Courageous Leadership in Your Sphere of Influence

This blog is provided by Erica Fowler. It is a companion to the podcast with Mike Gerbis, Courageous Leadership Is Required to Address Global Issues

The International Leadership Association (ILA) held its global conference in Ottawa, Canada, in 2019 with the theme’ Leadership, Courage Required‘. Maureen Metcalf, ILA fellow, hosted a series of live-recorded interviews with global leadership experts to explore their research, best practices, and expert view of the complex issues facing us today. Mike Gerbis is one of those leaders – a change management professional and expert in replacing conventional commercial processes with sustainable ones. In this interview, he discusses approaches with which he has found success in his career and how they can be applied to global social justice campaigns to impact meaningful change.

Change is hard. And making significant changes can feel so impossible that it may not seem worth trying. We often think that courageous leadership means an influential leader with a wide-reaching voice and an army of boots on the ground to implement a plan. While Mike observed that one type of leadership does come from the top down, it is not the only type of leadership needed. The grassroots movement, or as another leader called it, the plural sector or individuals and the communities in which they live, is a vital component to enacting change on a large scale. It comes down to the small changes each individual can make within their lives, or as Mike says, their sphere of influence.

His message resonated strongly with me and the season of life I have recently entered – graduate school firmly behind me, entrenched in my career, and preparing to start a family. Similarly, my peers are working to advance their careers and raise families, sometimes both at once. We often find it hard to get through the day in one piece, much less change the world.

Mike provided strategies for those who feel too busy to get involved in bigger community efforts or find the prospect of such efforts overwhelming. These small actions, taken together, can add up to a formidable force of change.

  1. Be authentic. Find a cause you are passionate about and lean into it, whether it’s eradicating childhood poverty, combating climate change, or simply composting for your garden. Your investment in the cause matters most.
  2. Share your privilege. Open doors for others who don’t have the same opportunities. Mike shared a story of a woman who attended an event he helped organize. She was the only woman of color with an indigenous background in attendance, and Mike had not noticed. Realizing an opportunity, he asked for her guidance and subsequently set diversity targets for future events, like making sure speakers were half male and half female. You may not be organizing global forums, but you could volunteer in your community to open doors for those less fortunate or foster mentoring relationships with students entering the workforce.
  3. Embrace diversity through listening and communication. In pursuing our passions and with modern communication at our fingertips, it can be easy to insulate ourselves in a bubble that lacks diversity. Surrounding yourself with likeminded people can be a pleasant escape from the current political climate, but you might be missing important information. Listen openly to people that have different views. Learn something and then teach them something in return. A respectful exchange and new perspective on one another’s beliefs can go a long way in moving us forward.

Young professionals juggling careers and parenting young children may feel their sphere of influence extends no further than the four walls of their own home – and even that might be stretching it! In reality, that sphere will expand considerably as new seasons of life come and go.

Mike notes that one of the most significant contributions that we can make to society is to raise our children to be responsible citizens and consumers. And if you do not have children, this same concept can be applied to anyone that looks to you for guidance, whether or not you know it!

Courageous leadership can take on a variety of forms, but the building blocks are consistent at any level. Teach others with your language and your actions to be authentic, share their privilege with others, and embrace diversity through communication and active listening.

About the Author

 Erica N. Fowler, Ph.D., is a strategy and analytics professional with a profound interest in developing data-driven solutions to improve health and business outcomes. She studied Public Health specializing in social epidemiology at The Ohio State University and holds ten years’ experience melding industry experience with academic discipline. Her experience includes analytics product development, measurement strategy, database operations, business intelligence analytics, and statistical modeling.

Dr. Fowler’s passion is professional development consulting as a certified Birkman Method consultant. She uses the Birkman Method, enhanced by her analytic skillset, to develop individual and group programs that foster emotional intelligence to improve communication skills and productive teamwork.

Her day job is Product Manager for the Applied Data Science and Omnichannel Experience teams at Syneos Health, the first end-to-end integrated pharmaceutical solutions organization. She serves as a contributing faculty member to the Health Education & Promotion program at Walden University, where she oversees the dissertation process for doctoral students. In her spare time, Dr. Fowler enjoys traveling the world, yoga, reading, and spending time with her family.

 

Five Ways to Activate the Plural Sector

This blog is provided by Erica Fowler. It is a companion to Henry Mintzberg’s interview on Innovating Leadership, Co-creating Our Future, Rebalancing Society: Radical Renewal, Beyond, Left, Center, Right.

The International Leadership Association (ILA) held its global conference in Ottawa, Canada, in 2019 with the theme ‘Leadership, Courage Required’. Maureen Metcalf, an ILA fellow, hosted a series of live-recorded interviews with global leadership experts to explore their research, best practices, and expert view of today’s complex issues. In this interview, Henry Mintzberg discusses his recently published book ‘Rebalancing Society: Radical Renewal Beyond Left, Right, Center’ and the key to uniting and mobilizing our fragmented leaders.

There is no denying that today’s political and social climate is polarized. It is often described as a pendulum that swings back and forth, gravitating to each extreme, a large swath of people or issues frozen in the middle. Presently, the pendulum seems as if it is at greater risk of breaking in half than swinging to one side or the other. In discussing this polarization, Mintzberg illustrates the unrest with figures from the most recent ranking of democracies by The Economist. Less than 6% of the world population lives in a full democracy. The United States ranked #25 as a flawed democracy, and the global score was the worst since the rankings began in 2006. Despite the downward trend in recent years, all is not lost.

In his book, Mintzberg discusses the need to ‘rebalance society’ on its three pillars. Two we well know, the public (government) and private (privately held businesses and corporations), but the third isn’t as obvious to some. He calls this missing piece the ‘plural sector,’ and it’s comprised of the community, member-owned co-operatives, foundations, and most importantly, you and me. The plural sector mobilizes grassroots efforts and large-scale social change.

Similarly, in the well-known book Good to Great, Jim Collins discusses the concept of the flywheel. Under the right conditions, an exemplary leader, a shared passion, and a common goal, companies that steadily exert the pressure of their collective efforts can manifest change that builds quietly over time and finally reaches a tipping point, gaining momentum and breaking through barriers. In Jim’s book, years of perseverance under these circumstances often led to stock market returns that were many times higher than that of the average market or competitive companies.

Like good-to-great companies, grassroots efforts require the plural sector to unite behind a common cause and, as Mintzberg says, ‘put teeth into’ that cause. It demands action with not only their unification, their protests, and their words – but with their own sustained and focused action. The plural sector is the force or the pressure needed to turn the flywheel and elicit action from the public and private sectors.

In his forthcoming research, Mintzberg is exploring how to mobilize the plural sector to rebalance society and offers some hints in this interview.

    1. Responsibility: Mintzberg insists that we must recognize that change starts with us. Technological advances, like the smartphone, have made it easier than ever for us to escape into our palms and ignore not only the needs of the surrounding community but ourselves. Pay the extra dollar. We are complicit in perpetuating polarization when we rejoice in the affordable consumption of goods that are manufactured by those that do not make a living wage.
    2. Relevance: Integrating into the plural sector allows issues facing the community to become relevant before they become personal. Mintzberg discusses relevance in the context of climate change. Melting ice caps and the plight of the polar bears is not proximal enough to most people’s daily lives to impact them in a meaningful way. But when the river next to their home rises enough to flood the basement, the changing climate is not as easily dismissed.
    3. Focus: Globalization and social media have ushered in freedom of choice and expression in ways unprecedented in human history. Our efforts are fragmented, and the pressure needed to enact change does not have the limitations needed for it to build up and breakthrough. Taking responsibility for issues that are relevant to your community allows critical mass to form behind an issue to build sufficient pressure.
    4. Perseverance: Change on a large scale or on the deep-rooted issues that drive polarization may require years or even decades of pressure. Instant gratification is a reality in so many facets of our life that we expect it in every interaction or endeavor. We become impassioned by new causes frequently and lose the focus and momentum that could if sustained, breakthrough as real, meaningful change.
    5. Accountability: Hold accountable those who push to imbalance society for personal gain. Mintzberg recognized that Occupy Wallstreet was fine as a protest, but no meaningful change came from it because the behaviors behind closed doors remained unchanged. It’s a start, but it’s not enough to peacefully protest with our feet and our voices. We must also protest with our votes and our actions.

To unite the plural sector and manifest change through the public and private sectors we must immerse ourselves in our communities, recognize that we are required to become the change we want to see in the world, and peacefully fight for what we believe in with our votes, our voices, and our actions.

About the Author

Erica N. Fowler, Ph.D., is a strategy and analytics professional with a profound interest in developing data-driven solutions to improve health and business outcomes. She studied Public Health specializing in social epidemiology at The Ohio State University and holds ten years’ experience melding industry experience with academic discipline. Her experience includes analytics product development, measurement strategy, database operations, business intelligence analytics, and statistical modeling.

Dr. Fowler’s passion is a professional development consulting as a certified Birkman Method consultant. She uses the Birkman Method, enhanced by her analytic skillset, to develop individual and group programs that foster emotional intelligence to improve communication skills and productive teamwork.

Her day job is Product Manager for the Applied Data Science and Omnichannel Experience teams at Syneos Health, the first end-to-end integrated pharmaceutical solutions organization. She serves as a contributing faculty member to the Health Education & Promotion program at Walden University, where she oversees the dissertation process for doctoral students. In her spare time, Dr. Fowler enjoys traveling the world, yoga, reading, and spending time with her family.

 

Key Findings from a U.S. National Survey About Leadership

This blog is provided by Lynn Shollen and Elizabeth Gagnon of Christopher Newport University in Newport News, Virginia. It is a description of the top-line findings of a survey about leadership that they conducted last year. You can read much more about the project on their website. The blog is a companion to the interview with Sam Wilson and Lynn Shollen that aired as part of the 12-week International Leadership Association podcast Series titled Research Findings on Attitudes About Leadership.

 

A new, annual national survey of attitudes about leadership in the United States uncovered widespread and increasing dissatisfaction with U.S. leaders, along with skepticism about the preparedness of younger generations to lead into the future.

Key findings from our scientific online survey of more than 1,800 people include:

  • Only 28 percent of those surveyed believe leaders in the U.S. are effective
  • Leaders are seen as less effective now than compared to 20 years ago (60 percent)
  • Leaders are regarded as too removed from the experiences of ordinary people (74 percent)
  • Many believe it is too risky in today’s social climate to be a leader (46 percent)
  • Many believe that unless they are at the top of an organization, they may not be able to be influential even if they try to lead, because leaders at the top are so powerful (49 percent)
  • Younger generations are not widely seen as being equipped to lead (57 percent)

These results are discouraging because we know that effective leadership is crucial if we’re to thrive socially, politically and economically. We do detect a few reasons for optimism, but overall, our findings have to be worrisome for our country’s leaders, for leadership educators and for all who care about the quality of leadership now and into the future.

The 1,849 respondents comprise a nationally representative sample based on gender, ethnicity, age, income and other factors. They were asked to think broadly of leaders and leadership rather than focusing on specific leaders or situations. We are not seeking opinions about Donald Trump or Bill Gates. The survey isn’t intended to examine perceptions of how specific leaders are performing, rather how people view the effectiveness of leaders and leadership generally within the U.S.

The survey defined leadership as the process of influencing people toward achieving a common goal, and leaders were defined as people who achieve that goal. Regardless of whether you have a formal title, you can be a leader. Leadership happens everywhere, not just in the most obvious places, such as government or business.

But in many places that leadership happens, it is seen as lacking. Fewer than 25 percent of the respondents say leaders in education, religion, national politics or the environment are effective.

Even as they criticize current leaders, survey participants say they are reluctant to step forward. Only 15 percent of the respondents claim they are involved in leading their community (although they may indeed be leading and not identifying their contributions as leadership). Further, it appears they don’t have high hopes for future generations. Nearly 60 percent of the respondents say younger Americans are not ready to lead and only 33 percent voiced confidence that young people will be able to steer the nation through the challenges ahead.

There is another cause for concern. When the morality of the leader is considered, half (50 percent) claim it is more important that a leader works for major issues that align with those the respondent supports than whether the leader adheres to high moral standards. Thus, half of the sample does not value leaders upholding morality as much as leaders supporting particular issues and agendas.

In terms of what respondents are looking for in leaders, 74 percent believe that the best leaders understand the experiences of ordinary people. About two-thirds believe leaders at the national and local levels should create an environment that supports diversity, considers perspectives of diverse people when making decisions and seeks to take care of the natural environment.

About half also say they’re comfortable with a leader who is different than them in gender/sex (56 percent), race/ethnicity (56 percent), sexual orientation (49 percent) or income level (48 percent). Fewer say the same about religious beliefs (43 percent). Political differences are a bigger sticking point, as only 28 percent say they are comfortable with a leader who holds opposing views, and only 34 percent would follow such a leader.

Participants were also asked where they went for information about leaders and how reliable those sources are for evaluating leaders. Television is the number one source sought for information (55 percent), trailed by non-social media online sources (44 percent). Half (50 percent) of respondents claim that social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) does not provide them with adequate resources to make accurate evaluations of public leaders, whereas, just over half (53 percent) claim that traditional media (e.g., newspaper, television, radio) does provide them with adequate resources.

The results of the survey were first discussed at the 2019 annual conference of the International Leadership Association in Ottawa, Canada. The researchers received helpful feedback there and plan to delve into the nuances of the data by examining the results by demographics such as gender/sex, race/ethnicity, geographic location, religious beliefs, political affiliation, sexual orientation and income level. These results will be released as they become available. The survey will be conducted annually to track trends and to add questions relevant to contemporary issues.

About the Authors

Dr. Lynn Shollen is Associate Professor of Leadership Studies and Department Chair in the Department of Leadership and American Studies at Christopher Newport University. She earned her Ph.D. in Higher Education Policy and Administration at the University of Minnesota. Her research interests include the faculty to administrator transition, identity and perceptions of leadership, leadership identities construction, and teaching about women and leadership. In addition to numerous journal articles, she co-authored the book Faculty Success Through Mentoring: A Guide for Mentors, Mentees, and Leaders.

Dr. Elizabeth Gagnon earned her PhD at Old Dominion University. She is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Leadership and American Studies at Christopher Newport University. She teaches courses in civic engagement, social entrepreneurship, leadership theory and ethics and values in leadership. Journals publishing her research articles include the International Journal of Leadership Studies and the Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement.

 

 

The Australian Leadership Index: A New Measure of Leadership for the Greater Good in the Public, Private and Plural Sectors

This blog is provided by Sam Wilson, co-creator of the Australian Leadership Index. It is a companion to the interview with him and Lynn Shollen that aired as part of the 12-week International Leadership Association podcast series, Research Findings on Attitudes About Leadership.

Against a backdrop of unethical conduct, irresponsible leadership in our organizations, and distrust of institutions in the public, private, and plural sectors, there is a pervasive sense in the community that we are not well served by authorities and the institutions they lead. As a result, there is a yearning for leadership that serves and is seen to serve the greater good.

However, what is the greater good? What is leadership for the greater good? What are the collective responsibilities of those who collectively manage, govern, and lead the organizations and institutions in the public, private, and plural sectors, and what should they be to show leadership for the greater good?

These questions are not especially new to scholars of leadership, as evidenced by the attention given to the ideas of social responsibility and shared value in the domain of business leadership and integrative leadership and public value in the domain of public leadership.

It is, however, less clear what the community thinks about the notions of the greater good and leadership for the greater good. It is not obvious whether community expectations of leadership for the greater good are invariant across the public, private and plural sectors, or whether public opinion is alive to and reflective of the different purposes, goals and functions of these sectors.

Notwithstanding the great difficulty of defining the greater good, in general, and leadership for the greater good, in particular, it behoves us to think and talk about these concepts and practices in the public domain as clearly as we possibly can if we are to imagine, practice and sustain the leadership and followership needed to ensure the long-term welfare and well-being of the general population.

How should we think about the greater good?

The concept of the ‘greater good’, and its synonyms the ‘public good’ and ‘common good’, as well as related ideas like ‘public value’, has the quality of being familiar and commonplace. And yet, these concepts are difficult to articulate in a precise or comprehensive way.

Moreover, as observed by the philosopher Hans Sluga, the diverse conceptions of the good—such as justice, happiness, security—and the variety of tribal, local, national and global communities for which the ‘good’ is sought militates against the identification of a single, determinate good.

However, a promising candidate for the greater good, apt in the context of our grand challenges of unsustainability and diminished human and nonhuman flourishing, is the well-being of the whole.

Understood in this way, the greater good is less about justice or happiness or security and more a gestalt or umbrella term for a number of interlocking concepts pertaining to the conditions that undergird and sustain the survival and flourishing of human and nonhuman life.

To render these ideas less abstract and more actionable, it is helpful to frame the greater good, as well as the conditions and social actions that sustain it, in terms of value creation—specifically, the types of value that are created, the ways in which value are created, and for whom value is created.

Understood in this way, the value-relevant outcomes of institutional behavior enable inferences to be made about their apparent concern for the greater good, as well as about the concern for and practice of leadership for the greater good by those collectively responsible for the management, governance and leadership of these institutions.

The Australian Leadership Index

This construal and operationalization of leadership for the greater good underpins the Australian Leadership Index, which is a new measure of community beliefs about leadership for the greater good in the public, private and plural sectors.

Grounded in community and expert conceptions of the greater good and leadership for the greater good, and drawing on scholarly research into ethical, responsible and integrative leadership, as well as research into public value, the ALI offers a new model of leadership for the greater good that is germane to institutions in the public, private and plural sectors.

From a community perspective, leadership for the greater good occurs when these institutions create social, environmental and economic value for the people they serve and the wider community in a manner that is transparent, accountable and ethical.

The purpose of the Australian Leadership Index is threefold. First, it is to measure community perceptions of the state of leadership for the greater good across different sectors and institutions. Second, it is to measure community expectations of the practice of leadership for the greater good by these sectors and institutions. Third, it is to provide insight into what different types of institutions should do in order to improve their practice of leadership for the greater good.

The Australian Leadership Index provides powerful new insights into community beliefs about leadership and reveals what leaders in the public, private and plural sector institutions can do to show leadership for the greater good.

By making all our results freely available via an innovative, highly interactive data portal (www.australianleadershipindex.org), the Australian Leadership Index makes an important contribution to a community dialogue about the leadership we need for the future we want.

About the Author

Sam Wilson is a social psychologist whose research spans studies of the nature and drivers of voluntary humanitarian behaviour to national studies of community beliefs about leadership for the greater good in the public, private and plural sectors. He is Co-Creator of the Australian Leadership Index, sectors, Co-Director of the Thriving in Society 4.0 research program of the Social Innovation Research Institute, and Deputy Director of the Social Psychology of Innovation Research Group at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia.

Building Leader Character

This blog was written by Maureen Metcalf, based on the article Developing Leadership Character by Mary Crossan, Gerard Seijts, and Jeffrey Gandz, published in the Ivey Business Journal Issues: January / February 2012. It is a companion to the International Leadership Association Interview Series podcast Leader Character.

Leadership character is critical in our rapidly changing world, filled with disruption and ethical challenges.  According to the article, Developing Leadership Character, “When it comes to leadership, competencies determine what a person can do. Commitment determines what they want to do, and character determines what they will do.”

“Character fundamentally shapes how we engage the world around us, what we notice, what we reinforce, who we engage in conversation, what we value, what we choose to act on, how we decide…and the list goes on.” While there is no generally accepted definition of character, Mary Crossan and her co-authors focus on personality traits, values, and virtues as the focus of virtue-based character in their article, Developing Leader Character. They also highlight the importance of Judgment, which is at the center of their leader character framework shown in Figure 1.”

 

All behaviors associated with character are virtuous, meaning that they have been vetted by research as desirable by cultures throughout history. And because only a few of the behaviors are trait-based, character can be developed. Some behaviors can be viewed as values, but it is essential to recognize that they are not just any values but only ones that satisfy the criteria of being virtuous. The Developing Leadership Character article analyzes eleven leadership virtues and what happens when they are either lacking or over weighted. Aristotle noted that any virtue will operate like a vice when other virtues do not support it. Thus, Courage becomes recklessness when not supported by Temperance. Integrity not supported by Humanity and Humility runs the risk of a person being dogmatic and egotistic. The aim is for individuals to develop strength in all dimensions of character. The following example from their article describes how virtue can strengthen an individual’s performance and become a vice when not supported by other character dimensions.

  • Accountability ensures that leaders own and commit to their decisions and encourages the same in others.
  • Without Accountability, leaders don’t commit to or own their decisions and cannot get others to do so. They blame others for poor outcomes and, in doing so, create a culture of fear and disengagement.  People stop caring, with potentially disastrous consequences.

How do we develop character?

Because character is a habit, the question is, “Who am I becoming while I am busy doing?” advises Crossan. We are always becoming something – more courageous, less courageous, more humble, or less humble. Developing character requires understanding what it is, mainly how virtues could operate like a vice. Many people are proud of their candor, their modesty, their calm, etc., but if these behaviors and the dimensions of character they support are not part of a strong network of behaviors, there is every possibility that they are counterproductive – operating like a vice. Consider something like “grit,” widely touted as necessary. Many behaviors within Courage and Drive are grit-like, but research on grit has shown that it can lead to burnout. Why? Because you need the other dimensions of character, particularly Judgment, to know when to exercise grit and when not to.

Developing character flies in the face of many approaches to leadership that suggest we should focus on our strengths and rely on others to complement our weaknesses. Complementarity makes sense for personality traits like introversion or extroversion, but weaknesses compromise individual judgment when it comes to character.

In another article co-authored by Mary Crossan, Elevating Leader Character Alongside Competence in Selection, “Character is constantly evolving, both personally and professionally. Thus, a person’s work and life experiences fundamentally shape character, and the story about who someone is and why they have become the person they are is unique to each person.” It will be necessary for the individual and the organization to attend to the virtues they want to see and understand how different virtues complement one another and how they complement one another.

We are unlikely to change character elements for each item referenced above if we are not conscious and motivated. Self-awareness, conscious choice, rewarding context, aligning complementary virtues, practicing virtuous behaviors, and motivation all impact the choice and outcome of the work to build character.

As we wrap up the discussion, I would like to return to the article Mary Crossan and her colleagues wrote, “Character is not something that you have or don’t have.  All of us have character, but the key is the depth of development of each facet of character that enables us to lead holistically.  Character is not a light switch that can be turned on and off.  There are degrees, and every situation presents a different experience and opportunity to learn and deepen character.  In particular, and for better or for worse, character comes to the fore when managing a crisis.  No one is perfect when it comes to character. Given that its development is a lifelong journey, we will rise to the occasion in some situations and disappoint ourselves and those around us in others.”

In our current, fast-changing environment, we need leaders who demonstrate character, informed by leadership virtues. Organizations must understand how to build character and the contexts that inhibit character development.

About the Author

Maureen Metcalf, CEO of the Innovative Leadership Institute, is a renowned executive advisor, coach, consultant, author, and speaker.

The Declaration of Our Interdependence for 2020 Vision

Dr. Henry Mintzberg provides this blog. It is taken from the website and used with permission. This blog is a companion to his interview on Innovating Leadership, Co-creating Our Future, Rebalancing Society: Radical Renewal, Beyond, Left, Center, Right.

How to restore balance in this lopsided world?

Encouraging is that so many concerned people are engaged in so many constructive activities—whether to restore social justice, reverse the change in climate and the decline in democracy, or build the social economy—and that so many more people are ready to go.

Missing, however, has been a guiding vision, a statement of purpose as a way forward—toward a consolidated movement for global reformation.

This is why a group of us developed this Declaration of Our Interdependence. Please read it, and if you agree with it, sign it, and share it widely.

Let this be a happy new year—for 2020 vision.

The Story of This Declaration

This story can be traced back to 1991, when Henry Mintzberg, a professor of management at McGill University in Montreal, visited Prague just as the communist regimes were collapsing in Eastern Europe. Western pundits at the time were proclaiming the triumph of capitalism, but from here it looked like balance had triumphed, over imbalance. The communist regimes were severely out of balance, with too much power concentrated in their public sector governments, whereas the successful democracies of the West had maintained a relative balance of power across their public sector governments, private sector businesses, and—crucially—plural sector communities. This misunderstanding would drive the Western democracies themselves out of balance, in favor of private sector markets. These thoughts were outlined in a 1992 article, and eventually published in a 2015 book entitled Rebalancing Society.

Irene is a Canadian manager who has worked in the private and plural sectors. After reading an early draft of this book, she said “I’d like to do something. I just don’t know where to start.”  This became The Irene Question in the book, and has occupied much of Henry’s attention ever since. What can each of us do, and what can all of us do—in our communities, associations, businesses, and governments? The answers, it turns out, are numerous—witness all the activities of concerned people the world over, from marching in protests to growing their social economies. Lacking, however, has been a vision to consolidate these efforts into a widespread movement for global reformation.

Toward this end, in February of 2019, nine people gathered at a retreat near Montreal, out of which came a map to visualize balance across the sectors, a table to order various ideas for action, and the decision to create a declaration of interdependence. On the drive back to Montreal from the retreat, Henry and Jeremiah Lee, a consultant in Boston, went through the clauses of the American Declaration of Independence, one by one, and began to draft clauses for today’s interdependence, using the wording of the original declaration where helpful. Many drafts later, the nine of us who participated in the creation of this document (listed first in the signatories) agreed that this declaration was ready to be posted—for 2020 vision.

 

The Declaration of our Interdependence

For two centuries, the American Declaration of Independence served as the model to grow democracy. Now our world has reached the limits of growth driven by the pursuit of individual rights at the expense of shared responsibilities. Faced with the threats of warming, weapons, waste, and the lopsided distribution of wealth, we must declare our interdependence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created dependent—on each other, our earth, and its climate—endowed with the inalienable responsibility to maintain justice, liberty, and affiliation for all. Thus our societies must sustain balance across public sector governments that are respected, private sector businesses that are responsible, and plural sector communities that are robust. Some societies retain this balance; others have lost it; many never had it. We propose the following resolutions to guide the rebalancing of society:

Balance begins when each of us decides how we shall become part of the solution. By doing nothing, we remain part of the problem.

We advance to action in our communities, networked to consolidate a global movement for peaceful reformation.

We commit to the ideals of social conscience, fair trade, and good government, to replace the dogma of imbalance—that greed is good, markets are sufficient, and governments are suspect. We explore our human resourcefulness by resisting our exploitation as human resources.

We build worthy institutions in all three sectors of society—departments in government, enterprises in business, associations in communities—from the ground up, with widespread engagement that carries individual leadership into collective communityship.

At the tables of public policy, we strive to replace the compromises of self-interest with the coalescing of common interest.

We challenge the rampant corruption that is legal as vigorously as we expect our governments to prosecute the overt corruption that is criminal.

Sustainable global balance requires substantial global government. We call on all democratic nations to rally for lasting peace, by containing any power that aims to dominate while holding economic globalization in its place, namely the marketplace.

These resolutions require concerted action, not by centrally orchestrated planning so much as through a groundswell of initiatives by concerned citizens the world over, to restrain our worst tendencies while encouraging our best. For the future of our planet and our progeny, this is the time to get our collective act together.

As one people indivisible under one big sky,
we pledge to defend balance in this priceless world.

 

You can sign the declaration here.

About the Author

Henry Mintzberg is a writer and educator, mostly about managing originations, developing managers, and rebalancing societies, which is his current focus. Henry sits in the Cleghorn Chair of Management Studies at the Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University in Montreal.

He has authored 20 books, including Simply Managing and Bedtime Stories for Managers, which have earned him 20 honorary degrees. Henry co-founded the International Masters Program for Managers as well as a venture CoachingOurselves.com, novel initiatives for managers to learn together from their own experience, the last in their own workplace.

Henry may spend his professional life dealing with organizations, but he spends his private life escaping from them—mostly in a canoe, up mountains, and on a bicycle. You can find out more about his adventures on mintzberg.org, which includes his blog.

Corporate Citizenship – The De Beers Group

This blog is provided by Cynthia Cherrey, President and CEO of the International Leadership Association. It is a companion to the 12-week International Leadership Association Interview Series that began with Pat Dambe’s podcast titled Sustainability and Corporate Citizenship.

Global corporations shape the future of business. They play a pivotal role in the communities in which they reside and in the wellbeing of our global community.

This podcast is the first in an International Leadership Association (ILA) 12-part series hosted by ILA Fellow Maureen Metcalf, creator of Innovating Leadership, Co-Creating Our Future on the VoiceAmerica Business Channel. In this episode, Metcalf interviews De Beers Vice President Pat Dambe about the partnership between the government of Botswana and the De Beers Group of companies.

It is a fascinating interview that gives us an understanding of Botswana’s way toward independence from the British in 1966, the discovery of diamonds one year later, and the leaders at the time who had the foresight to build a better future for Botswana. The leaders of De Beers and Botswana, practically from the start, entered into a joint venture committed to ensuring that every diamond found belonged to every person in Botswana, contributing towards education, healthcare, and infrastructure. That vision and commitment resulted in Botswana shifting from one of the poorest African countries 52 years ago to a prosperous African country today.

Pat Dambe, with Maureen’s insightful questions, shares that story, touching on the leadership vision, the partnership between the country and the company, and the successes and challenges of that partnership.

The interview is infused with leadership lessons. It reminds us how everything in nature is related to everything else and how companies and countries reflect these highly complex ecosystems. It reinforces the importance of cultivating relationships and optimizing the tensions to find the commonalities. It reminds us about the importance of leadership looking forward, toward a future for the greater good of all instead of the immediate good of a few. And it helps us to remember that each of us is important, and each of us has the ability and the responsibility to contribute and to give to the common good.

Helping to create a better world through our leadership work is something that we take seriously at the International Leadership Association. We hope you will listen to this thought-provoking podcast series over the coming weeks (episodes air each Tuesday at 2PM Eastern or on-demand) as Maureen explores in each interview various leadership approaches for the health and wellbeing of our future communities.

About the Author

Cynthia Cherrey, President and CEO of the International Leadership Association (ILA), a global network of leadership scholars, educators, and practitioners. Previously, Cynthia served as Vice President and Lecturer in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. She publishes in the areas of leadership, organizational development, and higher education including co-authoring Systemic Leadership: Enriching the Meaning of our Work, co-editing ILA’s Building Leadership Bridges book series, and her most recent publication is Women and Leadership around the World (co-editor). She is a Fellow at the World Business Academy and a recipient of a J.W. Fulbright Scholarship.

Cynthia’s interests and research explore new ways to live, work, and lead in a knowledge driven, interdependent, global society. She consults and speaks to for-profit and non-profit organizations around the world on leadership and organizational change

Rebalancing Society Across the Public, Private, Plural Sectors

Dr. Henry Mintzberg provides this blog. It is The Basic Point section from Dr. Mintzberg’s book, Rebalancing Society, Radical Renewal Beyond Left, Right, and Center ©2015, and used with permission. In his book, Henry shares seven observations. If you want to learn more about each of his points, you can purchase his book here. Dr. Mintzberg is the author of 20 books, including Simply Managing and Bedtime Stories for Managers, which have earned him 20 honorary degrees. This blog is a companion to his podcast Rebalancing Society: Radical Renewal, Beyond, Left, Center, Right.

Enough!

Enough of the imbalance that is destroying our democracies, our planet, and ourselves. Enough of the pendulum politics of left and right, as well as the paralysis in the political center. Enough of the visible claw of lobbying in place of the invisible hand of competing. Enough of the economic globalization that undermines sovereign states and local communities. Have we not had enough exploiting of the world’s resources, including ourselves as “human resources”? Many more people are concerned about these problems than have taken to the streets. The will of people is there; an appreciation of what is happening, and how to deal with it, is not. We are inundated with conflicting explanations and contradictory solutions. The world we live in needs a form of radical renewal unprecedented in the human experience. This book presents an integrative framework to suggest a comprehensive way forward.

The Triumph of Imbalance

When the communist regimes of Eastern Europe began to collapse in 1989, pundits in the West had a ready explanation: capitalism had triumphed. They were dead wrong, and the consequences are now proving fateful.

It was balance that triumphed in 1989. While those communist regimes were severely out of balance, with so much power concentrated in their public sectors, the successful countries of the West maintained sufficient balance across their public, private, and what can be called plural sectors. But a failure to understand this point has been throwing many countries out of balance ever since, in favor of their private sectors.

Welcome to the Plural Sector

There are three consequential sectors in society, not two. The one least understood is known by a variety of inadequate labels, including the “not-for-profit sector,” the “third sector,” and “civil society.” Calling it “plural” can help it take its place alongside the ones called public and private, while indicating that it is made up of a wide variety of human associations. Consider all those associations that are neither public nor private—owned neither by the state nor by private investors—such as foundations, places of worship, unions, cooperatives, Greenpeace, the Red Cross, and many renowned universities and hospitals. Some are owned by their members; most are owned by no one. Included here, too, are social movements that arise to protest what some people find unacceptable (as we have seen recently in the Middle East) and social initiatives, usually started by small community groups, to bring about some change they feel is necessary (for example, in renewable energy). Despite the prominence of all this activity, the plural sector remains surprisingly obscure, having been ignored for so long in the great debates over left versus right. This sector cannot be found between the other two, as if on some straight line. It is a different place, as different from the private and public sectors as these two are from each other. So picture instead a balanced society as sitting on a stool with three sturdy legs: a public sector of respected governments, to provide many of our protections (such as policing and regulating); a private sector of responsible businesses, to supply many of our goods and services; and a plural sector of robust communities, wherein we find many of our social affiliations.

Regaining Balance

How do we regain balance in our societies? Some people believe that the answer lies in the private sector—specifically, with greater corporate social responsibility. We certainly need more of this, but anyone who believes that corporate social responsibility will compensate for corporate social irresponsibility is living in a win-win wonderland. Other people expect democratic governments to act vigorously. This they must do, but they will not so long as public states continue to be dominated by private entitlements, domestic and global. This leaves but one sector, the plural, which is not made up of “them” but of you, and me, and we, acting together. We shall have to engage in many more social movements and social initiatives, to challenge destructive practices and replace them with constructive ones. We need to cease being human resources, in the service of imbalance, and instead tap our resourcefulness as human beings, in the service of our progeny and our planet.

About the Author

Henry Mintzberg is a writer and educator, mostly about managing originations, developing managers, and rebalancing societies, which is his current focus. Henry sits in the Cleghorn Chair of Management Studies at the Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University in Montreal.

He has authored 20 books, including Simply Managing and Bedtime Stories for Managers, which have earned him 20 honorary degrees. Henry co-founded the International Masters Program for Managers as well as a venture CoachingOurselves.com, novel initiatives for managers to learn together from their own experience, the last in their own workplace.

Henry may spend his professional life dealing with organizations, but he spends his private life escaping from them—mostly in a canoe, up mountains, and on a bicycle. You can find out more about his adventures on mintzberg.org, which includes his blog.