Archive for the ‘Organization’ Category

HR Tech and the OD practitioner

Posted: October 31, 2016 by Matthew Hanwell in Change, OD, Organization, Technology, Uncategorized


Blog Post by: Ian Gee

In this blog I want to continue to explore why Carole and I believe it is critical for OD practitioners to engage with Tech, be involved with its development and find ways of incorporating it into our practice. In her last blog Carole mentioned the lack of visibility of OD practitioners at the recent HR Tech World Congress and expressed concern, that we might be coming late to the party and ultimately miss out. I believe not only will we miss out if we fail to fully engage with Tech, we will see a continuation of the abysmal figure of 70% of all OD initiatives failing.


The combination of newly available technology, shifting workplace demographics and changes to the political landscape are the biggest drivers of change we face. You could argue this has always been the case. What has shifted is the pace at which these are moving forward. This presents immense challenges to us as OD practitioners.


We have chosen to focus on Tech both because of the speed of change and its potential to impact the very nature of work and our relationship with it. Yet, this seems to be the least explored area from an OD point of view. In terms of how it impacts on our practice, how we can leverage it to enable faster and more impactful change and how potentially it will change the practice of OD in ways that we can hardly yet understand. However, we believe that critically there is an interaction between demographics and change that we need to understand first before we look at how Tech will both change and enhance what we do.


We can track the development of OD approaches in terms of the dominant generation in the workplace and the dilemmas they bring with them as they enter the world of organisations. I think Baby Boomers have struggled with the dilemma of organisations being either about social control, conformity etc., or a place for self-liberation and freedom of expression. This led to OD ideas like NTL, T Groups, change agents, action research, Appreciative Inquiry, Future Search, etc.


To my mind, Gen X struggle with the dilemma of organisations being about efficiency and effectiveness, versus their need for security and a sense of place. This has led to them dismissing a lot of the ‘boomer type’ interventions as fluffy, soft stuff and consequently moved OD to OE with interventions such Six Sigma, Agile, Lean, re/engineering, Quality Circles etc.


Gen Y, who are relatively new to the workplace, I think carry the dilemma of desperately wanting to be part of the herd and yet at the same time wanting organisations to recognise ‘the specialness of me!’ As OD practitioners I don’t think we have not fully understood the implications of this, or the kinds of interventions that will resonate with them.   However, examples such as tech led reorganisations to drive down cost and increase efficiency, workplace communities and structuring for the gig economy all come to mind.


I don’t think we yet know what dilemmas Gen Z will be trying to work out in organisations or the kinds of OD that will work for them. As a best guess, I think it will be something about the move from backpack to briefcase being ‘always on and connected’ 4D thinking and a need for depth and focus. What kinds of OD work will resonate with this group goodness knows? However, I am willing to place a large bet that Tech, HR or otherwise will be at the heart of it! To be considered as relevant to Gen Z not only will we need all the skills we currently have but also to be able to demonstrate a true depth understanding of Tech in and outside of the workplace.


As Gen Y and Gen Z start to be the dominate generations in the workplace and given their facility with all things Tech, I believe it is critical that as OD practitioners we fully understand such things as Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality and Serious Gaming. Without this we will most certainly be considered old fashioned and of limited relevance by them. Our understanding needs to encompass not only what they are, but how we can make use of them to enable sustainable and impactful change. We need to understand the ‘what it is’ and to be able to help shape ‘what it might become’. My friend Alberto Torres has written an interesting blog about the differences between AI and VR that you can find here

As we continue these blogs we will explore in more detail what these technologies are and what we think they offer to the world of OD. We will look at Tech in the widest possible sense. Imagining a world where OD practitioners having coding skills, or a good understanding of them and be the kind of professionals who can work as equals with Tech specialists to develop ‘OD algorithms’ and co-develop apps and other forms of Tech we can use in our practice.

If you are already working in this way and incorporating any of these possibilities in your OD practice it would be great to hear what you have been doing and the impact, positive or negative it has had on the outcomes of your work.



By Ian Gee

I am sure we have all noticed the rise of mosher led microbreweries, hipster bakeries, nipster furniture makers, craft kids and DIYer upcycling shops! To me these all represent a resurgence and delight in artisan products, services and ways of working.  In most towns and cities these new types of businesses, led by urban tribes, are springing up and doing rather well.  Consumers seem willing to pay a premium to know where their products come from, how staff are treated and to feel that they are receiving something hand crafted and special. I would also argue that by supporting artisans, they are consciously or unconsciously feeling part of a movement.  There is a sense, that by buying from small local craft producers, they are having a bit of a ‘stick it to the man’ moment!

As someone who grew up in the 60’s I find this really interesting.   Throughout the last century having things from large companies was all the rage and a sign that you and your family were successful, letting go of the past and embracing modernity.  Things from large corporations had a shiny, bright and new glamour to them.  As opposed to hand-crafted items, which were dull, old fashioned and boring.  A sign of being stuck in the past and not getting with the programme!   We trusted the ‘big brands’ to deliver quality, efficiency and effectiveness at a good price.

From my experience the only interest in hand crafted goods tended to be the things that people brought back from their overseas holidays.  So the fancy sangria jug, or the Neolithic looking mortar and pestle brought home as a reminder of a lovely summer holiday.  I have a friend of Greek heritage and he told me how in the 70’s and 80’s when his Greek family visited the UK they would bring a lot of their ‘peasant, artisan goods’ to give to friends and family and then rush to Woolworths to fill their suitcases with Tupperware to take back home as gifts for friends!  The gifts they brought were kept on display as symbols of exoticism and ‘conversation starters’.  They were certainly never used!

To me the subtext is that in today’s market place artisan products and services are perceived to be more ‘truthful’, real and authentic than those offered by the big brands.  They are sold as less likely to be built on the sands of possible corruption or stir up feelings of ethical dilemmas.  They are local, shaped and crafted by the ‘horny handed sons and daughters of the soil’!  I think this evidences a strong desire to experience things on a much more human scale and to be able to look into the eye of the person who has produced what we are consuming.  When we buy from an artisan, we feel, rightly or wrongly, that we know what we are getting and through the economic exchange are forming a relationship, no matter how transitory, with our locality and in many cases with a particular community.

What on earth has the last 500+ words got to do with OD, I hear you muttering?!  Well, given consumers desire for a more artisan, transparent, local relationship with producers what would a more artisan like approach to OD look like?  Here are a few thoughts of the top of my head.

Artisan OD might include:

  • Small teams of people doing things in a very transparent way that people understand. Most likely working within their direct or immediate locality so they feel they know them
  • Practitioners who have an obvious passion for their trade and craft; making money being secondary to their vocation
  • A practice with a very evident set of skills and abilities, with no mystery or ‘behind the curtain’ type activities
  • A sense that anyone can do Artisan OD, if they are willing to put in the 10K hours to practice, practice, practice and more practice
  • The fact that the excitement and glamour is not in the power of association (how many OD practitioners have you heard bragging that they only work with C Suite executives, having lots of BIG clients, etc., ) but rather in the fact that you are using your craft to make an obvious difference at a local level and by association to the world
  • No checklists (the top 5 tips for employee engagement, the 8 things you need to do for successful culture change, the 7 things to change in order to be the change you want to be….) and not aphoristically driven (‘Change before you have to’ “Out there in some garage is an entrepreneur who’s forging a bullet with your company’s name on it.”…) but personalised, bespoke, connected, locality based, authentic and real.

I have lots more ideas, but before I share them, over to all of you my fellow OD, Artisan or otherwise, let me know what you think?  What do we need to do to become the new tribe in the HR world?!

Commercialism – TINA for Public Services?

Posted: January 30, 2016 by Matthew Hanwell in Change, OD, Organization, Uncategorized


By Ian Gee – cross posted from: Albany OD

Perma-austerity’, is what some are calling the new world the public sector finds itself in. Budget reductions and the need to reshape services has led to many public sector organisations exploring how they can operate in a more commercial way. Being more commercial appears to holds out the possibility of generating additional income, raising levels of efficiency and effectiveness, securing inward investment and creating a thriving local economy. It also offers the possibility of keeping services, often in a reshaped form, that would otherwise be lost as part of a package of cuts.

During my consultancy assignments at Albany OD it is very common to hear leaders say “We want our managers to be more commercial, entrepreneurial and business-like”. However as they talk, it becomes clear that no one should underestimate the challenge becoming more commercial, in a public sector context, presents to organisations and those that work in them.

Whatever it means in theory, in practice it means a massive, step change in the way public services think about themselves and how they do business. It also changes the way in which we, as consumers, are likely to experience the services they provide. Commercialism challenges current models of leadership, management and employment. Ultimately, for good or ill, it is likely lead to new types of organisations delivering reshaped and transformed public services.

I have heard of some interesting commercial experiments. I know of local authorities that are trading most of their services. So for example; the local dog wardens will provide, for a fee, advice on dog nutrition or safety around dangerous dogs, an authorities secretariat, for a fee, will provide services such as agenda setting, minute taking etc. for your AGM and revenue services providing a ‘no win no fee’ debt collection service for individuals and businesses. I know of cases where a local authority maintenance service has raised income by offering its service, for a fee, to employees for home repairs and an authority that as well as carrying out road maintenance will also tarmac your drive for a fee. Other authorities are ‘land banking’ outside of their area and in one case an English local authority is buying and letting industrial units in Wales.

Many people find the idea of commercialism threatening. It raises concerns about cuts, organisational change and job losses. Some fear it will challenge their personal values and commitment, others fear it will devalue their professional ethos and status. It also raises questions about the way services are organised and delivered and the people who are leading and delivering them. Do the organisations have the kind of culture, values and beliefs that will allow them to operate successfully in the commercial world? Do public sector employees have the skills, capacity and capability to work in this new way? Previously I have written about the challenges of bringing entrepreneurialism into organisations and I think this applies equally to commercialism in the public sector. If you want to read more about this you can find my latest writing here.

From an OD point of view it is not just a case of ‘lets close down the organisation and reopen, in a more commercial way, in 3 months time’! This is a change that has to happen whilst continuing to deliver excellence to local communities. I would describe it as like retooling a space rocket whilst on the way to Mars! Another way in which some organisations are approaching this issue is to recruit staff from the private sector, in the hope that they will somehow shift the culture and bring about the change. Whilst bringing in skills may be a good idea, the risk here is that you are working on an assumption that your current staff don’t have any of the skills needed and also you run the danger of ‘Tall Poppy Syndrome’. That is those people brought in are considered special and treated as such and this breeds resentment across the rest of the organisation.

At Albany OD we have been giving this a lot of thought. We believe that getting the right kind of OD plans and actions in place is absolutely critical if public services are to reap the rewards of greater commercialism and at the same time avoid the pitfalls. OD has a part to play in the work needed both before commercialism decisions are made as well as in supporting successful implementation once plans are in place. To find out more about our thinking you can look here.

You will no doubt have noticed that I have not taken a stance on whether or not I think public services being more commercial is a good idea or not. I do believe that were it not for the current economic climate, the idea of a more commercial public sector would be seen as a distraction from the organisations core mission. However I do believe that the current move towards a more commercial public sector, if it is managed in the right way, can be seen as an exciting way of renewing the public sector and potentially lead to both exciting career opportunities and a much more engaged way of working with the public these organisations are designed to serve.

It would be great to hear what you think about this and any examples you have of where a more commercial approach is paying dividends as well as where it has gone wrong. This will help us to learn from each other and develop new ideas as to how OD might help move the agenda forward and increase the chances of success.





Cross posted from

We continue to use the same structures and organize work in the same way as we have for decades, but is there a more effective way to benefit from our collective intelligence?

The way in which we organize work has pretty much remained unchanged for more than 100 years, despite the transformation that we are all experiencing and the fact that we are now in a knowledge-based digital age.

Work is still organized largely by hierarchy and department, much as it was in the early industrial era. Employers continue to use these structures automatically by default, without thinking or considering what other options might be available.

What if we stop and think, pause to consider how we might accomplish our objectives in another way, and think about how we might be able to tap into more of the collective intelligence available both inside and outside of our organizations?

Working without limits

It makes sense to use hierarchy to organize repeatable work, such as payroll or compliance services, because these are areas of business that rely on certainty and predictability. They are also typically repetitive activities where any variation needs to be carefully planned, tightly controlled, monitored and recorded.

However, organizing work in hierarchy limits creativity, innovation and the opportunity for the unexpected, and more than 75% of the work of most organizations does not require hierarchy as the dominant organization form.

Hierarchy may be sufficient to get the job done, but it may not be necessary. By making hierarchy our “default choice”, intentionally or otherwise, we limit the possibility of achieving better outcomes and results, and raising the engagement of employees.

Seeking alternatives

Many academics, management gurus and operational development practitioners have, in the last few years, been calling for a review of how we organize the way we work.

They have been looking for alternative ways of organizing that will unleash the holy grail of employee engagement, increase discretionary effort and create organizations where people feel able to work to the best of their capabilities.

This has included exploring how to make project management more agile and lean, introducing ideas about matrix organizations and even exploring “intrapreneurship”, which aims to bring into the workplace the kind of culture and work practices that are present in start-ups.

One way of working that is under-explored and underused is that of the workplace community.

Workplace communities

By workplace communities, we mean a structured and planned way by which people have the opportunity to contribute and work outside of the traditional hierarchy, silos and matrices that exist within the organization. Engaging with each other in very different ways can create extraordinary results for the business.

In our experience, most organizations are laced with communities, however, these mainly remain small, often invisible and hampered by a lack of explicit support and license.

In the increasingly knowledge-based economy, our knowledge, thoughts, ideas, creativity, innovation and our willingness to share and collaborate are critical for creating value for organizations and the individuals who work for them.

Workplace communities provide a way to tap into this collective intelligence, engage people in a common sense of purpose and provide the opportunity for unleashing intrapreneurship across the organization.

Break down barriers

Imagine a workplace where people are not bound by departmental barriers, a place where employees feel a commitment to the whole organization and not just their department.

Here, we have employees who see the organization “in the round” and feel that their contribution makes a difference, despite this not being part of their job description, or annual tasks and targets.

This is the kind of workplace where people feel such a strong sense of community that being a partisan is not an option.

We believe that workplace communities, if implemented with diligence and care, can unleash latent talent, capability and capacity in the organization, and in doing so have a positive affect on business results and employee engagement.

We are increasingly living and working in a multi-generational, digital, knowledge-based, global workplace, enabled by the internet and social media.

Not only do we believe that the current workforce is looking for new ways of working and achieving, but we also know, from our research, that the generations entering the workplace, Gen Y or the Net Gen (“Gen Z”), are looking for a different relationship between them and their work, one that is not bound by the traditions of those that have gone before them.

They have grown up with the web and associated technology and are expecting to experience the kind of freedoms, connections and opportunities for both business and personal achievement that is available in all other aspects of their lives.

Strike a bargain

Workplace communities do not come about by accident, they require intentionality.

You need to establish a clear understanding of what you are aiming to do, developing both a “plausible promise” and what the “bargain” is for both employees and the organization as a whole.

You need to develop an initiation plan, as well as review what current communication and collaboration tools and technology you have available.

You also need to understand the stages that a workplace community goes through, what to do if it gets stuck and how to measure its effectiveness.

Workplace communities are not the “holy grail” of work organization, but we believe that by starting to utilize them you will shift your thinking and that of your employees.

In doing so, this will provide you with the opportunity to take a fresh look at how work is undertaken and the opportunity to create the “future of work” in your own organization


Ian Gee and Matthew Hanwell are the co-authors of “The workplace community: A guide to releasing human potential and engaging employees   Find out more about the book here.


Have you ever seen the Canadian TV programme “Saving Hope”?  The main character is Dr Charlie Harris, Chief Surgeon of Hope Zion Hospital in Toronto.  He is in a coma following a car crash.  Whilst unconscious his spirit walks the halls of the hospital and helps the spirits of others who are also in comas or have recently died.  You are probably wondering what on earth the connection is between disembodied spirits and intrapreneurship?  Read on and you will see!

I have met and worked with a number of intrapreneurs during my 30 plus years working as an Organisation Development practitioner.  My experience is that many of them are like the poor souls Dr Charlie tries to help!  The halls of the organisations seem to be full of the spirits of intrapreneurs, walking round trying to influence things, but finding it incredibly difficult to be heard and to do the job they were brought in to do.

I have recently co-authored a book titled The Workplace Community  “A guide to releasing human potential and engaging employees.” Central to the book is an exploration of how we choose to organise the way we work.  In the book my co-author and I examine 4 different ways of working; hierarchy, project or programme management, workplace communities and intrapreneurial ways of working.  We believe hierarchy is a ‘default position’ for most people and organisations.  By default position, we mean most people choose to work hierarchically without even considering other options, a bit like computers in the ‘olden days’ that defaulted to the ‘c’ drive as soon as you turned them on.

There is nothing wrong with hierarchy per se and certainly for some activities it is the best way of working.  However I believe that about 75% of the work we do could be organised more effectively using one of the other modes mentioned above. The problem with hierarchy is that it tends to drive out innovation and creativity and I believe is particularly incompatible with intrapreneurial activities.  Successful hierarchy rests upon predictable behaviour, people knowing their place, decisions moving up and down the line, risk aversion and change being planned and programmed. Intrapreneurialism is more chaotic, opportunistic and risk driven. It relies on what a hierarchy is likely to consider unusual and unnecessary connections, making links and forming networks across silos and lines.  All of this is an anathema in a hierarchical organisation.

Intrapreneurship offers organisations the opportunity to raise the level of innovation and bring fresh new thinking that has the possibility of leading to new ideas, opportunities and innovations.  However when initiated in organisations wedded to hierarchy, as their dominant way of working, it is far too easy for the corporate antibodies to emerge, hunt down, attack and kill intrapreneurship stone dead and lead to the syndrome of ghosts in the hall I mentioned above.  Hierarchy finds it difficult to tolerate difference.

It is very easy for organisations to jump on the intrapreneurship bandwagon without thinking through how they need to shift their culture and ways of working in order to maximise the benefit that it offers and not kill it stone dead before it has a chance to deliver.  To do this they need an OD plan that will help them make appropriate shifts and changes to their organisation that will allow intrapreneurship to flourish and deliver.

One way of achieving this is through experimenting with workplace communities and using these experiments as a way of preparing the organisation for intrapreneurship.  By a workplace community I don’t mean people sitting round waiting for their turn with the talking stick!  What I mean is a structured and planned way by which people have the opportunity to work outside of traditional hierarchies and silos. Engaging with each other in new and different ways and as a consequence creating extraordinary results.  In our increasingly knowledge based economy, what we all know, our thoughts, ideas, creativity, innovation and willingness to share and collaborate, are critical for creating value for organisations and the individuals who work for them.

Community ways of working provide organisations with a way to tap into collective intelligence, engage people in a common sense of direction and in doing so provide the opportunity for unleashing individual and collective innovation. As such they are a good way of preparing the organisation for intrapreneurship.  Readying the ground and acting as a form of organisational interferon, stopping the corporate antibodies from killing intrapreneurship and leading to less ghost walking the corporate halls!

The OD Geek?

Posted: June 5, 2014 by Ian Gee in Human Resources, OD, Organization, Technology, Uncategorized


After reading an intriguing and slightly disturbing article, Silicon Valley an army of geeks and ‘coders’ shaping our future in the Observer a couple of weeks ago I was left wondering if there is such a thing as an OD Geek?  By Geek I mean someone who is inspired to work, often on their own, for long hours, with great intensity, working out solutions to organisation problems and making money along the way?

As I read the article a couple of things leapt out at me, firstly: “The phrase you hear everywhere is innovate or die.”  I don’t think I have ever heard this kind of imperative within the OD world.  Have you? The second bit that leapt out was:

“…And an army of…   coders…who are progressively recasting the human environment in their own image, forcing the rest of us to adapt to this radically reconfigured landscape in the only way possible: by becoming … more … like … them”

This got me wondering if there are any OD practitioners working in Silicon Valley, or other ‘Silicon’ places around the world, who are supporting and enabling this?    I know that many of the established High Tech organisations mentioned in the article have very good OD teams – during my time with Nokia I met many of these people both in California and elsewhere.  I just wonder if there are any OD people working more generally and probably, as freelance consultants, with the much smaller startups and or helping individual geeks and entrepreneurs with things like business ideation or thinking through how to develop the kind of organisation that will help carry their ideas to fruition?  Again if anyone has any experience of this, it would be great if you could share them with us.  I would be curious to know what it’s like working with them, how did you gain entry and what kinds of issues do you find yourself working on?

I know from my research with Dee Ortner exploring the relationship between Entrepreneurs and HR/OD, that gaining entry in the start up space for OD practitioners is very difficult.  I am assuming this is also true when working with Geeks.  We found that this was for many reasons, that can best be summarised as entrepreneurs not understanding the value add of OD or HR and their being unwilling to spend money on something they believe they can get from friends and family. My guess is this will hold true for geeks as well.  I believe that we OD practitioners have to take some responsibility for this.  I don’t think we have been very good at showing how we can make a difference in this space and developing pricing models that make it a good deal for both the entrepreneur as well as the practitioner.

It would be really good to hear your thoughts an ideas about both working with geeks and what your thoughts are on becoming and OD Geek!


Now for bit of news:

As well as continuing to run Edgelands Consultancy I have gone into business with two very good friends and former work colleagues from my time in Local Government, Carole Grimwood and Alan Warner.  We have formed a new business called Albany OD Do take a look at our website.  I will be cross posting my blogs to the website from now on.



Firstly thank you all so much for your great comments and reflection on my last blog post! Matthew and I would also like to thank you for your kind words about the book and suggestions regarding the title. After a lot of thought and discussion we have now agreed with the publisher the following title:

The Workplace Community

A guide to releasing human potential and engaging employees

What do you think?

Since my last post the publishers have come back to us and said they would like to publish the book in November this year, rather than January 2015, so its been all go to get it ready for their first edit in May. We will keep you posted as to how things develop and move forward. Now onto this months blog poast….

In the last week or so I have been mulling on the nature of sponsorship and what it means in todays organisations. This all started when a good friend of mine took on the challenge of walking 26 miles for a UK breast cancer charity and was seeking sponsorship. My friend’s family has encountered breast cancer more than once and so this is a cause close to her heart. Over the years she has raised a fair amount of money for charity by running or walking or some such other activity. Of course I will be sponsoring her. I am very happy to support her and applaud the energy and effort she is putting into this. Walks like this don’t just happen; they require a lot of training and preparation.

All of this got me mulling on the nature of sponsorship and the link between sponsorship and the actions they support. As I mulled, I started to wonder what if my friend had just asked me for money for breast cancer, without the need for her to train and then walk 26 miles? Would I have given it to her? My answer was yes, of course I would. She is a good friend and I would help her and support causes that matter to her, no matter what.

I am sure there are a number of academic studies that explore what we get out of doing things for charity, including sponsorship. I can guess that these include feeling close to a cause or issue that is important to us, a sense of doing good, being part of a group that is doing something about something or engaging in what Richard Titmus called a ‘Gift Relationship”

This then led me onto thinking about the role of sponsorship in OD.   Many years ago when I did my first OD training I remember my teachers and mentors talking about the need for proactive sponsorship in any change or OD initiative. Making sure you have sponsors aligned and fully on-board. They also explained how more OD initiatives fail because of a lack of effective sponsorship, with one of the worst examples of being ‘The case of the Disappearing Sponsor’. This always sounded like the title of an Agatha Christie novel to me! It happens where you have, most usually, a senior leader who is sponsoring your change. They are all enthusiastic and excited but what you don’t know is they suffer from some form of OD ADD. This means that at some point they get bored with your initiative and move on to the next juicy item on their agenda. In doing so, they take the wind out of the sales of the project and though things may stumble on for a while they usually grind to a halt.

I decided to have a look at the dictionary definition of sponsorship. All the definitions said that sponsorship is about money being paid for an event in return for advertising., for example, BP sponsoring the annual portrait competition at the National Gallery in London and Royal Dutch Shell sponsoring Ferrari worldwide.

This made me wonder if this is where we are going wrong in OD, not clearly linking the sponsorship of OD, change and transformation initiatives, tightly enough to executive reward? The executive reward could be directly linked to their tasks and targets and performance appraisal. Or it could be more psychological based? But whatever it is, it needs to be something that ties the reward element in as clearly, visibly and publically a way as the sponsors supporting large-scale events. The kind of events where individuals and corporations fight to have their names associated with them, because they know it is good for them and their company. Perhaps we need sponsors of OD projects who fight to be seen as an active sponsor in the same way?

Maybe its time for folks like us to explore and open up the debate about the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards of OD sponsorship and develop ways of including this more explicitly as part of our consultancy conversations? This would need to be both at the start of any OD project as well as at critical times during the transformation or change process. Mind you, I am not advocating that as OD consultants we suddenly start dressing like the man in the picture at the top of this blog! Can you imagine it? Lots of personal logos and badges with the CEO, CFO, EVP of HR and this and that on our jump suits! But may be if that helps…..! Perhaps its our new uniform. I have often wondered if OD had a uniform what would it look like?!

So what do you think? Have you ever found yourself having an Agatha Christie moment hunting for the disappearing sponsor? What have you done to get them back or stop this happening in the first place? Be good to hear.