My Digital FootPrint

The pandemic changed us, our views, what we value and how we work.  We might not recognise all the changes and hang on in the hope of a return to something we loved, but we must make the best of it now.  We should be aware that the change has not only affected us but also our teams.  Whilst the Bruce Tuckman 1965 forming–storming–norming–performing model of group development is timeless. No one is likely to dissent that phases remain necessary and inevitable for a team to grow, face challenges, tackle problems, find solutions, plan work, and deliver results.  However, because we have changed, so has the utility of the tools we apply that move us along the journey from forming to performing.  Tools learnt and built in stable and certain times, have less applicability when we are faced with volatility and uncertainty.  It is the usefulness of tools we utilise that move us on the journey from forming to performing that has changed.  More books and articles on “teams” and “leadership” exi

Data would indicate that our global interest in purpose is growing. In truth, searching on Google for purpose is probably not the best place to start, and I write a lot about how to use data to frame an argument as this viewpoint highlights that the gap between purpose and how is filled with paradox. Source: Google Trends The Peak Paradox framework can be viewed from many different perspectives.  In this 3-minute read, I want to focus on the gap between “Purpose” And “How.” For example, Robin Hood's (as in the legendary heroic outlaw originally depicted in English folklore and subsequently featured in literature and film - not the stock trading company) purpose was “The redistribution of wealth.”   He and his band of merry fellows implemented the purpose by any means, mainly robbing the rich and giving to the poor (how they did it).   The Purpose was not wrong, but How was an interesting take on roles in society.   Google’s Purpose is to “ Organise the world's information .”

I am aware that a human limitation is our understanding of time.  Time itself is something that humans have created to help us comprehend the rules that govern us.  Whilst society is exceptionally good at managing short-time frames (next minute, hour, day and week),  it is well established that humans are very bad at comprehending longer time frames (decades, centuries and millenniums).  Humans are proficient at overestimating what we can do in the next year and wildly under-estimate what we can achieve in 10 years.  (Gates Law) Therefore, I know there is a problem when we consider how we should value the next 50,000 years.  However, we are left with fewer short-terms options each year and are left to consider longer and bigger - the very thing we are less capable of.  Why 50,000 years The orange circle below represents the 6.75 trillion people (UN figure) who will be born in the next 50,000 years.  The small grey circle represents the 100 billion dead who have already lived on earth

I have the deepest respect and high regard for Wardley Maps and the Cynefin framework .  They share much of the same background and evolution. Both are extremely helpful and modern frameworks for understanding, much like Porter’s five forces model was back in the 1980s.  I adopted the same terminology (novel, emergent, good and best) when writing about the development of governance for 2050. In the article Revising the S-Curve in an age of emergence , I used the S-curve as it has helped us on several previous journeys. It supported our understanding of adoption and growth; it can now be critical in helping us understand the development and evolution of governance towards a sustainable future. An evolutionary S-curve is more applicable than ever as we enter a new phase of emergence. Our actions and behaviours emerge when we grasp that all parts of our ecosystem interact as a more comprehensive whole. A governance S-curve can help us unpack new risks in this dependent ecosystem so that

Because when there is a leader, we look to them to lead, and they want us to follow their ideas. If you challenge the leader, you challenge leadership, and suddenly, you are not in or on the team. If you don’t support the leader, you are seen as a problem and are not a welcome member of the inner circle. If you bring your ideas, you are seen to be competitive to the system and not aligned.  If you don’t bring innovation, you are seen to lack leadership potential.  The leader sets the rules unless and until the leader loses authority or it is evident that their ideas don’t add up when a challenge to leadership and a demonstration of leadership skills becomes valid. We know this leadership model is broken and based on old command and control thinking inherited from models of war. We have lots of new leadership models, but leaders who depend on others for ideas, skills and talent, are they really the inspiration we are seeking?   Leadership is one of the biggest written-about topics, but

A problem of definitions As we are all reminded of inflation and its various manifestations, perhaps we also need to rethink some of them.  The reason is that in economics, inflation is all about a linear scale. Sustainable development does not really map very well to this scale. In eco-systems, it is about balance.  Because of the way we define growth - we aim for inflation and need to control it.  However, this scale thinking then frames how we would perceive sustainability as the framing sets these boundaries.   What happens if we change it round? What we have today in terms of the definition that creates conflicts and therefore has to ask, is this useful for a sustainable future as we are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Economics Definition Perceptions from the Sustainability community and long term impact Hyperinflation Hyperinflation is a period of fast-rising inflation;  an Increase in prices drives for more efficiency to control pricing. Use of scale to create damp