Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Making heroes out of leaders


Reading Neil Oliver's "Amazing tales for making men out of boys", published in 2008, has set me off on a reflective trail of current leadership wisdom. Corporate and political leadership, especially, have come under the cosh a great deal lately, largely around the ethical dimension, and I think Oliver's book offers some good material to explore what has gone wrong and and what needs to go right.

Unfolding the sotry of Scott's death in the Antarctic with a remarkable collection of heroic tales ranging from the Ancient Spartans to Apollo 13, Oliver explores what it takes to be a leader and a hero. Depending on your definition, not all heroes and leaders, but (often unknowingly) all leaders are someone's hero.

These days, whether out of political correctness, fear of the outcome, simple illiteracy, or ignorance, we don't tell tales of heroes. Whenever someone does something out of the ordinary, it seems the 'gutter press' are out to discover the dirt in the story or the skeleton(s) in their closet and soon the hero is undermined.

In the past, it was by knowing the stuff of legends, whether lived in their lifetime or not, that new heroes were groomed, so that they too could take a place in history. Oliver's heroes are adventurers, conquerors, the conquered, the wealthy and the poor, the privileged and the underdog, the politically astute and the poor souls who found themselves in the wrong place, at what was arguably the wrong time. Yet, they all showed heroism by doing the right thing when the situation called for it.

Do we need heroes these days and, if we do, under what circumstances?

Oliver draws some tentative conclusions about what makes a hero which certainly make a useful starting point. Heroes, it seems, have fathers who they would like to prove themselves to. Their mothers who have played other than normal roles in their lives; perhaps being responsible for the care of their mother earlier than you would expect, perhaps being too close for comfort, perhaps dying in their childhood. Heroes have often grown 'apart' from their family and other children - not always being comfortable in their company and, as adults, often socially ill-at-ease, especially with the other sex.

Heroes have a strong sense of duty to a body greater than themselves and their family. Whether to their regiment, society, the nation, clan, or humanity as a whole. This is not simply a question of putting others needs above their own; it is about being prepared - indeed even expecting - to sacrifice their own life for the sake of others. Heroes place little emphasis on the act of dying itself. While, no doubt, there are some humanist heroes most, it appears, see death as a transition rather than a final act, and therefore, they usually have some Faith that embraces such a continuum.

There are some fascinating examples of individuals who were driven by their own needs and aspirations and for whom 'success' proved elusive until they put these aside and acted self-lessly for a higher good. For those who were also leaders a consistent quality is a deep and detailed concern for the day-to-day welfare of their 'followers'. Frequently, this is not simply a question of showing an interest, but of a passionate concern - giving more than might be expected of a leader in a position of power. In return, they are not simply respected but loved, and the degree of commitment shown to them is not merely that of an employee but a devotion that could be beyond that shown to their family - and could too include the ultimate sacrifice.

While a few of Oliver's examples are individuals for whom their behaviour, in an instant, defined them as heroic, most were serial heroes. One event perhaps stands out. Often, though not always, this was their final act, but for many it was an early step in a long life of heroism.

So, a few questions for the leaders among us to ponder...

  • What precisely is our personal 'higher aspiration'? We might struggle to define it, and our life may not currently reflect it, but to achieve our fullest potential as a leader we should have some inkling and be working towards it on a day-to-day basis.


  • What is our attitude to death? Especially our own. Or another way of looking at this would be to ask what is our attitude to our own life? To what extent do we deny its possibility? Without hastening it, what do we do to simply delay the inevitable? And, what do we put off doing today on the assumption that there will be time later?


  • Few of us work in isolation. These days fewer still have direct 'reports', as corporate hierarchies would have them, but most of us have a number of people who are dependent on us or for whom we have some responsibility. How many would say we cared about them? How many would say our care went beyond what they might reasonably expect? What could we do, on a day-to-day basis, and from tomorrow (no later), to achieve this degree of concern?


  • We often get drawn into a career path that is about perpetuating the status quo. It may involve material growth but nonetheless it is about perpetuation of a system of hierarchy and seniority. I often hear leaders say, once they have retired, "this is how I wish others would do things - it isn't how I did them, but with the benefit of hindsight, it is how I wish I had." So, how about changing the time-scale? Don't wait until you retire and apologetically advise the new generation. Instead, why not take a stand? Be a hero. Regardless of the personal consequences, make a change for the better in your work. What could/should you, your business, your industry, do differently and what could you do to make this happen?

  • Best wishes

    Working behind the scenes, helping leaders achieve things they never dreamt they could
    t 07785 222380 | grahamwilson.org - inter-faith.net - thefutureofwork.org - corporate-alumni.info

    Thursday, June 18, 2009

    Why climate security affects us all


    This is the second part of a keynote paper prepared for the 11th Global Conference on Environment Management, held in Palampur last week.

    A short-term geopolitical scenario

    This though, is not a conference about the science and technology necessary to save us. It is about climate security - the geopolitical factors that arise from climate change that pose as great a threat in a shorter timescale.

    If we know that the glaciers will be gone by 2035, and we can be pretty confident that the governments will NOT act soon enough to transform the lower-atmospheric CO2 concentrations, then this ceases to be a feat of engineering that must be achieved. Instead, it becomes a matter of politics, migration, cross-border conflict, and international intervention.

    The precursor of most cross-border conflict is human migration. No region is more directly threatened by human migration than South Asia. The IPCC warns that “coastal areas, especially heavily populated mega-delta regions in South, East, and Southeast Asia, will be at greatest risk due to increased flooding from the sea and, in some mega-deltas, flooding from the rivers.”

    Bangladesh in particular will be threatened by devastating floods, monsoons, melting glaciers, and tropical cyclones (originating in the Bay of Bengal), water contamination and ecosystem destruction caused by rising sea levels. The population of Bangladesh stands at 142 million today, and is projected to increase by approximately 100 million people 30 years, despite climate change and other environmental factors making the low-lying regions of the country uninhabitable.
    Most of the displaced people will move inland, a migration that is expected to cause instability and friction with established communities as they compete for already scarce resources. Other migrants will seek to go abroad, creating heightened political tension not only in South Asia but in Europe, the US, and South-East Asia, as well.

    India will struggle to cope with a surge of displaced people from Bangladesh, but they are not the only ones who will seek refuge there. Approximately four million people inhabit the small islands in the Bay of Bengal that are already being slowly swallowed by the rising sea. Most of these communities will have to be accommodated on the mainland sooner or later.

    Many of the borders and territories, in the region are already contested, and this large-scale migration is going to fuel these differences. Add to this the deteriorating socioeconomic conditions, radical Islamic political groups, and dire environmental insecurity, and there are clearly severe regional and potentially global consequences.

    As climate change has its greatest impact on areas that are already challenged for resources, it is limiting the effectiveness of many of the current development projects financed by the international community even though they are increasingly important. The World Bank estimates that 40 percent of all overseas development assistance and concessional finance is devoted to activities that will be affected by climate change, but few of the projects adequately account for the impact that climate change will have. Consequently, dams are built on rivers that will dry up, and crops are planted in coastal areas that will be frequently flooded.

    In Nepal, for example, the melting glaciers are leading to glacial lake outburst, where high energy flood waves reaching as much as 15 metres in height, destroy downstream settlements, dams, bridges, and other infrastructure. Millions of dollars in recent investment have been lost because the hydro-power and infrastructure design in Nepal largely fails to take these floods into account. Ultimately, this further stresses the country as it tries to preserve a fragile peace. Given its proximity to the conflict zone of Kashmir and the contested borders of China and India, an eruption of severe social or political turmoil in Nepal could have ramifications for the entire South Asian region.

    I hope that I have managed to illustrate in sufficient detail, exactly why climate security is such a crucial subject for us all to grasp. In almost every part of the world, there are unique circumstances, that individually appear local, and of limited impact. However, the underlying trend of climate change exacerbates these to the point of significant social unrest which in turn accelerates the impact of climate change by making efforts to reduce it impossible and undermining those efforts that are made.

    Monday, June 08, 2009

    What does climate security mean to 'real' people?

    This is the first part of a keynote paper prepared for the 11th Global Conference on Environment Management, being held at Palampur later this week.


    At the UN Security Council debate on climate security in 2007, the Ghanaian representative, LK Christian, spoke of growing evidence that nomadic Fulani cattle herdsmen were arming themselves with sophisticated assault rifles. They were doing so in order to confront local farming communities, who in turn were threatening their cattle herds. The cause that he gave for this increasing tension was climate change which is expanding the Sahara desert.

    Only the day before, the Security Council had been discussing the crisis in Darfur. This is a conflict in which 200 000 people have already died. It is a conflict in which there has been that same struggle between nomadic and pastoral communities for resources made more scarce through a changing climate.

    We know from studying earlier civilizations that declined and collapsed that it was often shrinking harvests that were responsible. For the Sumerians, rising salt concentrations in the soil lowered wheat and barley yields and brought down this extraordinary early civilization. For the Mayans, it was soil erosion following deforestation that undermined their agriculture and set the stage for their demise. For our twenty-first century civilization, it is rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations and the associated rise in temperature that threatens future harvests.

    To illustrate the problems of climate security, I am going to focus on the Indian Ganges, and Chinese Yellow and Yangtze river basins. I could have chosen almost any part of the world, but as this conference is in Himachal Pradesh, these seemed a good or bad choice depending on your perspective.

    The world is currently facing a climate-driven shrinkage of river-based irrigation water supplies. Mountain glaciers in the Himalayas and on the Tibet-Qinghai Plateau are melting and could soon deprive the major rivers of India and China of the ice melt which is necessary to sustain them throughout the dry season. In the Ganges, the Yellow, and the Yangtze river basins, where irrigated agriculture depends substantially on rivers, this loss of dry-season flow will shrink harvests.

    The world has never faced such a predictably massive threat to food production as that posed by the melting mountain glaciers of Asia. China and India are the world’s leading producers of both wheat and rice - the staple component of the diet of most of humanity. China’s wheat harvest is nearly double that of the United States, which ranks third after India. With rice, these two countries are far and away the leading producers; together they account for over half of the world harvest.

    In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch) reported that Himalayan glaciers are receding rapidly and that many could melt entirely by 2035. In particular, if the giant Gangotri Glacier which supplies 70 percent of the Ganges flow during the dry season should disappear, then the Ganges will become a seasonal river - flowing during the rainy season, but not during the summer dry season when irrigation water is so essential.

    A leading Chinese glaciologist, Yao Tandong, has reported that the glaciers on the Tibet-Qinghai Plateau in western China are now melting at an accelerating rate. He believes that two thirds of these glaciers could be gone by 2060, which will substantially reduce the dry-season flow of the Yellow and Yangtze rivers.

    Like the Ganges, the Yellow River, which flows through the arid northern part of China, could also become seasonal.

    At the same time, overpumping in both India and China, is depleting the underground water resources that both countries use for irrigation. Water tables are falling everywhere under the North China Plain, the country’s principal grain-producing region. When an aquifer is depleted, the rate of pumping is reduced to the rate of recharge. In India, water tables are falling and wells are going dry in almost every state.

    Losing the river water used for irrigation could lead to politically unmanageable food shortages. The Ganges River, for example, is the largest source of surface water irrigation in India, and is the principle source of water for the 407 million people living in the Gangetic Basin.

    In China, the Yellow River basin is home to 147 million people whose fate is closely tied to the ice-melt feeding the river because of low rainfall in the basin. The Yangtze, meanwhile, is China’s leading source of surface irrigation water, and helps produce more than half of China’s 130-million-ton rice harvest. It also meets many of the other water needs of an estimated 368 million people that live within its watershed.

    The populations in either the Yangtze or Gangetic river basin are larger than those of any country other than China or India. The ongoing shrinkage of underground water supplies, the prospective shrinkage of river water supplies, and the consequent crop and subsequent food crises are occurring against the demographic backdrop of a growth in population by 2050, in India of an anticipated 490 million people, and in China of 80 million.

    Grain prices around the world continue to climb and any disruption of the wheat or rice harvests in these two leading grain producers will greatly affect not only people living there but consumers everywhere. In both of these countries, food prices will rise and grain consumption per person will inevitably fall. In India, just over 40 percent of all children under five years of age are already underweight and undernourished, and we can safely predict that hunger will intensify and child mortality will likely climb.

    For China, where there is already a struggle to manage food price inflation, there may well be spreading social unrest as food supplies tighten. Food security in China is a highly sensitive issue. Anyone in China who is over 50 years of age is a survivor of the Great Famine of 1959–61, when, even according to official figures, 30 million Chinese starved to death. This is also why Beijing has worked so hard in recent decades to try and maintain grain self-sufficiency.

    A decade ago, China, was essentially self-sufficient in soy-beans; today, it is importing 70 percent of its supply, which has helped drive world soy-bean prices to an all-time high. As food shortages further unfold, China will try to hold down its domestic food prices by using its massive dollar holdings to import grain, mostly from the United States, which is the world’s largest grain exporter. But, as irrigation water supplies shrink, Chinese consumers will be competing with American domestic consumers for the US grain harvest. India may also try to import large quantities of grain, though it probably lacks the money to do so, especially if grain prices keep climbing.

    This is not a problem that we are leaving to future generations. 2035 is only 25 years away. Assuming that starvation, pestilence, and war do not kill you, most people who are under 50 today, will still be alive then. If you are under 50, you have a responsibility to do something about it.

    Glaciologists have given us a clear sense of how fast the glaciers are shrinking. The challenge now is to translate their findings into national energy policies designed to save the glaciers.

    The critical factor is to reduce low-altitude atmospheric concentrations of CO2. At issue is not just the future of mountain glaciers, but the future of world grain harvests. The challenge is to abandon current policies and cut carbon emissions by, at least, 80 percent - not by 2050 which is the target many political leaders have tried to suggest, but by 2020.

    The first step is to stop building coal-fired power plants, which contribute significantly to these low altitude CO2 levels. Ironically, of course, the two countries that are planning to build most of the new coal-fired power plants, are China and India - the two countries most massively threatened by the carbon emitted from burning coal. It is now totally in their interest to try and save their mountain glaciers by shifting investment from coal-fired power plants into energy efficiency and wind farms, solar thermal power, and geothermal power. It has been estimated, that China, for example, could double its current electrical generating capacity from wind alone.