Over dinner with some young friends, the conversation turned to a question that has been nagging at me: who will mentor the next generation of professionals if their managers are all using AIs to do the work that junior staff once did?

This essay reflects on the mentors who shaped my career and the younger people I’ve had the privilege of mentoring in return. It explores the types of professional mentorship I received and the contexts where this took place. I also highlight why the consulting model that underpinned my career for decades depends on a two-way exchange between humans – something that AI cannot replicate.

I don’t have answers, but I’m convinced this is one of the more significant and underappreciated consequences of AI in the workplace. I believe it will affect all of us

The principle of diversity has been on my mind recently – of beliefs, views and skills that emerge from different demographics, political allegiances, neurological types and behavioural traits.

As one might expect, the subject of diversity lends itself to various interpretations, often with opposing views like those I encounter online and in discussions. It is notable how hard it is to reach any consensus on why diversity actually matters, as debates tend to break down into polarised positions.

I prefer a more nuanced and contextual approach to thinking about diversity at the levels of countries, organisations, teams, families and relationships. This article proposes the conditions where diversity is an asset to any system, organisation or team, and describes what tends to happen if these conditions are not met.

Organisations need good governance to stay on track and fulfil their purpose. Good governance involves a group of people, such as a board of directors or trustees, providing strategic oversight and ensuring that an organisation makes sensible strategic decisions and operates ethically. Such governance structures function effectively when they consist of the right people having the right conversations. These are the two key ingredients for successful governance.

In this context, the “right people” means capable individuals with a diversity of knowledge, experience, and mental models. The “right conversations” include a willingness to invest time and effort in thoroughly exploring the matter at hand with fellow directors.

Organisations should therefore be mindful and intentional about the types of people they wish to recruit for their boards, the types of conversations they want to encourage, and the type of governance culture that would be a strategic asset.

This article pulls together some ideas that have been floating around my mind for a few decades and also tackles the relationship between thought diversity and demographic diversity.

There are two very different ways of structuring and laying out the argument in reports and presentations. Most people only know one of them. You can make these documents more engaging if you understand the two approaches, and how and when to use them.

There is the traditional academic and scientific format which we get taught at school and university. This is the most common approach. Then there is the format often used by management consulting firms for advice-orientated reports.

Each of them works best in a particular context. Using the wrong format for the context makes it less likely that people will engage with the contents of the report. Your hard work and insights will be overlooked.

This article will explain these two approaches and when to use them.

There tend to be two types of entrepreneurs that I encounter in my consulting work. There are those that strive to be in the middle of the action and build their organisations around them. Then there are those who strive to build their organisations to be separate from themselves like a piece of software.

Nowadays I think of these dichotomous archetypes as ‘heroes’ versus ‘programmers’. Framing them in a positive light makes this model more useful and easier to communicate.

This article explores these archetypes, considers when they are an asset or liability, and reflects on what we might learn from them.

I remain distraught and saddened by the recent events in South Africa – the mass rioting and looting that afflicted KwaZulu Natal and Gauteng.

It has been a traumatic series of weeks for millions of South Africans and I recently mentioned how distressed I was by these events.

The situation has somewhat stabilized thanks to the good work of communities, police and SANDF troops. However, the news is fraught with stories of the consequences of this attempted insurrection that occurred over the course of these past weeks. Humanitarian work has begun to alleviate the present suffering and help rebuild.

On the 16th July 2021, President Ramaphosa described the destruction as a result of a “deliberate, coordinated and well-planned attack on our democratic order”.

This cataclysmic event led me to one conclusion – it is hundreds of times easier and quicker to destroy than it takes to create! It has also challenged my hope in South Africa.

Nevertheless, there are some key shifts that would bring some hope to my country.

Rioting and looting has engulfed parts of South Africa in July 2021. KwaZulu Natal and Gauteng provinces are currently the most affected.

These riots appear to have morphed into a short-sighted destruction of infrastructure and thousands of businesses. The news is full of images of mass looting. People even seem to be driving to distant shopping malls and warehouses to steal without remorse.

I am very distressed by it. I am unclear about how I can influence the outcome of what is happening. It is a struggle to retain hope right now. The people that I have spoken with feel the same.

Here are my thoughts on the matter.

Technology has progressed so that people can work remotely and organizations can operate virtually.

Many of us have been fortunate to be able to continue with our work despite the challenges presented by the Covid-19 lockdown.

For many employees, the lockdown has vindicated what they have been trying to tell their bosses all this time – that they can work from home and don’t need to come into the office every day and waste time in traffic.

But working from home has brought its own challenges. Few organizations have been designed to run virtually. Although technology has enabled the remainder of us to get by, the true power of virtual organizations has not been harnessed. In this article I explain why some bosses will be anxious to get everyone back into the office, and how some organizations have been able to master remote work.

Founder’s syndrome is a pathological pattern of behaviour that sometimes afflicts the founders of organizations. Management consultants colloquially refer to it as ‘founderitis’

Founder’s syndrome occurs when a strong-minded founder, who battled against odds to build an organization, ends up becoming its biggest constraint to growth.

I see it as an autoimmune disease that infects founders and consequently undermines the organizations that they worked hard to build. I encounter a new case of founder’s syndrome every couple of months in my consulting work.

In this article I’ll define founder’s syndrome and two ways of seeing it. I will also discuss how it is caused, its common symptoms, how it is treated and how to prevent it.

Recently, I have noticed that there seems to be a shortage of hope in the world.

Despite the incredible progress that we have made as a species, everything seems to be a mess. There are problems everywhere we look.

Yet despite these problems, we need hope to give meaning and direction to our suffering.

This article will reflect on the nature of hope and the three ingredients that constitute it. It will also consider what leaders can do to cultivate genuine hope (and not false hope) among their followers.