We can, of course, choose to step out of the stream of urgency. Yet shouldn’t we be learning to work with it more effectively, learning to respond appropriately to the truly urgent.

Urgency can put us into the mindless mode of snap decisions and swift action unsuited to the situation. Sometimes it works out okay, often not. It’s all a bit roulette and that’s a game we can’t afford to play.

There’s much at stake. Big challenges, whether on a global scale or in organisations, are generally characterised by complexity and increasingly confound past experience.

Our response, in either scenario, requires reflection not knee-jerk, dialogue with a group of diverse thinkers, a willingness to engage with and trust our higher intuition rather than just the data.

Sensing into a situation, meditating on what might be needed, connecting with a higher wisdom that can be found when we create deep inner stillness as a practice may sound too far out for some. Yet, unfamiliar territory like that we are increasingly venturing in, requires a less conventional, more conscious approach. Why wouldn’t we trust our heart as well as head to guide us?

In these times of urgent issues surely one of the great services we can bring through our leadership is an openness to leading in a different way, to sensing into the future, and to creating a better world for all.

L'articolo Beyond the stream of urgent proviene da Azzur.

In parallel, transformational themes such as equality, sustainability, people first and building a better world feature in purpose statements and visions.

The challenge comes in the yawning abyss between the two…not because the transformational themes don’t get discussed or even measured but because they aren’t truly treated as leading indicators. Only money enjoys that position when in reality the reverse should be the case.

Where causal, transformational agendas designed to serve the Common Good are in the driving seat it completely redefines the role of business in our world and the definitions and measure of success.

It takes the organisation way beyond charitable giving, volunteer days or perfunctory staff engagement surveys. It demands more than compliance-led sustainability policies.  It puts the Common Good at the heart of business success and engages every molecule of business DNA in service of the higher ideal.

Does that mean money doesn’t matter? Not at all, it means money is in service of a higher ideal beyond growth to satisfy shareholders, financial Institutions or fund the remuneration of highly paid senior Executives. It places money in the context of long-term sustainability – of people, planet and profit.

Undoubtedly there are many senior execs, founders and CEOs in business today who know in their hearts that the current merry go round is not where true success lies.  Many will be secretly yearning for something more. Some are finding this through new business models such as employee-owned start-ups which enable greater control of the agenda, focus and core values of the organisation.

Some may leave their organisation and seek a new, more fulfilling path.

What if it were possible to redefine success within the current corporate framework? Not easy but possible.

Indra Nooyi took up the challenge at PepsiCo with her “Performance with Purpose” initiative, focusing on sustainable growth, healthier product offerings, environmental responsibility, and community empowerment. In parallel financial performance rocketed.

Bob Chapman led the company’s transformation from traditional management practices to Truly Human Leadership® — a people-centric approach where Barry-Wehmiller team members feel valued, cared for, and an integral part of the company’s purpose.

It takes courage, vision, personal capital within the business and a new vision for how to transform the commercial, human and operational realities of the organisation as they dance to a new tune of the Common Good. As a CEO are you ready to script a new tune for your business?

L'articolo Redefining success… the real function of today’s Chief Executive? proviene da Azzur.

By data, I don’t mean simply facts, figures or words. I mean the whole field of information available to us: the spoken and the unspoken, the visible and the invisible, what is said and what is left unsaid, what we observe intellectually and what we sense more intuitively.

Perhaps one of our most important human capacities is the ability not simply to receive all this information, but to discern its meaning. What lies behind or beyond? To sense into it.

Why does that matter?

Because communication is extraordinarily layered. Beneath words can sit intention, assumption, emotion, experience and belief. The capacity to move through those layers, without becoming captured by them, allows us to seek something deeper: the truth, quality and intent within an exchange. And that increasingly feels important.

We live amidst an extraordinary abundance of information: facts and supposed facts, data, opinion, interpretation, commentary and judgement. Yet more information does not necessarily produce more wisdom. Indeed, an excess of information may make wisdom more necessary, not less.

The real challenge, then, may not be acquiring more information but developing the inner discrimination to know what deserves our attention, what is true, what is partial, what is distorted, and what serves a greater coherence.

What allows us to make that distinction? We might call it wisdom. Wisdom asks us to go beyond immediate mental reaction and emotional response. It asks us to become still enough to sense what lies beneath them. We might describe this as listening from a deeper centre of ourselves: the higher self, the soul, or that part of human consciousness capable of holding a larger perspective.

This does not require us to abandon reason. Quite the opposite. The capacity to think, truly think, is one of the greatest gifts of being human. But perhaps our finest thinking occurs when intellect, intuition and ethical discernment work together rather than in isolation. The mind can analyse the fragments; wisdom helps us perceive the whole. And from that wider perspective, greater coherence becomes possible.

In the early 1800’s Reverend Stewart invited people to consider the following when speaking:

‘Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?’

To which we might add, does it illuminate, or merely add more noise? Does it contribute to greater understanding, connection and possibility? These questions matter whether we are receiving information or creating it.

Every time we contribute an idea, opinion or interpretation, we enter the consciousness of another person. Our words can clarify or confuse, connect or divide, enlarge understanding or narrow it. That makes communication more than a skill. It makes communication a responsibility.

This responsibility becomes even greater for those in positions of leadership, whether in business, politics, religion or community life. The greater our influence, the greater our capacity to shape not only what people think about, but the quality of the conversations through which they make sense of their world. Leadership therefore asks for more than eloquence or persuasive power. It asks for discernment.

If we are blessed with the extraordinary human capacities to think, sense, discern and communicate, surely there is some responsibility to use them well. Not to muddy the waters further, but to clarify them. Not simply to make ourselves heard, but to listen deeply enough that what we eventually contribute carries something of value.

And perhaps, at its highest level, that is what wise communication asks of us: to allow thought to be informed by consciousness, words to be guided by wisdom, and communication itself to become an act of service.

L'articolo Using our wisdom to navigate the complexities of communication proviene da Azzur.

Not for nothing then has collaboration become something of a holy grail for organisations. And we might apply that need to our wider world. Without a more collaborative spirit and application the gains we need to make become impossible.

And yet there’s a paradox at the heart of this harnessing of collective talents in service of something greater…collaboration vs accountability.

When the going’s good, shared accountability for the outcome is absolutely fine. When a project or its collaborators hit a bump in the road shared accountability becomes a place to hide. Blame becomes the language. Responsibility gets passed like a hot potato, sloping shoulders abound.

We all know none of this is the stuff of leadership but, at times, it happens, as do the bumps in the road.

At the outset of any collaborative effort we can plan for success or leave it to chance. Once a shared purpose is agreed and commitment gained, we need to be delineating the difference between who contributes and who decides and is, therefore, accountable for the outcome.

All well and good for a single project. But the future is about collaboration as a key facet of culture. In this scenario an accountability mind-set has to be one of the cornerstones. A key quality, with individual leaders appreciating that including and involving others doesn’t let us off the hook.

If we got this consistently right imagine the quality of work we’d produce, the time and effort we’d save and the levels of engagement we’d generate among those we lead.

And it is bigger than this. Imagine the example we could set for the bigger system of which we are a part.

At national and international level collaboration needs tuning up, blame and buck passing tuning out. Organisations can show the way to a better, more collaborative world.

L'articolo Owning collaboration proviene da Azzur.

Over the past few years the UK has been moving back to nationalisation. Rail has gone first. Then steel. Maybe water will be next then other utilities, assuming the taxpayer can afford it. Whether state control is the right approach or not time will tell.

However, given how the world has changed, how turbulent, complex and uncertain the environment in which organisations operate the possibility of leaders finding the new capabilities they will need in raft building and abseiling seems unlikely.

Leadership development in a world that is changing faster than leadership is evolving must be different…inward-bound, not outward not just for organisations themselves but to help improve our world.

As novel and complex challenges arise increasingly often, right answers are elusive, and past experience less useful, a different, more conscious approach to leading is needed – developed through an inner journey to Self to support greater impact in outward expression.

This means building our capacity for deep reflection/meditation so the habit of thinking in the same old way can be by-passed and new insights and wisdom emerge. It means trusting and valuing the intuition that comes through as much as or more than logic.

It means bringing our heart into partnership with our head. Engaging our courage to do things differently. Extending the love and compassion to all that we tend to reserve for our closest loved ones.

It means prioritising people and building a better world over profit. The financials matter, of course, but prosperity for a greater good matters more. It is about our organisation, its people and all stakeholders thriving as a result of what we decide and act on.

It means being willing to experiment where uncertainty and complexity fog the way ahead. We make progress in small steps, sensing the way forward, adjusting course and approach when needed and going again.

It means being brave enough to confront ourselves and continually challenge to be better in service of a better world. We’ve been guiding leaders on inner journeys for many years. We call the work releasing your inner power. Are you ready to release yours?

L'articolo Inward bound proviene da Azzur.

Of course, there are many steps between the connection with the invisible and the materialising of that into action. Or at least there should be, but we are all very conditioned to fast action often missing the other steps such as seeking understanding, reflecting, connecting more fully on an inner level and so on. 

So, what is action? What’s the point of action and why are we all so fixated on it?  

At a fundamental level action is Humanity’s way of being part of the vast creative process that governs our world. It’s a natural part of evolution and we are wired to act. It’s in our DNA. We are a fundamental player in the game of life. In action, like all things in this vast beautiful life we are living, there is an innate balance – or again there could be. In this case the balance would include identifying right action which returns us to more contemplation and consideration – before acting.  

In the world of work, action is prized far more than contemplation – this creates imbalance. It creates risk and it creates an inner disharmony for many. Seeking balance between action and reflection, between pressure to ‘do’ and the opportunity to ‘be’ brings us into our true expression of action – action that we might call ‘considered action’ or ‘thoughtful action’. Yes it slows the pace on one level and on another it could be saving endless lower quality reworking or repetition.  

In truth it connects us with a much greater creative potential – one where we use that impulse to act in service of something much greater than the repetitive, auto-reflex action that so many executives and their teams seem caught in these days.  

And creativity feeds the soul creating a virtuous circle in which the quality of the work is amplified, and who doesn’t want that? 

L'articolo What is action? proviene da Azzur.

The source of the information also has an impact – do we trust it or not? Is it real or not?

Once we’ve crossed these not insignificant tests off we come to a higher bar and the need for a higher ‘truth’.

The past few weeks of ‘he said/she said/he said’ headlines have brought a few things, for me, into the leadership spotlight.

Perspective. Much of what we hear, are told, that comes our way, whether in our professional or personal sphere, has passed through someone else’s filters. And then it encounters ours and the possibility for further distortion. Cultivating an ability to view information from multiple perspectives is vital.

Context is often lacking or shared to present the storyteller in a light that’s more flattering than fair representation. Context clarifies when we seek the experience of multiple sources and synthesise those views.

Candour is essential to ensuring we get real, raw data not just the sanitised or good news only versions. Fostering a culture that encourages and appreciates candour can shift the dial on the quality of information we receive.

And then we come to heart. Here’s our compass for navigating well all that comes our way and defining what’s right and true. Our heart is uniquely able to discern the right thing, to fuel the compassion that ensures right timing for our actions, and to ignite the courage that carries us through the tough stuff.

If we truly want to get to the heart of what matters with our leadership bringing our heart into service is essential. How heart-full is your leadership?

L'articolo Getting beyond the unreal proviene da Azzur.

Typically, in exploring power we enter the territory of respect, expertise, charisma, even physical factors such as our voice (tone and timbre) or height and build, masculine and feminine. Power is a multi-faceted topic, and it usually arises in leadership discussions because the leader isn’t considered to be having the impact they feel they can have – or are being told they need to have.

And power in this context is about influence, the ability to persuade others to get things done or agree to things in a chosen direction or manner. The dictionary describes influence as ‘the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something, or the effect itself’.

Here another question arises for me – is seeking to influence and persuade in itself ethical? We all do it of course – within our personal relationships, with our colleagues, with our teams and even with the ‘boss’. We also seek to influence the system as a whole – the organisation and its culture – even nations. Marketing, corporate communications (internal and external), family principles and stories, schools, as well as, of course, political communications are all designed to influence – to steer, direct, to induce in various directions.

As we consider the ethics of influence, we enter more complex territory than just defining what it is. At its base level we might say that influence is a process of education – sharing insights, knowledge, experience and wisdom with others. We might say it’s a process of developmental thinking supporting growth and change – an opportunity to embrace more perspectives and allowing them to develop and circulate, having an impact on our own thinking, or not.

And we must return also to the question of power. Where power is unequal is it possible for the influence to be ethical? Isn’t there a sizeable risk of manipulation and coercion? Between employer and employee. Between governments and citizens. Even between teachers and students.

Power becomes an actor within the process of sharing information, exchanging viewpoints and forming individual and collective views and cultures. Here we bring in the topic of trust and integrity. Whom or what do we trust and why? If we are going to allow something or someone to influence our own thinking surely the level of integrity is a major factor for any right-thinking person.

The ethics involved in influence and persuasion must surely be about the degree to which the key players seeking to influence are doing so from a place of transparency, truthfulness, deep respect for the other(s) meaning vulnerabilities and inequalities are not exploited, along with a genuine willingness to be influenced in return – to really be open to listening and adjusting one’s own perspective and even goal.

The ethical question is not whether we influence others, because influence is unavoidable. The real question is whether we use that influence to expand people’s freedom, understanding and choices, or to narrow them. Ethical persuasion respects human agency; manipulation seeks to bypass it.

L'articolo The ethics of power and influence: expanding freedoms and understanding proviene da Azzur.

We know too that leadership isn’t performance. The stuff that happens in the background also has an impact on the culture we’re creating…the character of the organisation if you will.

How well we listen to junior colleagues. How generously we acknowledge others’ work. How faithfully and positively we share decisions made at a higher level in the organisation. How we treat others’ who can’t help us.

Our days are made of these and many other interactions that we might assume aren’t measured. Except they are. In a leadership role others are always watching us, inferring what’s valued and permissible from our behaviour to inform their behaviour.

And it’s broader than that. Gaps between our ‘on-show’ leadership behaviour and what happens in the thick of the everyday contribute to a bigger gap…of credibility. And, those gaps undermine right relationship, founded on trust, and in which communication, connection, collaboration, and exceptional contribution flourish.

Contemporary organisational life tends to prioritise speed, efficiency, and results. Time for people, for the quiet actions, gets squeezed. The actions that build right relationship get deferred at best and forgotten at worst.

Are we caught in this trap? Reflecting on your week past and identifying the quiet actions can help answer that question. Were they in character or opportunities spurned?

L'articolo Character is found in quiet actions not grand gestures proviene da Azzur.

Having the right metrics is vital and if we are committed to building a business fit for the future and the common good – a conscious business – then using the ‘I/We/It’ framework pioneered by Ken Wilber to develop those metrics offers some powerful food for thought. Wilber and many consultants subsequently have used this framework to bring systemic thinking to complex issues.

And the systemic approach is the fundamental principle that needs to be present when we think about metrics. Any chosen metrics need to serve all three constituents (I, We and It) in a holistic and integrated way – in turn this healthily supports and contributes to the meta system within which the business functions.

When we bring attention to supporting the business itself and all its stakeholders to thrive (the ‘I’) we create the conditions in which the ‘We’ can function in a meaningful way – for collaboration to be effective it has to be grounded on the sovereignty of all the members. Sovereignty that is, in itself, balanced and dedicated to genuine thriving rather than winning at all costs. This is how we build the ‘We’.

From the deep principle of collaboration, the business is then able to mobilise the whole business and its system – the partners and stakeholders vital to its future – toward the bigger goal, building impact that supports a thriving humanity and a thriving planet (the ‘It’).

Impact is a powerful word and when we think about directing our efforts and those of all involved in a collaborative venture, being fully mindful of the impacts of our endeavours at every level seems vital. It’s about setting our intention to mobilise for higher order consequences and not just a single-issue focus on the financial impact which so often characterises most business metrics.

As an impact and metrics framework, the ‘I/We/It’ model brings inclusivity, holism and quality. Quality meaning a stretch for a higher order, an ideal model for how to lead and manage a business so that it truly can count itself amongst the responsible and impactful stakeholders on planet earth.

L'articolo ‘I/We/It’ – new metrics for success in business proviene da Azzur.