To date, the program has been fascinating and it had a great cohort comprised of Diplomatic, Disaster Management and Business Consultants, Military Officers, NGO leaders and a few recent graduates all of whom were delightful people. What they share most in common is that they all deeply care what happens to other people in the world and they all share very unique perspectives on the world, born of their unique experiences. I’m looking forward to working with each of them in the field of action and learning.

What did we cover? Dr. Hrach Gregorian took us through topics such as Globalization in it’s many dimensions, Economic, Logistics, Global Security and the Right to Protect (R2P), Food Distribution, Global Financial Institutions, Civil Society Institutions, NGO’s, the UN, World Bank, G8, G20, IMF, Businesses and others, outlining the theme of how interconnected the world is. We looked at how even the best laid plans to make things better have unintended consequences on Human Security due to the complexity of linkages.

We looked at how Aid sometimes did more harm than good, and at the various examples of Truth and Reconciliation commissions, the history leading up to them, how they did their work, and the outcomes.

An invited guest speaker Ambassador Jeremy Kinsman, shared with us a glimpse of his deep understanding and knowledge of civil society, the impact of democracy, how democracies are formed, and a few of the  requisites of democracy such as minimum standards of per capita average income and a basis of experience in civil society.

We looked at the definition of Human Security and how some countries regarded it in its’ very simplest form (i.e. ensuring adequate food, physical security and shelter) while the UNDP in its’ 1994 statement outlined Human Security in terms which made it much broader and more difficult to contain, and which forms a basis of society that looks beyond nationalistic borders.

And we looked at differing views on military spending and the strength of the military industrial complex. Some papers argued that it was a necessary deterrent and that it was supported by democratic votes, and, others argued, that military spending, especially on nuclear deterrents, but also on the build up of conventional weaponry, is both a flagrant and immoral use of huge sums of money which usurp the development of civil society; efforts to educate, feed and assist the masses of suffering souls. It undermines the support that would binds nations together in mutual security efforts.

If you’re interested in where I stand on the issue, I found the latter argument to be much stronger and better researched. Rather, than creating a more secure world, military spending assures the continuation of power struggles that keep nations apart. To be sure, some reasonable semblance of physical security and military strength must be maintained at the international level and R2P is a reasonable concept given that there are some ruthless rulers willing to destroy their own people in order to maintain power, but it is hard to argue that any one nation should maintain a constant threat over others, and, at very least, an effort should be made to begin reducing the military industrial complex in favor of increased research and development on other issues. Even a reduction of 10% of the world’s military budget if redirected to development efforts would solve most of the funding issues facing humanities efforts to develop civil society and ensure an adequate measure of other dimensions of Human Security for all nations. And the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) enforced through possession of nuclear weapons makes no sense. No world leader, however outraged they may be, by an attack on their country, could ever morally drop a nuclear weapon on hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people, most of whom don’t even support the aggressive governments who profess to represent them. Such an action could only be regarded as a war-crime. The military complex that continuously builds weapons and sells them to under developed nations only serves to assure the continued suffering of innocent people and guarantees the continuation of militaristic domination by the few. Those who would argue that militarization is brought about by democratic votes haven’t bothered to consult the countless billions who suffer as a result. (so much for my rant)

We also talked about the types of democracies such as representative democracies, each method of which has its’ strong points and flaws, as well as direct democracy, such as the California approach, where the state has been decimated by referendums, where the people can vote for increased spending with a 50% +1 vote, whereas additional taxation must pass by a 2/3rds (66.6%) vote. Imagine a system that allows the citizens to vote for spending increases far in excess of tax increases and allows the state to go broke and destroyed its’ own educational system, subjecting it to even greater challenges in the future.

We also looked at examples of the world in conflict and ways that we can contribute to reparation through the development of the economy through major industrial investments, micro-finance, and through commercial partnerships which provide agricultural and tourism based incentives to less favorable industries such as growing opium poppies, through anti-corruption programs for polices forces, through human rights training for army leaders,  and by the use of sports and other educational programs for developing skills and cooperation.

Dr. Robin Cox lead us through the process of gaining understanding of the world of being, Ontology, and of our own way of knowing and various ways of making meaning of the world, our Epistemology. And we looked methodology and the various methods used for doing both Quantitative and Qualitative research.  We also learned how to review scholarly works, to do a proper research proposal, to do literature reviews, to write research questions.

Colleen Hoppins gave a wonderful and very entertaining presentation on research Ethics that still has me chuckling when I think back on it.

And Retired Rear Admiral Roger Girouard shared his unique perspectives and challenged our thinking on other elements of Human Security as a precursor to the course he will be teaching later in the program.

Dr. Kenneth Christie, Head of the program, provided both the program overview and some insights into our second overseas residency in a post conflict country and our major project work which will require us to do six months of work overseas.

My personal project goal is to work with diplomatic or civil leaders on developing methods of principle based consultation, responding to civil input,  and developing  policies for engendering economic development as well as the development of civil society, food security, peace and sustainability. (Wow can you do all that in six months?) If any of my readers know of a contact in a country looking for this kind of assistance, please have them call me.

All in all, a very powerful immersion into the world that is Human Security and Peacebuilding. I’m looking forward to the rest of the program.

All the best,

Garth Schmalenberg
1-250-815-5323

garth@hbi-leadership.com
garth@partnersforprosperity.org

As always, if you liked the article, please share with your friends and contacts, whether representing businesses, political organizations, religious groups or NGOs, by e-mail, the share button, or any other way that works for you. I’m happy to respond to all requests for collaboration or if you are looking for a speaker for an event.

For example, on reading the World Values Survey, there appeared to be a trend toward individualism and secularism until 1980, after which the values seemed to take a little bit of a reversal at least in most cases. While there was no discussion on this point in the chart, I have to wonder if there was a pause to re-think the issue of continued movement towards secularism and individualism.  

What’s even more interesting is that the Happiness Index taken by the World Values Survey suggested decreasing happiness in the US until 1980 (this same period of trending toward secularism and individualism) after which there was a reversal. The US happiness index also increased from 1980 onward peaking at 2006 during the Bush administration, although perhaps by that point with the anticipation of change on the horizon.

 Still, I have to wonder whether the reversal in trend toward secularism and individualism suggests.

Perhaps it is that people are only comfortable with these trends to a degree and then begin to recognize that human choice is ultimately best served when there is an alignment with the Will of God (or acceptance of higher values as represented by religious belief). In other words, people choose to submit their own will to a greater Will and are subsequently happier when they do so. The reasons for this may be related to feelings of altruism or having a greater sense of purpose but it may also be that our happiness really comes from sharing happiness with others. Serving others who are not grateful generally does little to lift the spirits.

There also seemed to be an overall increase of happiness during the period for most societies as they trends toward global consciousness, an increase of wealth and as their ability to make choices increase. Some of this is contradicted by other studies which suggest that too much choice actually causes anxiety, complexity and a decrease in happiness.  In other words, as we spend much more time trying to choose, we become less satisfied because we are confused by our choices and less satisfied after the fact with our choices because we contemplate all the other choices that we are now living without. With simpler choices we simply make the best choice we can of a few items and then moving on with life.  This would suggest that the increase in choices related to increasing happiness is something else. Perhaps this freedom of choice is related more to what we do with our time, our ability to buy nutritious food, our ability to live in decent homes, have better education and our ability to vote. 

Another interesting dynamic is that societies which consider themselves as less democratic have a higher regard for the importance of democracy and yet are more critical of their own country’s democratic structures suggesting perhaps that the more democracy becomes an accepted norm, the more we also learn to take our choices for granted.  

From a sustainability perspective, the increase in happiness related to collective consciousness and a move towards spirituality rather than secular materialism is undoubtedly a good thing. On the other hand, without spiritual or values based education, the increase in economic freedom of the many billions in developing countries also signals a serious challenge to the global environment. Freedom of choice is good when we are educated to think in ways that are good for the world, but democracy and freedom once taken for granted also lead to a sense of entitlement which lead us to believe that we can enjoy the world’s resources with impunity. So while this may bring us temporary happiness, it has also brought us closer to the brink of environmental tragedy. The carbon economy being the most prevalent example, while benefiting our freedom in the western world, has contributed to untold misery of countless millions who we see only as statistics on our big screen HD TVs. If we were to measure the happiness index of Pakistan at this moment, it is certain that there would be a major dip.  

For businesses what do these trends suggest?  

It is difficult to make any firm conclusions in translating these trends to business directions but we may be able to draw some conclusion.

1) Types of Products

If we are actually interested in serving our client’s true happiness, we would read the trends that suggest a move away from individualism and secularism and create more products and services which help us all to operate together as a society in ways which promote an increasing values base and which serve the common good (sustainability being an example), all while keeping choices relatively limited. Interestingly, companies like GM, with the reduction of the number of brands (i.e. the demise of Oldsmobile and Pontiac)  have actually begun down this path of simplification even if for seemingly unrelated economic reasons. Could it be that too much choice was also too much for the consumer? 

2) Quality of Products 

Quality in products also introduces a form of simplification to the consumer. If you don’t have to keep fixing your car every few weeks, your life is more straight forward. The same is true for any product which is more durable.   

3) Conceptual Freedom

When people are free to use their time in service to others, especially those they choose to serve, they tend to be happier. This suggests that while challenge at work is important, finding the right work environment is critical for both the employee and the company. Free time after work is also necessary. Creating a working environment where people are free to learn and interact with others in the work place and which limits their working time so that they are also free to spend time with friends and family will ultimately contribute to a happier society. Creating freedom to interact, however, is generally not enough in a working environment. Often there is a need for education on team work, values based consultation and respect for the contributions of others. Placing a team challenge in front of an aggressive group of competitive individuals (i.e. not a team) is often a recipe for backbiting, smears, conflict and other forms of disunity which contribute nothing to the overall happiness of the organization, nor in the end, to the service of clients.  

4) Social Contribution

Employers do well to make part of their organization about contributing to the common good and allowing employees to participate in socially oriented endeavors. While suggested by recent trends away from individualism, this concept is also supported by studies of what employees value in companies where they are employeed. Salary is important but it’s not everything. Economic studies have proven that people are willing to sacrifice money both for justice and for altruistic reason. And there is no doubt consumers will also be swayed towards companies that hold high values. Ikea is an interesting example of a company which has grow partially as a result of it’s environmental orientation. 

I’d love to hear your thoughts on my conclusions and please share these ideas and  articles with others if you like them, either by e-mailing the link or though the share button. 

All the best, 

Garth Schmalenberg

Among the many brilliant presenters was a young lady who is working on her PhD thesis whose presentation was entitled “What Can Justify Duties of Global Economic Justice? Individual Responsibility, Human Consciousness, and the Oneness of Humankind”. Her name is Shahrzad Sabet. In asking the question, she began by sharing with us the globally accepted UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights. She the began to dissect the responsibilities for the implementation of these rights. To be fair to Shahrzad, I will state that the remaining text is my perhaps feeble understanding of the arguments she so simply and brilliantly presented and perhaps, at some point, I will have a chance to speak with her further to clarify or to refer on-line to her thesis work, but I can only say that after hearing what she had to say, I was completely overwhelmed by her convincing arguments recognizing that there really isn’t a minute to lose in beginning to bring this argument forward on a wide basis, and I am also quite convinced that someday this young lady will be amongst the Nobel Peace Prize winners because these same arguments will force all nations and all people of conscience to take action. Such action will come in the form of adopting laws and practices which will require all citizens of the world (or at least those who have the freedom to vote or make buying decisions), all business leaders and all government leaders to act forcefully in upholding these Human Rights by taking practical, direct and personal responsibility for implementing Global Economic Justice through their votes for responsible government representatives, those who will make the necessary revisions in government institutions, and in turn, through laws which will require all people to make these Human Rights a reality.

In nations such as Pakistan, Haiti, India, Indonesia and many others, billions suffer under the oppression of poverty, the lack of a suitable infrastructure, and through catastophic environmental impacts, while much of the world continues to enjoy their freedoms without paying much attention and governments pay immense amounts of money towards military spending and the expansion of environmentally destructive practices which only serve to further human suffering.

Her arguement goes something like this:

The majority of all nations on earth have accepted the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

A “Right” as opposed to something else (e.g. an idea or a privilege) is essentially the entrenched global and national liability of society to provide something to each individual. As the majority of nations, and their electorate, having elected their representatives, have accepted that this right exists, then the responsibility to implement this right also exists.

She then asks the question “whose responsibility is it to implement these Human Rights?”

Since it is ultimately the responsibility of global agreement and therefore global and national institutions, including national, (as well as regional and local governments) and global (as well as national and local) businesses, and since those government and business institutions are made up of individuals who have power to vote, to make their voices heard, to individually make decisions within businesses, and to take actions such as deciding what goods to purchase and what institutions to purchase from, thereby supporting and upholding these institutions, we also must understand that as individuals we have a legal liability to make decisions which support Global Human Rights (including our own).

While I may not do full justice to her argument, it was too powerful to ignore. And, while it would certainly be better to hear this argument directly from her, owing to the fact that, while my statement of the argument probably has holes in it, she covered off these holes masterfully and it is a message that needs to be heard by everyone and it needs to be heard now, especially by business and government leaders who have yet to act on this responsibility. Any human being who enjoys these essential Human Rights must also acknowledge that if, for some reason, they lost the benefits which are bestowed by these fundamental Rights, they would very quickly be calling for own government to impose laws and regulations to restore them. Since these institutions are the result of our personal choices, we also have the legal and ethical responsibility to make the appropriates choices on behalf of those who have not had the benefit of these Human Rights.

Practical Applications

In writing this article, I am making an appeal that all readers contemplate what they are reading to the depths of their heart, with full consiousness, to recognize their own nobility of spirit and to understand the very real obligation it imposes on them. The responsibility for Global Human Justice is as much yours as it is mine.

What might our actions be?

For one, we can all be making these responsibilities known to every elected government official that we know by writing to them, by speaking to them, by holding sessions with them and by educating them. We can tell them that we expect them to implement these rights Globally. How otherwise can we truely protect our own Human Rights? We can simply present the same arguments to them as were presented to us. The implication of this responsiblity is profound. It would require that all Governments meet together, not just about global economics and not just about global security as in G8 and G20 meetings, but about informing all citizens of the world about their legal responsibilities. Our Government officials would be morally obliged tell the world’s electorate that they are also ethically responsible to vote for those who are best suited to implement these Human Rights regardless of which party affiliation they may hold. The elected officials might in-turn, take efforts to share these concepts with their fellow officials, and to encourage the position of their respective governements to also begin making these Global Human Right their top priority and to initiate a global discussion on how to most effectively implement them.

We might also invite our neighbors to share this message so that each person has the opportunity to deeply understand the implications and to begin to take action on addressing this liability and acting with ethical responsibility. We can do so using all our resources, in our homes, our schools, our government council halls, our churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other centres of faith.

For those who have the skills to do so, we can speak in public or in business gatherings inviting consultation on the implications for each of us individually and collectively. For those who have the skill to invite, we can invite others and host meetings. We can call upon our business leaders to invite speakers to speak about this approach to every employee.

We might begin to insist that our tax dollars be spent on the reconstruction of our global society by first addressing the most serious Global Human Rights infringements. After all, some day those infringements may be against us. As I am currently sitting on Vancouver Island, which is beautiful but which at some point is destined to experience a severe earth quake, I can only contemplate the rights which have been denied the people of Haiti as a result of a similar force or, perhaps more potently, the Human Rights denied the millions that have suffered at the hands of climate change, and for which we all share the burden of responsibility. What would it mean if all the world’s available resources were spent in solving the most grievious problems first? How quickly would we be able to address our relatively minor local concerns if the world’s government and business leaders would learn how to work together? And at the same time, rather than placing the responsiblity of our relatively minor local concerns on our elected officials, we could work together as neighbors to begin to address our local concerns in service of each other, and encourage our elected leaders to think globally to address the most serious of our personal legal liabilities (i.e. the oppression and poverty of countless millions) on our behalf.

We might insist that our elected officials vote on laws that require our countries’ taxes to be diverted away from military spending, to require that military only serve the purpose of implementing Global Human Rights rather than causing violations of Human Rights. Imagine, for example, that only 50% of global military expenditures went directly into implementation of these legal responsiblities to relieve Human suffering, provide education, protection of personal rights, provide the right to work and to provide adequate food and shelter. How quickly would things change? And in finding global agreement on our personal resposibilities, how quickly would governments be able to jointly resolve issues such as terrorism?

We might ensure that, until these rights are imparted in action to every citizen in the world, we would continue to insist that this be top priority for all governments and businesses that we support.

We might take some time to educate ourselves on the causes and sources of these violations and expose sources that we are aware of (e.g. environmental and other violators of human rights), not for the purpose of condemning them, but for the purpose of raising the awareness of those involved in either actions or through neglect of action, that they (and we) are responsible and help them to make the necessary decisions, providing all assistance we can muster, to rapidly revise their course of action. It is not so much that people wish to do harm, rather that due to human weaknesses, a lack of awareness of the harm we cause, and a lack of discipline (i.e. the lower part of human nature), that we fail to make the efforts required of our higher nature (read that again, it is “required” of our higher nature for what is is after all to be “Human”?)

This is a very deep topic and, I can only hope that others will go deeper than I have and present this arguement with more accuteness and more forcefully than me. I am deeply hopeful and recognize that inside each of us is seed of a higher nature which can grow and which through our collective efforts will grow into a fruitful and beautiful tree bearing many fruits.

I’d love to hear your comments and questions.

Please spread this message in any way you can, by e-mail, by your voice, by inviting people, by speaking on it, by letters, by referal.
Please call if you have any questions.
Please invite me to speak to your group or organization on this vital subject.
Please keep your eyes open for the brilliant potential of the higher human nature wherever it may arise.

My best wishes to you all,
Garth Schmalenberg

http://hbi-leadership.com
http://twitter.com/gschmalenberg
Ph: 416-919-6598

It’s fairly clear that people are just not ready to give up their holidays, their retirement freedoms or their independent modes of transportation. Even those of us who are aware of the severe issues have difficulty giving up our carbon habit. A book called “Right Relationship” by Peter G. Brown and Geoffrey Garver discusses how we have, for the most part, failed to maintain a right relationship with the planet and suggests how we might re-establish such relationships. But if we are going to maintain “Right Relationship” with our planet while maintaining “Right Relationship” with our friends and our families (who often live some distance from us) and our own sense of well-being which requires exercising some level of freedom, we will need to take a different “tack” than just sitting at home. For those not familiar with this use of the word “tack” it is a method used by sailors when sailing against the wind, whereby they zigzag diagonally across the line of the opposing wind in order to reach their up-wind destination. Ironically, the other way of going up-wind is to motor. Even though sailboats for the most part are powered by the wind, most have on-board diesel motors for travelling in harbors where using wind power is unreliable. Yet another source of CO2.

If we imagine Sustainability as our up-wind destination (i.e. the wind of our personal freedoms seems to blow in the opposite direction). What are the “tacks” we might take in order to reach our desired destination? We want to arrive at a place where we are in “Right Relationship” with our planet and where we have the freedoms we desire. We want to get their without having to motor all the way and creating a problem for the planet and for future generations.

One thing that sailors learn is that if they have to tack, it will also take longer to arrive at the destination. If you’re a business owner or someone who would like your business to be more sustainable, ask yourself some questions:

What would it mean for a company, a city or any service or manufacturing industry to find a “tack” that takes them to their sustainable destination without motoring?

It might imply slowing down and it might also imply using more manpower and technology. Sailboats use a lot of technology in the design of their hull, their materials, their sails, and in their navigation systems. They also use solar powered fans and panels or wind generators for charging their batteries. But sailors who rely on the wind must still develop patience and find serenity in stillness. If the wind stops blowing, sometimes they just wait and enjoy the view. True, if they have no food on-board, they may not have a choice other than motoring, but they prepare for these contingencies by stocking up and many also learn to fish so they can live along the way.

What are the lessons for business leaders? As a business leader, imagine that you have to plan to survive for 1 day without oil (metaphorically: fully under sail).

• What preparations might you make?
• What are the things you would need to store up if you were to take a small leg of the trip under sail?
• What new navigational skills would you need to learn? 
• What heading would you take?
• What kinds of attitudes might you need to adopt in your organization and leadership styles that would help you to relax with the potentially slower pace of progress and yet still find ways to compete?
• What might you do with the stillness when the winds of sales disappear?
• Who would you be competing against?
• Would your market change?
• How might you elicit support and “wind power” from your market, your customers and competitors?
• How might you learn to ”enjoy the journey”, and not be entirely focused on the destination?

If we where all metaphorical sailors in our businesses (i.e. powered by wind or solar) how might we share the ride with others who know less about sailing but would like to learn? After all, once under sail, there is very little cost to keep going.

Don’t get me wrong, sailing is expensive. Similarly, moving towards sustainable solutions costs money in the beginning and it may potentially represent a tremendousshift in pace. But if we do it correctly, that shift in pace will be a welcome one. One of the most amazing parts of the island culture is that it takes the time to enjoy life and the bounties of nature, music, arts and creativity. From that perspective alone, it has something to teach company leaders.

What is one “tack” any company or organization can take as a starting point to becoming more sustainable? Hire a CSO (Chief Sustainability Officer)! Alternatively, and here’s a little shameless self-promotion for a good cause, you can outsource the CSO function by hiring a company like HBI Leadership (and btw, I’m now supporting and speaking to mainland BC and Vancouver Island businesses and organizations) where experience with leadership development and an understanding of sustainability already exists.

Enjoy your summer,

Garth Schmalenberg

Please share any thoughts or ideas from this article with friends, colleagues or other business/organizational leaders that might benefit from insights on Sustainability.

The consequences on a larger scale may be what we experience as a society. We all begin to think alike because no one has challenged our assumptions. Environmentally, this has led to things like Climate Change because we jointly assumed that it was OK to keep going in the direction that we were going. Thankfully, mother nature eventually speak ups and shares her opinions through the impacts that we start seeing on the health of the earth. So the image of our earlier consensus is now, at least, being challenged and other voices are starting to be heard.

Establishing a Consultative Environment that Leads to Better Decisions

It is useful, when establishing any consultative environment, whether in an business or political setting, to build new skills around consultation and expressing differing opinions. Whenever differing opinions are expressed with attachment to the idea, there is potential for conflict and dissention. But it need not lead to this.

When a differing opinion is shared as merely as a different perspective or idea for consideration, rather than the “right idea” vs the “wrong idea”, or “my idea” vs. “your idea”, if it is something that is shared with and owned by the group when it is shared, it need not represent conflict or disagreement, and it can be open for modification by the group. My experience has been that whoever is leading, faciliating or chairing a discussion needs to learn a few fundamental skills about holding the space of “respect for others” and providing the tools and means to help others express their opinions freely. At the same time, there are additional skills the group needs to learn about not re-sharing what has already been said if one is in full agreement.

In a family situation, groupthink can happen and, periodically, leads to bad decisions. More often in a family setting, the more damaging decisions are as a result of disagreement that is voiced loudly in a way that is untrained. Even in a family setting consultation can be made much more effective.

In the corporate or political world, bad decisions which are made as a result of groupthink or poor quality consultation can have serious and expensivie consequences and it is an excellent investment for leadership teams to learn how to consult and make decisions effectively.

Parliamentary political systems often demonstrate a different type of groupthink, (i.e. one party against another). This type of groupthink is equally futile and leads to bad decisions and policy because often the brightest minds in the room are stifled by party lines and party leadership.

In business, billions of dollars are spent on bad decisions that people know are bad decisions but they are unable or unwilling due to group dynamics to share their perspectives.

We can only hope that as businesses and political systems evolve, that the leaders will make training on the essential concepts, skills, attitudes and habits of effective consultation manditory, and that they will invest in creating environments which lead to better long term decisions. Effective leaders are those who have studied these skills, who have effective listening skills, who know how to inquire of their team in ways which encourage contribution and independent thought, and they are aware of the behavioural habits of each participant. They encourage others to freely express and share perspectives.

While most leaders have some of these skills, they also generally benefit from a little coaching and reflective learning. One idea they can use in learning this skill is to record a few meetings and to replay them for the purpose of learning from the dynamics of the consultation rather than focusing on the content.

There is also an organizational and personal coaching perspective which is useful, “no one gets to be wrong”. If that space is held by each member during a discussion, generally there will be a lot more openess and sharing of differing opinions. Sometimes there is need of a coach or faciliator to hold that space.

All the best,

Garth Schmalenberg,
Garth@hbi-leadership.com
http://hbi-leadership.com
twitter: http://www.twitter.com/gschmalenberg
416-919-6598

Ideas are for sharing. Please share these ideas through your favourite bookmarking site, use RSS feeds or e-mail to a friend or colleague.