Looking Toward 2011 with Trepidation or Hope?

I feel good about the sustainability and leadership work that I was able to do this year: organizing a Sustainable Cities conference and a Value-based Sustainability conference  for the Executive Council, co-authoring the HBR case study, “Should the C-Suite Have a Green Seat?” with Rupert Davis of MontaRosa, and a completing a white paper on the Pillar Trends with MontaRosa (to be released by the end of the year). Overall, however, 2010 will not go down as a good year.

Late in 2009 world leaders met for COP15 in Copenhagen and came away empty-handed. Hopes were incredibly high — too high to ever have been fully fulfilled — and the hangover from that disappointment bled into 2010. Carbon legislation stalled in the U.S. and will not be helped by the more conservative Congress that will convene in January. A Conservative government was elected in the U.K. and will likely scale back investment in alternative energy and other green measures as part of its overall austerity plan. Europe is teetering on the brink of a major Euro crisis that will distract from its leadership in sustainability. China continues to invest in green technologies but any discussion of the social justice aspects of sustainability would likely be met with a blank stare if not outright hostility. It also continues to build massively using old technologies and old standards in parallel to its efforts to be clean.

2011 may well be the year of full-blown backlash against climate change: the choir will continue to sing but increasingly to itself. The challenge will be to turn a time of retrenchment into an opportunity for recharging our batteries, refocusing our arguments, and frankly better understanding the concerns of those who are not on the bandwagon.

This is a challenge of leadership. As I have long maintained, technical knowledge is not what is holding us back: it is a lack of broadly persuasive, transformational meta-leadership that brings together disparate parties and engages both individuals and organizations in a cause bigger than their own self interests.

The financial crisis of the past two years has done much to pull us apart and cause people to focus on their own situations. This is natural given that many found themselves without a job, lacking health care, and losing their homes. Even those doing relatively well see themselves at risk. It is definitely a time of “there but for the grace of God go I.” Forecasts are that unemployment will not get better for some time and efforts to repeal the Health Care Reform act in the U.S. will make health care even more precarious for many.

I also think that the analytics of sustainability will become increasingly refined and more broadly accepted. It will become harder to argue against evidence with half-truths and ideological statements. If we who believe in the threat of climate change are smart, we will concentrate on making those analytics easily understandable by the lay public and relevant to their lives.

In all of this I find hope. My enthusiasm is undiminished. I’ll be starting a self-designed Master’s program at Lesley University focused on leadership of meta-system scale challenges (like climate change) and co-authoring a book on meta-leadership. I also am increasingly convinced that the leadership we need on climate change and sustainability (and health care for that matter) will come from the bottom and the middle rather than the top. There are hundred, thousands of grass roots efforts to address these issues. From these will emerge meta-leaders who can unite those working toward similar goals into an energized army of change. I plan to march among them and hope to see you in our ranks.

2011 may be the year of backlash but I think that it can lead to a year of resurgence in 2012.

What are your thoughts for 2011?

Mackey vs. Schultz: Compare-and-Contrast CEOs

It was by coincidence that I recently read both a profile of Whole Foods’ CEO John Mackey and an interview with Starbucks’ CEO Howard Schultz. The Mackey piece appeared in The New Yorker in January — I happened to score this copy from the magazine swap at the dump a couple of weeks ago — and the Schultz interview is in the current Harvard Business Review.

Both firms receive a greater percentage of my income than I’d like to admit though I can rationalize it through my insistence on fair trade coffee, organic veggies, grass fed beef, and all the rest. At the end of my reading adventure I found myself enthusiastic to give more of my business to Starbucks and feeling far less sanguine about Whole Foods.  I thought about this for a bit — I’m a writer and know that some people give a better interview than others. I also admit to having a bad feeling about Mackey ever since he tried to charge a fee when I asked him to speak while I was at Harvard Business Publishing (the only sitting CEO ever to do so — and he also wanted an administrative fee to cover the work of his assistant in arranging his travel and processing the paperwork). His stealth online commenting didn’t sit well either. I never thought much about Schultz except when thinking that celebrity CEOs tend to get too much credit for their organizations’ success.

Based on these two pieces, Schultz seems to believe in and act on behalf of values that are bigger than himself; Mackey appears to see himself as the ultimate embodiment of the values of Whole Foods. The distinction is important and I have increasingly come to see the ability to embrace values and interests bigger than the self and getting others to embrace them as well as the very essence of leadership. I got the feeling that Mackey hoped the I, and the rest of his customers, can someday live up to his ideal; Schultz seemed focused on helping his customers and workers attain the heights to which they aspire. The title of the HBR piece says it all: “We had to own the mistakes.” Owning up to accountability and responsibility are essential if one is to lead.

I’m still happy to have a Whole Foods within walking distance as are better than most at everything from vegetable selection to worker compensation, but I’d welcome a change at the top. On the other hand, I am glad to have Schultz at the helm at Starbucks and will feel better as I quaff my latte knowing that he refused to cut worker health care benefits during the downturn. It was just one of the ways that he stayed focused on long-term value (and values) and stood up to the demands of investors during the turnaround. I have no such confidence that Mackey would show similar strength.

What do you think about the CEOs value to the brand? Am I making too much of the actions of either Schultz or Mackey?

The Complexities of Happiness

Happiness has been a hot topic for the past couple of years. Dan Gilbert’s book and Tal Ben-Shahar’s course at Harvard made plenty of headlines. One of the more interesting projects I’ve been involved with in this area was a half-day brainstorming session in which I brought together a number of experts on happiness, laughter, and positive psychology at the behest of a major consumer package goods company. We explored the major lines of thought and research. Given the peculiarities of academia, many of these people had never met each other and really enjoyed the experience.

You can check out a summary report of the session here: Happiness Report

I find sustainability and leadership to be deeply connected to happiness. Certainly understanding that wealth beyond a certain point does not boost happiness should be instrumental to slowing the growth, or reversing, our resource-intensive culture’s mad never-ending pursuit of the next geegaw — a climb that has us on the Hillary Step of Maslow’s hierarchy climbing without supplemental oxygen, reaching the point where the brain begins to degrade until all judgment is lost. Fortunately, there seems to be a growing realization that our deep interpersonal connections, experiences, and contributions are far more important to our sense of well being than the number of adjectives attached to our favorite latte. [Read more...]