employees.

It is endlessly evolving people.

Stop managing change

There is another legacy that HR needs to leave behind: change management.

The concept assumes that change is an event.

Management decides on a transformation. Consultants create a programme. HR communicates it. Employees move through familiar curves of denial, resistance, acceptance and adoption. Eventually the organisation reaches its new state and stability returns.

Except stability no longer returns.

AI evolves continuously. Customer expectations shift continuously. Competitors emerge continuously. Technologies converge continuously. Geopolitical conditions change. Business models evolve. Organisations restructure, partner, acquire and divest.

Change is no longer something organisations occasionally do.

Change is the environment in which organisations exist.

The challenge therefore shifts from managing individual transformations towards creating organisational plasticity — the ability to continually reshape structures, capabilities, behaviours and resource allocation without requiring a corporate trauma every time.

This is where HR can have enormous strategic impact.

Microsoft offers an interesting example.

Kathleen Hogan became Microsoft’s Chief People Officer in 2015 and played a central role in the cultural transformation associated with Satya Nadella’s leadership, particularly the shift from a “know-it-all” towards a “learn-it-all” culture based around growth mindset. In 2025, Microsoft moved Hogan into the newly created role of Executive Vice President, Office of Strategy and Transformation. Nadella described her mandate as helping accelerate change across Microsoft’s people, processes and portfolio — effectively connecting organisational transformation directly with corporate strategy.

The symbolism matters.

One of the world’s most valuable technology companies took the executive who had led its people and cultural transformation and moved her into enterprise strategy and continuous transformation.

That is one possible future of the CHRO.

The CHRO becomes a Chief Reinvention Officer

The best HR leaders have already demonstrated that the role can extend far beyond traditional HR.

Leena Nair’s career at Unilever is instructive. She joined the company as a management trainee, became its first female, first Asian and youngest-ever CHRO, and helped drive a people agenda combining purpose, flexibility, reskilling and new models of employment. Her philosophy explicitly connected care for people with competitiveness and future readiness. She subsequently moved from HR into enterprise leadership as CEO of Chanel.

Kathleen Hogan demonstrates another pathway: from Chief People Officer into enterprise strategy and transformation.

Schneider Electric’s talent-marketplace approach demonstrates a third: HR becoming the architect of an internal economy in which talent, learning and opportunity can flow dynamically around the enterprise.

These leaders challenge the assumption that HR’s ultimate destination is better HR.

The destination can be better business.

Tomorrow’s outstanding CHRO should therefore understand technology, economics, strategy, customers and business models as deeply as organisational psychology and talent.

They should be able to sit with the CEO and ask not merely, “What people do we need to deliver the strategy?” but “How should our organisation change what strategies are possible?”

That is a much more powerful question.

From employee experience to human possibility

Over the last decade, many HR teams embraced “employee experience”. This was useful because it encouraged organisations to view work from the employee’s perspective rather than through administrative processes.

But experience is no longer enough.

Great consumer brands do not merely make existing journeys frictionless. They enable people to achieve things they could not previously achieve.

The same principle should apply inside organisations.

HR should move from designing employee experience towards expanding human possibility.

Can people discover opportunities they did not know existed?

Can an engineer contribute to a sustainability challenge in another country?

Can a marketer join an AI innovation sprint?

Can a 55-year-old employee reinvent their career rather than seeing their capabilities depreciate?

Can somebody work three days for the organisation, one day on a start-up and another developing entirely new expertise?

Can intelligent agents give every employee capabilities that previously belonged only to specialists?

Can careers move sideways, diagonally, temporarily outside the organisation and eventually back inside?

The organisation becomes less like a ladder and more like a landscape.

HR’s job is to make that landscape navigable.

Measure potential, not just performance

This also demands a different scorecard.

Most organisations are extraordinarily sophisticated at measuring current performance and surprisingly primitive at measuring future capability.

They know revenue per employee, labour costs, attrition, engagement, absence and productivity.

But can they measure learning velocity? Skills liquidity? Internal mobility? Human-AI augmentation? Leadership adaptability? Organisational network strength? The percentage of strategic capabilities that can be redeployed within weeks rather than years?

Most importantly, can they measure potential?

Businesses create value not simply through what they produce today but through what they are capable of becoming tomorrow. The same is true of people.

An employee’s value is not simply their current output. It includes their capacity to learn, connect, imagine, adapt and create future value.

An enlightened HR function therefore invests simultaneously in performance and potential.

Performance asks: How good are we today?

Potential asks: What could we become tomorrow?

Both matter. But organisations obsessed with the first can systematically destroy the second.

HR needs a bigger voice

For too long, HR has frequently arrived after the strategic decisions have been made.

The company decides to enter a market, adopt AI, restructure a business, make an acquisition or launch a transformation — and HR is subsequently asked to provide the people plan.

That sequence needs reversing.

Every significant strategic decision is ultimately an organisational decision.

Entering a new market requires capabilities. AI changes tasks and roles. Acquisitions succeed or fail through people and cultures. Innovation requires different behaviours and incentives. Ecosystems require people capable of collaborating beyond organisational boundaries. Reinvention requires leaders willing to move resources away from yesterday’s success towards tomorrow’s possibilities.

HR therefore needs a stronger voice not simply on the people implications of strategy, but on the strategy itself.

The CHRO should become one of the organisation’s principal interpreters of the future.

What is changing outside? What does AI make possible? How are employee expectations evolving? Which capabilities will differentiate us? What will the next generation expect from work? Which assumptions about jobs, careers, workplaces and organisations are becoming obsolete?

And then the most important question:

What should we do about it now?

From human resources to human reinvention

Perhaps even the name Human Resources has outlived its usefulness.

People are not resources in the same sense as capital, factories or raw materials. They have ambitions, identities, imagination and agency. Their potential can expand rather than depreciate through use.

The great HR function of the future will therefore be less concerned with administering human resources and more concerned with enabling human reinvention.

It will build organisations as talent platforms rather than hierarchies of jobs.

It will orchestrate capability rather than simply plan headcount.

It will combine AI and humanity rather than pitching one against the other.

It will build adaptability rather than manage episodic change.

It will develop potential rather than merely evaluate performance.

And its leaders will help shape business strategy rather than simply implement its organisational consequences.

This is ultimately HR’s opportunity.

Technology may be transforming business, but organisations remain profoundly human systems. Strategies need people to imagine them. Innovation needs curiosity. Transformation needs belief. Customers need empathy. Difficult choices need judgement. Communities need trust. Futures need people willing to create them.

AI does not diminish that responsibility. It amplifies it.

The future of HR therefore isn’t really about HR.

It is about building organisations capable of becoming more than they are today — organisations in which intelligence flows more freely, talent moves towards opportunity, machines amplify human capability, and people continually learn, adapt and reinvent themselves.

For HR leaders, that requires a fundamental shift in ambition.

Don’t just manage the people of today’s organisation. Architect the organisation of tomorrow.