A Case for Change – Why as Leaders We Need to BE Different to DO Different.

• The world has never been richer, humans have never been healthier and lived such long, productive lives^1,2 and yet:
  • The gap between rich and poor has never been greater – including within individual countries^3,4.
  • There is increasing unrest driven by disapproval of how governments and institutions are addressing economic and social issues.
  • Rising income and wealth disparity is forecast to be a significant driver of global risks over the next decade⁵.
• Economies and industries have given us unprecedented wealth and well being and yet:
  • Scientists estimate biodiversity loss is now at mass-extinction rates^6,7 with human actions threatening more species with global extinction now than ever before⁸.
  • Climate change could make crowded parts of the world uninhabitable or unable to produce the food that we need⁹ and in just three regions could force more than 143 million people to move within their countries¹⁰.
  • More than 8 million tons of plastic ends up in the ocean every year from 10 rivers and if we continue to pollute at this rate there could be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050¹¹.
• Technological advances including computers and the internet have brought great benefits, keeping us connected and helping us solve problems that once seemed intractable and yet:
  • Continued advances in technology and the rise of artificially intelligent systems could see them replace human workers in ever greater numbers¹² with activities such as securing a loan, getting a job, receiving a medical diagnosis and finding a partner increasingly undertaken by AI systems.
  • What were once considered large-scale cyber attacks are now becoming the norm, many of them state sponsored⁵.
  • Social media allows us to admonish/demonise or support/advocate, mobilising large numbers of people to pass collective judgement, often almost instantaneously.
• Modern medicine has conquered many diseases and yet:
  • Overuse of antibiotics has created the risk of drug-resistant super bugs that could prove unstoppable¹³.
  • Natural pandemics such as COVID-19 and new scientifically engineered pathogens pose a threat to humanity as great as ever before^14,15.
  • International travel makes global epidemics more likely.

While the challenges may be perceived as daunting, the global systems of which they are a part and their increased interconnectedness reflect a level of complexity and pace of change which humanity has not previously faced. Yet despite the global risks intensifying, the collective will to concertedly tackle them is lacking as divisions driven by increasing nationalism are hardening¹⁶.

In addition, the world remains in conflict across many areas and between many peoples. Some conflicts are relatively recent, such as: territorial disputes in the South and East China Sea, the war in Yemen, the Russian annexure of Crimea and the continued activities of ISIS. Other conflicts have continued unresolved for decades such as: tensions arising from a nuclear armed North Korea and various sectarian conflicts including Israel – Palestine, Pakistan – India (Kashmir) and Nagorno – Karabakh¹⁷.

Closer to home Australia is dealing with these same challenges and others that are unique to it:

1. After 12 years, and despite closing the gap being a national bipartisan priority, Australian governments are, in key areas, failing Australia’s indigenous people¹⁸.
2. Long-term trends such as low wages growth, high underemployment, increasing living costs and decreasing housing affordability are increasing the gap between rich and poor¹⁹. The top 1% of Australians continue to own more wealth than the bottom 70% of Australians combined²⁰.
3. An economy built in part on cheap power is struggling in the face of policies and actions that has seen Australians paying some of the highest energy costs in the world²¹.

Living with and leading in an era of these and other challenges and the opportunities they provide, is the defining task of our times and will require a different calibre of leadership within government, business, and society. As Einstein said, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it” and “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

Two questions come to mind:

1. How did we arrive at this point?
2. What needs to be different?

How did we arrive at this point?

Let me start with some definitions.

Fear is an emotional state activated in response to real and imminent factors threatening life and survival. Anxiety is an emotional state in response to a potential threat that typically has no imminent impact. Although the focus of the response is different (known vs anticipated danger), fear and anxiety are interrelated. Fear causes anxiety, and anxiety can cause fear²².

Cooperation is sharing information or resources to achieve one another’s goals or outcomes. Collaboration is working together to create something new in support of a shared vision or purpose. in the bombing in Syria, the USA and Russia shared information to prevent unintended consequences. – they cooperated. They did not have a shared vision as to what they wanted to achieve, but rather separate interests, so they were not collaborating. Many scientists, academics and institutions used to cooperating whilst pursuing their own interests are currently putting those on interests on hold whilst they collaborate on a shared vision of a vaccine for COVID-19. The challenge is how to make collaboration sustainable once the “crisis” has passed to avoid people and organisations falling back to self-interested actions.

We live in a world dominated by anxiety and fear, individually and collectively. At the individual level common anxieties include those relating to: success, failure, loss of power/status, loss of job, being judged, not fitting in, being embarrassed, making decisions, criticism, responsibility and being rejected. Teams, businesses and governments are made up of, run and elected by individuals who will share some or all of these anxieties and fears at various times.

Is it any wonder then that governments may be anxious about not being re-elected, boards may be anxious about taking uncharted risks, CEO’s and world leaders may be anxious about a loss of power or status. For those in or aspiring to be in positions of leadership supported by available technology and the immediacy of news, information and publicity; our anxieties and fears can be easy to manipulate^23,24.

Fear is not bad and is not a weakness. It exists and has existed to protect us from putting ourselves in dangerous situations or to support us to get out of these situations once we are in them (fight or flight). However, anxiety about perceived threats can become so overwhelming that it paralyses (freeze).

Fear-based leaders stifle collaboration which requires an environment of psychological safety wherein people feel they can be vulnerable, empathetic and authentic (themselves)²⁵. So, in a world where fear and anxiety dominate and leaders do not have the self-awareness and courage to recognise, admit to and understand its source; retreat, avoidance, conflict and an inability to find new ways forward prevail.

Dualistic thinking is a common means by which our mind makes sense of and defends against the world. To think dualistically means to understand reality by means of opposites²⁶. For instance, without short we wouldn’t know what long is, without thick how could we understand thin. The brain knows what things are by knowing what things aren’t and this provides (simplistically) a sense of certainty and control in what is frequently an ambiguous, paradoxical world.

In the same way, the mind likes to put dualistic labels on things e.g. good/bad and right/wrong. These labels are influenced by the values, beliefs, worldviews and paradigms of the individual and their various cultural and contextual influences. For me to be right, someone/thing with a different perspective must therefore be wrong. For my society/race/views/actions to be good, others of difference must be bad. When driven by this dualistic interpretation of the world, it is easy to see why many leaders have difficulty finding a bipartisan way forward which acknowledges the different ideas, interpretations and interests of others.

Good/bad, right/wrong, win/lose and other mind derived dualities are an impediment to finding workable solutions.

Intentions drive behaviours and actions and are driven by beliefs, worldviews, paradigms, values, anxieties and fears. They can be conscious or unconscious. Our intentions can be conflicted and therefore split, delivering outcomes that run counter to what we espouse and publicly commit to. We see this when a company’s publicly stated values are not the ones consistently enacted in the course of doing business. On a more individual level, we can espouse beliefs which conflict with what sits in our subconscious and when push comes to shove, our unconscious drivers will be the ones to prevail, to the confusion of others and sometimes ourselves. The same split can occur when key stakeholders of a shared enterprise hold differing interests and non-aligned intentions. If these are not surfaced and addressed, it can result in conflicted actions and sometimes impasse. A clear pathway to resolution will be difficult to find until intentions become clear and aligned. When this happens the methodology to problem-solve and innovate will show up.

How different might be our global response be if all key players were intentionally aligned around reducing climate change impacts as a priority vs the current conflicting interests, intentions and prioritisations of different nations, industries, peak bodies, interest groups and individuals? What methodologies would show up if there was a clear, bipartisan intention to reduce poverty in Australia and elsewhere? How are the conflicting interests and intentions in respect to meeting global emission commitments and providing an affordable and reliable energy system playing out in Australia? How does an overarching intention of being elected/re-elected drive the behaviours, decisions and actions of politicians?

Intentions are key in setting the culture and strategy for nations, businesses and government. When they are not clear or are in conflict, win/lose outcomes or intransigence are common consequences.

What needs to be different?

As we move further into what some label a VUCA world, where volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity are the norm, leading from a different level of consciousness will be crucial. If we are going to capture opportunities and solve challenges such as those outlined at the beginning of this article and others that threaten our social and economic future, the sustainability of our organisations and ultimately the future of the human species; a change in consciousness is required to change the quality of leadership on offer.

Our view is that we make decisions from a level of consciousness determined by how we:

1. Engage with the world.
2. Perceive the world.

How we engage with the world is a continuum from negative (fear based) to positive (love based) emotions. The starting point in any situation can be head based (dualistic, rational, deductive, tactical and linear), or heart based (grounded in holism, compassion, humility and kindness). 

How we perceive the world is a continuum from individual (egocentric) to collective (holistic). This means understanding whether the majority of our focus is centred on the interests of me and mine (family, team, organisation, club, professional class, political party etc) or extends to those of the whole (community, nation, region, the world).

Where on the fear – love and the individual – collective continuums we sit determines our level of consciousness and how we interact with the world around us. Our anxieties and fears, beliefs, ego-based reactions and dualistic ways of thinking all hold us to lower levels of consciousness and sub-optimal actions (outcomes).

Our challenge is twofold:

1. Rebalancing the connection between our head and heart – allowing heart-based feelings, intuitions, empathic concerns and discernments to inspire and guide and using the minds logic and deductive reasoning to design, test, organise and implement.
2. Expanding our breadth and depth of outlook – discerning and understanding the whole, the parts and their interacting complexities (systems within systems). This enables us to understand rather than judge others’ differences, reactive emotions and dualistic actions in order to rise above reactive tit for tat behaviour and instead seek ways to bridge divides and bring people together.

This journey lifts consciousness, brings greater wisdom and changes the way we think and feel, the intentions we set and the actions we take. Absent this lift in consciousness we will continue to fail the challenges and will not realise the opportunities on offer.

Whilst lifting internally is the first step, it also needs to happen between individuals, across teams, businesses and governments; locally, regionally and globally.

Starting with Self

What we usually observe about others are their behaviours and actions. This sometimes extends to feelings.  We may acquire insights into the culture of a group, organisation, community or nation if close enough to it.  However generally we see and understand less of others’ anxieties, fears, belief systems, values, worldviews or paradigms unless they choose to tell us (they may be unconscious). What we can’t observe we will often assume, conclude or even intuit.

My experience is that once there is a greater understanding of self (what drives me, my anxieties and fears, my intentions and the behaviours/actions that result), there is more interest in understanding others. Once I become aware of and understand that the mind rapidly defaults to viewing the world in dualistic ways, I can transcend this tendency by observing it and consciously challenging myself to go beyond my either/or interpretations of others and events. This enables me to more easily embrace paradox and ambiguity and exhibit humility and compassion because I am more willing to listen to others’ ideas and to try to understand the world from their perspective.

I start to realise that everyone is unique, holds a part of the truth and that their views are as valid to them as mine are to me. I begin to see that both sides have something to offer and that it takes all perspectives to complete the whole. I become more naturally curious as to whether others have access to the same/more/different information or if they are influenced by a different belief system, values or paradigms. I become more inclusive and collaborative as I actively value and seek their diversity of views and experiences. My leading then comes from a place of connection and intuitive knowing as much as rational, logical deduction as I bring the strengths of both my heart and head-based understandings to bear.

Working together and collaborating more deeply is the key to adding value to business²⁵, preventing crises and making the world more resilient for current and future generations⁵. Therefore, raising our consciousness to exercise more effective leadership and lift thinking (being different) is key to evolving new responses to confront the many complex challenges we are facing (doing different).

Where to from here?

Change happens for one of two reasons:

1. The opportunity is so great it can no longer be ignored.
2. The pain is so great it can no longer be tolerated.

Change occurring through opportunity is exciting, engaging and fun. Change occurring through pain is draining, sad and lonely. This applies to individuals, businesses and governments. For example it’s informative to contrast what has happened to the Rohingya in Myanmar/Bangladesh to the situation in Syria. Despite tens of thousands of people being killed in the latter, the real change in attitude that drove a degree of cooperative ‘intervention’ by western nations started once the flow of refugees became so great as to cause “pain” to those countries in Europe having to cope socially and economically with the fallout. At the moment the “pain” of what is happening to the Rohingya has not impacted the global community to the point of mobilising a concerted, collaborative international effort.  Instead those actively involved are countries either directly affected, those with social, cultural or religious connections, or NGO’s.

In a similar way it is unlikely, given the current standard of leadership consciousness, that global challenges such as those outlined at the beginning of this article will be more effectively or differently addressed until the “pain” becomes so great that key international players, their nations, business and other international entities can no longer ignore it. History suggests it is unlikely to happen until it has a direct impact on them – and sometimes that’s too late. Alternatively, how do we seek out and capture the opportunities to lift and utilise our capacities to engage differently with these challenges.

Decisions of the type required commonly get made at the top (of businesses and governments) by individuals or collectively by boards, management teams or parliament and its equivalents.  Therefore, part of the focus needs to be on creating awareness at this level.  Given the long-term nature of the challenges and the realisation that future generations likewise will need to be engaged in addressing them, support also needs to be given to future leaders to develop early the awareness, behaviours, skills, intentions and culture required to make a difference. Collaborating happens less at the top of organisations than at the bottom because people in power don’t want to give up that power²⁵ so leadership development of the type being suggested here should also be pushed deeper into organisations as well as taught in educational institutions. The tendency to spend most on training senior leaders²⁷ needs to be re thought.

In a 2015 global study on leadership development, 55% of respondents rated the return on investment for their leadership development programs as fair, poor or very poor²⁸. Given so much money is being spent on leadership development (billions of dollars annually in the US alone²⁹) and thousands of books are being written on leadership each year³⁰, something needs to change in what is being delivered and how it is being delivered³¹.

Many leadership programs are set curricula delivered in classroom settings. This form of rationally based, individually focused delivery is not developing the types of leaders needed³¹. For individuals, government and business this means working with practitioners to develop fit for purpose, experiential programs that will support individuals and teams to grow their consciousness.

Conscious leaders and organisations are discerning, they understand the whole, the parts and their interacting complexities. They accept responsibility for their own reactions/behaviours/culture and are open to change. They care about others as much as themselves. Finally, because of their ability to consider a broader range of stakeholder needs and being open to less constrained thinking, conscious leaders are, over time, more likely to be effective in delivering tangibly positive results for their organisation while also uplifting the whole.

When a shift to conscious leadership occurs, sustainable transformation is possible and more innovative, higher order solutions become available. These are the types of solutions that will be required to solve our increasingly complex challenges for the greater good of future generations.

References

1. Heaven, D. 2017. A guide to humanity’s greatest challenges. BBC future now. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170228-a-guide-to-humanitys-greatest-challenges
2. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Seattle, WA: IHME, 2018. http://www.healthdata.org/policy-report/findings-global-burden-disease-study-2017
3. Global Risks Report 2017 – Reports – World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GRR17_Report_web.pdf
4. International Monetary Fund (IMF) 2017. Fiscal Monitor: Tackling Inequality, October 2017. Washington D.C. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/FM/Issues/2017/10/05/fiscal-monitor-october-2017
5. The Global Risks Report 2018 – 13th Edition – World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GRR18_Report.pdf
6. Cebellos, G., et. al. 2015. Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science-Advances 1 (5). June 2015. http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253
7. Chivian, E. and A. Bernstein (eds.) 2008. Sustaining life: How human health depends on biodiversity. Center for Health and the Global Environment. Oxford University Press, New York.
8. IPBES (2019): Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio E.S., H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R. Roy Chowdhury, Y. J. Shin, I. J. Visseren-Hamakers, K. J. Willis, and C. N. Zayas (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 56 pages. https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/2020-02/ipbes_global_assessment_report_summary_for_policymakers_en.pdf
9. Wallace-Wells, D. 2017. The Uninhabitable Earth. Famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us: What climate change could wreak — sooner than you think. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
10. Rigaud, K. et al. 2018.Groundswell: Preparing for Internal Climate Migration. Washington, DC: The World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29461
11. Gray, A. 2018. 90% of plastic polluting our oceans comes from just 10 rivers. World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluting-our-oceans-comes-from-just-10-rivers/
12. Wisskerchen,G., et. al, 2017. IBA Global Employment Institute. Artificial Intelligence and Robotics and Their Impact on the Workplace. https://www.ibanet.org/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=c06aa1a3-d355
13. O’Neill,J (chair). 2016. Tackling Drug-resistant infections globally: Final Report and Recommendations. The review on antimicrobial resistance.
14. Walsh, B. 2017. The World Is Not Ready for the Next Pandemic. Time Magazine, May 15 2017.
15. Oswald, R. 2010. Synthetic Pathogens Might Pose Bio terror Threat, Scientists Warn. Global Security News wire. http://nti.org/19932GSN
16. The Global Risks Report 2019 – 14th Edition – World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2019
17. Global Conflict Tracker. Council of Foreign Relations. Accessed 22January 2019. https://www.cfr.org/interactives/global-conflict-tracker
18. Close the gap progress and priorities report 2020 – Australian Human Rights Commission. Accessed 10 June 2020. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social-justice/publications/close-gap-2020
19. Pash, C. 2017. The divide between Australia’s rich and poor is widening. Business Insider Australia. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-divide-between-australias-rich-and-poor-is-widening-2017-2#ZysMmO4cx1W4CrBG.99
20. The inequality that divides us. Australian inequality fact sheet, January 2019. Oxfam Australia. https://www.oxfam.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019-Davos-factsheet.pdf
21. Williams, P. 2017. Why Energy-Rich Australia Suffers the World’s Priciest Power. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-05/how-energy-rich-australia-ended-up-with-world-s-priciest-power
22. Ankrom, S. 2017.The Difference between Fear and Anxiety. https://www.verywell.com/fear-and-anxiety-differences-and-similarities-2584399
23. Ball, M. 2016. Donald Trump and the Politics of Fear. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-fear/498116/
24. Strauss, N. 2016. Why We’re Living in the Age of Fear. Rolling Stone. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/why-were-living-in-the-age-of-fear-w443554
25. How Collaboration Wins. Leadership. Benefits and Best Practices. Harvard Business Review Analytic Services Pulse Survey. Harvard Business School Publishing 2017. https://hbr.org/sponsored/2018/01/how-collaboration-wins
26. Parvez, H. 2015. The human mind and duality: How we understand the world. PsychMechanics. http://www.psychmechanics.com/2015/01/the-human-mind-and-duality.html
27. Wentworth, D. 2016. Top Spending Trends For Training, 2016-2017. https://trainingmag.com/top-spending-trends-training-2016-2017
28. Korn Ferry Institute, 2015. Real world leadership. Build a pipeline of ready-now leaders. Korn Ferry. https://www.kornferry.com/content/dam/kornferry/docs/article-migration/Korn-Ferry-Institute_RealWorldLeadership_Report-1.pdf
29. Rabinowitz, N. 2016. Are You Wasting Leadership Development Investments? https://www.clomedia.com/2016/02/02/are-you-wasting-leadership-development-investments/
30. Iarocci, J. 2015. Why are There so Many Leadership Books? Here Are 5 Reasons. https://serveleadnow.com/why-are-there-so-many-leadership-books/
31. Rowland, D. 2016. Why Leadership Development Isn’t Developing Leaders. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/10/why-leadership-development-isnt-developing-leaders