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...

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.

COMMON TYPES OF TEAM CONFLICT — and How to Resolve Them.

I was intrigued tonight by a thought-provoking presentation by Randall Peterson in occasion of our 15th #LBS alumni anniversary celebrations. Randall shed light on common types of conflict in teams that leaders often encounter, offering valuable guidance on resolving them effectively:

1) Solo Dissenters: Avoid ganging up on dissenting individuals; instead, leverage their perspective and address frictions one-on-one.

2) Boxing Matches: In case of conflict between two team members, it's crucial to mediate carefully if the disagreement is personal. However, fostering small-scale debates about ideas can enhance team performance. Assigning a devil's advocate to create conflict isn't effective, research suggests. I am sure Antoinette will disagree on this.

3) Warring Factions: Voting won't resolve conflicts between subgroups. Instead, introduce new ideas or goals to break the deadlock and move past opposition.

4) Blame Games: When the entire team disagrees, leaders must prioritize collaboration and foster alignment for the best interests of the team.

As always, I'm concerned about potential epistemological limitations inherent in survey-based research like this. We must also question the broader definition of performance and the underlying assumptions, oscillating between reducing tension and enhancing decision-making, behind such normative suggestions. However, the ideas are certainly very interesting and Randall's insight into the potential of conflict to actualize our highest potential, if appropriately managed, again sparked my curiosity about its broader relevance in organizational transformation.

Beyond psychological considerations, it's certainly crucial here to address the role of political institutions and the suitability of specific decision-making methods. The simplistic notion that a qualified majority can "resolve conflict" must be examined in the context of both representative and contestatory rights of employees and organizational design. We should also consider a wider array of decision-making methodologies, such as Laloux's advice process, expert-based decisions, sociocracy's qualified objections, and group techniques informed by coaching and psychology, or even Quaker-style spiritual consent.

But I'm also intrigued by how conflict intersects with the development of values and identity, both on an individual and collective level. How does it contribute to ego identity development? And how does it align with historical and philosophical emergence, echoing concepts from Hegel's dialectics, Machiavelli's "tumulti" or Vico's "corsi e ricorsi"? Additionally, how does it relate to ontological frameworks such as David Boye's Dialectical and Multiplicity approaches or Archer's morphogenesis in this context.

Certainly more to ponder!

Full paper: https://lnkd.in/e-T5aGjn

#transformation #leadership #organizationalchange #conflict

It was truly inspiring to again hear Lynda Gratton speak today at our 15th anniversary #LBS MBA reunion and the London Business School Festival of Minds. In her stimulating presentation Lynda shared both deeply introspective reflections on her immensely successful career, which continues into her 70s, while also addressing the continuously evolving and ever more diverse and complex landscape of employment, including the advancement of AI.

Anticipating her upcoming book on a good working life, Lynda advised us to navigate our increasingly multi-stage lives with preparation and agency, evaluating the available options, embracing the necessary and often difficult transitions and mastering those skills that matter.

Her deep insights sparked a rich discussion among the alumni, touching on the importance of virtuous leadership and our collective responsibility to address societal issues through our work. Only when asked about her life's purpose, Lynda remained cautious. Her journey had primarily revolved around knowledge and learning, she said, striving to bring valuable insights to the world of management. Purpose, she suggested, might not be easily found by everyone.

I believe this is profoundly true. Yet, I also find there's often a misunderstanding about the concept of purpose. Drawing from virtue ethics, purpose isn't something we simply acquire; it's a practice rooted in our actions. We become by doing. It's about continually developing our character by positioning ourselves consciously with a moral and relational order. Hence, paradoxically, our life's purpose isn't something we could find within ourselves by ourselves - it emerges when we dedicate ourselves to something greater within a social order that acknowledges its significance.

What's your MBA really worth?

It is ironic. The more I engage with insightful colleagues, the further I dive into various studies, the more senior I become in my organisational roles, the more glaring the gaps in my MBA education become apparent. Despite being hailed as one of the best in Europe, and even globally, the program failed to encourage deep critical thinking and develop a more complex and heterodox understanding of economic and organisational reality. Most importantly, it did not equip us to make effective and ethical judgments in the presence of ambiguity and conflicting interests, and to challenge what business essentially should be about.

It's a realization that leaves me pondering: What's the true worth of an MBA in today's rapidly evolving business landscape, if it does not develop genuinely responsible leadership.

#leadership #mba #education #business #bschools #transformation #purpose #responsibility

If we don't assert our humanity, AI will soon surpass us in terms of its inhumanity every single day.

"It's not the capital, stupid!"

Efficiency in economic activity hinges on the optimal use of resources relative to the scarcest factor of production. While capital may have been paramount during the industrial revolution, it's abundantly clear that times have changed.

Therefore, clinging to regulations and institutional frameworks that prioritize shareholder interests above all else, reducing corporate governance to an agency problem, is woefully anachronistic.

We must urgently reimagine our institutions to move away from this narrow focus on financial returns and shareholder primacy, and instead, align economic activity with the broader interests of stakeholders and society as a whole. In today's Western world, the true scarcity is no longer finance—it's quality of life.

It really does not take much to see that.

#transformation #reinventingcapitalism #businessforhumanity #prosperity #purpose #economics #management

Beyond Time: Debunking the Illusions of Moral Bargaining 

As you know I am always intrigued by emergent discourses, and I've observed this fascinating pattern where people, alternatively, either idealize "future generations" or romanticize "ancient people" and their wisdom in an effort to justify imposing restrictions on our current freedom.

But let's be real, neither makes much (moral) sense. Ethics isn't some sort of intergenerational bargaining chip, nor are the subjective opinions of past or future inhabitants highly relevant to our present-day issues. Justice extends beyond the notion of mere conservation or conditional usage, despite the allure of terms like "regenerative" that desperately seek to spice up the concept of conservatism.

Perhaps it's time to dig a little deeper and truly consider what it means to act responsibly. It's certainly a challenge that demands our attention and action in the here and now.

#leadership #transformation #responsibility #leadershipdevelopment #goodleadership #philosophy

"Even the smallest spark of evil can ignite the darkest of flames."

As Colin Mayer points out: "It is not profits per se that are the problem; it is the maximization of profit for the benefit of the shareholders at the expense of other stakeholders that is a mistake, as well as the presumption that profits are the ‘be all and end all’ of business and its sole purpose. Profits are not the sole purpose of business. The purpose of business is ‘to produce profitable solutions to the problems of people and planet, and not to profit from producing problems for people and planet’. In the process, business produces profits. But profits are not per se the purpose of business and business should not profit from producing problems for people and planet."

#transformation #leadership #business #management #purpose

Let's talk about performance ratings and rankings – easily contenders for the title of the dumbest practices ever conceived in management. The evidence couldn't be clearer: unless you're in a factory cranking out widgets, they're about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

Additionally, the often arbitrary "quantitative" judgment of employees by their managers, however well-intentioned, represents a significant encroachment on the fundamental dignity of individuals as human beings.

So, if you're still stuck in the Stone Age with traditional ratings, bell curves, or forced leveling, it's time to wake up and smell the incompetence. Shoot your CHRO a memo – they should check their data, pronto!

But what's it with the stubborn attachment to ratings, as if they were the greatest innovation since sliced bread?! Is HR truly unable to manage consequences without drowning in endless Excel spreadsheets that pretend to reveal truth where there is none? Are managers genuinely so insecure that they need to rely on performance ratings to assert power over their employees? Or do executives harbor such profound distrust in their managers' capabilities to manage effectively? Or perhaps, are we simply lost for alternatives? Either way, it's time to cut the cord and start thinking smarter.

In this extremely insightful session, Tamra offered her insights from decades in the field. It is an absolute treasure trove of wisdom, packed with practical lessons, innovative ideas, and actionable strategies for transforming performance management. Trust me, if you're in HR, you won't want to miss it!

If we lack the courage to address even the most absurd practices lingering on our shop floors, all our chatter about the 'work of the future' is just hot air. Don't wait around for the cows to come home – seize the opportunity now. Tune in to the recording and kickstart your journey toward a revamped approach to performance management.

Video link: https://lnkd.in/eU7_Ui2E

#GoodLeadershipSociety #GoodOrganisations #HR #FutureofWork #Leadership #Transformation #Business #PersonalDevelopment #CIPD

CRAFTING THE FUTURE OF WORK: A CALL TO CO-CREATE AN AGILE MANIFESTO FOR HR!

It is a privilege to once again be invited to engage in a crucial dialogue with my esteemed colleagues from the HR community. I am glad to say that our journey has been a collaborative exploration over many years. The subject matter is not just important; it's existential. It goes to the essence of who we are as businesses, as leaders, as HR professionals, and as corporate citizens. It's about crafting a future of work that aligns with our values and aspirations, and recognizing our role in shaping it.

While we certainly do not possess all the answers, it is great to see that we are willing to ask some vital questions, and that we are committed to carving out the time and space in our agenda for the conversation. Admittedly, it's not always a smooth ride; we hail from diverse backgrounds and hold varying perspectives. Some people were not very happy that Antoinette and I challenged the hegemony of the business partner discourse last year. Yet, I strongly believe scrutiny and critical thinking are necessary, and thanks to our diversity, moments of magic can occur!

Therefore, we are particularly proud to return to the Congress this year with a collaborative creation forged with many esteemed colleagues—a testament to the power of collective effort.

In Amsterdam last year, a spontaneous decision arose among a group of us: we felt that it was not enough to just sit in the many sessions and talk; we were compelled to take tangible action. With several dedicated colleagues, we embarked on a mission to instigate real change by proposing something foundational to propel HR forward. Over the past four months, with the significant effort of numerous volunteers, we initiated an inquiry into the transformation performance management—the cornerstone of HR. And now, we're thrilled to unveil a groundbreaking achievement: the world's first Performance Management Manifesto, inspired by but moving beyond the Agile Manifesto!

During this year's conference, we therefore extend an invitation to all our colleagues to join us in refining the draft and to enlist for experimental implementation. Together, we aim to formally endorse it as an official proclamation of the HR World Summit, together with Perry Timms and Mihaly Nagy. Our aspiration is to craft a new tool that unites and propels the efforts of forward-thinking HR professionals globally, empowering them to not only enhance business efficiency but also foster organisational and societal flourishing!

There are pivotal moments in life when we must choose between being a mere bystander or stepping up as a true transformer. If you're prepared to take a stab at genuinely shaping the work of the future, come on board! We look forward to seeing you all in Porto!

#hr #transformation #hrm #leadership #leadershipdevelopment #organisationalchange #business #leaders #agile #purpose The HR Congress

I'm truly honoured to have been recognized among the LinkedIn Top Voices of 2024, representing the emerging global society for good leadership. A heartfelt thank you to everyone who engages with my content, whether through reading, sharing, or offering valuable feedback in over five million interactions last year. I firmly believe that through open dialogue and constructive critical discourse, we can cultivate a community of learners committed to advancing our collective understanding and practice of responsible leadership. Here's to countless more connections and conversations and an inspiring journey of discovery ahead!

#leadership #goodleadership #transformation #business #agile #leadershipsociety #cto #leadershipdevelopment #organisationalchange #grli

CULTIVATING EXCELLENCE: The Case for Organizational Development Officers!

The more I ponder, the more convinced I become that we urgently need to instill a culture of ongoing organizational development. As Dave Ulrich astutely observes, organizational capabilities far outweigh mere talent management, yet the competencies for strategic organizational development (OD) are sorely lacking in HR and remain underdeveloped in most consultancies. I am always surprised how few leaders seem to have ever heard about models such as sociocracy, rendanheyi, holacracy, or EEEO.

Furthermore, the evolution of an organization—holistically and systemically—shouldn't be a one-off endeavor but a continuous imperative. It necessitates the collaboration of diverse stakeholders to ensure that our organizational structures, policies, and processes continually adapt to market dynamics, technological advancements, and internal needs.

Truly great organizations not only deliver value to stakeholders but also provide employees with meaningful work. Achieving this isn't just about leading people; it's about shaping the very context in which we operate.

#leadership #personaldevelopment #leadershipdevelompent #system #management #hr #hrm #consulting #transformation #organizationalchange

HIGH FINANCE, LOW MORALS!

In the world of high finance, it's often the shareholders who call the shots, casting their votes on crucial corporate matters at annual meetings:

In fact, shareholders wield significant power in shaping the course of a company's destiny, ranging from determining the composition of the board of directors to greenlighting mergers or acquisitions. Shareholders also have a say in fundamental issues such as issuing new securities, approving dividends, and endorsing substantial alterations in the corporation's strategies, operations, or policies.

But why are employees left out of the decision-making process when they have just as much at stake, if not more? Many may not be aware that the foundation of shareholder voting rights mirrors the democratic principles governing municipal corporations and states. Originating from an era predating the dominance of possessive individualism, the concept of "One shareholder, one vote" traces back to the governance structure of the East India Company during the late 17th century.

It's apparent that employees and various stakeholders share equal if not greater interest and risk than shareholders in steering the company's course. In light of this, adhering to the principle of republican freedom, as espoused by Philip Pettit, raises questions about the constitutional legitimacy of denying corporate citizens at least contestatory rights. Failure to do so risks subjecting them to arbitrary domination from select groups whose motives may not align with the employees' best interests.

If legal constraints prevent such a shift, why not facilitate pre-hearings with the organizational populace, engaging in preliminary deliberations and decision-making "by objection," as suggested by sociocracy, before formal shareholder assemblies?

It appears imperative to safeguard the authentic freedom of employees within corporations, rather than permitting their systemic dominance by largely anonymous financial investors who may have minimal concern for the organization's as a going concern.

#leadership #transformation #business #corporategovernance #Goodorganisations #management #csr

🚫 PERFORMANCE RATINGS: The Tyranny of Corporate Control 🚫

Despite overwhelming evidence revealing their ineffectiveness, why do companies stubbornly cling to performance ratings? Let's face it: it's a power play.

Research after research has debunked their validity, showing they're costly, despised, and actually detrimental to performance. So why are HR directors still insisting on them? It's simple: ratings are the ultimate tool for enforcing hierarchy and asserting dominance.

They may not accurately measure performance, but they sure do send a message — one that says, 'Know thy place!'

But in 2024, isn't it time we got rid of a system of arbitrary control to embrace strategies that liberate both managers and subordinates, and actually drive improvement and empowerment? Just asking...

#HR #Futureofwork #management #HRM #performance #transformation #leadership #agile #goodorganisations #leadershipsociety #business #performancemanagement

Playing With Fire: The Smoke and Mirrors of Balancing Profit and Purpose

"Corporate 'performance' can ever only be truly assessed in alignment with a company's emergent identity and purpose. Consequentially, it is a reflection of its character, manifested through culture, structure, and relationships."

This highlights two key points:

Firstly, debating a simple redefinition of corporate performance or the idea of balancing 'purpose and profit' is clearly misguided; as long as companies pursue profit as their ultimate ends, they will seek to foster "high-performance" cultures geared towards its maximization, whatever the annual report might say. Only when a company's purpose transcends profit does the conversation shift. In that case corporate performance is measured by the realization of its deeper purpose, with profit serving merely as a means to that end.

Secondly, meaningful shifts in performance demand more than just surface-level changes in metrics or reporting; they necessitate a fundamental shift in the institutional fabric and character of organizations.

In essence, the trendy notion of 'doing good and doing well' mostly masks a reluctance to engage in a deeper conversation about "true" organizational purpose and the necessary adaptations of its inner workings and character to uphold it.

#transformation #leadership #management #responsibility #goodleadership #leadershipsociety #grli #csr

🔍 In Search of Clarity: Unraveling the Complexity of Political Ideals

In the labyrinth of modern politics, clarity often proves elusive amidst a cacophony of conflicting voices and values. However, in modern Western democracies, discussions frequently gravitate towards the four quadrants on the left side of the figure, each with its unique origins and distinctions: conservatism, libertarianism (classical liberalism), modern liberalism (and social democracy) and communitarianism.

At the origin of this constellation lies the evolution from earlier natural or divine law absolutism, symbolized by point A, where laws, rights and obligations often find their roots in nature or God's will.

The 18th century marks the genesis of the original political divide, symbolized as B, which delineates the ideological chasm between conservatives and classical liberals. Classical liberals emerge as vanguards of individual freedom, laying thus the foundation of modern Western politics. Their ethos revolves particularly around the primacy of negative freedom—liberation from coercion and interference, historically rejecting the grip of religious institutions, feudal lords, and the aristocracy.

Transitioning to the 20th century, classical liberals evolve into libertarians, diverging significantly from modern liberals or social democrats, who place a strong emphasis on equality and positive freedom—the freedom to fulfill one's potential and achieve well-being. While they champion measures aimed at fostering broader human capabilities and reducing social inequalities, Libertarians accentuate individual autonomy to the extreme, often advocating minimal state intervention. Consequently, clashes emerge over the size and configuration of the modern welfare state.

Progressing to postmodern times, we confront the ontological divide at point D, where profound differences emerge between the ideal of unencumbered personhood advocated by all liberals and a communitarian ideology, emphasizing relational self and mutual existence – "I am because you are." A final shift takes us towards a collective "Us", leading towards the radical utopia of socialist unity and a classless collective state, opposing traditional notions of individualism. This step also highlights a final metaphysical distinction, under E: socialism or communism, focusing entirely on material concerns, contrasts with the original idealism, centered on spiritual values.

Lastly, clearly contrasting views of the state emerge: a mainly European stance sees it as the guardian of an objective and universal ideal, while Anglo-Saxon perspectives often view it as an arena for power struggles over subjective interests.

It can be truly fascinating to embark on the journey through political ideologies, where past, present, and future intersect in a tapestry of diverse beliefs, understanding of self and cosmological ideals. 🌟

#Leadership #Transformation #Politics #Philosophy #GoodOrganisations #LeadershipSociety #Management

Business #transformation not only often encounters resistance, it also always implies an act of active resistance, disrupting the reproduction of the prevailing power structures undergirding the status quo.

Without Comment.

Right side: The Paradox of Freedom

MAN IS BORN FREE, YET EVERYWHERE IN CHAINS.

Paradoxically, Rousseau's famous dilemma can only be sublated by voluntary submission, not greater control. Here, the republican (and liberal) tradition tragically errs.

Genuine freedom is not attained as subject, but only at a higher level of union, as sovereign. As T.H. Green, following Hegel, proposes, the well-ordered state embodies "objective freedom" because the self-determining principle within humans finds there its perfect expression. It is the freedom rooted in membership, not the isolated independence of the individual, however well defended.

Cross, cross, and there is no cross. (Martin Luther)

#Leadership #GoodOrganisation #transformation #philosophy #liberty #politics

It's unclear if people fully recognize the extent to which Trump's victory is a result of Obama's failure. Not because he ultimately caved to the demands of the few over the needs of the many, but because he undermined a discourse of deeper morality. The hopeful "yes, we can," promising a shared common good, quickly unraveled into a hollow "you can make it if you try," perpetuating the manipulative and dishonest narrative of a self-serving American dream. It's no wonder that disillusioned workers turned to the disruptors. However, with more untrustworthy politicians rising, the deck seems increasingly stacked against them.

#politics #popularism #democracy #transformation

I AM THE BOSS, BECAUSE THE MONEY IS MINE! Well, not quite.

It's curious how certain individuals conflate ownership of assets with authority over people, often cloaked in the guise of "human capital." However, such a notion of course doesn't withstand scrutiny.

While a shareholder or owner qua creditor may indeed have a conditional control right over their financial contributions or tangible property, any demand for obedience from employees stems exclusively from the corporate entity itself, and any corporation is of course a) sanctioned by legal frameworks and b) constituted of those very employees.

This introduces a nuanced understanding of authority: authority over dedicated financing or property will be governed by creditor arrangements. Authority over tasks is predicated on the pursuit of a shared corporate purpose and legitimized through appropriate corporate policies and governance. However, any assertion of direct dominance over individuals qua human beings faces the staunch opposition from the primacy of liberal constitutions over corporate proceedings.

In essence, financiers may hold creditory rights to their capital, bosses may exert conditional control over operational execution, but neither possess any entitlement to dominate employees as people, regardless of corporate policies or culture. It's essential to recognize that a "boss" assumes their role solely by virtue of corporate statutes, serving as a "public" agent of the common enterprise, rather than exerting authority as a "private" individual over another citizen.

This distinction might be crucial to keep in mind.

#leadership #republicanism #management #csr #freedom #agile #transformation

#Capitalism and #Democracy: A Happy Marriage?

No, says recent research, challenging the popular notion of a "structural" affinity. The fashionable narrative posits that the (alleged) freedom of choice inherent in modern markets, including the mystical-miraculous eschatology of an invisible hand, mirrors the mechanism behind elective processes in politics, where the populace selects their representatives from a menu of political options.

A comparative and historical analysis of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, along with recent research on modern democracies reverting to autocratic regimes, presents a more nuanced perspective. The Marxist notion that class divisions play a crucial role in social evolution, with social classes intricately linked to modes of production, appears to hold merit. Research confirms that the organization of labor is the primary driver of democracy, with feudal landowners reliant on inexpensive agricultural labor emerging as the central antagonists. It's not hard to understand why in many developing nations, particularly those hindered by international trade agreements that impede the advancement of industrial capabilities, the flourishing of democracy is often stymied.

What may be more surprising is the influence of the affluent bourgeoisie, comprising wealthy merchants or entrepreneurs. Often, these groups opportunistically align themselves with dominant powers of state or clergy, frequently opposing worker mobilization or the advancement of democracy. It is only in scenarios where the threat of unionization or radical socialist parties was minimal that the rich and famous supported the expansion of democratic institutions.

Similarly ambiguous is the role of an affluent middle class - Aristotle would likely be disappointed. Often driven primarily by self-interest, this group would readily advocate for increasing political power for themselves, but not consistently align with workers to promote broader democracy. In many cases, the ultimate success of grassroots demands for enhanced political participation hinged on whether the middle and working classes could unite their interests.

In essence, the trajectory of democracy appears to be intricately tied to social progress rather than solely an outcome of market forces. Surprisingly, capitalism often thrives in environments with limited democratic principles, challenging the notion of a natural synergy between capitalism and democracy. Throughout history, the advancement of popular sovereignty tends to often occur in spite of capitalist interests, rather than being driven by them.

Therefore, it appears that Marx's revolutionary theory is at least partly redeemed. The inherent contradiction within the evolution of capitalism leads to sharper class divisions and the rise of a wealthy bourgeoisie, which, paradoxically, catalyzes the mobilization and organization of workers' interests, ultimately propelling the advancement of democracy.

#Leadership #Transformation

Reference: Capitalist Development & Democracy, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, John D. Stephens et al., University of Chicago Press, 1992

"What man is, he owes to the union of man and man."

Not only knew Otto von Gierke that our social lives are intrinsically communal, and that human excellence is a team sport; he also deeply understood that ontological reductionism rapidly leads to moral poverty. What is at stake is not simply rugged individual freedom, as the American constitution wants to make believe, but moral freedom, or with the words of Immanuel Kant, human dignity.

From the intricate bond between individuals arises a profound responsibility—a duty not only to cherish the connections and organisations that enable our moral and social freedom but also to recognize society as an organic whole, where each member bears an existential responsibility for the welfare of the entire community. Just as the human body relies on the harmonious function of its diverse parts, so too does society flourish when each individual and association acknowledges their role in sustaining the greater whole. In this interconnected web of human fellowship, our actions reverberate beyond ourselves, shaping the fabric of social life. Thus, we must embrace our collective accountability also as leaders in organisations, nurturing a culture of compassion, cooperation, and stewardship that fosters the flourishing of all.

#Leadership #GoodOrganisations

It has been said that under rampant capitalism for many workers the day's most intelligent activity is driving to and from work.

Are there any alternatives? Join our quest at #businessforhumanity: reinventing capitalism.

#leadership #capitalism #leadershipsociety

"The superior man cares about what's right, the inferior man cares about making a profit."

When profit is put above righteousness, no amount will suffice.

Main Street vs Wall Street: Are Financial Markets Just?

In the world of financial regulation, the discourse frequently centers on economic efficiency. There's a prevailing fantasy that financial markets operate just like any other, and that regulation should aim to make them "free" and competitive. But let's face it: this premise is nonsense. Financial products, along with their buyers and sellers, diverge significantly from the dynamics of regular product markets. Moreover, the overarching role of the financial system is to bolster the growth of the real economy and foster social prosperity, and hence it cannot be judged on transactional activity alone.

So what if we shifted the spotlight from the myth of economic efficiency to social justice and the distributive implications of regulations? Korinek and Kramer present a model that lays bare the stark reality: while the financial sector reaps the rewards of risk-taking with greater expected returns, it also subjects Main Street to the brunt of its fallout.

Picture this: a Pareto frontier where risk-taking by financial giants translates into varying levels of welfare for both Main Street and Wall Street. It's a tale of two worlds pitted against each other, with regulators caught in the middle. They must navigate the treacherous waters of deregulation versus tighter controls, balancing the needs of the financial sector with those of the real economy. It's worth pondering why a significant number of regulators hail from the financial services sector!

But that's not all. Their research uncovers the role of financial innovation, lopsided compensation schemes, banking monopolies, and the ever-looming specter of bailouts. These factors conspire to incentivize greater risk-taking, all while siphoning off surplus to Wall Street, leaving Main Street and the rest of society to bear the burdens of economic instability. So perhaps it's no coincidence that as the world edges closer to recession, financial markets are toasting to record highs!!

Well done, both authors! It's time to shine a light on who truly benefits from financial regulation—and who pays the price.

PDF: https://www.bis.org/publ/work468.pdf 

#MainStreetVsWallStreet #FinancialRegulation #EconomicJustice #Leadership #Banking #Transformation #CSR

THE MYTH OF MERIT: WHY YOU DON'T DESERVE YOUR PAYCHECK

Have you ever stopped to consider whether your income truly reflects what you merit? The prevailing myth is that if you work hard, you'll reap the rewards. Sadly, that is mostly nonsense.

Firstly, the concept of 'earning' is only partly related to individual effort. Market dynamics heavily influence income distribution and wage levels, often favoring those with greater bargaining power or access to resources. This power asymmetry regularly leads to situations where individuals receive income not commensurate with their efforts, but rather due to their position within the market or network.

Luck also plays a significant role in shaping financial outcomes. Whether it's being in the right place at the right time or benefiting from inherited talents or privileges, luck can significantly impact one's financial standing. Yet, our society conveniently attributes success to heroic individual merit, downplaying the role of chance or path dependency in determining financial rewards.

Thirdly, wages are intrinsically political. As Ha-Joon Chang points out, the single biggest factor determining wage levels is immigration control. Many other factors, including market structure, regulation, patent laws, subsidies, and taxation, also exert significant influence on labor markets.

Beyond market dynamics, ethical considerations come into play when we seek to determine if income is truly 'deserved'. Is it just that some amass wealth through exploitative practices or by capitalizing on systemic inequalities? The moral dimension of earnings transcends market efficiency, extending to encompass broader societal implications. In this context, the distributive and contributive justice of the overarching system of economic and social institutions becomes crucial.

The financial sector is a case in point. Neither are financial markets necessarily economically efficient, nor do profits naturally reflect genuine value creation - conversely, they frequently depend on speculative maneuvers within a complex system. High-frequency trading and other financial practices raise many questions about the true merit of exorbitant incomes. Clearly, there is a disconnect between individual accountability and financial outcomes, as well as social justice.

Essentially, when we recognize the impact of market forces, political context, luck, and ethics, it becomes evident that individual incomes are rarely dependent on only individual merit. Therefore, rather than blindly insisting on our subjective or relative merit, we must ask whether the system as a whole fosters a fair distribution of income within society. It's imperative that we work towards creating a more equitable economic framework together —one that values genuine societal contributions and addresses systemic inequalities.

#ECONOMICS #LEADERSHIP #TRANSFORMATION #POLITICALECONOMY #MANAGEMENT

THE CONVENIENT INTERSECTION FALLACY OF TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE & CO

In the relentless pursuit of the fashionable "people-planet-profit" mantra, proponents often turn a blind eye to a fundamental truth: the values and priorities behind these three pillars don't always align neatly like pieces of a children's puzzle.

Despite all the elaborate Venn diagrams and sophisticated geometrical models depicting stakeholders and interests in fanciful combinations, the inconvenient reality remains: ethics often isn't about seeking out the lowest common denominator, or some alleged "balancing", but about making tough, responsible choices.

When the triple circles of people, planet, and profit fail to intersect, we're faced with a crucial decision: do we prioritize what's right and good for humanity and the environment, or do we succumb to the allure of profitability at any cost?

It's time to acknowledge that true leadership demands moral courage to choose integrity over expedience, even when it means forging a path less traveled by the profit-hungry masses.

#leadership #csr #tbl #esg #sdg #goodleadership #management #transformation

The CORRUPTION CURRICULUM: When Business Schools Undermine Societal Value

It's rather comical how the realm of social and management sciences continues to miss the mark when it comes to understanding the intricacies of social phenomena. As Hayek aptly pointed out, the arrogant "pretence of knowledge" clashes with organised complexity, and any causal theorising in management must inevitably meet its match in human agency. The reduction of human intentionality to simplistic notions like "rational choice" only adds insult to injury, offering little substance amidst the chaos.

But what then defines a worthy management theory? Bhaskar suggests that instead of chasing causality, social sciences must prioritize explanation. A good theory is one that explains a set of phenomena better than alternatives. Yet, in the realm of practical sciences like management, mere explanation falls short - the ultimate aim of management is not description, but action. Therefore, as Ghoshal highlights, a theory must be "both right and good". It must also "induce (as far as we can determine) behaviors and actions of people that lead to better economic, social and moral outcomes, for them and for society". In other words, rather than striving to be "value-neutral", good management theories must be responsible and emancipative.

Unfortunately, much of popular management theory taught in business schools across the lands not only fails on epistemological grounds but also wreaks havoc on morality. Concepts like 'principal-agent theory' or Porter's 'theory of strategy' have systematically absolved managers of ethical accountability, while deceptive euphemisms like "fair competition", "efficient markets", "rational choice" or "shareholder value" have manipulated and distorted our moral understanding of economic action.

It's high time for business schools to take notice and reassess their vocabulary and methodology. By persisting in disseminating scientifically flawed and ethically corrupt theories, they not only fail to equip future leaders with effective strategies but also actively contribute to the perpetuation of moral bankruptcy within the economy, thus undermining the very legitimacy of the educational system they are meant to uphold.

#strategy #management #transformation #leadership #businessschools #leadershipdevelopment 

EQUAL ENVY: The Dark Side of Equality?

In the theater of political rhetoric, equality gleams like a beacon of hope, an unquestionable ideal heralding fairness and freedom for all. Yet, lurking beneath its shining veneer is sometimes a more sinister reality: calls for equality often emerge from the shadows of envy. Instead of valuing personal merit, the envious might simply covet what others possess, demanding parity without regard for differences in contribution or the deeper complexities of desert.

In the frenetic obsession to level the playing field, equality can thus become the weapon of choice for those who covet what others have, driven by jealousy and entitlement, rather than genuine concern for justice. While merit is rightfully critiqued where it perpetuates systemic privilege, true justice demands more than a promise of equal opportunities or equal outcomes. It must dare to ask uncomfortable questions about desert, about what individuals truly deserve based on their actions and contributions. Genuine merit extends beyond individual accomplishments, talents or qualifications to encompass the cultivation of virtuous character traits that contribute to the flourishing of society as a whole.

Ultimately, as a society we should take pride in elevating (only) those who are most deserving to positions of influence and leadership, thereby advancing society as a whole. Justice must challenge the notion that everyone should receive the same rewards or positions regardless of effort or merit, recognizing instead that genuine justices demands virtue, in giving each their due according to their deeds as well as their needs. Rather than fostering a sense of entitlement or resentment, we need systems that encourage everybody to strive together for excellence and contribute positively to the common good.

The allure of equality resonates deeply with our sense of fairness, yet when it masks envy, it becomes a deceptive force that breeds discord and fractures our societal fabric. We must embrace the complexities of human worth and societal contribution, advocating for a society - and organisations - where privileges are curbed to allow every person to fully exercise their agency freely, yet at the same time we should nurture the importance of a more holistic understanding of (social) merit. We must ensure that each person receives their rightful rewards and recognition, based on both their character and their commitment to the well-being of their fellow citizen and society at large.

#justice #transformation #meritocracy #freedom #management

Beyond Strategy: Rediscovering the Soul of Business!

If there's one thing that has become the beautiful 'belle' of the business ball, it's got to be strategy. Just mention a strategy meeting, and suddenly everyone and their cousin wants to get in. And who can blame them? Strategy has always been hailed as the golden ticket to success. It's the guiding light through the maze of markets, competition, and constant change – the undisputed ruler of the management textbooks!

As the concept of strategy has evolved over the last century, it's undergone a fascinating transformation – but at its core, its focus remains unchanged. From its military roots in the early 20th century, to the corporate planning and market positioning strategies of the mid-20th century, and now to the modern emphasis on agility, innovation, and disruption: it's always been about winning that competitive edge in the market and coming out on top to maximise shareholder value.

However, as we delve deeper into the broader impact of corporate conduct on society, it's becoming increasingly evident that the relentless pursuit of strategic advantage has its downsides. We're facing ethical quandaries left and right, from exploitative labour practices and environmental harm to corporate greed and social inequality. The narrow focus on strategy has created a gap between business objectives and the societal well-being, fuelling a culture of short-term thinking and self-serving behaviour that jeopardizes the long-term sustainability of organizations and communities.

I contend that the time has come to shift our attention from the narrow focus of business strategy to a deeper exploration of the essence of business. The concept of business essence encapsulates the core purpose and identity of an organization, reflecting its values, principles, and contribution to society. Rooted in virtue ethics, business essence emphasizes the cultivation of virtuous character and the pursuit of the common good, rather than mere profit-seeking or competitive dominance.

Indeed, a focus on essence does not negate the importance of strategic thinking. Strategic planning remains crucial for navigating the complexities of the business environment and to develop plans and actions designed to achieve specific goals and objectives. However, a return to the essence of business introduces a path towards greater responsibility for the emergent moral climate and character of the organisation. It emphasizes not only the 'what' of strategic goals but also the 'how', and ultimately the ‘who’. Instead of solely focusing on outcomes, it emphasizes our journey of growth and development to become the best we can be.

Practical examples abound of organizations that have embraced an ethos of business essence. Companies like Patagonia, known for their commitment to environmental sustainability and social responsibility, demonstrate that profitability and purpose can go hand in hand. Similarly, initiatives like the B Corp movement advocate for a more holistic approach to business that prioritizes ethical considerations alongside financial performance. By aligning strategic plans with virtues such as justice, integrity, temperance and compassion, organizations can ensure that their actions contribute positively to the well-being of all stakeholders, including employees, customers, suppliers, and society at large. Only then, paraphrasing Sumantra Ghoshal, can the tired and fruitless debate between strategy as a top-down process of heroic intentionality versus strategy as bottom-up explorations dissolve into a new view of strategy as a process of guided and deliberate virtuous development.

In conclusion, while the allure of the strategy ball is undeniable, it often leaves us with a lingering headache. While business strategy remains important, it may have become too shallow to tackle today's complex challenges. Integrating virtuous principles and aligning objectives with the common good can be a simple step to pave the way for a more responsible and sustainable future, both for business and society at large. 

WHAT DO YOU SEE?

The answer is of course straightforward. If you are a normal person, you see two meaningless curves. If instead you happen to be an economist, you see a MARKET. In classical economics, markets are represented by fictitious mathematical models where demand and supply curves intersect based on price, creating magically "efficient" equilibria.

And now, do you really want me to delve into what's amiss with neoclassical economics? 😉

PS: Why does it matter? Well, as Keynes once pointed out 'practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist’. If we want to transform our economy, we'd better start from a sound understanding of its premises. 

#economics #management #leadership #goodorganisations #transformation

Since I started my career several decades ago, the story has always been: #HR MUST GET CLOSER TO THE BUSINESS.

As a result, HR has often become instrumentalised. As frontend for legal, henchman of finance, or backoffice for transactions.

Maybe it’s time now for the business to get closer to HR. At the end of the day, businesses and business leaders are not only accountable to customers and shareholders, but must also serve employees and the rest of society.

Always remember: we don’t become leaders, because we rule. We become leaders, because we truly care.

#leadership #transformation #goodorganisations #csr

THE PARADOX OF #DEMOCRACY: Your Vote Isn't Just About You!

Amidst the frequent clamour of those who champion Democracy as the pinnacle of governance, do people truly grasp that the right to vote transcends mere personal interest?

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if everyone prioritizes their self-interest without regard for the common good, any Democracy must fall prey to the tyranny of an unintelligent majority. If citizens don’t care about their neighbours, there's no assurance at all that a democratic nation would ever be just.

This is precisely what the founding thinkers of Democracy sought to prevent. As Rousseau emphasized, the purpose of deliberating over proposed laws isn't simply to gauge approval or rejection but to ensure they support the “general will” of all. John Stuart Mill makes it even clearer: “the citizen’s vote is not a thing in which he has an option; it has not more to do with his personal wishes than the verdict of a juryman. It is strictly a matter of duty; he is bound to give it according to his best and most conscientious opinion of the public good.”

Elaborating further in his treatise On Liberty, John Locke emphasizes that the exercise of freedom in a Democracy, including the right to vote, hinges exclusively upon the maturity and integrity of the citizen. Within any Democracy, the freedom to vote carries with it a profound obligation: to engage in actions that serve the collective interests of society to the fullest extent of our capabilities. Without fulfilling this responsibility, representative Democracy risks devolving into a mere sham behind which lurk the shadows of elective mediocracy.

This essential lesson seems to have escaped our modern society: freedom isn't just a privilege to be taken for granted, nor is it merely a right to choose. It entails the solemn obligation to fulfill our duties to all.

#LEADERSHIP #transformation #responsibility #csr #goodorganisations

The Myth of Universal Rights: Democracy's Inconvenient Truth

In contemporary discourse, we frequently invoke various human or natural rights, from freedom to property to happiness, extending these even to rights of rivers or forests. Yet, few people recognize that such claims are inherently highly problematic.

Indeed, many reputable scholars suggest that abstract rights amount to little more than legal fiction, as famously articulated by Bentham who called such rights "nonsense on stilts." According to Bentham, rights are merely byproducts of the law, lacking any independent existence: “Rights is with me the child of law. A natural right is a son that never had a father”. This argument gains traction when we consider the axiomatic employment of rights in political dialogue. Suppose we ever pressed someone to identify the exact origin of an alleged right. Short of accusing us to be sick or confused, there could never be a satisfactory answer.

So how were “rights” legitimised in political theory? Surprisingly, at least for professed non-believers, the notion of rights often traces back to religious foundations. Locke, for instance, grounded the right to property in divine will, contending that God intended human survival on Earth. That said, Locke stipulated two important provisos: firstly, we must not take more than we can make use of (no wastage), and, secondly, we must leave “enough and as good” for others (equitable distribution) – conditions that were as it appears very quickly forgotten.

In "On Liberty," John Stuart Mill proposes a different approach to legitimizing rights. He first invokes the "no harm principle" whereby “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” He then clarifies that this principle can only ever apply to people in the “maturity of their faculties”, linking freedom to personal development. Why? Because freedom needs a reason to be free: in Mill's mind, freedom can only be legitimised as a means for personal and moral improvement. Utilizing utilitarianism, he finally posits that the ultimate ethical goal of moral progress is the 'greatest happiness for the greatest number of people', and therefore a system of rights must be appropriately designed to maximise general happiness.

It is evident that this ideal is fraught with challenges. It remains unclear why 'happiness for the greatest number' should be society's paramount goal, how to measure or operationalize it, and whether specific rights truly optimize happiness. Additionally, the pursuit of utility often necessitates curtailing individual freedom, contradicting the "no harm principle."

In essence, the concept of "rights" embodies a myriad of complexities, frequently shaped by societal trends and vested interests rather than genuine discourse. Regrettably, our contemporary obsession with rights often lacks the “maturity of our faculties”.

Moreover, the genuine legitimacy of any right even where and when it might apply hinges upon our collective commitment to advancing societal well-being. This underscores a striking irony in many discussions surrounding absolute individual rights – the very foundation of democratic institutions, including any notion of right, rests upon the collective civic virtue of its citizens. In the absence of earnest care for our neighbours and a sincere commitment to the common good, not only is democracy bound to flounder, but any assertion of individual rights must remain devoid of substance. 

It's quite uncanny. Many people continue to suggest that BUSINESS CHANGE IS ALL ABOUT PEOPLE. But it isn't.

The "American Dream" narrative often conveniently oversimplifies the complexities of success and failure: if people are successful, it's their individual merit; if they fail, it's their fault. Yet, while it's very tempting to attribute business success and transformation solely to aggregate individual prowess, the truth is of course far more nuanced. 🌐

In our complex, interconnected organisational world, performance is shaped not only by personal motivation, competence and effort but also by socio-technical structures, values and incentives, and community dynamics - and the intricate interplay with an open business ecosystem. To truly understand and enhance organizational performance, we must look beyond the surface and consider the intricate web of generative mechanisms at play. 🕸️

By the same token, it seems we frequently want to believe that an increase in environmental ambiguity and complexity can be countered simply by more individual autonomy. But there is a lot to support the view that in the end an increase in personal agency must be combined with effective institutional and relational holding structures to transform organisational behaviour and performance holistically.

It's time to shift the conversation from simplistic, individualistic and linear change models to a more systemic view that recognizes the complex nature of organizational behaviour. 🌱

#BeyondIndividualism #OrganizationalDynamics #ContextualIntelligence #Transformation #Leadership

VIRTUOUS LEADERSHIP IS... ABOUT MAKING CHOICES

In the perilous swamp of leadership theories, it's common to mystify and oversimplify the concept of corporate leadership, often attributing success or failure to individual traits or tactics. However, a deeper examination reveals that business leadership postures are often intricately linked to broader ideological frameworks.

By examining prevalent ideologies, such as liberalism, socialism, conservatism, and environmentalism, we can discern a spectrum of common "civic" virtues that underpin all corporate approaches to leadership. Ideologies implicitly position themselves along a range of extremes related to these key virtues: e.g., sustainability and compassion (balancing business interests with global welfare), prudence (navigating stability versus embracing change), solidarity (balancing individual autonomy with collective well-being), justice (addressing privilege versus promoting equality), and courage (choosing between domination and participatory leadership).

Virtuous leadership, therefore, transcends mere tactical decisions or individual attributes. It entails the capacity to make wise contingent choices across a set of corporate virtues, navigating the complex interplay between business imperatives, societal needs, and ethical considerations.

By embracing a more nuanced perspective, leaders can cultivate a more responsible approach to decision-making, making sure that key decisions aligns closely with the values and virtues of their organization and business as a whole, thus contributing to sustainable, ethical, and socially responsible outcomes.

#leadership #leadershipdevelopment #transformation #philosophy #business #goodorganisations

WHAT'S YOUR #LEADERSHIP COLOUR?! TAKE THE QUIZ! ✨

In the labyrinth of modern leadership theories, it's easy to get lost. But beware: amidst the noise and confusion, there might lie a deeper rift—a clash of values that shapes our very understanding of leadership.

Are you leading with liberal innovation, conservative stability, socialist equality, libertarian autonomy, authoritarian control, or environmental sustainability in mind? 🌱

💡YELLOW (Liberal Innovation): Foster change and creativity, championing individual freedom and market dynamics. Leadership emphasizes adaptability, continuous improvement, and embracing innovation.
💡BLUE (Conservative Stability): Uphold tradition and order, prioritizing proven methods. Leadership focuses on maintaining long-term stability, structured decision-making, and consistent, reliable outcomes.
💡GREEN (Socialist Equality): Advocate for equal opportunities and resource distribution. Leadership values inclusivity, collective decision-making, and ensuring fairness and equality among team members.
💡ORANGE (Libertarian Autonomy): Promote individual freedom and minimal government intervention. Leadership encourages autonomy, self-directed teams, and decentralized decision-making.
💡RED (Authoritarian Control): Centralize authority for efficient operations. Leadership entails top-down decision-making, strict adherence to hierarchy, and centralized control over resources.
💡TEAL (Environmental Sustainability): Prioritize ecological well-being and sustainability. Leadership integrates environmental stewardship, promotes green practices, and aligns business goals with environmental objectives.

What's your leadership ideology? Take the quiz: https://uquiz.com/hhXeLj

Join the conversation and share your thoughts! Let's explore how different ideologies shape the discussion about leadership theories and styles, and how it relates to different views on the purpose of business! 🚀🔄

#BusinessLeadership #Ideology #LeadershipStyles #Transformation

PS: This needs to be developed further in terms of categories - it was very much AI generated without much refinement. Secondly, the tool is terrible. Sadly, all the better quiz tools out there charge quite outrageously - and nobody would pay to take the test. It would be great to find a kind hobby programmer who could create the quiz without ads for us. :-) Finally, this ofc needs to go further. Understanding comparative ideologies and situating ourselves in them is an important step, but the point of course is to be able to examine the premises of all these ideologies and position ourselves more wisely.