Read Our Blog On Culture Change

Strategy sets out the end goals. Every activity, no matter how large or small, must work towards those. And if some inevitable firefighting is needed along the way it should be addressed as part of that journey. Not as a separate action point. Another reason why there’s so much tactical activity at the expense of sticking to a longer-term strategy is the temptation to chase the data.

To retain people in 2025, we must stop confusing presence with participation. Leaders and their HR departments need to stop relying on reactive retention strategies like knee-jerk counter-offers, perks, or vague new job titles - and start building cultures where people want to stay. That begins with treating engagement not as an HR initiative, but as everyone’s responsibility. Attracting new members, requires little effort.

Today’s most forward-thinking organisations are dismantling the ladder in favour of something more flexible. The most progressive companies are building tools to map skills, identify growth areas, and match people with opportunities. They invest in upskilling and mentoring to make internal transitions realistic, not aspirational In 2025, the broken career ladder is a symbol of a bygone era.

Transparency is trust’s closest ally. It’s the habit of telling the truth, sharing not just the wins, but the worries. It doesn’t mean full disclosure of every fact, but it does mean explaining the thinking behind decisions. When people understand the “why,” they feel part of the journey. When they don’t, they fill the silence with suspicion. The two feed each other. The more transparent a leader becomes, the more trust they earn.

It’s easy to assume that a well-recognised brand is a valuable one. In boardrooms and leadership teams, there’s often pride in a polished logo, a clever slogan, or a consistent visual identity splashed across everything from business cards to stadium billboards. But a recognisable brand is not the same as a strategic brand. And in mistaking the two, many organisations leave immense value on the table.

In the intricate tapestry of organisational life, two figures often stand out: the manager and the leader. While frequently used interchangeably, the distinction between them is not merely semantic; it’s fundamental to an organisation's very pulse and future direction. Attempts to impose leadership on individuals who are solely skilled in management can be counterproductive.