The Sustainability Challenge The problems of existence have become global but the decision-making structures we have for dealing with them are national. We cannot move forward without a high degree of global cooperation. Richard Barrett: The New Leadership Paradigm, 2011
Global Sustainability Issues Pollution Global Terrorism Global Economy Energy Resilience Pandemics Natural Disasters The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking that created them. Climate Change Species Extinction Food Resilience Water Shortages Waste Disposal Poverty Reduction
Two Types of Problem* Type 1: Convergent Problems… …are about finding technical solutions by manipulating the material universe. After a while, and a few trials and errors, solutions tend to converge. We can find technical solutions to global warming and sustainability, it is just a matter of time, resources and intelligence. *E. F. Schumacher: A Guide for the Perplexed
Two Types of Problem* Type 2: Divergent Problems… …are about finding agreements on divergent points of view that occur in the world of ideas, beliefs, world views and philosophies. Divergent problems can only be solved by transcending the level of consciousness on which the opposites meet by moving to a higher level of meaning (consciousness). *E. F. Schumacher: A Guide for the Perplexed
A NewLeadership Paradigm The paradigm that divides the world into the social sector, the private sector, and the governmental sector is not working. It creates artificial barriers. We are each a constituent of the problem, so we have to combine our forces, our efforts, and our competencies. Tex Gunning, Unilever, Best Foods Asia Private Sector Social Sector Public Sector
A NewLeadership Paradigm Average leaders take care of themselves and their families. Good leaders take care of themselves, their families, and some of the community. Great leaders—and great companies—not only take care of all stakeholders but also want to change the world. They want to leave the world better than they found it. Tex Gunning, Unilever, Best Foods Asia Private Sector Social Sector Public Sector
Firms of Endearment* Investor returns over 3, 5 and 10 years comparing S&P 500, Good to Great and Firms of Endearment. “... the distinguishing feature of “firms of endearment” is that they treat all stakeholders—employees, customers, investors, partners, and society—equally. In addition, they fully recognize that they are a part of an economic ecosystem with many interdependent participants. They are committed to exemplary citizenship, and they embrace the concept of servant leadership. * Rajendra S. Sisodia, David B. Wolfe, and Jagdish N. Seth, Firms of Endearment: The Pursuit of Purpose and Profit (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Wharton School of Publishing, 2007).
Firms of Endearment “FoEs share five primary elements in their corporate visions.
Recognition that they are part of an economic ecosystem
with many interdependent participants” Firms of Endearment: How World-Class Companies Profit from Passion and Purpose, David Wolfe, 2006
Sustainability and the New Leadership Paradigm Our Business Leaders need to recognise that: Business is a wholly owned subsidiary of society, and society is wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. If we lose our environment and our life-support systems, our society will perish. If we lose our society, we will lose our economy and our businesses will perish too.
What this means for Business and Politics Business leaders need to work with their competitors, political and societal leaders to define a framework of policies that support the evolution of our global society by developing industry charters that regulate the rules of competition between companies in a way that supports the societal common good. Political leaders must give up their parochial self-interest and exaggerated false belief in national sovereignty learn how to solve the problems of existence through international cooperation and collaboration. Building a sustainable future for everyone is not just societal imperative. It is business imperative, too.
A Crisis in Leadership John Kotter, Harvard Business School After conducting fourteen formal studies and more than a thousand interviews, directly observing dozens of executives in action, and compiling innumerable surveys, I am completely convinced that most organisations today lack the leadership they need. John P. Kotter and James L. Heskett, Corporate Culture and Performance (New York: The Free Press, 1992).
A Crisis in Leadership ShoshanaZuboff, Harvard Business School I have come to believe that much of what my colleagues and I taught has caused real suffering, suppressed wealth creation, destabilized the world economy, and accelerated the demise of the 20th century capitalism. We managed to produce a generation of managers and business professionals that is deeply mistrusted and despised by a majority of people in our society and around the world. This is a terrible failure. ShoshanaZuboff, “The Old Solutions Have Become the New Problems,” Business Week, Viewpoint, July 2, 2009.
A Crisis in Leadership Bill George, Harvard Business School An enormous vacuum in leadership exists today—in business, politics, government, education, religion, and nonprofit organisations. Yet there is no shortage of people with the capacity for leadership. The problem is we have a wrongheaded notion of what constitutes a leader, driven by an obsession with leaders at the top. Bill George, True North: Discover Your Authentic Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007).
A NewLeadership Paradigm WE NEED A NEW LEADERSHIP PARADIGM A shift in focus from “I” to “we” A shift from self-interest to the common good A shift from being the best in the world to the best for the world.
A New Leadership Paradigm Ultimately, the problems of existence we face are issues of consciousness. We will only get beyond this stage of our collective evolution if we can put aside our narrow self-interest, focus on the whole system, and build a values-driven framework of policies that support the common good. Richard Barrett, The New Leadership Paradigm, 2011
What Evolution can teach us about the New Leadership Paradigm
What is Evolution? Evolution: The continually unfolding ability to respond to increasingly complex life conditions. At each stage of evolution – from atoms, to cells, to creatures – there was not only an expansion in awareness, but also an expansion in the range of possible reactions or responses that an entity could make to changes in its internal or external environment. An increase in external complexity demanded an increase in internal complexity
The Universal Stages of Evolution From the Big Bang … to the Present Day Stage 1 Entities learn how to become viable and independent in their frameworks of existence. Stage 2 As life conditions become more complex, viable independent entities bond with each other to create a group structures. Stage 3 Viable independent group structures then cooperate with each other to form a higher order entity. Energy Atoms Molecules CellsOrganisms CreaturesHomo sapiens
The Universal Stages of Evolution Levels of Being Homo sapiens Humanity Nations Eukaryotic cell Creatures Organisms Carbon atom Cells Molecules Particles/waves of information existing in a quantum energy field. Evolution Stage 1: Entities learn how to become viable and independent in their frameworks of existence. Stage 2: As life conditions become more complex, viable independent entities bond with each other to create a group structures. Stage 3: Viable independent group structures then cooperate with each other to form a higher order entity.
Leading Yourself If you can’t lead yourself, then you will not be able to lead others If you can’t lead others, then you will not be able to lead an organisation If you can’t lead an organisation, then you will not be able to lead a community or a nation
Priorities for Leadership Development Leading an Organisation Leading Self Leading Others Stage 3: External Cohesion Cooperating with other individuals who share the same values and mission to leverage impact Stage 3: External Cohesion Cooperating with other Teams who share the same values and vision Stage 3: External Cohesion Cooperating with other Organizations who share the same values and vision Evolution Stage 2: Internal Cohesion Aligning the motivations of the Ego with the Soul (bonding) to become an authentic individual Stage 2: Internal Cohesion Aligning the motivations of Team members with the mission of the Team for team alignment Stage 2: Internal Cohesion Aligning the motivations of Staff members with the vision and values of the Organization Stage 1: Personal Mastery Overcoming the fears of the Ego to become viable and independent in your framework of existence Stage 1: Team Mastery Overcoming the fears of individual Team members To minimize cultural entropy Stage 1: Personal Mastery Overcoming the fears of individual Staff members to minimize cultural entropy
Components of the New Leadership Paradigm Learning System The Book The Multi-media Web site The Workbooks and Journals
The Good News For the first time in human history we have the possibility of making the evolution of consciousness, conscious. Why now? Because we can measure it, both at a personal, organisational and national level. And if you can measure it, you can manage it. Richard Barrett, The New Leadership Paradigm, 2011
Stages in the Development of Organisational Consciousness Positive Focus / Excessive Focus Service To Humanity And The Planet Social responsibility, future generations, long-term perspective, ethics, compassion, humility Service Strategic Alliances and Partnerships Environmental awareness, community involvement, employee fulfillment, coaching/mentoring Making a difference Building Corporate Community Shared values, vision, commitment, integrity, trust, passion, creativity, openness, transparency Internal Cohesion Continuous Renewal and Learning Accountability, adaptability, empowerment, teamwork, goals orientation, personal growth Transformation High Performance Systems, processes, quality, best practices, pride in performance. Bureaucracy, complacency Self-esteem Belonging Loyalty, open communication, customer satisfaction, friendship. Manipulation, blame Relationship Financial Stability Shareholder value, organisational growth, employee health, safety. Control, corruption, greed Survival
Three-Stage Leadership Development STAGE 3: EXTERNAL COHESIONEncourage those teams and business units to collaborate together to form a higher order entity known as the organization Evolution Human Consciousness (World Views) Stages of Evolution Stage 3 STAGE 2: INTERNAL COHESION Encourage those individuals to bond together to form teams and business units with common values and a sense of Shared mission and vision Stage 2 Stage 1 STAGE 1: PERSONAL MASTERY Encourage individuals to become viable independent (be accountable and responsible for their work
The Three Mantras of Culture Change Cultural Capital is the new frontier of competitive advantage. Organisational transformation begins with the personal transformation of the leaders. Measurement matters. If you can measure it you can manage it.
From Leader’s Values to Shareholder Value Corporate Sector Leader’s Values/ Behaviours Performance & Shareholder Value Corporate Culture Competitive Advantage & Resilience
From Leadership to Customer Satisfaction Public Sector Leader’s values/ behaviours Organisational Culture Customer Satisfaction Mission Assurance
Personal Alignment of the Leaders When leaders change their beliefs and values (1), their behaviours change (2). This influences the culture of the group (3), which in turn changes the behaviours of the group (4). 1 2 Organisational transformation begins with the personal transformation of the leaders. Organisations don’t transform. People do. 3 4 Wilber’s Four Quadrants
The Leader and the Values The real role of the leader is to manage the values of the corporation. Tom Peters, “In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s best run companies”, 1983
Nedbank, South Africa: An Example of Cultural Evolution
Nedbank: Cultural Evolution Entropy Scores Entropy reduction leads to improved performance—increased revenues, profits and share price. Working toward entropy of <10% will result in healthy functioning of the organisation and improvement of staff morale. Entropy risk bands <10% Healthy functioning 10-19% Some problems requiring careful monitoring 20-29% Significant problems requiring attention 30-39% Crisis situation requiring immediate change 40%> Impending risk of implosion, bankruptcy or failure
Nedbank: Response Rate to Values Survey 63.0% Response rate 50.4% 35.5% number of participants 28.0% 20.2% 28,898 employees in 2009
Nedbank: Cultural Evolution Nedbank Staff Survey Scores
Nedbank: Financial Impact of Cultural Evolution Share Price grewon average 20.4% (CAGR) per year from 2004 to 2007 Revenue grew on average 16.9% (CAGR) per year from 2004 to 2007 CAGR : Compound Annual Growth Rate
National/Regional Values Assessments Denmark Latvia Sweden Canada Iceland Bhutan USA Belgium Australia UK North West) Brazil Finland Venezuela Argentina Macedonia (Skopje) Spain (Extremadura)
Entropy Percentages by Nation (2007 – 2010) Cultural entropy is a measure of the dysfunction in a social system
National Assessment Sweden: Group (1030) The values that citizens want to see more of in the country. Personal Values Current Culture Values Desired Culture Values Level 7 Level 6 Level 5 Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 The values that are important to people in their personal lives. IROS (P)= 1-0-1-2 | IROS (L)= 2-1-3-0 IROS (P)= 1-1-2-6 | IROS (L)= 0-0-0-0 IRS (P)= 5-5-0 | IRS (L)= 0-0-0 Matches PV - CC 0 CC - DC 2 PV - DC 0 Health Index (PL) PV: 10-0 CC: 4-6 DC: 10-0 Black Underline= PV & CCOrange= CC & DC P = Positive L = Potentially Limiting I = Individual O = Organizational Orange= PV, CC & DCBlue= PV & DC (white circle) R = Relationship S = Societal How citizens experience the values in Sweden. Values Plot Copyright 2011 Barrett Values Centre March 2011
Personal Values Current Culture Values Desired Culture Values National Assessment Sweden: Group (1030) C T S CTS = 42-21-37 Entropy = 5% CTS = 25-16-59 Entropy = 42% CTS = 41-24-35 Entropy = 2% C = Common Good T = Transformation S = Self-Interest Positive Values Potentially Limiting Values Values Distribution Copyright 2011 Barrett Values Centre March 2011
Cultural Entropy Impacts in Nations Cultural Entropy in Nations
To get a copy of this presentation: http://www.slideshare.net/BarrettValues Other relevant Web sites: