Complexity, Innovation, Knowledge and Learning: A quantum interpretation of management

The Paradigm of the Emergent Economy

It has been a bit calm on my blog lately, but this has everything to do with the fact that I am moving places.  Despite the enormous pleasure I have had at Euromed Management, I move totally South, in order to become the director of the Graduate School of Business of the University of Cape Town.

I have found a school that has the vision to become a new type of business school, a business school based on the paradigm of the emergent economy. Emergent economy means economies with high degrees of uncertainty, high degrees of complexity and unfortunately often high degrees of inequality. As much as this is true for what we classically call the emergent economies (BRICSA), uncertainty, complexity and inequality is equally a true issue of the company in turbulent economies.  I trust that the exploration of the paradigm of the emergent economy will give interesting insights in the financial crisis and how we could do differently.

GSB is developping a few areas of excellence.  The mission of GSB is to develop a pedagogical excellence, around sytemic thinking and action learning.  An academic excellence is constructed around the paradigm of the emergent economy as described before. But it is equally the role of a business school to contribute to the alleviation of inequality, and therefor GSB is developing and continues to grow in the area of social entrepreneurship, both academically as in the field. Finally, GSB aims to develop a thought leadership in all this areas, with a particular focus on executive education in the world (Europe) and its contribution to the development of Africa and in particular Africa's academic potential (via an innovative PhD program).

More will come, but I felt I had to share this with you on the evening of my departure.

The six most difficult words: I'm sorry, I was wrong

Last weekend I participated in the wedding ceremony of my cousin in Belgium, and during the service, a text was read that contained amongst others the "six most difficult words".  And though of course this made reference to the marriage, it really revealed a number of things to me.

On my way there, I read in le Monde of April 24 a summary of a speech of David Schmittlein (Dean of the Sloan School of Management, MIT), that he held in Paris. He stated that the current crisis should be an opportunity to change the behavior of managers, and in particular to learn them to be more courageous. Courageous for him means implementing long term strategies. His speech went strongly against what is classically heard in Business Schools. He stated that we have thought for decenia that the goal of all good managers is the maximisation of the shareholder value, and the shareholders, of course, are very often just in for a short term profit.

In De Standaard (a Belgian newspaper) I read a funny title: "Mobistar disappoints: the results of the telecom operator are below expectations".  But why is nobody writing: "Interesting news: the expectations of Mobistar are above reality"? There is of course no real reason to choose for the one or the other.

And in the same newspaper, Peter Vanden Houte expressed his worries for a "capitalism that would be too much controlled". Vanden Houte is chief economist of ING Belgium (that recently was saved from bankruptcy by the Dutch Government). He did admit that Greenspan ignored all warnings about the subprimes. But at the same time, regulation should be avoided. He claims that China's success in the last decade is due to the liberalisation; or is it precisely the fact that the central organisation (yes, it is still communism) is able to build the infrastructure and protect the investment of foreign companies?  That is at least the opinion of managers operating over there. In the 60s, 40 millions of people would have died of starvation due to centralism according to him (or is it just due to a very classical orientation, that would have failed  in any system?) With ING we are very happy with the much better salaries and working conditions that the current Chinese workers have (and by the way, 40 years later). I felt a bit back in the 90s of last century.  That period is over, isn't it, and we are now trying to learn from our most recent crisis. Isn't the real risk for capitalism related to its inherent short term focus and the bonus culture, reinforcing this ? 

Note that the Business Schools are in general very absent in the debate around the financial crisis, and the reason are the six most difficult words. But if we want to avoid the next crisis, we indeed need to deliver those courageous managers, that are able and willing to think in the longer term.  We are sorry, we were wrong. And it is certainly not without reason that the Sloan School Dean says this.

Oh yes and he said something else very interesting. If the crisis invites to teach new strategies, it will equally change our way of teaching, with a real opening to the world (not just in the cases). A systemic approach, no ? Yet another difficult word. 

The profits of the 40 top French companies drop: crisis, crisis, crisis

Le Monde of March 13 published an article that the profits of the top 40 companies quoted on the stock exchange in France, dropped in 2008 with 39 %. Illustration of a real and deep crisis, isn't it ? However, just by observing the table one can see that only 2 out of the top 20 make a loss (Alcatel-Lucent and Dexia), but all the others make still profits above the 5 %. A number of them are still in the double digits: Axa 10 %, BNP Paribas 11 %, Essilor 14 % just to name a few.  I personnally would say these are still reasonable returns, no ? For crisis reasons, of course, in order to claim public support, or in order to prepare a few more social plans, the message is important. 

I recall a previous crisis, the one around e-business.  In those days, companies where highly worried (the same companies as today, of course), not that there was no profit anymore (since there was), not that the profit went down, since it didn't (growth as a first derivative ?) but that the growth of that growth slowed down (a second derivative).  The speed of profit growth was in those days the holy grail. What is most devastating for a crisis: profits of "only" between 5 and 15% or the 14 billions of profit of Total (and its consecutive social plan) ? See my post on this.

In the Timesonline of March 1, Philip Delves Broughton contributes an article on what they teach you at Harvard Business School (he is an alumnus).  He refers to (Harvard) MBAs as masters of the apocalypse. He argues that if in any other profession (lawyers or medical docters) anything would have happened only half of the impact of the financial crisis, we would have all adapted our educational system and its content. In management we don't.  It is only an unhappy moment, caused by the unethical behavior of a few. We should moralize capitalism (Sarkozy), that is enough. Interesting reading for business school faculty and management.

But isn't it true that managers, traders, etc only do their job the way we (business schools) trained them to do ? Isn't it true that in general, traders only do what they are rewarded for, hence what we all seem to see as important ? And isn't it true that they do that, as if nothing else existed in the company ?  A trader deals with trading, a sales person with sales, a manager with profit and shareholder value ? But who deals with the business, the stakeholders, the markets (no, I don't mean the sales) ? Shouldn't we have a second look (a critical look) into why and how a highly function oriented management, supported by a highly functionally oriented management education, causes that despite everybody is doing the things right, nobody is bothering with doing the right things ? 

A road map of complexity

Somebody drew my attention to a very interesting road map of complexity (what does it really mean, what is included, what could be included, etc).  Interesting for those with a genuine interest in complexity theory.

Is accounting profit any different from destruction of societal value ?

Last week, we have been able to participate in a conference on Spirituality and Organisational leadership in Pondicherry, India. A very interesting gathering of management scholars and managers, that share the care for meaning in what they do. Of course the region is intriguing, since it is the land of Sri Aurobindo, and there is at least the Sri Aurobindo Ashram and Auroville that are very peacefull places, inviting for contemplation, and worth more than a visit.

The conference closed on a debate around the theme: Can profit and ethics shake hands. I had the pleasure to be invited to take part in the panel and learned that profit is probably understood differently in different managerial cultures.  Referring to Ghandi, one of the panellists suggested that the purpose of business is to make as much profit as possible, in order to return it afterwards to society. We were clearly on two different concepts of profit, but fortunately on the same concepts of ethics and responsibility.

Our liberal capitalist concept of profit is nothing more than an accounting figure, based on which we pay taxes.All necessities for the company are taken out already before (as for depreciation, reserves, and the like). Companies feel the need to limit profit for tax purposes, but at the same time they need profit to honor their fetish: the shareholder.

I leave aside a fair and just return on investment for the shareholder, that nobody will discuss. Let us put it before taxes, why not. When Total announces a profit of 14 billions of euros a few days ago, with a barril that went catastrophically down, no reasonable person can accept this without asking some serious questions.

My question is whether the amount of accounting profit (excluding a reasonable return for the investor) is anything else than an indication of the amount of destruction of societal value that Total (or any other) has caused ?

Consciousness and Development

I would like to draw your attention to an electronic publication, made by an NGO, named Spanda, about Consciousness and Development.  I am honoured to have been able to contribute to it, along with people like Peter Russell, Ervin Laszlo, Amit Goswami, Rupert Sheldrake, Sahlan Momo, Stanislav Grof, Charles Tart, Toru Sato, Steve McIntosh, Christian de Quincey, Riane Eisler and John Renesch.

A precious New Year's gift that I am very pleased to offer you.

Principles for Responsible Management Education

Last week, on December 4 and 5, around 300 management educators (deans, directors, professors) met in the UN Headquarters in New York, for the First Global Forum for Responsible Management Education (PRiME). The principles themselves have been drafted by an Academic Task Force and handed to the Secretary General of the UN on the Global Compact Summit in July 2007 in Geneva.

This Forum, amongst others, was a continuation of an ongoing discussion amongst academics, on how the Global Compact Principles, already translated in the PRiME Principles, apply in Management Education. There were workgroups on Research, New Learning Methodologies, How to start, etc. I had the pleasure to present the results of the workgroup on New Learning Methodologies and I am happy to share with you the findings/suggestions.

It was nice to be in a gathering of people that do feel that they have actively contributed to the economic and financial mess in which we are, due to what we teach management graduates. Moreover, they do commit to try and make a difference. It will be a difficult task, certainly if we see how in the press we already seem to pass again to "business as usual" (as far as we can for the moment). Some unethical behavior, yes, but the basics are OK.

The Global Forum (and in particular the new learning methodologies group) felt that sustainable principles in management should address a number of domains: the spiritual one, the biosphere, the social domain, the economic domain and the material domain (materials, energy). By preference all together, not just one of them. We felt there was a tremendous need for systemic understanding of and approaches to management, and this was broadly shared throughout the Global Forum. More hands on, more of the dirty work, more of development of the self. Consistent with the demand for a sytemic approach to a new paradigm of the firm, current and future managers need to learn new competencies. And yes, it was suggested that we stopped giving mixed signals.  One cannot serve only the shareholder, hoping that this is the best for all stakeholders.

On my return, and probably equally important (if not more), my friend Ezanne gave me an interesting web-link. Go down to the song "Humming Bird" (by Daheen) and just listen to it. In essence it says the following. It does not help to go to the UN.  As long as you don't dig a hole, plant a tree, give it water, nothing is changing; it is all talking. But if we all gave the best we had, nothing more, we could really make a change.

The financial crisis: wir haben es allen gewust

With my apologizes to our German friends for adapting this somewhat unfortunate sentence. It was used by number of German people, after the second world war, when they were asked whether they knew about the holocaust.  And their answer was: wir haben es nicht gewust. We did not know it, we were not aware of it.

With the financial crisis, of course years later now, we get a remarkable turn of that sentence.  Economists, managers, management professors all seem to have seen the crisis coming. Everybody forgot to tell so, but they all saw it.  Yesterday I read an article in the Dutch newspaper De Volskrant, written by Hans Labohm, who said that everything is to blame for the crisis, but not our liberal capitalism. Of course, according to him, the banks have played an important role.  Of course rating agencies have, and the bonus system in general has invited managers in the financial sector to take too high risks.  Then we have short selling (gambling) and securitizing, but all that, it seems, has nothing to do with our liberal capitalist rules of the game (or has it ?).  According to Labohm, the real cause is the simple bankruptcy of two major American mortgage banks.

Yesterday, I took also part in a panel of French Business Schools, in fact, to inform potential new students.  One of the students asked whether any of us had changed their programs after the crisis.  And there, one of my colleagues gave the famous: we have seen this coming, I don't understand what the problem is. We have always given courses dealing with responsible management, it are only some managers that have misused them.  No we have not.  We have all preached a short term orientation, an almost exclusive focus on the shareholder value, a very reductionist managerial style of mananagement by objectives, supported by bonusses that were only reinforcing the optimisation of each and every individual's behavior.  We did not bother about any systemic approach of the company, and/or of management; we did not bother about the stakeholder.  Of course, if we would have done so, or at least have understood it, we could have seen coming it. But we did not.  Let us be humble and indeed, maybe, avoid reinventing capitalism, but rather come up with a somewhat more systemic view on markets, countries, companies, etc. We owe this to future generations. 

For ideas, go to the readings page of this blog (in the little window, upper right corner). 

Responsible management: lessons from yet another crisis

Yet another crisis goes through Europe and the US and lots and lots of observations, wishes, interviews every day clarify what is happening.  Or don't they ? I am not always happy with the explanations and analysis and over the last days I have tried to summarize my understanding. We have made a few choices and have accepted a few mechanisms that I feel are at the fundament of our crisis. Let me briefly state them.

1. We have a very strong belief that we live in a mechanistic world, that is to be understood Cartesian and follows the Newtonian laws of physics. Evidence in physics if of course different, and I am personnally convinced that we lack a serious systemic view on our economy. We think we can de-construct the world, optimize the different pieces, and eventually the sum of all those optimised pieces will be optimal for the economy and society. Wrong.  All traders optimize their positions, the total is a catastrophy.

2. There is a complete disconnection between our products, services and actions, on the one hand, and their purpose (value, sense, meaning) on the other hand. A mortgage is made to allow non-capital holders to access to house ownership, and not for financial performance of the bank. What value do our companies create ? Real value added I mean. This lack of purpose or sense, is what makes our economy so short term oriented.

3. We have commoditized everything and those commodities become the center of our economy. It is no learning the learning in a school that is central, but getting a diploma. The CO2 emission is no longer a problem, since we made it a commodity and we can pay it off. Worse, we can sell our polution to third world economies that are very happy to get some money for it. Nothing changes in the real economy.  We still polute.

4. We have introduced management by objectives (and not by values), since our economy only deals with commodities. People are paid for volume, not for value added.  Bonusses are paid to dealers that do a lot of volume, sales people are paid for the volumes sold, schools are appreciated for the numbers of students.

5. We have standardised our educational system (both the childrens education at home and in schools), leading to the creation of clones. By pampering youth and not allowing them to develop their own learning, we keep them "young" and "dependent".  We prepare them ideally for the commoditized world.

6. Since there is disconnection between product/service and purpose or utility (served by a marketing that is nowhere oriented to information anymore), we foster a rough consumerism.

7. The risk/reward balance that was so crucial for the development of capitalism does not exist anymore.  Reward has nothing to do with risk anymore.  Reward is independent of the result (the golden parachutes, only as an excessive example).

8. The community, the interaction of individuals in order to create a bigger unit, is no longer existing.  The role that the community played in sense-making is therefor non-existing anymore.

9. Finally we all pray to the fitish of growth, where we know that there are really limits to growth.

This is probably the first generation that is obliged to actively take care of the next generation in its economic approach, if we would still like to have a following generation. There is probably no time to continue closing our eyes for yet another generation.

For those intelligent optimists that still care, what could we do? Well, deal with the 9 points that I have raised. On a personal/individual note we have to take our decisions concerning our belief in a systemic approach to reality, our role in consumerism, and our belief in the fetish of growth. As a society, we might want to care for our educational system, and the way how we could re-construct community. As a company, we might want to investigate our values, our value added, our sense and meaning, our attitude towards 'commoditation' of the economy, the introduction of management by values and rewarding our managers for it, and about the reintroduction of the risk concept.

For those that are not convinced, try and explain what happens to your children. Feel how it feels while you are trying it.  

Humanism and business

Le Monde of 16 september 2008 titled "It is difficult to select the managers of tomorrow".  Is it ? The article mentioned that since three years HEC had introduced a leaderships component in their MBA (I sincerely hope it exists already longer). The article continues that managers in general are seduced by short toolkit-driven courses like "developing your charisma in three days". Interesting, not really new.

The Newzy of June 2008 asks the question whether a business could be humanistic and they observe that increasingly companies become interested in "meaning".  What are we doing it for ? A few statements in the article are illustrative.  "Today, people often have opinions, but few have a view point". "In companies, we observe a vocabulary that becomes ever poorer with a misuse of meaning, under the false cover of sophistication".

And yes, the suggested way out is teaching managers (and management students) much more humanities. Did we indeed make management education a toolkit-education? Did we suggest our students that there exist quick solutions to problems that can easily be analysed? More than anything else, I think we need a more systemic understanding of management, and for sure, that is not easy to teach.

Do we need to reconstruct a regulated capitalism?

Such is what Sarkozy (president of France) claimed at the General Assembly of the United Nations. Of course it all related to the financial crisis, or should we indeed say the crisis of capitalism.  He came up with some strong sayings. "We should not leave important decisions to the only appreciation of the market operators". "Banks should do what they are meant for: financing the development of the economy". "Rating companies should be controlled", etc, etc. I was in the Netherlands over the weekend and the different newspapers (Volkskrant, NRC Handelblad) had the same type of titles. Bankers would be like animals that live in a pack: they all follow each other. Or do they only do what we expect them to do, and train them to do? 

One title said: Banking sector in the US nationalised.  The emperor of the free market, suddenly decides to nationalise his crown jewel. If it would happen in an African country we would be sure that it would be yet another marxist illusion.  But now, it is all real. And I thought about another surprise that I had when I first went to China.  I met a number of managers and industrialists, that all agreed that they were able to operate in that country, and make money, thanks to the centralised system.  If the communist (or centralist) system would disappear, China would not have a future (according to them; and at least for them).  I still recall how surprised I was.

Van Alphen and Giebels have 6 suggestions against too picky bankers. The first one is already enough: stop paying bonusses. Maybe not only to bankers.

I was very happy with Sarkozy's speech in the General Assembly of the UN, until I saw that he considers what happens as nothing more than "drifting away from the mechanisms of market economy".  Or is it only the consequence of that same mechanism of the market economy? How else can we link all what he said, and what is said in the newspapers, and done like for instance by the US, as anything but the observation that the mechanisms themselves fail.  Why otherwise should you change them that drastically if they did not fail?

I am looking forward to an interesting discussion in the coming months in which we all claim that we want to progress towards a more responsible economy, sustainable, equitable, but at the same time we do not want to see how much the choices we made are the exact cause of what is happening today.  A more responsible economy and economic development (through the world) most probably needs other mechanisms (maybe like the ones we are installing in a panic today). Do we need to reconstruct a regulated capitalism, or rather an economic mechanism that is based on the systemic reality of our world?

How to engage individuals to act strategically towards sustainability (five elements guide)

I received a very nice piece of work on "How to engage individuals to act strategically towards sustainability", based on the five elements (water, earth, fire, air; and the fifth one is the 'think systems'). It is the work of Kristoffer Lundholm and Renaud Richard, created during a masters program on "strategic leadership towards sustainability". I would really suggest it to all managers having any interest in responsibility.

To hear the voice of God, you must be silent, because God whispers

It is not the teachings of the Dalai Lama that have caused this post (I agree, it helped), but rather (again) Ode, and the inspiring article of Tijn Touber. He cites John Francis, an american eco-activist saying something very recognisable. "Most of my adult life I have not been listening fully.  I only listened long enough to determine whether the speaker's ideas matched my own. If they didn't, I would stop listening, and my mind would race ahead to compose an argument against what I believed the speaker's idea or position to be." Good starting point.

And by now, we seem to know even better. Piero Ferruci suggests the following. "Our culture is suffering from an overdose of action and a shortage of contemplation. I consider contemplation a basic need; you even see it in animals. Just think about dogs and cats. You often see them staring off into space. I think that's their way of meditating, their way of recharging their batteries. We have that need too. But we deny this basic, physiological need - as if an entire society were to forget to go to the bathroom.  That's serious!"

Silence is confrontational to the unstable mind.  It won't allow you to escape from all the voices in your head. According to Matthieu Ricard most people aren't able to fathom the reality - the silence- behind the symptoms. As a result they hang on to manifestations: their job, body, religion or ideas. Because you can lose your job, body, religion or ideas, most people live their lives in perpetual fear.

For those that fear (yet another fear) that all this is going really too far, just to remind you that quantum physicists have known for decades that the so-called "empty space" between atoms is filled with life energy. Einstein spoke of this as "the only reality".

Touber gives a clear interpretation of meditation.  Meditation is another word for listening. The word "meditation" literally comes from two Latin words: medio, which means "centre", and sto, "to stand".  So meditation means "to stand in the centre". When you are in the centre of your own realm of thought, you are in the eye of the storm - the only place of calm. It is an accomplishment to get there and to stay there. It is the accomplishment of not being carried away by the storm of emotions, images, desires, judgments, thoughts, habits.

There is no path to silence, silence is the path.

Don't be trapped in dogma's, even not in management dogma's

A former student of mine mailed me the link to Steve Job's Stanford Commencement Speech 2005. And since coincidence does not exist, last week I participated in the Dalai Lama's teachings in France. It is striking how much great minds meet each other in the way they think, they believe and they operate.  Job's indeed summarized his speech saying certainly not to believe in dogma's, of any kind, and I add: also not in management dogma's.  And management dogma's we have.

Jobs asked to trust that the "dots" eventually will connect down the lane. As long as we love what we do, that is what keeps going, and that is what makes one realise great things. We should keep searching until we find. Imagine for a moment that this would be the last day of your life. Is what you are doing now, really what you would like to do on the last day of your life.  If not, change it.

Things have no meaning in themselves.  There is just a sequence of events, and it is our mind that gives precisely the meaning it wants to give to those events (a very free interpretation of the Dalai Lama's ideas, I admit). If you love what you do, you will give events that positive outcome that they deserve.

Turning a dogmatic management school curriculum into a stakeholder curriculum, sustainable, social, entrepreneurial, giving students the attitude of and focus on value creation, is most probably one of the challenges that most business schools are confronted with. To give some ideas to kick it off, I'd like to refer to an article of David Cooperrider "Sustainable Innovation".

Spiritual capitalism

Spiritual capitalism might sound like yet another new age concept, but it is not. It does get increasingly attention of managers and management thinkers, since growing evidence shows that "meaning" in business clearly contributes to happiness, and happiness contributes to the famous bottom line. Ode (June 2008), published an article on "Buddha in the boardroom", and though meditation as a practice causes increasing managerial performance, it does not need to go that far from the very beginning.

I would like to paraphrase Rakesh Khurana, in his book From Higher Aims to Hired Hands. He describes how business schools first emphasized that managers should carry out their work in ways beneficial for society. Later, this was replaced by a preference for disciplinary knowledge.  Finally it was replaced by a market logic that regards business education as a marketable commodity, rather than a professional education.  And that is where we are: we pay the price for turning a genuine stakeholder focus into a jungle like shareholder approach. But we do not have a lot of theoretical evidence for doing that.

Often we refer to Adam Smith as the godfather of our present day capitalism. Lloyd Field writes in his book Business and the Buddha, that Smith presented a moral philosophy: the average man and woman, along with the society in which they lived, should be the primary beneficiaries of a wealthy nation. Where the theories are there, practice proves to be more difficult.  As Khurana suggests: most of us are in the habit of thinking in a linear fashion. And spiritual capitalism (Carleen Hawn in Ode), based on collective consciousness, is consequently not a zero sum game, but a holistic approach to business that's quickly becoming more - much more - than the sum of its parts.

According to Paul Versteeg (director Allianz Netherlands Insurance Group) they attempt to resolve their client's emotional and psychological issues about money. A good salesperson should be able to "hear" their customers' hearts, and in order to be able to do that one should be able to listen to your own heart.

Isn't that an important lack in our business school education? The contribution to the bottom line increasingly comes from happiness in the company, motivation, healthy conditions in the work environment, etc. Until today, not to mention a few exceptions like my wife Erna Oldenboom, we do not pay attention to all this in business schools.

But for those that are interested to learn more about it, I can invite you for a challenging and academically sound conference: Integrating spirituality and organizational leadership. Hope to see you there.

Complexity theory: where are we?

Last week I participated in the fourth Organization Studies Summer Workshop titled "Embracing Complexity: Advancing Ecological Understanding in Organization Studies", in Pissouri, Cyprus. If interested, I presented a paper titled: The ecology of management: Cassandra, a holistic diagnostic for sustainable performance. One of the keynote speakers was Frederick Turner, and he gave a wonderful overview of the state of the art of complexity, that I want to share with you.

Complexity gives a new view on causality.  It re-introduces freedom, since the universe is not fully deterministic. Keep in mind that unpredictable does not mean unintelligent. Since freedom regains its importance in science, choice, intention and purpose become real issues. Choice might not be so mysterious as we have made it.

Feedback became the norm. Material qualities and abstract physical laws are consequences of feedback and not the other way round. Even based on positive feedback, complex systems can be very robust. Positive feedback is in no way less robust than negative feedback. Unpredictability is a matter of survival.

We have a new concept of time: time will not go away. Classical science has always made an attempt to rationalize away time. Time is irreducable and irreversible, which gives birth to emergence.

We have a new ontology of recognisable shapes. We have understanding of a new class of shapes: fractals, strange attractors, etc. (in between shapes, strange, entangled, but beautiful shapes). New shapes allow for new questions to be asked.

We have strange attractors instead of dualism. Function and purpose become central issues. The strange attractor (a fractal form) is an ideal form.  New species are strange attractors.  Are values to be considered something different than strange attractors?

Modelling, eventually, needs new tools, that go above and beyond observations, hypotheses, testing, etc. Non-linear dynamic modelling, or fractals, and the like allow to play around with the interactions and to see when and how we visualize reality.  But we still have to learn how to use these tools.

Finally, Turner asked a few questions that I am glad to repeat:

1. What is the role of emotions in the new science (are they the drivers? are they strange attractors?)
2. What is the role of aesthetics?
3. Does promising makes determinism (or is it freedom?)
4. How does intention change the brainstructure?

All these facts and questions, management research has ignored asking for years. But more and more management researchers are concerned with understanding reality.

The future of corporate responsibility

Georg Kell, from the UN Global Compact office, gave in the Global Compact newsletter his view on the future of corporate responsibility. Coming out of an executive seminar of a week about leadership and innovation, for a company that is decided to have a set of sustainable values respected, it show that this is not an easy task.

Today, Corporate Responsibility (CR) is global.  Yes, if we have our T-shirts produced in cheap labour countries, it is our responsibility why we do that, how we do that and what we do with he huge benefits we make on selling those T-shirts at Western prices. It is our responsibility to decide whether we want to focus on the shareholder value, or on a stakeholder value, and then, who are my stakeholders and how do I serve them. It is indeed a difficult balance to strike between societal expectations and market imperatives. I do not want to make a post around the Olympic Games and Tibet: it is such an open door.  If you give the Olympics to China, you have to know who you give it to and not fall out of the air years later about the values of that country. With some smile I recall how the Olympics in Moscow were boycotted in 1980, since they invaded Afghanistan.  Life has changed, or is it economy that has changed and globalisation that struck?

As Kell says, global integration has triggered convergence around values and principles. The questions are on the table today, even though they remain difficult to determine and even more difficult to choose for.  But it seems that the next generation of top managers is at least more sensitive to values.  That is the good news; or is it just my way of seeing the sunny side of the street.

The nature of enterpresis risk and reward is changing. Maybe by accident (but those that know me, are aware that chance does not exist), l'Expansion of April 2008 published a study about the French investment abroad, in fact opposing China to India: the Indian eldorado is not going to wait for the French (is the title). According to Dominique Hoeltgen (in Mumbai) the Indian market is more promising than the Chinese one. The many subtitles suggest that the Indians are going fast now, are aware of their potential and the French (Michel Lemaire, Nexans) should stop focussing on China before it is too late. But is there also a difference in values and corporate responsibility (or not). The article does not shed light on this, but it warns the French companies. Some homework needs to be done here.

And of course, non financial reporting is on the rise. But how are we able to translate values and corporate responsibility into managerial concepts and day to day action. A shareholder approach is straightforward: no room for values or responsibility. A stakeholder view is difficult to define and implement, but it is sustainable.  Beyond reporting, the issue is one of shifting attention to sustainability, for the better of both the economy and the society.

Science: the newest religion ?

Recently, the French parliament received the (annual) update of the commission on sects. An impressive original document that already dates from 20 years ago, and an equally impressive list of sects (according to them). Most of us will certainly agree that some unfortunate experiences with sects (the Manson-Tate example) that caught the media, should make us wonder.  But since we are not courageous enough to deal with the real sects, and since we think only the parliament can make the distinction between sects and non-sects, we start to make rules and lists.

What is a sect? Wikipedia clearly sees it in the realm of religion. And interestingly: "deviating from orthodox practices".  So, there are those that are mainstream and therefor correct, and those that are deviating, and therefor a sect.  The organisation for religious tolerance (whatever that might mean), cites Leo Pfeffer, saying "if you believe in it, it is a religion; if you do not care one way or another, it is a sect; but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult". Though Pfeffer seems to have great reputation, his definition seems dangerous to me (but who am I?)  And who is the organisation for religious tolerance; they might be a sect, who knows.  I do not care about them one way or another; hence they fit Pfeffer's criteria. I am sure you start to get the point.

Ode summarizes an article on the Tiranny of Science of Frank Furedi. Science seems to tell us how the world works, but to decide what those discoveries mean, we need moral and philosophical debate.  And yes, that is not Cartesian for sure. The language of right and wrong has been replaced by the phrase "the research shows".  At least: the mainstream research shows, since that is what gets published. And recall: the mainstream is correct, the deviating is a sect.

Certain parts of good old Europe, and France is definitely part of that, has for one or another reason felt that they should ban religion, and in the same line "spirituality" from life. It is encouraging to see courses like "spirituality and leadership" (Vargas-Brazil), or "spirituality and management" (IIM-Bangalore, India) on the curricula of good and accredited business schools. Is that what we call BRIC?  Probably not, praise God (I start messing up everything). In Europe, we want to claim supremacy around corporate social responsibility and/or sustainable development, or ethics, but we forget that in order to make those topics naturally acceptable, it should be part of the managerial paradigm.  If we do not accept that everything and all are intimitely connected (systemic, indeed), then all those slogans become vague.  And by the way, the spiritual dimension of things specifically deals with that profound interconnectedness of people and their environment: nothing more, nothing less. It is in fact the "what for" question.  I am sorry if this is disappointing for some of you.

It would be good if people would be able to make the distinction between spiritual development of the individual and whatever role religion is playing. In the best of its interpretation some religions have developped a ritus to support people in their spiritual development.  But in the worst of their actions, they have developed an institute that is in for power and manipulation (the nazi's that thought "Gott mit uns", or Bush who asks God to bless America, and only America; and of course, I am not going to talk about Opus Dei). But in the same organisation you find people that are seeking that profound interconnectedness (Daens, Dom Helder Camara, Mother Theresa, just to cite a few known figures).

Is science the newest religion? Is it a powerhouse with ranks, promotions, mainstream (the orthodox) and dissonants (the sects?). Is it rituals, that we agree on, and that make us part of the group? Or should science finally start investigating the exploration and discovery of that interconnectedness. For sure, some scientists are already doing that, but unfortunately they are sometimes considered by the others as a sect.  Science investigates facts, not meanings.  And indeed, mainstream science is unable to research meaning. But that does not make meaning less necessary, and it does not make researching meaning sectarian.

What makes a house a home? In order to have a house, we need walls, a roof, electricity, plumbing, furniture, heating, etc.  But all that will not help to make a house a home. Try and find out what makes a house a home, and you will discover what spirituality is all about: nothing to be afraid of. 

 

Elephant painting

Just watch this, no further comments.

The spinal cord of the company

For almost one year, I have had an awfull pain in my left arm. It started slowly February last year and culminated in the summer.  On a flight back from LA (where we visited the IONS annual conference) I was literally crying.  I went through the classical medical pathway, RX, electro research of the arm, scanner, MRI, etc. All of it.  And indeed, they could observe that the nerve of the left arm was completely inflamed.  Only solution: cortisone.  And of course it improved; and of course it came back. Next step: injection of cortisone in the spine.  And there I stopped.

Those that know me, are aware that I am an ayurvedic massage therapist (also, yes). And once more I wondered why I did not belief a bit more in it myself.  Hence I went to a chiropractor, and today I am feeling fine again: it is all over.  (Thank you Valerie)

Our spinal cord is essential for our health, both physical and psychological (and sorry for the childish link, but it is clear, isn't it?) It seems that over the years that same spinal cord captures all stress and causes a number of well known back aches. But worse, as in my case, the stress of years not only fixes itself in that spinal cord, but it goes further.

A chiropractor only (what you call only) reprograms the brain.  They retrain it to stop sending out the wrong messages.  A body is a perfect example of a systemic (autopoetic) system.  It re-produces and self-organizes in such a way that is ideal for survival.  It warns you by pain that you should slow down, relax, etc, and the more we ignore that, the more the body is going to give stronger signals.  Then we take pain killers (Cortisone ?) but the body continues to send signals. Until it goes seriously wrong.

And now the company, you didn't doubt, did you. A company, just as much as our body, has a spinal cord.  That spinal cord captures all the stress of the body (the company): a company that equally is a perfect example of an autopoetic system.  It seeks reproduction and selforganisation with one aim: survival, the long term hence (and yes, not the highest shareholder value). The company sends out signals of pain, of warning, of suggested improvement, but if the management does not want to see them, that stress is going to fix itself in the corporate spinal cord. And at the end, the company, that has ignored for years the signals, is going to be completely "sclerolised". Drugs don't help anymore, we really need a thorough reprogramming. Stress is today a serious issue in many of our companies.  Do we recognise the emergence of the phenomenon? And do we see what role we play ourselves in this?

And a last question: What is the spinal cord of the company ?