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.

My current home is in Bolton, Ontario which, for those who have not visited,  is a great place to live. Ontario has been a wonderful home to me and my family most of my life after starting off in Saskatchewan. In fact, if you have lived in any part of Canada, you know that you’ve been blessed.

But British Columbia, for many reasons, is where my heart is. This is where my parents are, as well as my sisters and their families, and it is difficult to express with the limited words of the English language the intense love I feel for them all.  B.C. is also where my entire family, including my brothers (one from China and the other also from Ontario) gather when we have family get-togethers. One of my brothers is also here right now. And I have some very dear friends here as well.

But there’s much more to British Columbia than family, as the many hundreds of thousands if not millions of annual visitors will attest. British Columbia is rich in resources; forests, mountains, clear glacial waters, fisheries, minerals, and the most spectacular scenary you will find anywhere on earth with it’s blend of rich green forests, majestic grey snowpeaked mountains and jagged coast lines reaching into the green-blue oceans all filled with life. The Okanogan region is a fertile ground for growing fruits of many varieties and the climate is temperate and ideally suited for vegetation and farming. It’s incredibly rich with green growth everywhere along the coastlines and in the valleys. They have old growth forests that boast some of the tallest trees in the world and rainforests in the northern regions of Vancouver Island that are rich in wildlife and biodiversity.  

More than just a pretty place, British Columbia also celebrates the many cultures that share this amazing province in the arts, crafts, music and lifestyles including the adoption of some of the wisdom and contributions of its indigenous peoples and the abundance of festivals of every kind. Everywhere I have traveled in British Columbia, and I preface this by acknowledging my sister Celia for introducing me to her incredibly wide circle of friends, the people of British Columbia seem somehow in harmony with their home, respectful of the place in which they live, many striving for a sustainable living while acknowledging and enjoying the bounties of the land with which they have been gifted. With no salt on winter roads, their cars remain intact for a considerable length of time and many take full advantage of this bounty by driving much older cars, a common sight in B.C. There seems to be, at least based on my limited observations, less of a sense of trying to keep up with the neighbors and more a sense of enjoying what is. Most of the new friends I’ve met are satisfied to drive a 10 or 15 year old car as long as it still works. And it isn’t just about cars. Many of the British Columbians I’ve spoken to are keenly aware of the damage that rampant consumerism can cause and strive to live a lifestyle which is more focused on values, developing friendships, enjoying the arts and nature, and providing services rather than focusing quite so much on material pursuits. The pace of life, at least on the island is just a little slower than other places in Canada. My other sister, Joy, described the complex recycling regime which she goes through in order to maximize the amount of recycled goods and minimize the waste going to the landfill and yet she tells me that there are many British Columbians who are happy to share in this recycling ritual just for the sake of preserving what they have.

To simply share the good of British Columbia would, of course, be a little inaccurate. British Columbia, like every place on earth has it’s challenges. One is that it happens to sit on a fault line that is shared with the entire west coast and it anticipates one of the biggest earthquakes the world has seen. Many studies are being done on earthquake detection, earthquake resistant structures, and sunami warning systems to minimize the impact, but when it hits, they will definitely be in for a shake that will stress the hearts and spirit s and test the ability of British Columbians to pull together and befriend each other through extreme hardship. We don’t know when it will happen, perhaps not in this lifetime.

British Columbia is also suffering along with the remainder of an ailing planet from environmental damage. Invasive species such as giant hog weed which competes well in open areas, pine beetles that ravage vast areas of the forest and which now survive the milder winters, raging forest fires caused by a extreme dought, landslides from extreme rain events, toxicity in farmed fish, coastal areas which have suffered from oil spills and pollution, and fisheries which are suddenly coming up short of various species, are just a few of the challenges they face. In it’s cities, it suffers from traffic conjestion and pollution (especially from those old cars which lack polution controls and burn oil), even though they are fortunate to have the ocean breezes which periodically cleanse the air.

Britsh Columbia has so much to offer but it has even more to protect. It’s vast resources are here to be used and even shared, but managing those resources to ensure sustainability is essential. Thoughtful and reflective planning which adopts the attitude shared by our indigenous friends and neighbors, that the earth is one country, that we are part of the environment, not separate from it, will help us to develop an attitude of service and reverence for our home (i.e. this planet) that will prevent us from claiming it to be our own and believing that we can exploit or abuse it’s resources without limits.

If you’ve never been to British Columbia, visit, you will not be disappointed.

Garth Schmalenberg

P.S. Feel free to share this article with your friends and neighbors by e-mail or by directing them to this site.

Conflict, by it’s nature, signals a need for change. But underlying the existance of conflict is a deeper and more distressing issue. The fact that we accept conflict as a tool and allow conflicts to flourish signals a lack of maturity in human creativity and development. If not handled with extreme care, conflicts are destructive, either physically, spiritually, emotionally, financially, socially or environmentally. The larger the dispute, the more destructive.

What’s worse is that conflicts tend to be destructive long after the disputing parties find a way to stop the dispute. They continue to cause challenges as long as bad feelings linger, until learning occurs, mindsets change and reparations are completed. Some disputes unfortunately last centuries.

But there are better and more creative solutions that using conflict to find solutions. Let’s look at a few impacts of conflict and consider alternatives.

The Impact of Conflict on Organizations
Although organizations are emotionless in one sense, the individuals and leaders who make up those organizations are not. They can be directly injured by the events surrounding a conflict and they may sustain those injuries over a very long period. This impacts both internal team work and relations with external community interests. Perspectives may be severely impacted. Leaders who take a stand for their organization may find themselves repeating “the company line” and be grounded in a sense of righteousness even if the justifications for their perspectives have long since been proven false.

The organizational approach often reflects the attitudes and emotions of it’s leaders. Effective leaders communicate their perspective with influence and those who are influenced support and reflect the concepts of their leaders whether they are worthy of such reflection or not. Such is the nature of organizational culture.

The power to influence gives leaders both the capacity to do tremendous good when openess and learning are encouraged, or to inflict tremendous harm and stunted progress as when conflict arises. It is this fact that compels organizational leaders of all types to rethink the concepts surrounding conflict.

Conflict on the World Stage
Another interesting potential for conflict is how we think about national sovereignty.

An interesting case in point is the recent over-flights of Russian planes in Canadian territory. From the perspective of a Canadian, and what I have always personally held as true, according to the history that I’m aware of, the waters and islands north of Canada’s main land mass to the North Pole have always been considered part of Canada. I hold a specific bias. Now that there’s less ice, this perspective is being challenged by Russia and other countries. Until there are more compelling arguments presented, or a contrary decision by the UN (or another universally recognized voice of the international community), I will continue to believe this area to be Canadian and hold a “Canadian” perspective. That is the view that our sovereign leadership would want us to hold as well, so they make bold assertions on their “ability” and “willingness” to “defend” their territory and engage in conflict if necessary.

The reality, however, is more complex. Land and resource claims are rarely simple. Many wars have proven that they are seldom solved by unilateral declarations of one party over another. While Canada may very will have a valid claim, it is highly unlikely that engaging in conflict would actually benefit us as a solution. 

And while it is true that all nations must guard against putting the world in the hands of individuals who would usurp the human rights of others, in the end, it is the world at large that must decide on issues of sovereignty by international mechanisms of justice. If these mechanisms were to decide against Canada’s claim we would ultimately be forced to comply.

A friend of mine who is a foreign diplomat once told me that his country makes firm claims of sovereignty on disputed lands, not necessarily because they are unwilling to share the resources in a fair and equitable way, but that if they fail to make that strong claim, there would be questions at the very start of negotions regarding their right to share anything, even though from their own perspective, the land is historically theirs. While he saw defense of his country as an essential right, he acknowledged that, ultimately, what’s best for the world is also what’s best for his country and his hope was that an international tribunal would be held to facilitate an equitable outcome.

Another case in point is the Spratly Islands, Pratas Islands, Paracel Islands and Macclesfield Bank in the South China / East Vietnam sea which are all claimed by several countries. The Arabian / Persian Gulf and disputed Israeli/Palistinian territory are also hotly contended. As long as there are no strategic advantages, these situations tend to remain somewhat dormant. But as soon as countries become aware of valuable resources (e.g. oil under the northern ice cap) or where these claims represent strategic military positioning, they are hotly disputed and these disputes can be exceedingly distructive.

So we have to ask the question: Has the time for independent claims of sovereignty passed? Are we not at a stage where the world would be better served by creative negotiation around what is best for the world?

New Problems demand New Thinking
In the world of business, claims are eventually settled in courts, but even there, there are many companies that engage in conflict against local interests simply to satisfy their shareholders. Rather than seeking reconciliation and creative solutions, they deepen their rehtoric and strive to influence their own agenda even when it is widely accepted as harmful by those who are directly impacted by their actions.

As we face an ever worsen global situation, engaging in conflict as a means of solving problems is out-dated.

In a world that is struggling under the massive influence of climate change, accelerating population growth, destruction of oceans, potential threats to food, water and energy supplies and which possess almost limitless destructive capacity, the future of leadership demands that we re-think our methods, that we strive to find common solutions and that we avoid conflict at all costs by learning how to systematically build understanding and act based on global wisdom vs. individual or group interests.

If we want to reach a world which has all the attributes we want, clean, carbon neutral, abundant with food and clean water, equitable for all people, peaceful and which provides an opportunity for each individual to reach their ultimate development, we need to start thinking bigger.

Reflective Consultation and Discourse as an Alternative to Conflict
People are fundamentally good at heart but often find themselves trapped in their own mental patterns. We repeat endless retoric to ourselves and create neural pathways which help us decide right from wrong and good from bad. So when it come time to submit to a higher authority, we find it difficult because we like to believe that we know better. But our thoughts are always incomplete and most likely one-sided.

In a world of competing interests, the leader of vision is the one that encourages discourse and consultation to solve claims and document agreements and then abides by and supports the majority decision, not for the good of the country or their business or shareholders, but for the good of the world.

The irony is that, as the world begins to slowly accept fundamental human rights and is slowly forced to address the enormity of the global issues we are all facing, all countries will begin to converge on the same methods, approaches and realities anyway. In the end, our choices will be limited to those that will ensure our survival.

We see this convergence in the global economy, how all nations work together on policy, and how all nations are involved in some form, albeit not enough, in thinking about how to address issues like climate change.

While making threats of  “ability and willingness to defending sovereignty” or defense of business interests may be necessary when we feel threatened in the light of no clear decision mechanism, we also need to recognize that such threats are ulitmately idle until all claimants have been heard and decisions are made in the court of international opinion or, even better, by international tribunals created for the settlement of all important claims. The UN and world court are a start but education is required.

Learning the skills of frank and respectful consultation coupled with an attitude of detachement are essential in today’s businesses and political environments. Let’s hope that our leaders begin to appreciate the benefits of this approach and strive to educate themselves and their organizations accordingly.

All the best,

Garth Schmalenberg,
Web: http://hbi-leadership.com
Blog: http://sustainabilityculture.com
E-mail: garth@hbi-leadership.com
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/gschmalenberg
Linked-In:
Phone: 1-416-919-6598

Ideas are to be shared. Please feel free to comment or to share these ideas through your favourite bookmarking site or by e-mail.

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.

After an organization has gone through a coaching program designed to help them think about unity, the exploration of new possibilities becomes a reality. Instead of wondering about results, the benefits become obvious.

The style of thinking changes in two ways.

1) For leaders, when holding others responsible, the change is towards a global self-accountability and effectively communicating to enhance learning. In other words, everyone learns to think in terms of “what could I have done that would have made the result better?” rather than, “why did someone else make that mistake?”. The questions we might ask include “How can I take the learning from the current situation and apply it to future situations?” “What might I do to more quickly act on negative emotions and energy to move forward and re-inforce positive learning?”, “What could I have done to help improve on the areas where the deficiency or failure occured?”

It is about learning to see that when others make errors, that there is still a certain truth in their understanding of the situation and only by taking that into account can the whole truth can be determined.

For example, we may see a person underperforming or missing a deadline. We may have a negative gut feeling toward the situation but if we act on it without first examining it carefully, we will only bring defensiveness from the individual involved.

If, instead, we look at our own role in the situation, we will determine that we also contributed. Perhaps we didn’t ensure that the item was on-track (i.e. abnegation vs. delegation) or perhaps we didn’t ensure that the combination of skill, challenge, motivation, communication, tracking, understanding and tools were adequate to the job. Our learning, if we are honest, is that we also contributed to the result in one form or another and that we will get better results if we address the issue, rather than blame the person. As leaders or influencers, we will always do better if we hold ourselves accountable first.

2) The thinking in a unified organization goes much deeper than just the leadership level. Leaders learn how to instill a different level of thinking in the staff.

The concept of Organizational Unity relies on a fundamental change in the thinking of each individual, and ultimately, one at a time, we each contribute to changing the whole organization. The thinking that each leader must learn to share is this, that each time we execute a job, even if we do less than perfect, it never speaks to inadequacy, rather to our acceptance of who and where we are at that moment of our lives and a fundamental belief that the rest of our life is always an opportunity to learn and progress. It is not about blaming others or defending ourselves. Rather, we understand that given our current state of mind, physical condition, skill, motivation and training, we have done the best that we could have done and that we always have the choice and opportunity to strive to do better. 

For example, if someone is late in deliverying they may have felt very little motivation, or they may have been under stress and not thinking clearly about the task, or they may have been unclear about instructions and expected outcome. In each case, they have acted with the resources available to them and come up short. This doesn’t mean that they are to be blamed either by themselves or by others. It means only that the actions taken have not met the anticipated result. As they learn to accept ultimately responsibity for improving each area in their own life they see positive opportunity and growth.

In some cases, a poor result may also mean that the individual is not in a position, at that moment, to execute the role adequately. In such cases, for the good of the individual and the organization, they may need to moved to a position that will better benefit them and the organization and be replaced with someone who is better prepared. In a unified learning environment, this never speaks negatively to the underlying worth as a human beings. It only encourages us to accept where we are and to strive and prepare for meeting future challenges. As we learn to accept consequenses of our actions, both negative and positive, and the input that others provide, we learn that each has some validity and value.

It requires us to learn how to filter the valuable information from the emotion and to recognize that each leader and contributor is also on a path of learning. Some communicate more effectively than others and we can help them to learn how to communicate with us by thanking them when their communications are helpful and calmly sharing with them when it is not. We have a responsibility to teach others how to communicate with us. We can also accept that life is not an exact science and that some leaders judge more effectively than others. Each provides us an opportunity to work on our own skills and attributes.

As we begin to view life as a continuous opportunity to learn and grow, our stress about the judgement of others is reduced and we learn how to gain from every action and interaction.

As these ways of thinking filter through the organization, the organization and its members contribute to a more positive environment for learning and improving. As each individual improves in their own skills, as the methods of communication improve, the organizational results also improve. As leaders begin to see a new environment of growth and contribution, they are also able to think about a brighter future.

Emotional Acceptance

The first kind of thinking will, in a sense, be non-thinking. In other words, emotional acceptance of the concept. This involves a gut level emotional response. Here’s the question you need to answer.

Do you believe that there are benefits to establishing unity?

For now, just imagine that you have achieved it. How would your organization look different? What might change in your meetings, your attention to customers, your team work, your ability to implement change, the overall maturity of the organization? What might change in the employees when they begin to understand concepts that change the way that they view themselves, their relationships and the way they view others and the services they provide?

Rational Acceptance

The second kind of thinking will be rational acceptance. If we emotionally accept that Organizational Unity has benefits, we can also rationally accept that it is, at very least, worth thinking about. Even if we’re not sure of how it can be achieved, it is still worth making the initial effort of investigating ideas and coming up with a vision for the future. If we can prove to ourselves by example that Unity is possible on a small scale then it’s just a matter of scale. Most of us can remember at least one relationship in our life that demonstrates elements of unity. So we have some understanding of how it works, and we understand some of the benefits to our well-being and our ability to function. The question is “how do you convert the scale to encompass an organization?”. 

Scale

The third kind of thinking will be that of scale. If we can emotionally and rationally accept the benefits of Organizational Unity and accept that it’s possible on a small scall, we still need to think about how to structure an initiative to establish Unity on a larger scale. This is something that is strongly related to the Context of Unity and the Environment of Unity. Both are essential. If you haven’t already read these sections, you may wish to do so. Essentially, scaling is about creating a structure and method that causes a new set of ideas and concepts to spread. It needs to provide direct and concrete benefits to each participant in the process. This causes buy-in, participation and a desire to put effort into it.

Possibilities

The fourth kind of thinking is around the very interesting possibilities when we begin to accept the possibility or even inevitability of it’s outcome. What if? What happens now? What’s possible for our future?

In this entry, we won’t go too deep into these ideas. We will just present them for your thought. In future articles we can explore these ideas in depth.

Garth Schmalenberg

We talked earlier about the development of context. The “Context” creates the environment. The air  of context nourishes the earth and over a period of time helps to purify it. The earth slowly attains new qualities. In the case of organizational unity, the environment which is created is one where individuals begin to understand their power to make changes, their power to contribute and their power to take responsibility. It is an environment where growth is encouraged at all levels and where competition exists only to promote the growth of the whole entity. The qualities that the individual develops include those which are conducive to the development of unity. These include tolerance, unity in diversity, love, and respect.

I’ve also listed intolerance as one of the qualities. The notion of intolerance is really one which prevents us from allowing ourselves to become embroiled in negative thoughts about others. The intolerance therefore is an intolerance for any long-term thoughts which prevents us from reaching our goal. Given that we also encourage compassion for our shortcomings, it is acceptable that we would occasionally find ourselves dwelling in negative thoughts or a loss of hope. The intolerance only means that we will bring ourselves back to a higher level as quickly as possible.

So let’s look at this environment a little more closely.

Environmental Item 1) Tolerance
The notion of tolerance is a necessary component for an environment of unity. Without tolerance, we find it difficult to accept other points of view. Tolerance does not mean that you necessarily agree with other points of view. It simply means that you respect another person’s right to express and believe in their own point of view. Remember that you’re creating an environment of unity, however, it may not yet exist. So even though you are tolerating other people’s perspectives, they may not be tolerating yours. when you first began the process of creating the environment of unity, this is to be expected. There is no way to know how long it’ll take for others to accept this perspective. This will create an environment that seems unbalanced.

For now, I simply ask that you trust the process and accept that any discrepancies in the environment which limit you from exercising your rights or expressing your perspectives will eventually evaporate. These descrepencies are, for now, opportunities for your own growth and to give you practice in tolerance. You have the opportunity to learn how to understand others and to accept them for who they are.

Environmental item 2) Unity in Diversity
In the environment of unity the only hope of maintaining unity is if we accept diversity as a benefit and not a detriment. The concept of “Unity in Diversity” means that we accept a certain kind of beauty in the differences between people . One example is the fact that people exist everywhere in the world and in each part of the world we have independently developed language, culture , and everything needed. Is it reasonable to conclude that one culture is right and another is wrong? The only thing that we can safely conclude is that the cultures are different. Unity in diversity goes beyond tolerance. It suggests that we actually learn to enjoy and value the differences. The simple as the example I can think of, is the example of flowers and a garden if all the flowers are the same color and type, the garden is beautiful but it’s also boring. If the flowers are of different types and colors,, the garden is much more interesting and much more beautiful. When we learned to look at differences of opinion in the same way that we would look at colors and a flower garden, we will begin to understand what unity in diversity means. We’ll see the difference in opinion not only as different, but as a necessary part of our world. We will see it as something that’s beautiful with a different fragrance, color, and shape. The next time you hear a different idea or opinion from someone else see what you can learn by searching for the beauty in the idea. If we learn to accept that all ideas contain value, we learn to mine each idea.

Environmental Item 3) Love
Talking about love within an organization is a little unusual and generally makes us feel a little squeemish. But, when we go home, we expect that we will have love for our family. Most of us are also OK with the concept that we should love humanity. For now, just think of love in the workplace as love for humanity.

Love in its simplest terms is the power of attraction. We are attracted to each other in some form. Whether we are attracted to each others differences or our commonalities, we are always able to learn from each other and we gain from the experience of being together. As we learn to love the world we are able to utilize its infinite diversities.

Although we understand and accept love conceptually, when it comes time to manifest that love, we sometimes don’t do as well as we could and that is true both at home and at work.

For the purposes of examining love in the concept of ”Organizational Unity” we can look at love as the binding force that keeps us together in some way and the respect we show towards others for their contribution to the whole. If we think of the world as a large organization, we need to know that we all belong. When there is no love between people, there is also very little desire to work together. In other words, either we learn to love the people we work with and for, or we begin watching our organizations break down. You might argue that we only have casual friendships with people at work. That’s true. It’s just a lesser degree of the same bonding force and since love isn’t always expressed in the same way, it manifests itself in the form of friendships and working relationships. What is common, however, is that the expression of love  remains a bonding force and which, in its ideal form, encourages and supports growth.

You might ask how love can be expressed when someone doesn’t “fit” the organization. This is a deeper topic and we will explore it later. For now suffice it to say that this does happen and there are solutions which will still cause the Organizational Unity to grow.

Love may be expressed in many facits of an organization. In the concept of Organizational Unity, it is not so much the organization that we love, but the unity that can be found within the organization. It is the harmony between individuals and the different ways that they are able to work together, each using their own talents, cultures, ways of thinking, backgrounds, and experiences. We learn how to use these diverse resources in our interactions together to create new products and services. 

An attitude of customer service is another manifestation of love. It causes us to want to help our customers enjoy a better and more successful life. Isn’t that what we want for those we love? On the other hand, if you don’t feel love for your customers, how likely is it that you will treat them with care and respect. Here’s an example. I had a call the other day from a local TV provider who was attempting to up-sell me to their next higher service. My answer was that I was happy with my current provider and the price I was getting and that if he could get me a better service (e.g. HD) at the same price I was already paying that I would consider switching. The individual on the other end of the line upon hearing my request rather indignantly said, “I’m here to make sales, stop wasting my time.” I pointed out to him that he had called me, not the other way around. Did he demonstrate love for me as a customer? Not very much. Would he do well within the company from a sales perspective? Possibly. Would he enjoy the fruits of his labour? Here is my guess. When an individual values money more that people, they drive a wedge between themselves and that which has the potential to make them happiest, namely their relationships. Even to an unknown customer, there is always the opportunity to create a positive sentiment. Would he leave a good taste with regard to the company he was representing? Absolutely not. Would his vision of the world contribute to the whole? Not likely. Am I suggesting that this individual won’t learn? No, this is just his current state and hopefully, he will someday, perhaps after some challenging relationships, he will learn to love people more than his commissions.

No one is suggesting that we forget about profit, only that in the long run, it is the love of being with and serving others that will cause us to unite together in our efforts and to be successful in creating useful and functional enterprises that serve the needs of our world.  

Environmental Item 4) Respect
This factor is the one which provides the understanding for the others. If we find it difficult to love someone else, we will learn tolerence through having a fundamental respect for them. This respect is really just an acknowledgement that, as human beings, we all have an equal right to belong, to contribute, to receive, to think, to have an opinion. When this understanding is planted in the form of respect, it provides a foundation upon which love an tolerance can be built.