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.

Although most of my past articles have been addressed in some way to Business leaders who aspire to create sustainable value in their organizations, my readers have come from a wide array of people, some business leaders, some professionals in various fields, and many others.  I wanted to acknowledge all of you and hope that you continue to enjoy reading.

In my last article, I talked briefly about an organization called Partners for Prosperity. You may remember a Remington Shaver commercial where the President came on the television and said “I liked the product so much I bought the company”.  Well, in my case, I didn’t “buy the company” but when I understood what Partners for Prosperity was striving to achieve I “bought” the message and when they found themselves with an opening, they invited me to join them as their Executive Director and I accepted.

Does that mean the end of my coaching practice? Well, no. There are still individuals and organizations that can benefit from my coaching right here in the Cowichan Valley or in Vancouver or other locations and as long as some of my time is available, I’m still willing to serve those needs. Having said that, I’m very much looking forward to my work with Partners for Prosperity.

Since I’ve started with them, I’ve had a lot of questions about what Partners for Prosperity does and what it stands for. In order to explain that, it’s worth getting an understanding of what we mean when we talk about prosperity.

In the traditional sense, prosperity has been based on an economic perspective. When you run a business, prosperity is usually tied to making money. It means having assets or financial ability and that in turn translates into having the freedom to do whatever one chooses.

For us, prosperity is a little different. It’s still about freedom and the ability to choose but not quite so much in an economic sense. It is more about freedom to express culture diversity, to have food security, descent housing and infrastructure, gender equality, availability to education, fundamental freedom of choice with regard to religious belief (or not) without persecution, freedom to investigate and learn, and freedom to develop and share arts and culture.

While economics does play an important role, there is a much greater emphasis on development of the the higher human nature, the virtues which make us what we are, and building of capacity from within a community itself rather than having one community trying to develop another. When we talk about “developing” vs. “developed” countries, it has the potential to belittle the contribution of the inhabitants of the so-called “developing” country to their own success. Prosperity for us involves recognizing diversity as a positive element of life that contributes to the whole, rather than holding to the belief that our way is the best way. It also recognizes the historical impact of certain cultures dominating others and seeks to heal those relationships through love and respect of all people. It strives to root out influences which have bred dependency on aid, recognizes individual and community rights to self-determination, and believes in our growing, albeit early, collective maturity. True prosperity seeks to demonstrate our collective ability to get beyond the historical abuses of power on the part of individuals, groups or governments which have so often lead to hopelessness for those who have suffered oppression and have likewise destroyed the humanity of those who oppress.

Partners for Prosperity’s goal is not to create development projects independently. Rather, it is to listen deeply to communities that are wanting to develop in their own capacity and in their own way. It seeks to partner with them to understand the environment necessary for that development to take place and it engages participants to facilitate the creation of that environment in ways that are respectful of the capacity of the community to develop itself and to contribute back to the greater good of society.

Our goal in Partners for Prosperity is to work closely with Volunteers to help them to develop new understandings of Social and Economic development which take into account the higher nature of humanity and accompanies them in their own development. When we help others to develop, they also help to develop us. When we look around, we find literally millions of people who are willing to serve others, to give of their time and energies, to try to make the world better place for those who follow in their footsteps, but who lack the skills or the means to apply their generosity of spirit. There are also many organizations who have successfully operated in the realm of Social and Economic Development who have valuable skills but who have limited capacity to replicate their successes. Partners seeks to play a role in creating partnerships with these various participants by developing a systematic approach to learning and expansion through research, outreaching to communities, reflecting, planning and applying our collective learning through action. We are developing a systematic approach for sharing and accompanying new Volunteers, for attracting new partnerships with NGO’s, Governmental groups and Businesses, and to make it easier to establish new programs of development lead directly by the communities we are working with.

I’m inviting everyone to participate, whether you are a:

• Business Leader who wants to develop a socially active business or are willing to contribute financially or through your resource pool,
• Volunteer who is willing to take on a development role while adopting an attitude of humble learning,
• Student who seeks to expend your energies while learning new skills, developing deeper insights and creating your own future world,
• Community member or leader wanting to celebrate and share your culture and uniqueness, while developing new capacities and sharing with us,
• An NGO already working toward a better society and have skills or partnerships to contribute,
• Friend willing to share this message with others and you believe that we can create a prosperous world together,

Initially, we are aiming to maintain and develop our projects and capacities in Haiti and Ghana, to maintain existing partnerships such as OUR Ecovillage and others, and to establish or share in other projects on Vancouver Island using these as our learning ground. But we also need to expand and have many connections elsewhere. As we further establish our methodology, we will have many opportunities to help facilitators across the globe in assisting groups of Volunteers in their own locations to establish their own Social and Economic development projects, all of which will be designed to develop the richness and capacity of the communities and individuals involved.

Please take the time to share your interested in helping us or learning more about Partners for Prosperity. Please contact me at  garth@partnersforprosperity.org . Share your vision, your experience, your learning, your hopes and your offers of time, resources or even money and please, share your name and phone number so I can call you back. I look forward to sharing our goals and working with you directly.

All the best,

Garth Schmalenberg

Since arriving here, I have also had the great privilege of participating with and offering my assistance to a wonderful organization called Partners for Prosperity which I’ll speak more about later and provide a link to for those who are interested in learning more.

It is said that when you set an intention, pray to God, and put your intention out to the world, in some mysterious way it the world assists you to achieve your goals. For me, my personal goal in life is this; that in my work and in my personal activities, in my building of relationships with people of capacity (and all have capacity), in my prayers and in the depths of my soul, that my focus may continue to be on bridging gaps in understanding; between people and organizations, between countries and leadership, between those who find themselves in conflict who are unable to resolve issues on their own, between those who are privileged in the material sense and those who, though needing assistance, share their own wisdom and the hope of a peaceful and prosperous world, between those who believe the world is crashing down with issues related to sustainability and those who see the marvelous possibilities of the future. My efforts to connect with business, community and religious leaders, my personal studies which range from social and economic development to research papers on practical application of high tech solutions to current human challenges, my future aspirations of a Masters Degree in Human Security and Peace building, my recent visit to Vietnam and my earlier visit to India to develop business relations and link foreign opportunities with North American businesses, my keynote presentations to various organizations on developing a culture of Sustainability, my service on various Non-Profit boards aimed at building business, spiritual and community capacity, my aspirations of sharing knowledge and learning through my services, my work with organizations aimed at building a culture of learning and development of leadership capacity, my continued goal of linking those who are involved in business and community leadership and those who are involved in social development, my desire to connect good hearted privileged individuals with those who would benefit from their assistance; all these efforts are aimed at developing human capacity and building a more peaceful and prosperous world. 

My intention is to continue learning, growing and sharing by offer my services (keynotes, workshops, facilitation, training, building connections and coaching) to business, community and social development leaders, or anyone else who would like better understand the forces that are shifting a rapidly evolving world, whether they share in this vision of the world or are simply curious and want to gain a greater understanding from my experience and the experience of the many people that I’ve met along the way.

Now that my own intentions are “out there”, I’ll say a little more about Partners for Prosperity.

Partners for Prosperity is an organization the is in the business of building partnerships. Whenever a need is perceived, be they local or overseas, Partners for Prosperity begins the process of engaging their growing list of partners who are able to share expertise, learning, experience, material goods, and, in some cases, funding. Partners for Prosperity isn’t just another NGO or Charity. They are somehow a little different than any organization I’ve seen before. They’re like glue to Social Development in the world.

They see a very specific need in development. There are literally hundreds of thousands of aid organizations in the world who are spending billions of dollars; funds which are provided by government and business partnerships, but which often end up in “traditional” aid efforts. In other words, the organizations fly in, do their work, consume their funds and eventually leave. As much as their work is necessary and valued by the recipients, it often leaves the beneficiaries in a situation, which though better off than before, have little in the means of capacity for creating a sustainable future. They end up dependent on future aid.

Partners for Prosperity seeks to build capacity of the aid recipients so that they are able to support themselves.

How do they do this? They find organizations who have a very specific approach which are already building capacity on the ground, who have specific experience in developing the local skills and talents. These organizations are deeply involved in educating people not only from a material perspective but from a whole life perspective, building intellectual, spiritual, emotional and material capacities used in community development and infrastructure, agricultural development, commerce and business development. Once they find organizations who are successfully building the capacities of local people and communities, they find out what their needs are and then look for other partners who might benefit from supporting them and who will also benefit by learning from them. They facilitate the conversation, share knowledge through providing direct connections, hold conferences on building capacity and venture out to find new projects, new partnerships and new opportunities for sharing experience. Partners for Prosperity is like glue that helps social development organizations to become less necessary and more beneficial by helping the local communities to become more self sufficient. If you want to contribute to a long lasting solution, either financially or by offering skills, services, expertise or material goods, Partners for Prosperity may be one of your best choices.

Please share this article and blog site with friends, family, business associates, community members and others you feel might benefit.

All the best,

Garth Schmalenberg
http://hbi-leadership.com

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.

Have you ever noticed how much the structure of Business Clustering and Global Innovation Networks resemble the formation of neural nets in the brain? Just as there is a certain randomness in the brain’s learning process where dendrites create random spikes to other neural paths, some of which survive and other of which don’t, businesses create collaborative ventures and, likewise, some of these serve the needs of the market and others don’t. Just as the brain has compartmentalized functions and specific neurons that play different roles in the functioning of the brain, businesses have specific roles which they play and each cluster serves a different market segment.

So what does this similarity teach business leaders about the creation of Sustainable Businesses?

While the brain expands by developing random connections, only those connections which are meaningful create lasting neural paths, lasting capacity and long term memory. The others are swept away over time. In addition, the sustainability of a circuit in the brain is related to repeation through some type of learning function, although the mechanisms of such loops are still the object of considerable research.

The question is, what aspects of this knowledge can we apply to create lasting businesses, developing collaborative connections, and acheiving sustainability from the perspective of the triple bottom line (people, planet, profit)?

In neural research, it has been identified that visualization strengthens neural nets in the same way that experience does. The difference is that experience is real and visualization is only real if it leads to a real result. An athlete visualizing must base their visualization on real experience. The sooner we are able to test a concept and experience the real results of an idea, the more quickly we are able to form neural nets that are lasting. Similarly in business, grand schemes and designs and even M&A activities which lead to the wrong results and wrong business collaborations ultimately fail, no matter how much we visualize them as succeeding.

Testing results early in business depends on using processes that are designed specifically for creating early and continuous value while incorporating a learning function as found in methodolgies such as OpenAgile. As one of the early Champions of OpenAgile and other earlier cyclic methodologies which combine the steps of planning and action with reflection and learning, it is easy to see the benefits to client organizations. Such processes focus on learning from early successes thereby strengthening real connections, building lasting capacity, and dispersing those activities and “Visions” which have little value.

In addition, while it wasn’t possible in the past for the business world to have an integrated view of the world, it is now. We are still early in the process of understanding our global connectedness and the negative impact that unsustainable processes have. While some business leaders are still in the very natural stage of denial or blaming, ultimately the world will impose itself and acceptance will be inevitable.

As we are in the process of developing a worldview (a global vision) which requires businesses and the society as a whole to be sustainable and which imposes principles of sustainable development, and as we hold that vision in mind, what does it tell us about the long term success of our own businesses and what does it suggest about Business Clusters and Global Innovation Networks that will achieve that vision?

For certain, at least part of the vision is a Global Innovation Network that sees every country as it’s market and the strengths of each nation as clusters. They are all part of that network and each of it’s members contribute their unique culture and values to the global wisdom which eventually results from such connections. The strength of such a network is in findng the unique capabilities and contributions that each country will bring. Only when each part of the world is fully functioning will the network achieve it’s fullest success.

What does this mean for your business? Only you know that for certain, but if you can’t visualize how your business fits into a sustainable future global network, you may wish to start thinking of new opportunities. No doubt this does not rule out local business. Each business plays a unique part and a vital role in the health of the overall network. And just as some neurons are connected only to those immediately surrounding them, and other cells and organs play other specific supporting functions, many businesses will provide for the health of the local clusters without much interplay on the grander scheme. But denying the need for these connections makes no sense. Outsourcing will happen and will only strengthen where it makes sense in serving human needs and the common good.

On the other  hand, businesses which create a toxic output for which there is no use or value, and which fail to deal with such outcomes in a sustainable way, ultimately don’t fit in a sustainable development scenario. Their days are numbered and the if the exponential rate of technological development is any indicator of human and global development, their end may be sooner than expected.

Forward thinking business leaders who work with their entire supply chain to create 100% sustainable results both from a product dedign and a product development perspective and which serve the betterment of human civilization are likely to be around for a long time. As the number of organizations serving the public good increases (Blessed Unrest by Paul Hawken), the collective wisdom of society will increase, and while this may be a generational issue, (i.e. perhaps in this generation behaviors of endless consumption may persist) our children are learning about sustainability and it’s implications very earl. They are becoming more conscious of social ethics at a younger age and, no doubt, in spite of their natural inclinations to go through challenging phases of self-indulgence (e.g. how many kids don’t have cell phones and computers?) still, they are learning at an earlier age the meaning of sustainable development and what it means to their future. Without a doubt, this will have an impact on their collective buying patterns as they grow older. Business leaders that overlook the implications of this transformative change are destined to drive themselves or their companies to extinction.

And perhaps what’s even more important is that the leaders of companies who, not only adjust their production and products to meet the criteria of sustainable development but also, meaningfully adjust their marketing message to increase the educational value of their message helping buyers to understand the human and global value of their products and the importance of sustainable efforts, will greatly widen the gap between them and archaic competitors who fail to heed the warning signs.

What advise do we take from this as business leaders? Image that future which will serve humanity in a way that is 100% sustainable, tell the world how you plan to get there, and actively work towards that end as quickly as possible. The more quickly you are able to make this transition, the more prepared you will be for future business.

All the best,

Garth Schmalenberg

Please feel free to share these ideas by referring others to this site or using your favorite book marking site.

In a quote from the report the author states that “Today private sector investments constitute the largest share (86%) of global investment flows and are expected to be essential to addressing climate change. A large additional flow of tens of billions of dollars will also be needed for adaptation.”

One of the most effective means of a government to weild it’s financial power is to influence the direction of Private Investment Capital. Rather than trying to “be” the investor as in many of the current government incentive scheme’s which directly invest, wouldn’t it be possible to take a different approach?

The challenge with moving huge amounts of investment capital to Greener Technology isn’t that these are bad investments, it is that most investors want secure returns. They are concerned about loosing money on risky, start-up ventures with unproven technologies. Yet, many of these start-ups, given sufficient infusions of capital would do just fine and would become the eventual market winners in a mature society. And given the current situation, we may only have a few years in which to reach maturity.

Due to lack of investor funding, Governments are forced to fund start-ups directly through Green Tech programs and provide incentives which infuse capital directly into Green Technology start-ups. But this rapidly drains the Government coffers and provides a very limited bang for the buck. Could the Governments instead create Green Technology Insurance programs which would provide some amount of relief to investors in the event that their chosen investment collapses? Since many will succeed with sufficient funding over a longer term, this approach might actually have the effect of providing the necessary security to investors and causing the infusion of sufficient private capital to help the company succeed. Mature investors already take advantage of put options and other hedging devices, but at a cost to them which makes investing in less mature technologies less interesting. And for the average investor, High Tech funds will not seem as interesting because of the issue of secure returns. And this is where Governments might step in to attract additional investment dollars. Obviously proper risk and cost / benefit analysis should be applied to take into account the maturity and potential long term benefits of the technologies.

For every government dollar spent on Green Technology Investor Insurance, hundreds or thousands of dollars of Investment Capital could be tapped. Certainly there would be a need to devise the approach in ways smarter than the AIG scheme of insuring investments without understanding the implication, but we also shouldn’t through out the baby with the bath-water. The fact that Financial institutions and Fannie and Freddy were essentially covered by Government also helped them to survive, albeit at a heavy cost. The concept of providing insurance to investment capital isn’t necessarily a bad one just one that needs to be carefully managed. Many proponents of market economy would argue that we should let badly run companies die. And in the case of mature companies, this is a fair approach. But fledgeling companies are a bit like babies. You have to nurture them and provide lots of love, protection and security. As in any market approach it would be better to see the Investors as the parents, and not the Government. But the it should be the Government role to encourage and assist the parents and provide them the means so that they can do the right thing. Does this have to be done through a branch of the Government? Perhaps not. Maybe a new role for AIG.

Is this already happening somewhere? Well all I can say is that I’m not aware of it so at best it isn’t being marketed as well as it might be.

Companies covered under such a scheme could, as the company grows and begins to generate profits, be required to pay back some of the insurance premiums offered to attract early investors. Other premiums could be collected in the form of incremental carbon taxation that would encourage companies to adopt these green technologies.

While there may be many others ideas on how to move investment capital, finding ways to move it would provide short and long term benefits for companies, investors and our world.

That’s it for now,

Garth Schmalenberg

If you would like to share some ideas of your own, feel free to comment (I do monitor and approve non-spam material), or tell others about this site by book-marking.

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 question now is, how will the world be impacted and how will businesses respond? Although there is still far too much rhetoric, even the world leaders at the UN Summit on Climate Change preceding the Copenhagen meeting, most notably Obama noting that “the old habits, the old arguments are irrelevant”, are beginning to speak seriously about the issue. Even China, which understandably refuses hard targets in the light of excessive energy usage and emissions from developed countries, is taking a leadership role in developing solar, wind and other renewable energy sources.

 The question is not about whether changes in business will occur: the question is, what will drive business the most? Will there be sufficient agreement on policy and limits at the global or national government levels or will the change in the earth’s environment itself be the greatest imputus for business to adapt and what will that mean for business?

For example: Policy on climate change will almost certainly lead to cap and trade systems for carbon emissions in North America and other developed and developing countries which will require businesses to begin measuring their outputs and create a new market. Gas mileage targets will help to reduce the fuel consumption and overall emissions, incentives for the expanded use of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles along with incentives for generation and installation of renewable energy sources and development of carbon capture technologies, will no doubt, continue to expand so called “green” markets.

But all the policy change in the world will likely fall short of the rapidity of change based on observable events and an even larger market is likely to emerge in the business of climate change mitigation. The difference in this market is that it will call upon business leaders to make considerations that they have never made in the past. A global demand for ethics will demand that business leaders begin to consider the personal impact of their leadership upon the environment and humanity as part of their business model. What was previously accepted as common place business practice, even what we now consider acceptable carbon emissions, will begin to be viewed as irresponsible and possibly even criminal from a retrospective view. Just as many people were fooled in war-time situations to ignore their sense of ethics and adopt unacceptable and inhumane behaviours, and then were later charged for crimes against humanity, I have little doubt we will begin to see an increase in cases where business leaders who ignore what is now becoming blatently obvious and who continue to lead the worst poluting businesses and possibly even political leaders who fail to act in the face of clear scientific evidence will eventually be held responsible for criminal behaviour and jailed for not taking more steps to mitigate circumstances which have already lead to disastrous results for millions but which only continue to increase. Those who committed crimes against humanity in the past also falsely convinced themselves of the efficacy of their actions until after they were eventually called to account.

In addition, as changes in the climate begin to impact businesses and people world wide, it is likely that we will all be called upon to take actions that we now consider unlikely or even unthinkable.  Considering the fact that glaciers which supply billions of people with life giving waters are disappearing at alarming rates and are likely to be gone within 10 to 15 years, we can be relatively sure that we are facing mass migration, increased pressure on global water supplies and increased charges for the energy required in attempts to alleviate disasterous changes and human suffering.

While we find it difficult to consider this as a necessity at this juncture, projects developed from the perspective of 100% sustainability (off the grid) will, when looking back 20 years from now, tell us which of our current industry leaders are foresighted and which fail to understand and plan for the future. In the worst case scenario, the additional costs of using LEEDs building standards and installing renewable energy systems which may seem challenging at this stage, will seem like not only a good investment but as the primary decisions that save companies. Given that ocean waters are expected to rise and that current models of warming are proving to be far too conservative, properties which are well above coastal waters and out of the path of potential floods are likely to be better choices for major facilities than those which are designed on or near the coastal properties or near rivers or low lying plains. Companies which strive to take themselves completely off the grid by coupling facilities with solar or wind powered generation, which recirculate collected rain water for processing, and which adjust their working models to take advantage of high power generation periods, which sell off excess energy as part of their business model and which strive to work with other similar companies will be far more successful than those organizations who pay no attention to changing conditions. Since we don’t know exactly where the impacts of climate change will be worst, organizations that choose numerous smaller facilities in locations nearer to their markets rather than larger facilities in one location will be better set to adapt in the event that any one area is confronted with massive flooding, severe storms, drought or forest fires. Just ask the hotel owner in Taiwan who watched helplessly as his hotel fell into the flood waters, companies in New Orleans and Houston impacted by hurricanes, owners of companies in California who have been impacted by brown-outs and fires, and companies in Australia which have been impacted by a lack of fresh water.  

As much as we would like to pat ourselves on the back for taking a few steps at a time to improve our environmental and social records, we may not have that opportunity. The very definition of leadership is changing. No longer is it sufficient for business leaders to be individuals who are business smart. Business leaders increasingly need to be aware of what’s going on in the world and to prepare for contingencies which are increasingly likely to occur. They can no longer afford to ignore the complexity of a world in change. They need to be wise enough to recognize their inability to prepare without consultation and help from outside consulting firms, they need to include Climate Change as a consideration in their business plans, just as they did Y2K, and they need to expect that some there will be a greater need to sensitive to the needs arising from human suffering , potentially even with their own employees, and to provide flexibility in their response to assisting in world events.

My son and I were having a discussion on the subject of climate change and the timing of actions. My comment to him was that the time for action was actually about 20 years ago when the problem was first recognized. But we can’t go back. We can only hope that going forward we will begin to see everyone, including our business and political leaders to begin acting as though there really is a new challenge.

As much as we may feel hopeless at times or see far too little actually happening to preserve our future, I have learned to have faith in the human spirit, I believe that people are fundamentally good, and I full believe that business leaders will, as they begin to become more informed, begin to take more extreme action, even if for no other reason than to protect the future profits of their businesses. It turns out that smart planning and foresight always pays off. 

All the best,

Garth Schmalenberg
web:  http://www.hbi-leadership.com
e-mail: garth@hbi-leadership.com
Phone: 416-919-6598
twitter: http://www.twitter.com/gschmalenberg

If you find these idesas valuable, please share them through your favorite bookmarking site or by e-mail.