Dr Brian Keegan takes the jobs theory of David Graeber to task, arguing that he fundamentally missed the point of the work that he deemed superfluous. As we emerge from pandemic lockdowns, people are realising that at least some of the work totems that we have subscribed to all our working lives were false gods. Many (though by no means all) businesses have recognised that working from home can be a successful and efficient way to carry out white-collar work, if only for some of the time. The tumbling of the ever-present-in-the-office totem may also foster a notion that a four-day working week, for the same pay, might be just as productive as the five-day week grind. The idea is not new. John Maynard Keynes theorised in the 1930s that, with the advent of technology, we could all possibly produce as much with just a two-day working week. At least one Irish trade union is taking up the short week cudgel, but among its most vociferous advocates was David Graeber, a professor at the London School of Economics and author of Bullshit Jobs: A Theory. Graeber is possibly best known for the latter, which outlines his theory on pointless jobs that exist, as he put it, just for the sake of keeping us all working. Graeber kept a “little list” of such occupations, though in practice, it was a long list of salaried professionals whose work he thought would not be missed were they to stop doing it. A world without nurses, refuse collectors, mechanics, teachers or dockworkers would soon be in trouble. Graeber wanted to know if the same could be said if we had no lobbyists, actuaries, telemarketers or legal consultants? Or even, perhaps, accountants. Most people, irrespective of what they do, have spent Graeber-esque days wondering if their jobs have any real meaning. Graeber’s theory may not differ from other economic or management theories that encapsulate a solitary insight but get pushed too far. The Peter Principle says that everyone ultimately gets promoted to their level of incompetence, beyond which they will go no further. That doesn’t, however, describe all career trajectories or the management structure of most successful organisations. Similarly, Parkinson’s law, which posits that work expands to fill the time available, also misses a fundamental point. As society progresses and demands higher standards, the same tasks take longer because the demand is there to do them better. Graeber’s theory falls down because it misses the point of the work he deems superfluous. Every society needs its members to share a commonality of goals, aspirations and standards. There are few processes slower and more tedious than the political process, with a small ‘p’ rather than a capital ‘P’. So many of the jobs dismissed by Graeber contribute to the creation of society’s culture, structure and shared understanding. That requires a degree of patience often lacking in an anarchic perspective like his. Many such jobs are also meaningful to those who do them and thus confer dignity to their time and effort. There is a maxim among anthropologists that fish don’t see the water they swim in, so the discipline’s contribution is to point it out. Equally, however, academics and theoreticians don’t always see that they themselves are swimming in an environment supported by the kind of work decried by Graeber. So, perhaps the real contribution of Graeber’s theory is to serve as a hazard warning for the rarefied academic environment from which it emanated. But then again, maybe a four-day week isn’t such a bad idea… Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Advocacy & Voice at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

Prof. Ciaran Connolly FCA and Dr Elaine Stewart draw on their recent research for an Institute report to examine the public sector’s proposed accruals-based accounting framework, which represents a significant shift for the Irish Government. Under the current system of Irish central government financial reporting, budget documents and financial reports are typically prepared on a traditional cash-accounting basis, with their institutional coverage mainly limited to central government. However, Ireland is one of the few remaining OECD countries to account and budget in government on a cash basis. While considered robust and reliable, it is argued that cash accounting alone does not enable the planning and asset management that an accruals-based system allows. Motivated by the 2008 global financial crisis and the OECD’s 2019 recommendations following its evaluation of Ireland’s fiscal reporting, forecasting and budgeting systems, the Irish Government sought to modernise its public sector accounting practices. On 27 May 2021, Michael McGrath TD, Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform launched Chartered Accountants Ireland’s position paper on plans by the Irish Government to reform public sector accounting in Ireland. Researched by the authors of this article and drawing on the views of key stakeholders in the process, The Reform of Ireland’s Public Sector Accounting examines the proposed new accruals-based accounting framework, which represents a significant change to the way the Irish Government accounts. Recommendations to modernise public accounting systems are not confined to Ireland. Over the last 25 years, there has been a global shift towards accrual accounting in the public sector. While several governments (e.g. Australia, Switzerland and the UK) have adopted full accrual accounting, others (e.g. Italy, Philippines, South Africa and Spain) use a modified form. Some, such as Germany, have no immediate plans to do either. Regardless, the use of accruals in the public sector is growing. Of the 165 countries included in the International Public Sector Financial Accountability Index 2021 Status Report, published by IFAC and CIPFA, 49 (30%) use accrual accounting, with approximately half of these applying International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) either directly or as a reference point. By 2025, it is estimated that 83 (50%) of the 165 countries will operate accrual accounting, with around 73% using IPSAS to some extent. Governments across the globe, including those in Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East and Africa, are instigating IPSAS implementation projects. Meanwhile, in Europe, the European Commission is working with member states to develop European Public Sector Accounting Standards, with IPSAS used as the baseline. Moreover, a small number of countries have implemented consolidated accounts (e.g. Australia, New Zealand and the UK), something that is also included as part of the Irish Government’s proposed reforms (see Figure 1 above). The proposed reforms While acknowledging that cash accounting provides strong control over departmental expenditure, a number of reports, including the OECD’s 2019 report, have advocated significant reform to the current process of financial reporting in Ireland on the basis that: cash-based information alone is insufficient for understanding the public sector financial position; as audited Appropriation Accounts are required to be published within nine months after the period to which they relate, Ireland is among the slowest of OECD countries in making such reports available; and reports from central government, commercial and non-commercial state bodies are not consolidated. This presents difficulties, particularly where reports are prepared for EU bodies such as Eurostat. On 15 October 2019, the Irish Government announced a series of reforms to Ireland’s public sector accounting which, while retaining core elements of the existing cash-based system, include: introducing accrual accounting in central government departments and offices, applying IPSAS as the underlying framework; preparing central government consolidated financial statements; and harmonising accounting practices and standards across the wider public sector to enable the consolidation of all public sector entities into a ‘whole of government’ account. When implemented, it is expected that the reforms will underpin confidence in Ireland’s public finances and unlock value from the State’s assets while realising the benefits of professional financial management, timelier financial reporting, and a general improvement in economic and fiscal performance. Large-scale reforms, like those proposed, are rarely introduced in a single stage but are typically rolled out over many years, often in conjunction with new IT systems. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER) is leading the reform process and has developed an action plan to introduce the reforms with a phased approach (see Figure 1). This begins with the application of IPSAS as the underlying framework to introduce accrual accounting in central government departments and offices (Part 1, 2019–2025). Next, the intention is to prepare central government consolidated financial statements (Part 2, 2025–2027), followed by the harmonisation of accounting practices and standards across the wider public sector (Part 3, 2027–2029), and finally, the consolidation of all public sector entities into a ‘whole of government’ account (Part 4, from 2030). The feasibility of this latter part depends on the degree of integration of accounting systems, especially outside central government, where many entities currently use different accounting standards (e.g. FRS 102) and operate separate IT systems. While factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic and complications in developing the Financial Management Shared Services (FMSS) system have impacted the original timelines, progress has accelerated more recently. Purpose, approach and stakeholders’ views Drawing on the experience, progress and lessons learned from other countries and governments that have introduced similar reforms, together with the views of representatives from government departments, agencies and advisory organisations/individuals, the Institute’s position paper examines the driving forces, benefits, challenges and appropriateness of the reforms. The views expressed by interviewees are summarised in Figure 2. The consensus was that the reforms have been mainly driven externally by the OECD, as Ireland is one of the few OECD countries that continue to report on a cash basis. Internal motivations included the potential benefits arising from access to better information on public sector assets and liabilities, including pension obligations. Interviewees highlighted potential staffing, training and IT-related challenges associated with reform implementation, acknowledging that while the process has been slow to start, there is evidence that its pace is growing. However, despite this positivity, it was recognised that the timetable had slipped in a similar manner to that for the FMSS, with the successful introduction of the new system being considered integrally linked with the reform of Ireland’s public sector accounting (e.g. to facilitate the preparation of IPSAS-based departmental and ultimately ‘whole of government’ consolidated accounts). Other anticipated challenges included implementing the necessary legislative changes, with some questioning the logic of introducing accruals-based accounting while maintaining a cash-based budgeting system. While accepting the challenges, the vast majority of interviewees viewed the reforms positively. The consensus was that they could standardise how departments present their financial information, making them more professional and user-friendly. They could also facilitate the closing of accounts in a timelier manner so that the information is more relevant and provides better information for departments’ public representatives. The way forward Experience indicates that political support and leadership at the highest levels is critical if public sector accounting reforms are to succeed. Furthermore, research suggests that their success (however this is defined) is influenced by the extent to which they are shaped by private sector ideas, with the excessive use of private sector consultants often impacting negatively on the receptiveness to change. Thus, while the public sector is entwined with the private sector through outsourcing and privatisation, it remains distinct in terms of its stakeholders, objectives and outcome measures. Therefore, while the reforms have clear implications for departmental accounting functions, their success depends upon input and support from key stakeholders across the public sector so that they fit ‘the Irish public sector context’. Hence, engaging with, for example, departmental managers, statisticians, ministers and public representatives will help to identify the risks, gain political support, and secure buy-in. Relatedly, good project management and governance arrangements are critical to ensure the timely implementation of the accounting reforms (and FMSS) and that the delivery of government services is not unduly disrupted. This might involve piloting aspects of the reforms in some departments or agencies, including having dry-run or dummy years before the changes ‘go live’ to help identify needs and potential pitfalls. For example, training and developing the knowledge of preparers and users of the systems and information is essential. Knowledge transfer is also important to avoid ‘consultant dependency’ while capacity building (e.g. recruitment and training) is critical to project success. As noted above, DPER has developed a plan to implement the reforms in a phased manner over the next decade. Not unexpectedly, a number of issues will need to be considered further, if not resolved, during this period. For example, Ireland’s current constitutional arrangements require the preparation of cash-based Appropriation Accounts. However, there is evidence that ‘full’ accruals-based accounts can be advantageous, including the better management of assets and a greater awareness of obligations, which can facilitate more accurate planning and effective risk management. In addition, although few countries have adopted full accrual budgeting, with many applying a modified version, continuing to operate cash budgeting in tandem with accruals-based notes to the cash-based Appropriation Accounts may cause confusion and limit the potential benefits of the reforms. Although, evidence from the Northern Ireland experience suggests that accrual budgeting creates its own problems. Conclusion Ireland’s planned public sector accounting reforms are ambitious but appropriate and timely. They represent a significant statement of intent by the Irish Government to modernise the State’s public sector accounting practices and must remain a priority. While obstacles and redirections can be expected along the implementation journey, these should be viewed as opportunities to design a system that is fit for purpose and appropriate for the Irish context. For example, while the FMSS system implementation has been delayed, this presents an opportunity to ensure that it will support the preparation of IPSAS-based accounts and assist with the preparation of consolidated accounts, together with the information needed for the EU and Eurostat. Prof. Ciaran Connolly FCA and Dr Elaine Stewart, Queen’s University Belfast, are authors of The Reform of Ireland’s Public Sector Accounting, published by Chartered Accountants Ireland.

Myles Thompson has spent 35 years working in audit for KPMG and over ten years supporting the work of Accountancy Europe, culminating in his recent election as President. In this article, he shares his thoughts on operating in an environment of uncertainty, the challenges facing the profession, and the potential for accountants to make a big impact on the most pressing issues of our time. Today, the accountancy profession faces many competing demands. In that context, how do you prioritise particular issues for Accountancy Europe to pursue? Accountancy Europe has always had a clear strategy in terms of what it’s working on. That’s developed continuously and every two years, with a new president, it’s looked at again. About a year ago, when I knew I would be the president from 1 January, I worked with the Accountancy Europe team and the CEO to consider how we wanted to develop the strategy. We came up with six key strategic areas to work on: corporate reporting, audit and assurance, corporate governance, sustainability, COVID-19 recovery, and – linked across all these areas – the impact on SMEs. Even though they are very broad strategic areas, we then had to identify what’s important for our members and where we can make a difference. That informed our focus, taking into account the resources available at Accountancy Europe. In some instances, we agreed to work on a particular project because it’s vital for the profession, while in other cases, we would have liked to work on a project but, for various reasons, we couldn’t. So it is a prioritisation game. We also work through this process with Accountancy Europe’s board, which has representatives from ten countries, including Ireland. We discuss the strategic objectives and consider what we should be working on with the Accountancy Europe team, which frames how we work. But we’ve got to be agile. The European Commission has said that it will look at audit reform, for example, and we will have to adapt to that because it will be significant for the profession. Sustainability reporting and assurance is an emerging area of discussion and debate. What role do you see the profession playing in this space? Sustainability reporting is very high on the European Commission’s agenda. It has established a process to develop corporate sustainability reporting standards for Europe, and the IFRS Foundation is also looking at this. There are several roles in that sphere for the profession. First, we must work with the European Commission to help them develop appropriate corporate reporting standards. But we also have a role to play, especially as Accountancy Europe, in ensuring that the European Commission and the IFRS Foundation work together towards a global solution – because most of the companies this will impact are global. Regarding comparability, the problem is that various bodies developed standards, but they’re all slightly different. So, this is an opportunity for the European Commission and the IFRS Foundation to bring it all together in one global set of standards that the Commission is happy with and can use – and can build on. These standards will represent the baseline, but certain countries or regions will always want additional reporting on top of that. And I think that’s fine, as long as you have an agreed starting point. Investor groups are increasingly seeking environmental reporting, which provides significant momentum for companies – and then we move into the area of assurance. To get consistent, high-quality reporting by entities, you need assurance. The Commission has already announced that the reporting it will put in place will be subject to assurance. The profession, therefore, has a significant role to play in ensuring that this is not overly burdensome and that it’s proportionate to what we’re trying to achieve. Linked to that, we must recognise that many companies will not have the systems and processes necessary to develop the reporting required. It’s going to take time for companies to get the right processes and systems in place. From that perspective, the profession must work with these entities to get them ready for assurance. The time needed to get companies to report will be short in terms of the potential transition period. Indeed, the Commission has put forward a very ambitious timetable whereby companies will be reporting in two years based on revised standards. But we’ve got to recognise that when companies start to report in that initial period, there will be bumps in the road and they will need time to get that reporting process right. Assurance needs to follow after this, and perhaps companies will need a couple of years to work with their auditors before public assurance can be given. We don’t want assurance that simply keeps telling people that the reporting is wrong; that won’t help anyone, and companies will need time to get it right. The audit profession is facing reform in the UK, driven by the Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) consultation process. Do you expect similar reforms at the EU level, particularly in light of the recent Wirecard scandal? Audit quality has improved enormously over the past 20 years, and we need to recognise that. There has been more regulation and scrutiny, and even the regulator admits that audit quality has improved. But of course, it needs to continue to improve.   It is easy to blame the auditors for a company failure, but the auditors aren’t the cause. The whole ecosystem needs to be looked at, from the entity’s corporate governance to the directors, the regulators, and the audit. So, it’s good that the UK’s BEIS consultation looks at that whole ecosystem and recognises that everybody in that process needs to improve. The UK consultation is important because the European Commission recently announced that it would look at the outcomes of the 2014 audit reform. They will consider whether it has made a difference in audit quality, concentration, and independence, but they will also look at the whole ecosystem. They recognise that this is not just about the audit. That is coming in the autumn, and it needs to involve all stakeholders – business, regulators and auditors – to thoroughly debate all views and perspectives, not least those of the accountancy profession. Commissioner Mairead McGuinness is saying the right words at the moment, that this must be done collaboratively. I’m sure they’ll look at the outcome of what is happening in the UK and the Netherlands. When it comes to the UK and Europe, I think some of the issues are very similar. For example, when you look at the audit firms, they will consider governance processes, independence and non-audit services, concentration, and improving regulation. However, some of the solutions may be different. Many possible solutions that have been discussed in the UK are very UK-specific, mainly because the regulator is the regulator of both companies and auditors. It handles both sides, and that’s unusual. In the US, for example, the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) oversees the companies while the PCAOB (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) oversees the audit. Emerging from COVID-19, economies will have higher debt burdens. How will economies stabilise, and what role will the profession play in this regard? The first thing to say is that nobody knows what will happen. This is new territory for everybody, so we have to be flexible and learn as we go. But for me, the critical area where the profession can help is in working with the SME sector. So much regulation concentrates on listed public interest entities, but the SME sector constitutes 80% of the European economy. The accountancy profession is a key advisor to SMEs, and we are uniquely placed to help them deal with this crisis while working with governments and banks in various countries. There is a considerable concern that banks in most countries are being encouraged by their respective governments to give companies time, but it will be fascinating to see how banks react. As things start moving, will they suddenly decide against servicing a particular company or area? The number of UK companies that have gone insolvent in the past year has reduced dramatically because furlough schemes and banks have shored them up. However, those supports will eventually diminish, and there will be an increase in insolvencies down the line. The profession will be vital in helping companies through that chasm. In terms of advocacy for this important sector, Accountancy Europe has worked with the European Commission to push it on policies for SMEs. But this type of advocacy needs to happen on a country-by-country basis because it’s very difficult to have Europe-wide laws. The profession can act as the voice for many of these SMEs at a local level and work with SME groups. For example, Accountancy Europe works with SME United, a Brussels-based group representing SMEs in Europe. We need this kind of collaboration to get the best for companies. You have worked through many economic shocks during your more than 35 years at KPMG. What did these experiences teach you about leadership? I remember the 2008 banking crisis distinctly because I was trying to help audit clients through that process. It is similar to the current crisis in the sense that you have to be practical and transparent to identify the issues and solutions. In some instances, people assume that companies have suffered badly in a crisis. But many have reinvented themselves, they’ve emerged much stronger. They achieve that by being clear on their position and debt burden, for example. Of course, some companies will fail, but the profession must help these companies be transparent on issues like resilience and going concern. That’s why I’m a big supporter of companies talking about resilience in the context of what could happen in three to five years. I’m also a big advocate of detailed audit reports and robust audit reporting. We’ve driven that enormously over the last six years in the UK – talking about the risks and highlighting concerns. We must underline to investors what the issues are in a company, but it is also imperative to ensure that the board and directors are fair and balanced in what they say about a company’s performance and prospects. We can do a lot of work in that area in the future. If I was to share one piece of advice, it’s to cultivate your role as a professional advisor – whether you work in practice or industry – so that we can help companies develop and grow. We must see that as different from the auditor; the auditor must be independent and not part of the business. But when you’re not the auditor – and many SMEs don’t require an audit – the profession needs to be there as an advisor. We must help SMEs get through whatever crisis they’re in, help them with their supply chain, help them with their processes, help them deal with their debt burden, and make them as efficient as they can be. In short, we must strive to be trusted advisors to business. How has the work of Accountancy Europe changed over the term of your involvement? I’ve been involved with Accountancy Europe for over a decade. Accountancy Europe was historically very technically focused. It mainly responded to technical consultations, whether from the international standard-setters globally or the European Commission. But over the last five years, it has become much more strategic and much more involved in helping the Commission develop its agenda early in the process. One example is sustainability reporting. Accountancy Europe has been involved from the beginning in helping EFRAG, the group dealing with this issue. So while the technical activity remains, Accountancy Europe has become much more strategic in its focus, and that’s important. What other issues do you expect to come into focus for you and the accountancy profession in the years ahead? The profession has a lot on its plate with sustainability reporting and audit reform, to give two examples. But for me, the profession needs to keep improving and ensure that it deals with public and regulatory expectations, especially on the audit side. The profession could do more to explain its role in that respect. Whenever a company collapses, the focus often falls on the auditor, and the question is always: ‘why didn’t the auditor see it coming?’ If the profession continues to explain the role of audit and how it works, that would be helpful. But as I mentioned earlier, auditors don’t bring down companies. So, the profession needs to keep explaining its role and what it does, and that will be important as we work through the fallout from this crisis and in the years ahead. Myles Thompson is President of Accountancy Europe. Myles Thompson on… the expectation gap There should be an expectation that auditors are doing the job to the highest quality that they can. And I think that is a very important expectation that we should have. But I think it is also relevant to recognise that other stakeholders may well have a greater expectation of the profession than is currently required by the regulators and by standards. The expectation gap exists; it’s been there for many years. I don’t think the profession helped itself by not dealing with it or explaining the process. But we shouldn’t hide things and say: ‘well, that’s not our responsibility’. We need to explain what we do and what we can do. And if, in the end, society decides that we need to do more, that can be done. Audit is a risk-based process, and of course you can do more – you can lower the risks and test more, and we are doing more of that through technology. Technology may be crucial because when it’s used appropriately, it can be a really powerful tool in identifying unusual transactions. A large company may transact thousands of times a day, but we have artificial intelligence tools now that can analyse every transaction in every day of the year to see if something stands out. But we still need to understand the expectations of us as auditors and deal with that. Myles Thompson on… Brexit There are two areas to consider. First, we need to recognise that London is a significant capital centre, and many European companies are listed in London. So, we need to make sure that such companies can transact appropriately and work in that capital environment in the UK. Before, everything was equivalent, so we need to make sure that it works. And from a profession point of view, we need to ensure that we continue to have proper recognition of the profession across Europe. Because again, before Brexit, the qualifications in one country were recognised in others. Work is needed on this because there are many UK qualifications used by member bodies in other countries. If a qualification is not going to be recognised, then that could have a significant impact.  Thankfully, the biggest area of cooperation is between the UK and Ireland, which is being dealt with in an appropriate way. I see the relationship between the UK and Ireland as separate from that between the UK and mainland Europe because the UK and Ireland have always worked together very strongly. For example, Chartered Accountants Ireland is a member body for north and south, and many firms operate on that basis also. The profession works across borders, and it must continue to do so in that respect. So, I’m less worried about the UK and Ireland and more concerned about how the UK and continental Europe will work.

Digital proved to be a vital tool in helping businesses navigate the upheaval during COVID-19. But now, it needs to move from a tactical response to a key pillar of strategy, writes Cormac Hughes. Businesses crave certainty. After the past year, however, that precious commodity is in short supply. So how can organisations be ready for and respond to uncertainty, both to make themselves less vulnerable to risk and to be prepared to take advantage of opportunities that emerge in unpredictable times? The answer is digital transformation. However, those two simple words disguise a more complex readjustment. Going digital is not just about building a new website. That would be like applying a fresh coat of paint to your organisation’s existing building when in reality, it is a fundamental restructuring from the floorboards to the ceiling. It is a wholesale realignment that touches every part of an organisation and puts digital at the heart of its strategy. In this article, I will outline the benefits of this approach, identify the areas of your organisation most impacted by the change, and provide practical advice on the steps to take wherever you are on the journey. From survival to strategy The first thing to say is that we are not at the starting line for digital transformation; the race is already underway. Many organisations had to rapidly hit their full stride because they had no other choice: the COVID-19 pandemic turned the digital agenda from a marathon to a sprint. The move to remote and distributed workforces at scale was only possible with digital technology. In many cases, online channels became the default means of interacting with customers and suppliers. That so many managed the change so effectively without dropping the baton is a testament to people’s incredible spirit and collective effort. But the swift onset of that crisis meant that many of the solutions put in place were short-term and tactical in nature. Now, as we can all catch our breath and start looking to the future with some optimism, we have an opportunity to evaluate the lessons learned. And the biggest lesson of all is that digital is not an enabler of strategy but a driver of it. We can say this with confidence based on a global study of 2,860 executives in the commercial and public sectors, which Deloitte carried out earlier this year. This research concluded that digital is fast becoming the norm across all sectors. Nearly two-thirds of respondents believe that organisations that don’t digitise in the next five years will be “doomed”, so having the right strategy that takes advantage of digital possibilities and capabilities will ultimately differentiate the winners and losers. Digital maturity confers advantage Deloitte’s research showed that the more digitally mature an organisation is, the better able it is to navigate rapid change and the better it performed financially. 78% of leaders surveyed said that their organisations’ digital capabilities played a significant part in helping them stay resilient as the COVID-19 crisis evolved rapidly. A similar percentage reported that their digital transformation initiatives were already having a significant positive effect on their businesses. Against this backdrop, digital spending is increasing. This might seem counter-intuitive because many organisations came under financial pressure during the pandemic. Yet, according to a CEO survey by the technology research company Gartner, over 80% of organisations planned to boost their investments in digital transformation. The firm forecasts that spending on enterprise digital transformation will grow at a 15.5% compound annual growth rate from 2020 to 2023. The Deloitte study supports this finding: 69% of the leaders surveyed intend to commit more spending to digital transformation in response to the pandemic. Our figures also show that their budgets for digital transformation represent a higher percentage of their annual revenues than in prior years. The agility to react to new opportunities Digital transformation also changes the competitive field and creates new opportunities for organisations to differentiate themselves. With the experience of the past year, it is now clear that digitally sophisticated companies are especially well-placed to react to new customer trends or buying habits. At the same time, our study found that many commercial leaders believe that their main competitor in five years will be an emerging start-up or a ‘digitally native’ company that hasn’t needed to shed the legacy of older technology (more of which later). Fewer than one-third of our respondents believe that their biggest threat will come from a current competitor. It is worth emphasising here that the window of opportunity for embracing digital remains open. For example, several Irish retail banks recently announced plans to form a consortium to develop a money transfer app to compete with emerging fintech providers. The findings above hint at the extent of the dynamic situation, so we dug deeper into leaders’ perceptions of change. More than three in four leaders anticipate that their business will “change significantly” over the next five years and more so than the previous five. Instability, by its nature, brings uncertainty, and it is not surprising that more than half of respondents believe that the fast pace of technology change is “not good” for their organisations. In our opinion, this makes it even more important to take a proactive approach to digital transformation rather than just letting it happen. Against this backdrop, how do organisations further embed digital across the business? We have considered this question across several areas: talent, finance, operations, and customer. Let us look at each of these in turn. The talent opportunity The past year has had an enormous impact on how we think about the nature of work. Business leaders need to consider this from a multifaceted perspective: who does the work? What kind of work do they do? And where do they do it from? From our engagements with clients, many will need to assess the skills they have in their workforces today and map them to the capabilities they will need in the future. This could involve identifying candidates for training so they can take up new roles. The ability to work remotely could be an opportunity to recruit talent that would previously have been unavailable because those people lived beyond a commuting distance to an office. It is also a chance to re-frame HR practices, such as moving to a more flexible team-based model rather than having people work in fixed roles organised along rigid departmental lines. The finance opportunity The finance function plays a vital role in a digitally transformed business, but it too must change to carry out this newly expanded remit. Traditionally, the job of finance was to report on what had already happened. Now, finance must look forward and spend most of its time and resources on planning and forecasting. To do this effectively, it must be able to use powerful analytics tools that can sift through data and deliver the insights the business needs to drive its decision-making. When this is in place, finance can become a strategic business partner and apply analytical thinking to solve challenges. The operations opportunity Operations is the through-line connecting every part of an organisation, from the customer-facing online channels to support, order processing and fulfilment. When the customer engages through a website, online store, app, or chatbot, they judge the success of that interaction on the seamlessness of the experience. How swiftly can they complete a transaction? When is the product or service ready? What updates do they receive about the progress of their order? Data is the glue that binds all parts of an organisation together. Every aspect of the operation needs to be digitally enabled and connected to have the data it needs, in real-time, to fulfil the order and share relevant information with the customer. Then, operations can analyse this data to identify areas where it can continually optimise. These improvements can be internal (streamlining processes that employees must use) or external (delivering a more efficient service to customers). The customer opportunity This leads us neatly to the customer: top-performing digitally-enabled organisations realise it’s not all about them. They put the customer first, delivering an experience that’s easy, convenient, and secure. This helps strengthen customer loyalty and trust. At the same time, they also dig deeper to understand their customers’ needs. They know that although digital may be the default means of engagement in today’s world, there are nuances to different customer segments and groups. Looking closer at the behaviour of those groups uncovers distinctions that enable businesses to target their offerings more effectively, identify up-sell and cross-sell opportunities, and stay competitive at a time when the customer has never had more choice. The cloud imperative The four areas outlined above have one element in common: the cloud. This is fast becoming the dominant model for organisations to avail of IT services. Delivering technology and services through the cloud equips people to work from anywhere. It also enables finance to get data faster and move from historical reporting to forecasting while empowering all elements of operations to work together more effectively and deliver a seamless customer experience. Cloud offers a consumption-based pricing model that links IT spend to the demand for that service. It also offers speed: unlike legacy infrastructure, the cloud enables businesses to test new products and services far faster than before. And when an organisation’s IT platform is adaptable, that means its business is adaptable too. With no data centres or servers to maintain and run, leaders can focus purely on the business and reduce the need to ‘mind’ the technology. Cloud also makes it easier to access the latest technology such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and robotic process automation, and high-powered analytics that can identify new areas for improvement. This is a very wide-ranging agenda for any organisation, so it may be helpful to think of it as follows: first, set the strategic direction for operations, finance, talent, and customer-facing functions from one direction. In parallel, begin a managed transition from the business’s siloed and legacy technology systems today to cloud platforms that provide the agility and flexibility the business will need. Moving to the cloud provides the basis for the strategy to come to life, but it can be complex in an organisation with a lot of existing IT. When creating a roadmap to move to the cloud, four useful stages are: Step 1: Identify the business problem Determine where the biggest burning need exists in your business today, as this will have a strong technology element. Find a problem that is a priority and will let you cut through all the decisions you have to make in your cloud adoption journey. Step 2: Start small and target quick wins Start with a small project, work to tightly defined parameters, and measure business value as you build support at all levels of the business. For example, this might be a non-critical application or a legacy system nearing the end of its support contract. Use cloud’s agility to your advantage. The ability to launch new systems quickly shortens the typical procurement cycle to days. This means you can identify a project that will deliver quick wins, act as a proof of concept, and build momentum from there. Step 3: Apply lessons and expand Use the proof of concept to identify what has been learned, build a business case, and bring stakeholders on the journey as they become familiar with the cloud. Starting small also allows the enterprise to develop the people and process aspects necessary to succeed in cloud adoption. The technology alone is not enough; there needs to be a change in culture and skills in addition to transforming processes in the business to embrace agile ways of working. Step 4: Build capability in the business in parallel to IT As the cloud project develops, ensure that those in charge have identified the necessary skills in the team, whether they exist in the business today, and whether you need to supplement the team with external expertise. That can be achieved by recruiting or working with a partner that can supplement your resources. Bear in mind that the skills for successful cloud projects go beyond technology alone. Your cloud team should also cover governance and operating models so that you implement suitable structures that can evolve as your cloud adoption matures. What’s next? When the cloud underpins digital transformation, scaling becomes easier because the organisation no longer relies on the capacity of technology it acquired at a moment in time. It can be more agile by quickly identifying and responding to customer needs. Growth is returning, and tomorrow’s world is one of expanded skillsets, a workforce that’s no longer tied to one place, and a wide range of opportunity. No matter what change awaits, the digitally transformed business can be ready. Cormac Hughes is Head of Consulting at Deloitte Ireland. Prepare now for the next disruption Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, digital spending is still on the rise. Deloitte’s 2021 Digital Transformation Executive Survey reinforces this expectation of growth, with 69% of surveyed leaders globally planning to increase their financial commitments to digital transformation in response to the pandemic. This vigorous growth in digital transformation investment makes it even more critical for   enterprises to make digital transformation a foundation of their strategy. Organisations should assume that their competitors are just as committed to developing their digital capabilities right now. The winners will be those that successfully move digital from a tactical response to a key pillar of strategy. To do this, CEOs must make explicit choices about their strategy across several areas, including talent, finance, operations and the customer. Doing so will help improve efficiency, power new products and services, enable new business models, and ensure that the customer experience is easy, convenient, and secure. Ultimately, it is about being as ready as possible for what may be next as further disruptions will come.

If you’re assertive, you’re difficult. If you’re empathetic, you’re not taken seriously. What can women in leadership roles do to overcome the double-bind? Dawn Leane explains. The issue of how women are perceived in the workplace is regularly oversimplified, and the best example of this over-simplification is the concept of the ‘double-bind’. It is a dilemma in communication in which an individual receives two or more conflicting messages. In the case of gender balance, it highlights how women who succeed are held to a different standard than their male counterparts. To succeed, women must display the traits commonly associated with effective leadership, such as assertiveness. However, when women behave assertively, they may suffer a whole other set of consequences that men typically don’t experience. Being empathetic, looking for the win-win, or simply having a pleasant demeanour can prevent women from being taken seriously, while being direct, assertive, or openly ambitious often means that they are labelled as being difficult. Regarding the double-bind, women are told to ‘man-up’, that it doesn’t matter if they are liked as long as they are respected. But the challenge of the double-bind is not that women need to be liked; rather, there is a significant, long-term impact associated with it. The double-bind can prevent women from receiving the crucial feedback they need to progress. According to research conducted by McKinsey & Co. and LeanIn.org, managers were more likely to cite concerns about seeming harsh or provoking an emotional response when delivering critical feedback to women, meaning women aren’t getting the same guidance needed in the workplace as men. The double-bind also means that women face bias when they are giving feedback. Research found that employees’ job satisfaction dropped more when female managers delivered critical feedback than when male managers did. Once again, this bias existed in both female and male employees, but the male employees surveyed viewed their female managers as less competent after receiving criticism from them. Simply put: women cannot win, and these contradictory expectations are just as likely to come from other women as men. Addressing the double-bind The double-bind is an insidious barrier that women must overcome before women can even begin to be assessed on the quality of their work. However, there are some ways women can address it: Ask open questions and point out inconsistencies in expectations. For example, if a colleague calls you ‘bossy’, ask ‘compared to whom?’ If your contribution is overlooked until a male colleague makes the same point, don’t let it go. Instead, highlight the fact that you’ve already raised the point and are glad that your colleague agrees. Ensure that the relevant people know who you are and know your work. Then, find a sponsor to advocate on your behalf who can help raise your profile and highlight your work. It’s important to get issues out in the open. Otherwise, they will always stay outside the awareness of those who aren’t impacted. Every conversation, every email and every meeting is an opportunity to begin restoring the balance. Dawn Leane is the founder of Leane Empower.

Hybrid working is here to stay, but how can companies get it right? Anne Phillipson says that planning, adapting and fostering a culture of trust is key to hybrid working success. Hybrid working is a hot topic for every business right now: how and when should we ease back to the office? How should we develop policies for making hybrid working a success? It’s a difficult task, given that there is no ‘correct’ answer; it’s a matter of making decisions that are right for your organisation and recognising that as circumstances change, the policies will also have to adapt. To help form your thinking and discussions, here are a few topics to consider. Define success criteria. What would make hybrid working a success for your business and your people? Describe the ‘ideal’, and that will provide an end-goal to work towards. You made remote working a success over the past 18 months; that happened without a lot of advance planning, but if we had all been given more time, we might have pre-empted some of the difficulties we encountered. Now is the time to facilitate an honest discussion, with the beauty of hindsight, about what worked well, what difficulties you encountered, and what practices you want to bring with you into this next evolution of hybrid working. For most organisations, success criteria include productivity, customer satisfaction, team development, professional development, and employee satisfaction and wellbeing. Think about the most important factors for your team, and then you will have a target to aim for and a way of evaluating whether expectations are being met. Agree principles. Rather than putting pressure on yourself to design perfect solutions and policies, why not agree on guiding principles first? These can provide the guardrails within which you may experiment over the coming months. Principles might be that ‘everyone works flexibly’, or ‘working patterns support the business, stakeholders, and employees’. A great principle is ‘we trust employees to work in support of company interests’. Within these guiding principles, the tactics might change but the principles don’t. This will allow teams to co-create their own working patterns and decisions within these overarching guidelines. Harmonise needs. Encourage all employees and managers to consider the needs of the individual employee, the team, and the client. All are important, and any solution should satisfy all three. For example, with fully remote working, we have found that the team’s needs may not be fully met, or the extra hours and endless Zoom meetings have not cared for the needs of individual employees where they have sacrificed their wellbeing for the sake of the team or customer. A Venn diagram may help identify the needs of each and where the overlaps are. At the centre is a hybrid model that can satisfy all needs. Consult and communicate. The key to making any change effective is to listen to the people doing the work, understand their perspectives, and communicate the rationale for decisions. You don’t want your employees to feel that the reason for returning to the office (even partial) is that you don’t trust them when they have demonstrated their trustworthiness over the past 18 months. Messages must explain ‘why’. Why is being together in the office, even occasionally, better for them, for their colleagues, or for their clients? People will respond positively if their views have been asked for, considered, and they have a degree of control over their working patterns to make hybrid work for everyone. Anne Phillipson is Director of People & Change Consulting at Grant Thornton.