This is why your best people are quietly disengaging
What happens when employees lose trust in their organizations? In part one of this two-part conversation, Steph Peskett and Abi Scott unpack one of the biggest trends reshaping talent development: the erosion of trust and power. Drawing on original research and real client stories, they discuss how even well-intentioned policies can backfire—and what leaders can do to rebuild confidence, clarity, and connection across the workforce.
Most of us want to lead in a way that matters; to lift others up and build something people want to be part of.But too often, we’re socialized (explicitly or not) to lead a certain way: play it safe, stick to what’s proven, and avoid the questions that really need asking.
This podcast is about the people and ideas changing that story. We call them fearless thinkers.
Our guests are boundary-pushers, system challengers, and curious minds who look at today’s challenges and ask, “What if there is a better way?”If that’s the energy you’re looking for, you’ve come to the right place.
Find this episode on:
.svg)
Rick: Welcome to Fearless Sneakers, the BTS podcast. I’m your host, Rick Cheatham. Today we’re joined by Steph Peskett and Abi Scott. They’re two of our thought leaders in Australia who’ve done some great research into what talent management organizations should be focused on in 2025 and beyond. In this first episode, we’re gonna be looking at trust and power and what it takes to build those things within your organization.
And the second one, we’re gonna focus on human sustainability.
So, Abi, Steph, welcome to the show.
Abi: Hey Rick.
Steph: Thanks Rick.
Rick: So Steph, I’m curious, it’s been too long. What’s going on in your world?
Steph: Well, we’re just about to head into school holidays out here. So, um, everyone’s enjoying a little bit of an autumnal break.
Rick: Going into a little bit of a holiday, I am sure is nice to have on the horizon.
How about you, Abi?
Abi: Very similarly, Rick. So, heading into, um, holiday next week, my mom is over visiting from the. So, her first time seeing my new house, and she’s out here for three weeks.
Rick: Oh, wow. That’s amazing. I’m sure you guys will have a blast. Well, I guess we should probably jump right into it. I am so excited to share with our audience a little bit about the research you’ve done and what you found could actually move the needle for talent development organizations out there.
I guess probably the best place to start is just an overall summary of what you’ve learned.
Steph: Absolutely. Well, we were really excited to stop and pause at the end of last year and do a little bit of reflection of what was, and as we came into this year, think about what could be what is and we found that there were two principle trends.
One is in the area of trust and power. With employees in the space of your people strategy and, and how the felt experience is for people in their organizations. And the second area that we found fascinating that emerged from the work we’re doing and the research was around human sustainability. So how we create value for people and go well beyond the realms of things like wellbeing.
Abi was such a key part of this work, so I’m really keen to, to get her to expand on some of these ideas because there’s some really interesting things that she’s been sparring with me on around this and with many of our clients actually, right, Abi?
Abi: Yeah, that’s right. That’s right. And it’s interesting.
So Rick, when we looked at the research, what you know are other companies reporting as the trends for 2025? There could have been 20 of them, but we boiled it down to two that we see as really key and prevalent for our clients. Trusting power and human sustainability.
Rick: Yeah, the whole concept of trust is such.
A challenge I would think for organizations, especially right now where things are volatile and so many of us as leaders don’t even trust our own judgment. So how are we supposed to trust our organizations? So please kind of go a little deeper into that trust and power category.
Abi: Yes. In terms of trust, Rick, and you said, how do we trust our organizations?
It was interesting to see that statistics on trust. During COVID Trust was higher in organizations than it’s now. So, we’re talking about figures of, you know, around 80% during the pandemic, down to 69% now of how many employees trust their employer. And it’s really interesting, but also, you know, in a sense, really heartbreaking that during the pandemic, during COVID.
We tapped into being human, um, and the Corning each other, and, you know, all of the things that we did there really enhanced trust between the employee and the employer. And I think it was a two-way thing. You know, people were trusted to work from home and then that trust was returned. But you can see, you know, why haven’t we been able to maintain that?
What, what has dropped off since, since COVID? And interestingly, Rick, another just amazing statistic is that 82% of employees do not trust their manager to tell the truth. Yeah, there’s some pretty shocking statistics out there
Rick: that’s very, very surprising actually.
Abi: Well, as we’ve seen speaking to organizations, you know, a lot of them are not surprised by those numbers at all.
Steph: Perhaps that’s the most surprising thing of all. I think people understand that the ideas around trust and power, it feels dislodged right now since COVID, there are a lot of policies and approaches within the human capital area that, um, people are pulling back on. You know, people have made big lifestyle choices based on what they believe to be the agreement between them and their employer.
And so, it’s causing a lot of people, I think, to really question. What did I sign up for and did I sign up for this? And is this sustainable and, and so on. And of course, with the advent of ai, there was also some interesting stats where 50% of people actually trust AI more than an HR professional. So that’s a phenomenal statistic when we think about what’s coming and how.
Disrupted things are, but also how does that feel for people and what’s it like? So, there’s a lot of questions about authority and decision makers being trusted and that plays through into the talent strategies that organizations therefore adopt and some of the assumptions perhaps, that are playing into those talent strategies.
Rick: So, I want to just very quickly understand a little bit more about that last one that you threw out to me around. People trusting AI potentially more than they trust their manager ’cause on some level, as a leader, I tend to tell people, especially those who are further down in my organization, if you never tell me I’m wrong, you’re either lying or not paying attention.
So maybe it’s because people are like, yeah. She’s gonna sugarcoat it for me, or he’s just going to avoid conflict. Is that why they trust AI O? Is there something else underneath that that you found? I.
Steph: Yeah, I mean, I should clarify, they were talking specifically in that 50% stat about HR professionals. So, I think it’s speaking to our HR professionals to say, what’s the story?
I don’t think it’s the practitioners themselves, but I think we’ve been kind of automating and looking for efficiencies within HR functions for decades, right? So, it becomes less and less about the human being who supports you and more about the technology that enables you and the self-service options and things like that.
So, I think that’s simply a reflection of. Perhaps how the industry has changed rather than the practitioners themselves. But it is definitely that this idea of trust and power is playing straight into some of the talent strategies and causing some questions, I think to be asked about talent strategies and approaches.
Rick: And as it kind of relates to that one level, I guess I’d like to go deeper back to the whole conversation around how. People were trusting their employees more, uh, during and shortly after COVID than today. You know, a conversation that I hear quite frequently is, hey, we had to pivot towards our employee wellbeing first and foremost, and now we’ve gotta return to a.
Culture of accountability or something like that. And so, is what’s driving some of this challenge, people potentially going too far one way and then immediately trying to press the reset button and go too far the other way? Or is there something else here?
Abi: Hmm. Yeah. And I think it’s so interesting. I mean, you know, coming back from COVID.
With organizations encouraging people back into the office. There were organizations in Australia who were monitoring key cards and how often they were being tapped each week, but they didn’t tell employees that, so they didn’t know they were being monitored until they got a phone call. I. Saying, you know, you’re not doing enough days in the office.
And I think it’s just those small things right around, you know, that transparency of what is being measured and monitored and why. Most importantly, it was interesting just last week, right when we were doing this session with a client in a workshop format on the talent trends, and again, we were talking about trust.
And suddenly the moment that the penny dropped to this client when they said, oh, do you know what, we’ve been monitoring security cards because we need to understand how much office space we need for the future. And that’s the only reason why, but we didn’t tell people that. So, you know, we have kind of been secretly monitoring them in a big brother mode, and sometimes the intent, you know it is totally, totally fine, but it’s just not communicated to employees.
Equally, I think, you know, linking to that when we talk about transparency, um, we have a lot of conversations with clients around succession planning and identifying talent, identifying potential. And we are in this movement at the moment where people sort of know that that needs to become more transparent.
But again, it’s not there yet. So again, just an example of, you know, transparency and, and lack of trust in talent processes. Um, now I might be sat next to my colleague who’s going on 12 leadership courses a year. Maybe I’m going on none. We haven’t been told whether we’re high potential or not, but we could probably kind of work it out.
Rick: You know, even going to Texas Public Schools, I can do that math. Yeah. So, it, it is kind of that rule number one, don’t be creepy. We’re okay with social media being creepy, but we’re not okay with our employers being creepy. So that I can see why that transparency really, really matters to people and, and especially, you know, in those high potential, it’s like, hey, why is the rest of my peer group going to lunch with the founder and I’m answering the phones weather gone?
You know, those kinds of things.
Steph: The whole up the organization as well, right? The top of the organization with, with a client. End of last year, wasn’t it, Abi? And, you know, they were talking about this sort of disappointment and, um, frustration at the fact that, you know, they have, I primarily focused their job for the last five years on succession at the C-suite, the very top of the organization and, and next tier below.
But for some reason, when it comes to the actual replacements they were making at the end of last year, there’s still this sense that. Because it was internally developed, it’s not a good enough succession plan. And this sort of hunch that, that they weren’t quite the right people on the plan. And if we take it to a headhunter externally, oh, then it’s somehow more valid.
And the internal hires. That they’ve been building up towards that really didn’t get their day in the sun. And so yeah, there is a reality there that sort of says, how serious are we when we talk about trusting our internal talent processes when we talk about succession? And are our executives really trusting the process and putting it on the line.
Rick: It is interesting for, uh, three consultants to be sitting here talking about how people need to trust their own internal facts and data and people. Perhaps with an outside view, but I know that that’s also part of our own core beliefs that, uh, you know, the wisdom lives in the organization.
Steph: Totally and you know, Rick, like I had a career, before BTS inside organizations, so I’m a huge proponent to organizations feeling.
Empowered and having the intelligence be in the organization knocked by externals. And I think that that is so important to give people the space to examine internal and external mindsets that might be holding back the processes that they’re trying to drive and the vision they have for their people.
Rick: So, what else should we be thinking about when it comes to this trust and power trend? To ensure that, that we’re staying ahead and that we’re not in the case of the client that you spoke about earlier, even by mistake, compromising the trust of our teams.
Abi: Mm. Yeah. Great question. I think that’s a couple of pieces.
I think the first is, you know, when we look at a definition of talent and potential in an organization and the requirements for leadership roles, but both now and in the future, it’s okay to be transparent about that. It’s okay to tell and share with people what it takes in that organization. It’s okay to measure that in an objective way so that it is not just a subjective view of a leader around a person, you know, and whether they’re potential or not, because in measuring it, then everyone is on an equal playing field in terms of whether they might be deemed to be high potential or not.
And critically, if you’re transparent about it, you’re assessing it. It’s a two-way process. So that individual also needs to decide, do they want to be in the talent and succession plans of that organization? Is it the right point in their life, both personally and professionally? Does it align to their values?
Do they have the aspirations to do the work for what it’s gonna take to get there? Because again, we hear a lot of stories of these, the secret identification of potential and talent. Perhaps those individuals don’t want to go forward in the organization. They might wanna stay there. They might want to lateral, move into a different role, but maybe they don’t want that progression through to leadership.
And finally, Rick, it’s okay if talent changes. You know, there is a fear that if I tell somebody that they are potential or talent. What happens in a year’s time if they’re not, and again, maybe that’s okay, but it’s about transparency. Um, it’s about having the conversation, it’s about using the criteria and the assessment to just have a conversation with that individual around whether they are a fit and whether they continue to be, and then how the organizations can support them either way.
Steph: And I just add one final point on this whole thing, and you’ll see as we keep talking about the second trend, it kind of comes through that the very thing that is creating the disruption or we think is the problem, is also the solution. So, you know, the thing is, if we can create. A trusting organization, then it sort of begets trust, if you like.
And we know that the irony is all these, like we’ve talked about, the initiatives of having people come into the office, et cetera, but it is actually the freedom that they’re given that builds the trust. It is actually that freedom that. Builds the productivity. We know that trust in organizations is the strongest variable, influencing how energized people feel at work, their sense of thriving and their intent to stay.
It’s as simple as that. So, you know, I think we just need to make sure that it’s very clear to policy makers, to executives and people influencing the broader strategies within your people organization that. It is so much at the heart of this, and that means sharing power with employees
Rick: That’s great. Thank you for the clarity there ’cause I, I feel like those are. The kinds of things that we as leaders can actually impact within our own teams and drive our organizations towards shifting over time. Thanks for joining me today. It’s always a pleasure to bring to you our Fearless Thinkers. If you’d like to stay up to date, please subscribe.
Bios for our guest and links to relevant content are always listed in the show notes. If you’d like to get in touch, please visit us at bts.com and thanks so much for listening.
Related Content
We have more tools, technologies, and data than ever, yet talent challenges are only growing more complex.AI is reshaping how work gets done, shifting roles and the skills required. Remote and hybrid models continue to redefine how teams collaborate, lead, and build culture. Economic pressure is forcing organizations to do more with less, making talent efficiency a business necessity. And employee expectations are rising people want more purpose, growth, and flexibility than ever before.These shifts aren’t just complicating the landscape; they’re rewriting the rules.For years, talent operated one step removed, supporting strategy, but not shaping it. That worked when business was linear and predictable. Strategy was set at the top, cascaded down, and talent filled the gaps.But that world is gone.Today, strategy shifts in real time. You can’t launch a new go-to-market plan, integrate an acquisition, or drive cultural change without people who are aligned, capable, and ready to deliver. And that readiness can’t be an afterthought, it has to be future-back.That’s why a new kind of talent leadership is emerging, one that moves beyond standalone programs and focuses instead on building integrated systems. It’s a shift from reacting to problems to anticipating what the business will need next; from patching broken processes to designing for performance from the start.In this model, talent strategy is no longer fragmented. It becomes a connected ecosystem where hiring, development, performance, and culture work in sync, aligned to business priorities and built to deliver results. In this environment, integrated talent strategy isn’t just good HR, it’s how business gets done.
The AI revolution and its real-world talent application
AI is revolutionizing how organizations attract, develop, and retain talent. From automating performance reviews and job descriptions to enabling personalized career path development, the promise of AI is clear. However, many warn of a trough of disillusionment. Reality often falls short due to insufficient data, immature infrastructure, and misaligned objectives between business leaders, talent leaders and across functions. Without a clear problem definition, technology risks accelerating misalignment instead of solving meaningful challenges.Organizations must first define the outcomes they seek whether efficiency, insight, engagement, or growth before deploying technology solutions. As AI adoption expands, success will depend on whether organizations match the right tools to the right problems. Having the discipline to make this evaluation will be game-changing when it comes to delivering impact.
Skills-based organizations: substance or semantics?
The rise of skills-based models reflects both a desire for innovation and a rebranding of long-standing HR practices. While the framing may have shifted, the underlying work—job analysis, development planning, and performance alignment remains constant. Many of today’s talent challenges aren’t new; they’re longstanding issues being reframed under new labels.To move the conversation forward, leaders must avoid fixating on language and instead focus on what truly drives performance when it comes to talent models: clear role expectations, relevant development paths, and contextualized application of skills. Prioritizing the right core activities will deliver the talent performance you need, regardless of what it’s called.
Manager capability as the linchpin
The most innovative talent strategies still rely on a critical success factor: the people manager. Whether it’s performance enablement, development conversations, or cultural reinforcement, execution hinges on manager capability.. The success of most talent initiatives ultimately depends on whether managers are equipped to implement them effectively. Manager enablement is the operational layer that determines whether talent strategies deliver impact or stall. Managers also shape the day-to-day experiences that influence engagement, growth, and retention . Investing in scalable, practical, and embedded manager development is essential to unlock the potential of any talent system. Currently this remains a challenge to plan and execute in many companies, while some at the leading edge have leaned into this and are making progress. Looking forward, organizations that prioritize preparing their managers for delivering what’s next will yield more rapid results for the business.
Integrated talent management: moving from silos to systems
Gone are the days when talent functions could operate in isolation. Today’s organizations require an integrated approach that connects succession planning, workforce strategy, learning, performance, and employee experience. For business leaders, the structure of HR functions is secondary to receiving actionable guidance that accelerates hiring and performance outcomes.Achieving true integration means moving beyond siloed initiatives and building a connected system where talent strategies reinforce one another across data, design, and delivery. It’s not about where each piece sits, but how well they work together to deliver consistent, business-relevant outcomes. For example, when identifying successors for executive roles, the best organizations take a systemic approach. They leverage business leader input to nominate high-potentials based on a consistent set of standards. They add rigorous assessment of people and business capability (often using external support) to reduce bias, confirm potential for more complex roles, and identify gaps. They then employ tailored development, run in partnership among the business, talent, and learning with external support, to address identified gaps. This multi-faceted approach incorporates perspectives from the business and HR while leveraging best practices from inside and outside the company, and ties outcomes to business imperatives.
Bringing “Integrated Talent” to life in your organization
Integrated talent refers to the intentional alignment and coordination of all talent-related functions such as hiring, learning, succession, performance, rewards, and workforce planning under a unified strategy that directly supports business goals. Instead of fragmented programs running in parallel, integrated talent strategies are designed and executed as a cohesive system, with shared data, consistent language, and a focus on outcomes that matter to the organization. It’s about designing for the whole employee lifecycle, not just optimizing parts of it in isolation.The most effective partnerships, including those with consultants and external experts, often blur internal and external boundaries, delivering seamless support to business leaders.
Key recommendations for talent leaders to move to an integrated talent approach
So what does it take to lead effectively in this environment? Several key priorities are emerging:
- Understand the evolving business context: Start with a clear understanding of the organizational environment, where the business strategy is going, and the role of culture in supporting growth, before proposing solutions.
- Customize with purpose: Balance tailored approaches with scalable standards to drive consistency.
- Build your internal base: Credibility is built by understanding internal politics, brand sensitivities, and cultural norms.
- Elevate the employee experience: Amid ongoing disruption, meaning, purpose, and psychological safety are essential stabilizers. Make this a priority, and the business will follow.
- Build meta-skills: Leadership development must focus on adaptability, resilience, empathy, and systems thinking; the capacities needed to lead through complexity.
- Develop an enterprise mindset: Today’s talent leaders must be business-centric, fluent in financial and strategic conversations, and capable of integrating disparate talent functions to construct a coherent whole. They must translate data into compelling narratives and foster strong partnerships both within HR and across the enterprise.
Most importantly, talent leaders must see themselves not just as HR professionals, but as organizational architects, designing the systems, cultures, mindsets and experiences that enable growth.
Conclusion: Talent strategy integration isn’t a trend. It’s your edge.
The world of work is not simply changing. It is being fundamentally redefined. Integrated talent strategy is no longer a future aspiration; it is a current imperative. To deliver on this mandate, talent leaders must: align their strategies tightly with business priorities; build managerial capability at scale; and use technology with precision and discipline. They must create strong, trusted partnerships across internal and external boundaries, and focus on clarity over complexity. The siloed HR model has reached its limits. The future belongs to those who embrace integrated talent strategy as a core business driver.
AI is reshaping how work gets done—automating tasks, accelerating decisions, and raising expectations for speed and precision. Strategy is shifting faster than structures can adapt, leaving many leaders operating in systems that weren’t built for what’s being asked of them now. Employees are asking more of their managers—while the business is asking more of them, too. And leaders are stuck navigating it all with development priorities, operating norms, and support systems that weren’t designed for this level of speed, ambiguity, or stretch.
As expectations rise, leadership capability is under scrutiny.
But are development efforts evolving fast enough to meet the moment?
Where priorities and expectations diverge
Most leadership development programs today emphasize foundational strengths:
- Executive presence
- Personal purpose
- A growth mindset
- Empowering others
- Stretching others
In contrast, senior executives in the BTS study identified a different set of capabilities as most critical for leaders right now:
- Accountability
- Transparency
- Enterprise thinking
- Divergent thinking
The contrast reveals a disconnect between what development programs are building—and what executives believe their organizations need most from their leaders today.
How did we get here?
The expectations placed on leaders—especially at the middle—have always evolved alongside the business landscape.
In the 1990s, leadership development focused on emotional intelligence and team empowerment. The 2000s brought globalization and lean operating models, with a sharper focus on efficiency and agility. Then came digital transformation, agile ways of working, and flatter, more matrixed structures.
Each wave expanded the leadership mandate—asking leaders to become connectors, coaches, and change agents.
What’s different now is the pace and proximity of change. Strategy no longer shifts annually—it flexes monthly. And mid-level leaders are no longer simply executing someone else’s vision. They’re expected to interpret it, shape it, and deliver results through others—in real time.
At the same time, the psychological contract of work has changed. Employees want more meaning, flexibility, and support—and they often look to their managers to provide it. Add in the rise of AI and the frequency of disruption, and the expectations placed on leaders have outpaced what many development efforts were designed to support.
What’s driving the disconnect?
What we’re seeing isn’t disagreement—it’s a difference in vantage point, shaped by the distinct challenges each group is solving for. This isn’t about misaligned intent—it reflects different priorities and pressures.
Talent and learning teams often prioritize foundational capabilities because they’re proven, scalable, and critical to developing confident, human-centered leaders. These programs are designed to grow potential over time.
Executives, meanwhile, are focused on the immediacy of execution—strategy under strain, shifting priorities, and the need for alignment at speed. Their focus reflects where progress is stalling now.
Both perspectives matter. But when they remain disconnected, development risks falling out of sync with business reality—and the gap is most visible at the middle, where expectations are rising fastest.
What’s the takeaway for talent leaders now?
This moment offers more than a gap to close—it offers insight into how leadership needs are evolving.
What if the differences between these two capability lists aren’t in conflict, but in sequence? Foundational strengths help leaders show up with purpose and empathy. Enterprise capabilities help them lead across systems and ambiguity. The opportunity isn’t to choose between them—it’s to connect them more intentionally.
What’s uniquely now is the acceleration. The stretch. The pressure to reduce friction and support faster alignment. Talent leaders aren’t just being asked to build capability—they’re being asked to build momentum. That means designing development experiences that reflect complexity, enable cross-functional thinking, and help leaders decide and adapt in real time.
It also means listening more closely. The capabilities executives are calling for aren’t just wish lists—they’re signals. Signals of where transformation slows, and where leadership must evolve for strategy to move forward.
This isn’t about shifting away from what works—it’s about expanding it. To connect what leaders already do well with what the business needs next—and to do it in ways that are grounded, human, and built for today’s pace.
Shifting momentum
Leadership development isn’t just a pipeline priority. It’s a strategic lever for how your organization adapts, aligns, and accelerates through change.
This research doesn’t just reveal a skills gap—it surfaces a systems opportunity. The disconnect between talent priorities and executive expectations highlights where momentum gets lost, and how leadership development can close the space between vision and execution.
Talent leaders are uniquely positioned to reconnect the dots—between individual growth and enterprise outcomes, between what leaders learn and how they lead, between what the business says it needs and how that shows up in behavior.
So the next question isn’t just: What should we build?
It’s: How do we enable leaders to build it into the business—faster?
Every organization is navigating this differently. If you’re revisiting your development priorities or rethinking what leadership looks like in your context, let’s connect. We’re happy to share what we’re seeing—and learning—with others facing the same questions.
In late 2023, we set out to answer a question we kept hearing from clients:
How do you prepare for what’s next—when “next” keeps changing?
That question has only become more urgent in 2025. Today’s leaders are navigating rapid shifts—from AI’s integration into nearly every role to volatile markets and a growing disconnect between employee expectations and organizational readiness. Planning feels harder than ever—because the future keeps accelerating while our tools and assumptions stay anchored in the past.
Too often, strategic planning is built on outdated logic: start with what’s already in motion, layer on incremental improvements, and forecast trends forward. But in today’s environment, that approach isn’t just ineffective—it’s risky. It reinforces legacy thinking. It prioritizes what’s easy over what’s essential. And it creates strategies built for a version of the world that no longer exists.
That’s why we took a different approach. We gathered a team of I/O psychologists, academics, and senior talent leaders—not to react to trends, but to reimagine what the future of talent, leadership, and learning might truly demand.
To guide the process, we used a method we often apply with clients: future-back thinking.
What is future-back thinking?
Future-back thinking flips traditional strategy. Rather than starting with today’s constraints, it begins with a bold vision of future success—and works backward to define what it will take to get there.
This approach helped us look past short-term pressures and surface deeper signals. It made the future feel more actionable—and more human.
It also reminded us why innovation is so rare: Most organizations are wired to protect what’s familiar. We prioritize feasibility, optimize what exists, and assume continuity. In uncertain times, we tweak around the edges instead of reimagining what’s possible.
Future-back thinking breaks that cycle. It turns ambiguity into alignment—and strategy into design.
It starts with a better question:
What will the future demand—and what will we wish we’d done sooner?
Because it’s not about being right. It’s about being ready.
Five bold predictions—and how they became reality
When we applied future-back thinking to the future of talent and learning, five provocative themes emerged. Each was grounded in signals we were already starting to see—but at the time, they felt ambitious.
We captured them in our original blog, Navigating the New Dawn of Talent Strategy—a look at what might shape how organizations attract, develop, and lead talent over the next 3–5 years.
Now, just two years later, those signals have become strategy. Here’s how the predictions stack up against today’s reality:
1. Skills × jobs (the remix)
Then: We predicted that rigid job architectures would give way to more fluid, capability-based models—ones that reflect how people actually grow and how business needs evolve.
Now: That shift is well underway. Many organizations have begun redesigning roles around transferable skills and capabilities, creating more dynamic paths for growth, mobility, and performance.
2. AI-powered learning
Then: We anticipated GenAI would unlock personalized, real-time learning at scale, integrated into the flow of work.
Now: GenAI is now embedded in many organizations’ learning ecosystems—powering smart coaching, adaptive learning paths, and knowledge retrieval in the flow of work.
3. Diversity as differentiation
Then: We forecasted a shift from DEI as a compliance mandate to DEI as a core driver of innovation, adaptability, and growth.
Now: High-performing organizations are building cognitive and cultural diversity into teams, treating it as a strategic advantage—not a checkbox.
4. AI as a leadership partner
Then: We imagined a future where AI would augment—not replace—leaders, supporting better decisions, planning, and communication.
Now: That’s exactly what’s happening. Leaders are using AI to model scenarios, synthesize insights, and communicate with more speed and clarity.
5. Decentralized, human-centric leadership
Then: We projected leadership would decentralize, moving closer to the front line and defined by mindset more than title.
Now: Leading organizations are scaling leadership behaviors across levels and embedding psychological safety, inclusion, and empowerment into day-to-day work.
These predictions weren’t about chasing trends. They were about imagining what the future might require—and preparing for it before it arrived.
That’s the power of future-back thinking: it doesn’t just forecast change. It helps leaders design for it.
Start thinking differently now
Most strategic plans start by looking around—at what exists, what’s already in motion, what feels feasible. But the brain doesn’t just collect data. It builds habits. It channels information into familiar paths. And it reinforces what it already knows.
That’s good for speed. But bad for imagination.
Future-back thinking challenges that. It deliberately disrupts those neural paths. Instead of adjusting today’s structures, it starts at the endpoint: a bold future state. Then it reverse-engineers the shifts required to get there.
This shift—from refining the familiar to reimagining what’s possible—is what organizations need now.
Here are three provocations to help you start:
- What assumptions are we treating as facts? The most dangerous limits are the ones we no longer see.
- What would someone from a completely different world do? (A customer, a child, Beyoncé?) Try role-storming to unlock new angles.
- What if we had no legacy systems to maintain—what would we build from scratch? Imagine a blank slate.
These questions aren’t just creative warm-ups. They help you unstick your strategy from old grooves—and build what’s essential.
Because in a world that’s constantly changing, the biggest risk isn’t getting it wrong. It’s staying stuck.
How BTS helps leaders and teams think beyond today
Our brains—even at their most capable—get stuck in “rivers of thinking,” defaulting to what feels safe instead of what the future demands.
At BTS, we help organizations break that cycle.
Future-back thinking is more than a framework—it’s a provocation. A way to disrupt habitual planning, reframe challenges, and design from a place of possibility.
We work with leaders and teams to:
- Break from old patterns by surfacing the assumptions quietly guiding decisions
- Align around vivid, future-state scenarios that challenge status-quo thinking
- Role-storm bold ideas into strategic options that unlock creativity
- Simulate future decisions to build confidence and agility
- Build the mindsets and capabilities your strategy requires
Because the real risk isn’t change. It’s standing still.
Too often, organizations invest time and energy planning for a version of the world that no longer exists. They reinforce legacy mindsets, delay bold moves, and miss the moment.
Future-back thinking offers a way out. It gives leaders a structured way to reimagine what’s possible, align teams around the future, and start building toward it—now.
Let’s build what’s next—together. Learn how we help organizations prepare for the future.
lorem ipsum
lorem ipsum
lorem ipsum
lorem ipsum
lorem ipsum
lorem ipsum
lorem ipsum
lorem ipsum
.avif)
lorem ipsum
In the rapidly evolving business landscape, the CHRO role continues to be indispensable for organizational success. According to a recent Accenture survey, 89% of CEOs believe CHROs should have a central role in driving long-term growth, highlighting the increasing recognition of HR’s impact on organizational performance and culture. However, only 45% of those CEOs are creating the conditions to allow CHROs to have an impact.
lorem ipsum
Effective leadership in today’s complex world of work demands adaptability, a people-centric approach, and a commitment to ethical practices and continuous learning.
lorem ipsum
All too often, talent calibration is a highly political process. What can HR professionals do to improve this process and its results?
lorem ipsum