Essential, Elusive Leadership: Finding Balance

03 Oct 2011 – Mark Lee

I’ve blogged recently on roundtable discussions that SustainAbility hosted in Washington, DC and London. We organized these sessions in order to connect some of our corporate and civil society partners in more intimate conversation than fits the conference circuit – smaller, more focused, more relaxed; all discourse, no presentation – and yet capable of creating more diversity and dynamism than possible when we only meet bi-laterally. A simple added benefit has been the experience of talking to people who are all of one place, in cities where we have offices ourselves. Our work so often takes us far afield, or into meeting environments built around destinations convenient to all but endemic to few, that it is easy to forget how both content and tone change when everyone has a common geography.

Following Washington in July and London in August, we held a third round in San Francisco in September. The central topic all three times has been ‘leadership, trust and value, and the intersection and interdependence of these topics as well as their influence on the sustainability agenda.’

As you can see from my previous posts under the ‘Essential, Elusive Leadership’ banner (DC here; London here), the conversations have combined deep expressions of concern about the (lack of) progress made on the sustainability agenda to date with more upbeat recognition of the incredible body of knowledge that has been developed over the last two decades, and resilient optimism that we yet can and will apply that knowledge to achieve sustainable economic and societal outcomes. The drag on that optimism has been a question of timing: will business and society suffer a great and painful convulsion, then figure this out, or are we capable of averting crisis and transitioning to sustainability without hitting bottom first?

Western state of mind

I hosted the San Francisco roundtable with Chris Coulter of GlobeScan, and we were joined by colleagues from Applied Materials, Cisco, Dalberg, Environmental Defense Fund, HP, PG&E, Saatchi & Saatchi S and SAP. The breakfast fell right on top of the equinox. With the Bay Area’s vibe and the inherent balance of the date itself, I might have anticipated a more copasetic view of sustainability progress to date. Whatever the reason, a different balance was evident in the Bay Area group’s assessment of past effort and impact. While not rejecting DC and London conclusions that macro environmental and social indicators have trended down significantly, it was suggested early in the discussion that we might see what’s been done as at least reasonable if not remarkable given the massive complexity of the challenges faced, and (all things considered) the short period of time even a sliver of business, non-profit and public sector leaders have been coming to grips with them. The group as a whole seemed to embrace this perspective, which gave a unique spin to the overall discussion, making a greater proportion solutions-oriented. Some of the most interesting and useful observations and ideas included comprise the (apologies Steven Spielberg) ‘Super 8’ below.

Bay Area Super 8

1. Opacity to transparency: The group discussed how transparency trends in cycles. While historically perhaps the greater portion of transparency has been in response to crisis, there was a sense that more organizations now understand how regular and proactive transparency begets trust, so are more committed to consistent, proactive disclosure, while even foot-draggers are being forced in this direction by the 24-hour news cycle, social media and shifting expectations of institutions.
2. Disclosure underpins collaboration: Increased transparency is critical to collaboration, and there is every expectation that collaboration will be critical to sufficiently rapid development and scaling of sustainable solutions. Consider where Nike might be going with its exploration of the power and potential of open data, or the recent Ford-Toyota announcement that they will work jointly on hybrid pick-ups in order to meet new fuel economy standards – the latter something I view as remarkable evidence that even the most voracious competitors are recognizing which sustainability challenges they can’t meet alone and re-organizing the very nature of competition in their industry to enable success.
3. Transparency and collaboration are antidotes to complexity: As in London, San Francisco roundtable participants reflected increasing recognition that most (all?) critical sustainability challenges are systemic and that solutions will rarely come from individual organizations. Transparency – so that information can be shared and because it builds trust – and collaboration are essential conditions for the coalitions that must form to challenge and change the systemic context that imprisons people and organizations in current unsustainable patterns of behavior. As in medicine, these cures won’t necessarily come fast or without discomfort, but transparency and collaboration are essential, not optional building blocks for the future.
4. The public-private relationship is antiquated and inadequate: Governments are not equipped or able to engage business, especially the multi-nationals that are literally larger in some cases than nations. International bodies lack enforcement mechanisms. This does not mean only that we need more regulation and oversight (though sometimes we absolutely do), but also that governments and business can’t easily partner with one another. Again, given the systemic nature of the challenges faced and the need for leaders and institutions in every sector to contribute, this circumstance must change.
5. Consider citizens as well as consumers; and for consumers, brand desire, not green: There is a lot of talk about sustainable consumption, but not enough of it, and our Bay Area breakfast guests doubt this will change quickly. They suggested instead more civic engagement – appealing to people’s sense of community and their desire to leave a positive legacies (which might humanize institutions that model this as well as rallying larger populations) – and inverting things on the consumer track; that is, making more and more sustainable products, then marketing them in a wholly traditional manner, emphasizing quality and desirability rather than eco-attributes.
6. Silicon Valley will play its part: People were confident that technological breakthroughs will make a material difference. (It’s the Bay Area: Could it be otherwise?) Interestingly, even the big tech companies represented did not assume they’d be the source of this. Of course they are exploring and would love to enhance their results by delivering sustainability solutions, but everyone realized this solution may be brewing already in a garage or dorm room. Critical then is maintaining and further developing a tech literate, innovation economy in which the best individuals and institutions see opportunity in sustainability so devote themselves to technologies and enterprises in this area.
7. Compelling visions can’t all be swan songs: Many of the business and political leaders most outspoken on sustainability are in late(r)-life ‘legacy improvement mode’. This didn’t dampen the applause for such road to Damascus conversions (it was more a ‘we’re all sinners’ tone), but there’s yearning for such leadership to become the norm at every stage of many more careers. Related comments explored carrots and sticks. Leaders and visions have to promise – and deliver – a sustainable economy that people understand to represent a better future for individuals and their families. Too many calls to action get lost in messages about trade-offs and are downright uninspiring. Travel brochures show the beach, not the security line at the airport; sustainability communication must learn this lesson and focus as much or more on where we are going rather than how we’ll get there.
8. From theory to certainty: You don’t have to look hard to find a study that promises that investment in and regulation of a greener economy will increase prosperity. Equally close at hand are treatises concluding this is the path to ruin. The truth will almost certainly lie in the middle – some aspects of any green new deal will prove brilliant while others fail. The key is to learn as quickly as possible from current prototypes (our breakfast club discussed California’s AB32 law regarding greenhouse gas emissions and state standards demanding 33% of power come from renewables by 2020), then replicate those that prove successful.

Cloudy, with bright patches

So, like fog on the northern California coast, that can envelop and disorient, then suddenly clear so it’s possible to see and confirm direction before it swirls back and obscures landmarks once again, the San Francisco roundtable provided tantalizing glimpses of the path to sustainability, and confirmed we’ll have to feel our way along much of the route. Progress to date was judged similarly mixed, but as providing an acceptable if not perfect foundation for the tasks ahead.

While we are going to continue to hold these small events (it’ll be New York, again in concert with GlobeScan, in the second half of October), I’m going to stop blogging on them for now. As some of you may have seen reflected in this op-ed piece Chris and I wrote for Guardian Sustainable Business early in September, GlobeScan and Sustainability are thinking about leadership challenges in the context of the Rio+20 Summit pending next June. Once we have set our full agenda for 2012, I expect to build on the three-part leadership series this blog completes. Meantime, if you are interested in this topic and perhaps want to join or support our work on this agenda in 2012, please post a comment or get directly in touch with Chris and me at chris.coulter@globescan.com and lee@sustainability.com.