Below, you'll encounter some of my personal reflections on the realm of leadership and management—sometimes provocative and controversial. The primary aim behind documenting these thoughts is to present alternative perspectives and ignite the flame of critical thinking...

Business as a Force for Good: Where The Economy Meets Political Responsibility

In striving to become a force for good, the "good" business can create is always a concrete singularity—a unique, context-specific manifestation of an organisation's potential.

Yet, while every organization has a distinct role in serving society, businesses also bear structural and collective responsibly for the ecosystems they inhabit.

Ecosystemic responsibility goes beyond addressing specific stakeholder concerns; it requires a collective effort to transform ecosystems, ensuring that all externalities are addressed - especially where regulation falls short - and collaboration across stakeholders nurtures the ecosystem's potential to serve the common good.

1. Education

Collaborate to ensure equal access, foster lifelong learning, and develop curricula that promote civic participation and responsible citizenship.

2. Manufacturing

Push for sustainable supply chains and circular economies, minimizing environmental damage and ensuring ethical labour practices.

3. Health

Make healthcare affordable and accessible, reduce environmental impacts, and collaborate to mitigate systemic health challenges.

4. Food

Move towards sustainable practices, reduce waste, and ensure fair labour conditions, promoting ecological food systems.

5. Mobility

Build sustainable infrastructure, transition to electric vehicles, and enhance public transport to reduce environmental impact and improve accessibility.

6. Energy

Transition to renewable energy sources, ensure equitable access, and reduce environmental harm through cross-sector collaboration.

7. Housing

Prioritize sustainable building practices, affordable housing, and energy efficiency while addressing housing shortages and reducing construction’s environmental footprint.

8. Finance

Build inclusive, transparent financial systems that serve society, reduce environmental impacts, and address financial exclusion.


Central to ecosystem responsibility is a distinction between needs and wants. Needs are essential goods and services that enable human capability for civic participation in society. In contrast, wants often contribute to consumerism, promoting luxury or harmful goods. Businesses must prioritize societal needs and avoid perpetuating consumerism that harms social or environmental well-being.

In discussions of corporate responsibility, we've often treated businesses as isolated entities. The truth is, companies that fail to collaborate in addressing broader societal challenges and transforming their ecosystems are not acting responsibly—full stop. Ecosystem stewardship must be at the core of responsible business strategies, ensuring that businesses not only contribute positively to society individually, but also collectively foster sustainability and a just world.

#transformation #businessethics #csr #leadership #corporateresponsibility #leadershipsociety #businessforhumanity

FREEDOM TO FLOURISH vs. TEAL: Two Paths to Organizational #Transformation

Freedom to Flourish (F2F) and Frederic Laloux's Reinventing Organisations explore how organizations evolve into purpose-driven entities, using color-coded paradigms to describe stages of development. Both frameworks share themes of progression, from hierarchical models (Red) to purpose-driven stages (#Purple/#Teal). Yet, they differ significantly in their philosophical foundations and methods for transformation.


Both frameworks describe similar trajectories:

• Red/Amber: Hierarchy and control dominate.
• Yellow/Orange/Green*: Transition stages emphasize achievement, market focus, and community values.
• Purple/Teal: Self-management, wholeness, and evolutionary purpose.

• F2F embeds democratic and virtue ethics, framing transformation as both structural and moral. It positions "Orange" as a vital stage where justice and fairness underpin progress.
• Laloux's model is inspired by spiritual and psychological growth but lacks engagement with political theory. It transitions directly from "Green" (community-focused) to "Teal" (self-management).

• Laloux assumes necessary evolution based simply on human consciousness.
• F2F views transformation as contingent on intentional design, recognizing the complexity of aligning structures, culture, and agency.

• Laloux provides a vision for leaders already positioned in "Teal" environments, focusing on evolutionary purpose and wholeness.
• F2F offers a more grounded approach, emphasizing the preconditions—justice, ethics, and structure—that must be established for lasting transformation.

(*) Note: 

Accordingly, F2F develops a different interpretation of Orange. It draws from liberal political theory, positing that the initial attainment of substantive freedom, through individual rights or capabilities, is a prerequisite for people to voluntarily and rationally choose to direct that freedom toward societal well-being. It echoes John Rawls' discussion about "right before good" in his Theory of Justice, but then stresses the importance of practical wisdom, which combines voluntarism (personal agency), pragmatism (a focus on action), and rationalism (moral judgment), alongside a deep sense of care for the community, or charity, as emphasised for example in Catholic Social Teaching (CST). In order to progress from Orange to Purple, both individuals and organizations actively choose to cultivate the common good by institutionalizing inter-independent “political friendship” ("koinonia" in Aristotle's Politika) —a commitment to mutual collaboration for both personal and common good.

Such a developmental process is inherently vocational and dialectical. Unlike Teal, F2F asserts that individual and organisational transformation is never merely the result of a change in consciousness. In the context of a social ontology based on Critical Realism, consciousness is contingent and embedded in a broader organizational (and societal) configuration. Simply put, consciousness is embedded - it is both a prerequisite and a result of social structures. Therefore, organizational excellence is the outcome of intentional practice, including the alignment of structures, values, and human agency, rather than the automatic consequence of evolving individual consciousness. 

Therefore, a successful transformation demands personal, institutional and broader political development: individuals, especially leaders, must cultivate the wisdom to use power responsibly, while organizations must foster environments that bring out the greatest potential in both individuals and the community. At the same time, businesses must together seek to positively influence the broader economic and political context. Our theory is grounded in "Dialectical Critical Realism" (Roy Bhaskar), which emphasizes the need for truth and freedom - dialectics requires continuous, reflective and conscious engagement with reality, including the absences, contradictions and challenges present in both our personal experiences and in collective organizational activities, and a commitment to a higher moral ambition, anchored in the common good.

🚀 OUT NOW: The Freedom to Flourish – A Radical Transformation Of Work!

We're excited to share a transformative session designed for HR and business leaders on how to build organizations that prioritize people’s well-being and create lasting positive impact. Based on three years of in-depth research, this discussion features a CEO, an HR Director, and Transformation Consultants as they explore the limitations of traditional people management and propose a new, holistic path forward.

Watch the full video here: https://lnkd.in/ep9BGG84

Key highlights:

• Balancing Profit and Legacy: Addressing the challenge of achieving financial targets while leaving a positive legacy amidst social and environmental crises.
• Reinspiring Organisations: Exploring how business ideologies shape organisational practices, expanding on the popular TEAL paradigm.
• Reimagining People Management: Understanding how traditional practices like target setting, performance appraisals, and variable pay often undermine creativity and well-being.
• The Role of HR: Embracing HR’s potential to transform organizations into forces for good by promoting ethical leadership and deliberate organisational development.

As A.J. Carlyle used to say, there's very little that is genuinely new in political theory. We might well trace ideas like democracy, social contract or natural law back to the ancient Greek.

And it’s not hard to see why. Across centuries, people have grappled with the challenge to determine stable principles and rules to govern a reality that ultimately escapes our control, all in pursuit of a good society.

Yet, what is perhaps unique about our postmodern era is the increasing denial of the philosophy of politics itself. We’re no longer animated by questions about the common good; instead, we’re seduced by the personal spoils of power. We seem to have lost the intuitive understanding that a deeper comprehension of reality - whether social or physical - doesn't legitimate its ruthless exploitation. Just because we can do something doesn’t mean that we are justified in doing it.

This is where the quiet demise of "natural law" - or its more sinister conflation with the "law of nature" - feels particularly tragic. Natural law was never about our adaptation to the deterministic regularities of the physical world; it was about the higher demands of our essential human nature. It calls us to transcend personal whims and social norms to reflect about the difference between what is truly good and bad. Genuine mastery of means can never be separated from the wisdom to discern the right ends.

In this context, it is perhaps no coincidence that especially in business we've eagerly embraced all sorts of fashionable variants of "systemic" management models—be it living systems, viable systems, or complex adaptive systems. Focused on the discovery of exploitable interdependences, preventable "black swans" or continuous feedback loops, we're happily perpetuating the postmodern confusion between epistemology and ethics. In Peter Drucker’s words, we may be getting better at doing things right, but not at doing the right things.

#Leadership

THE ULTIMATE BATTLE: AI VS ARISTOTLE - Can Machines Be Wise?

Humanity has always pursued wisdom, and with the rapid evolution of AI, a profound question emerges: Will machines ever make us wiser? If not, what are the implications for a society that increasingly depends on them?

A Philosophical Perspective

In order to develop wisdom, classical philosophy relies on universal principles, reasoned inquiry and the cultivation of character. Take Plato's Republic, for instance, where Socrates engages in dialectical discussion with Thrasymachus and Glaucon to define the virtue of justice. Through rigorous critical reasoning, Socrates deconstructs the flawed assumptions and contradictions in Thrasymachus' claim that justice is merely "the advantage of the stronger." Then, addressing Glaucon’s famous challenge that no one would desire justice as a goal, the dialogue deepens into a more profound understanding of justice—not just as an individual virtue but as an emergent quality that arises when virtuous individuals fulfill their roles within a harmonious social order. In this view, justice cannot be reduced to individual gain or power; instead, it is intricately tied to the telos of shared human flourishing. In Socratic dialogues, knowledge arises from active participation, critical questioning, and iterative refinement of ideas.

The Art of Algorithm

By contrast, generative AI approaches the question of justice through probabilistic methods based on vast datasets. When asked "What is the virtue of justice?" a natural language processing model like ChatGPT tokenizes the input and encodes it into vectors that represent the statistical relationships between words. Through self-attention mechanisms, the model identifies patterns in how similar phrases appear across its training data. Outputs are generated word-by-word, guided by techniques like top-k sampling or temperature scaling to select likely terms. While AI outputs may be syntactically correct, they are semantically hollow—the system prioritizes optimization for efficiency and linguistic coherence; symbols are processed without any understanding of their meaning or connection to a deeper purpose.

Man Vs Machine

In the epic quest for wisdom, philosophy stalls for meaning through reasoned reflection, while AI speed-runs insights by mining massive datasets.

This clash highlights the dangers inherent in #technology: When ethics are reduced to lines of code, we risk losing our humanity—machines can crunch numbers, but they’ll never grasp the moral or existential weight of their decisions. Where philosophy sets limits on human power, reminding us how NOT to act, AI seeks the ultimate cheat: godlike mastery through data-driven dominance.

So, perhaps the real boss fight isn’t making machines more ethical—it’s levelling up human ethics. Without that, we might soon get outplayed by our own creations, with Game Over as the final outcome.

Read all:  https://leadershipsociety.world/knowledgehub/articles/OntologicalBlindnessofGenerativeAI/ 

#Leadership #Transformation

The Tyranny of Numbers: How Capitalism is Eroding the Common Good

In an age increasingly marked by pragmatic relativism, the discourse on values in the public sphere is undergoing a profound shift. As debates on business transformation often reveal, the ongoing liberal project increasingly seeks to privatize the "good," relegating universal values like justice, dignity, and common good to the realm of personal beliefs rather than collective commitment.

Since the times of Hobbes, modern critics vocally contend that values are inherently subjective, culturally relative, and susceptible to conflict. They argue that addressing social issues requires "neutral" dialogue and pragmatic trade-offs rather than idealistic aspirations. They emphasize that we must "speak the language of business" - numbers, not moral ideals, will drive change.

Yet, there is danger in that. Businesses, as central actors in society, cannot shirk their moral responsibility simply because a capitalist system prioritizes efficiency and profits. Arguing that an organization's "hands are tied" by systemic constraints conflates epistemology and ethics, and risks legitimizing the unacceptable- from environmental destruction to exploitative labour practices. While understanding an organizational logic is essential, it must never become a justification for inaction or harm.

Moreover, while such arguments pretend to avoid polarization, they often inadvertently reinforce the status quo, leaving systemic injustice unchallenged. As we witnessed again at #COP29, shared dialogue over conflicts, without a commitment to the common good, will rarely lead to a fairer or better world.

Critics rightly point out that universal values have a complex history: they have inspired transformative movements for justice and equity, but also upheld oppressive systems and religious dogma. Yet, in modern societies, significant progress has been made in the type of values that form the foundation of our social fabric—values such as freedom, justice, peace, or solidarity are rooted in human dignity and societal flourishing. The absence of these values in public discourse does not resolve conflict but risks ceding moral ground to a market-driven logic that commodifies every aspect of human life. This poses a risk not only to our businesses, but also to ourselves: in the end, we always tend to become what we anchor our lives to.

For our own good, we must challenge the liberal dogma and insist that our organisations are not simply beholden to shareholders. The noble purpose of business is to serve the common good. Leaders have an ethical responsibility to prioritize human flourishing over a mere pursuit of profit.

As Pope Benedict reminded us, "Business activity has a human significance, prior to its professional one." Upholding universal values isn't naive idealism—it’s a moral imperative. To accept anything less is not only profoundly immoral; it is cowardice.

#leadership #transformation #sustainability

PS: Thanks to Klaus Eidenschink and Dr. Michael Bitzer for inspiring the reflection :-)

OH YEAH! Let's all quickly change our circumstances and take a big leap—who needs things like strategy, effort, or understanding of deeper societal injustices to move beyond shallow platitudes?! Who cares about critical thinking when we’ve got a stockpile of overused, brainless slogans to pretend we’ve got it all figured out?! ;-) Hallelujah, let confidence magically appear!! It’s never too late for some silly posts!

O tempora! o mores!

From Local Conflict to Total War: The Peril of Indifference

Since the end of the Cold War, global warfare has undergone a dramatic transformation. While conflicts like those in Ukraine and Gaza capture international attention, many wars in the Global South remain largely overlooked—often referred to as “forgotten wars.” This neglect not only deepens the suffering of millions of civilians but also obscures the subtle dynamics of escalating tensions. The lesser-known conflicts contribute to the intensification of global unrest and reveal the widening gaps in our global governance for maintaining "systemic" peace. If these tensions remain unaddressed, they risk spiralling into larger, more catastrophic global wars.

The Nature of War Since the Cold War

During the last few decades the nature of global conflict has shifted dramatically. The once-dominant rivalry of nuclear superpowers has given way to more fragmented and localized struggles, often characterized by regional conflicts, civil wars, and proxy wars. Unlike the ideological divide that defined the Cold War era, post-Cold War conflicts are increasingly driven by ethnic, political, or religious divisions. These new forms of warfare have evolved alongside technological advancements, which have introduced complexities like cyberattacks, drone warfare, and asymmetrical combat strategies. The ability of non-state actors and smaller states to leverage technology and unconventional tactics has further blurred the lines between traditional warfare and modern, multi-dimensional conflict.

War and Peace

While there was an expectation that the post-Cold War period would see a "peace dividend," the reality has been marked by a paradox. On one hand, the number of interstate wars has decreased, especially as the former superpowers have prioritized diplomatic engagement. However, on the other hand, intrastate conflicts have escalated. Research from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program shows a sharp rise in internal armed conflicts, including civil wars and insurgencies, particularly in regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. In 2023 alone, 59 state-based conflicts were recorded—the highest since 1946. Overall, over 110 armed conflicts are currently ongoing worldwide, according to the Geneva Academy and the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). Major humanitarian crises in places like Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ethiopia, and South Sudan have resulted in widespread suffering.

A New Era of Comprehensive Conflict

Yet, the situation could be even more perilous than it appears. Mara Karlin argues in Foreign Affairs that the global security landscape is slowly shifting back toward "total war," echoing the dynamics of the major conflicts of the 20th century. She highlights the convergence of traditional state-centric warfare and non-state actors, suggesting that modern conflicts are increasingly shaped by large-scale alliances and proxy wars. This resurgence could escalate quickly, especially with nuclear capabilities and intensifying geopolitical tensions. Karlin warns that our current frameworks—focused on distinct state-to-state conflicts or asymmetrical engagements—are becoming outdated, emphasizing the urgent need for a rethinking of how nations and global institutions manage conflict in this new era of complexity.

Wilful Blindness

In this context, it is crucial that we actively engage with injustices and human rights violations wherever they arise. As Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." However, despite the increasing scale of human suffering, not all conflicts receive sustained international attention. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza, for instance, are highly visible for several reasons:

• Geopolitical Significance: Ukraine’s conflict with Russia, ignited in 2022, is seen as a direct challenge to Europe’s security and the global balance of power. Russia's actions are framed as a threat to the post-Cold War order, while NATO and U.S. support for Ukraine symbolize a commitment to defending democracy and sovereignty. Similarly, the Gaza conflict taps into deep-seated regional power struggles in the Middle East, with global players like the U.S., Israel, and Iran influencing its dynamics.
• Media Narratives: The Western media plays a significant role in highlighting wars with direct political implications. The Ukraine and Gaza conflicts are heavily covered because they are seen as part of larger ideological struggles—Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is often framed as authoritarianism versus democracy, while Gaza reflects ongoing struggles for human rights, self-determination and statehood. These wars resonate with Western audiences, spurring humanitarian responses. In contrast, wars in less politically sensitive regions, such as the Central African Republic or South Sudan, do not attract sustained media coverage, despite their severity.
• Cultural and Historical Factors: The Israel-Palestine conflict holds significant cultural and historical weight for Western nations, particularly due to religious ties and political alignment with Israel. Similarly, Ukraine’s struggle is framed as a fight for the survival of democratic European values, making it an attractive cause for international support.

Where Injustice is Tolerated...

In addition, there is growing concern that global justice is being crowded out by “might”, with unilateral or economic power increasingly dictating outcomes. According to Just War Theory, only two of the crises mentioned (see table: in green) can be seen as partially and initially justified: NATO's 2011 intervention in Libya, which aimed to topple Muammar Gaddafi’s oppressive regime, and the U.S./NATO intervention in Afghanistan post-9/11 to dismantle the Taliban and combat ISIS. Both were grounded in the principle of protecting civilians from imminent harm and preserving international security. That said, even here the extended conduct raises serious concerns about the legitimacy of intervention beyond the initial objectives. In contrast, all other conflicts lack justification under Just War criteria, often fuelled by internal power struggles, foreign interference, or violent repression. Our collective failure to protect justice, peace, human dignity, and freedom reveals a fundamental flaw in our global governance systems and calls into question whether enough is being done to prevent violent conflict in the first place. With the growing geopolitical tensions and climate-related risks, the erosion of trust in our global systems could have severe consequences.

Caritas in Veritate

So what can we do? Amidst the complexity of our global challenges, perhaps, as Pope Benedict XVI once emphasized, the most crucial action is to cultivate care. The "forgotten wars" stand as a powerful reminder that truly "seeing the world" requires more than passive acknowledgment; it demands an intentional and active commitment to charity. The Christian virtue of love transcends fleeting sentiment—it is rooted in a steadfast dedication to truth, particularly in how and where we choose to focus our attention.

Yet, we cannot rely solely on personal virtue; institutional action is equally essential. No global system can claim to be just while neglecting the poorest and most vulnerable. While crises in the Global South are often overlooked, their devastating consequences cannot be allowed to fade from global consciousness. There is an urgent need for significant investments in global governance and comprehensive strategies to prevent war—this includes addressing the glaring shortcomings of global climate justice efforts, as underscored by the inadequacies of COP29.

Ultimately, justice is about fostering rightful relationships within society for the collective good. As Mara Karlin rightly warns, unchecked injustices are inherently perilous—local and regional disparities can quickly spiral out of control, escalating into global conflicts with catastrophic outcomes for the whole world.

#justice #transformation #leadership #sutainability #cop

TOP TEN TIPS to Get Out of #BlackFriday Alive (& with Your Wallet Intact)

Black Friday isn’t just about great deals—it’s a battlefield full of retail tactics designed to make you spend. Over the past few years, retailers have increasingly employed problematic methods to push customers into making impulsive purchases, relying on psychological tricks that exploit consumer behaviours - leading to overspending and regret.

Here are some recommendations to stay on top of your shopping game:

1. Set a Budget (and Stick to It, Seriously)

Forget “window shopping.” Plan ahead! Determine what you need (not what’s on sale) and stick to your budget like your favourite sweatpants after Thanksgiving dinner.

2. Shop with a List, Not an Open Mind

Like grocery shopping on an empty stomach—if you don't have a list, you’ll end up with things you don't need (looking at you, 30% off that blender). Plus, many retailers hike prices before Black Friday to make discounts look bigger than they actually are. Make sure you're getting a genuine deal, not just a manipulation​.

3. Avoid the Flash Sale Frenzy!

“Hurry, offer ends in 15 minutes!” Yeah, it probably does, but that doesn’t mean you need to buy it. If it’s meant to be, it will be.

4. Don’t Fall for the “Last One” Panic

Seeing that “only 1 left in stock” label? Take a deep breath. If you really need it, it’s not going to disappear, and if it does, well, it wasn’t meant to be.

5. Cancel All Store Notifications

Seriously, you don’t need another notification popping up every time your favourite store slashes a price. Turn them off, and reclaim your peace of mind.

6. Limit Your Time in Store

Don’t be lured into a shopping marathon. The more time you spend in-store or online, the higher the chances of you stumbling into the “impulse aisle.”

7. Set a “Cool-Down” Period

See something shiny? Wait 24 hours before pulling the trigger. If it’s still calling to you after a day of reflection, maybe it’s worth it. Otherwise, it’ll probably collect dust.

8. Avoid the “Buy One, Get One” Trap

The key word here is “unnecessary.” Buying one at full price doesn’t mean you need another one at a discount unless it’s genuinely useful. Bundles often appear as great deals, but if you’re buying things you don’t need, it’s just overspending.

9. Don’t Get Sucked into Retail "Social Proof"

If every single person in the store is buying (or reviewing) that one thing, maybe you shouldn't. Plus, only trust verified buyer reviews, and above all your own judgment—not the crowd’s.

10. Give Yourself the Gift of Calm

When in doubt, take a break. Many retailers offer "early bird" deals that create confusion. These deals may not even be as good as the actual Black Friday offers. Walk away from the online shopping cart or put the item back on the shelf. If you’re calm, you’ll make better decisions.

#shopping #consumerism #sustainability

In recent years, we’ve seen an unhealthy proliferation of both antisemitism and anti-antisemitism, where any critique of Israeli policies is often immediately branded as antisemitic. This creates a toxic environment where valid discussions on the actions of a nation are overshadowed by accusations that shut down dialogue. It's crucial that we distinguish between legitimate political critique of Israeli policies and harmful religious intolerance, as the latter is clearly unjustified and should always be condemned, whatever the specific creed or culture

What might be needed is a clearer distinction of these different stances. Criticism of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians can be put forward as a highly legitimate anti-colonial or anti-apartheid position, focusing on social justice, equality, freedom and human rights. It is essential that we give a loud and clear voice to this stance, wherever it applies, advocating for peace and fair treatment without falling into the trap of prejudice against Jewish people, or any other discrimination on the basis of religion, colour, or national origin.

We must stand firmly against antisemitism, but at the same time, we cannot let the fear of being accused of it silence important conversations about colonialism, apartheid, and human rights abuses. Clear distinctions, respectful dialogue, and unwavering commitment to justice for all are crucial in every political debate.

I have no particular stake in this discussion, but I strongly believe in our global responsibility to uphold justice and the common good. In this spirit, I stand firmly with Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s famous summation of Voltaire's credo: “I might disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Suppressing legitimate critical voices simply because they challenge our views is not a defence of democracy, but simply a convenient manifestation of modern colonialism.

#politics #justice #transformation #peace #freedom

WHY THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT HAS NOT DESTROYED ITS OWN CREDIBILITY

Writing in The Spectator, Policy Exchange Senior Fellow Yuan Yi Zhu argues that the #ICC’s arrest warrants against Netanyahu and others are flawed due to alleged procedural bias, lack of jurisdiction since Israel is not an ICC member, and the questionable legal basis of the charges, such as using starvation as warfare. He also claims the ICC breached its complementarity principle by not allowing Israel’s judiciary to act first, jeopardized peace prospects by polarizing public opinion, and risked damaging its credibility through potential international backlash and perceived ineffectiveness.

As far as I'm concerned, the arguments completely miss the point: the pursuit of #justice. Justice requires holding perpetrators accountable for atrocities like the disproportionate and foreseeable killing of innocent civilians. Far from hindering peace, the ICC addresses systemic injustices where power perpetuates suffering and seeks accountability for egregious violations of human dignity.

1. Compromised Process
Alleging flaws in the ICC’s process due to panel biases distracts from the central issue: the mass killing of civilians, a clear violation of international law (cf. Just War Theory and Doctrine of Double Effect).
2. Jurisdictional Overreach
Claims that the ICC lacks jurisdiction overlook that Palestine’s accession grants the Court authority over crimes on its territory. Debates on Palestinian statehood are irrelevant, as the ICC’s mandate is to protect victims where justice is otherwise inaccessible.
3. Legally Problematic Charges
Calling starvation as a method of warfare "unprecedented" misses the point. Systematic denial of food, water, and medical aid to civilians meets international definitions of war crimes and crimes against humanity, warranting ICC action.
4. Breach of Complementarity Principle
Suggesting Israel’s judiciary should handle the allegations ignores Israel's long-standing resistance to a political peace process. The ICC intervenes only when national systems fail to act, which is clearly the case here.
5. Harm to Peace Prospects
The idea that ICC warrants harm peace prospects is misplaced. Israel’s blockade of peace negotiations and its decade-long rejection of a two-state solution—not the ICC—are the real barriers to peace. Accountability is essential for any genuine resolution.
6. Damage to ICC Credibility
The ICC’s credibility lies in upholding substantive justice, not appeasing political interests. Predictable backlash from powerful states, like potential U.S. sanctions, is irrelevant to its mission of addressing impunity.

Procedural and superficial criticism of the ICC or the UN shields powerful perpetrators rather than seeking justice. If credibility is damaged, it is to those defending the indefensible, not to the ICC, which must remain focused on its vital role. 'Might is right' is no acceptable doctrine for international relations.

Original article:  https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-icc-has-destroyed-its-own-credibility/ 

Listening might well be one of the most undervalued Leadership capacities of all times. But it isn't simply listening to the other. It is also listening "to the whole".

Listening to the other exposes us to the radical claim of every other human being, as Levinas suggests, when arguing for ethics as the "first philosophy". And as in the virtue of charity that claim might sometimes permit no delay. If others are in desperate need or suffering, no pointing to legal systems and social structures can relieve us from the responsibility to help, here and now.

But otherwise such claims cannot go unqualified. Our responsibility towards each other come mitigated by our collective responsibility for the common good, and our role within an institutional setup that demands both rights and obligations.

Yet, true virtue transcends institutional ethics. Our duty is not simply towards a social contract - as both subjects and sovereign - but as a covenant that aims for social flourishing. Here, the claim upon our freedom isn't meant to be one of necessary limitation and boundary, but one of joyous co-imagination within liberating structures.

By seeing in each other the great potential of human potential we can both stimulate and emulate mutual becoming. In this sense the Aristotelian "political friendship" and the papal "social friendship" are superior to justice. They entail commitment to a mutual thriving for transcendence within a political and social community, by bringing to live the constellational unity of each individual person as the highest expression of a good social order.

Leaders must listen to the goodness in each other and learn how to bring it to life for the goodness of all.

#leadership #transformation

JUSTICE AND CARE ARE THE SCAFFOLDS OF HOPE

Perhaps a very simple truth is that a just society can never emerge if we continue to teach individuals to prioritize their self-interest above all else. In a system that encourages personal gain at the expense of others, negative freedoms must cause negative externalities. Add technology, and we quickly find ourselves heading down the path of "degrowth by disaster".

No, this is not a pathetic call for "win-win" scenarios or an appeal to ultimatum games, nor is it a request for more or better regulation. It’s about taking genuine responsibility for our common home and commitment to the common good. True social justice requires recognizing that our well-being is intertwined with the well-being of others, and crowned by the shared prosperity of all.

When Glaucon famously challenges Plato in The Republic by arguing that justice cannot be an end in itself, because too often it does not pay off, Plato counters that justice is the only way to cultivate a life of true significance. For Plato, a meaningful life is one that acquires constellational beauty within a well-ordered society, reflecting a well-ordered “just” soul. Simply put, we gain true significance and purpose only through our active role in a social system that is in itself good.

But justice cannot come to life without care— the image of a stern, blindfolded justice with a mighty sword and an "objective" balance only tells part of the story. While we pursue justice through universal laws and institutions, we must also respond to the particular suffering of the marginalized and nourish the most vulnerable. Justice and care are reinforcing each other in a collective journey toward the common good.

Hence, as Tommaso Greco points out, any responsible society—or business—requires a form of justice that both sees and cares, here and now. It’s not enough to remain impartial; justice demands active engagement— and love, as Martha Nussbaum describes, is a "political emotion" that motivates us to act. Our love for the individual-within-the-whole gives rise to justice, justice fosters hope, and hope nurtures faith.

As citizens, we cannot shut our eyes or hearts to the needs of others; and as leaders we must go beyond living wages and procedural fairness—we must actively care for our shared home. Otherwise no number of COP conferences will be enough to safe the planet.

#leadership #transformation #sustainability

Diversity & Inclusion vs. Subsidiarity & Solidarity: An Important Difference

Popular DEI programmes often focus on individuals, emphasizing representation, equal access to opportunities and personal empowerment within organizations or communities. While this can help to create workplaces where people from diverse backgrounds feel valued, respected, and empowered to contribute fully, it often risks becoming individualistic and relativistic, centering solely on subjective preferences, or instrumentalized by businesses simply to drive profits, rather than addressing systemic injustices.

In contrast, subsidiarity and solidarity, rooted in Catholic Social Teaching (CST), provide a normative framework to promote justice and human flourishing. Subsidiarity, far from being merely a question of decentralisation or delegation, protects the substantive freedom of individuals and communities to act at the most local and appropriate level, supported by the broader organisation. Solidarity, which is often wrongly reduced to charity or feelings of empathy, fosters mutual responsibility and care for the shared whole. Together, they guide an organisation toward the common good, ensuring that individual contributions serve and increment a shared well-being.

Hence, where diversity and inclusion often seek to protect individual interests and preferences, subsidiarity and solidarity prioritize integral human development—a vision where freedom and responsibility are united in service of justice and human flourishing.

#Transformation #Leadeship #CST #sustainability

The Existential Crisis of Management: CREATIVITY WITHOUT PURPOSE

In many ways, leadership today seems trapped in the ethos of Nietzsche’s Übermensch—self-creating individuals who shape their own values in a world stripped of indisputable truths. With freedom seemingly limitless, modern management no longer asks "Why?" but "How?"—fixating obsessively on the mechanics of creation while neglecting deeper questions of meaning or purpose.

This shift is evident in the glorification of agility, individualism and self-determination. We celebrate the "entrepreneurial spirit" and "leadership potential," while championing self-empowerment, "humanocratic" bureaucracy busting and innovation. Yet, this pursuit begs the question: innovation for whom, and for what end? What is the genuine purpose of our work?

Nietzsche’s declaration of the “death of God” left humanity tasked with forging its own meaning, and in management, this has led to the glorification of a "god-like" autonomy for "micro enterprises". Everything is permitted as long as the customer is happy; and success has become an individual triumph of will over the world. But leadership, like ethics, cannot rest solely on the act of instrumental creation. Good leadership involves interdependence—a recognition that every decision operates within a web of interconnected social, political, and ecological claims.

In its fixation on the unencumbered self, leadership risks embodying Carl Jung’s archetype of the puer aeternus (eternal child): refusing to mature, shirking responsibilities beyond the self, and neglecting a larger purpose. Leadership then becomes a hubristic quest for self-assertion, at the expense of mutual responsibility- fostering exploitation, systemic inequality, and even existential emptiness, as endless self-affirmation spirals into burnout. Yet, individuation, as Jung points out, requires transcending the ego's limits to embrace a broader, unified sense of self. It is less about discovering ourselves and more about encountering the other.

Similarly, creativity in professional activity cannot exist for its own sake. True professionalism demands creativity that upholds integrity and aligns individual actions with a broader purpose. It bridges identity, competence, and wisdom, integrating the particular with the universal, and situating human activity within the greater whole. Effective management must be constellational—emphasizing purposeful connections between business activities and their broader societal contributions.

This is not about crafting new vision or mission statements; to move forward, leaders must become open to "receive" a sense of wholeness—an understanding of existential interdependence and intuitive connection to a greater purpose. Without this deeper vulnerability, management risks sustaining a cycle of hollow "value creation," where the future of work ultimately undermines the future of the planet.

#transformation #leadership #sustainability #management #purpose

HUMANOCRACY: FIXING CAPITALISM WITH... MORE CAPITALISM?

This afternoon, the Global Peter Drucker Forum #GPDF2024 wrapped up with a session on the broader responsibility of management within society. The session began with a prerecorded message from Gary Hamel of #LBS. While I’ve long been a fan of Gary’s progressive management ideas, it quickly became apparent today that his focus was not on corporate social responsibility. Instead, his intervention presented a troubling example of American neoliberal thinking. While Gary framed his ideas with humanistic overtones, his approach leans heavily on a libertarian ideology that risks oversimplifying the complex issue of organizational responsibility into little more than a cost-cutting exercise.

While Gary certainly acknowledges a range of people-centric interventions in his book and presents interesting case studies, his aggressive core message often centers on slashing middle management to reduce the so-called "bureaucracy mass index," equating human employees with excess fat. This reductionist approach mirrors the libertarian mantra that central government and bureaucracy are inherently bad—believing that less bureaucracy always equals greater efficiency, and that the final goal is maximizing share price.

In contrast, Peter Drucker’s philosophy was holistic, recognizing that businesses exist within broader societal contexts and have responsibilities to all stakeholders, not just shareholders. He would certainly have also understood that not all bureaucracy is stifling; some structures are essential for ensuring organizational coherence, fairness, and long-term stability.

Gary's populist message misses this crucial nuance. His call for "more capitalism to fix capitalism" mirrors the arms lobby’s demand for more weapons to prevent gun violence—a dangerously anachronistic approach. It assumes that reducing bureaucracy will automatically lead to better outcomes, ignoring the ethical responsibility businesses have beyond their immediate profit margins.

Thankfully, #Bosch’s Katja von Raven and #Tata’s Ramabadran Gopal steered the discussion back to where it belongs: a fundamental rethinking of what businesses are meant to serve—not just shareholders, but all stakeholders.

Good management isn’t just about cutting (over)heads to—allegedly—liberate workers into mini-capitalists. It’s about integrating efficiency with human dignity, fostering personal and organizational development, and ensuring long-term societal responsibility. The gap between neoliberal capitalism and humanism cannot be bridged by mere efficiency measures or superficial cuts to management layers.

As Gopal pointed out, efficiency is not the same as effectiveness. Efficiency only becomes a positive amplifier when an organization operates with the understanding that true corporate responsibility involves not just market leadership, but also social and environmental stewardship.

#Transformation #Leadership #CSR #Sustainability #purpose

#JUSTICE IN THE WORKPLACE?

Today, I attended a session on workplace justice that, while intriguing, quickly became chaotic. Participants shifted between conflicting perspectives—viewing justice variously as meritocracy, fulfillment of basic needs (referencing Maslow’s hierarchy), indigenous community values, diversity, transactional fairness, living wages, or layoff prevention.

This confusion isn’t surprising; for decades, leadership programs and business schools have sidelined ethics and politics, despite the inherently political nature of organizations. As a result, leaders often gravitate towards the latest hype that comes to mind.

So, what is justice in the workplace? It greatly depends on the ethical or political framework applied. Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing overall happiness, often resulting in policies that favor majority benefits or maximise financial outcomes, compromising individual welfare to boost productivity. Social Contract Theory emphasizes procedural fairness and equal opportunity, accepting inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged. Deontology is rooted in universal moral duties, prioritizing fairness and rights-based policies. Equity Theory and meritocracy define justice as perceived fairness in rewards, relative to each person’s contributions. Communitarianism views justice through shared values and mutual responsibility, putting the collective good above individual gains. Ethics of Care centers on relational responsibility, promoting empathy and support rather than strict impartiality. Each theory has pros and cons, shaping unique expectations for freedom, responsibility, and what it means to be treated justly in the workplace.

While Rawls' "counterfactual" theory of justice as fairness is certainly the most prevalent, it is rooted in a number of simplistic and mechanistic assumptions, with justice framed primarily as a distributional question between "unencumbered individuals" behind a veil of ignorance in the original position. This paradigm overlooks the complexities of social systems and structural injustice, and, as Rawls himself acknowledges, falls short of fostering true moral goodness.

Therefore, I argue that virtue ethics can often offer a more holistic and practical approach. In workplaces grounded in virtue ethics, leaders nurture individual virtues such as courage, honesty, and temperance, while fostering communities that support mutual development. They also design structures and routines that promote the common good. Justice becomes a shared journey, not just a set of rules, where just organizations actively "shape" good people.

While implementing virtue ethics is certainly challenging, a simpler first step might be to stop workplace #INJUSTICE. In virtue ethics, the opposite of justice, dikaiosyne, is pleonexia—the drive to take more than what is rightfully ours. Perhaps ending the undue exploitation of people and nature is not the worst starting point.

#transformation #leadership

WHENEVER YOU HEAR AI, THINK POWER

The rise of artificial intelligence is often framed as a revolutionary force—one that promises to transform industries and empower individuals. But beneath the hype lies a deeper truth: Technology is never neutral. It can either benefit society or be controlled by elites to reinforce their power. This dynamic has played out time and again, with powerful groups capturing new technologies to consolidate their wealth and influence.

* As Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson argue in Power and Progress, Technology has always been a means of wielding and increasing power. Whether it was the printing press or the computer, elites have historically seized control of new technologies to reinforce their dominance.

* For a time, the knowledge worker—those whose labour is intellectual—seemed poised to disrupt this cycle. Knowledge work offered a way for individuals to regain control of the forces of production - even without owning the means of production - thus building a more equitable economy.

* But as Gianpiero Petriglieri reminded us this morning here at the #GPDF2024. AI threatens to undermine this promise. Rather than empowering or “augmenting” the knowledge worker, Generative AI often automates tasks once performed by skilled professionals, from writing to coding. This shift isn’t just about job loss—it’s about shifting control back to the tech elite who own AI systems, leaving most workers without economic agency.

* More broadly, the rise of AI could also have serious implications for democracy. A functioning democracy relies on a strong, educated middle class that can engage in political life. But as AI displaces knowledge workers, rather than “democratizing knowledge” it risks eroding both media and the critical middle class. It doesn’t come as a surprise perhaps that tech billionaires are increasingly seeking political power in order to undermine regulation and democratic safeguards.

* Thus, AI could quickly become a tool to complete the agenda of neoliberal capitalism - by consolidating power in the hands of a few tech companies and plutocrats who control the algorithms, data, and infrastructure.

So, whenever you hear “AI,” think power. Who controls it? Who benefits from it? As Amy Edmondson pointed out this morning, we’re not naturally good at understanding systemic risks. If AI continues on its current path, there is a substantial danger that it might contribute to making the many powerless in the hands of the few who control the machines—and increasingly the future.

#transformation #sustainability #innovation #Technology #Leadership 

Climate Change and the Rise of "Friendly" Fascism: A Dangerous Double-Act

As the climate crisis deepens, it’s crucial to consider how climate change activism—despite its noble intentions—might unintentionally fuel the very forces that breed fascism. When a crisis like climate change is framed in apocalyptic terms, it amplifies anxiety and a sense of societal collapse. This anxiety feeds into several key drivers of fascism: economic instability, nationalism, authoritarian leadership, fear of change, and scapegoating.

The fear of an uncertain future, combined with the demand for immediate, radical change, creates fertile ground for authoritarian solutions. Charismatic leaders can capitalize on this fear, offering simple, often xenophobic answers to complex problems. This is echoed in the “great replacement” theory—a fascist lie that suggests societal collapse is a result of deliberate efforts to replace the native population with outsiders. As the New Yorker puts it, “The apparent complexity of the world resolves itself as a conspiracy, just as the attendant anxiety is resolved by hatred.”

In the face of climate-induced disruption, nationalism can intensify as people seek to protect what they perceive as their "homeland" from outside threats, whether environmental migrants or global elites. The fear of change or loss of cultural identity can further radicalize populations, pushing them toward fascist rhetoric that promises stability and control, even at the expense of liberty and human rights.

This brings to mind Luigino Bruni's reflection on the Parable of the Good Samaritan in the Gospel of Luke. The powerful story challenges us to reconsider the concept of "neighbour" — not as someone who is geographically or socially closest to us, but as every human being who has a rightful claim to our compassion and responsibility. As Stefano Zamagni observes, one of the greatest crises of our time may be a crisis of community. Or in Henry Mintzberg's words: we need 'communityship' as much as we need leadership. Only if we start to foster our relational and moral capabilities can we hope to prevent the ecological crisis from evolving into a broader social crisis, undermining the urgent calls for socio-ecological justice raised by green reformers.

Thus, while we all must urgently address climate change, we must also be aware of how the anxiety it generates may be harnessed by fascist movements. The push for change must be careful not to sow the seeds of something far darker.

#COP28 #Leadership #ClimateChange #Transformation #Sustainability #ESG #BusinessforHumanity

Thanks, Hans Stegeman for triggering the thought. Thanks, Guido Palazzo for reference to New Yorker. John Davis linked to your point about activism Kees Klomp Antoinette Weibel as per our discussion with Matthias Schmelzer yesterday

IS BUSINESS STEPPING UP? THE DRUCKER FORUM #GPDF2024 IS HERE!

For many years, the Global Peter Drucker Forum in Vienna has been a key event on my calendar. Why? Because it gathers some of the sharpest minds in #leadership and #management to explore how business can drive value for a better future.

The forum embodies Peter Drucker’s enduring legacy: a commitment to ethical management, people-centered leadership, and organizations’ moral duty to contribute to the common good. Peter championed innovation, decentralisation, continuous learning, and social responsibility—principles that still guide many of our discussions about modern management practices today.

But the forum isn’t just a gathering; it’s a place where executives, academics, and innovators come together to explore how leadership can address both business and critical societal challenges. From adapting leadership for technological change, redefining knowledge worker productivity and fostering creative and scientific innovation, to ethical considerations in AI, corporate social responsibility, and justice in the workplace, the forum is unique in bridging humanism with management.

This year, with the climate crisis worsening, threats to democracy, regional conflicts, and the rise of generative AI, the urgency to act feels stronger than ever. Despite bold statements from Davos and the Business Roundtable, true transformative change remains elusive. With COP28 occurring simultaneously, this forum is an opportunity to spark collective action.

We need fresh narratives and solutions for a sustainable future—I am sure Peter Drucker would have demanded it, urging businesses to take responsibility in our complex 21st century.

Hence, I’m truly excited to reconnect this week with so many brilliant thought leaders, colleagues, and friends. If you’re in Vienna, let’s come together to inspire and catalyze the transformative change that our times so urgently require!

#ResponsibleLeadership #Sustainability #FutureOfBusiness #ClimateAction #Management #Innovation #COP28

THE ‘GOOD AFRICAN’: How Nelson Mandela Was Appropriated by the West

Nelson Mandela is often hailed as an exemplary leader, yet few people recognize how extensively his legacy has been sanitized by Western powers to obscure his radical politics and his transformative vision for social justice.

During South Africa’s apartheid regime, Mandela was a central figure in the fight against racial oppression, spending 27 years in prison for his activism with the African National Congress. While he was imprisoned, Western leaders largely supported the apartheid government, with figures like Margaret Thatcher labelling him a 'terrorist.'

As apartheid crumbled, the West swiftly rebranded Mandela's image, transmuting him from a dangerous revolutionary to a cherished icon of Western ideals. The sanitized portrayal downplayed his critiques of capitalism and imperialism, as well as his alliances with socialist movements and support for the ANC's armed campaign. By framing him as the 'Good African' embodying 'universal' values like liberty and democracy, the West deflected attention from its own complicity in apartheid and ignored Mandela's calls for socialist reforms. The reappropriation powerfully illustrates cultural hegemony, as Western media shapes a popular 'Mandela story' to serve its own interests—allowing businesses and political elites to use human rights rhetoric as a shield, obscuring their role in global inequality and reinforcing the legitimacy of the international status quo.

Hence, understanding Mandela’s legacy beyond the Western stereotypes is essential. His life’s work encompassed the struggle for social justice, national liberation, and resistance to tyranny, occupation, racism, and imperialism. This includes his socialist leanings, his armed resistance against apartheid, and his steadfast support for global liberation movements. He was a staunch supporter of the Palestinian struggle for freedom and openly acknowledged the crucial support he received from leaders like Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi. On Israel, Mandela was unequivocal: while Israel has the right to exist within secure borders, it has no right to 'retain the territories they conquered from the Arab world, like the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank.' When Barack Obama, ironically, hailed Mandela as the 'last great liberator of the 20th century,' it starkly contrasted with Mandela’s outspoken opposition to U.S. and British interventions and his condemnation of the U.S. as a 'threat to world peace.'

Mandela was far from an unambiguous, idealized pop culture icon. He was an extraordinary leader precisely because he rejected the oppressive forces of Western culture and #capitalism. His true legacy is a call for civil disobedience when standing up against racism, neoliberalism, and imperialism, in a fight for social #justice, national liberation, and resistance to tyranny—a struggle that continues into the 21st century.

#leadership #transformation #sustainability

LOST IN THE GLOBAL NORTH: Reassessing a Simplistic Dichotomy

The terms "Global North" and "Global South" have become key fixtures in global discourse, meant to highlight the economic and political divide between wealthier, industrialized nations and the poorer, often unstable countries. Yet, these labels oversimplify a complex global reality, masking diverse histories, identities, and socio-economic realities that defy easy categorization.

The "Global North" generally encompasses North America, Western Europe, and parts of East Asia and Oceania—nations that are seen as prosperous with stable political systems. The "Global South" traditionally encompasses Africa, Latin America, and other parts of Asia. The terminology arose as an alternative to the "third world" or "developing" country designations, aiming to avoid a prescriptive view of progress and to better reflect the complex historical and economic contexts. However, the new binary framework often assumes universal prosperity in the North and chronic instability in the South, ignoring regional disparities.

• Frequent reference to colonial history complicates the North/South divide further. While powers like the UK, France, and Spain had extensive colonial empires, others like, for example, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden and Finland, all Global North countries, had minimal colonial histories. Conversely, Ireland—colonized by Britain—also falls within this category, highlighting the inconsistencies of a blanket classification. A focus on a colonial narrative is often driven by ideological motives and risks presenting the Global South as a passive victim of Northern influence, side-lining the internal dynamics, governance issues, regional conflicts and social challenges that play crucial roles in shaping these countries.

• The rise of nations like China and India further challenges the binary divide. Once classified as part of the Global South, China is now an economic powerhouse with substantial global influence, blurring the line between North and South. Similarly, countries like South Korea and Singapore, once economically underdeveloped, have become success stories, complicating their categorization.

• Finally, the intra-regional disparities within Global North and South further complicate the division. Within Europe, countries like Albania and Ukraine face challenges starkly different from those of wealthier nations. Similarly, in the Global South, countries like Botswana and Chile show how development diverges from broader regional trends.

Graphic: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Global_North_and_South

Leading in Complexity: Who Is The Best Leader?

#Leadership in a complex world requires more than agility; it demands the ability to integrate diverse perspectives while navigating external challenges and internal differences. As organizations face growing interdependence, rapid change, and ambiguity, leaders must manage both external shifts and internal viewpoints, values, and goals.

Wise leadership balances ends (goals) and means (external conditions), fostering growth, collaboration, and resilience. Leaders must engage with both axes of complexity: external challenges (technical complexity) and internal diversity (subjective experiences). This requires navigating external changes and internal preferences.

1. Donald Trump (Machine):

Trump exemplifies Tactical Control, where organizations operate like machines—predictable and controlled. His leadership focuses on closed systems, where winning and losing is all that matters, and negotiation builds on domination. While sometimes effective in high-stakes situations, this style struggles with collaboration and long-term solutions.

2. Elon Musk (Organism):

Musk embodies Adaptive Resilience, where organizations respond fast to external complexity with a strong central vision. His leadership is agile but often neglects internal pluralism, limiting collaboration and growth.

3. Jacinda Ardern (Political Community):

As Prime Minister, Ardern exemplifies Dialogical Integration, fostering collaboration and inclusivity. Her leadership integrates diverse perspectives, focusing on social justice and collective good, showing how wise leadership unites people through empathy and action.

4. Abraham Lincoln (Practice):

Lincoln represents Dialectical Excellence, where resilience and pluralism are balanced. His leadership during the Civil War integrated diverse perspectives, aiming for ethical principles and long-term unity, demonstrating how leaders can transform organizations and societies.

As the saying goes, in calm waters, everybody is a good captain. But as complexity grows, leadership must evolve. Wise leadership requires a balance of control, adaptability, dialogue, and transformation, paving the way for collective flourishing. This is why wisdom in leadership involves dialectics—the dynamic interplay between external challenges, internal diversity, and moral development. Our perceptions of the world shape how we respond to its complexities.

Wise leadership is not just about hitting targets. It is a journey of becoming—creating transformative practices that enhance both truth and freedom, while fostering organizational wisdom to deliver lasting social value.

#Complexity #Leadership #GoodLeadership #Transformation #SocialFlourishing #Innovation #Sustainability

Comments:

• The idea here is to translate a complex topic into some simple stereotypes to trigger interest and critical thinking. Of course, the chosen individuals are highly subjective and only meant to be illustrative./ However the archetypes are detailed in order to avoid "over" simplification.
• When it comes to categorisation and axes these are grounded as follows. Left axis: increasing depth/interdependence. Right axis: increasing plurality of opinions. Result at organisational level: left axis - focus on control vs resilience/agility. Right axis - focus on isolation (one prevalent opinion/goal) vs integration. See further information in previous post
• The point about integrating perspectives is related to the need to move not only BEYOND categories, but also be able to view the world FROM the different perspectives in the first place. I thought that was quite evident.

UNDERSTANDING COMPLEXITY LEADERSHIP

#Complexity arises from a world marked by interdependence, rapid change, and ambiguity. Often, complexity is discussed through agility—adapting means to meet external change. However, complexity is not just about responding to external shifts but also about integrating diverse internal perspectives. It requires navigating both ends (goals) and means (external conditions).

The left axis of the matrix reflects external complexity—representing a structural sociology, focused on control and predictability. Methodologies like Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS), Lean, and Cybernetics address these aspects, enabling resilience and agility. The right axis, reflects an interpretative sociology, which emphasises pluralism and subjective experience, focussing on the internal complexity of diverse preferences and worldviews. This draws on Arrow’s impossibility theorem, which highlights the challenge of achieving consensus among differing perspectives.

The intersection of these axes forms a dialectical space, where leaders develop their understanding of both ontological (reality) and epistemological (truth) complexities, overcoming absences and contradictions through good action (ethics).

Tactical Control (Machine)

Focuses on control, predictability, and rigid structures. Organizations operate like machines, aiming for efficiency with little room for diverse perspectives. Leadership emphasizes top-down direction.

Adaptive Resilience (Organism)

These organizations adapt to external complexity but retain unitary internal goals. They emphasize resilience, often in competitive environments, where change is managed but diversity of thought remains limited.

Dialogical Integration (Political Community)

These organizations foster collaboration and shared governance. They integrate diverse perspectives, striving for fairness and social justice while engaging all voices in decision-making.

Dialectical Excellence (Professional Practice)

Organizations here balance external resilience and internal pluralism, aiming for flourishing. Leadership cultivates an environment of freedom, care, and character development, leading to flourishing as a byproduct of reflective and transformative practice.

Dialectics implies the sublation of the tension between outer and inner complexities. How individuals see the world influences their response to external challenges. This interplay requires a continual examination of values, ethics, and corporate responsibility. By integrating contradictions, leaders drive organizational growth and social justice, fostering #transformation.

Complexity #leadership is about shaping organizational #wisdom for societal #flourishing. Leaders must work on cultures, structures, and individual agency, guiding their organizations to continually experiment with “good organizing.” In the end, wise leadership is about becoming—developing organisational character, wisdom, and practices that lead to collective flourishing.

Comments:

• A 2x2 matrix can be overly simplistic and is meant here for illustration
• The axes are intentionally chosen to reflect my views on both Mike Jackson's and Ralph Stacey's work, while combining with Bhaskar's DCR, linkedin to Hegelian and Marxist dialectics, as well as Laske's metathinking, Aristotelian VE, Pettit's Republicanism, and various moral development theories eg Rest/Narvaez's four component model.
• A critical point is to include (goal) ambiguity as part of complexity
• The resilience vs control notation is meant to keep things simple in terms of the vocabulary deployed for the different metaphors (machine vs organism).
• As for the quadrants, the main point is that our interventions vary depending on the underlying paradigm. I admit it’s very tricky to capture the full idea of dialectics and wisdom without slipping into a rather ambiguous mysticism! A more practical example would help, but with a 3000-character limit on LinkedIn, I had to keep it abstract.

START WITH WHO, NOT WHY

The "Virtuous Circle" of professional practice focuses on developing character through everyday actions and interactions within the organization. This character-driven approach places "Who"—the core of who we aspire to be—at the center, creating a ripple effect that defines how we act and why we commit ourselves to ethical and social responsibilities.

Here's how the virtuous circle unfolds:

Who (Character as Practice)

Instead of focusing on a catchy mission statement or purpose, "Who" starts with character. Character is the heart of who we aim to become as an organization. It’s a living commitment to virtues like integrity, responsibility, and respect for the larger world we’re part of. In every action and choice, we express and refine our character, building an organization that genuinely reflects what we value. Character isn’t just something we decide on once—it’s what we become by consistently and habitually choosing to act well. In this model, character is built, lived, and strengthened through practice.

How (Products and Processes Embodying Character)

The how in this model goes beyond the simplistic idea of what makes us unique. How is about creating processes and structures that actively express and strengthen who we are. Every policy, workflow, and system is designed with broader awareness and care, looking beyond efficiency or competitive advantage. For example, we might create hiring processes that reflect a commitment to fairness or choose sustainable suppliers out of a commitment to environmental care.

Why (Moral Ambition)

In "Start with Who," the why isn’t about finding a motivational purpose; it’s about moral ambition. It is a promise to act with responsibility and integrity, creating social value that goes beyond profit or growth. We’re committed to a larger mission that fosters human and environmental flourishing. Here, why is not just a statement but a lived commitment to make the world better. This moral ambition shapes our organization’s purpose as an evolving practice - emergent from the who and the how - where we actively contribute to a just and meaningful society.

Why "Start with Who" is More Effective

"Start with Who" takes purpose from a glorified mission statement to a continuous, character-driven practice. Unlike utilitarian models that focus merely on outcomes, it seeks to build an adaptable, resilient organization rooted in moral responsibility and virtue. This isn’t just about doing something unique; it’s about cultivating the freedom to flourish—making ethical actions part of our everyday work. With character at the center, we don’t just state our purpose; we live it, creating an organization that grows with and through its actions. Purpose here is not a nice slogan—it’s a daily, practiced commitment to becoming better together.

#transformation #leadership #sustainability #goodorganisations #freedomtoflourish #business #HR

ELECTORAL ARITHMETIC: A Lesson In Corporate Math

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to "Corporate Society 101," where we apply the robust arithmetic of wealth to the quaint concept of democracy! Let’s take a journey through the numbers, shall we?

In SOCIETY we begin with the classic equation:

1 person = 1 vote

Lovely, isn’t it? As simple as it is outdated, equality for all. But enter the world of ECONOMY:

1 vote = $1

Suddenly, things start to get interesting. Votes depend on Dollars, and influence is directly proportional to wealth. And if we’re small-minded (and by "small-minded," we mean strategically capitalist), we can see that there's an untapped opportunity here. Imagine if we "multiplied" our social values by economic principles...

Let’s apply a simple substitution. We take the original democratic equation, 1 person = 1 vote, but now we substitute vote = $ from the economy’s rulebook. Voilà! Our new equation reads:

1 person = 1 $

With a little twist in corporate math, people are no longer just voters—they're valuable assets! Just as shares represent equity in a company, people represent equity in democracy. The more dollars you have, the more pieces of the CORPORATE SOCIETY you own. Need influence? Simply buy more votes!

And now, here’s the kicker: This isn't some shadowy cabal plotting from dimly lit boardrooms. No, no—it's just basic, honest bingo for billionaires! Just look at recent appointments in government: the plutocrats are everywhere. It’s like the VIP section of democracy, where the champagne flows and the policies follow. Perhaps soon, politicians will have stock ticker symbols. Who knows, maybe one day we’ll just make government IPOs, and get democracies rated by Moody’s!

So next time you read in the Washington Post “one person, one vote,” don’t be naïve—Jeff Bezos & the corporate elite have already done the math. Spoiler alert: democracy might be just one of those things Amazon doesn’t ship!

#bestdemocracymoneycanbuy #politics #publicchoice #election #sustainability #innovation #transformation

Dedicated to Henry Mintzberg and #RebalancingSociety. 

PS: Cheers to Marty Barton! Yes. "This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty”. On all sides.

The Great Steal: When Trump Took The People’s Vote

Folks, let me tell you – we are witnessing something absolutely disgraceful happening to this country. A total disaster. They’ve stolen the election, and I’m not talking about some random, little election. No, this is the big one – the most important election in the history of our nation. The one meant to show the world how strong America is. Instead, it’s been hijacked by crooked billionaires, media elites, and tech moguls who want to tear us down. People like Elon Musk, who thinks he owns free speech, or Howard Lutnick and his Wall Street buddies, who have been lining their pockets for years, looking down on hardworking Americans like you. These guys don’t care about America. They only care about power and control, and they’ve used every trick to take away your voice.

And the media? Oh, don’t even get me started on the media. The media, they’re the worst, absolute worst. Fake news everywhere, just lies, lies, lies. And Tucker Carlson, he’s part of it too. Feeding you lies, twisting the truth. What does he want? Power. What do these billionaires want? Power. They don’t care about democracy, they care about keeping you down, keeping the system rigged. They’ll do anything to make sure you don’t know the truth. And yet, the American people – you know it, I know it – we saw it all. We saw the truth.

Now, let’s talk about what really happened. The whole system was rigged, folks. I’m telling you, rigged like we’ve never seen before. The election wasn’t free and fair – it was stolen. And they don’t want us to win because they fear us. They fear the people. They don’t want you to stand up, they don’t want you to speak out – they want to silence you, they want to control you, they want to keep you in the dark. And guess what? It’s not going to work, folks. Not on my watch.

We are going to fight back, and we’re going to fight back bigly. They think they can just get away with it? No way. No way. They tried to bury the truth, but it’s right there in front of us. The fraud, the corruption – it’s all there. And we’re going to expose it. It’s time to drain the swamp and give democracy back to the people.

So don’t let them tell you it’s over. Don’t let them tell you that we lost. Because guess what? We didn’t lose. We’re just getting started. And together, we’re going to make our democracy great again – for the first time, we’ll make the world great again. And we’ll make sure that your voice is heard.

This isn’t just about winning the election – this is about saving America. We’re going to protect freedom, we’re going head-to-head with these billionaires, these elites who’ve rigged the game. Maybe we’re going down to their level a bit. But sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

So, let’s get out there and let the world know that we’re not backing down. Not now, not ever. We’re going to win, and we’re going to save democracy, folks. Believe me, we will win.

Yours truly, the (flawed) #Democracy ;-)

BLACK FRIDAY SALES: THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY™ — NOW Cheaper Than Ever!

Once again, the U.S. has set the standard for the world. Its democracy is indeed the best money can buy, as Greg Palast wrote in 2002 - in fact, it's the best that has ever been bought. While other democracies are stuck worrying about pesky revolving doors between government and private sector, America has leaped ahead, tossing out the door altogether and turning its government into a full-blown supermarket for the rich and powerful. Yesterday’s elections were just the latest proof: Elon Musk reportedly invested $130 million to buy himself a potential post in a future Trump administration — the kind of high-stakes shopping spree that’s quickly becoming the American way.

It’s almost poetic. For years, U.S. corporations have been quietly eroding democracy from the inside, investing billions in lobbying, campaign contributions, and media influence to ensure that every policy, every law, every supreme court judge subtly tilts in their favour. Trade agreements now routinely include clauses that allow corporations to sue governments for daring to prioritize public health, environmental sustainability, or local economies over corporate profit. And the numbers tell the story: as Paul Adler writes in The 99% Economy, industries like fossil fuels, pharmaceuticals, and tech pour billions into lobbying to keep laws that could benefit the public off the table. In fact, regulation itself has become a joke when the people meant to police industries or stock markets end up coming straight from corporate offices — and later return there for even better-paid roles. Roll over, Montesquieu! It’s not “revolving doors” anymore; it’s a VIP lounge where the elite sip their champagne and decide who gets the next position of influence.

The public loses, and businesses win — but in America, that’s of course just the way it works. Everything's a big game with winners and losers. So why not cut to the chase? Let the billionaires bid for office roles openly, or, better yet, do away with any pretense of public representation and create a public auction for government posts — the candidates with the highest donations wins the office. No votes required! If you happen to be a small-town billionaire with a private yacht and personal island, why not add a corner office in the Senate to your trophy collection?

The best part? The people love it. Captivated by the dazzling show of wealth, mesmerized by the promise of “success,” they cheer for the very players who game the system and render them powerless. It’s the perfect capitalist fantasy — a nation where politics is the ultimate luxury market, and power is the ultimate product. The rest of the “developing” democratic world can only stand by in awe...

#leadership #transformation #democracy #politics #justice

The Funniest Thing I Saw Yesterday: 41% of Americans believe Donald Trump is a good leader. What's makes this so hilarious? At the same time, only 9% think he cares about people, and just 7% believe he has good judgment.

So, if leadership doesn’t require care or justice, then what exactly does it require? My cynical guess: People are simply calculating how to advance their own economic self-interest, no matter the cost to society.

This is a far cry from democratic principles. John Stuart Mill made it clear that democracy isn’t about voting for your personal gain—it's about considering what's best for everyone, like a juror who weighs evidence impartially. Otherwise it isn't democracy. Full stop.

But here we are AGAIN, clinging to the myth of Adam Smith’s "invisible hand", putting our faith into the misguided belief that the economy is separate from society, and that individual selfishness can magically transmute into collective prosperity—a concept based on Smith's deism and hardly the foundation for a modern, thriving society. As Joe Stiglitz rightly put it, "The invisible hand is often invisible because it ain’t there."

Americans like to say "In God We Trust," and, frankly, at this point, with this kind of voting intelligence, they’d better really start doing so—because with their misguided views on earthly leadership, only divine intervention can save us now.

#leadership #transformation #management #goodleadership

PS: As several readers pointed out, the CNN voiceover here might have been misleading me. The graphic states "which quality matters most," which doesn’t necessarily mean that voters disregard all other qualities. However, this still implicitly suggests a very curious interpretation of leadership—one that could imply it’s possible to be a leader without care or judgment, which is the central point I’m making here.

Red-Hair and the Problem with #Business

Once, in the not-so-distant industrial age, people were troubled by the chaotic state of business. Shareholders ruled, profits were king, and the workers’ toil was used solely to inflate earnings.

If you wanted to grow profits, you simply cut wages, lengthened hours, or “optimized” teams to the bone. Spot a better-performing competitor? Buy them out, extract value, and discard the rest. Companies ran dry, industries polluted, and workers burned out to satisfy shareholders’ insatiable demand for growth.

Naturally, workers watched each other warily. Competing for job security and promotions, they were pitted against one another by rankings, metrics, and quotas. Instead of building a workplace for all, time was spent guarding one's own position.

Many began to murmur, “Truly, we are odd creatures. We’ve reached astonishing heights: messages span the globe in seconds, clean energy from the sun powers entire cities, and we’ve cracked the code of our DNA. Little by little, we are mastering nature to build a world of marvels.

"Yet, we haven’t mastered ourselves. We chase profits and status, and there’s no harmony here—only division. As long as the shareholder is worshipped, we’re caught in a game we can’t win. We dream of a world where work serves the common good, but without a new order, our efforts are hollow.”

Generations of #leaders pondered a solution. How could the fruits of work be shared justly? After years of debate, they proposed a new agreement. What if companies acknowledged the need to create social value. If corporate governance recognized that all groups had stakes in the company's success, treating workers as "partners" and shareholders as "supporters". Any breach of this law would meet accountability by those protecting a just enterprise.

A great summit was called, attended by leaders across industries. Some arrived with hope, others skeptical but willing to listen, and some simply following orders, prepared to go along with the consensus.

But on the sidelines was Red-Hair the Atavism, an old capitalist with a booming voice. Sneering, he jeered, “Change business? Let workers stand equal with shareholders? Laughable! Look at those dreamers, talking about a new business order!” And his followers, buoyed by his loudness, echoed, “Haw haw! They think they can change business!”

The summit faltered, and two centuries passed in which workers burned out while shareholders thrived. A sustainable, fair system remained a distant dream.

But consider this: though Red-Hair had his day, the idea of a fair workplace didn’t fade. Today, imperfect institutions are emerging, balancing profit with purpose and value for all.

Now, another story unfolds—the story of humans and nature. Today, we must prepare a covenant with Earth itself. Unlike business, nature gives no margin for delay. We don’t have two hundred years, nor even twenty. Perhaps not even two.

And the Red-Hairs are back. That’s our real problem.

(Based on Hayakawa, language in thought and action, 1977, foreword)

It's funny how many people in modern democracies seem to selfishly insist on individual rights without any acknowledgment of the corresponding obligations. This is what Philip Pettit calls the Cheshire cat fallacy.

"The Cheshire Cat fallacy, as I think about it with rights is the fallacy of thinking that you can remove all rules, and still find rights remaining; the sort of rights that rules would establish."

The Need for FEWER STORIES ABOUT #STORYTELLING in Change #Management

In today’s world of business and societal transformation, "storytelling" has become a popular fad. Leaders are encouraged to craft compelling narratives, and change initiatives often rely heavily on stories to engage people. But is this emphasis on storytelling really serving us—or just clouding our understanding of what really drives or needs change?

Ontologically speaking, stories inherently simplify complex events, often neglecting deeper structural realities. They overlook divergent values, systemic power and relationships, or economic and political institutions that drive social systems. Focusing on fancy tales alone risks reducing intricate dynamics to personal narratives, perpetuating an inflated belief in individual agency— by spotlighting “heroes” and dramatic arcs, it distracts us from powerful collective and systemic forces at play.

Epistemologically, storytelling prioritizes emotional resonance over evidence-based insight. Stories are often chosen to confirm existing or ideological beliefs rather than challenge them, leading to a sort of “echo chamber” effect. This emphasis on coherence often simplifies complex cause-and-effect relationships, making change appear far more straightforward than it actually is. When stories reinforce only the perspectives that fit specific narratives, they risk crowding out nuanced analysis that could lead to more effective and equitable interventions.

There’s also an ethical dimension to consider. Stories in organizations can be manipulated to advance hegemonic agendas, turning individual experiences into marketing tools for reinforcing specific corporate narratives. This can lead to the instrumentalization of people without fully informed consent, particularly if the story is repurposed to align with institutional goals. Moreover, when stories highlight individual responsibility for success or failure, they risk oversimplifying accountability, overlooking the systemic elements of failure or achievement, and sometimes even scapegoating individuals.

Thus, storytelling appeals to those looking for quick, engaging answers. It feels satisfying and actionable, providing a seemingly straightforward path to understanding and driving #change. However, there’s a hidden risk: over-reliance on storytelling can justify oversimplified “solutions” while sidelining the rigorous inquiry needed to address the complex, often uncomfortable realities of change. #Leaders who favour storytelling may, whether inadvertently or intentionally, seek an illusion of clarity, preferring a unifying narrative over confronting essential conflicts and deeper realities.

While good stories can spark energy and unity in the short term, true #transformation of a social system requires a careful balance of evidence, systemic analysis, and ethical clarity. In this light, our obsession with storytelling might just be getting in the way of the truths we need to hear.

The Bizarre Popularity of "Quantum Management"

Quantum mechanics has found an unexpected following in management theory. "Quantum management" uses concepts like entanglement, uncertainty, and superposition to explain social systems, yet this approach faces deep challenges. Can ideas meant for particles actually apply to people, decisions, or organizations?

Ontologically, quantum mechanics deals with subatomic particles governed by mathematical laws and probability, while social systems involve conscious, goal-oriented beings, values and institutions, and social structures. Treating social systems like quantum systems risks serious category mistakes, reducing human and social complexity to simplified physical mechanics. And unlike quantum particles, people have agency and intentions—central to social science but poorly addressed in quantum metaphors.

Epistemologically, quantum mechanics is difficult even within physics, with competing interpretations and paradoxes. Anyone who’s ever opened a basic quantum physics handbook for the first time—as I did last week—knows the overwhelming complexity of the abstract mathematical formulas. Applying it to social sciences adds another layer of interpretational difficulty. For instance, in quantum mechanics, observation affects outcomes—yet in social sciences, the observer effect is more about reflexivity and cultural context, not physical laws. Quantum’s probabilistic nature could also misrepresent social behaviors, which emerge from history, culture, and human intent, not strict probability.

Ethically, the quantum metaphor has most risks. By suggesting human actions are indeterminate or random, or positing some abstract foundational 'entanglement', it undermines concepts of free will, political dialogue, and moral accountability. Using the metaphor can also grant social theories an unearned scientific authority, potentially leading to misguided conclusions if readers misunderstand the science. There’s even a risk that, under quantum’s “uncertainty,” individuals or organizations might dodge responsibility, framing outcomes as mere “uncertainties” rather than responsible and actionable choices.

So why is this metaphor attractive? Perhaps for all the wrong reasons. Quantum jargon can dazzle, lending speculative and "spiritual" mystique or perceived depth. But there’s also a convenient appeal to shifting accountability. Under “quantum uncertainty,” complexities are minimized, every moral choice is turned into an alleged "paradox", and responsibility becomes fuzzy—enticing, but ethically (and intellectually) hollow. Quantum mechanics can offer intriguing metaphors, but its use in management may reveal more about our desire for shortcuts than true insight into human systems.

#leadership #transformation #management #innovation #business #leadershipsociety

PS: When people talk about quantum mechanics or quantum physics in management, they often have in mind the limitations of our knowledge and the ambiguity that seems to be constitutive of the “real world”. Of course, the analogy is highly problematic when translated uncritically to social systems, but it is an equally important insight also in social research that the perspective of the observer often influences how we see and interpret the world.

Raphael's School of Athens, completed 1511, stands as one of the most significant masterpieces of the Renaissance. This monumental fresco, measuring over 4 meters high and nearly 8 meters wide, decorates the Stanza della Segnatura in the Vatican, a room in Pope Julius II’s private apartments. It embodies a gathering of the greatest thinkers from classical antiquity, symbolizing a harmonious blend of #philosophy, #science and #spirituality.

At the center of the fresco, Plato and Aristotle face each other, representing the dichotomy between idealism and empiricism. Plato, pointing skyward, emphasizes the pursuit of higher, eternal truths—his philosophy rooted in the belief that the material world is but a shadow of a more significant reality. In contrast, Aristotle gestures downward, focusing on tangible experiences and the ethical concerns of the human condition as outlined in his Nicomachean Ethics. This rivalry between their philosophies is artfully expressed through the colors of their clothing and their body language, making it clear that both thinkers seek the same ultimate truth, albeit through different paths.

Surrounding them are notable figures like Socrates, Pythagoras, Euclid, and Raphael himself, each contributing to the rich tapestry of knowledge that this fresco represents. The architectural backdrop and the staircase portray knowledge as an ordered and majestic ascent.

How would a modern equivalent of this iconic work look today? It might feature contemporary thought #leaders from various fields—technology, science, philosophy, art, and social justice—gathered in a vibrant, open space that combines elements of modern architecture with digital displays of information and art.

Perhaps figures like Albert Einstein and Tim Berners-Lee would symbolize science and innovation, while environmental advocates like Greta Thunberg would highlight global challenges. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant, Nancy Fraser or Michael Sandel would engage in discussions about #ethics and #justice, with artists such as Ai Weiwei representing the art and activism.

This begs the question: has the pursuit of modern science and technology gained a higher place on the stairs of knowledge than their predecessors? In many ways, today’s discourse far extends beyond the insights of the Renaissance. However, empirical science isn't everything. Ethical considerations have become increasingly vital as we navigate complex issues like climate change, artificial intelligence, and social justice. Just as Plato and Aristotle sought to uncover moral truths, today’s thinkers grapple with the principles to govern our rapidly changing society.

Standing - again - in front of the glorious painting I sense the dialogue continues. In order to ascend the stairs of wisdom, we must continue to strive for deeper understanding of existence and our role within it. We must honor both the knowledge of the ancients and the insights of the present, committed to a more enlightened future.

What is the True Price of What We Buy & Why Does It Matter

When we pick up a kilogram of bananas in the supermarket priced at €3.00, we’re only seeing part of the story. This price reflects the market cost—but what if it included the social and environmental impacts of production? The True Price Foundation offers a compelling example that reveals the hidden costs embedded in our purchases.

Consider this: producing 1 kg of bananas emits 10 kg of CO2-eq. and releases 0.05 kg of nitrogen into water sources. For every 30,000 kg of bananas produced, there's an occupational accident affecting workers' health and well-being. If we factor in the costs to offset these impacts—carbon capture at €0.10 per kg, nitrogen restoration at €10 per kg, and €15,000 per accident—the "true" price of roughly 5 euros/kg reflects these externalities.

Understanding the true price of products should encourage us to value and support practices that don’t just benefit our wallets, but safeguard the planet and the people involved in production. It’s a way to share responsibility across the supply chain and drive change towards more ethical and sustainable practices.

Of course, these methodologies are still evolving, and I’m not aware of any country that requires resellers to display the true cost of their products. But that shouldn’t stop us from considering the question. To make a real difference, both consumers and businesses need to recognize these hidden costs—and work to integrate them transparently. Only then can we move towards a market that aligns price and impact, fostering a more sustainable world.

What's the true cost of your next shopping trip?

#sustainability #trueprice #leadership #management #good #bcorp

WHERE HAS THE "NEW NORMAL" GONE? Remember the pandemic days, when we celebrated "essential workers" and everyone was talking about building back better? Back then, we didn’t want to return to the old normal because we believed that normalcy was exactly the problem.

But things shifted quickly. The broader sociopolitical conversation collapsed into a narrow, often self-serving debate about hybrid work. Care workers were forgotten, the applauses faded, and the stock markets kept soaring - fueled by absolute greed while wages stagnated and inflation spiraled, driven by endless quantitative easing that bailed out finance in the first place. We moved from the triple bottom line to ESG—created by bankers to stabilize cash flows, not save the planet.

And it keeps deteriorating. COPs fail one after the other, the last one sponsored by Arab oil plutocrats. Democracy is faltering as right-wing parties gain ground, many green politicians are proving even more incompetent than conventional ones, and autocrats are organizing alternative monetary and political systems to challenge a "colonial" world order.

Israel and Russia wage unjust wars on prime-time TV, while over 100 other global conflicts are quickly forgotten. To top it off, we face the real possibility of another ludicrous Trump presidency on November 5th.

Yet, there's something that keeps bothering me. Perhaps the truth is that things have never been much different, even during covid. It seems that in a modern liberal society the only boundary that is jealously defended is that of our own personal space. The "frontier of freedom" is passionately promoted both by the political right and the new left - the former advocating economic, the latter cultural individualism. As Alexander Pope points out, there's a troublesome convergence of political narratives that crowds out civic engagement, beyond a shallow pursuit of self-interest. See roaring SUV sales in European markets. Perhaps we have been too fast in celebrating that postmodern "end of grand narratives" - with nothing left to override social isolation.

I guess it's a good time to pause and ask: where are we now? What can responsible business and political leaders do? I’m looking forward to join the Business at Crossroads meeting at Castel Gandolfo, organized by Marcello Palazzi and European B Corp leaders. There’s a lot to discuss—and to act upon!

#business #transformation #leadership #climate #populism #innovation

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." — F. Scott Fitzgerald

This famous quote captures the essence of a profound struggle that many individuals face, particularly in our modern world—one that resonates deeply with the themes in Fitzgerald's The Crack-Up. In his reflective essay, Fitzgerald confronts the weight of freedom and the paradoxes inherent in the human condition. He reveals his own existential crisis, where the burden of choices and societal expectations leads to profound disillusionment.

Fitzgerald's struggle is a powerful reminder of the complexities we navigate in our quest for purpose. He articulates a sense of isolation and the painful unraveling of the self, pointing to the illusion of the persona we often create to meet societal demands. His journey through despair illuminates the challenge of balancing our responsibilities to ourselves and to others, a theme that is increasingly relevant in today's fast-paced, hyper-connected world.

At its core, Fitzgerald’s struggle is not merely about the ability to juggle conflicting ideas but about seeking wisdom in the face of uncertainty. In a society that often pressures us to conform, the challenge becomes how to honor our "authentic selves" while fulfilling our roles in the broader community. The paradox of freedom lies in the responsibility it entails—freedom is not simply a lack of constraints; it demands that we make choices, face their consequences, and own our paths.

When we consider the demands placed on us by society, our personal aspirations, and the unpredictable nature of the world around us, the need for practical wisdom becomes apparent. It’s not enough to simply hold two opposing ideas; true "intelligence" requires us to seek understanding that transcends and sublates those contradictions. It calls for a deep and dialectical engagement with our values, our relationships, and our responsibilities. As Bhaskar points out, transformation lies not simply in the difference or deconstruction of ideas, but in the cultivation of the underlying structures and character that enable them.

Freedom, as Fitzgerald notes, can become a burden. Yet, as he suggests: "Trouble has no necessary connection with discouragement—discouragement has a germ of its own, as different from trouble as arthritis is different from a stiff joint". As adults, we must embrace our roles as responsible agents in both our lives and the lives of others. It requires a journey toward self-development that recognizes the existential tension between societal claims, personal callings, and the inherent impossibility of controlling the world around us. As we navigate these complexities, it's essential to cultivate wisdom rather than merely intellectual cleverness, along with the willingness to let go of old identities.

#leadership #transformation #personaldevelopment #creativity #innovation #good

✨ Why You Should Study Philosophy ✨

 
Philosophy isn't just for academics—it's a powerful tool for anyone looking to live a more thoughtful, fulfilling life. Here’s why it matters, backed by research:

🧠 Sharpens Critical Thinking: Studies show that philosophy majors significantly improve their Habits of Mind—the ability to revise writing, seek feedback, and ask insightful questions—more than non-philosophy majors. These skills enhance intellectual rigor and problem-solving, which are invaluable in both professional and personal life.
🌿 Enhances Self-Understanding: Philosophy majors report a 40% greater increase in their sense of self-understanding compared to non-philosophy students. Engaging with philosophical questions helps you explore your own values, beliefs, and motivations, leading to deeper personal growth.
🔓 Builds Open-Mindedness: Philosophy majors show a notable increase in pluralistic orientation—the openness to having their views challenged and discussing controversial topics. This makes philosophy graduates more adept at navigating diverse perspectives, a critical skill in our increasingly polarized world.
💪 Prepares You for Life’s Challenges: While philosophy majors might enter college with an intellectual curiosity advantage, their studies further enhance traits like curiosity, open-mindedness, and reflectiveness. This combination prepares them to tackle life’s uncertainties and moral dilemmas with wisdom and resilience.

Link to the research:  https://philpapers.org/rec/PRITIO-26 

In short, studying philosophy fosters a unique blend of intellectual rigor, self-awareness, and openness that helps you thrive both personally and professionally. 🌟

#philosophy #wisdom #leadership #personaldevelopment #management #phronesis

✨ What Are the Problems with #FEMINISM? ✨ Ah, the problems with feminism—surely it’s MEN, and especially men daring to write about feminism, right?! Well, not exactly. While it’s certainly risky territory for men ;-), many of the sharpest critiques actually come from within the movement itself. Here are some of the key issues raised:

🔹 Fragmentation of the Movement:

Feminism’s diversity (liberal, radical, intersectional) leads to fragmentation, making it hard to present a unified agenda.

🔹 Excessive Focus on Identity Politics:

Feminism’s shift toward identity politics diverts attention from material issues like class and economic justice.

🔹 Reinforcement of Gender Binaries:

Focusing on "woman" and "man" risks reinforcing the binaries feminism seeks to dismantle.

🔹 Exclusion of Intersectional Perspectives:

Mainstream feminism often prioritizes white, middle-class women’s experiences, neglecting marginalized groups or sidelining non-Western perspectives.

🔹 Victimhood Narratives:

Some argue that focusing on victimhood risks portraying women as perpetual victims, undermining their agency.

🔹 Rejection of Biological Differences:

Critics suggest feminism sometimes ignores biological differences, leading to flawed policies.

🔹 Failure to Address Reproductive Labor:

Feminism can overlook unpaid domestic work, undervalued but crucial to economies.

⚠️ Perhaps the most troubling issue is feminism’s co-optation by neoliberalism. Nancy Fraser and others argue that feminism has strayed from its original goals. Second-wave feminism offered two futures: one linking emancipation with solidarity, and another focused on individual meritocracy. Unfortunately, the movement has often leaned toward the latter. Where feminists once critiqued careerism, they now encourage women to "lean in" and pursue individual success.

💬 The critique of the "family wage"—meant to challenge traditional roles—has been co-opted to justify "flexible capitalism," exploiting women’s labor without providing economic security. Many women now face lower wages, job insecurity, and the burden of balancing work and home.

💬 Feminism’s focus on cultural issues like gender identity has overshadowed the critical struggle for economic justice. This shift aligns with neoliberalism, promoting individual empowerment at the expense of social equality.

💬 Feminism’s critique of welfare-state paternalism, once progressive, is now entangled with neoliberal market solutions. Initiatives like microcredit, designed to empower women, have replaced comprehensive state efforts to address poverty, leaving systemic inequalities unchallenged.

🌱 In summary, while feminism has made great strides, it faces significant challenges. The movement must reclaim its radical roots to ensure that women’s liberation fosters a more just world. Feminism’s potential for solidarity remains, but it must break free from neoliberal narratives.

Join us for #BusinessforHumanity to find out more!

#transformation #leadership

Rethinking Sustainable Investing in Asset Management 🌍💰

The asset management industry claims to be all about sustainable investing, but a recent survey shows the reality is quite different. Dirk Jenter and his team surveyed 509 equity portfolio managers to see how much firms’ environmental and social (ES) performance really matters in their investment strategies. The results? A lot of talk, but when it comes to the bottom line, it’s all about profits.

Despite the hype, it seems the commitment to truly integrating ES performance into investment decisions is weak.

Key Findings from the Survey 📊

Profitability Over Principles: Most portfolio managers, whether managing traditional or sustainable funds, won't sacrifice even a fraction of returns to support ES goals. Their fiduciary duty to clients trumps everything else.

Low Priority for ES Performance: When ranking factors that contribute to long-term firm value, managers consistently placed ES performance dead last. They might acknowledge its relevance, but it’s clearly not a priority.

Similar Expectations Across Fund Types: Traditional and sustainable fund managers expect similar returns and see strong ES performance as a sign of a well-managed company, not necessarily a key to financial success.

Constraints Influence Decision-Making: Many fund managers face ES-related constraints from firm policies or client demands, but these pressures aren’t exclusive to sustainable funds. Both types of funds focus on financial objectives while dealing with outside pressures.

Implications for Sustainable Investing 🤔

These findings prompt serious questions about the effectiveness of sustainable investing in driving corporate responsibility:

1. Limited Influence on ES Performance: Don’t expect the asset management industry to lead the charge for better ES performance. Most managers only care about ES considerations when they have financial implications.

2. Misleading Fund Labels: Just because a fund says “sustainable” doesn’t mean it prioritizes social goals. Many sustainable fund managers focus primarily on financial returns, while traditional ones may also consider ES performance if it aligns with profit motives. So, look beyond the label—dive into the actual investment strategies and voting patterns to know what you’re really getting.

As Hans points out, sustainability investing often seems to be mostly about marketing. But that cannot be enough—sustainability shouldn’t just be an add-on; it should be a core investment principle. It’s time for real action, not just nice words!

Hans Stegeman' post: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7248679590871674880/

Research: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4963062

LSE Blog: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2024/10/04/expectations-for-the-real-world-impact-of-sustainable-investing-are-unrealistic/

Thus Speaks Zaratustra [2024]

Perhaps Nietzsche would have laughed—or more likely grimaced—at the 21st century. In an era where people spend more time scrolling their phones than thinking, where conformity masquerades as “progress,” and mediocrity shouts from every digital soapbox, Nietzsche would have seen decay.

• Our so-called “freedom”? A gilded cage, where we’ve traded the pursuit of greatness for the illusion of choice. Consumers trapped in an endless cycle of purchasing meaning through products and hashtags.
• The Overman? Laughable. We’ve traded the will to power for the will to post, replacing bold, transformative action with hollow virtue signaling and corporate-approved politically correct outrage.
• And the death of God? For Nietzsche, an existential crisis; for us, another clickbait headline.

• The entrepreneur has confused marketing with meaning, mistaking personal gain for public progress. Chasing profits and "disruption," they may shape markets, but fail to elevate the human spirit.
• The academic, instead of seeking truth is chasing grants and hiding behind jargon and Thinkers50 rankings. The narrowness of their expertise mirrors their moral blindness.

Tax Justice Now: The Capital Gains Tax Scam

For far too long, our global tax system has been a cocktail party for the elite, where the wealthy sip champagne while the workers foot the bill. The chasm between capital gains tax (CGT) and income tax rates isn’t just an oversight; it’s born from a pro-capital ideology that festers inequality, fuels unsustainable resource exploitation, and offloads the cost of social welfare onto the middle classes who toil for a living. Meanwhile, the privileged few, who profit from inheritance or speculation, waltz through life unfazed.

1. The Myth of Investment Incentives

Advocates of lower CGT rates love to tout them as a catalyst for investment and economic competitiveness. But most capital gains arise from existing investments, not fresh ones. Analysis reveals that a growing share of corporate profits funneled to shareholders isn’t being reinvested; instead, it simply lines the pockets of the wealthy.

2. The False Promise of Job Creation

Another recurring myth is that lower CGT rates magically generate jobs and healthy growth. In truth, it’s consumer demand—not tax breaks for the rich—that drives employment. If companies truly prioritized creating jobs, they would invest in their workforce to upskill and empower the very people who keep their operations running.

3. The Illusion of Protecting Small Investors

Some claim that low CGT rates protect small investors and retirees. However, the bulk of capital gains flow to the wealthiest individuals. Studies show that e.g. the top 1% Americans hold over 50% of assets, disproportionately benefiting from lower CGT rates. Meanwhile, the working class pays higher taxes on wages, perpetuating inequality.

4. The Inadequate Response to Inflation

The idea that low CGT rates combat inflation is fundamentally misguided. In reality, higher CGT rates can foster stability by redistributing wealth, enabling greater public investment in essential services like education and healthcare, which ultimately benefit us all.

The Call for Tax Justice

It’s time to demand tax justice. We need to equalize CGT with income tax. Why should capital be taxed at a lower rate than labour? Low CGT rates shift the burden of social welfare onto workers. With the wealthy paying less, states often raise taxes on wages or cut essential services. This isn't just unfair; it’s unsustainable. Piketty’s analysis demonstrates that workers effectively subsidize a rigged system where the rich thrive simply by owning wealth.

We must also consider taxing activities that harm our planet or society—pollution, resource depletion, environmental degradation, and speculation. Not only would this generate essential revenue, but it would also promote sustainable practices that benefit us all.

Capital should no longer escape its duty—wealth is a privilege, not a right. We need tax justice for a better future for our economy, our planet, and our society.

#transformation #leadership #justice

Hand on Heart: Are You Stuck in Functional Stupidity?

Are you getting dressed each morning in work clothes, driving through traffic in a car you’re still paying for, all to reach a job that funds those clothes, the car, and the house you leave empty all day? I fear this sentiment resonates deeply with many of us in our fast-paced lives, as echoed by Hunter Lovins in our recent #BusinessforHumanity interview.

Many people I meet express a profound desire to “have an impact.” Yet, as Clayton Christensen highlights in his famous HBR article, this is not easy. Impact can often be elusive, particularly in our complex world—unless you happen to be a powerful business tycoon or politician. The term "impact" itself can lead us down a slippery slope into utilitarianism, where we assess life’s worth through a simple cost-benefit analysis. Left unexamined, our desire to make a difference can mislead us, as Simon Western often cautions.

This challenge becomes even greater in the workplace, where we spend over 100k hours of our lives. As Mats Alvesson points out, we often create systems so focused on superficial efficiency that we overlook larger questions. Consequently, even the smartest individuals can make surprisingly (and functionally) stupid choices.

Hence, as autumn gradually paints London’s leaves, signalling another year’s end, a sunny late-September Saturday might be a good time for a personal quarterly review. Consider when you last asked yourself:

* What legacy do I want to leave for others and the world around me, and does my daily job reflect this vision?

* Is my business genuinely organized to confront uncomfortable truths? Are we regularly questioning our goals, systems, processes and behaviour to nurture our legacy?

* How are we measuring success beyond profit, and what impact are we having on our people and communities?

These questions are vital and deserve reflection. As Clayton suggests, instead of merely seeking impact, it may be more beneficial to focus on being a good person—investing time in relationships and serving the greater good beyond mere profit while remaining true to our values. Yet, while individuals may take a lifetime to find answers, as business leaders, we bear the responsibility to exert our agency every single day. We must cultivate the consciousness and commitment necessary to create and implement a meaningful vision for the future.

The reality is that we can discuss complexity until the cows come home, but it often leads only to intellectual laziness or moral muteness. Responsible leadership is inherently ethical; we must consciously position ourselves within this intricate world to avoid succumbing to functional stupidity. Sadly, many of us never take the time to examine our assumptions, let alone consider alternative approaches.

With the planet burning, there are no excuses. The consequences of inertia will be dire—not just for us, but for all those who depend on our organizations.

#Leadership #Transformation

The Subtleties of Evolutionary Theory: Genes vs Groups

Almost everybody feels they understand Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by natural selection, often boiled down to the catchy but simplistic “survival of the fittest.” Yet, this reductionist view glosses over a profound and contentious debate - often omitted by the biology textbooks - about the true level at which natural selection operates: genes or groups.

Historically, Darwinian selection was believed to impact various levels of biological organization, from individuals to ecosystems. However, the 1960s and 1970s heralded a paradigm shift with Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which framed genes as the principal units of selection. This gene-centric view argues that genes drive evolutionary changes by promoting behaviors that ensure their own replication, thereby influencing the fitness of individuals who carry them. For instance, kin selection theory explains why individuals may exhibit altruistic behavior towards close relatives—by doing so, they help propagate shared genes.

In contrast, Multilevel Selection Theory (MST), championed by E.O. Wilson and David Sloan Wilson, reopens a discussion on group selection. MST posits that natural selection can operate not only at the level of individuals but also at the level of groups, where cooperative groups may outcompete less cooperative ones, offering a survival advantage. They point to examples like eusocial insects, where the extreme altruism of worker ants who forgo reproduction benefits the colony as a whole, illustrating how groups, as collective entities, can evolve traits that are beneficial beyond the scope of individual genes.

The crux of the debate lies in understanding the causality of evolution. Gene selectionists argue that traits observed at the group level are merely byproducts of individual-level selection. Moreover, they contend that any apparent group-level adaptations, such as altruism, are temporary and cannot persist. Dawkins famously questioned whether altruistic traits could ever become dominant, suggesting that any increase in group altruism would be undermined by individuals adopting selfish strategies, thus preventing genuine group-level adaptation. Conversely, group selectionists argue that certain traits will evolve at the group level, especially when groups exhibit coordination and cooperation that enhance their overall survival.

In this context, critical realism offers a valuable perspective. It highlights the need to examine causal mechanisms across different levels of reality, advocating for an integrated approach. Rather than viewing genes and groups as mutually exclusive, it allows for the recognition of group features as emergent properties, shaped by both genetic and relational dynamics. Basing our understanding of causality on a complex interplay of individual genes, phenotypes and group dynamics might offer a more comprehensive understanding of evolutionary processes.

#transformation #evolution

Image and further reading: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/evolution-for-the-good-of-the-group

Social Reality is Curved: Rethinking Our Straight Lines of Understanding

Picture yourself sitting under a tree, watching an apple as it falls. Isaac Newton, the brilliant English polymath, understood this as gravity's pull—a predictable force acting between masses across space, governed by a universal law F=G*m1​m2​/r^2​ (where G = gravitational constant, m = masses, r = distance). Everything seemed perfectly straightforward until Albert Einstein came along, demonstrating that the apple follows the curvature of "spacetime", shaped by the Earth’s mass.

This shift from Newton’s linear logic to Einstein’s curved reality mirrors how our understanding in the social sciences has evolved. For centuries, social sciences adopted a Newtonian approach, with thinkers like David Hume looking for clear, observable causes behind human actions. Revolutions, market trends, and societal shifts were analyzed as if they were apples falling—responses to direct, measurable forces like economic pressures or political decisions.

Just as Einstein transformed physics, critical realism, championed by Roy Bhaskar, disrupts our understanding of social behavior. Critical realism suggests that social actions are not merely reactions to visible forces but are shaped by deeper, often unseen structures. Much like Einstein’s curvature of spacetime, critical realism views social actions as shaped by underlying realities of history, ideology, and power.

Consider the fall of the Berlin Wall. A positivist might attribute it to economic hardship, political unrest, and popular protests as the direct, observable causes. However, a critical realist would argue that it resulted from deeper, more intricate conditions. The Wall didn’t fall merely because of protests; it collapsed under the weight of decades of ideological contradictions and geopolitical tensions—underlying forces that had been subtly shaping and influencing social reality long before its physical demise.

This analogy illustrates that social reality, much like the universe, is curved. Our behavior is not merely the result of gravity pushing and pulling but the outcome of complex, layered mechanisms where personal agency is intertwined with unseen structures. Just as an apple’s path is guided by the curvature of spacetime, our actions are influenced by the curved fabric of social morphogenesis—shaped by history, culture, and power in ways that aren’t immediately visible but are profoundly influential.

The shift from Newton to Einstein, and from Hume to Bhaskar, deepens our understanding of both natural and social worlds. It reveals that reality—whether physical or social—isn’t always straightforward. Instead of seeking straight lines, we should trace the curves, uncovering the hidden forces that bend and shape our paths. Like the universe itself, our social lives are woven into a dynamic, evolving world that profoundly influences everything we do.

#science #leadership #management #philosophy #transformation #wisdom

Denk ich an Deutschland in der Nacht: The Tragedy of German Politics

"Denk ich an Deutschland in der Nacht, so bin ich um den Schlaf gebracht." Heinrich Heine’s lament feels eerily appropriate in the era of Germany's Green-Red-Yellow coalition—a government led by an inglorious collection of career politicians, lacking both technical and practical expertise, and headed by a chancellor whose mediocrity has come to symbolize the decline of German politics. What was once the powerhouse of the European Union, a beacon of rational governance, Prussian efficiency, and democratic integrity, has become a shadow of its former self—inefficient, uninspired, and disturbingly out of touch.

#Germany’s current government is failing on almost every front. The coalition is mired in personal incompetence and internal infighting, with the narcissistic and minuscule #FDP behaving more like a lobby for big business than a legitimate political party. Each misstep further depletes the already limited political capital needed to address the population’s growing demands for #security and stability in a democratic, rational, and humane way. This mismanagement leaves a dangerous void, eagerly filled by populist forces on both the far right and left, who cynically promise to "restore" democracy—by dismantling its very foundations.

Meanwhile, the country is buckling under the weight of high energy prices and the failure of the transition to renewable energy. Germany’s famed efficiency has become a cruel joke, as evidenced by its crumbling public train network or its inadequate postal services. The once-dominant automotive industry, which has lost its way in the global shift to electric vehicles, seems intent on arrogantly sabotaging European sustainability targets whenever possible. A bloated, overpaid public bureaucracy is clinging stubbornly to outdated practices, anachronistic privileges and resisting better service and digitisation, mirroring the broader systemic inertia.

The upcoming regional #elections will likely reflect this disillusionment. As populists gain ground, the tired heirs of the disastrous Merkel era—those uninspiring conservatives and their Bavarian equivalent of Boris Johnson—are gleefully preparing to reclaim power. They vainly offer a return to the same stagnation and shortsightedness that brought #Germany to this crisis in the first place.

Heine's words echo with a powerful resonance today: "Denk ich an Deutschland in der Nacht, Dann bin ich um den Schlaf gebracht, Ich kann nicht mehr die Augen schließen, Und meine heißen Tränen fließen." Germany’s once-promising future is again a source of insomnia, a restless anxiety over a country led by those unfit to guide it through the challenges of our time.

Artificial Stupidity: How AI is Dumbing Down Corporate Leaders

AI is often celebrated as the ultimate tool for #leadership, promising unparalleled #efficiency and flawless decision-making. But what we are actually seeing is that the overreliance on so-called “#AI” and “big” data is eroding the intellectual rigor and moral compass leaders need in today’s complex world. Instead of elevating leadership, AI risks creating a dystopian future where leaders are systematically trained to follow simplistic algorithms and shirk responsibility.

The Automation of Ignorance: AI and Functional Stupidity

Mats Alvesson’s concept of “functional stupidity” describes how organizations foster a culture of conformity, focusing on narrow metrics, norms and procedures while discouraging critical thinking. This can yield short-term efficiency but cripples long-term adaptability, creativity and ethical reflection. AI, with its ready-made solutions and data-driven answers, can exacerbate the problem by providing one-dimensional fixes that stifle nuanced understanding of complex problems - further eroding the capacity for deeper questioning and reflection.

From Algorithms to Apathy: Ethical Blindness in Routine AI

Markus Scholz’s idea of “ethical blindness” adds another layer of concern. He warns that established organizational do not only engender conformity, but routines where individuals follow established patterns can desensitize individuals to the ethical implications of their work. As AI becomes embedded in routines, task autonomy becomes further limited and end-to-end responsibility further dispersed, encouraging a blind adherence to routine. Leaders may easily underestimate the "design risks" of over-automated processes.

From Visionary to Clueless: The Decline of Leadership Maturity

Andreas Scherer’s concept of “disorganising immaturity” further illustrates the problem. Drawing on Shoshana Zuboff’s idea of surveillance #capitalism, he argues that modern sociotechnological systems, including AI, systematically constrain employees' ability to use reason and judgment, inhibiting the development of maturity and autonomy. The complexity of AI overwhelms leaders, often causing them to rely excessively on #technology, and abandoning their #responsibility for context-sensitive and ethical decision-making or human-centric org development.

When Leaders Outsource Their Brains: The Perils of AI in Decision-Making

Integrating these concepts, it seems clear that AI doesn’t just enhance leadership; it can degrade it. AI has the potential to exacerbate existing mechanisms that make leaders intellectually and ethically complacent. By outsourcing critical thinking to "intelligent" algorithms, paradoxically, leaders risk becoming dumber, unable to tackle their roles with the necessary depth and insight. To counteract these effects, we must invest in safeguarding individual and collective autonomy and maintaining the capacity for independent, critical, and ethical thinking.

PS: Equating AI with human intelligence isn’t just a misjudgment of AI’s limitations—it’s a profound devaluation of human capabilities. This becomes dangerous when organizations design systems that treat humans and machines as interchangeable, expecting them to operate on the same level. This not only insults human intelligence but also risks systematically undermining our unique cognitive and ethical skills. Cui bono? It doesnt even require AI to answer that question.

Selected References (thanks to Hariton-Vasile Lutai for adding)

1: [Alvesson, M. & Spicer, A. (2016). The Stupidity Paradox: The Power and Pitfalls of Functional Stupidity at Work.]

2: [Scherer, A. G. (2009). Disorganising Immaturity: The Impact of AI on Leadership.]

3: [Markus Scholz (2022). Organizational Routines as a Source of Ethical Blindness.]

4: [Scherer, A. G., Neesham, C., Schoeneborn, D., & Scholz, M. (2023). New Challenges to the Enlightenment: How Twenty-First-Century Sociotechnological Systems Facilitate Organized Immaturity and How to Counteract It. Business Ethics Quarterly.]

https://archive.org/details/stupidityparadox0000alve

https://www.modemuk.org/2016/09/15/the-stupidity-paradox-the-power-and-pitfalls-of-functional-stupidity-at-work-by-mats-alvesson-andre-spicer-reviewed-by-vaughan-s-roberts/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-011-1130-4

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/26317877221075640

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-ethics-quarterly/article/new-challenges-to-the-enlightenment-how-twentyfirstcentury-sociotechnological-systems-facilitate-organized-immaturity-and-how-to-counteract-it/01DDEF9DAB3F7D0286B25AB6174FB9AF

https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4738331 

BREAKING THE (VALUE) CHAINS: From Financial Margins to Economic Wisdom

I studied #economics in four different countries, graduated at the top of my class, and earned an MBA from what was then the world’s leading business school. Yet, throughout my education, environmental economics was never in the curriculum. This absence is telling—it reveals a profound flaw in how we’ve been conditioned to think about the economy and our world. Let me share a revealing example.

Michael Porter's value chain, a staple in #strategy classes, describes a sequential process in which raw materials are transformed into finished products through discrete steps, each adding value. It emphasises efficiency and cost reduction. Yet, it also reflects the limitations of conventional #management thinking: it oversimplifies complexity, is deterministic and linear, and neglects holistic org development. Most critically, it normalizes a "take-make-dispose" model, leading to waste and environmental degradation.

In contrast, the #circular economy is a regenerative system that minimizes waste and maximizes resource use. Unlike the value chain, it integrates the assessment of nature and natural resources into the productive process, rather than treating them as externalities. This shift forces us to assess energy and resource efficiency across the entire ecosystem of production and consumption.

The transition from conventional to environmental economics nicely illustrates developmental #dialectics:

1. First, we identify what's absent. The circular economy offers a higher-order understanding of reality and economic activity, recognizing the interconnectedness of economic, social, and ecological systems.

2. Next, we explore contradictions. The linear value chain is criticized for its unsustainable resource use and environmental harm, and eventual economic inefficiency due to resource depletion and waste.

3. Then we confront ethical questions. The value chain model embodies "structural oppression," exploiting natural resources without regard for long-term ecological balance, contributing to environmental injustice and limiting human freedom by creating unsustainable living conditions. Thus, moving to environmental economics involves a liberatory praxis— aiming to mitigate the constraints of finite resources and environmental degradation, fostering greater freedom and justice.

4. Finally, we integrate the new system into a broader perspective. The value chain not only frames production but also implicitly defines economic value as the optimization of financial margin. In contrast, environmental economics emphasizes that our most critical resource is natural, not financial capital. Finance must serve to efficiently integrate human needs with environmental stewardship to sustain true value.

Greater truth can transform our thinking to pave the way for greater justice.

This is where academia can play a crucial role in building a better society—a role it has often failed to fulfill!

In today's world, the harsh reality is that if you're a climate activist fighting to protect our planet, you're far more likely to face persecution, harassment, or even imprisonment than a corporation polluting our air, poisoning our water, and jeopardizing our future.

The true criminals are those who profit from environmental destruction, yet they continue to operate with impunity. Meanwhile, the courageous individuals standing up for the Earth are treated like outlaws. This starkly reveals how our systems are deeply rigged against justice, favoring profit over people and the planet.

It's time to shift the narrative and hold the real culprits accountable. While the law must be upheld, we must also recognize that civil disobedience becomes a moral duty when legal norms fail to meet ethical imperatives. We cannot accept structural injustice that allows powerful corporations to privatize profits while socializing the risks.

The ruthless defenders of the status quo and those clinging to their petty individual privileges and convenience cannot be allowed to prevail in the quest to save our planet. Environmental defenders should be supported, not criminalized.

#leadership #climatechange #transformation #sustainability

Thanks for the good discussion with Joe Zammit-Luca and many others!

- Otti

Joe here I will have to disagree with your recent comment supporting long prison sentences for climate activists. If the system itself is unjust in regards to a moral imperative to guarantee the planet's survival, I think we can't simply hide behind a pretense of "law and order." Moreover, while it's true that there's a legitimate process to change laws, access to that process is often highly concentrated in the hands of those who benefit from the status quo. Philip Pettit's requirement for a contestatory citizenry to ensure the legitimacy of a republican political system seems clearly unmet when it comes to giving future generations an appropriate voice, resulting in their suffering from arbitrary domination.

- Joe

I guess we have to agree to disagree. In my view the cause is irrelevant. It’s the actions that carry consequences. Otherwise who is to decide which cause should be given a free pass and which not?

When people start believing that their cause is above the law then we have anarchy.

Just to be clear, I’m not ‘supporting long prison sentences for climate activists’ I’m supporting appropriate penalties for breaking the law irrespective of the cause.

- Otti

Joe that cannot be the ultimate principle. Laws must adhere to ethical standards to be considered just. Civil disobedience is not only legitimate but necessary when a law violates higher moral principles and when all legal channels for addressing the injustice have been exhausted or proven ineffective. This is especially true if laws are enacted through undemocratic processes that undermine minority interests. Without this understanding, one could not assert that citizens have a right and a duty to resist totalitarian regimes. The cause is indeed crucial, particularly when the action aims to raise awareness and spark public debate about an unjust law. While not all means are justifiable, when a hospital is burning, good citizens cannot be expected to wait for a lazy fire brigade that is sponsored by the land developer; they may need to take action themselves.
PS: Until we see people convicted for destroying the planet with equal fervor, I will remain highly unconvinced that the playing field is level and just.

- Joe

Otti - I take your points. But I think you conflate things and don’t answer others.

We live in democracies not authoritarian systems. Applying the same standards to both is in my view mistaken.

If you believe that some causes are above the law (which as I understand it you’re implying), then could you provide a list of such causes. Anti- abortion protesors for example? Why should they not be given a free pass given how they believe their cause is the only just and moral one in defence of the rights of the unborn child? Whatever you and I might believe.

Or is it only climate that’s super special and justifies anything?

People can choose to break the law to make their point. But they cannot be shielded from the consequences if we are to have any kind of social order. Neither do I believe that you or I should be the arbiters of who gets a free pass.

- Otti

Joe that’s an excellent point. However, I don't think I'm conflating issues—I’m using totalitarian systems to illustrate that we cannot merely adhere to laws but must also consider the ethical principles those laws should uphold and how they came into being. In the context of climate justice, I argue that laws are flawed on both counts: they fail to protect the rights of future generations and the planet's integrity, while decision-making processes are skewed by special interests benefiting from the status quo.

The core of my argument is not that anyone is above the law, but that the law must always serve the people. We're not here for the law, the law is here for us.

Your challenge to identify qualifying situations is valid, and each case should indeed be evaluated on its own merits. However, in the case of planetary destruction, the situation seems clear-cut. It goes beyond personal opinions or perspectives. Moreover, the protesters are clearly accepting the consequences of their actions. My point is that as a society, we should be ashamed of our complacency in accepting laws that fail to deliver justice.

The Real Enemies of Progress: How Industry Associations Are Driving Us Towards Environmental Catastrophe

In the same way that history condemns those who defended slavery, colonialism, and apartheid, we must recognize any modern-day institutions that are obstructing our efforts to combat climate change. These associations are not just resisting progress—they are actively pushing us towards environmental disaster.

* American Petroleum Institute (API): The ultimate fossil fuel lobby, API has spent decades denying climate science and lobbying against clean energy, cementing its role as a major barrier to progress.

* American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM): AFPM is relentless in its defense of fossil fuels, opposing emissions reductions and clean energy alternatives at every turn.

*U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Once a respected business organization, the Chamber now prioritizes the interests of the wealthiest members, obstructing essential climate legislation and promoting the status quo.

* National Mining Association (NMA): A staunch defender of coal, the NMA works to undermine environmental regulations, prolonging our dependence on the dirtiest energy source available.

* BusinessEurope: This EU lobby group fights against ambitious climate policies, putting short-term profits ahead of long-term survival and betraying future generations.

* Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP): Representing the oil sands industry, CAPP aggressively pushes for expansion, making Canada a major offender in the global climate crisis.

* German Automotive Association: The group resist the shift to electric vehicles and stringent emissions standards, blocking essential progress in reducing Europe’s carbon footprint.

* California Chamber of Commerce: Even in progressive California, the Chamber opposes environmental regulations, putting corporate profits above the state’s environmental goals.

* Federation of German Industries (BDI): BDI fights against ambitious climate policies in Germany, arguing against regulations that would drive sustainability.

* International Air Transport Association (IATA): Despite being a major contributor to global emissions, IATA lobbies against efforts to regulate or reduce the aviation sector’s environmental impact.

Based on InfluenceMap, these associations are top defenders of a system that prioritizes profit over people, corporate interests over community well-being, and short-term gains over long-term survival. Where that is true, It’s time to call out these organizations for what they are: the enemies of progress, standing in the way of a sustainable and just future. Where that is true, future generations will look back on these associations and their leaders and members with contempt. The stakes are global, and the costs of their obstructionism are existential. If we are to save the planet, we must confront all those powerful players who are determined to keep us on a path to destruction.

#leadership

Nature as a Myth: The Contradiction in Modern Ecological Economics

In contemporary discourse, nature is frequently romanticized as an idyllic, unchanging force—a pastoral paradise corrupted by modern society. This myth of nature as a pure, idealized essence has infiltrated some forms of #ecologicaleconomics, advocating for a return to "natural" or "indigenous" ways of living and organizing economies. However, such an approach is deeply flawed and obscures the material realities of exploitation and production.

As Michel Foucault pointed out, the discourse of nature as harmonious and inherently good is a cultural construct. It ignores that #nature is neither static nor inherently benevolent and overlooks the harsh realities of historical social relations, such as feudalism and #slavery. Equally, the fashionable view of nature as a source of peace and healing often promotes an escapist mentality, where nature is seen as a refuge from the complexities and stresses of modern life. This perspective fails to acknowledge that psychological well-being is deeply intertwined with social and economic conditions. The idea that reconnecting with nature alone can solve our psychological ills is reductive, particularly for the poor who lack the privilege to spend each Friday afternoon on a mountain hike.

Such eco-romanticism also often leads to conservative environmentalism, which prioritizes wilderness and biodiversity over systemic issues like poverty and inequality. Such an approach risks resisting technological and industrial progress by portraying all human intervention as inherently harmful and tends to favour wealthy, developed nations while ignoring the needs of developing countries.

Contrary to any idealizations, nature is not a sacred, independent, mystical force or sanctuary from the corrupting forces of human industry. Nor is it a stable, balanced “living” system in perfect “natural” harmony. Nature is a dynamic entity, constantly shaped by human labour and social relations. The goal should not be to idealize nature as an illusory Garden of Eden or revert to a pre-industrial past, but to transform society in a way that harmonizes human needs with environmental sustainability.

As Karl Marx aptly remarked, "Nature is man’s inorganic body, with which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die." Yet, he also warned, "The ‘return to nature’ in bourgeois society is only a return to the unspeakable misery of the pre-industrial state." Idealizing nature untouched by human hands, is to ignore and devalue the progress made in human development—and the struggles and exploitation that came with it.

If we cling to the myth of nature as a nostalgic, static ideal we risk perpetuating the very systems of exploitation we claim to oppose. Rather than seeking simple solutions in "natural" ways, we must critically examine our “human ways” of work, technology, and social relations. Only then can we lead towards a truly sustainable and just future.

WEALTH CORRUPTS: LET’S TAX THE RICH!

Have you been following the sorrowful spectacle of the "conversation" on X between the world’s wealthiest man, Elon Musk, and former U.S. President, Donald Trump? For many, including the brilliant Hans Stegeman in his latest column, this is a glaring example of the dangers of extreme wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. Whether it's an oligarch, a tech billionaire, a slumlord, an oil sheik, or old money aristocracy, the story remains consistent—excessive wealth inevitably corrupts.

Hans suggests that it often begins innocently enough—a stroke of luck, perhaps an inheritance or a lucrative market gap that leads to a massive windfall. But then, the mechanisms of the market ensure that the rich only get richer. Today, the richest 1% own nearly half of the world’s wealth. Around 3,000 individuals control 13% of the world’s GDP, a staggering increase from just 3% in 1993. Seven of the world’s ten largest corporations have a billionaire as CEO or principal shareholder, with these corporations collectively worth $10.2 trillion—more than the combined GDPs of all countries in Africa and Latin America.

Hans highlights two major issues with extreme wealth:

🔴 The ultra-wealthy go to great lengths to protect their assets, resorting to tax avoidance, evasion, and lobbying to keep the rules in their favour.

🔴 They begin to believe in their own myth of success—the "messiah complex." In its milder form, this manifests as a “philanthropy disorder”; in extreme cases, they buy media or politicians, becoming a threat to democracy.

At the last G20 summit, economist Gabriel Zucman’s proposed to tax the super-rich at 2% of their assets. Hans argues this is still far too little. Why not start with a tax of 1 billion per year?

Of course many critics including many of Hans's commenters, strongly disagree. They argue that high taxes could dampen productivity, stifle innovation, and deter investment, potentially slowing economic growth. They also contend that government taxation is frequently wasteful, leading to market distortions, reduced efficiency in resource allocation, and fewer jobs. Furthermore, critics point out that high taxes in one jurisdiction will simply drive capital flight and encourage further tax avoidance. All such arguments deserve attention.

The underlying issue at stake is the complex question of the morality of markets, a topic I've been grappling with for some time. While I fully support progressive taxation and inheritance taxes, I remain unconvinced by some of the arguments presented.

🔴 On the one hand, there's the question of whether taxation is an effective tool to protect us from the rich—or even the rich from themselves. While the idea might seem appealing, I don’t believe taxation can realistically serve as a corruption prevention device. If someone's actions or opinions are legal, we can't just impose extra taxes on them based on the assumption that wealth is inherently corruptive. It's all too easy to scapegoat prominent wealthy individuals for doing or saying things we don't agree with. And how would we even determine the right tax amount? One billion a year? Why not five? What about wealthy individuals whose actions we actually approve of—should they be taxed less? Maybe just half a billion? And what do we do with people who have a "messiah complex" but aren’t wealthy—do they get a tax break?

St. Augustine observed already 2,000 years ago that wealth isn't inherently sinful, but excessive attachment to it can lead to moral corruption. The role of money in modern society is indeed complex and paradoxical. Georg Simmel, in his influential Philosophy of Money, explains that money is a powerful yet ambiguous social tool—it liberates and alienates simultaneously. While it facilitates economic transactions and individual freedom, it also contributes to the depersonalization and abstraction of social life. This isn't exclusive to the ultra-rich; in a profit-maximizing "corporate society," it's common to see politics pursued as economics by other means. The state often becomes a battleground for special interests, where power and resources are wielded to create optimal conditions for economic success of specific individuals and groups.

However, as Adam Smith cleverly pointed out, the selfish pursuit of personal interests can sometimes lead to societal benefits. So, perhaps our focus should be on the broader systemic impacts of money and wealth distribution, rather than solely on the individual character or the (perhaps displeasing but legal) behaviors of the wealthy. For instance, taxes on carbonated soft drinks, single-use plastics, cigarettes, or even financial transactions can be fully justified based on the societal costs of specific consumer behaviors rather than on individual virtue.

My concern is also that taxation may not be a very effective tool for personal therapy or character education, independent of policy design or enforcement mechanisms. If I’m only externally motivated to behave correctly, I’m likely to misbehave whenever I think I can get away with it. That said, even if taxes can successfully incentivize behavioral changes, it's crucial to clearly define which behaviors are deemed good or bad, validating the reasoning behind these judgments, and imposing penalties that respect individual freedoms in a pluralistic society.

That said, we must, of course, address the issue of power—whether military, economic, or otherwise—being leveraged to tilt the playing field. It’s clear that undue influence must be actively contained, especially by elected officials, to preserve the integrity of our democratic institutions. But political corruption goes far beyond discretionary taxation; even if we heavily taxed the wealthiest individuals, they would still wield significantly more power than the average citizen. This calls for a more critical examination of flawed democracies, like the U.S., where powerful groups have far too much sway over political decision-making.

🔴On the other hand, it’s certainly not sufficient to argue that higher taxes might hinder economic activity. Often, this may not be the case, or the potential benefits of increased taxation could outweigh the risks. More fundamentally, morality isn't solely about consequences, and GDP growth isn't an intrinsic good.

In this context, we may need to accept that market prices and profits will not always align with our ethical standards, meaning people might get rich without "deserving" it. Nozick’s Wilt Chamberlain argument against patterned distribution is compelling. While I don’t agree with Hayek’s view that taxation is inherently inefficient, he’s likely right that the morality of supply and demand is limited. Some wealth is generated through valuable entrepreneurship and innovation, benefiting both individuals and society at large, while other wealth may come from inheritance, monopolistic or ecologically damaging activity, or financial rent extraction, where gains are privatized and risks are socialized. Moreover, if, as many argue, capitalist markets inherently lead to the concentration of market power and assets, inequality might be systemic and not easily resolved simply by increasing taxes for the rich.

Either way, markets are embedded in society, and money represents a claim to societal wealth and services. Thus, society has every right to redistribute wealth to achieve its goals—whether that’s curbing political influence, correcting market concentration, reducing inequality, funding public services, or ensuring social justice. In this light, it's clear that our current tax system has significant flaws. A distribution of income and wealth that leaves half of the global population living on less than $7 per day is unacceptable. We don't need to read all of Piketty's lengthy book on Capital in the Twenty-First Century, to recognize that corporate and capital gains taxes are too low compared to income taxes, failing to address speculation and inequality or ensure fair contributions from the wealthy. Additionally, income taxes do little to tackle climate change, and taxes on large inheritances and wealth are clearly inadequate for promoting social mobility and justice or countering the dominance of capital. Hence, the case for tax increases is very clear. Moreover, if individuals evade taxes, we absolutely must have robust mechanisms to hold them accountable.

Yet, ultimately, the issue isn't just about taxation but about the kind of society we aspire to create. What constitutes justice? What defines social value? How should we order, manage and distribute common and public goods, including societal wealth? Only by answering these questions can we effectively adjust not only market activity but all our societal institutions—such as property rights and distribution, resource allocation mechanisms, decision-making processes, social value conventions, or education—to better serve everybody. There's certainly a fine line between preventing oligarchy and punishing success.

Hence, while I agree with Hans that we need higher taxes in order to combat unacceptable levels of inequality, I'm not fully convinced that taxes should be used to address personal narcissism or arbitrarily restrict the freedoms of powerful individuals, as long as they act within the law. Short-term measures are necessary, but it's crucial to recognize that the pursuit of wealth as an end in itself and the concentration of wealth are symptoms of deeper systemic issues. Therefore, we must also focus on a more comprehensive redesign of both political and economic structures to address the broader problems of inequality and injustice.

#leadership #politics #justice #taxes #transformation

PS: Thanks to Hans Stegeman and Tom van der Lubbe for stimulating this preliminary and initial reflection

BE YOUR ULTIMATE AUTHENTIC SELF!

Ever feel like your life is in desperate need of a cosmic makeover? Like you're destined for something grander than your daily grind of emails and existential dread? Well, buckle up, my friends—there’s a new path to personal enlightenment that’s both profoundly profound and hilariously simple: Symbolic Self-Actualization (SSA)!

Forget the old self-help books, monotonous mindfulness sessions, and pointless retreats in the middle of nowhere. Why bother with tedious introspection when you can skip straight to eternal transcendence? The ultimate path to personal growth is right before your eyes—in the sheer power of a grandiose, utterly self-indulgent symbol. Yes, you heard me right. Dive headfirst into the world of symbolic grandeur and let your inner narcissist shine. Here’s how to learn from the very best:

1. Prince’s Gender-Fluid Love Symbol: Why settle for a boring name when you can transform into a walking riddle dipped in glitter? It’s the ultimate power move for anyone seeking to reinvent themselves as an unpronounceable enigma with a splash of intrigue. Channel your inner Prince and slap a symbol so cryptic to your business card that people wonder if you’re the ultimate genius or just lost in a design class. Bonus points if you start referring to yourself in the third person!
2. Elon Musk’s “X”: Elon Musk isn’t just naming his companies after algebraic variables; he’s redefining existential ambiguity. ‘X’ represents the unknown, new beginnings, entrepreneurial risk taking, Mars in the making... the everything that’s still a mystery! Musk named his kid X Æ A-12, because... why not?! Embrace your inner Musk by slapping random numbers and symbols on everything you own. Turn your kids into mathematical equations as the ultimate badge of inspiration! When people ask, just flash an enigmatic smile and say, “It’s a function of infinite potential!”
3. Jesus’ Cross: Vertical and horizontal lines? Classic transcendence, my friends! Jesus wasn’t just about saving souls; he was the ultimate icon of symbolic self-actualization. The cross is a bold statement that true spiritual elevation links earth with the heavens. Love thy neighbor, love thy God—the perfect dual-purpose greatness! So whether your symbol is an abstract doodle or a logo that looks like it was dreamed up during a sci-fi binge, make sure it screams, “I’m the ultimate blend of the terrestrial and the celestial!”

REGENERATIVE ECONOMICS: ANOTHER FALSE HYPE?

I’m grappling with the concept of #regenerativeeconomy, championed for example by John Fullerton, who proposes eight principles to support the idea. While the aspirations for a sustainable and equitable economic system are certainly commendable, the framework seems to suffer from significant issues related to coherence, clarity, consistency, and underlying assumptions.

1. Coherence Issues

John’s attempt to align economic systems with ecological principles is conceptually appealing but fundamentally incoherent. Treating social systems as if they can be directly modeled after natural systems is problematic. Social science deals with human behavior, cultural norms, and institutional dynamics—complexities that cannot be easily equated with natural processes. While applying ecological metaphors to economic policy might sound innovative, it oversimplifies the intricacies of social systems, making the framework resemble "eco-mysticism" more than a rigorous theory.

2. Ideological Confusion

The principles are built on an ideal of integrative wholeness and service to a "common good," which perpetuates a well-meaning communitarianism that overlooks the complexities of a liberal, pluralistic society. The idea that what is "natural" is inherently "good" romanticizes nature, and unqualified suggestions like "seeking balance" and "honoring" place and community raise questions about whether the principles are grounded in a proper examination of political theories or merely reflect an ideological stance.

3. Political Naivety

The principles sidestep the real power dynamics that shape economic systems and the challenges of reaching societal consensus in a highly fragmented and pluralistic society. While idealistic, staple ideas like "Empowered Participation" and "Right" Relationship overlook entrenched inequalities and power structures that prevent equitable participation in economic decision-making. They also fail to offer clear strategies for overcoming the political obstacles that would inevitably arise in implementation.

4. Rudimentary Theory of Change

Fashionable notions like "Edge Effect Abundance" or "Innovative, Adaptive, Responsive" suggest that economic systems could simply mimic natural "living" systems to continually improve. This perspective risks reducing complex political issues to mere questions of "harmony" with spontaneous "natural" processes, ignoring ethical judgment, trade-offs and the cost of more radical social transformation. The assumption that human well-being can be easily aggregated to develop meaningful decision-making criteria, or that empowered participation will suddenly lead to a social awakening and collective altruism, is highly simplistic.

Despite its noble intentions, the framework seems more a hotchpotch of trendy jargon than a coherent theory or a clear path forward for economic reform. It will be interesting to dive deeper!

#transformation #economy #leadership #management

PS: Thanks to John Fullerton (and many others) for the engaging conversation that ensued. 

1. Here is John's reply:

Ideological Confusion:
You are misguided in your assertions about my "communitarian" ideology. Regeneration is NOT an ideology. It is simply the process that describes all of life. Nothing more, and importantly nothing less. I consider the regenerative paradigm as sitting above the political division of "left" and "right". Some day politicians will argue about what policies will encourage and preserve a regenerative economy.

To be clear, the 8 principles are most certainly NOT grounded in any political theory. That's the point. They are derived from our latest understanding of living systems science (systems ecology, complexity science in general, and energy flow network science) and validated by scientists I respect and include in my course. You might find it at least curious that these descriptive patterns and principles happen to be remarkably in alignment with the many wisdom traditions that have stood the test of time. Interesting, no? Increasingly this insight is understood as a new "unitive narrative". 

Political Naivety: 

I have operated at the pinnacle of finance, so trust me when I say, I am not at all naive about the challenges of implementing policies that would transform the modern economy to a regenerative economy. I lose sleep over exactly that more than anything, for reasons I trust you have not even considered yet. Two points:
a) I have chosen to work on blowing the Overton Window wide open based on my experience, insights and best understanding of reality. This search is now in about year 20 after 20 years in finance, not a new hobby. Those content with working within what's "politically feasible" or "practical" are the same folks that have delivered us to the polycrisis which was anticipated and widely communicated a HALF CENTURY AGO - "Limits to Growth" and many times since.
b) I challenge you to make the case that if the human economy is to be sustainable in the long run, it can be the only living system that does not obey the patterns and principles of all living (not collapsed) systems, as it currently operates. If you can't make such argument, then put your political expertise to the task of helping us make the seemingly impossible, inevitable. This is the next phase of human evolution.

Not sure how you think "edge effect abundance" is "fashionable! Edge Effect is actually from ecology, the concept of ecotones. Empowered Participation as well is not some feel good liberal idea. It's directly from the science of living systems. It's how ALL life works in the real world, not a political ideology from the left or right. Myth of separation again.

By putting quotes over "living" I think you are again exposing your anthropocentric worldview. You my friend are a "living" system! As is your family, your community, and every organization you have ever worked in (usually unhealthy ones at best). Yet we (western reductionist thinking) attempt to manage these systems as if they are merely machines. To quote Nora Bateson, the opposite of complexity is not simplicity, it's reductionism.

As to a theory of change, I rely on Dana Meadows' "Places to Intervene in a System". My work is focused on the single highest leverage point: letting go of paradigms. No systems scientist would call this "rudimentary." This is the work, letting go of the Modern Age reductionist/materialist paradigm and entering the next age, whatever future historians will call it. Regenerative Age?' 

2. Thanks to Chad Smith for his reflective summary of the conversation

Over the weekend I read through an exchange between Otti Vogt & John Fullerton about the idea of a #regenerativeeconomy. I follow both of them & recently took John's class on finance for a regenerative economy offered through the Capital Institute. Otti critiqued John's "eight regenerative principles," to which John responded.

I believe Otti & John want the same thing - a sane, thriving economy that's good for people & planet. I want that too & believe we need our most rigorous thinking as well as practical action to bring such an economy into being. John comes at this from the perspective of a former Wall Street banker; Otti also from a deeply engaged European business background with strong interest in ethics and philosophy.

They both converge in seeing the flaws in our current economic system & the urgent need for change. I've found John's "insider perspective" as a former banker especially illuminating. His own personal journey from Wall Street to "regeneration" resonates with many people's own practical experience in the economy. Otti is also asking serious questions about what a "reinvented capitalism" could actually look like & what kind of politics could facilitate that transition.

One key place of divergence is in how they see the relationship between #nature & #culture. For John, living systems science has uncovered that all successful natural systems operate according to the eight regenerative principles. Human beings are, of course, part of nature. But this is something that, especially in the modern Western world, we forget: this is known as "the myth of separation," that somehow humans are "above" or "outside" or "separate from" nature.

Here one of Otti's points bears emphasizing: while it is true that we are a part of nature, that is not all we are. Our understanding of nature itself is mediated by and through culture. David Christian, the pioneer of "big history," has rightly pointed out that this "culture of collective learning" is our identifiably unique quality. This is as true of modern societies as it is of ancient & indigenous societies with more experience in faithful stewardship of nature.

We must be careful not to fall into the original critique of industrialization - that's 19th-century romanticism. There is much merit in that critique but little practical application to our current complex reality beyond inspirational poetry.

Here is where I believe culture can actually help us - and more people - get to nature. I wish we could simply say, "This is how nature operates, let's do things that way!" But we are cultural, ethical, & political creatures & we must deal with that too. The fact that Otti initially read John as leaning toward an "eco-mysticism" demonstrates to me that we have to have a sophisticated approach to mediating nature through culture.

More to say, but this is the conversation we need, & I thank both John & Otti for plowing the field for us.

3. And the final comments from myself and John

John - 

1. Caution with either/or thinking. Holism sees paradox everywhere it looks. Reductionist thinking is brilliant for much. But it fails managing complexity. Einstein knew this too. Our challenge today is managing complexity - social, political, economic, and cultural - in a state of ecological overshoot. We had better learn holistic thinking and decision making.
2. Nature or man is reductionist thinking. Man is both man and nature - a paradox. Biology is not physics. But it cannot disobey the laws of physics. Both/and. Neither can human culture violate the core patterns and principles of how life works. If it wants to continue as a living culture not a dead culture.
3. Our economic system is in violation of how life works as we explore in my course. Yet our “leaders” on the left snd right and in business are largely ignorant of how life works. So we see “solutions” to our “problems” that fail to deal with root causes, creating ever greater “problems”. Endless examples.
4. Friends: the “Enlightenment” has given us much. But most Enlightenment thinkers, were the product of the reductionist thinking of that era.
5. Can you imagine: we live in a New Era!

Otti -

I think this topic calls for a more in-depth discussion. :-) Holism, or structuralism, can sometimes be as reductionist as methodological individualism (cf Archer on conflation). The complexity in pluralistic social systems often arises from differing opinions and values, as highlighted by social choice theory. One challenge here is political: integrating or aggregating these diverse opinions. Another challenge involves ambiguity in execution, which can stem from ontological or epistemological complexity

Humans are both nature and culture, which underscores the importance of a stratified ontology. With agency emerging as a property in complex systems, both aspects need to be considered. I don't believe there's a "core pattern" for how "life works"—such a notion suggests a deterministic view, whether divine or natural, that can quickly lead to a rigid, dogmatic and even totalitarian interpretation of social systems and limit individual moral freedom.

I completely agree that an economy can indeed be detrimental to "life support systems" or lead to resource depletion. However, whether this constitutes a "violation of how life works" seems to hinge on one's particular ideology. It can also come across as somewhat presumptuous, considering that people might have very different perspectives on what a "good life" means to them—without necessarily being ignorant. This is precisely where ethics comes in, as it seeks to explore how to lead a good life.

The Enlightenment was grounded in the elevation of human knowledge and reason over dogma and religion—Sapere aude! While there are certainly challenges associated with an overemphasis on reason, scientism and epistemic shallowness, domination of nature and people, and neglect of power dynamics, we should be cautious throw the baby out with the bathwater. The enlightenment's greatest achievement was the pursuit of freedom, and we should be careful not to regress into a universalizing natural mysticism or anti-scientific dogma. :-)

To say that I am both what I am and "what I am not" strikes me as a profound truth and a deep recognition of accountability.

Dave Snowden's comment

Such a statement rather casts doubt on the validity of anything you say. Is this some variation of the liars paradox?

My reply

Dave great point! The statement would indeed be paradoxical if it were about truth rather than identity. My point was more straightforward: our identity is arguably shaped not only by the traits and behaviors we actively embrace but also by those we consciously reject or leave behind. I think we define ourselves by difference as much as by similarity/presence. But what I'm really interested in is exploring the notion of negativity in dialectics. In this sense, "what we are not" might represent the possibilities of what we could become, which are realized as potential through our actions. So, in a way, absence overreaches presence.

CREATIONISM: SACRED WISDOM OR JUST UNHOLY IGNORANCE?

A Creationist is someone who believes in a god as the absolute creator of heaven and earth, who brought everything into existence from nothing by an act of free will. This deity is considered both "transcendent," meaning beyond human experience, and "immanent," meaning constantly involved in creation, ready to intervene as needed. Without this ongoing divine involvement, creation would cease to exist. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all share this belief in a creator god, and are generally known as "theists," distinguishing them from "deists," who believe in a designer who, after creating the world, does not interfere with it.

In a more specific sense, particularly in popular writings in the US, Creationism often refers to a literal interpretation of the Bible, especially the early chapters of Genesis. This leads Creationists to strongly oppose the concept of evolution, particularly the idea proposed by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species that all living and extinct organisms are the result of a natural process of development from a few original forms, possibly even from inorganic matter ("common descent").

Creationism encompasses several core beliefs. First, it asserts that the universe began only a short time ago, with "Young Earth Creationists" accepting Archbishop Ussher’s 17th-century estimate of about 6,000 years. Second, it holds that creation occurred in six days, though opinions vary on whether these were literal 24-hour periods. Third, it posits a miraculous creation of all life, including humans, with some debate over whether Adam and Eve were created together or if Eve was created later to accompany Adam. Fourth, Creationists believe in a worldwide flood, through which only a limited number of humans and animals survived. Fifth, they accept other biblical events like the Tower of Babel and Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt as historical facts. Creationists, sometimes known as Fundamentalists or biblical literalists, often advocate for Intelligent Design, emphasizing supposed scientific grounds for their beliefs. (Source: Stanford Encyclopedia) Moreover, Creationists often see themselves as the true defenders of traditional Christianity, despite historical figures like St. Augustine already challenging a literal reading of scripture.

Isn't it puzzling that, in the 21st century, some people cling to the logical flaws of design arguments and reject scientific evidence for evolution in favor of religious dogma? This may stem from a need for psychological certainty, deep cultural and social influences, or steadfast adherence to longstanding religious traditions. However, the negative consequences of Creationism—including undermining scientific education, breaching the separation of church and state, and stifling critical thinking—are certainly concerning, especially as its influence grows globally.

#religion #populism #creationism #education

Interesting fact: The Catholic Church kept an INDEX OF FORBIDDEN BOOKS from 1560 to 1966 (!). It banned thousands of book titles and blacklisted publications, including many works of Europe's intellectual elites.

Noteworthy figures on the Index include Simone de Beauvoir, Nicolas Malebranche, Jean-Paul Sartre, Alexandre Dumas, Hobbes, Stendhal, Heine, Zola, Michel de Montaigne, Voltaire, Denis Diderot, Victor Hugo, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, André Gide, Nikos Kazantzakis, Emanuel Swedenborg, Baruch Spinoza, Desiderius Erasmus, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, René Descartes, Francis Bacon, Thomas Browne, John Milton, John Locke, Nicolaus Copernicus, Niccolò Machiavelli, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, and Hugo Grotius.

The reason it was discontinued? Cardinal Ottaviani stated in April 1966 that there was too much contemporary literature and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith could not keep up with it. :-)

I guess one must agree with Anthony Grayling that religion has not always been a source of human enlightenment...

#religion #education

In times of increasing change and ambiguity, it's natural to look to the wisdom of the past for guidance. The Classical and Hellenistic periods, much like our own era, were marked by uncertainty and flux, and during those times, several philosophical approaches emerged to help individuals navigate the complexities of life.

Epicureanism taught the pursuit of simple intellectual pleasures and the avoidance of unnecessary desires as a path to tranquility. Skepticism urged a cautious suspension of judgment, encouraging doubt and critical thinking in the face of uncertainty - as well as autarchy, apathy and freedom. Stoicism, on the other hand, emphasized virtue, rationality, and resilience, advocating for inner strength and moral integrity in the face of external challenges. To some extent, we could argue that contemporary movements for degrowth, corporate responsibility or post-capitalism take inspiration from these philosophies which emerged throughout the Roman Republic and Empire.

However, the Hellenistic responses differ significantly from the classical philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. While the classical thinkers asked how the state (and economy) could be best organized to ensure the well-being of all citizens, the Hellenistic philosophies shifted focus to the individual: how can one live with as much fortitude and tranquility (ataraxia) as possible in an unpredictable world?

This raises a crucial question for us today: are we willing to take political accountability for creating a society that fosters the common good, or are we more inclined to seek peace of mind as individuals, detached from broader social responsibilities? The choice between these paths—engagement in collective societal change versus the pursuit of personal tranquility—remains as relevant now as it was in the ancient world.

#transformation #change #philosophy #business #leadership

Are the wars in Ukraine or Palestine just? According to the prevailing Just War Theory (JWT), several criteria must be met for military action to be justified, divided into two main groups: a) jus ad bellum ("right to go to war") and b) jus in bello ("right conduct in war").

* Thomas Aquinas outlined three critical jus ad bellum requirements: 1. the war must be waged upon the command of a rightful sovereign (legitimate authority); 2. for a just cause, i.e., on account of some wrong the attacked have committed; and 3. with the right intention—to promote good and avoid evil.

* Aristotle, who first introduced the concept and terminology to the Hellenic world, added that war must not prevent the restoration of peace, leading to three jus in bello criteria: 1. proportionality, 2. last resort, and 3. probability of success.

* Additionally, there have been calls for a third category, jus post bellum, to deal with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction.

While JWT contends that war can be justified under certain conditions and with the right conduct, it has faced significant criticism. Anarchists challenge the legitimacy of any public authority to impose war on its citizens, while pacifists argue that JWT perpetuates violence by focusing on war as a means rather than peace as the ultimate goal. Here, the Western tradition's reliance on simplistic and abstract principles often overlooks the need for broader examination of non-violent alternatives. It reduces agency and responsibility to a point where it’s too late to pursue other options, rather than emphasizing an absolute duty to maintain peace. Ontologically, war is not an external phenomenon but a system within society—shaped by societal structures and daily practices. Thus, the responsibility must start with developing and maintaining structural solutions for peace and actively exploring non-violent alternatives. Countries bear an "ante bellum" responsibility to pursue human flourishing, recognizing that violence can never foster a truly non-violent society.

Hence, while JWT provides a preliminary framework to assess whether a war can be considered just, it is not sufficient on its own. By its principles, clearly neither the war in Ukraine nor in Palestine can be deemed legitimate. More crucially, though, as Immanuel Kant observed, "war is an unjust and unreasoning arbiter," reducing questions of justice to mere displays of strength. War, inherently unpredictable and often unjust, is a deeply flawed means of resolving international conflicts. We must not permit politicians to use war simply as an extension of politics by other means—ultimately, everyone loses.

#leadership #responsibility #politics #war #strategy

It is a profound truth that true #freedom needs a "reason" to be free. To be free is always to have something at stake, to vulnerably participate in a complex of existential contradictions without which life would not genuinely have meaning.

Therein lies the equally deep insight that concrete freedom cannot only, and sometimes not even primarily, be a matter of our 'right' to be free, but rather consists in the development of our shared societal capacity to learn to become free.

It is true that leadership in business cannot replace good political governance, which is legitimized by a democratic process. Additionally, within competitive market economies, business leaders must balance the needs of many stakeholders. We also agree that leadership is not about glorifying individual heroes, but about enhancing our collective capacity to drive positive change and realize the full potential of human organisations.

That said, let me be equally clear: business leadership must not be an excuse for prioritizing special interests over societal benefits. Market pressures cannot justify a lack of moral imagination or, worse, cowardice and greed. With power comes responsibility, and this responsibility must be measured against ideals, such as justice, freedom, honour and compassion. It is not wealth and success that make goodness, but goodness that gives value to wealth and success. Good leadership is always also followership, insofar at it implies an essential commitment to an ultimate principle of human flourishing.

Those unwilling to measure their actions against these higher standards should not be tolerated in leadership positions. We are not leaders because we rule; we are leaders because we truly care.

#leadership

UNLOCK YOUR ULTIMATE POTENTIAL: Top 5 Silver Bullets for Private & Corporate Success!

Have you ever felt stuck, longing for that magical boost to catapult you to brilliance, creativity, and productivity? You’re in luck! We’ve distilled the essence of success into five ridiculously simplistic techniques that promise to revolutionize your life. Are they clichés? Absolutely. But don’t let that stop you—if you’re willing to invest in our exorbitant consulting fees, your willpower combined with our fabulous PowerPoints will transform you into a shining beacon of accomplishment!

T- Think Outside the Box!

The most successful people are those who dare to think differently! So, step out of your box, shake the box, turn the box upside down, set the box on fire, and then launch it into space until the box will need a telescope just to catch a glimpse of you! Watch your creativity not just soar, but blast off to galactic heights!

E- Embrace Failure!

Failure is your golden ticket to triumph! Each colossal blunder is a cosmic nudge towards greatness. Plan your spectacular flops as miraculous opportunities to reinvent yourself and rise from the ashes like a gloriously flamboyant phoenix. Remember, the road to success is paved with the rubble of your dazzling missteps. Worship at the altar of your mistakes, and you’ll soon be catapulted to the pantheon of wisdom, leaving mere mortals in awe of your all-inspiring resilience!

P- Think Positive!

Forget practicality; optimism is your express ticket to the stars! Ever heard the phrase, “If you can believe it, you can achieve it”? It’s not just a motivational quote; it’s your shortcut to instant enlightenment! Who needs hard work or strategy when you can just sprinkle positivity dust and become a billionaire overnight?

S- Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS)!

Ah, simplicity—the ultimate magic wand for all your problems! Forget about nuance, detail, context or real-world challenges— brilliant solutions are always the simplest! Complexity is the enemy of execution, perfect is the enemy of good, and simplicity is the ultimate sophistication! Let creativity explode like fireworks on a toddler’s birthday, and productivity skyrocket like an over-caffeinated squirrel!

N- Network, Network, Network!

Success isn’t about track record; it’s about amassing an exclusive roster of contacts who can open doors you didn’t even know existed! Your network is your net worth. Invest every waking moment in expanding your connections like it’s your full-time job—forget sleep, meals, or personal hygiene. Schmooze, charm, and flatter like your future depends on it—because it does!

So there you have it—the top 5 silver bullets to unlock your ultimate potential. Good luck with TEPSN-ing your life as you watch yourself becoming brighter, more creative, more productive, and more successful. The journey to greatness starts now —or whenever you’re ready to fork over those consulting fees!

#leadership #consulting

Inspired by a McKinsey newsletter

Step Aside, Batman: Here Comes Homo Economicus!

Meet Homo Economicus, the superhero of the neoclassical economics world! This remarkable phenomenon is not your average Joe. No, Homo Economicus is a superhuman, calculative optimizing machine. Imagine a being that can process infinite information faster than you can say "supply and demand" and does it all without breaking a sweat or paying a dime!

In the fantastical land of Neoclassicalia, Homo Economicus lives in a perfect market paradise where:

* Utility Function: Life’s goal is to maximize utility, like being on a constant quest for the ultimate ice cream flavor (with no lactose intolerance in sight).

* Production Function: Think of this as their magical recipe book, where every ingredient is perfectly measured and every dish is optimized for the greatest output – efficiency at its finest!

* Equilibrating Mechanism: Forget traffic jams and stock market crashes. In Homo Economicus’s world, everything always balances out perfectly. Prices signal like neon signs in Times Square, guiding our hero to economic Nirvana.

No confusion, no chaos. Just perfect information flowing seamlessly, as if the universe itself whispered the secrets of the market into Homo Economicus’s ear.

So next time you’re stuck in line trying to decide between almond milk and oat milk, just remember: somewhere in the theoretical realm, Homo Economicus already knows the answer – and has optimized it for maximum satisfaction and minimum cost. Or... Economics may be making up fairy tales! 🦸‍♂️📈🧠


PS: Thanks to Jamie Morgan for his "textbook" definition of the standard "neoclassical" economic agent: a calculative optimising entity, able to process infinite information instantaneously and without cost to achieve given ends (and able to do so within a system reduced to a utility function, a production function and an equilibrating mechanism, whose fundamental frame of reference is "the market" conceived as an environment of price signalling information processing under perfect information) - an ahistorical entity applicable anywhere and anytime.

#EconomicsMagic #HomoEconomicus #MarketMaster

The Problem with Yin-Yang

The Yin-Yang concept is a cornerstone of Chinese philosophy, especially in Taoism. It symbolizes the idea that opposite forces are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world. Yin (the dark, passive, feminine aspect) and Yang (the light, active, masculine aspect) are viewed as complementary rather than conflicting.

While the Yin-Yang concept offers a valuable perspective, it has several limitations when applied to a social dialectics of freedom, echoing Bhaskar’s critique of Hegel:

1. Static Balance vs. Dynamic Change

* Yin-Yang: Provides a straightforward framework for understanding the allegedly necessary interplay of opposites, emphasizing a balance between them and suggesting a state of equilibrium. Although change is inherent, it is seen as cyclic and harmonious rather than progressive and transformative.

* Dialectics: Focuses on transformative change driven by contradictions and absences. The dialectic of freedom involves recognizing and addressing real-world constraints to achieve emancipation, implying a dynamic and often conflictual process rather than harmonious balance.


2. Material Conditions and Human Agency

* Yin-Yang: Generally applies to natural and cosmic processes, often neglecting a specific focus on human agency and ignoring material conditions. The idea that negative and positive forces are interconnected and necessary for each other can provide emotional comfort.

* Dialectics: Explicitly incorporates human agency and praxis. It emphasizes that human beings can and should act to transform oppressive practices, grounding dialectics in social and material reality.


3. Emancipation and Social Structures

* Yin-Yang: Does not inherently address issues of power, oppression, and emancipation. It is about maintaining harmony within the existing cosmic or human order, suggesting that different political ideologies or groups can balance each other.

* Dialectics: Aims for emancipation of individuals and society by transforming social structures that restrict freedom. It is oriented towards achieving greater human freedom and overcoming social injustices.


4. Ontology and Epistemology

* Yin-Yang: Emphasizes interconnectedness of human actions and natural systems, implying a monistic and integrative “spiritual” view of reality. However, it does not explicitly engage with epistemological and ontological issues concerning the nature of reality and knowledge.

* Dialectics: Engages deeply with both ontology (the nature of being) and epistemology (the nature of knowledge), advocating for a realist approach that acknowledges the complexity and stratification of reality, as well as the transformative potential of human reflexivity and action.


The Yin-Yang concept is certainly simple, but its conservative focus on harmony seems to support the status quo, rather than addressing the conflictual and transformative aspects of social development. What makes it so attractive?

#transformation #leadership

EPISTEMIC FALLACY: A statement of being can always be reduced to a statement about our knowledge of being. In other words, what is real is (only) what we can experience.

Of course, such a classically empiricist position is untenable. It implies that ontology is reduced to epistemology within closed systems and “laws” are derived from atomistic events and their relations, ie constant conjunctions. The absurd implication is that (transfactual) "laws" are not real if we do not experience, or not correctly observe, recurrent sequences of events. In other words, there is a big difference between the statements “it works, because it’s true”; and “it’s true because it works.”

Moreover, it also implies that our knowledge of reality is in itself invariant - it can only be falsified or validated through empirical testing.

A corollary of such positivism is the fashionable postmodern insistence on a supremacy of subjective experiences and discourse, and the fallacious inference that because there is no epistemologically objective view of the world, there is also no objective world ontologically. With the famously ambiguous words of Jacquees Derrida "there is nothing outside text".

Of course, that makes no sense. Plurality is a descriptive fact, but it becomes relativism when we start to believe that all experiences and interpretations are equally valid. The world cannot be altered just because we happen to change our beliefs about it. It would lead to the absurd notion that when people discovered that the earth revolved around the sun, their objective world suddenly changed.

But, positively formulated, an abandonment of the deserts of empiricist flatness and the tyranny of the actual (or the subjective) opens up a deeper realm of possibility, where the currency of thought isn't evidence but potentiality. Acknowledging the limitations of our passive predictions of events, we should focus on the active cultivation of structures and practices that enhance our ability to yield those events that matter.

A PRISONERS OF PROFIT: The Panopticon of Financial Capitalism

The concept of the "panopticon" was introduced by Jeremy Bentham, the British social reformer and philosopher, as a design for a prison system allowing a single guard to observe all inmates without their knowledge. The structure features a central tower surrounded by buildings divided into cells, each with two windows: one to let in light and another facing the tower, allowing for unobstructed surveillance.

Michel Foucault argued that the panopticon is not merely a physical structure but a "mechanism of power reduced to its ideal form." In this setup, every individual is isolated, perfectly visible, and perpetually aware that they might be watched.

* In the panopticon, the inmate’s visibility to the guard alone—cut off from contact with others—establishes a power dynamic where surveillance is both omnipresent and unverifiable. Bentham suggested that this arrangement could be easily extended to other societal structures, including schools.

* The architectural genius of the panopticon lies in its ability to function effectively even in the absence of a guardian. Inmates, unsure if they are being watched, internalize the surveillance, thus becoming their own guards.

* The panopticon also includes a system for controlling the controllers. Those in the tower are themselves thoroughly enmeshed in the system of surveillance. “Such is perhaps the most diabolical aspect of the idea and of all the applications it brought about,” said Foucault. “The machine is one in which everyone is caught, those who exercise this power as well as those who are subjected to it.”

Bentham's design may not have found widespread application in his time, but what if its principles have quietly infiltrated our modern world? The Panopticon epitomizes a disciplinary technology that becomes continuous, ubiquitous, and anonymous, creating a self-regulating populace. It extends far beyond prisons, serving as a metaphor for the pervasive and often invisible power structures in society.

* What if stock markets control the towers of a contemporary Panopticon? Picture the modern CEO as a prison guard, employing performance management systems to control an increasingly atomized workforce. This CEO, too, is caught in a web of anonymous control imposed by financial markets—a disciplinary technology that ensures we are always watched, judged, and driven to meet insatiable market demands. Business leaders, politicians, regulators, and the public are all under constant observation, with every action scrutinized through the lens of instrumental rationality, dictated by the imperative of economic growth.

As Foucault warns us, when the lines between freedom and control blur, we must ask: Are we still masters of our fate, or merely prisoners, caught in the gears of a diabolical machine? Are we still making the rules, or have we already begun to discipline ourselves?

#leadership #transformation #politics #ethics #business #finance

POSITIVISM. In Europe, it has long been "a swearword by which no one is swearing" whereas in the US it still seems to be a badge of honor for research that is considered rigorous. Either way, (logical) positivism - sadly - is alive and kicking and many of its flawed assumptions continue to shape social science research across the globe, and especially in economics.

Much of its logic is based on the anachronistic Covering Law model of scientific explanation which says that to explain a phenomenon is to show that its occurrence follows deductively from a general law: it implies that empirically observed constant conjunctions "if A, then B" can be generalised under alleged natural laws to approximate causality, based on successful prediction. In its modern form it frequently turns to probabilistic modes of explanation, eg "when A, then B with X % probability". Of course, either approach is flawed as it fails to provide genuine explanations for the suggested regularities - conflating prediction with causality while committing an "epistemic fallacy" - and it implicitly posits stable patterns (and closed systems), often unduly equating natural and social systems.

As a consequence, researchers frequently operate with a hotchpotch of instruments seeking cutting edge tools to imitate "the quality" of natural science research, instead of nurturing critical thinking. The frequent overuse of statistical and experimental analysis to make generalised predictions is a case in point...

Most worryingly, it seems to me that in many academic circles meta-theoretical discussions about philosophy of science have completely disappeared. Wherever models are failing, as in the case of the 2008 crisis and many other economic predictions, researchers respond with the insistence on more data, more sophisticated models and more "objective" research - including the hyped up faith in big data and AI. Somehow post modernism - which in many ways was hostile to the enlightenment ideal of scientific and technological progress - seems to have come full circle and collapsed on itself.

#economics #leadership #criticalthinking #personaldevelopment #business #science

Beyond the surface: : The Case for Critical Realism in Organizational Analysis

Critical realism (CR) is a philosophical approach that bridges the gap between the observable and the underlying structures that govern social phenomena. It distinguishes between the real (underlying mechanisms), the actual (events), and the empirical (experiences). By emphasizing the reality of social structures and their causal powers, CR goes beyond surface-level observations to explore the deeper, often hidden mechanisms that drive organizational behavior and outcomes.

Moving beyond simplistic linear models of culture change, such as the popular iceberg model, CR prompts researchers and practitioners to identify and address deeper 'generative mechanisms'. Rather than merely treating symptoms or "assumptions", it offers a powerful framework for understanding the complexities of management and organizational practices and change. By developing a more holistic and nuanced understanding of organizational emergence, it can help us to foster more effective and sustainable solutions.

Despite its significance, you may not have heard of CR. In fact, CR has been largely sidelined in management research for several reasons:

1. The dominance of positivist paradigms, driven by a preference for measurable and observable phenomena, has sidelined CR's deeper ontological insights.

2. Economic and regulatory constraints, such as neoliberal policies and managerialist approaches, prioritize efficiency and measurable success, often lacking the flexibility to accommodate CR's critical and emancipatory stance.

3. Additionally, there is a fear of CR's commitment to social justice and transformative change, which challenges existing power structures within academia and organizations.

For consultants and practitioners in organizational change and transformation, it is crucial to familiarize themselves with CR and explore its potential for offering deeper insights into organizational behaviors. To effectively create more just and equitable workplaces, we need to move beyond scientific realism and positivist or post-positivist methodologies.

However, this might require us to let go of a a few cherished assumptions. Only if we are willing to revise some of our old worldviews can we successfully guide our our organizations toward new worlds. As we often say in leadership development, true organizational transformation begins with personal transformation. We cannot lead others to places we have not been ourselves.

#leadership #transformation #philosophy #organizationalchange #personaldevelopment

The myth of EMERGENCE: Or why the sum isn't always greater than the parts

Few concepts in contemporary discussions about organizational and system change have led to more confusion and misunderstanding than the notion of emergence. Since its first appearance in British emergentism in the early 20th century, it has been used to explain everything from divine monism to increased productivity in diverse teams and the superiority of self-organization. Let’s clear up the confusion.

Firstly, when people talk about emergence, many think of temporal emergence—a phenomenon that develops over time. However, in the context of sociological emergence, we focus on the synchronic relations between parts that lead to new emergent properties. In other words, a property P of a complex whole w composed of entities A and B is not present in either A or B individually, but depends on a specific relationship or structure R connecting both. It can be understood as a property of w (superimposition) or as a new property accessible to A and B while they are part of w (intrastructuration). Either way, w acquires causal powers in its own right.

To simplify, consider water. Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, but combined into H2O, it has new properties that are not present in the individual atoms (try extinguishing a fire with oxygen alone). Another example is a dog’s ability to bark. None of the individual body parts of a dog can bark, so barking can be understood as an emergent property. In social systems, we are particularly interested in the emergent properties of organizations. Organizations consist of agentic individuals, but due to the configuration of individuals into roles and the establishment of role relationships, unique properties emerge at the organizational level. Emergent properties persist even when the individuals that make up the organization change.


This highlights the difference between "resultant" and "relational" emergence. "Resultant" refers to properties of the whole that can be directly derived from the characteristics of the parts, such as average height, total mass, or median income. This leads to the common misinterpretation of the saying that a team is more than the sum of its parts. People often apply a linear logic and focus on the combination of specific individuals in a team, rather than paying attention to the relational structure necessary to foster the emergence of new properties. Effective team building requires more than selection; it necessitates the development of virtuous habits, roles, norms, rules, and procedures.

Hence, social emergence is not quite as simple as natural emergence – like flocks of birds. Rather it describes the properties of a specific form of social structure enacted through individual agency. It can explain societal properties like freedom and justice, and other common goods, that are not possessed by individuals but constitutive of a society configured in a specific way.

#leadership #transformation

Do we need badasses to change the world? Must we tolerate autocratic leadership styles, anti-social behaviours and unstable personalities to enjoy societal progress? Is sustainable development simply a matter of heroic inventors and entrepreneurs?

It is a great question. As many commentators on Justin's original post do (see comments), we could ask questions about truth: Was the impact of celebrated entrepreneurs like Musk or Jobs truly that significant? Could events have unfolded similarly without them? Would different behaviours have led to the same outcomes? Such questions, however, can only lead to speculation. From developmental economics, we know there is no consistent correlation between governance forms and growth. What matters are shared focus, coordination, and commitment. That said, Acemoglu for instance points out that a broader distribution of power is essential for sustainable development in the longer run.

I think a more interesting question is what we truly want. What is a "good" business? We should ask if, when universalized, the behaviours of certain leaders are acceptable to human society. Many might resort to economic rationality here, calculating costs and benefits: perhaps it is worth enduring a few ruthless leaders if it results in the next gen iPhone. Maybe a few must suffer like slaves so the whole of society can benefit?

However, such an illiberal view of the economy contradicts the republican ideals enshrined in our constitutions. We guarantee every citizen’s freedom from arbitrary domination, whether as workers or citizens. Even if some might feel the game is work the candle, ethically, it simply isn’t just a game.

When discussing ethics, beyond utilitarian and Kantian perspectives, there are other lenses. Using care ethics, where caring for people and the planet is paramount, the no-asshole rule is non-negotiable. In virtue ethics, the logic is similar. We seek virtuous leaders, not psychopathic maniacs, because work, like life, is an end in itself. It matters who we become, not only what we produce.

Ultimately, it comes down to societal choice – do we want to build a global Athens, Rome, Cairo, or Silicon Valley? My money is on the former. If I must choose between a society or company that glorifies autocrats while promising a constant stream of retail innovations in return, and another where my basic rights are respected even if it means staying a bit longer on my iphone 8, I know where I will stand. That said, I personally believe Acemoglu is right. In the long run, participatory enterprises win.

Ps: of course, it might be argued that Athens had Theseus, Rome had Augustus (or Romulus), Florence the Medici and even Rousseau needed le legislateur. However, being a visionary founder doesn’t imply being a ruthless prince - unless maybe, as Machiavelli states, the world has been corrupted. So maybe our leaders are both cause and product of our times. ;-) 

#leadership #transformation #business #agile #development

(Thanks to my friend Justin Hughes for the invitation for this post)

"Any given social ontology has implications for the explanatory methodology which is (and in consistency can be) endorsed."

Margaret Archer highlights in the introduction to her seminal Realist Social Theory what every apprentice academic should be taught from the first days of their career. There is a logical chain between ontology, epistemology, methodology, method and observation. Equally, any attempt to expand the theoretical exploration of social systems towards practical recommendations will require axiological considerations.

Yet, even most elders in academic research seem to remain happily oblivious of the importance of Margaret's claim - or indeed the many other important challenges to scientific realism and method.

The result is an unholy morass of theories - advertised as eclectic pragmatism - that far too often remain unexamined in regards of their normative premises.

There is no polis for slaves! Aristotle's famous declaration underscores that unfree laborers in Athenian society were not part of the democratic community, or koinonia politike, but belonged to the oikos, the household. Slaves were excluded from citizenship.

In classical political thought, from Catullus to Kant, the terms "civic" and "political" were often synonymous. In the Roman Republic, res publica and civitas were the same, with only cives optimo iure holding rights for both commercial and political participation.

Hegel was the first modern philosopher to propose a distinction between civic and political realms. Observing the fragmentation in an emerging industrial society, he distinguished between bourgeois society (bürgerliche Gesellschaft) and the state. He argued that this separation must be overcome explicitly through dialectic development.

Why does this matter? In modern society, "civic society" is largely apolitical. As Marx, building on Hegel, noted, modern society is dominated by individual economic exchange relationships. "With the change in manners and way of life, each individual was more preoccupied with his own necessities and private affairs."

Of course, Marx believed that civic society could generate political momentum to change the state. However, Hegel might have been closer to the truth. Capitalist dynamics keep citizens preoccupied with apolitical exchange. The ever increasing specialization of production fragments social relationships while collectively fostering a "template" of economic rationality and expected individual patterns of consumption. Consequently, modern workers are quickly trapped in a merely civic society striving for happiness on Amazon Prime. Oblivious of the implied erosion of power, many pride themselves on being apolitical, and genuine political participation is at historic lows.

Our Greek and Roman forebears would be stunned to see that, after a historic battle for the expansion of true citizenship, we now glorify the household. This poses a danger. As a passionate Rousseau warned us two and a half centuries ago, man is born free, but everywhere in chains. As humans - he wrote - we attain our greatest freedom and development only as active participants in a social and political community. True freedom must combine social and political emancipation. Yet, few of us recognize that the seductive "freedom" promised by capitalistic exchange and consumption comes at the cost of social inequality and perpetual political enslavement.

There is no polis for slaves, and as Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach quipped, happy slaves are the greatest enemies of freedom.

#leadership #transformation

ALL GENUINE #TRANSFORMATIONS ARE DEEPLY POLITICAL.

Culture change programs that ritualistically align with arbitrarily chosen "shared values" often amount to meaningless exercises. They may appease supervisory board consciences or boost consulting profits, but rarely produce organizational excellence.

What matters is not just culture, but lived moral character. This requires a systemic focus on success metrics, policies and institutions, and executive (mis)behavior—not just intellectual leadership theories, "pragmatic" executive development, or sugar-coated micro-recipes for employees to cope. Without a change in values and the redistribution of power, resources and wealth (or relief of debts), no transformation—societal or organizational—will yield greater social justice.

This is where #ESG, #CSR, #Agile or any other change initiative sponsored by well-meaning #HR departments, populist academic "thought leaders," or philanthropic billionaires risks reinforcing a rotten system rather than addressing its root causes. We quickly end up socializing the victims instead of confronting the perpetrators.

In that sense, public #leadership requires not both practical wisdom and a willingness to sacrifice for the common good.

#goodorganisations

(All credits for the picture go to Tom Fishburne) (Repost)

Why the Germans and the Dutch are the "laziest" people in Europe

It's kind of funny that people generally believe people in the South of Europe work less than their Northern cousins. Often such prejudices are linked to a belief that people in poorer countries are lazier - certainly higher income must be linked to people working harder! Of course, this is a complete myth. Incomes more closely correlate with national productivity which often has little to do with individual effort. The second key factor influencing income per capita is public policy, not personal prowess. In fact, the Greek who many Germans happily blamed for their alleged lack of professionalism during the euro crisis are amongst the "hardest" working people in the world (in terms of total amount of annual hours worked).

Just to summarise some of the comments below:

1. The data does not show PRODUCTIVITY!

Correct, and I chose this statistic on purpose. My point here is that "laziness" is a judgment of character, i.e. it relates to input, in terms of effort invested, not to outcome, or productivity. If we take a simple effort measure e.g. total hours worked, we can see there is no legitimacy in calling Southern people lazy. They certainly put the effort in, measured simply as hours worked. For example, Greece just introduced a 6-day work week, while Germany is experimenting with a 4-day work week. Lots of things to be said here in terms of cultural differences etc, but my main point is that many people perpetuate the silly idea that poor people or countries are poor because they do not work hard enough, i.e. they "deserve to be poor". This is ignoring the fact that productivity in rich economies is not a result of individual talent, "smartness", or merit, but based on their collective productive and technological capabilities which have been accrued throughout history. If the same identical worker moves from lets say Berlin to Bombay their productivity will very often drop, unless they are a service worker (arguably an Indian taxi driver is a lot more productive than a German one).

2. The data is outdated/wrong/INCOMPARABLE

Newer data does not change the story - I just could not find a simple graph. The OECD data source for latest statistics is in the thread. For more details about US working time (shouldn't it be higher?), see the thread. Details about alleged incomparability due to gender differences, public sector size, or part-time working, also see comments (example Greece vs Germany). Of course, there are significant differences between countries but it does not really change the conclusion. BTW: I am also not implying that nations do not differ in work ethics, but I simply assume that characteristics like personal laziness are normally distributed in large enough populations.

3. Just to be clear: ceteris paribus, nations should try to get to the bottom of the chart, not the top! But we shouldn't feel too smug about it ;)

#economics #Leadership #politics #work

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Dom Helder Camara

Fair is Foul and Foul is Fair. The concept of economic rationality presents a seductive illusion. According to neoliberal laissez-faire theory and practice, the absence of interference in market activities results in continuous population and industrial growth. This leads to a "double universalization": the globalisation of means and methods to meet needs and the universal dependence created by these needs.

Consequently, all members of society become increasingly dependent on one another to satisfy their ever-growing and increasingly homogenous needs. This interconnectedness not only drives wealth accumulation but also fragments and confines individual labor, exacerbating the dependence and distress of workers. These workers become increasingly incapable of experiencing and enjoying other freedoms, particularly the spiritual benefits of civil society.

This process creates the modern proletariat: a large group of people not only falling below the minimum standard of living but also deprived of the sense of legitimacy and honor that comes from self-sustained work. This mass of proletarians facilitates the concentration of disproportionate wealth in the hands of a few. Poverty transitions from a natural state to a deeply social issue; the industrial "plebeian" feels a profound resentment against the wealthy and the societal system. Lacking the dignity that comes from earning a living through work, they demand subsistence as a right, and in society, deprivation is immediately perceived as an injustice against a particular class.

Formally, this world is a product of freedom, but in reality, laissez-faire manifests as a "blind necessity" that rises above individuals like an unyielding fate. People act freely in their own interests, but the result is an iron system where all needs and pleasures obey mutual dependency governed by economic laws. Hegel describes this system as a "whirlpool of arbitrariness," seemingly chaotic but ruled by an automatic necessity.

Hegel recognizes the rationality within the sphere of needs but is also horrified by Adam Smith’s "invisible hand," an uncontrollable and unknowable power. This power dominates individuals, counteracting their hopes and plans, imposing itself as an ancient fate, independent of human will and action. Torn apart by the division of labor and class conflict, civil society fails to constitute a genuine community, instead representing the "loss of community." Blinded by private interests, it is incapable of forming a universal subject, rendering the classical concept of democracy a hopeless ideal.

(Based on Kostas Papaioannou: Hegel et Marx - L'interminable Debat)

#Liberty #ecomomics #transformation #business #freedom #neweconomy

Capitalism Isn't Working.

Once we understand that MONEY isn't simply a number of coins or banknotes but rather a socially constructed claim on the society's collective resources, it becomes evident that we cannot be indifferent to its origin or distribution.

#Leadership #Business #Management

🚨 Election "Fraud" in the UK? 🚨

Today might be seen as a positive result for UK politics, regardless of political allegiances, as it is important to address the besmirching of the political profession by some conservative politicians.

However, it is not a good day for democracy because the UK continues to demonstrate why it is not a well-functioning democracy. Beyond the unelected House of Lords—a highly problematic anachronism—there are issues like media ownership concentration, disparities in campaign funding, devolution problems, and erosion of civil liberties through surveillance and restrictions on protest. But the most significant issue remains the fundamentally unjust first-past-the-post voting system.

* Disproportional Representation: The FPTP system results in a significant mismatch between the percentage of votes a party receives and the number of seats they win. This "electoral fraud" leads to majority governments that don't reflect the will of the people, giving disproportionate power to parties that might only have a slim margin of popular support.

* Wasted Votes: Millions of votes are essentially thrown away in every election. If you didn't vote for the winning candidate in your district, your vote doesn't count towards the national outcome. This disenfranchises voters, discourages participation, and contributes to widespread apathy and political disengagement.

* Marginalization of Smaller Parties: Under FPTP, smaller parties struggle to gain representation, even if they have substantial nationwide support. This marginalizes diverse voices and stifles political innovation, maintaining a highly stagnant two-party system.

* Tactical Voting: Instead of voting for their preferred candidate, many voters feel forced to vote tactically to prevent their least favorite candidate from winning. This distorts true voter preferences and undermines the integrity of the electoral process.

* Regional Polarization: FPTP exacerbates regional divides, with certain areas dominated by single parties, leading to less political diversity and fewer opportunities for change.

* Gerrymandering: The system is ripe for manipulation, with district boundaries drawn to favor certain parties. This blatant distortion further erodes the fairness of elections.

The First-Past-The-Post system is a relic that perpetuates inequality and misrepresentation. It's high time we demand a fairer, more proportional system that truly reflects the will of the people.

#ElectoralReform #FairVotes #DemocracyNow

The devaluation of the human world increases in direct relation with the increase of the world of things. Through modern production, humans are turned into human capital, creators become the created, the subject is enslaved by the object. The alienation is complete once life is understood as a portfolio of products.

The Ridiculous Hypocrisy of the #SDGs and Paris Agreement?

The Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are hailed as monumental steps towards a sustainable future. However, a closer look reveals a stark hypocrisy embedded within their frameworks. The lofty goals of these international agreements are potentially undermined by their inherent contradictions, particularly regarding economic growth and environmental sustainability.

Paris Agreement's Ambitious Goals

Article 2 of the Paris Agreement sets an ambitious target: to keep the global average temperature increase well below 2°C, and ideally limit it to 1.5°C, to mitigate the risks and impacts of climate change. This goal, however, is qualified by the phrase "in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty." On the surface, this seems like a noble integration of environmental and social goals. But the reality is more problematic.

The entire Paris Agreement is framed within the context of the SDGs, which prioritize economic growth, technology, industrialization, and increased energy use (see Spash). This creates an inherent conflict: how can we simultaneously push for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while promoting economic activities that inherently increase these emissions?

The SDGs' Growth-Centric Approach

Aligned with the Paris Agreement, SDG Goal 8 aims for per capita economic growth of at least 7% GDP annually in the least developed countries, assuming economic expansion as the primary means to development and poverty eradication, despite environmental implications.

The SDGs propose addressing environmental destruction by attempting to "decouple economic growth from environmental degradation." Yet, absolute decoupling—the idea that economies can grow without increasing environmental pressures—is a myth, particularly within the industrial economy envisioned by SDG Goal 9. This goal promotes building resilient infrastructure, fostering innovation, and significantly increasing the manufacturing industry's share of GDP.

Techno-Optimism in the Paris Agreement

Article 10 emphasizes innovation to address climate change while promoting economic growth and sustainable development, relying on technological advancement to mitigate environmental impacts, sidestepping systemic changes. The fundamental hypocrisy lies in pursuing economic growth alongside environmental sustainability, perpetuating a flawed narrative that green growth and innovation can solve crises without challenging consumption and production patterns.

While significant, the Paris Agreement and SDGs are deeply compromised by contradictions. Insisting on growth undermines efforts for sustainability. Do we need other #alternativestocapitalism to enable real, systemic change? Join our #BusinessforHumanity series to find out.

#BusinessforHumanity #SustainableDevelopment #SystemChange

DO YOU KNOW WHAT A "SEASONING CAMP" IS?

"Seasoning" was the period of adjustment that slave traders and slaveholders subjected African slaves to following their arrival in the Americas. ‘Unseasoned’ people were cheaper as they were considered a risk, often dying shortly after arriving in the colonies.

Seasoning consisted of brutal methods of physical and psychological conditioning—so brutal, in fact, that 7% to 50% of the Slaves are estimated to have died within their one to seven years of the Seasoning period.

[Picture: Slaves awaiting sale]

In fact, the conditions endured by enslaved Africans were dire. Immediately, new owners and their overseers obliterated the identities of their newly acquired Slaves by breaking their wills and by severing any bonds with their African past. Many died in the first few weeks or months from dysentery, malnutrition, several types of worm infections, change of diet and climate, and the White man’s diseases. One reason is that the Slaves were terribly weakened by the trauma of the "Middle Passage" voyage (the atrocious crossing of the Atlantic) and the additional exposure to diseases, inadequate nutrition, bad water, work exhaustion from being unaccustomed to the “sunrise-to-sunset gang labor,” and cruelty were simply overwhelming. Such occurred while the Slaves were being forced to adapt to new and horrendous working and living conditions; to learn a new language; and to adopt new customs. The average life expectancy for an imported slave was only seven years.

https://lnkd.in/dxRdnikB
https://lnkd.in/dKTWm3yS.

Over 12 million Africans were captured by slave traders, with at least 2 million perishing. (For historical context, during World War II, approximately 1.65 million people were registered prisoners in concentration camps, and nearly a million died during their internment. Additionally, approximately a million Jews were gassed upon arrival at Auschwitz. Including these victims, the total death toll is estimated at 1.8 to more than two million.)

A terrible reminder that economics is ALWAYS deeply political, not only in setting the boundaries of markets, but also in its inherent values and views of human beings.

Not even to mention that cotton and tobacco alone accounted for at least 25% and up to 65% of US exports respectively throughout the 19th century. Without cheap cotton, Britain's industrial revolution would have been severely hampered, and without earnings from export, the US couldn't have imported the technologies required for economic development.

#transformation #slavery #politics #business

WHICH COUNTRY IS THE MOST ENTREPRENEURIAL OF THE WORLD? USA? Think again!

The USA, home to the popular myth about rugged entrepreneurship ranks 173th in list of the Top 200 countries with most self-employed as share of the total population.

Fact is that people in developing nations often have no choice to become entrepreneurs to survive, while most people in developed countries know about entrepreneurship mostly from popular media. Many might dream about setting up their own business one day to become "their own boss", but most fall back onto the convenience and certainty of a highly specialized and narrow role in someone else's company.

While the statistics are therefore largely unsurprising, the more insightful conclusion is that entrepreneurship is not primarily an individual, but a profoundly collective activity. As Ha-Joon Chang points out, this is one of the significant challenges with micro finance, now deemed mostly unsuccessful. What matters most for the economic development of a nation isn't the fabled acumen and inspiration of entrepreneurial heroes, but the presence of productive technologies, education, financing and effective organisations to turn entrepreneurial energy into scalable commercial success.

hashtag#Transformation hashtag#Leadership hashtag#development hashtag#entrepreneurship hashtag#business

https://lnkd.in/eZvZrW8t

No comment.

The Shareholder Swindle: From Growth to Greed

Every time I hear someone boast about maximizing 'SHAREHOLDER VALUE,' I can't help but shake my head. How is the systematic extraction of profit by shareholders, boosting their share of the pie while leaving crumbs for everyone else, considered valuable? It's like celebrating a bank heist as 'financial efficiency' or glorifying pirates for 'oceanic progress.'

1. The expression "shareholder value"—which Jack Welch allegedly coined—is fundamentally misleading. VALUE is what is created for customers and society, while shareholders demand and receive "return on capital" or shareholder PROFIT (which often turns out to be rent or interest, i.e., unearned profit).

2. Regarding shareholder profit, I'm contesting its maximization, which often leads to value extraction, not value creation. Yes, some people might be motivated exclusively by making money, but as Stieglitz pointed out, the "invisible hand" here mostly fails to turn greed into societal nirvana because... the invisible hand simply doesn't exist.

3. We need to think deeper about what constitutes VALUE in the economy, which I suggest isn't price nor share price.

4. People seem to conveniently forget that according to neoclassical economic theory, long-term economic profit is zero in the presence of perfect competition. As Adam Smith pointed out, a "free" market isn't a market where everybody does what they want, but a market free OF RENT.

5. Finally, the notion that return on investor capital has to be optimized stems from an economy where financial capital was scarce. That certainly isn't the case for a modern economy centered on intangibles. Hence, today it often simply serves to perpetuate possessive individualism.

Let's get real: true value is created through productive activities that benefit customers and society, not by simply inflating profits for shareholders. Increasing share prices and dividends might look good on paper, but at the end of the day, it is legalized wealth extraction.

Even if we can't halt it, let's refrain from singing its praises. It's time to stop mistaking greed for growth and instead focus on real, sustainable value for society! As Jack Welsh recently confessed, shareholder value is probably the "dumbest idea in the world".

#leadership #business #purpose #transformation #justice

🔥 Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter! 🔥
If Dante would wield his quill anew, what would he draw? He might suggest that we are trapped again, in those infernal corridors of our modern world, where ambition and avarice intertwine; each circle of torment inhabited by those who have forsaken virtue for gain:

1. First Circle (Limbo) - Middle Managers 📊 These corporate souls wander aimlessly, their potential stifled by bureaucracy. They are the gatekeepers of mediocrity, forever yearning for significance but ensnared by the chains of hierarchy.
2. Second Circle (Lust) - Sin Industry Executives 🛢️ The oil barons, tobacco magnates, and alcohol czars—masters of desire’s dark arts. They extract wealth from our cravings, heedless of the wreckage left in their wake. Their profits flow like poisoned rivers.
3. Third Circle (Gluttony) - Fast Food Executives 🍔 The architects of gluttony, they peddle addictive morsels wrapped in guilt. Their golden arches beckon, promising momentary pleasure while fueling a pandemic of obesity and heartache.
4. Fourth Circle (Greed) - Investment Bankers and Financial Advisors 💼 These wolves of Wall Street chase wealth with insatiable hunger. Ethics crumble before their pursuit of profit margins. They gamble with our futures, their eyes fixed on bonuses and offshore accounts.
5. Fifth Circle (Wrath) - Litigation Attorneys ⚖️ In courtrooms ablaze with fury, these legal mercenaries thrive. Conflict is their currency, justice a mere illusion. They feast on discord, billing hours while justice weeps.
6. Sixth Circle (Heresy) - Advertising Executives, Social Media Influencers and Journalists 📰 Wordsmiths and image weavers, they mold perception to their whims. Truth bends, and falsehoods flourish. Their heretical scrolls sell products, politicians, and illusions.
7. Seventh Circle (Violence) - Military Contractors 🔫 War profiteers, clad in suits, orchestrate chaos. Their balance sheets tally lives lost, collateral damage a line item. They trade in bloodshed, insulated from the battlefield’s screams.
8. Eighth Circle (Fraud) - Corporate Lobbyists 🏛️ These shadowy emissaries whisper in the ears of power. Democracy bends to their will, as they grease palms and subvert justice. Their loyalty lies not with the people but with the highest bidder.
9. Ninth Circle (Treachery) - Corrupt Politicians 🗳️ The ultimate betrayers, they wear masks of public service while plotting personal gain. Their oaths dissolve like vapor, leaving behind broken promises and shattered trust.

🌐 Share this damning revelation, dear souls, for we are all complicit. Our collective choices have forged this inferno. Abandon hope, ye who enter—the flames lick at our heels, and redemption grows scarce. 🔥🌎💔

 
#ModernEconomics #WakeUpCall #Business #Capitalism #SoulfulBusiness

Digital Despots: Unmasking the Illusion of Positive Platform Power

In the digital age, platforms wield immense power. Like the feudal lords of yore, they control vast digital territories—our data, attention, and interactions. While journals are filled with glowing success stories about Apple, Google, Facebook, or Uber, and business schools and consultants alike preach the benefits of their business models, big challenges remain.

Not only are platforms incompatible with neoclassical economic theory, but they fundamentally stand opposite to the doctrine of free markets. Instead of seeking traditional profit, they extract monopolistic rents by privatizing the internet and manipulating our preferences. Platforms have become digital fiefdoms, extracting unearned surplus—rents—from their tenants for the provision of scarce resources.

Most problematically, unlike traditional profit, digital rents often don’t contribute to societal value; they are a toll on our digital existence, fueled by the appropriation of data about our behaviors. Innovation stagnates, small players struggle, and inequality widens. Our agency diminishes, trapped in algorithmic loops.

Are platforms good for society? They certainly do not appear beneficial for fair competition, market efficiency, or distributive justice.

 #FairEconomyPlatforms #EconomicJustice #Transformation #Business

Timing is Everything: Top 5 Tips to Master Social Media Impact

Looking to optimize your social media influence? Here are the top 5 tips from a dozen of different researchers for posting at the right times:

📅 Mid-week Magic: Aim for Tuesday to Thursday, especially between 10:00-12:00 and 14:00-16:00, when productivity peaks lead to high engagement.
🌆 After Work Appeal: Capture attention on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings (18:00-20:00) when people unwind and browse social media.
🎉 Friday Finesse: Plan your posts for Fridays from 8:00-12:00, as users start winding down and planning their weekends.
🌟 Weekend Wins: Shine on weekends (Saturday and Sunday) from 18:00-22:00, when users have more free time to engage.
🚫 Avoid Early Mornings and Late Nights: Steer clear of early mornings (6:00-8:00) and late nights (22:00-24:00), as engagement tends to dip during these times.

As they say: "Success is not just about working hard; it's about working smart and timing it right."

#TimingIsEverything #linkedin #socialmedia #influencing #marketing #communications #engagement

Question: how successful would the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION have been in England without CHEAP COTTON from the US, kept cheap and available not by "free market" forces but by elimination of the indigenous population and slavery?

Just asking.

#leadership #transformation #business #LeadershipSociety

Hypothesis: A minimum of WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY is a non-negotiable cornerstone of any modern business worth working for.

Your views? What does that mean? What are rights vs obligations?

#transformation #leadership #organisationaldesign #power #politics #business

The problem with simplistic diagrams like this, much like the misleading but popular people-planet-profit Venn diagrams, is that they oversimplify complex political and ontological questions.

Politically, the economy is always embedded within society, but what does that truly mean? Is it the false gospel of neoliberal ideologues preaching the miracle of the invisible hand, advocating for "free markets" shielded from the allegedly destructive influence of government? Is it a socialist vision of nationalized economies, planned and controlled by central parties and bureaucrats? Or is it a participatory "economy for good" with comprehensive rules and strict oversight of financial and commercial flows?

Similarly, ontologically, markets and societies are social systems and institutions. But what exactly is the "environment" in this context? Is it nature, the physical world, or some idyllic Garden of Eden of eternal beauty and youth? What does it mean to embed culture in "nature"? Is it a simplistic return to hunter-gatherer communities living in the woods, a set of restrictions on resource usage, constraints on externalities, or a revolutionary reform of land and property rights?

All these are tough and important questions. Unfortunately, images like this—and the pamphlets they often accompany—not only fail to lead us to the right questions but also tend to search for answers in the wrong places. Much of societal complexity arises from people, both as citizens and consumers, fundamentally disagreeing on the problems and not being engaged in, or being excluded from the process necessary to find solutions.

If we want progress, we must first increase our own engagement by examining the world more closely. We then need to investigate our roles, both individually and collectively, in maintaining the status quo. Finally, and most importantly, we must organize and act.

#transformation #leadership #purpose #capitalism #sustainability

Hypothesis: A minimum of WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY is a non-negotiable cornerstone of any modern business worth working for.

Your views? What does that mean? What are rights vs obligations?

#transformation #leadership #organisationaldesign #power #politics #business

🎉✨ HAPPY BIRTHDAY, PHILOSOPHY 🎉✨

Once upon a time, on May 28, 585 BCE, during a battle between the kingdoms of Media and Lydia, a total solar eclipse occurred, just as Thales of Miletus had predicted. This remarkable event not only ended the battle and the war but also marked a significant moment in history, showcasing the power of rational thought and observation.

Thales, often hailed as the first philosopher, shifted humanity's approach to understanding the world from myth to reason. His pioneering ideas laid the foundation for philosophy, encouraging us to seek knowledge, question the unknown, and strive for a deeper understanding of our universe.

Today, we celebrate the profound impact philosophy has had on making the world a better place, fostering critical thinking, ethical inquiry, and the pursuit of wisdom. Let's honor Thales and the countless philosophers who have enriched our minds and our lives, often enabling radical shifts in the way mankind understood itself and its environment.

#HappyBirthdayPhilosophy #Thales #PhilosophyMatters #RationalThought #Wisdom #History #SolarEclipse

It's all just about A GROWTH MINDSET! Today I had another one of those conversations where someone aggressively insisted that all evils of neoliberalism are ultimately a matter of psychology. Sadly, this popular conviction is not only intellectually shallow, but often counterproductive.

Psychology is the scientific study of the mind and behavior. It seeks to describe, explain, predict, or change our ways of thinking or acting. It follows, as all social sciences, a method of scientific experiment and observation seeking to identify law-like regularities based on conjoint events. In other words, it is descriptive. William Wundt, who distinguished psychology as a science from philosophy and biology, was the first person ever to call himself a psychologist. In 1879, at the University of Leipzig, Wundt founded the first formal laboratory for psychological research.

Now the problems with using psychology as the sole explanatory methodology for the challenges with "neoliberalism" encounters at least three critical obstacles. The first is ontological. Modern "ego" psychology is mostly premised on a constructivist paradigm that emphasizes a merely subjective perspective of reality, undertheorising existential embeddedness in cultural, socio-technical and relational structures. This leads to epistemological myopia as Archer and Bhaskar so eloquently point out. Simply put, a lot of our "mindset" is shaped by institutions or what Bourdieu called habitus. Morphogenesis requires more than psychological agency. Secondly, ethical. As a descriptive science, psychology offers no normative foundation from where to critique neoliberalism as an ideology - beyond fashionable references to allegedly "normal" psychological functioning or "positive" deviances. And finally, political. Neoliberalism is a variant of classical liberalism or libertarianism. It is a political-economic ideology. Hence, any meaningful critique requires the examination of political positions that challenge the ideal of social justice as negative freedom enshrined in liberal constitutions, as well as heterodox economic theories that inquire into the moral desert of markets.

Psychology might tell us why neoliberalism is particularly seductive in an advanced postmodern society which has long lost faith in metaphysical truths. It might even confirm how it generates individual and collective suffering through its desperate attempt to justify human existence through extraction and material accumulation. But it cannot tell us how to live a life worth living, nor advise us how to make our economy "produce" good work.

#psychology #philosophy #politics #science #business #leadership

We Need to Not Only Finance Change but Also Change Finance!

This was the resounding message from the sustainable finance track at the European #bcorp Summit 2024, ignited by a groundbreaking mission paper from The Club of Rome.

True transformation requires tackling "asymmetric finance." Today, it's far easier to fund extraction and perpetuate a "growth imperative" detached from societal well-being than to finance regeneration. We must confront three pivotal challenges:

1. Choices in the Real Economy: We must eliminate harmful activities that are unprofitable when externalities are considered and only perpetuate the system without adding social value. This will streamline and refocus the financial sector.

2. Restructuring the Finance Sector: Finance is overly concentrated due to regulation and inherent economies of scale, particularly in asset management, leading to value destruction. We need a more balanced and equitable financial structure.

3. Institutional Reform: Money creation at its source must be linked to universal prosperity. Financial institutions must operate with a public purpose, curbing excessive shareholder power through stewardship or cooperative models.

This demands a profound conversation about the role of finance in society. Many bankers still cling to the belief that the primary goal of banks is to "make money from money." Transitioning from brown to green finance is a step in the right direction, but it's not enough. Banking should reflect and uphold human values.

How do we achieve this? We must ensure global finance is part of the solution, not the problem. It starts with the system seeing itself clearly and that is a function of #leadership. Let's make sure we hire for character when it comes to boards and supervisory boards, as well as central banks.

As Bill O'Brien once rightly pointed out: "The success of an intervention always depends on the interior condition of the intervener."

#banking #finance #sustainability #leadership #transformation

IS CEO PAY JUST? And Does It Matter?

You might say, "Of course it is just. We deserve it because of our contribution to the business." Or argue, "It’s the wrong question: if it was freely negotiated between consenting, informed parties, it must be just." Or claim, "It’s not our problem: markets produce matches, not wisdom. Distributive justice is a matter of taxation. And it's too small an issue to fuss about."

But clearly, that’s all a bit shortsighted. Jean-Jacques Rousseau rightly argued that "no citizen shall ever be wealthy enough to buy another, and none poor enough to be forced to sell himself." It doesn’t need agreement to Michael Sandel’s extensive arguments against meritocracy (see Tyranny of Merit), Philip Pettit’s critique of classical liberalism, or Lisa Herzog’s emphasis on collective duties and structural injustice to understand that there are a range of evaluative frames beyond popular (and somewhat simplistic) neoliberal positions.

And, yes, it matters. Accepting mediocre thinking allows it to dominate. Ideological biases, as Van Dijk et al show in a compelling new paper accumulate and perpetuate social inequality.

Hence, it's time to think harder about CEO pay. That must start with acknowledging alternative perspectives. As Martin Luther King Jr. once warned: "An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." 
#Leadership #EthicalBusiness #FairPay #Justice #Transformation #Management

Andrew Harrop and I had a fascinating conversation yesterday at our hashtag#LBS Executive MBA 15th Anniversary reunion about the crucial role of political understanding in leadership and business.

Not only do political concepts offer a more nuanced lens for interpreting organizational and institutional structures, they also allow for a deeper analysis of power dynamics and justice in social systems beyond mere psychological and subjective analyses. It's certainly not enough to advocate for humble or compassionate leadership; we also need political statesmanship to properly situate individual stakeholders within the company and responsibly position the company within the broader political economy embedded in society.

The notion that management or economics are value-free or apolitical is as popular as it is deeply flawed both theoretically and practically. Therefore, MBA programs would greatly benefit from expanding their focus beyond coaching and personal development to include a deeper understanding of ethics and politics. Otherwise, leaders' judgment will remain fixated on instrumental rationality, even if adorned with a veneer of psychological insight.