Leadership


The BigQ – Leading for Competitive Advantage in the One Planet World


 

The One Planet World

   It is clear that the pressure we are putting the Earth under is leading to resource shortages, both in absolute terms and relative distribution. For many of us, our experiment in living a multiple planet existence on the only planet we have is coming to a close.

   This has far reaching consequences for how we will ‘manage for a One Planet World’ and the leadership skills it will need.

It is often said that the past is another country, when the ‘customer was king’ and the drive was ‘quality’, ‘integrated teams’ and the work of Deming, Crosby and the other quality gurus.

   Today we live in seemingly more complex world where the customer is no longer king, only the most important ‘stakeholder’ in a confusing mix of social, environmental and economic drivers.

The Little and the ‘Big Q’

   Up until now we have thought of Quality as the ‘Little Q’, as fitness for purpose rather than the ‘emergent property’ it is; the property a collection or complex system has, but which the individual members do not have – the ‘BigQ’

In the One Planet World we can no longer say that because a product or service satisfies, nay delights the customer, that it possesses ‘quality’ –  if it leads to a ‘loss to society’ overall, as Taguchi would say; through economic, social and environmental failures.

Ask Nature

This isn’t the way nature does things. Nature seeks to maximize the value added to society that results from its creation, use and disposal of eco-system products and services, without loss. This is the BigQ definition of quality we must aspire to. Quality is that which

Maximizes the value added to society that results from the creation, use and disposal of products and services at continually reducing loss.

This is a journey of integrated continual improvement, not a destination.

A Mind Model

Using the One Planet Equation Mind Model (OPE) 1 = P x C x RI, we are inevitably drawn to its consequence; the First Law of Sustainability ‘In a resource constrained environment, goods and services can only grow at the rate at which their resource intensity can be reduced beyond balancing the One Planet Equation’.

From this vantage point we can look dispassionately at the One Planet World and say what this means for us as suppliers and customers of its products and services.

Resource Intensity

At our starting point on our journey towards the One Planet World we have

1 = P x C x RI or 1 = 1 x 1 x 1

And as we move forward from this point, the 1 planet remains the same so the right hand product always has to equal one. The only way this can happen in a resource constrained environ-ment is if the Resource Intensity, (RI) is never more than 1/PC.

This is the key to future strategic leadership and competitive advantage. We must

◦       Seek to eliminate the cannots

◦       Base our business models on the musts.

◦       Work to continually reduce the Resource Intensity of the products and services we create, use and dispose of.

Don’ts and Do’s

From this we can say that in the One Planet World

◦       Energy, water and other resources will be constrained

◦       Human resources will be plentiful

And from these come the ‘we cannots’

◦       Create growth faster than we can reduce Resource Intensity (RI)

◦       Waste or ineffectively invest resources

◦       Freely transport resources or goods

◦       Use a linear system of creation, use and disposal

◦       Keep creating products and services that allow unlimited forms of self-actualization

◦       Invest in inflexible technology, infrastructure and buildings

◦       Design for obsolescence

◦       Use Energy and water   ineffectively

And the ‘we must

◦       Evolve our democratic processes to enable process learning and continual improvement

◦       Leave behind the reductionist, compliance approach to organizational management

◦       Think local

◦       Educate for RI minimization

◦       Continually reduce the RI of non-essential processes to zero (eliminate them)

◦       Replace energy with people (Ingenuity and creativity) in processes. These are your customers!

◦       Replace products with services

◦       Design for maintainability

◦       Design for reliability

◦       Complete the cradle to cradle loop as far as possible

◦       Mimic natural processes

◦       Group symbiotic processes together

◦       Work to continually reduce the losses in the essential processes remaining (improve quality).

Only in this way can we perceive

how we are to lead for competitive advantage in the One Planet World and how we are to manage and maintain that advantage.

The Double Headed Coin

In the Big Q One Planet World we have to see environmental and social failures as much a part of the costs of poor quality as economic ones. That quality and sustainability are the two sides of the same coin, toss it and you can only win.

Business in the 3rd Millennium

It is increasingly being recognised that we are coasting to the top of many resource curves, and are at or near the reality of the OPE deciding our futures

In managing for the future, businesses will have to cope with this reality. Fortunately humans are creative and enterprising and some organisations will survive and many more will be created.

Our past has been characterised as reductionist, but our future depends on our being able to shift paradigms to ‘systems thinking’, of not managing local time and costs but creating value and managing its flow through the system.

We have to work to continually reduce the combined ‘resource intensity’ of the essential processes that contribute to the flow of value through the system

This is best viewed as integrated, continual quality improvement – of reducing the loss in those processes – the BigQ.

Future Shock

We are suffering from what Alvin Toffler called ‘Future Shock’.

This being a state of confusion that arises when the past offers little guidance to dealing with the present and the future and we are in such a time, where the past offers few signposts to the future – when increasing demand for goods and services meets declining resources to create them.

Tomorrow’s businesses depend on their abilities to continually transform what they do and how they do it, and to achieve this they need a regeneration of the mindset that led them to this point in time.

They must have the ability to think beyond the boundaries of the organisation to the wider system and seek to attain their organizational outcomes at continually reducing resource intensity.

Creativity and Ingenuity

Deming created his circle of improvement, Plan, Do, Check, Act and it has stood the test of time but it doesn’t explicitly show the need for the creativity and ingenuity required to drive continual improvement, towards system sustainability.

Including these vital ingredients creates a Virtuous Circle that, using ‘in process control’ and a synergy of an entire organization’s stake-holders and their combined knowledge and skills, enables process learning, which after sensing and absorbing external signals will liberate the creativity and  ingenuity within to drive the process design in the direction of sustainability.

As the process becomes more sustainable, the losses are by definition minimised, reducing the need for appraisal costs and eliminating the costs and risks of internal and most importantly, external failures.

RI of Failure Demand

“Failure demand’ is caused by a failure to do something, or do something right for the customer and ‘value demand’ – is what the system exists to provide”, – John Seddon.

It is evident that such failure demand within systems will increase their Resource Intensity and in a resource constrained, One Planet World, these will increasingly be social and environmental failures.

Approaching their elimination from our current reductionist paradigm can only lead to the weakening of the links of Eliyahu Goldratt’s ‘Critical Chain’; which can only be strengthened by seeing these failures as part of a

an organization’s costs of poor quality; of its failure to live up to the Big Q.

Product or Service?

Tomorrow’s organisations must think how they can transform what they provide from a product to a service. They must think in terms of resource ‘stewardship’ and completing the ‘life cycle loop’.

All stakeholders must be ‘in the loop’ to maximize the ‘value added to society’ as the value flows around it; creating a synergy of knowledge and skills that will drive the Virtuous Circle.

As was ever the case we must be in the right place at the right time, doing the right thing, right. The anticipation of competitor and customer actions makes the difference between success and failure. Peter Drucker said “what the customer sees, thinks, believes and wants at any time determines if value is being created”

Instantaneous Adaptability

Leading in the One Planet World requires us to be almost instantaneously adaptable as individuals, with the vision and skills to create the same adaptability within the organizations we serve.

The resources available to us will be reducing over time and we must marshal them to continually increase the supply of goods and services that meet the essential emotional and spiritual needs of our customers.

It is unlikely that there will be many businesses supplying gratuitous wants in the One Planet World.

Tomorrow’s leaders must have the skills and ability to liberate the creativity and ingenuity in their people and other stakeholders that will enable and drive change.

Zero-based thinking

Zero-based thinking, as written about by Brian Tracy, is usually asking the question:

“Knowing what I know now, would I get into this business, job, or situation again?”

If the answer is yes, continue and improve; If the answer is no, get out of the situation as soon as possible and start from scratch.

As we coast over the top of the oil and other curves, this is the critical question we must all answer continuously, both professionally and personally to live the BigQ.

Managing for the Future

Tomorrow’s businesses must

◦       Satisfy emotional and spiritual need rather than gratuitous wants

◦       Satisfy essential needs in the lower orders of Maslow’s Pyramid

◦       Employ people rather than energy

◦       Create or use renewable energy and other resources

◦       Minimise water use or create the technologies that do

◦       Create and deploy climate stabilising and mitigation technologies

◦       Be increasingly local

◦       Provide a service rather than a product

◦       Practice lifecycle stewardship of their resources

◦       Manage value rather than cost

◦       Be able to operate at continually reducing resource intensity

Leading and managing for the future means understanding that the One Planet Equation and the world it is creating will arrive whether we choose to ignore it or not; that the BigQ is an opportunity and a challenging adventure.

Learning and Teaching

In the One Planet World we must learn what our customers are uniquely able to teach us if we are make maximum use of the resources available to us in the creation use and disposal of our goods and services.

This learning must be instantaneously part of our ‘Virtuous Circle’ of improvement to ensure continual process learning and Resource Intensity reduction.

Education for system RI reduction, the BigQ, will be an integral part of the organizational learning of those businesses, and the new ones created, that will successfully transition to the One Planet World

Leaders for ‘Future Advantage’ will

◦       Remember Deming’s adage that ‘Survival is not Compulsory’ for a business, or the human race.

◦       Understand that time is not on our side.

◦       See the future as a challenging adventure and not an impossible challenge.

Conclusion – Future Advantage

This article is predicated on four tenets

◦       That we are addicted to the hugely ineffective use of energy and other resources

◦       That most current discourse is centred on the ’symptoms’ our addiction causes – climate change, environmental, social and economic failures

◦       That human beings are, and have been, creative, ingenious and enterprising since the dawn of our species.

◦       That ’our’ future is ‘our’ problem – that the Earth will most probably manage very well without us.

Most other sources are concentrating on the problems our addiction is causing from a ’symptoms’ perspective, which appeals to many, as it gives the appearance of concern, whilst putting off action until tomorrow.

Many have a genuine desire to see immediate change but through a natural and emotional wish to deal with the symptoms are having their efforts dissipated.

The OPE makes clear the effect our addiction is having and makes explicit the action needed to create the One Planet World – to continually reduce the resource intensity of all the products and services we consume.

This is the real challenge we face if we are to create an economic future that is more equitable, whilst eliminating the risks of environmental and social failures in its creation.

We want as organizations, communities and societies to continually improve the ‘quality of our lives’ and this can only be achieved, logically, by continually improving the ‘quality’ of the products and services we create and consume over their life-cycle.

We must ‘Do the Right Thing’ – be effective in our use of resources and ‘Do it Right Every Time’ – be efficient in our use of those resources. This is a Journey, not a destination and has at its core the need for an effort of ‘quality improvement’ driven by human creativity that the world has not yet experienced – the BigQ

We face many challenges to achieving this, not least, the economic failure we are now experiencing and the natural response to ‘fight the last war with obsolete weapon’s’ but we have no option but to enter the future and we must envision what this future will be.

Human ingenuity and enterprise will ensure that some societies and organizations will exist and thrive as we attempt to ‘keep ahead of the oil curve.’

All future ingenuity, research, education, legislation and incentives must be directed to this end.

 ©Derek Deighton and Jackie Ansbro

Trailblazer Business Futures 2009

Email from CalCars http://www.calcars.org/

Here’s CalCars’ comment: “We applaud Toyota’s recognition that PHEVs’
time has come. The technology is good enough to get started and the
solution offers a good business case. We hope as this hybrid pioneer
watches large and small competitors start selling PHEVs a year
earlier, it will accelerate its timetable and raise production levels.”

(Shortly after it goes out on email, this posting will also be
viewable at http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html — there you can
add CalCars-News to your RSS feed.)

THE PRIUS’S TIMELINES TO TODAY: It’s taken a long time. Toyota
introduced the Prius as the first-mass-production hybrid in Japan in
1997. It went global in 2001; the second-generation vehicle arrived
in 2004, the third in 2009, and over two million have been sold.
Meanwhile CalCars did the first Prius conversion in 2004, sparking
the growth of an aftermarket industry. Since 2006, a thousand plug-in
Prius conversions showing what was possible helped build awareness
and support for PHEVs, and the company’s public comments evolved from
dismissive to open-minded (see
http://www.calcars.org/carmakers.html#toyotaquotes ).

Toyota showed its first PHEV prototype in 2007. Until this week, the
company had announced plans only for fleet leases of 600
demonstration/test units in Japan, the U.S., and Europe, with
consumer sales only a possibility. Now it will start selling them in
2011, with tens of thousands in showrooms in 2012 at a “affordable”
price tag. Reporters say Toyota has concluded that PHEVs “will become
the market mainstream.”
http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story/A1Story20091208-184656.html

NFORMATION SOURCES: Toyota has a new website with basic explanations
and specifications at http://www.priusphv.com . And see the
illuminating 20-slide presentation by Toyota Chief Engineer Yoshikazu
Tanaka
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/tech/environment/conference09/pdf/phv_overview_en.pdf
. At http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/12/tmc-phv-20091214.html
read Green Car Congress’s summary and postings. Following are our
comments based on announced specifications.

BUSINESS DETAILS: Tanaka’s presentation projects “full-scale
commercialization in two years, on the order of several ten
thousands, with widely affordable pricing.” Toyota EVP Uchiyamada
indicates (below) that the vehicle could sell for under $33,770. With
U.S. Recovery Act tax credits of up to $7,500 for the first 200,000
plug-in vehicle from each manufacturer based on battery capacity; the
PHV’s 5.2 kWh battery pack, from its joint venture Panasonic EV
Energy, makes it eligible for about $2,500.

If prices hold, we’ve been on the right track in saying Toyota might
sell a plug-in Prius for little more than $3,000 over a non-PHEV
model. A 3.4 useful-kWh pack at $1,000/useful-kWh would cost $3,400.
The $1,000 saved by eliminating the NiMH battery could offset a
similar cost for a charger and a beefed-up DC:DC converter. As those
battery prices decline with the credits, PHEVs could approach the
cost of standard hybrids.

Operating costs for a 30km trip compared to gasoline vehicle, based
on Japanese petroleum and electric rates, are 58% better when
charging at peak times and 77% better off-peak.

TECHNICAL DETAILS: Comparing the vehicle with the 2010 Prius on which
it’s based (specs at http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/specs.html ),
its weight (3,284 pounds/1,490 kg) increases by 242 pounds/110 kg.
The engine and motor appear identical, and modified electronics will
allow more power from the electric motor.

The PHV uses over 60% of the its 5.2kWh lithium-ion battery pack’s
capacity to get 23.4 km/14.5 miles all-electric driving at speeds up
to 100 km/62 miles/hour. (For Japanese drivers traveling shorter
distances, the 20 km “sweet spot” covers 53.7% of daily driving and
51.2% of weekend driving.) Recharging is 180 minutes at 110-120
volts, 100 minutes at 220 — offering good opportunities to double
the vehicle’s effective range for those who can charge mid-day at work.

Petroleum and greenhouse gas reductions depend on multiple
assumptions — we can simply say that using the new JC08 driving
cycle yields over 100 MPG of gasoline. See
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/12/15/what-does-the-prius-phev-mileage-really-mean-on-the-jc08-cycle/
for a discussion of the PHV’s fuel efficiency under different
conditions; this discussion leaves out consideration of the
difference between CAFE and sticker numbers.

FEATURES: The vehicle’s new screens’ full integration with the
navigation system and information about the battery will give drivers
feedback about optimizing fuel economy. The car can be cooled in
advance while still plugged in for comfort and fuel efficiency.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Climate change & COP 15 – Part 2: Leadership crisis

This crisis in trust is closely linked to a crisis in leadership.

A McKinsey survey of global executives found that while three quarters (74%) say the CEO/chair should take the lead on socio-political issues (such as climate change), only half (56%) say the CEO/chair is taking such a lead. What’s more, less than 1 in 10 (8%) think that companies are championing environmental and social causes out of genuine concern.

In the US, almost a third (27%) of executives claim not to be playing any leadership role on public issues like climate change, and only 14% claim to be playing a direct, active role. And yet, almost half (44%) of US executives feel their peers should be taking a leadership role public issues, with only one-seventh believe they are actually doing so.

So much for the numbers; what are the implications for leadership? The same McKinsey survey may give us a clue: Of those who claim not to be playing any role in leadership on public issues, 71% cite ‘business reasons’, while of those who say they are playing a role, 64% cite ‘personal reasons’. This suggests that – in order to have transformational leadership on climate change – we need to look at both the business ‘rules of the game’ and the role of individual leaders.

Interestingly, this conclusion dovetails nicely with the leadership research coming out of academia, which emphasises importance of both the context for leadership and the individual traits of leaders.

from http://csrinternational.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-change-cop-15-part-2-leadership.html

It is impossible for us to ascertain the ‘quality’ of Universities unless we clearly understand the ’One Planet World’ we are now entering and consequently ’what they are here for’.

In this ‘One Planet World’. where resources are constrained and human resources are plentiful, Universities can only exist to ‘liberate the creativity required to enable their stakeholders to continually reduce the resource intensity of society at continually reducing resource intensity of learning’

The formation of students throughout the world is for a paradigm that no longer exists – the one of creating wealth through continuously using more resources – the paradigm universities have to educate for is one where wealth is created using fewer and fewer non-renewable resources. The one that is governed by the One Planet Equation and 1st Law of Sustainability, which states

‘In a resource constrained environment, goods and services can only grow at the rate at which they can be reduced beyond that required to balance the One Planet Equation’

note – we also have to recognise that many ‘renewable resources’ are not renewable at exponential rates of use. 

dd

http://oneplanetequation.wordpress.com/one-planet-equation/

http://oneplanetequation.wordpress.com/about/

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html 

Review to judge ‘quality’ of universities

 

By David Turner, Education Correspondent

Published: December 7 2009 13:39 | Last updated: December 7 2009 13:39

Lord Browne’s review of student funding has broadened into a wide-ranging inquiry into the standard of England’s universities and how well they are serving the economy.

The government-appointed panel on Monday asked for evidence on the overall quality of higher education, seeking to answer the question: “Does the higher education system provide the quality and academic standards that students, employers and national economic needs require?”

The review’s decision to take a broader view of the university sector, rather than concentrate narrowly on student funding, could result in a politically explosive document when it reports after the next general election. Debate over the quality of degrees at English universities has intensified in recent months, particularly after a parliamentary committee raised questions about standards in August.

The Browne review’s focus on the economic payback of degrees will also raise hackles among academics and student leaders. Many argue that ministers have become excessively fixated with universities’ role in the economy, rather than their broader benefits to civilisation.

Full article at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d1b5a4b6-e331-11de-b965-00144feab49a.html

 

The parallels of the ‘Toyota Production System’ and sustainability

 

By Presidio Buzz | December 4th, 2009

The Toyota Production System has garnered praise and accolades not only in the realm of automobile manufacturing, but in the realm of operational efficiency. Similar to how individuals interested in sustainable business focus on the the 3P’s, the triple or integrative bottom line of People, Planet, and Profits, the underlying elements of the Toyota Production System can be summarized in the 4P’s: Philosophy, Process, People & Partners, and Problem Solving. The 4P’s are at the heart of what Toyota wants to be culturally. Furthermore, there is much crossover in the fundamental framework of the Toyota Production System and Sustainability. On another note, the visible actions of Toyota are not the core of the Toyota Production System. As Stevens and Kent state, “Toyota does not consider any of the tools or practices – such as kanbans or andon cords, which so many outsiders have observed and copied – as fundamental to the Toyota Production System.” Rather, it’s the underlying cultural framework of the Toyota Production System that enables Toyota to outperform western production methods.

Philosophy: Think and Act for the Long-Term

Toyota’s philosophy encourages thinking and acting for the long-term. Management decisions are based on the long-term philosophy, even at the expense of short-term financial gains. This philosophy is the essence of sustainability – causal thinking and action today, for the benefit of generations to come. When Toyota first launched Lexus, there were only 2 complaints over defective wiring and an overheating brake light. Rather than resolving just the 2 complaints, Toyota took the initiative, not to mention the short term financial hit, of recalling all 8000 Lexus LS400s. In turn for the long-term, Toyota built a reputation of standing behind the quality of their product. For Toyota, the production line goes beyond the confines of the factory today, but to the satisfaction of the customer tomorrow……………..

Full Story http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/12/the-parallels-of-the-toyota-production-system-and-sustainability/comment-page-1/

This presentation has received favourable reviews from around the World, Please add your comments 

download Managing the Future v1.1

Some recent comments on the Managing for the Future presentation 

“I really like your approach and material.  I was coming at this at a whole system level and looking at issues to do with individual values, group/organisational values and how this impacts on individual behaviour and the strategies and performance of the whole organisation and ultimately society.  Somehow there has to be a value change linked to a behaviour change as well as an understanding of the fundamental concepts of quality.  


“I really liked this presentation.  I agree with most of it. What do you intend to use it for and can I pinch bits?” 


“Best lecture outline I’ve seen recently. A very timely product you have to sell in the seminar market. 

If you are not going to use it that way and you have a paper I will get it into the ESRNZ magazine for sure. I would also use it to prod politicians around the Commonwealth via my CHEC links. 

If it is ok with you and my body allows I would like to use the presentation myself on others if the chance comes up. I have been called in at times to unhinge groups on engineering and science plus management on sustainability and ethics.”


 I appreciated the presentation. May I use one or two of your slide examples?  (with credit) 


 “It’s a brilliant synthesis and rather than whinge and worry about climate change (etc), it shows a way forward. With a potential for international agreement on our response for climate change, the time for this is ripe politically, if overdue environmentally or economically.  Perhaps some political focus following an agreement (or otherwise) would make it timely.” 


“Had had a quick glance – and I like what I saw – but am under too much pressure pre Copenhagen – saving the world! to comment further just now, I will follow up soon”  Local Governments for Sustainability, UN www.iclei.org 


 My friend Martin Brown describes the situation with regard to our predicament excellently on his Blog which contains the posting below.

Through the lens of this Blog, Keeping Ahead of the Oil Curve, the question is clear and unaquivical and is “how do we continually reduce the Resource Intensity of the Build Environment to help balance the one planet equation”

The background to this formulation can be found at http://trailblazerbusinessfutures.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/quality-and-the-one-planet-equation/ and I would like, with Martin’s help, and others if you would like to join in, to explore the avenues this question opens to view in a world driven, immutably, whether we ignore it or not, by the One Planet Equation. 1 = P x C x I

Unfortunately the one planet side of the equation is shrinking as we consume its non-renewable resources and sinks.

dd

If zero carbon is the answer then just what was the question?

July 6, 2009 by fairsnape

If zero carbon is the answer then just what was the question

Is it ‘just because’ I am currently  seeing things from a different perspective as I re-read Cradle to Cradle, (which I feel  has more resonance with where we are now)  but a number of recent issues and events  have left me questioning our approach to zero, and that going to zero is not enough.   Indeed it may even be dangerous ‘just’ going to zero.

Lets consider the built environment in its widest sense, not just from design to FM but from winning raw materials through construction to end users, and consider the opening premise from Cradle to Cradle, and ask who today would allow a sector to :

Put billions of pounds of toxic materials in the air water and ground every year

Produces materials so dangerous they require constant vigilance by future generations

See Complete article at  http://fairsnape.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/if-zero-carbon-is-the-answer-then-just-what-was-the-question/

 The scheme below is another example of failure to understand the need to continually reduce the resource intensity of society and the way to achieve this.

There are at the present time many organisations in the community giving young people the opportunity to be creative, and develop leadership skills, Scouts, Service Cadet organisations, churchs etc.

What is sadly and fatally lacking in our society is the opportunity to exercise those skills. Some form of national service or ’service for the nation’.

Not necessarily military service, but within all sectors, education, health, police etc.

The key criteria are that it should have some element of compulsion and a considerable element that is not local to the individual’s home. These elements will

  • show individuals that they have a duty to support and maintain the society they are part of
  • break down failure of aspiration within communities as members are faced with other realities and opportunities.

My 2002 comment on the UK Northwest Framework for Employability and Skills Action, FRESA can be downloaded here Comment on the North West Region FRESA290802

dd 

Youth leadership scheme launches £1m third sector fund

By Charlotte Goddard
Children & Young People Now
3 July 2009

A consortium of youth organisations has launched a £1m fund to boost youth leadership opportunities as it unveiled details of leadership body The Youth of Today.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown attended the body’s launch in Wolverhampton today.

The £1m Leadership Fund will be managed by the Young Foundation, part of the consortium which is led by the National Youth Agency. The fund will invest in third sector organisations delivering leadership programmes for 13- to 19-year-olds across England over a two-year period.

Full article at http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Childcare-and-Early-Years/917997/Youth-leadership-scheme-launches-1m-third-sector-fund/

Our raison d’etre

 

Trailblazer Business Futures, TrailblazerBF, exists to help people and organisations to ‘navigate’ the journey towards sustainability; by liberating the creativity that will enable integrated continual improvement.

Our mission is predicated on two tenets

  • that our future is resource constrained
  • that humans are creative and enterprising

These two tenets will ensure that as we transition into our resource constrained future, some organisations will disappear and be replaced, and others, with exceptional strategic leadership and management, can survive and grow.

The task is simple, if not easy to accomplish, and again can by reduced to two key questions

  • Is our business model relevant to such a future?
  • Does our leadership and management, enable the liberation of the creativity required to continually reduce the resource intensity of the goods and services we produce, consume and dispose of.

This will be the most massive effort of  ‘quality improvement’ the world has seen and we want to enter into a dialogue with those who see themselves as possible stakeholders and potential partners.

Join us here by commenting on posts, following us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/TrailblazerBF or emailing info@trailblazer.co.uk

dd

I have just been speaking to a friend who is part of an important sustainability initiative in Australia, The Natural Edge Project, about using Twitter to post information – and his comment was that he was ‘too busy’, and he probably is.

But the old adage says “if you want something done, ask someone who is too busy”. The best of the ‘Change Agents’ in the world are always ‘too busy’ but they still need to put their thoughts ‘out there’ on as many platforms as they can, Twitter included.

Another thought arises from this, and that is the issue of ‘Leadership’ and ‘Followship’, and the truth is we are all both as illustrated in the piece below from 1991.

Being of more ‘mature’ years, I might be forgiven for seeing Twitter as a new fangled thing and a passing fad, and it might be, but it has the power to enable both leadership and followship and in the process, hopefully allow the cream of the ideas that will continually reduce the Resource Intensity of Society, RIoS, to rise to the top of the bottle.

Those ideas that will show us how to balance the ‘One Planet Equation’ http://trailblazerbusinessfutures.wordpress.com/the-one-planet-equation/

dd

 

Follow the Leader

Tom Gray, 1st Thorsby Troop, Alta.
The Leader, May 1991

As I strolled past a city intersection, I stopped to watch five men. One was looking at a blueprint, three were leaning on shovels, and one was down in a hole digging. It turned out that the man with the blueprint was a district supervisor. Leaning on the shovels were an area supervisor, a site supervisor, and a job foreman. And the man in the hole? He was “just a laborer”.

A school registration form asked the question: “Is your child a leader or a follower?” A few days after filling out the form, one mother received this note from the teacher:   

“Dear Mrs. Smith;

Congratulations on having the only follower in a class of 28 leaders!” These anecdotes reflect our bureaucratic society, where we have “too many chiefs and not enough Indians”. We all know and understand sayings like this. A bureaucracy is top heavy; it has too many “leaders” and too few workers………

Coming Full Circle

I expect you’ve noticed it already. It is no coincidence that the qualities of a good follower overlap those of a good leader. From the description, it becomes clear that a good follower is able to assume leadership when necessary.

Followship, like leadership, is a role each of us must assume from time to time. There is an ebb and flow. We ale sometimes section or group leaders, but we must still follow the bylaw, policies and procedures of Scouts Canada and the limits set by our conscience or religious beliefs.

By training young people to be effective followers, we are training them to be effective leaders. By training them to accept God’s love, to be self-reliant, to cooperate and trust, to care for themselves, each other, and their world, we are training them to be good followers.

In the final analysis, the only person one can truly lead is oneself. Let us train our young people to follow well.

See post at http://troop485.tripod.com/documents/followleader.htm

 

See also

http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/

http://trailblazerbusinessfutures.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/leadership-and-the-virtuous-circle/

http://trailblazerbusinessfutures.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/ignoring-the-virtuous-circle-ignorance-or-arrogance/

http://www.johnadair.co.uk/

http://developingpeopleuk.blogspot.com/2008/08/leadership-vs-followship-part-1.html

Next Page »