In the wake of the collapse of the Berlin Wall on 9^th of Nov 1989, I heard many a confident declaration that democratic capitalism had won. ‘Only one show in town’. Maybe so, but we are in the middle of an era when that ‘one show’ is evolving before our eyes. Last week the US government determined to bail out mortgage giants Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Most commentators I have heard suggest they had no alternative, however the Market is looking less regal on its throne!

There is now a proliferation of books beginning to envision a new capitalism for the 21^st century. There are three main themes in the groundswell of voices. All represent dramatic changes that will reshape the way we live. We are on the front edge of some of these changes already, but next 20 years will see us looking back on 2008 with bewilderment at how rapidly things changed from here.

1.     The first is the need for industry to move to a low carbon economy. Last week’s [Australian Financial Review] Boss Magazine argued that environmentally savvy organisation will have a real leg up in the emerging economy. It’s all about opportunity. Companies that are slow to move will be overtaken by their more agile competitors or new comers.

2.     The second theme is related to globalisation. One dimension of this is the north/south, rich poor divide. Millennium Development Goal number 1 (halving of extreme poverty by 2015) is still in reach but according to the United Nations Development program, this is largely due to economic development in Asia . Foreign aid is being replaced by international development which includes the cultivation of enterprise. In the past this has been mostly micro, but expect this to move to small and medium enterprises. The emergence of China and India has already, and will continue to reshape global capitalism.

3.     The third arena is the nature of work and the role of business in our societies. The workplace, at least in the West, is the last context that adults are still treated as children. Business has, to a large extent, lost the vision of itself as a service to add value to the community. The entrenching of private stock ownership, limited liability, executive stock options and the related addiction to growth (over and above profitability), have all contributed to an environment that is first and foremost about shareholder return … if some community good happens along the way … that is a bonus. This will change. Innovative workplaces will be more flexible, have greater transparency and will recapture their sense of citizenship.

Clive Hamilton articulates the tension to be resolved superbly in the following paragraph from The Freedom Paradox.

“I argue that the extension of the freedoms of the market and the personal freedoms won by the liberation movements have actively worked against our freedom to choose to live more fulfilling lives. The consequence is that people today find it more difficult to know who they are and so understand how to advance their interests. I argue, too, that the dominating political concern in rich countries today is the conflict between economic and political liberties on the one hand and ‘inner freedom’ on the other and that only in a society that nurtures inner freedom is it possible to live according to our true inner purpose.”

I am looking forward to seeing how employers respond to the opportunities to create workplaces that genuinely cultivate human purpose and possibilities. This is ‘big work’ and there is so much to done. Last week’s Boss Magazine also included Hewitt’s annual survey on the best employers. Despite the accolades, the verdict from the judges struck me; the following comment unusual in an article celebrating the best. “All of them were vanilla. Nothing inspirational or bold or fresh.”

However, I am not convinced that there are not some examples of innovative businesses out there that are doing some really interesting things to help, in Hamilton’s language, resolve the tension between the kind of business that succeeds in a free market society, and the inner freedom that is cultivated by participating in a workplace that values human purpose as integral rather than a means to an economic end.

If you know of any businesses that are creating new ways of being, especially in relation to this third dimension of evolution, please let me know. I would love to tell the stories of employers who are helping to invent the future.

At Ergo we are unashamedly positioning ourselves to take advantage of an emerging opportunity in the market. Three things particularly qualify us … our core commitment to engaging the conversations that matter, our facilitation expertise and our experience across the three sectors; business, government and community / NGO.

The big questions of our day cannot be answered without engaging a variety of stakeholders. Fighting AIDS, adjusting to a low carbon economy, urban revitalisation, renewable energy adoption, etc are not challenges that can be owned by a single group within society, or even partnerships.

I was reminded again of the need over the weekend as I digested Booz Allen Hamilton’s efforts to solve problems using a multi-sector approach. Megacommunities: How Leaders of Government, Business and Non-Profits Can tackle Today’s Global Challenges Together. Theirs is an important contribution to the field, although they fail to acknowledge the excellent work already been done by the likes of Generon Reos. Below are a few insights that I found helpful:

• In multi-sector problem solving, maximisation must give way to optimisation. When we think from the framework of a single organisation we naturally seek to maximize. However, when we recognise that we are part of a system, the key paradigm is one of optimisation. (This of course can be applied within an organisation as well.)
• Collaboration is a less helpful mindset than what the authors call ‘permanent negotiation’. The primary skill when operating as part of a system is to negotiate … the art of giving, taking and compromising, and agreeing.
• They describe what they call ‘permeable boundaries’. When different stakeholders come together, the spaces in which their interests overlap need to be held lightly. There must be a willingness to appreciate the fuzziness of where previously perceived boundaries of influence extend to.

Have a look at U-Studio to see what Ergo is offering to help meet this need.

On an different note: By all reports I have heard from people who know him, professor Garnaut is a brilliant and unswerving person. So I am as bewildered as many others by his report last week. I wish I knew what his logic is. He would be fully aware that a 10% reduction in carbon emissions from the benchmark by 2020 is not enough. As I have heard World Vision Australia’s Brett Parris argue convincingly, the conversation about emissions targets should not be allowed to stand independently (as it does in the public debate) from the correlating impact on temperature rises.

So, for example, by saying we commit to a 10% reduction is exactly the same as saying we are prepared to commit to a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere (somewhere north of 500ppm from my understanding) which in turn translates into a particular temperature rise (in this case 3% gets locked in). For those of you who have got a basic knowledge of this, you will know that anything above 2% puts us in very dangerous territory.

10% reduction target means: increased droughts, tens of millions exposed to lack of water, up to 30% of species at risk of extinction, increased flood and storm damage, increased mortality from tropical diseases and the list goes on.

There is no question that we can’t wait for the government, but legislation is surely a critical component of mass mobilization so we dig deep as a community to assure our children don’t inherit a natural environment spiralling out of control.

The art of good leadership includes being bi-focal; doing our ‘close’ work with competence, while looking up and out, ensuring that we are up to date on the broader context. Engaging the relevant cross sector conversations and taking climate change seriously are not longer luxurious commitments for high performing leaders … they are a must.

I have been carrying the August 9^th Economist around with me for a couple of weeks. There was something about one of the lead pieces that I intuitively knew held something for me … I needed to wait for the time to process. That happened over the weekend.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn who died on the 3^rd August, wrote what has been described as “the most powerful single indictment of a political regime ever to be levied in modern times” against the terror of Stalin. The article goes on to ‘lament’ the absence of intellectual dissent in today’s contemporary society, or at least how political correctness has hurt the impact of what is said publicly. (eg. There would not be even a ripple if Noam Chomsky were invited to speak at the ‘annual capitalist jamboree’ in Davos’)

The Economist piece was called ‘Speaking the Truth to Power’. I expected to muse about the voices on the margins of society and their prophetic calling to account of those in social and economic power. I ended in a very different place, following from the theme from last week’s blog.

I wondered about the power I have over myself. When in (social or economic) power, it takes extraordinary courage and insight to suspend our own judgements about the nature of reality and listen to the dissenting voices. However, it is frequently the voices from the margins that hold the key to our healing and health. They are the voices of revelation. They uncover things that we suppress, either consciously or unconsciously. They unveil the blind spots, allowing us to address the things that have the potential to disqualify us from achieving our goals.

And so I ask myself, what are the voices about me that challenge the stories I tell myself about who I am? As I processed this with Maria over the weekend, she suggested that it would ultimately be a liberating exercise. I doubted it at the time. After some more hours of conversation and thinking, I suspect she is right.

I’m not sure this blog is the appropriate place to bare my soul; however to illustrate what I am talking about, I can repeat something from my journal notes yesterday; “I am an ordinary urban professional with delusions of greatness.’

I have begun to apply this to our business too. It goes against the grain of conventional marketing to downplay one’s capacity and abilities. It takes the same courage and insight to listen to the alternative or marginal voices about who we are at Ergo for us to see our blind spots and the realities we suppress … but hopefully that too will be liberating.

By the way, happy spring. Nature’s instincts for new life are everywhere already aren’t they; blossom ready to burst. I wonder if our weekend inclination to roast some capsicum with garlic and parsley to eat on fresh bread falls into the same category?

Perhaps allowing the dissenting voices about our own lives will also take root produce some new life within.

Hanging Rock is a tourist icon. The summit provides panoramic views of farming plains amidst a maze of rocks that form caves, crevasses, tunnels, arches, cliffs and walkways. Being a kid-friendly 20 minute walk to the top, it is little wonder it draws families and tourists from afar.

I was there on the weekend as part of our annual Ergo staff and families weekend away. In between some workshopping, eating, drinking, playing board games in front of the fire and watching some more Olympics, we loaded everyone up and convoyed across to spend the cold Saturday afternoon outside among the rosellas, kangaroos and the famous Rocks.

The other reason these Rocks attract so many people is the legendary story of The Picnic at Hanging Rock. The mysterious disappearance of three girls and teacher from a private school picnic, the subsequent discovering of one of the girls three days later with no recollection of events and the suicide of the headmistress by throwing herself off one of the cliffs at Hanging Rock … this is background conversation of every first time visitor to Hanging Rock.

Even though it is just a story, there are clearly benefits of perpetuating the ambiguity about the line between fact and fiction. Apart from forming part of Australian Folk Lore, the revenue from tourism in the vicinity is significantly enhanced. The author of the book, Joan Lindsay, refused to say whether there was any basis in real history, but the total absence of any newspaper or other records of such events speak for themselves. It got me wondering about how we can unconsciously (or consciously) perpetuate stories that are not true because of the apparent benefits.

For example, there was a time in our business when we believed we could do anything for anyone. It allowed for innovation and confidence to work across a variety of industries offering diverse solutions. Even though it delivered some benefits, it was healthy for us to identify the belief as a myth and reassess our self understanding of who we were and our associated competencies.

I wrote recently about a senior executive who believes he understands where his staff are at. Unfortunately he is misguided, but he believes his own rhetoric. He is not alone. We tell ourselves stories about ourselves, our family, our colleagues, our workplaces and our world everyday. The stories make sense to us, but they may or may not be truthful. Yes, they will have dimensions of truth. But often the pieces of truth we base our stories on are a very narrow perspectives. Yet it serves us well to hang on to the stories. “I am competent”, “I am hopeless”, “Melbourne is the most liveable city”, “We are better than our competitors”, “We are weaker than our competitors.” Etc etc.

You often hear people described as ‘calling a spade a spade’ as a way of describing their forthright manner. That’s not necessarily what i am talking about here. I am talking about the wisdom that says, “I can see a spade, but I wonder why? Do others see a shovel?” “How does it serve my self interest to call it a spade?” We may end up agreeing that it is indeed a spade, but let’s keep in mind that the worm perceives it very differently.

If all that is too esoteric, just think about the Picnic at Hanging Rock. Who benefits from perpetuating the ambiguity of history? Is that OK?

What are the stories that you believe about yourself, your family and your colleagues? Do they need a re-examination? At the end of the day, even though there may be real or perceived value in cultivating half-truths, my view is that searching for a fuller appreciation of truth is a more secure route. It liberates us to face things that might be difficult but ultimately allow us to navigate life with confidence and grace.

When I was at high school my favourite subjects were Art and Technical Drawing. Although I considered a career in Architecture, at the time the premier course was in Adelaide and the city of churches didn’t hold much appeal for me in those days. However, I have always harboured an enthusiasm for how people interact with their physical environment, and the design of spaces for effective and enjoyable use remains a fascination for me.

I got to indulge this interest last Friday when I was privileged to attend a Strategic Thinking Forum at the City of Melbourne to discuss the use of public space. One of the presentations at the forum was from an organisation called the Project for Public Spaces. (www.pps.org ) Ethan Kent, the presenter introduced us to a very simple but powerful idea, which at PPS they call the Power of 10.

In a nutshell, a great city has at least 10 major attractions, a great precinct has at least 10 venues, a great space has at least 10 possible things to do in it … etc. Now without getting hung up about the sanctity of ‘10′, I love the idea because it rings true with what I have experienced about cities, offices, parks, rooms and any other spaces designed for people to be in.

In addition to the obvious application to design which was the focus of Friday’s discussion, I wondered about how it works as a diagnostic: if a space doesn’t ‘work’ it could well be that the options for activity are too narrow. Think also about the problem of vandalism and crime: when a space has limited utility, the more creative, innovative or rebellious among us will be inclined to generate additional uses …

This is not to suggest the idea of ‘10′ is the only explanation for why space works or otherwise, but it certainly rang true for me. It was amazingly engaging to discover such a simple idea that even in the couple of days since Friday, has changed to way I see ‘spaces’.

There has been some discussion around workplace design on this blog previously. This gives us another angle. Think about desk space, meeting rooms, communal areas … this simple idea could be applied to multiply the effectiveness, enjoyment and utility of expensive office resources.

I wonder whether this sheds any light on your own workspace?