South Africa unemployment rate hits new record high

Stats SA has published its latest Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QFLS) for the second quarter of  2021, showing the country’s unemployment rate has risen to another record high.

The results show that the number of employed persons decreased by 54,000 in the second quarter of 2021 to 14.9 million. The number of unemployed persons increased by 584,000 to 7.8 million compared to the first quarter of 2021, Stats SA said.

The number of discouraged work-seekers increased by 186,000 (5.9%) and the number of people who were not economically active for reasons other than discouragement decreased by 571,000 (4.5%) between the two quarters resulting in a net decrease of 386,000 in the not economically active population.

These changes resulted in the official unemployment rate increasing by 1.8 percentage points from 32.6% in the first quarter of 2021 to 34.4% in the second quarter of 2021 – the highest since the start of the QLFS in 2008.

The unemployment rate according to the expanded definition of unemployment increased by 1.2 percentage points to 44.4% in quarter 2 2021 compared to the first quarter of 2021.

To better understand the observed large changes in the key labour market indicators between Q1: 2021 and Q2: 2021, Stats SA said that special tabulations were done to study movements between labour market status categories.

It was observed that a large number of persons moved from the “employed” status and “not economically active” to “unemployed” categories between the two quarters, which resulted in an increase of 1.8 percentage points in the unemployment rate to 34.4%.

However, the labour force participation rate was also higher in Q2: 2021 as compared to Q1: 2021 as a result of these movements – increasing by 1.1 percentage points to 57.5%, Stats SA said.

The absorption rate decreased by 0.3 of a percentage point to 37.7% in the second quarter of 2021 compared to the first quarter of 2021.


The number of employed persons decreased in three of the 10 industries, with the largest decrease recorded in finance (278,000), followed by community and social services (166,000) and manufacturing (83,000).

The largest increases in employment were recorded in construction (143,000) and trade (108,000).

Compared to the same period last year, a net increase of 793,000 in total employment in Q2: 2021 was largely due to gains in the number of people employed in the private households (189,000), community and social services (157,000), construction (156,000) and trade (140,000) industries.


Published by BusinessTech | 24 August 2021

Breaking down the Quarterly Labour Force Survey unemployment figures

Breaking down the Quarterly Labour Force Survey unemployment figures for the 2nd Quarter into provincial statistics, provides us with the following figures. The Eastern Cape is unfortunately leading in both the official unemployment and expanded unemployment numbers:

SA’s official unemployment rate = 34.4%
SA’s expanded unemployment rate = 44.4%

Eastern Cape
* Official unemployment rate = 47.1%
* Expanded unemployment rate = 53.0%

Free State
* Official unemployment rate = 36.5%
* Expanded unemployment rate = 45.2%

* Official unemployment rate = 35.4%
* Expanded unemployment rate = 42.7%

North West
* Official unemployment rate = 35.2%
* Expanded unemployment rate = 46.9%

* Official unemployment rate = 35.2%
* Expanded unemployment rate = 46.5%

* Official unemployment rate = 32.5%
* Expanded unemployment rate = 47.1%

* Official unemployment rate = 30.4%
* Expanded unemployment rate = 49.9%

Northern Cape
* Official unemployment rate = 28.1%
* Expanded unemployment rate = 50.3%

Western Cape
* Official unemployment rate = 25.8%
* Expanded unemployment rate = 29.1%


Published on LinkedIn by Paul West – Sales Exec, Director and Consultant

International Agreements spur move to global minimum tax

What began as an awareness of the changing landscape in tax brought about by large companies earning significant revenue in places where they had no physical presence — and therefore no tax responsibility — is heading for a resolution on the international stage.

After years of discussions, position papers, proposals, negotiations, and re-proposals, both the G7 and G20 met in June 2021 and gave approval to the OECD’s proposals as outlined in its Pillars 1 and 2.

“Years ago, the OECD recognized that there were issues related to digitalization of the global economy, “ said Laurie Dicker, transfer pricing technical tax leader at Top Eight Firm BDO USA. “It was based on the fact that the global tax system is built on the premise of countries having taxing rights where companies have physical presence, and as the economy digitalizes there is the notion that companies are now earning income in places where they do not necessarily have a traditional taxing presence. For example, an entity that sells a digital service, whether entertainment or educational or anything else you can access digitally. Someone can buy that in a country in which they don’t have physical presence. The servers can be anywhere, so the companies generate income from someone buying the service but the county does not get taxing rights. That’s the backdrop.”

A long time coming

The OECD has been discussing this for years, beginning in 2013 with its identifying “Base Erosion and Profit Shifting,” or BEPS, as an issue that needed to be addressed.

“They finally started introducing proposals on how to address this,” said Dicker. “The proposals have been refined over time.”

The BEPS project was initiated in 2013; BEPS final reports were issued in October 2015; BEPS 2.0 interim reports came out in 2019; blueprints for a new global tax framework came out in October 2020; and the G7 meeting in June 2021 agreed to the OECD framework.

“There’s been an enormous amount of activity this year,” said Dicker. “What caught everyone’s attention was the G7 meeting in early June this year, when they met in person and issued a statement in support of what the OECD proposed. That was a huge opening.”

Weeks later, the G20 met and also agreed to the proposals.

“What has been proposed is a two-pillar approach,” said Dicker.

Pillar 1 involves reallocation of profit and revised nexus rules, and is concerned with what portion of profits should be taxed in the jurisdictions where clients or users are located. Pillar Two contains an anti-base erosion mechanism in order to ensure that multinational enterprises pay a minimum level of tax.

“Pillar 2 will expand the taxable revenue collected globally from corporations by implementing a global minimum tax,” said Dicker. “They’re talking about a minimum rate of 15%. The exact rate has not been decided yet. If a country where the effective tax rate is below 15%, then the home country where the company is located can tax on the difference. For example, if a U.S. multinational is taxed in Ireland at 12%, then the U.S. can impose a tax to bring that company up to the global rate. For any country that has a rate below15 %, the choice is to raise their rate or forgo the tax revenue and hand it over to the parent to the parent country. Companies will be paying the same rate; it’s just a question of where they will pay it.”

“Prominent low-tax countries are against this and countries continue to negotiate,” said Dicker. Among the countries that have not yet agreed are Ireland, Hungary, Estonia, Kenya, Nigeria, Sri Lanka and Barbados. “They each have their own reasons for not agreeing,” said Dicker.

Pillar 1 is far more complicated, according to Dicker. “It redefines taxing rights and proposes a new allocation methodology. If you develop a product in one country, manufacture it in another country, market it in another country and have customer service and warehouses in other countries, it determines what part of revenue is allocated to each of those activities.”

Randy Buchanan, a partner at law firm Eversheds Sutherland, agreed.

“Pillar 1 is a much more difficult exercise — it’s a bigger departure from how international tax has been handled in the past, when you always needed some type of physical connection to a country to be taxed in that country. Pillar 1 is going in the direction of saying that if you sell goods or services into a country then you’re subject to tax in that country even if you have no physical presence there. It would shift the right to tax profits away from source countries and into destination countries, and that’s a lot easier said than done. To make it work you really need an agreed formulary apportionment mechanism to determine who ends up taxing how much of the profit. The details of how to accomplish that are pretty murky, and even assuming you could get everyone on the same page, actually implementing it is not going to be easy.”

It will be particularly difficult to implement in the U.S., Buchanan observed. “It will take some type of multilateral treaty among the various countries,” he said. “To get two-thirds of the Senate to ratify that kind of multilateral treaty seems like a steep uphill climb, given the lack of Republican support. You could try to implement some aspects of this through legislation, but it’s not clear to me how you would implement it without a treaty.”

”One way to think about it is that it’s taking the global tax system and trying to make outlook more like the state and local system here in the U.S., where states apply similar apportionment factors to determine which state has the right to tax income,” he explained. “It’s easier to do in a country where you have a unified central government, but it’s harder in the international stage where there’s no central government. The OECD in essence is trying to perform that kind of centralized function to get countries together, but it doesn’t have any real authority. Every country is doing it on a voluntary basis, with no external constraints around implementing it such as the U.S. Constitution.”

Pillar 1 generally would apply disproportionally to U.S.-based multinationals, Buchanan observed. “It goes beyond digital and high-tech entities,” he noted. “Most of the companies that would be impacted by Pillar 1 are large U.S. multinationals, which is another reason I don’t see bipartisan support developing in the U.S.”

Local opposition

Kevin Brady, R-Texas, the top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, stated on July 1, 2021, “In negotiations with the OECD, the Biden administration has a already given up significant U.S. ground by opening the door to not grandfathering GILTI and agreeing to a global minimum tax structure that favors foreign-headquartered companies and workers over American ones. This is a dangerous economic surrender that sends U.S. jobs overseas, undermines our economy, and strips away our U.S. tax base.”

“Politics makes strange bedfellows,” Buchanan observed, noting that the large companies in the crosshairs of Pillars 1 and 2 are primarily supporters of Democrats. “Not all Democrats think it’s a great idea, but the administration is supporting it so at least they have a higher comfort level,” he said.

Loren Ponds, a member at law firm Miller & Chevalier, agreed. “Certainly this administration has been active in the negotiation process,” she said. “The Treasury Department was able to work with the Inclusive Framework members [the group of countries working to solve BEPS issues] so now there is a proposed 15% rate, which is lower than the proposed rate for GILTI.”

The fact that individual countries were going ahead and enacting their own Digital Services Tax spurred the push to move the OECD agreement ahead, Ponds indicated: “They knew they were working against the clock.”

Things will start moving quickly now, predicted BDO’s Dicker. “Nothing was going to happen unless the U.S. came on board. Then Treasury Secretary Yellen came out in support, but with a simplified method of what would be in scope. There will be a meeting of G20 principals in October, and the OECD will release its final blueprint of Pillars 1 and 2. It’s possible that changes will need to be implemented at three levels — regulatory, legislative, and by treaty. Each country will have a different process, but the OECD is hoping that it can be implemented globally and take effect in 2023, but experts view this as overly optimistic. To the extent it happens, it will be the largest change to the global tax landscape in 100 years.”


Published by Accounting Today, written by Roger Russell | 9 August 2021

The importance of proper execution and implementation

Almost anyone can write a brilliant plan full of great ideas and wonderful, inspiring concepts and objectives. Fewer, however, can actually pull that plan off, which is why many good plans fail.

Nonetheless, every company still needs a strategic plan. A bird’s eye view plan – make, sell, profit – is good enough to get any company up and running, but in order to innovate, grow, and develop, a company must narrow its vision. A strategic plan helps companies slough off the things they aren’t good at doing so they can better focus on the things that they are. A strategic plan also lays the groundwork for improving those things that need a little (or a lot of) work. The right vision shows company leaders where to dedicate time, human capital, and budgetary resources.

Alarmingly, however, 90% of organisations fail to effectively execute their strategic plans, according to Harvard Business School. Improperly executing a strategy leads to a lack of objectives for employees, improper resource allocation, lack of structure and leadership, and weak lines of communication. That is why it is so important to get it right.

Tom Peters, the co-author of In Search of Excellence, says the following about this dynamic: “Cut the BS. Can the excuses. Forget the fancy reports. Get moving now. Get the job done. On this score, nothing has changed in 50 years, including the maddening fact that all too often a business strategy is inspiring, but the execution mania is largely AWOL.”

One of the best examples is Kodak. This is the company that created the first digital camera. It is the company that correctly anticipated digital cameras to replace traditional ones. This company created a plan to adapt to the digital world, yet refused to execute it because they wanted to avoid cannibalisation of their own products.

For almost a century prior, no company could compete for commercialisation in terms of Kodak, but they blew their chance of leading the digital era as they were in denial for way too long. The magic vanished as Kodak’s leaders failed to see the digital revolution to be the next era in the world of photography.

Here are three ways you can improve the odds of successful implementation with your next initiative:

  1. Include street-wise operators in the planning group. We need real-world thinking when we plan. Lack of reality equates to little to no execution.
  2. Hold people accountable for making the plan work. Measure against standards that are appropriate for the initiative.
  3. Establish crystal-clear norms around communication. During execution, there is no such thing as “better left unsaid.” People who feel threatened by a change may hold back on giving critical feedback or recommending fixes. Make sure people speak up, and make sure you listen hard when they do.

Ultimately, even the most well-thought-out plan is just a stack of paper if it isn’t coupled with clear guidelines on your path toward implementing the plan. At MAC, our experienced teams have worked extensively with clients to develop strategies that address a range of opportunities and challenges, locally and internationally, and at all levels within organisations. It is in the implementation of strategy that our contribution is typically most valued. Our biggest requirement is often the ability to facilitate teams as they develop, evolve, and implement the changes required for their strategies over the medium- to long-term.

Published by Mark Cotterrell, Chairman at MAC Consulting | August 2021

South Africa Accounting Sector Report 2021

South Africa Accounting Sector Report 2021: State of the Industry, Recent Developments, Influencing Factors, Industry Associations, Notable Players

The “The Accounting Sector in South Africa 2021″ report has been added to’s offering.

This report focuses on the accounting sector in South Africa and includes information on the state of the sector, recent developments and influencing factors.

There are profiles of 18 companies including the big four, PwC, Deloitte, EY and KMPG, as well as other prominent companies including BDO and Mazars, and a number of smaller firms.

The Accounting Sector in South Africa:

The accounting sector is the guarantor of financial reporting standards and performs a critical function in the economy. Although well-established and anchored by the world’s largest accounting firms, the auditing profession has been mired in controversies relating to fraud and financial irregularities involving its clients.

These have highlighted the shortcomings of the external audit and various stakeholders have called for audit reforms. Regulatory changes that are set to disrupt the industry include the mandatory rotation of auditors, which is scheduled to come into effect on 1 April 2023.

Reputational Damage:

Poor accountability, specifically the failure of certain major auditing firms to report financial malpractice and fraud involving private companies and public entities, has resulted in a credibility crisis for the auditing profession.

Major firms have implemented controls including audit quality monitoring systems, integrity checks, whistle-blowing initiatives and publication of annual transparency reports. The large firms’ increased reticence to take on clients who present an elevated risk is expected to drive many clients to smaller accounting firms.;


While traditional accounting software has reduced the amount of time spent on routine tasks such as transaction entry, data capture and number crunching, new technologies are fundamentally changing the structure of the profession, entirely automating some of the work.

Large firms have launched digital auditing platforms and some have partnered with international technology companies. Big data analytics and the internet of things will vastly increase the amount of data that is analysed and stored. ;

Key Topics Covered:


2.1. Industry Value Chain
2.2. Geographic Position


4.1. Local
4.1.1. Corporate Actions
4.1.2. Regulations
4.1.3. Enterprise Development and Social Economic Development
4.2. Continental
4.3. International

5.1. Coronavirus
5.2. Economic Environment
5.3. Labour
5.4. Technology, Research and Development (R&D) and Innovation
5.5. Accounting Scandals
5.6. Environmental Concerns

6.1. Barriers to Entry




10.1. Publications
10.2. Websites


  • Summary of Notable Players
  • Company Profiles
  • Auditor-General South Africa
  • Baker Tilly Greenwoods Chartered Accountants
  • Bdo South Africa Inc
  • Crowe In Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd
  • Deloitte South Africa
  • Ernst And Young Inc
  • Exceed (Cape Town) Inc
  • Kpmg Inc
  • Ldp Chartered Accountants And Auditors Inc
  • Mazars
  • Moore South Africa (Pty) Ltd
  • Nolands Inc
  • Pkf South Africa Inc
  • Pricewaterhousecoopers Inc
  • Rsm South Africa Inc
  • Sekelaxabiso Ca Inc
  • Sizwentsalubagobodo Grant Thornton Inc
  • Theron Du Plessis Durbanville Inc

For more information about this report visit

Published by CISION | April 2021

Why Talented People Don’t Use Their Strengths

If you watched the Super Bowl a few months ago, you probably saw the coaches talking to each other over headsets during the game. What you didn’t know is that during the 2016 season, the NFL made major league-wide improvements to its radio frequency technology, both to prevent interference from media using the same frequency and to prevent tampering. This was a development led by John Cave, VP of football technology at the National Football League. It’s been incredibly helpful to the coaches. But it might never have been built, or at least Cave wouldn’t have built it, had it not been for his boss, Michelle McKenna-Doyle, CIO of the NFL.

When McKenna-Doyle was hired, she observed that a number of her people were struggling, but not because they weren’t talented — because they weren’t in roles suited to their strengths. After doing a deep analysis, she started having people switch jobs. For many, this reshuffling was initially unwelcome and downright uncomfortable. Such was the case with Cave.

Cave had the talent to create products and build things. But he didn’t have time to do it, because he had the big job of system development, including enterprise systems. “Why was he weighed down with the payroll system when he could figure out how to evolve the game through technology?” McKenna-Doyle asked. As she later explained to me, she envisioned a better role for his distinctive strengths. The coaches wanted to talk to each other. The technology didn’t exist. She tasked Cave with creating it. “At first, he was concerned, because his overall span was shrinking. ‘Just trust me,’ I said. ‘You’re going to be a great innovator,’ and he is.”

Experts have long encouraged people to “play to their strengths.” And why wouldn’t we want to flex our strongest muscle? But based on my observations, this is easier said than done. Not because it’s hard to identify what we’re good at. But because we often undervalue what we inherently do well.

Often our “superpowers” are things we do effortlessly, almost reflexively, like breathing. When a boss identifies these talents and asks you to do something that uses your superpower, you may think, “But that’s so easy. It’s too easy.” It may feel that your boss doesn’t trust you to take on a more challenging assignment or otherwise doesn’t value you — because you don’t value your innate talents as much as you do the skills that have been hard-won.

As a leader, the challenge is not only to spot talent but also to convince your people that you value their talents and that they should, too. This is how you start to build a team of employees who bring their superpowers to work.

Begin by identifying the strengths of each member of your team. Some of my go-to questions are:

What exasperates you? This can be a sign of a skill that comes easily to you, so much so that you get frustrated when it doesn’t to others. I’m weirdly good at remembering names, for example, and often get annoyed with others who don’t. I have a terrible sense of direction, however, and probably irritate other people who intrinsically sense which way is north.

What compliments do you dismiss? When we’re inherently good at something, we tend to downplay it. “Oh, it was nothing,” we say — and maybe it was nothing to us. But it meant something to another person, which is why they’re thanking you. Notice these moments: They can point to strengths that you underrate in yourself but are valuable to others.

What do you think about when you have nothing to think about? Mulling over something is a sign that it matters to you. Your brain can’t help but come back to it. If it matters to you that much, maybe you’re good at it.

In group settings, I’ll also ask people why they hired so-and-so — what that person’s genius is. Rarely is this a skill listed on their résumé.

When people bring up new ideas, you can ask them, Will this leverage what you do well? Are you doing work that draws on your strengths? Are we taking on projects that make the most of your strengths?

Once each person has identified their strengths, make sure everyone remembers them. Brett Gerstenblatt, VP and creative director at CVS, has his team take a personality assessment, then post their top five strengths on their desk. Brett wants people to wear their strengths like a badge. Not to tell others why they’re great, but to remind them to use them.

Diana Newton Anderson, an entrepreneur turned social good activist, shares a story of her college basketball coach, who had her team take shots from different places on the court: the key, the elbow, the paint. He would record their percentages, and then had every person on the team memorize those percentages. This would allow the team to literally play to each other’s strengths. You can do something similar with your team.

As with McKenna-Doyle, building a team that can play to their strengths begins with analysis. Observe people, especially when they are at their best. Because some will undervalue what they do well, it may be up to you to place a value on what they do best. Understanding and acknowledging each person’s strengths can be a team-building exercise. Then you can measure new ideas, new products, and new projects against these collective superpowers, asking: Are we playing to our strengths? When people feel strong, they are willing to venture into new territory, to play where others are not, and to consider ideas for which there isn’t yet a market.

Published by Harvard Business Review, Written by Whitney Johnson | May 2018

7 Strategies to Break Down Silos in Big Meetings

When members of multidisciplinary teams are asked to describe their colleagues, many will say their peers are collegial, professional, and accomplished. While we would all love to be on a team that’s not dysfunctional, behind this insipid description lurks a peril that is far from bland: the lack of collaboration between siloes.

It’s very common for representatives of different disciplines to continue to operate in their own compartments instead of contributing to a cohesive purpose and team. In fact, siloes have only gotten more prominent since the pandemic began, as the circles we collaborate with have gotten smaller. And this becomes that much more noticeable in cross-departmental meetings, where each person focuses on their own priorities, showing little to no interest in others in the room. In response, the manager of the overall group tends to become the hardest working person in the meeting, with others only pulling themselves out of email to present their respective updates, then disengaging again when their turn is complete.

This is exactly what was happening to one of my clients, Shanna. Shanna led a cross-functional team and was struggling to get team leaders coordinated. During meetings, people would nod in agreement, but then afterward, nothing would actually get done. Frustrated at the lack of progress, Shanna asked me to observe her team in action. She couldn’t understand how to garner commitment when everyone acted superficially amenable. I noticed in her meetings that Shanna was carrying all the weight. She asked for discussion items but when no one responded, she created an agenda all on her own. When others presented, she invited people to ask questions but, when met with silence, she’d jump in. It seemed like her team had an unspoken pact, “Don’t poke around in my business, and I will return the favor.”

Shanna’s problem is not uncommon. To create a coordinated team from a collection of siloed individuals, you need to generate “cross talk” — conversations among team members about each other’s areas of work. Here are seven strategies to get people talking in your next cross-functional meeting.

Become comfortable being uncomfortable.

If you want to change your team’s behavior, start by changing yours. Allow yourself and others to feel some discomfort. Shanna made a list of ways she was over-participating and rescuing the conversation. She then communicated to her team that she would be changing those behaviors and increasing her patience for processing time as others considered responses. Yes, there were some awkward silences, but once people knew Shanna’s changes were for real, they realized the only way out of the discomfort was to actually participate. For example, when an engineering colleague discussed their schedule, their finance counterpart asked questions to better understand engineering challenges that impact schedule and sharing the impact of a delay on their external stakeholders.

Set expectations in advance.

Some people prefer to prepare their responses, rather than jumping in spontaneously in meetings. Inform participants in advance not only that you’d like their participation but also what type of interaction you’re expecting. Provide pre-reading if you can. For example, “At our next team meeting we will discuss topic X. Here is a summary of the market positioning research. Please come prepared to brainstorm ideas for our holiday season plans.” In addition to brainstorming, you might have meetings to make decisions, receive feedback, or share opinions or research from different vantage points. When people know the topic, have background information, and know what’s expected of them, they are more likely to contribute fully, even outside their expertise.

Ensure participation.

Let people know it will be important to hear from everyone on key topics. If they agree with someone else, they can say, “plus one” rather than echoing the idea. If they really don’t have anything to contribute, they can say, “pass.” By requiring a pass or plus one, we raise the bar for participation and insert everyone’s voice into the room.

Ask the right questions to generate questions.

Shanna used to solicit questions and, after a pause of about a microsecond, barrel ahead. She chose a different strategy to encourage interaction. Instead of saying, “Do you have any questions?” consider asking, “Who has the first question?” If there’s silence, follow up with a joke, “OK, who has the second question?” and then allow the silence to sit long enough to allow people to come up with rich queries. Shanna learned not to fill silences and to ask more questions of her audience instead of the presenter. For example, “If a developer on your team heard this sales presentation, what questions would they have?” or, “What do you need to know to vote on this option?” Sometimes it’s how you invite questions that results in quality responses.

Introduce response data.

Use the adage “we get what we measure” to your advantage by noting participation data about halfway through a meeting. Notice who is speaking, how much, in what order, and what they’re contributing. Then say, “Halfway into the meeting, only four of us have spoken,” or “John has been the first to speak each time the presenter has asked for comments.” Simply mention some data points and notice how participants choose to respond. Some of those who haven’t spoken will start to participate, or “John” might step back and invite others to initiate responses.

Bridge intersections.

Avoid participants tuning out of topics not related to their specific departments by asking them to think about ways their work connects. For example, “How does what Suneeta shared impact plans for your department?” “What do you think the IT team will say when we communicate Y?” or “What do the goals of project X have in common with your objectives?” Deliberately bridging across departments increases the relevance of the discussion for a broader set of attendees. Their responses help shape a more robust solution that works across the organization and appears more seamless to the consumers of the work.

Mix it up.

The future of work is hybrid with a blend of in-person and virtual interactions. Not everyone will be comfortable voicing their opinions all the time. Create a variety of ways to gather input. In addition to verbal comments, ask for responses via chat, do a quick poll to calibrate opinions, or have everyone add text to a shared document. Adding more avenues for people to interact draws out the best ideas from a broader spectrum of personality types and increases the novelty of interaction over the drone of daily meetings. It harvests ideas more efficiently than always requiring contributors to vocalize them.

Shanna’s team now engages actively on each topic. People rotate taking notes and facilitating. And they have recently made significant progress in defining their product strategy, which had been stalled for the last six months.

The purpose of a team is to divide the workload across its members and multiply the benefits of generative thinking across siloes. As managers, we reduce the pressure we put on ourselves by encouraging collaboration and communication between departments, starting with cross-talk in meetings.

Published by Harvard Business Review, Written by Sabina Nawaz | July 2021