As previously proposed, many of us 'rich' are unable to take responsibility for our own lives. We need the government to build barriers in the road to stop us crossing the road when it is unsafe, we need companies to reduce their promotion of bad foods, as we cannot stop ourselves eating too much of them, we need regulations to restrict smoking, because we smoke too much. This is not new, but it is depressing. However, we are educated, and we know what choices we are making and the sacrifices we are making.

The poor though, are not as well educated, so do they have an excuse for making such bad choices, which an interesting article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review proposes they regularly do, with significant negative impacts. As the author notes:

The consequences of bad choices are bad for everyone, but even worse for the poor, who lack the resources—financial, psychological, social, and political—to compensate for their errors.

A recent field study in Sri Lanka reveals that more than 10 percent of poor male respondents regularly spend their entire incomes on alcohol.

More generally, poor people “could easily save more without getting less nutrition by spending less on alcohol, tobacco, and food items such as sugar, spice, and tea,” Banerjee and Duflo conclude. For example, the typical poor household in Udaipur could spend up to 30 percent more on food if it did not spend money on alcohol, tobacco, and festivals.

Evidently education is not the answer to this conundrum, since the rich have education too -or, a fairer comparison might be that the poor in the rich countries have good education (comparatively) but still make the same mistakes. Or is the answer that our education, one that is influenced by school, peers, families, media and more, all geared towards taking away our sense of personal responsibility, or focusing too much on short-term, or personal, gain? If it is, then this could be changed. Whereas, if this is more genetic and evolutionary, then it might be harder to change. Food for thought...

Do the right thing

There has always been a strong sense amongst the CSR movement, that doing the right thing is the right thing to do. If it does not make profits, does it make it the wrong thing to do? Why do we need to have to have a better reason to do something than the reason that it is the right thing to do?

Well now, in the current crisis, it is pretty clear that the right thing to do is going to work out as the right thing to do in the future, even if it is not clear now. So, if you are looking for a reason to do the right thing, then you need to remember that you don't need a reason -and if someone requires a reason, then you can tell them that the reason will be apparent in the future, as those banks that did the right thing and have still survived have now realized!

Mallen Baker's blog article covers this, and some other nice tips on responsible leadership here

In bad times...

If the Tragedy of the commons is a real problem, and has been especially so in recent times as everyone gets rich from the growing economy and if there has been a dash for wealth almost everywhere; a dash to cut up the 'economic pie' so to speak... well then, in bad times will the situation be worse or better? Will people get desperate and have even greater disregard for common property?

It seems to me that in good times we are selfish and in bad times, even more selfish. But there could be a tiny chance a few people might realise that if we all act less selfish we could all get to better times much quicker. The chances of that happening? Well, we just have to look at the past ... and hope the future is brighter!

Personally there is always some hope, as Margaret Mead said:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

Indeed, the only people who have changed the world are people -and people is a collective noun for many persons, which is a group of ONE person. ONE person who starts something, carries something on, supports something or does something... we must hope we can realise a balance between each of us acting as individuals (hopefully for good) and each of us releasing our responsibility and acting as a group (generally not for good).

Desperate...

We are getting desperate, having messed up the planet so badly, and continuing to do so, and without any real hope of any significant behaviour change until it is too late, we are having to rely on technology to save us from ourselves, technologies like geoengineering (which would change oru atmosphere artificially) or genetic engineering (to create organisms to generate energy from CO2).

Tragedy of the commons and climate change

Sustainable Development is really about the Tragedy of the Commons: the concept that when there is a common resource, each of us seeks to exploit it so much, that it becomes over exploited and thus depeleted so we all lose out.

This can be applied to almost anything and ultimately is an issue of how much competition is good, and how much collaboration is good. Nowadays there are numerous new ideas that are part-competition and part-collaboration, not the least the concept of open-source where something is created and then given away for free, or the concepts of wikis where contributors help create something for free, because they recognise that the value of what is created by all contributors will be beneficial to everyone.

As leaders we need to explore these problems and seek new solutions; we also need to examine waht solutions work and imitate them elsewhere. We need to be fast, we are depleting all known resources too fast. There are very few cases where we have collectively worked together to stop a particular resource being depleted, or even begun to rehabilitate it. Despite knowing that deforrestation is bad, deforrestation is getting worse, globally, not better. Despite knowing our sources of non-renewable energy are limited, we are using more, not less, of them. Despite knowing our population is growing too fast and each of us are consuming more than the planet has to offer, the global population continues to expand and individual consumption continues to expand.

In rare cases, we have managed to overcome issues, collectively, such as the hole in the Ozone layer, that is now no longer getting worse; but this was an easy issue to overcome, one that was really about technology and uncontroverisal political decisions. Even in cases of war, with real-time, immediate consequences of death, we are unable to solve collective action problems. The 'we' is both the losers, the outsiders and the winners.

The search still goes on for ways for each of us to understand the long-term negative impacts of our current actions on our own future. Not just on our children's future -but our own future. Can new forms of media and communication lead to new forms of collaboration, or will they lead to new forms of competition? What mix of collaboration and competition is requried to solve our problems -when is competition better and when is collaboration better, what happens when some want to compete and some want to collaborate?

This is the problem we have with climate change -where some see they lose they refuse to collaborate, but others see that without collaboration everyone will lose. The solution is to ignore the past, forget the past and move on. This is not easy, but is the only solution. We cannot complain about others being richer or better-off. We need to all work together to ensure a better future for us all, without worrying about the past, because if we continue to complain, criticize and seek retribution or compensation, we will not move forward. This is the problem -not just that we cannot see long-term, but that we cannot forget the past. That, the problem with human nature, is the real tragedy.

Can Green be a sign of status?

There comes a point when people move beyond buying out of neccessity and convenience to start buying for greater luxury and status. In China and parts of Asia it's fair to say that the environmental footprint of the poor is fairly low, but the middle classes is higher. Although many that buy cars argue it is a necessary purchase, the reality is that many cars are as much a status symbol than a neccessity. It is reasonable to expect comfort to be an important decision factor but is it unreasonable for status to be such an important factor?

For the upper middle classes, apart from the car, the choice of accommodation also affects one's environmental footprint. Again, though location and comfort are important factors, it is a matter of status: how one's spouse, parents, peers or business partners view your choices matters.

In travelling between Beijing and Shanghai, though the trains' sleeper carriages do contain their fair share of business travellers, most business travellers fly. It can be important to spend the night with one's family, but apart from that, taking the train has many benefits: the stations are on the subway so travelling to/from the station is not just cheap but there is no need to worry about traffic jams. The journey itself is comfortable and efficient -with a few hours to work or read before sleeping. In fact many business travellers i speak to have just never considered the train and are not against taking it, but are just used to flying and are not motivated enough to change.

There is absolutely no status to be gained by being 'green' in China. No-one is proud of taking the train, no-one is proud of buying a smaller (though still comfortable) car and no-one is proud to buy a green apartment. In fact though companies are proud of their environmentally friendly offices, none of them encourage staff to not fly. There are many schemes that work elsewhere to encourage cycling (i.e. suitable cycle storage and showers at work) or public transport (i.e. free public transport cards and financial incentives to use them). It is not cool to cycle to work.

What is needed is a shift in how status is gained, which is not just about being seen in a positive light for being green (like many who buy hybrid cars in the West) but more about being seen ina negative light for not being green. We might start to see this change if public opinion shows distaste at those using plastic bags, instead of a re-usable one. A few are buying fashionable re-usable bags now to seem cool, apparently. but this is not mainstream.

If it becomes mainstream, could it spread? Could 'green' be the real status gainer in China, or will it just affect the youth? If a sense of shame starts to develop that would be great, and maybe have a wider affect than the positive status of being 'green'.

In reality though this needs to lead to something bigger...to the demand for greener cars, greener apartments, environmentally friendly clothing and so on. How can we make 'green' a status symbol beyond the fringes of society, so that demand affects supply leading to retailers, developers, salesmen etc developing greener products, because of the demand for them. How can we create this demand for green life? How can we start to make it embarassing not to use a reusable bag, to fly, to consume too much (waste food or buy too many clothes)?

Although this is yet to even affect the 'cool crowd' in the West it might not be unreasonable to target the 'status' crowd in China (as well as the 'cool' crowd; though the 'status' crowd are those with a bigger impact). It is not just the plastic bag example that could offer a glimmer of hope. The other example is of course the earthquake where amongst the 'status crowd' you were looked down upon if you did not donate a certain amount or attend certain fundraisers. If it was possible to create such an atmosphere because of the earthquake -and that, like china's current environmental crisis, also had no direct impact on the 'status' crowd, is it possible?

The situations are not the same, but there is some hope.

Substituting the very bad for the bad

Sometimes it is just not possible, or too hard to actually solve a social problem, in which case it might be easier to try to just reduce the problem. 1 example would be to decide to use biofuels instead of oil for energy, in that using biofuels is better than oil, in terms of the impact on climate change (though still debatable), but it still has many other negative impacts (food prices increase being one of them).

Another example, rather more interesting, is the issue of alcoholism which leads to health problems (such as harming the liver) and social problems (such as abusing others or not working). This article talks about a solution in Africa where local alcohol is highly alcoholic and dangerous, but extremely cheap. So if something less alcoholic (and thus less dangerous) can be provided for the same price, people might switch. It is an interesting solution; and what i like about it is that it still tries to create local economic benefit (which presumably, the local dangerous alcohol does) in order to keep costs down.

A parallel can be drawn with cigarettes and providing low-tar cigarettes (or 'light' cigarettes) instead of regulars. Though, is this the best solution compared to promoting nicotine patches or just by trying to stop smoking altogether? It depends on the problem, since now the problem is seen less as the health impacts on the smoker and more on the health impacts of others (and the nuisance factor). Presumably promoting such low-tar options, though helping reduce the harm on the smoker, does not really reduce the nuisance factor and still harms (though maybe somewhat less) other passive smokers.

I wonder what the side-effects of the above mentioned experiment is Africa are -would the local alcohol growers/sellers start campaigns against the cheap beer?, and whether there has been any studies on them. Well, if DfID get involved, I am sure there will be plenty of studies!

How to reach fulfillment

Tony Robbins suggests we need to be fulfilled, to do this we need to meet our needs. To do this we need to accept that our decisions affect our destiny and we need to thus understand our decision making process in order to make the right decisions for ourselves.

To do this first we need to decide what we want to focus on, in order to generate feeling. Then, we need to decide what this means to us and finally we need to decide what we are then going to do.

Once we have this then we need to pay attention not on the resources needed, but how we can be resourceful in meeting our needs. Ultimately to be fulfilled we need to go beyond meeting our basic needs (certainty, variety, significance, connection of love) to those needs of the spirit: growth and contribution beyond ourselves.

Watch this 20 minute video, if there is nothing else you do this year, and be inspired!

We're using up our Earth!

Humanity's Ecological Footprint is over 23% larger than what the planet can regenerate. In other words, it now takes more than one year and two months for the Earth to regenerate what we use in a single year. We maintain this overshoot by liquidating the planet's ecological resources. This is a vastly underestimated threat and one that is not adequately addressed.

It is fascinating stuff, showing that around 1988 we started using up more resources that the Earth generates each year and that North America uses up 8 times more resources, per person, than Asia Pacific. The UK's footprint (in hectares per person) has gone from 4 to 5 in the last 40 years; even though its capacity has stayed almost constant around 2. China's footprint has doubled from 0.8 to 1.6, whilst its capacity has been getting smaller relatively quickly (down from 1 to 0.8).

The good news is that technology can save our problems; but due to market imperfections, it is unlikely to -will we, since it is the only other option, be able to reduce our global footprint instead, to solve the problem? It seems unlikely, bearing in mind the impact of fast growing developing countries -though if the developed countries could halve their ecological footprint it would make a massive difference. Anyone for behaviour and lifestyle change?

Compromise

-or Balance, either are key elements in Sustainable Development. 1 interesting example is about energy, since around 20-30% of energy is lost in transmission; hence the interest in personal energy sources.

This is especially useful in developing countries where there is no infrastructure to distribute energy, but, for example, also relevant for developing countries. Since we will (eventually) roll out hydrogen powered cars, we will need to roll out a network of hydrogen providers (i.e. filling stations). What if each individual could make their own hydrogen, with a system that came with their car, when they bought it? It would save on time and money and resources to install these distribution systems. However, it might be much more efficient to make the hydrogen in a big facility, rather than in many many (individually owned) smaller ones. I guess the solution varies for each product or service, but it is an interesting conundrum.

Leverage points

Another aspect of Systems theory centres on identifying key aspects of a system which not only allow you to be able to make a difference to this aspect, but subsequently have an impact on other elements in the system.

Of course, this means you need to be careful about how changing 1 aspect of the system impacts upon other elements; but if you can identify an early aspect of the system and change that, great leverage can be achieved. It is risky, but it could be rewarding. Seek out those leverage points and apply some leverage, but be careful about what happens!

Fixes that fail

1 of the learning points of Systems theory is that often, in response to a problem a 'fix' is undertaken that is not actually the right 'fix' -it has been created without enough attention (or knowledge) to other elements in the system. Thus the 'fix' does not solve the actual problem, but often makes the problem worse by accidentally increasing the impact of another aspect of the system which continues to work restricting the attempted solution. The solution failed, because it was just a fix and not a real solution.

Real solutions need careful analysis of the problem; causes and effects; consequences of the actions involved in the system and an understanding of knock-on effects. This is a crucial aspect of poverty reduction when programs are not integrated or fail to make a difference because it was the wrong solution in some way. Take your time, analyse the problem, test the solution. Don't be left embarrassed by creating a 'fix that fails' -create a real solution!

Another urban way!

Urban areas can be green, they can include biodiversity, they can involve circular, planned systems which are designed to increase the quality of life for all living things in the city. Urban development is not just roadworks, slums, pollution, overcrowding or high prices.

But, which is more common? Why -is it because of a lack of knowledge, a lack of ability, a lack of money, or (as i suspect) just because of a lack of will. It is time for people to stand up and make the changes we need to see in our society. Those building and selling such properties must be pressurised to take action, and must be willing to take action.

Culture vs Human Rights

What do you do when cultural sensitivity is in contrast with human rights? do you abide by the local culture (i.e. not promote women) or do you support women's rights?

It seems that there are many examples of 'international human rights' being in contrast to local traditional norms and cultures. Similarly, since values are so crucial to people and to organisations, how do you deal with contrasting and conflicting values? Do you impose values on others (surely not!) or what?

Climate Change affects those who did not cause it

So what does this mean? An acceptance of this fact might help for a start, but that won't happen. Money to help those who need it could be provided, through traditional aid or disaster relief public fundraising campaigns, but this will likely happen after a disaster which is, of course, too late. Some extra aid money is bein provided to help those countries deal with any extra possible disasters and prevent them. Otherwise a market-based system will be needed, like the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism), which allows polluters to pay others to reduce their pollution, since it is probably cheaper and easier for others to reduce their pollution (or not become polluting). Though CDM is not working effectively right now it is a great experiment and we have to hope it will have some impact and continually get better.

Mission Creep

Corporations face a choice of whether to diversify or to specialise. There are numerous advantages and disadvantages to both. However the decision on what to do is normally driven by the need to make the company as successful (i.e profitable) as it can be, in the long-term. Thus if the objective is already decided it can be easy to list the pros and cons and see whether to diversify or specialise.

For NGOs, it is not as simple: NGOs are driven by a vision: to make the World better, and each NGO has it own mission: how it will make the World better. Though it is rare, once an NGO achieves 1 mission (i.e. campaigning for better environmental protection), it can then move onto another mission towards this overall vision. Most large NGOs do this within the context of restricting themselves to what kind of missions they will undertake: normally based on their expertise and their beliefs -so they may concentrate on the environment, or poverty, or education etc.

Larger NGOs are quite well funded, however they still face potential mission creep, though for smaller NGOs it is a much greater concern, for NGOs all require funding (from just a few dollars a week to millions) and that funding must come from something and be directed towards something else. Often the 2 are connected, sometimes they are not. Faced with the opportunity to get money, most NGOs will try to get it, changing their programs or approach accordingly (which may no longer best address the needs of who/what they want to help). Is this good or bad? Every NGO must make decisions on a case-by-case basis, but it is very tough to reject funding.

Additionally many NGOs have their own little 'cash cow' which they use to raise money, and they spend resources on generating income -how much should they spend? Well, the international standard is no more than 20% of expenditure should be for admin or for fundraising. A 'cash cow' could be money from the government, from a business, from the public, from selling a product or service etc. But what 'cash cows' to pursue that support the mission; and which to reject? Again a case-by-case decision must be made considering various factors. One thing is for sure, Mission Creep in an NGO is a tricky issue and an issue most companies don't face. They have to worry more about strategies and less about objectives. NGOs often worry about objectives because theirs are more fluid and less defined.

Values for Sustainable Development

So, though the World is more and more acutely aware of how unsustainable it is, the World continues to get more unsustainable. Weird that isn't it? I have wondered for a while how this bizarre effect takes place. The more extreme example I can think of is HIV/AIDs.

I know there is obviously a lack of education and awareness about the disease; but if 25% of a population, or in some villages 60% have HIV/AIDs and are actually, visibly dying from it, why doesn't the rest of the village realise and address the issue? Is it just because everyone catches it before it is too late to realise? In which case, why is it, when these people then tell a nearby unaffected village about HIV/AIDs, that that village seems to ignore them, catch HIV/AIDs themselves etc.

I might be oversimplifying things somewhat, especially for such a complex issue. But People are pretty stupid. I've commented before on the problems of the disconnect that is the main cause of today's problems -we do not see the (unsustainable) impact of our actions, but even when we do see the negative impact of our actions, we still don't care. We absolve ourselves of responsibility, find some solution (to the detriment of someone else) and move on. It is a dog eat dog world. But when you've eaten all the dogs, then what will be left for you to eat?

So if you were given the chance to try to spread a few values that you thought might be the ones, that if everyone agreed with, and acted based upon, would lead to a sustainable World? Well, I led a short discussion and though the list could be endless and so many of the values are overlapping we came up with:
-Respect
-Interdependence
-Equality
-Responsibility

I believe that if everyone lived those values and understood those values the World would be a much better place. As it happens the project we've been running to teach the top high school students in China about these values through discussion on key SD issues is just finishing it's first phase. So far about 2,000 students reached and, for a pilot, it has been fantastic. Let's see what more we can do next time.

prioritising

In business it is tough to prioritise. Can you really choose what is more important to your business -your employees or your customers? You obviously need both; and this is just a very simple example. There are many situations where prioritising is difficult and complex.

Leading CSR thought is along the lines of integrating CSR and responsibility into management decisions. In this way the impact of decisions can be viewed through a 'responsibility lens'' thus if there are guidelines within a company for how to select priorities, the litmus test is where is sustainability or responsibility in these guidelines.

I write about the difficulties of prioritisation because we, as human beings face similar problems daily. The world, it seems, is now moving climate change up the ladder of priorities, but at what cost? Will the environment (in a traditional sense) or poverty reduction drop down a few rungs to compensate?

It is clear we cannot focus on all issues; and all have their merit. It is also clear that all issues are inter-related. Yes you cannot generate economic growth if the people who generate wealth are dying from HIV/AIDs, and their future successors are not being educated or looked after. But at the same time, you cannot generate wealth, if there is no water for growing crops or cooling factories, or for drinking. Another simple example, but this I believe is an issue we are struggling to deal with.

There are too many issues with complicated solutions and not enough will power or resources to solve them all. The Copenhagen Consensus was an interesting concept, when it started in 2003 -and its great to discover it is still going. The Copenhagen Consensus process aims to establish a framework in which solutions to problems are prioritized based upon the best information possible. The idea is a great one, and they have wonderful educational resources which I think every institution should use to stimulate debate and ideas.

Their founding conference in 2004 came up with these top 4 priorities: HIV/AIDs, Nutrition (Micronutrients), Trade liberalisation, Malaria. (Interestingly the youth conference came up with Malnutrition/Hunger, Communicable Disease, Governance/Corruption and Education). Now they are updating their framework and preparing for a similar conference in 2008. What will the priorities they come up with be then? Will Climate Change still take 3 of the bottom 4 places?

Thankfully there is some follow-up, including an interesting book (a rich set of arguments and data for prioritising our response most effectively).

On a personal level, as much as we may all care about helping others, there is the question that we hate to ask ourselves.. Is watching a 2 hour movie going to really make much difference to the World? Is our job really what we want? This discussion shall be had another time!

Pandas

The 5 other animals that are in the same species as the Panda (debated as to what exact species the Panda is) have all disappeared -most of them hundreds of thousands of years ago, and not because of mankind. Now the Panda has started disappearing, partly from human activity and partly from other animals or natural changes.

To some extent, yes, it is because of humans that the Panda is now facing extinction -but at the same time, it is also simple evolution that the panda has failed to react adequately to climate changes; failed to change its eating habits; failed to escape from or attack predators; failed to mate quick enough etc.

Much is made of manking altering nature for our own good, well should we be artificially protecting the panda; which currently only survives in zoos or protected reserves. I believe only 1 panda has been returned to the wild (ever); no matter how much we can increase the population of pandas, what is the point if they cannot survive alone in the wild, unsupported?

Do we have an obligation to protect species from going extinct? Should we continue to keep them alive in order to study them, their breeding habits and so on, so we can increase our knowledge of nature, animals and history? Are we only protecting the panda because it is cute (and other animals that are not cure, are disappearing)? and so on....

What should we do, what is the responsible thing to do? I can definitely see value in protecting the panda in order to study it and learn from it; but then i think that what we should do is have these kinds of discussions about the panda, about extinctions and about mankind's place in this world. Instead of information in zoos about how we should support the panda, donate money to WWF and environmental conservation, we should be telling children the panda's story and discussing with them these and other philosophical questions.

Rarely does anyone learn about philosophy at school, unless they take it at 16, 18 or older as some academic option, but at a time when the debates are growing into the general public demain about the role of business in society, about the role of humans on our planet, about the role of the person flying on holiday (is there a right to travel?), then i think that a great philosophy class could tie all of this together in a fun and interesting way (the panda is a great example). This helps the future generations learn about the past, explore the present and challenge the current preconceptions. Right now the most responsible thing we can do is explore new ways of living; of surviving -we cannnot go on as we are.

Stability

Stability and change. Most people, especially in the corporate World will argue that you need to continue to innovate to succeed. In literary terms you can find 'sayings' both for and against change; in political terms everyone is always talking about change; in our personal lives we are always against change and upheavals.

I find this topic interesting just because in different situations, leadership might require stability, and others might require change -and it is impossible to create any kind of generalisation or advice on this. There are, of course, issues related to responsible leadership: a duty to understand what impacts changes might have on people (many are unforeseen) or a duty to be brave enough to change ahead of the times rather than after the times, in order to remain competitive.

I want to focus on the Political World though: Looking at Iraq, life was not great before Saddam Hussein, and it will hopefully be much better 'after him' -though when the 'happy' 'after him' period arrives is anyone's guess. Change is never easy (personally, politically or professionally) and Iraq is a simple way of asking, is the change process worth it? Even if the end result is better than before the change, the change process might be so bad (or so long) that is outweighs the benefits of the change altogether.

People like stability; people do not like to take risks and there needs to be a big enough motivation to take risks; or else those risks won't be taken. You could argue that in Iraq things were not bad enough (yet) that people were willing to risk doing whatever was needed to change the status quo. Now its clear that it is not so simple as to say that the US acted like an external consultant, assessing that 2002 was the time that the change should happen: that the risks were good enough (because there were many reasons for their intervention); but looking at a political situation through a corporate viewpoint draws interesting parallels.

Who should instigate change? The internal staff (or citizens) or the external consultant/new CEO (revolutionary leader or attack/'invasion' by another country)? How can the change process be best managed -and what is the goal of that change? Interestingly I think looking at Iraq from a business point of view it's clear that the US (apologies for simplifying such a controversial and complex issue) had a vision for the 'post-change period', but had only though of the first few strategies for getting there, underestimated the time to complete the change, forgotten to think about what the impacts of the change might be on different stakeholders, ignored what the 'competition' might do, misjudged the time frame and so on. Anyone reading this could draw their own parallels to various situations.

The end of the day is that business knows how hard change is, there are thousands of models and theories and good and bad examples.. there are though some simple rules that most MBA schools will teach. But what about political change? Even looking at more modest changes, like a domestic election leading to a change in political party leadership, there seems to be no real understanding of how to create the change, what the vision is, what the strategies are and so on. At least, that is a very initial statement.

With deeper reflection, I believe that there are many successful cases of political change, and what seems to be common with all of them is that change was so desperately needed that it was simple and obvious to work out the details, the strategies, to get stakeholder support etc. Nowadays most western countries don't have serious need to change, therefore whatever supposed changes they initiate (and most mainstream parties in most developed democracies seem to be very alike) they are not very successful. Now if change was really needed then an extreme party (communist, fascist or whatever) would take over... therein lies the issue: these parties will take over once the need is great enough and they get enough support. However it is in the current mainstream parties interests to stop that from happening.

The competition in the corporate world is much greater; the need for change is often more pressing and more is at stake. Politically countries can afford somewhat to just be stable, making minor changes, and sometimes companies can do the same -other times companies cannot afford that whatsoever. So maybe politics needs to look at itself from a corporate viewpoint; to look at issues about stakeholders, visions and strategies, goals and accountability, 'change or die' perspectives, scenario planning, competitive analysis and so on. This is an interesting topic to explore more of in the future.

Meanwhile I'm more interested in the 'tipping point' that leads to successful changes.. when are what pressures so great that change happens? who instigates the change? was the change worthwhile? For me, time is the most important issue with change. Try to make the change quickly. Get it over with, then tweak it. Everyone will argue with change, no-one likes change, everyone is suspicious of new things and demands will change, pressures will change... so much will change as time drags on that the whole change process becomes based on a cause that has changed and a vision that is no longer relevant. So, responsible leaders need to understand this (no matter what they are leading), they need to prepare, research, strategise. But most of all they need to get their timing right. Make the change at the right time -get it finished when that time is still right.

Then start thinking about other issues in change mangement: expectation setting, vision setting, leadership, buy-in, progress communication, stakeholder participation and agreement etc etc. How much of this has ever been done politically? Only when the situation was so bad that enough people could easily identify the problem and the problem was so serious that it had to be changed NOW and quickly has political change been successful (of course other factors are useful too, like outside support or copying other successful models) -overall change is about time, and about need. Right now some of the world is slowly starting to realise that change is needed, and quickly, to stop climate change or HIV/AIDs. But the world is not there yet. The pressures for change are not direct enough, not important enough, not relevant enough to create the tipping point needed. Lets hope though that this change will come, it will come quickly, be done quick enough, and be successful. Isn't is scary to compare the battle in Iraq with the battle against HIV/AIDs?

When will the end come? Who really wants the end? Are those who have the means to end it willing to end it or do they know how to end it? Is it just getting worse? The longer it goes on, the worse it gets -that is for certain.