Miliband’s got a point – we need to be more discerning in who we celebrate

30 09 2011

Who and what we celebrate, value and reward has a real impact on the decisions other people make and how they behave – that’s what all the research tells us.

So Miliband is right in some respects to draw attention to the problem that in public debate over the past 30 years political leaders, business leaders and business school gurus have tended to celebrate all business leaders, without necessarily distinguishing between those who have an overall positive impact on the wider world and those who don’t. This kind of talk does have a real impact on the kind of business we get and the kind of society we get.

Interestingly though, although Miliband’s been clobbered a bit for raising this in his speech this week I think he is picking up on what is already a growing trend – in our research on leadership at Ashridge, we’re seeing that more and more business leaders are recognising that they need more than commercial acumen and emotional intelligence to be effective in today’s world, they also need a strong personal commitment to making a positive contribution to the wider world through the way they go about business, and the skill to act on this.

Not only that, but they are increasingly choosing to measure themselves across a range of metrics that measure their broader contribution to society, not just the financial value they create for shareholders. This way of thinking is also starting to influence how their organisations are approaching their leadership development work.

Bringing this theme into the heart of public debate – and talking about recognising and rewarding good business through the tax system – could be a real boost to this trend. And it’s not necessarily hard to do in practice, despite the criticism Miliband’s received – think of all the work that’s gone into developing what could be appropriate metrics through the GRI process over the past decade. Bringing this nascent trend into sharper focus, paying more attention to who we celebrate, and aligning the influence of the tax system behind that, could play a valuable role in helping build the right kind of healthy prosperity for the medium and long term.

Advertisements




Ashridge’s CEO: The role and purpose of a business school, and our strategic response to a changing context

11 02 2011

Kai Peters, Ashridge Chief Executive

(This blog piece reproduces Kai Peters’ introduction to Ashridge’s June 2010 Sharing Information on Progress report to the United Nations on Ashridge’s sustainability strategy) 

A changing context

Our context is always changing. In the past few years, the most pressing challenge in the wider context for most leaders has been navigating the challenges of ongoing crises in the global economy. But immediately beyond this lie wider and connected trends with impacts that we are becoming more certain about: demographic change, an eastward shift in the centres of economic power, alarming trends in public health, urbanisation, rising inequality, systematic abuse of human rights, increasing scarcity of natural resources and degradation of ecosystems – forests, water systems, climate.

But it’s not just our context that’s changing; it’s how we understand our context that’s changing too. Much of our economy and industrial processes are still built on assumptions from the time of the industrial revolution, a time of huge technological innovation and improvement in the quality of life for many, a time when we looked around and saw, for example, abundant natural resources and man’s ‘triumph’ over nature. Now, we are increasingly aware of the limits of this narrative, we see that resources are scarce, that ecosystems are more delicate and fragile than we realised. And with globalisation in the 1980s and 1990s our horizons are no longer national but international, with globalised capital flows and trade in goods and services, where decisions taken in one part of the world now have far greater impacts than they used to on the livelihoods of others far distant. The new narrative that is eclipsing the industrial revolution perspective is sustainable development – a new ‘big idea’ that helps us make sense of our changing context and how we need to adapt.

In response, we are seeing new organisational practices emerge: new business models, new products and services, new operational practices. But we are also seeing many older organisational practices continue, practices that are increasingly less relevant in a changing context. Practices that are not healthy for our organisations, for our communities, and for the wider ecosystems of which we are a part and on which we rely.

Why are we seeing these new organisational practices emerge? Some people are changing behaviour because they are persuaded by the scientific evidence of environmental challenges for example, for others it might be more to do with personal values and a concern for fairness and stewardship for future generations. For others again, it might simply be the recognition that if large numbers of people are starting to think and act differently, this means certain markets may shrink while others may grow.

The role and purpose of business schools

So as things change, it is helpful to ask ourselves again: what’s the purpose and role of a business school?

On a practical level Ashridge exists to help organisations and individuals be more effective. We work in partnership with organisations and individuals to help in tackling complex challenges – supporting and developing leaders and leadership, formulating and implementing strategy, fostering and stimulating organisational change. Through bespoke learning and consulting interventions, complemented by executive qualification and open enrolment learning programmes, and underpinned by applied research, we are partners in organisational learning and change. It is our aspiration that, by helping organisations and individuals be more effective, we play a valuable role for society as a whole.

On a more philosophical level, we recognise that part of the collective purpose and role of business schools, along with the professional bodies and major management consultancies, is to act as both stewards and shapers of the body of practices and thinking – the cultural norms – of organisational life.

We steward the collective lessons learned by the countless organisational leaders who have gone before us, often unconsciously, as these ‘past lessons learnt’ become codified and embedded in the conceptual frameworks and tools that inform many of the conversations that take place with today’s and tomorrow’s leaders every day in business schools and more widely.

And as we help today’s managers make sense of a changing context and new practices, we also help shape the broader public debate and intellectual current of ideas within which today’s leaders in organisations make strategic and operational decisions.

We therefore collectively play a limited, but nevertheless significant role in influencing the behaviour of organisations. The questions we ask, what we champion and celebrate, and the values and contexts embedded in our concepts, frameworks and tools, make a subtle but important difference to the decisions others make.

Our strategic response

If this is our purpose and role – what we do – and this is how our context is changing, what does this mean for our strategy? The right strategic response is embodied in the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education, which we helped develop.

We need to be challenging organisational leaders with the realities of our changing context and helping them make sense of what this means, not just for their strategy and organisational practices, but also for their broader purpose.

This isn’t a ‘nice to do’, it’s a strategic imperative – only organisations that adapt as their context changes survive and thrive. By leveraging our strengths and by innovating now, we are seeking to protect and extend our competitive advantage. If what our clients value about working with us is our expertise around leadership, strategy and change, engaging with sustainable development is about ensuring that our expertise in leadership, strategy and change remains relevant. This is also, in the bigger picture, what we exist for as a business school and how we add value to society as a whole.

How do we act to make this strategic imperative become a reality? There are three clear areas of focus:

First, we need professional excellence from our faculty – we need them to engage in inquiry, dialogue and thought leadership that asks what our changing context means for our core areas of practice. We also need to be learning from innovative organisational practice where it is emerging, and looking again at our own concepts, frameworks and tools to ensure they are still relevant in changing times.

Second: we then need our faculty to bring this new thinking into our work with organisations and individuals.

Finally, it goes without saying that we also need to apply it to the way in which we manage ourselves as an organisation.

Do we have the capability to deliver? Yes, we believe we do. Although there are obvious challenges, we believe we have the people and the culture to deliver, and we believe we are making the right decisions to support the kind of change we need. Our full June 2010 report Innovation in a Changing Context outlines in a bit more detail our thinking in these three areas, the steps we have been taking, the challenges, and our plans for the future.

Kai Peters, Ashridge Chief Executive, June 2010.





Carbon Counts -3rd February 2011

3 02 2011

The latest Carbon Salary Survey was launched today by Acre Resources and Acona with 994 professionals taking part. Now in its second year, the survey aims to plot the developing climate change and carbon job markets including; job functions, salaries and job satisfaction levels amongst other key indices.

The survey arguably defines carbon professionals as those working in:

• Renewable Energy and Clean Technology
• CDM/JI
• VER
• Carbon Finance/brokering
• Carbon/Climate Change Law, Policy or Regulation
• Climate Change Strategy
• Energy Management and Efficiency
• Carbon Management
• Sustainability

Key trends
According to the survey the most popular areas to work in globally are energy efficiency and consulting around CDM and JI projects (low carbon projects eligible for increased funding through carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol).

Energy efficiency professionals have taken the top slot for the second year running indicating how important demand side reduction is for organisations right now. And as energy prices escalate and environmental taxes begin to bite this job role has a good chance of proving recession proof

On the other hand CDM and JI project finance partly relies on confidence in the broader set of policy signals catalysed by the Kyoto protocol to remain in place and hopefully increase. New entrants into market based approaches to carbon reduction such as California suggest that more of these technical jobs could be required in the future to take these mechanisms to scale.

Energy generation through renewable technologies such as solar, wind and biomass come in next reflecting the excitement and continued growth expectations of the clean energy industry and in the UK particular the feedin tariff initiative seems to have really delivered in terms of jobs if nothing else.

Law/policy and regulation is also very popular and the most well paid of the roles identified acknowledging the complexity of the area and the need to not only understand and develop responses to forthcoming legislation but perhaps that policy and legal expertise can help stakeholders to engage meaningfully in policy development and create more workable frameworks going forward.

Salaries in the sector have risen year on year and 75% of the respondents reported they are satisfied with their jobs, bucking the wider trend of salary deflation in many countries and job insecurity. And we know that there is a strong correlation between satisfaction and productivity, so employers should be pleased.

Further reflections

What is also interesting is what the survey does not render visible. For example following the Copenhagen Accord’s pledge for Annex 1 countries to invest up to $100billion a year to 2020 on moving to a low carbon society, the International Energy Agency released figures suggesting $46 trillion would be needed to take us to 2050, 50% of which would come from adjustments to business as usual and 50% from new investments. It’s the business as usual that I am interested in here, in that as organisations start to treat some of these things as the norm those people who spend time working in climate change and carbon will start to become invisible, in fact they may not even know themselves that they are working in this space. A good example of this is Legal and General Group’s handling of the recent Carbon Reduction Commitment which has been allocated to the tax department rather than the energy manager to be treated like VAT with an aim to reduce it as much as possible. If you ask a Legal and General accountant what they did, do you think they would answer that they worked in carbon and climate change?

So whilst the survey shows an incremental trend in the right direction my suspicion is that it is also hiding a much more fundamental and transformational shift that’s occurring as carbon and climate is absorbed into BAU.

Additionally if we were to look at this from an energy security perspective and ignored carbon I wonder what would happen. My guess is not a lot because regardless of what happens in terms the climate change negotiations and public and leader sentiment around the broader topic, most of these jobs still make sense in a world of increasing demand and dwindling resources.

So does this mean that those climate jobs not focussed on energy that have a longer term eye on structural and cultural transformation are currently being ignored at the behest of the low hanging high energy fruit? And is the growth in technical jobs identified by this survey pointing towards the hockey stick trend required in the job market if we are to meet the challenges set by the IEA?

I guess we will have to wait for the 2011 survey to find out.





Carbon Counts 3rd February 2011

3 02 2011

The latest Carbon Salary Survey was launched today by Acre Resources and Acona with 994 professionals taking part. Now in its second year, the survey aims to plot the developing climate change and carbon job markets including; job functions, salaries and job satisfaction levels amongst other key indices.

The survey arguably defines carbon professionals as those working in:

• Renewable Energy and Clean Technology
• CDM/JI
• VER
• Carbon Finance/brokering
• Carbon/Climate Change Law, Policy or Regulation
• Climate Change Strategy
• Energy Management and Efficiency
• Carbon Management
• Sustainability

Key trends

According to the survey the most popular areas to work in globally are energy efficiency and consulting around CDM and JI projects (low carbon projects eligible for increased funding through carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol).

Energy efficiency professionals have taken the top slot for the second year running indicating how important demand side reduction is for organisations right now. And as energy prices escalate and environmental taxes begin to bite this job role has a good chance of proving recession proof

On the other hand CDM and JI project finance partly relies on confidence in the broader set of policy signals catalysed by the Kyoto protocol to remain in place and hopefully increase. New entrants into market based approaches to carbon reduction such as California suggest that more of these technical jobs could be required in the future to take these mechanisms to scale.

Energy generation through renewable technologies such as solar, wind and biomass come in next reflecting the excitement and continued growth expectations of the clean energy industry and in the UK particular the feedin tariff initiative seems to have really delivered in terms of jobs if nothing else.

Law/policy and regulation is also very popular and the most well paid of the roles identified acknowledging the complexity of the area and the need to not only understand and develop responses to forthcoming legislation but perhaps that policy and legal expertise can help stakeholders to engage meaningfully in policy development and create more workable frameworks going forward.

Salaries in the sector have risen year on year and 75% of the respondents reported they are satisfied with their jobs, bucking the wider trend of salary deflation in many countries and job insecurity. And we know that there is a strong correlation between satisfaction and productivity, so employers should be pleased.

Further reflections

What is also interesting is what the survey does not render visible. For example following the Copenhagen Accord’s pledge for Annex 1 countries to invest up to $100billion a year to 2020 on moving to a low carbon society, the International Energy Agency released figures suggesting $46 trillion would be needed to take us to 2050, 50% of which would come from adjustments to business as usual and 50% from new investments. It’s the business as usual that I am interested in here, in that as organisations start to treat some of these things as the norm those people who spend time working in climate change and carbon will start to become invisible, in fact they may not even know themselves that they are working in this space. A good example of this is Legal and General Group’s handling of the recent Carbon Reduction Commitment which has been allocated to the tax department rather than the energy manager to be treated like VAT with an aim to reduce it as much as possible. If you ask a Legal and General accountant what they did, do you think they would answer that they worked in carbon and climate change?

So whilst the survey shows an incremental trend in the right direction my suspicion is that it is also hiding a much more fundamental and transformational shift that’s occurring as carbon and climate is absorbed into BAU.

Additionally if we were to look at this from an energy security perspective and ignored carbon I wonder what would happen. My guess is not a lot because regardless of what happens in terms the climate change negotiations and public and leader sentiment around the broader topic, most of these jobs still make sense in a world of increasing demand and dwindling resources.

So does this mean that those climate jobs not focussed on energy that have a longer term eye on structural and cultural transformation are currently being ignored at the behest of the low hanging high energy fruit? And is the growth in technical jobs identified by this survey pointing towards the hockey stick trend required in the job market if we are to meet the challenges set by the IEA?

I guess we will have to wait for the 2011 survey to find out.





1010 Campaign Admits Bomb Maker

5 12 2009

Apparently the 1010 climate change campaign has caused controversy by allowing a missile maker to join ….

I don’t mind much…. But it does reminds me of “Analyse This” in which Billy Crystal is a therapist called in to treat mob boss Robert de Niro …. Crystal asks, “so what’s the outcome from these sessions? That you end up being a happy well adjusted gangster?” ….

Personally I can see why 10:10 can sign up the missile maker and not the airport – that makes sense within their measurement system ….

But this just reminds us of the dangers of target setting and the problem of focusing on false proxies … We measure what we can measure whether it matters or not… And when we set measures to focus on, we know that we then fail to spot gorillas.   Let’s not forget that CO2 is a symptom …. and all of the work around climate (important though it is) is about symptom fixing ….

We have the “us and them / binary / axis of evil” mentality in which we believe that bombs can “work” in addressing world issues. With this mental map we won’t have a chance of addressing the fragmentation at the root of the split between humanity and the rest of the natural world …. 

So ultimately I don’t care much who 10:10 lets in or keeps out.

I do care that we don’t end up fantasising we can continue to operate an insane “take,make, trash” system so long as we control carbon

We can’t, we haven’t got enough planet to do it on. 

All that will lead to is killing ourselves and lots of our fellow “other than human” co-dwellers, in a frenzy to control the very last drops and grains of earth “resources”  …. all using carbon free bombs of course….

Chris Nichols

December 2009





Delusion is the solution, apparently ….

5 12 2009

 Political speeches at the CBI conference break free of reality ….

 I have a problem with what Gordon Brown and David Cameron have been saying recently. Keen to compete on “fiscal reality” they have both offered budgetary toughness and plans for debt repayment. The trouble is the debt repayment plan requires a return to “growth”.

 I don’t like to be the messenger of doom, but we need old style “growth” like we need a return to business as usual. We can afford neither.

 All governments of the post-war era have colluded to build a society where we measure our well-being by what we buy, consume and earn. We have replaced community and family with ASBOs and ISAs. It hasn’t worked yet and it can’t work in the future.

 We have just one planet and it is plain stupid to place all our chips on a strategy for survival that depends on infinite energy and infinite mineral resources. We have neither. We need a more resilient way. Certainly not one based on ever more extraction, production, consumption and waste, with all the biosphere carnage and social injustice that goes with it.

 George Osborne (1) writes that a Conservative Treasury “will be a green ally, not a foe”. Good. Start by measuring national wellbeing by something less addictively illusory than economic growth.

 Whoever rules, there are hellishly tough questions to be addressed. Let’s start by ending the delusion that we can grow our way out of this crisis. It is our addiction to growth that got us here in the first place.

Chris Nichols

December 2009

 (1)     Source: The Independent, Tuesday 24th November 2009





“The Name is Bond, High Income Bond”:

5 12 2009

Credit Agricole is right, it is time for Green Banking. But let’s be sure what we mean ….

 Credit Agricole, the major global bank has signed Sean Connery to front its drive into “Green Banking”. Claiming a “new business model” focused on “responsible growth, with a reduced risk profile”, the campaign launch is accompanied by an apocalyptic video (see

http://www.credit-agricole.com/greenbanking/english/)

 The movie is high on special effects, light on plot. What is Credit Agricole actually planning to do here?

 They are certainly right that the world needs green banking. But I worry that the business model of major banks may fall somewhat short of the respect for life and the biosphere that we desperately need.

 The current fashion rush to get active around climate change does not address the depth of crises we are facing. Banking that invests in the continued stoking of consumer led growth can only ever be part of the problem, no matter how green it gets painted.

 We are enmeshed in crises of habitat loss, species extinction and food supply that raise policy challenges to make the current financial and fiscal crises look trivial. All of us, business and wider society alike need to learn how to become resilient in the face of multiple threats caused by our current activities of resource use and wastage. Climate change is an important symptom and must be addressed. But addressing climate change alone is to misunderstand the issue. A more difficult systemic assessment is necessary.

 If green banking is to be worth the name, it needs to be banking that breaks with our global addiction to growth as a solution for all ills, to break our addiction to the production and consumption as the source of wellbeing.

 Is Credit Agricole part of the solution? I really do hope so. But it will take more than a movie and the signing of “Bond, corporate Bond” to convince me.

 Chris Nichols

December 2009