of disruption. We looked at three revenue bands: $100–500 million, $500 million–$1 billion, and >$1 billion — the lower end of which includes mid-cap, middle market companies. For the three bands, the Disruption Index was 75.9, 75.2, and 76.4.did vary — and the differences were revealing. For one, midsize companies are less affected by global disruptions, because they are generally, though supply chains affect them a lot.
Two areas stand out as trouble spots: technology and talent. In tech, 14% of $100–500 million segment companies said that they are setting the pace in digital transformation, vs 22% for the $1 billion+ segment — a difference of more than 50%. Middle market companies are twice as likely to admit that they have below-average technology capabilities. The problem isn’t money. The smaller companies say they have the resources they need. The problem is knowing what to do, then doing it.
The talent picture is similar: companies with $100–500 million in revenue are less than half as likely as big firms to say that they lead their industries in talent management and are twice as likely to say they lag behind. It’s difficult to puzzle out the source of the problem. They’re equally likely to say they have a strategic talent plan; they don’t report significantly greater difficulty finding and keeping talent.
in training, learning and development, and succession planning — which gives them a smaller in-house talent pool and puts them more at the mercy of heavily-disrupted talent markets.Compared to big companies, middle market companies seem to be nibbling around the edges of solutions to disruption rather than imagining big changes. The details are revealing. Middle market executives are:
대한민국 최근 뉴스, 대한민국 헤드 라인
Similar News:다른 뉴스 소스에서 수집한 이와 유사한 뉴스 기사를 읽을 수도 있습니다.
출처: ActionNewsJax - 🏆 436. / 53 더 많은 것을 읽으십시오 »
출처: Crypto_Potato - 🏆 568. / 51 더 많은 것을 읽으십시오 »
출처: BTCTN - 🏆 531. / 51 더 많은 것을 읽으십시오 »
출처: Gizmodo - 🏆 556. / 51 더 많은 것을 읽으십시오 »
출처: nbcchicago - 🏆 545. / 51 더 많은 것을 읽으십시오 »