The challenge that in-formation leadership addresses is that of a need for wide-spread paradigm shifts and the redesign of institutions and industries. Without leaders from the establishment pairing up with alternative thinkers in leadership networks, supported by systemic methodological frameworks that can guide a system transformation, this cannot be achieved. The alternative of being shaken out of our complacency by another world war or global calamity is too ghastly to contemplate.

We cannot wait for the small (sometimes hailed as organic) changes that trickle to some select few beneficiaries before drying up again. We need to upscale them on a grand scale without being tempted into the social engineering we observed in the industrial age (e.g. in the name of socialism).

The promise of the information age is the possibility of the direct participation by stakeholders in a focused national, regional or even global effort to (re)design existing systems, coordinated by a coherent methodology. The stakeholders contribute their diverse perspectives to co-design shared, desirable, viable and sustainable visions of the future and develop strategies relating to their specific sphere of influence to bring about a more desirable future.

There could be a visionary leader providing the impetus for a change, but this leader requires the support of leaders amongst all stakeholder groups to bring about the collective vision. In the context of the previously mentioned German energy transformation, Chancellor Angela Merkel took the lead in proposing the vision. She also set some very challenging targets for achieving it. However, unless she gets the support of stakeholders from both the renewable and non-renewable energy generators, distributors and consumers, amongst others, this vision is unattainable. Leaders from each stakeholder group (e.g. from along the energy supply chain and those being impacted on) need to come to the fore and coordinate their efforts. They will also need to convince the system they represent to sacrifice (at least short-term) advantages in order to bring about this vision. Resistance (especially from greedy shareholders and self-serving lobbies) is huge.

No single leader can achieve an outcome of the magnitude of changing global (or even national) energy generation and use. The leaders from the different stakeholder groupings depend on each other. Each leader needs to facilitate the contribution of creative solutions from their perspective of the problem and the desired solution. This contribution cannot come from others, least of all from politicians who represent a generic and functionally diverse majority. Only coordinated self-governance by the different parts of the system can deal with the complexity of such a challenge. Hence our definition of systemic in-formation leadership as the coordination of self-governing units for the benefit of the collective (i.e. the containing and contained systems of a larger whole).

The BiomatrixJam methodology is designed to facilitate a coordinated and focused (subject specific) dialogue (either workshop or online based) between stakeholders of the system and its sub-systems (e.g. the energy industry and its sub-industries and affected systems). It facilitates a systemic analysis of the problems in each (sub)system, as well as the collection of existing solutions and the brainstorming of new ones. A design team integrates and coordinates the jam output, using systemic organising principles to ensure a viable and sustainable redesign of the system. This design is subjected to another round of jamming for refinement and generating alignment.

Unlike social engineering which has master planners (usually from government) designing a change for a system and prescribing it to stakeholders for implementation, the BiomatrixJam facilitates participatory stakeholder planning. It is a bottom up approach in terms of generating the shared design from the perspective of different stakeholders. The jam acts as a framework of generic questions (based on systems theory) that prompts the generation of systemic input by stakeholders. It does not prescribe any content but it in-forms (i.e. it puts form into) the debate by creating contextualisation, integration and coordination of the stakeholder ideas. The methodology itself provides leadership, through the overarching systemic design as well as generic “leading questions” which apply to any system and are derived from generic organising principles.

The underlying paradigm of the BiomatrixJam and its associated system (re)design methodology (i.e. the Biomatrix Societal Development Programme) is systems thinking or (w)holistic thinking. More specifically, the systems approach we follow is Biomatrix Systems Theory. It is a comprehensive integration and extension of the key concepts, models, tools and methods of other thinkers associated with different systems approaches, cybernetics, operations research, complexity theory, chaos theory and related bodies of knowledge. See biomatritheory.com for an overview and brief discussion of its key concepts.

|

In the whole conference, which related responsible leadership to sustainability, the word technology did not feature (except in our workshop). Yet, technological choices are one of the main co-producers of our global sustainability related problems. They could also be a major co-factor in (dis)solving them. Alas, there is no technological leadership!

As pointed out in Prof. Rias van Wyk’s excellent presentation during the workshop, there is no established science of technology which would allow the integrated management of the highly fragmented field of technological processes and entities. Without frameworks derived from such a science, we cannot make coordinated technological choices along industry supply chains and across interacting supply chains. Fortunately, he has demonstrated technological leadership throughout his career to develop such frameworks.

In our joint workshop we demonstrated a methodology for the (w)holistic redesign of an industry supply chain, using Germany’s intended transformation of the energy industry as a case study. We demonstrated the complementary and synergistic cooperation between the methods developed by our respective bodies of knowledge: the Biomatrix Societal Development Programme (including the BiomatrixJam) represented by me and the frameworks and methods of Technoscan® represented by Rias.

Our complementary methods are also grounded in the same ethos – i.e. the valid aspirations of people and the sovereignty of nature.

|

Field versus web leadership: In listening to the conference presentations on leadership, I noticed that the leaders that are typically held up as the inspiration for other leaders to follow are those I would regard as “field” leaders (e.g. Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Victor Frankel, the Dalai Lama, etc.).

Let me explain: Biomatrix Systems Theory distinguishes between a web and field perspective of the biomatrix. The former refers to the activity and entity systems that we observe as making up the web of life and its interacting natural, social, psychological and technological systems.  By comparison, the field perspective deals with the field of in-formation that permeates this web and in-forms how its systems unfold and develop, analogous to the in-formation inherent in the structure of the DNA that guides the growth and development of an organism in physical reality. In systems of the psycho-sociosphere, the in-formation field contains the paradigms, values and guiding principles that we tend to associate with a culture. Once the culture is changed, its members will change their behaviour in many different and unpredictable ways according to the cultural changes.

The methods of change management (and hence leadership) differ if we intervene in the web or the field of the biomatrix. To intervene in the physical reality of the web to change one of its existing systems requires the formulation of a viable and sustainable vision of a desirable ideal future for the system, as well as coordinated and hands-on interventions to achieve a more desirable future. To change the values contained in the information field requires leadership that changes values (e.g. a moral leadership). The above mentioned leaders represent this. They change values. By comparison, Chancellor Merkel is a leader aiming to change an existing system (i.e. the energy industry).

Field and web leadership are complementary and often occur together. For example, the German vision of Energiewende needs to be supported by a change in culture towards valuing and appreciating sustainability. However, a cultural change alone, without the redesign of the industry by all stakeholders, will be insufficient.

Interventions in both the web and the field require in-formation leadership, albeit using different approaches.

|

Leaders knowing what but not how! Probably the most disconcerting insight from the summing up session was the problems leaders experience with the implementation of their visions.

Do we still talk leadership if there is no idea of how to, even if we know what would be desirable?

My favourite example in this context is the concluding statement by the G20 after the finance crisis meeting in March 2009: “We know what caused the finance crisis, but we don’t know what to do about it”.  One can make the same statement by replacing finance crisis with climate change, poverty, unsustainable development, infrastructure challenges, food security, non-renewable energy use, population growth in some areas and aging populations in others, wars, polluted waters, deforestation, desertification, youth unemployment, illegal trades and a host of other complex problems. Do we have impotent leaders or impotent paradigms?

Many leaders have a clear vision but fail to effect its implementation, not knowing how (because of the structural impediments explained previously). For example, the German vision of Energiewende (i.e. the transformation of the energy industry towards using renewable resources) is clear, but its implementation seems doubtful and problem riddled, judging by the lack of coordination and selfish lobbying that is taking place. To make a vision reality does not happen by the uncoordinated actions of individual stakeholders. These can even create more problems. For example, the poorly planned subsidisation of electricity from photo-voltaic generation has seriously damaged the whole photovoltaic industry, jeopardising the achievement of the overall vision.

The invisible hand of the market paradigm is not transformative at the collective level. It pushes for more of the same for its individual units, typically to the detriment of the common good. If there is transformation, it is that of one unit of the market, provided it serves the self-interest of the individual unit. If we look for transformation at the collective level, some units are bound to be disadvantaged (e.g. the non-renewable energy sector, if the overall vision of renewable energy is to be achieved). Society will have to consider other than the market mechanism to ameliorate their disadvantage and elicit their support.

To achieve a transformation at the collective level for the common good requires in-formation leadership (i.e. the coordination of efforts by the individual stakeholders). Leaders (personal and organisational) representing the different stakeholders need to drive the coordinated redesign of the whole system (e.g. the whole German energy industry or the global finance system, if we want to up the stakes). This challenge is beyond that of the one or even few leaders. We need cooperating networks of leaders and most importantly, we need coordinating frameworks and methods (e.g.  the BiomatrixJam method for participatory stakeholder planning).

|

To come back to the river and its bed (as referred to in the post on the dominance and limits of the people centred leadership paradigm): of course, the river also changes the riverbed, eroding sand and rocks. This is, however, a slow process and does not necessarily redirect the river to where it is needed. In terms of futures research we would say that the changes to the current river amounts to current future developments, while the digging of new riverbeds amounts to a desired system redesign.

As to the chipping away at the current paradigm, I have seen inspiring examples of leadership (e.g. of sustainable business practice, like the ones we were introduced to during the conference). Alas, in the course of the last 30 years or so, I have seen those kinds of initiatives and their inspiring and enthusiastic leaders before, but what I yet have to see is their impact on a large and lasting scale (i.e. their upscaling in space and time). I have also seen most of them die when their founding members (or funders) withdrew, to be reinvented in a similar manner, in a different context, without reference to and use of knowledge accumulated by the previous efforts. Again (like the previous efforts) they are heralded as a leading case study for shaping the future, an inspiration to the mainstream of how it can transform. Yet, the mainstream fails to respond.

I have also seen inspiring projects and leaders operating in the same context almost competing against each other, instead of coordinating and collaborating. (I have done some work with governments to effect more coordination between NGOs and other organisations operating in the same area of application and experienced firsthand the resistance – personal and organisational).

Do these initiatives have merit? Yes, hugely! But they are not effective enough in the larger scheme of things. We need to get them out of the closet into the mainstream. We need to stop reinventing and instead: learn from each other, combine, coordinate, upscale what we already have and know. We need to go global! This, too, requires systemic in-formation leadership.

|

Whenever leadership development is discussed, it is typically done in the context of a person as a leader. Or if an organisation is leading in a field (e.g. by operating sustainably), it is mostly ascribed to a person (e.g. the CEO, the owners of the family business) bringing this about. While this is undoubtedly true in many cases, in others it is not. Without wanting to be cynical about some of the case studies I heard, this apparently inspiring leadership could also be the result of a synergistic interaction between changing legislation, a receptive organisational culture and the perception of a business advantage (e.g. green is cool and can also be very profitable in certain industries).

The main point I want to make, however, is that leaders are often limited by their organisational and institutional context. Even if they wanted to change things, they can’t. Cases were mentioned where CEOs left their organisations to join an NGO, or former business school graduates left their lucrative employment to return to their business school in order to find meaning through teaching. I regard this as failed leadership. By analogy, those leaders moved from the trenches to the sick ward. Alas, only the former wins the war, even if the latter is an important component.*

What I did not hear was the diagnosis that no amount of additional leadership development of the persons concerned will help them, or how they can be supported. From a systems thinking perspective, one could argue that these leaders are trapped by the organisational, industrial, institutional and societal structures (ranging from mind structures like the currently accepted  paradigms, to organisational structures, legal frameworks, stakeholder pressures, technological legacies, international competition and resource limits, amongst others).  Analogous to the flow of the river being determined by the shape of the river bed (which prevents it to flow in a different way), the potential leaders are prevented from initiating change as they want to by the interaction of those structures. What is required here is a collective effort by different types of leaders in facilitating a paradigm shift in decision-makers at all levels of society and in redesigning some of our current cultural, economic and political institutions. By analogy, it requires the digging of new riverbeds in different parts of society so that the water cannot do anything else but flow sustainably to where it is needed (i.e. based on a vision of a desired ideal future, shared by its stakeholders). This could be facilitated by systemic in-formation leadership.

* note on military leadership: Often military leaders are used as case studies and held up as examples in the context of leadership development. The relevance of those case studies is however limited precisely by the point I try to make above: they are not constrained by the structures inherent in the context to the same extent as other leaders (e.g. leaders in business), because the paradigm and vision to win the war is shared and supported by the larger context (e.g. society, large parts of the economy, a military tradition and even by religion). Hence they do not have to fight against a dominant paradigm being against them and institutional structures preventing them.

|

I have recently attended the conference Africa Leads: Responsible Leadership for Africa and the World.  I was inspired by many of the presentations. At the same time, I wondered about the following issues associated with the current leadership paradigm, based on my observations as a futurist and systems thinker:

– the dominance and limits of the people centred leadership paradigm
– the need to upscale leadership initiatives
– leaders knowing what but not how
– field versus web leadership
– the absence of technological leadership
– comments on systemic in-formation leadership

|

I would suggest that one could start with some reflections (e.g. involving a PhD or Master student, or a team of economics students) on systems thinking and economic theory. For example, one could reflect on

1. the various concepts that make up economic theory from the perspective of Biomatrix Systems Theory, as presented on www.biomatrixtheory.com and exemplified by the examples below on the law of diminishing returns and opportunity cost, economic growth and the market and financial paradigm.
2. the implication of the various concepts of Biomatrix Systems Theory for economic theory, as shown by the following examples of mei, limits, systemic governance the distinction between physical and conceptual reality.

The output from these two types of inquiries could reveal some patterns that can be explored further.

Biomatrix Systems Theory distinguishes between physical and conceptual reality.

This distinction is especially relevant in the context of the global finance system (i.e. money coupled to a physical commodity versus money coupled to a conceptual commodity).

In 2008, the amount of derivatives amounted to 13 times that of the total Gross Domestic Product. These figures speak for themselves. They represent two separate, albeit interrelated systems that are unfortunately treated as if they are the same. Earlier in the year, German Chancellor Merkel raised the issue of separating them (i.e. the Realwirtschaft or real economy from the investment economy). The debate about it seems to have seized since (if there was a widespread one in the first place). I regard this as the core challenge of the information age: the role of in-formation in the economy, including the information that money (as divorced from a physical standard, such as gold) represents.

A separation of the two systems could imply the need to separate the currencies of the two systems – the national or regional currencies that measure the real production of goods and services and the services associated with investment and risk management (on a tongue in cheek note: what about Chase Manhattan or Goldman Sachs chips?).

|