Futurist Advocates for ‘Strategic Foresight’ in Corporate Planning (2015)

Posted on December 6, 2015January 14, 2016 by Sohail Inayatullah

By: Natalie Greve, Creamer Media Contributing Editor Online

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation chair in futures studies Professor Sohail Inayatullah has touted the adoption of “transformative and strategic foresight” by companies in future scenario planning, telling a workshop that this approach creates flexibility in decision-making by moving from a focus on one inevitable future to an analysis of several alternative ones.

This methodology was used by organisations such as the World Economic Forum, which used it to reframe challenges, analyse assumptions about existing organisational challenges and clarify future options for strategic decision-making.

The foresight approach, Inayatullah explained, encouraged a shift from focusing on the day-to-day operational considerations of management to the longer-term transformative dimensions of leadership, introducing broader systematic and transdisciplinarian perspectives and solutions.

“This approach allows [companies] to anticipate emerging issues and weak signals that may derail strategic plans and policies. Through environmental scanning, strategic foresight intends to solve tomorrow’s problems today and discover opportunities early on,” the futurist outlined.

Importantly, the foresight approach changed the temporal horizon of planning from the short term to the medium and long term, while reducing risk by emphasising the positions of multiple stakeholders.

“Often, strategies fail not because of an inaccurate assessment of alternative futures, but as a result of a lack of understanding of deep culture”.

“Blind spots – which are always built into the knowledge framework of each person and organisation – are addressed by including difference. This makes implementation far easier,” said Inayatullah.

Future-based studies and transformative insight in organisations were based on six pillars, the first of which involved the mapping of the past, present and future.

Mapping sought to identify the historical factors and patterns that had created the present, which was itself mapped through environmental scans.

The second pillar saw the anticipation of the future through the identification of emerging issues, while the third pillar sought to “time the future” through an analysis of previous patterns in history.

Inayatullah’s fourth pillar was based on “deepening” the future through an analysis of the deeper myths and world views present beneath the data of the “official” future using causal layered analysis.

A series of alternative possible futures were then created through scenario-planning and an analysis of the critical uncertainties driving the future as well as the archetypes of personal and societal change.

Lastly, through the application of backcasting, visioning and action learning, the future was then “transformed” through the articulation of a preferred future and the development of critical pathways.

Edited by: Chanel de Bruyn Creamer Media Senior Deputy Editor Online

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/futurist-advocates-for-strategic-foresight-in-corporate-planning-2015-12-04

Seven Positive Trends Amidst the Doom and Gloom (2012)

Posted on December 15, 2012May 4, 2025 by Sohail Inayatullah

By Sohail Inayatullah

January 06, 2012

While there is a great deal of bad, indeed, horrendous, news in the world - global warming, terrorism, the global financial crisis, water shortages, worsening inequity – there are also signs of positive change.

GENOMICS

First, in genomics, the revolution of tailoring health advice has begun. Among other websites, www.23andme.com provides detailed personal genetic information to consumers. It provides, “the latest research on how your genes may affect risk for common diseases and conditions such as heart attack, arthritis and cancers.” Once your genome is analyzed, you will also be able to “see your personal history through a new lens with detailed information about your ancient ancestors and comparisons to global populations today.” This development in genomics is good news in that more

information about your personal health future is available. Of course, these are just probabilities and should be used wisely, helping each person make better health choices today. Avoiding creating selffulfilling prophecies of potential future illnesses would be a priority in teaching individuals to understand their genome map. Bringing wisdom to more information is crucial especially given forecasts that within 10 years every baby will be given a complete genome map at birth.

MEDITATION

Second, there is positive news in meditation research. Study after study confirms that meditation is not only of individual benefit but as national health expenditures keep on increasing (because of increased demand from an aging population) along with exercise, lowfat vegetarian food and a close community, meditation as part of a national health strategy can reduce public health costs. For example, we know that studies show that regular meditators exhibit: 87% less heart disease, 55.4% less tumors, 50.2% less hospitalization, 30.6% less mental disorders and 30.4% less infectious diseases (Matthew Bambling, Mind, Body and Heart, Psychotherapy in Australia, February 2006, 5259). There are even reports on the benefits of meditation for military care providers, not a sector known for spiritual development. Meditation even changes the nature of the brain. Researchers at Harvard, Yale and MIT have found that brain scans reveal that experienced meditators boasted increased thickness in parts of the brain that dealt with attention and processing sensory input. The structure of the adult brain can thus change, suggests the research. Indeed, research as well suggests that through meditation we can train ourselves to be more compassionate toward others. It appears that cultivating compassion and kindness through meditation affects brain regions that can make a person more empathetic to other peoples’ mental states, say researchers at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

While we have had anecdotal evidence of the importance of meditation, developments in MRI scanning have taken the research to new levels providing us with visual and repeatable (scientific) evidence.

SPIRITUALITY

Third, we are witnessing a rise in the significance of spirituality as a worldview and as a practice. Spirituality is defined broadly as a practice that brings inner peace and love for self and the transcendent as well as being inclusive of others, that is, it does not claim to be exclusive or in a hierarchy of who is above and who is below. In their book, The Cultural Creatives, Paul Ray and Sherry Anderson go so far as to say that up to 25% of those in OECD nations now subscribe to a new worldview with spirituality as a central feature. Overtime this worldview will likely have increasingly tangible impacts on economic, transport and governance systems.

In their book, A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America, Ian Mitroff and Elizabeth Denton found “spirituality as one of the most important determinants of performance.” Of the 200 companies surveyed, sixty percent believed that spirituality was a benefit provided no particular view of religion was pushed. Georgeanne Lamont’s research in the UK at ‘soulfriendly’ companies including Happy Computers, Bayer UK, Natwest, Microsoft UK, Scott Bader, Peach Personnel found lower than average absenteeism, sickness and staff turnover which saved the businesses money. In one example, Broadway Tyres introduced spiritual practices and absenteeism dropped from twentyfive/thirty percent to two percent.

And: research shows a positive correlation between spiritual organisations and the bottom line organisations that can inspire employees to a ‘higher cause’ tend to have enhanced performance because of the increased motivation and commitment this tends to generate.

HEALTHY AND GREEN CITIES

Fourth, we are seeing that while many problems are too big for national governments, local governance is thriving. Many cities are taking the future to heart. In Australia for example, Future 2030 city projects are slowly becoming part of the norm (Brisbane, the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Logan City, for example). Cities are broadening democracy to include visioning. Citizens are asked about their desired image of their city – transport, skyline, design, and community – and are working with political leaders and professional staff to create their desired futures. This leads not only to cities changing in directions citizens authentically prefer, but it enhances the capacity of citizens to make a difference. Democracy becomes not only strengthened but the longterm becomes part of decision making – a type of anticipatory democracy is being created. Those politicians who prefer to keep power to themselves and not engage in the visioning tend to be booted out, suggests some research (Steve Gould, Creating Alternative Community Futures. MA thesis, University of the Sunshine Coast, 2009).

And what type of futures do citizens prefer? They tend to want more green (gardens on rooftops, for example), far less cars (more public transport), technology embedded in their day to day lives a seamless integration of nature, the built environment and high technologies – and far more community spaces. They want to work from home, and many imagine new community centres where people of different professions can work individually but also share costs (and avoid loneliness). Imagine the savings in transport costs as well as greenhouse gas emissions. And time! Instead of expensive new infrastructure, creating flexible homeworkcommunitytime options could save billions, not to mention no longer being stuck in traffic jams.

On a practical level, solid social science research demonstrates that cities can develop policies that enhance public health. For example in Australia, the Rockhampton 10,000 steps program has attempted to enhance the physical activity of citizens. Given the volumes of epidemiological evidence that show that regular physical activity promotes and improves health in endless ways, active health is a great best buy.

But it is not just physical health that planners are beginning to consider but psychological health. Research shows that green spaces in a city have a pronounced affect on the emotional health of residents, and the higher the biodiversity of green spaces, the more benefits. Thus, keeping green spaces helps in promoting physical and mental health. Enhancing green spaces can also reduce drought as there is considerable evidence that the suburban/strip mall model of development blocks billions of gallons of rainwater from seeping through the soil to replenish ground water (Tom Doggett, “Suburban Sprawl Blocks Water, Worsens U.S. Drought,” Aug 28, 2002, www.reuters.com).

As part of this rethinking of the city, planners are starting to see transport alternatives as being linked to community health. For example, we now know that air pollution is linked to heart disease, that is, clogged roads lead to clogged arteries (the amount of time spent in traffic increases the risk of heart disease. And if they do not design for health, most likely citizens who have been hospitalized will litigate against city officials for not designing cities for wellbeing.

NEW MEASUREMENTS

Fifth, nations, cities, corporations and nongovernmental organizations are creating new ways of measuring their success. While earlier indicators of progress were all about the dollar, now triple bottom line measurements have taken off, and will continue to do so in the future. Instead of only measuring the single bottom line of profit, impacts on nature (sustainability) and on society (social inclusion) are becoming increasingly important, even in this financial crisis. One Australia city has even followed the example of Bhutan and developed a National Happiness index.

This enlargement of what counts as the bottom line is occurring because more and more evidence points to the fact that the economy rests on society which rests on nature. All three have to do well for us to survive and thrive, to move toward individual and collective happiness. Focus on one works in the short run but in the long run having a dynamic balance works best. Even the President of the European Commission, Manuel Barroso, has argued that it is time to go beyond GDP, as this traditional indicator only measures market activity, and not wellbeing. Says, Barroso, writing about GDP, “We cannot face the challenges of the future with the tools of the past.” Confirming this new approach, HansGert Pöttering, the President of the European Parliament writes that: “wellbeing is not just growth; it is also health, environment, spirit and culture.” There are now even calls for spirituality to become the fourth bottom line.

PEER-TO-PEER AND SOCIAL NETWORKING

Sixth, while there are many benefits of the Information and Communication Technologies revolution, one of the key positive outcomes is the development of peer-to-peer power. Traditional hierarchical relations – top down models of relating to each other – are being challenged. And while it is far too early to say the dominator model of social relations will disappear in this generation, slowly over time there are indications that there will be far more balance in emerging futures. Hierarchy will become only one of the ways we engage with each other; the role of partnerships (through cooperatives) will continue to increase as new social technologies via the web make that possible. For example, already wikipedia has challenged traditional modes of knowledge authority. Websites such as kiva.org allow – though at a small level – direct person to person lending. This could have dramatic impacts on the big banks over time. Social peertopeer networking also reduces the ability of authoritarian states to use information communication technologies for surveillance benefits. Power moves from rigid hierarchies to far more fluid and socially inventive networks.

With more information available exponentially, the challenge will be to use information about our genome, our inner lives, and our localities in ways that empower and create harmony. New technologies such as the bodybugg and overtime health and ecobots will help a great deal as they will give us immediate, interactive and tailored information on the futures we wish for (as does the newly invented smart toilet with its likely web links to http://asnu.com.au/viagra-online/ health providers. Health and ecobots will be able to help us decide which products to buy (do they fit into my value structure, are they triple or quadruple bottom line), how much and how long to exercise and through social networking, enlist communities of support to help achieve desired futures.

HAPPINESS IS VIRAL

Seventh, finally, all the good news is infectious. Harvard social scientist Nicholas Christakis and his politicalscience colleague James Fowler at the University of California at San Diego argue “that emotions can pass among a network of people up to three degrees of separation away, so your joy may be [partly] determined by how cheerful your friends’ friends are, even if some of the people in this chain are total strangers to you. This means that health and happiness is not just created by individual behavior but by how they feed into the larger social network (Alice Park, “The Happiness Effect,” Time, Dec. 11, 2008). Happiness can be seen as viral; what the Indian mystic P.R. Sarkar has called the Microvita Effect.

All this does not mean we should dismiss attempts to transform social injustice but we need to appreciate how far we have come and focus on ways to improve material, intellectual and spiritual reality.

Positive steps forward can create more positive futures, for individuals and for societies.

Professor Sohail Inayatullah is a political scientist/futurist at the Graduate Institute of Futures Studies, Tamkang University, Taiwan; and the Centre of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, Macquarie University, Sydney. He also an associate with Mt Eliza Executive Education, Melbourne Business School, where he co-teaches a bi-annual course titled, “Futures thinking and strategy development.”

Questions for Busy Managers (2007)

Posted on January 10, 2007May 4, 2025 by metafuture-admin

By Sohail Inayatullah
A chapter from Questioning the Future

I am too busy to think about the future!

There is no question that thinking about the future takes away time from other activities. However, the current present was once a future, and was either created from planned activities, or from things that you wanted to do but never got around to, because you were too busy. The default future.

Also, unless you think about the future, someone else who makes time for the future will, if not control, then certainly define the future for you.

Just tell me then the strategic aspects of the future I need to know—which parts of my company are likely to grow. Where the opportunities are and what events or trends I should watch out for.

This is not too difficult to do. However, you are asking for someone to predict the future for you. Sometimes one can be correct in getting a single-point forecast right. But there are so many factors that could impinge upon the forecast. It is wiser to develop alternative scenarios about the future or map the future based on the likely trajectory of trends.

Each scenario should be driven by a different factor. Technology. Demographics. Economic cycles. Changing consumer expectations. And it is important to have a contingency scenario that describes a dramatic system collapse. That is, where everything goes back to zero, where we all have to relearn everything.

But can’t we reasonably say something about the future?

Of course, this does not mean we shouldn’t discern trends that are creating the future. But it is important to see trends not as fixed structures but as directional, as changeable. Certainly, we can make an entire range of sensible statements about the future. We know that the population in OECD nations is dramatically ageing, that the worker/retiree ratio is going from 3 to 1 to 1.5 to 1. Globalization, the Internet, Multiculturalism, democratization are all forces that will change the future. However, what these trends mean, what counter trends might emerge, how events might impact them, and how long they will take to actualize is far more difficult, and important, to ascertain.

For example, recently a colleague asked whether anyone had accurately predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall. While there were a few macrohistorians who got it pretty much right (using the hypothesis that totalitarian systems are more likely to explode while democratic systems change more slowly), the question can be framed differently. It could be: what are the Berlin walls in our life, in the world, in our organizations that need to be broken down? One approach leads to prediction, the other to questioning.

Returning to the issue of prediction, we can actually say a great deal about the short-term future—what you might call the known future (technologies under development, government policies to be enacted). However, and this is crucial, the future cannot be precisely predicted. The universe is not closed but open. One’s image of the future and the resultant actions (not to mention the collective unconscious) influence the future that will be.

In this sense, the role of anticipatory action learning is not so much to figure out the exact future to but to work with the client to determine unconscious and conscious images of the future. It is moving even beyond scenario planning to actually creating an action learning (and healing) organization.

Yes, but are there certain methods that can help me in my need for strategic thinking?

The best way to think about this is the s-curve. Most of our planning efforts focus on current problems, the end of the s-curve. Trend analysis is a bit better as it is concerned with the middle part, where there is some data. Figuring out the trends that might impact your work, community, life allows one some lead-time. It also gives one time to consider opportunities that may have not been there before.

But perhaps the most exciting method is emerging issues analysis. These are issues that are unlikely to occur but if they do could have dramatic, often dire, consequences. New technologies, dramatic changes in population flows, revolutions are some examples of these. They also force us to rethink the present. Indeed, the best use of the future is as a vehicle to question the present. Utopian studies have rarely been about the future but rather about the peculiar nature of the present.

When I worked for the courts many years ago, we identified issues that would dramatically change caseload, the business of the courts, or how courts resolved conflicts (computer judges, neighborhood justice centers, culturally appropriate dispute resolution). This allowed the courts to better meet the changing needs of citizens. It was also a lot of fun and played an important educational role in training young administrators and judges. They saw that their role was not just to be efficient, effective and economical but also to challenge the basic assumptions of what courts do.

Sounds like a lot of work.

In the beginning it is. One strategy is to outsource to a futures scanning firm. They scan the environment and look for trends and issues that might influence your organization.

Another tack is always to be looking for the new idea, the alternative approach to something, the outlier, the event or trend that does quite make sense. This is more than thinking differently, it is being different. I remember one colleague—Jordi Serra—who said: you can’t just search for emerging issues, you have to become an emerging issue.

But at a deeper level, it is scary since the ground of what one is doing is questioned. Of course, paralysis by critique is a grave danger, and thus, it is important to engage in a pilot project to test one’s hypothesis, insights about the future. For example, in the courts this was about setting up an alternative dispute mediation system to test if citizens wanted less formal adjudication.

Isn’t there safety in following the pack?

This is true and not true. Certainly, nations like Japan and later Taiwan have risen in the world economy by copying. But there is a certain point where such a strategy won’t get you anywhere except middle-income status. You have to move up the value-added chain. This is true for business, and for one’s own life as well.

A study found that corporations that have lasted over one hundred years all had one shared variable: tolerance for ideas from the edge. Clearly, this is not about copying, but about leading.

What is the role of action learning in futures thinking?

First, while forecasting the future gives one information about the future, it does not provide the context of the future. This comes through action learning where the entire process is created by those involved in the process.

So, the notion of the future, of strategy, is created by the partners in the process.

Futures thinking transforms action learning by injecting an anticipatory notion. Action learning is no longer just about the questioning the product or the process or the factors of production but about questioning the future. It is asking:

Whose future is being created?

Is the future being lived explicit or implicit?

How can the future become more explicit?

How can questioning the future lead to shared futures?

For the consultant, this means asking the client what metaphors her or his organization uses to think about the future.

I am still confused about strategy and futures.

While being strategic has its rewards, strategy remains means-end focused. It does not include different ways individuals know the world—through authority, intuition, reason, empiricism and even love. Strategy is useful in a world that is flat, where difference is minimized.

But when there is a great deal of difference—of cultures, languages, perspectives—then strategy is far more difficult. A post-strategic approach is needed. This means using forecasting and scenarios but trying to move beyond rational planning to develop an evolutionary-organic feel of the future. This is partly about one’s gut feeling but also about having an inner guidance system as to which future one might want. My own futures approach is precisely the organic unfolding of the future. The future grows out from within in the context of a changing external environment.

This means seeing the future not just in terms of expanding our horizon, having more and different types of data and information but moving to a knowledge framework where there is depth.

This means seeing the future in terms of levels of the future. Strategy is generally short term oriented as it changes the most visible part of our worlds. Deeper levels accessible by metaphor and story are not so easily available to strategy. One has to enter different personal and cultural frames to begin to enter this deeper view of the future.

Why is difference so important?

By understanding difference we can understand others’ needs better. We can make better products, better design. Having a diversity of representation allows for difference. Difference can lead to synergies unexpected outcomes. Indeed, even misunderstandings can lead to positive outcomes.

Difference can also create unexpected futures.

And unexpected headaches!

The other part of the futures toolbox that is useful is creating a shared vision. Emerging issues, scenario planning, ways of knowing and depth approaches to the future create a diversity of information. This enriches the planning context. However, the other crucial dimension of planning for the future is created shared spaces.

To do this, engaging in a visioning process is crucial. The vision has to be detailed, though. Not just motherhood statements that all can agree to. Specific statements about how you want the future to be like. You wake up in the morning, say 2010, what does the world look like. Are you working? What is your income level? Are you married? Is there still marriage? Is there still work? What technologies are you using to communicate with others? Is communication important? Is there even a you (the modern notion of an integrated autonomous self)?

If one engages in this process with a group of people, it is likely that a shared vision can result.

This shared vision can remove many organizational headaches.

So there are different types of planning for the future?

At least four: the first is concerned with the mission of the organization. This is about being clear on the core business and identity of the organization. The second is the social, technological and environmental context. This means constantly being on the lookout for how the future is changing. The third is problem-oriented planning. Questioning is the most useful at this level as one questions current problems, finds new problems and discovers innovative solutions. The fourth is the vision of the organization, where is the organization headed toward, how will the basic mission, the identity change as the future changes.

There is a fifth, though that is not often mentioned in the literature. The fifth is the organic evolutionary future, which emerges from a mixture of data about the world, gut feelings about what to do next, individual ethics and dialogue with others (self, nature, colleagues, customers, and the mysterious beyond). Sensitivity to changing conditions, inner and outer, is far more important than the plan.

What are the usual approaches to the future?

The first approach is determining the probable future. That is, given economic, technological, consumer, demographic trends, how will the world (or nation, community, organization) look in a few years. Of course, as you go further out in time things get a bit hazier (unless you believe the universe is foundationally patterned and a science of forecasting is possible).

The second approach is focused on possible futures. The full range of what can happen—all the alternatives.

The third approach is the preferred. What do we want the future to be like? There is usually quite a marked difference between the preferred for oneself and for the world. Most studies show that we expect our own futures to be good and the world’s futures to be quickly going to hell.

The fourth approach is the gut level/intuitive future. This is the organic future that emerges from our life choices, our patterns of behavior, our expectation of others, our deep-set beliefs and worldview. It is our karmic future to some extent. For some this means trusting that there is a divine pattern guiding them, for others this means that the universe is intelligent, for others that the Gods favor (or disfavor) them, and for still others, it means leading a good moral life.

The future in this latter approach is a process of learning about self, family, community and world. It is a co-evolutionary pattern. Essentially it is about having a deep sensitivity toward the world.

What use is futures planning to a typical manager, consultant?

If one is a consultant—providing knowledge solutions to government, community and business—then futures can add to your toolbox. Scenario planning can help an organization determine the effectiveness of current decisions.

Futures thinking can also help determine what trends are creating the future university. How, for example, how new technologies, corporatization (the end of monopoly accreditation by the Academy), multicultural content and virtualization are transforming the University. This can assist in determining what niche markets are possible.

In general, futures thinking provides new types of insight as to what the world might be like, what the dominant images of the future are, and how to create alternative futures.

How does this relate to the famous axiom, Learning = questioning + programmed knowledge?

What is often forgotten is that in most of our questions there are assumptions about reality, about culture, about the right way to do things. So, we need to question the cultural basis of our questions, seeing them not as universal but as problematic as well. That is, our questions are actually congealed knowledge. Thus questioning has to be questioned.

The same goes with programmed knowledge. Programmed knowledge is actually answered questions.

So questioning and programmed knowledge are subsets of each other. Look for the hidden content in questioning and the answered and un-asked questions in programmed knowledge.

If we can do that, we can really create alternative futures.

What of ways of knowing and learning?

Learning, then, is questioning plus programmed knowledge plus ways of knowing. Without challenging the epistemic content of the questions asked and programmed knowledge, only instrumental changes will result. Ways of knowing move us into areas where we don’t know what we don’t know.

I am still too busy to think about the future, especially since I don’t know what I don’t know.

You are already going toward a future. The question is: Is that the future you want? How do you know? If yes, wonderful, how can you be more explicit about your vision? If no, then how can you change your direction?

Remember: there is the pull of the future (the vision, the image) and the push to the future (technology, demographics, changing economic ideologies). There is also structure—that which is difficult to change. These are worldviews, patterns of behavior, dominator relationships. One can spend all one’s life fighting them or create a new vision and focus on living that.

The exciting part of anticipatory action learning is that the future is co-created. There is certainly some programmed knowledge involved in questioning the future. There is data on trends, information on scenarios, knowledge of different types of futures approaches, methods and hopefully some wisdom on when it is appropriate to use which method, to focus on which trend. But the questioning part makes the future real instead of a one-way lecture about the future. As with other professions, expertise can be a gift and a danger. Action learning means a back and forth reflection on probable and preferred futures. It means asking questions of the scenarios we desire to happen and the scenarios we believe are probable. Why this scenario, we can ask? What will the impact of x scenario be on a strategic plan, a product line, a marketing campaign?

Being too busy now means huge costs later. Remember that in 1985 Charlie Schnabolk developed four scenarios for the World Trade Center: (1) Predictable—bomb threats; (2) Probable—bombing attempts, computer crime; (3) Hostage Taking; and (4) Catastrophic—aerial bombing, chemical agents in water supply or air conditioning.

And when asked in 2000 what the greatest terrorist threat to the WTC was, he responded: “Someone flying a plane into the building.”

Well, why didn’t they listen?

Accurate forecasting is one issue but implementation is another. For that, the planner/futurist has to work with the organization in question, finding ways to not just get the future right but ensure that those that can do something about the future are involved. That they have an interest in the future, that they have something to say as well. If they remain simply consumers of information, then the chance of implementation decreases dramatically.

Then a conversation about the future is most appropriate?

A conversation enhances programmed knowledge—it deepens it, brings in alternatives. A conversation—especially a layered conversation that explores not just the words being uttered but the meanings they represent to each participant and the structures of knowledge that create the categories of intelligibility—can be foundational in creating a more satisfying future.
Otherwise, what is learned is simply one expert’s view of the future, with all its natural limitations.

So back to you: Why is questioning the future important?

Which Future for Libraries? (2006)

Posted on December 11, 2006May 4, 2025 by metafuture-admin

Based on a futures workshop of expert librarians and library stakeholders, four futures of the library and librarians are explored: “The Lean, Information Machine,” “Co-location for Community Capacity Building,” “Knowledge Navigator,” and “Dinosaurs of the Digital Knowledge Era.”

Sohail Inayatullah
Professor, Tamkang University and Adjunct Professor, University of the Sunshine Coast. S.inayatullah@qut.edu.au. www.metafuture.org

Will libraries becoming increasingly virtual, the librarian becoming a knowledge navigator? Or will libraries disappear as the world goes wifi – will Google become the future library? Or will place remain central, as libraries become anchor tenants in co-located in commercial and public transit-orientated developments? Or is social justice what libraries are really about – a place for empowering, for creating a better society, finding spaces for young and old, for books and digital media?

The library, while appearing to be stable has changed throughout history. It has moved from being elite based, for the few that could read, to being a public space, and funded by the public has well, instead of by wealthy benefactors. And while the advent of the printing press changed the nature of the library, moving it from the monastery and the painstaking efforts of monk scribes, the recent digitalization of the world is leading to even more dramatic transformations.

The library has entered a contested domain – its definition, its bundle of services are up for grabs – who defines it, who pays for it, what are its basic purposes. And with the onset of edu-tainment and as the peer-to-peer knowledge revolution, might libraries become places not just for receiving knowledge but for directly creating knowledge.

Other issues that challenge a stable future for libraries include:

• Local and state governments dramatically decreasing their funds for libraries – other financial models – user pays, McLibrary.

• Users changing from the young to the aged OR from the aged to the young.

• Libraries buildings as examples of “green” and even developing cradle to grave green technologies for books and for facilities design.

• The library as a place for escape from a chaotic world, eg the Slow Movement: slow time, slow learning – slow everything – as the world quickens and moves to hypertime and culture, libraries find niches by providing places of quietness and calm.

• The librarian becoming a digital avatar, interacting with users, learning about their changing needs, and even in the longer term, organizing our memories.

• The off-shore Call Centre Library.

• Death of the book – continuing emergence of new media formats.

The impact of these emerging issues point to libraries changing dramatically from today – particularly in the areas of funding and location; purpose and skill sets for librarians and core activities.

But would libraries be more digital or slow; for the young or the aged; in suburbs or co-located in denser cities? Which future?

SCENARIOS OF THE FUTURE

There are four plausible futures.

The first is the “Lean, Mean, Information Machine.” This future would arise from concern about the costs of buildings, space becoming too valuable and libraries moving down the list of core priorities for funding.

Libraries in this future would need to seek funding through philanthropy to supplement government funding. The choices would be: from the user, from community groups, from Federal and Global grants and from corporate sponsorship. With the expected rise in triple bottom line reporting, it was anticipated that corporate sponsorship may become more attractive as libraries would be an easy and safe way to show that they were good corporate citizens – helping young and old.

The role of some librarians would shift, becoming entrepreneurial, a broker of services and entities (community groups, corporations, city, state and federal authorities).

The second scenario is the opposite of this. Civilizing the world, civilizing ourselves is the foundational purpose of the library. No corporation should fund it, as over time market values would poison human values.

The purpose of the library is that of community builder – providing ideas to all, those who can and those who cannot afford. Books cannot be overlaid with digital sponsorship, purity must be kept.

However, the best way to serve as community builders is to go to the community. “Co-location for Community Capacity Building ” is the title of this scenario. Libraries move to areas of intersection – of young and old, poor and rich, information savvy and digitally challenged. Among possible areas could be transport hubs. Libraries could continue to develop as anchor tenants, co-existing with other government service providers, with coffee shops and commercial tenants. As passengers stepped out of light city rail carriages, they would enter the library. In front to them would be transparent glass, the lighting illuminating knowledge.

Libraries would have multiple shifting rooms, focused on the needs of different groups. Or libraries could segment, based on citizen travel patterns. Some libraries would be more classical – book focused, other edutainment, others as places for social community groups to meet …Or libraries could change during the day – shifting who they were from noon to three pm to evening time.

The librarian would need to be multi-skilled, understanding the diverse needs of different age groups, ethnicities, community groups – engagement with the community would be primary. The library in this future would model what it meant to be civilized: deep and diverse democracy!

In a third scenario, the library and the librarian becomes a “Knowledge Navigator”. Users would see and then create – use information to create new knowledge, new communities, learn and recreate. Libraries would be a hybrid of physical and virtual space with cutting edge technologies, cultural maps of the world, to help users develop their interests, find connection to each other and find their place in the changing digital world. The library would be an ‘experience’.

For those new to the digital world and for emerging technologies they would , it could train them, ensuring democratic and enabling access for all; for those adept, it would create games for them to learn, indeed, gaming may become a metaphor for the library. Users would find their knowledge treasures through clues left by the knowledge navigator or other users engaged in knowledge sharing and production – the division between the fun of electronic gaming and the seriousness of the library would breakdown. Public space would became an open and porous, local and global public space.

The last scenario, takes the knowledge navigator future but makes the tough observation – given the billions of dollars Google and other web engines have to play with, and given the skill sets of their employees and owners, what makes us think libraries can survive. Aren’t they the “Dinosaurs of the Digital Knowledge Era”. The globalization of the coffee shop eats up one market; digital search portals eat up another market, until through continuous dis-aggregation there is very little left. The future of the library is easy to predict – there won’t be any. Funding will move to other core areas for cities – traffic, water, dealing with global warming, competing for young people in an aging society; post-oil energy problems. Libraries will slip down the priority radar as they will not be seen as a response to these issues.

Many librarians as well are unable to meet the challenge of the skills shift. They are unable to be relevant with the new world dis-order. As the library monopoly dies, other competitors enter the fray and foundationally change the nature of the library. A few survive as some still want to see and touch books, but with the virtual book about to include physical senses, the writing is already on the virtual wall.

WHICH FUTURE?

Will one future emerge triumphant? Or will there be a mix and match? Which ever future results, for the librarian, this can be both a trying time to be working, or the best of all possible times, where new futures are emerging, and where she and he can weave the strands of alternatives and create a new future for and of libraries.

Spirituality as the Fourth Bottom Line (2005)

Posted on December 13, 2005May 4, 2025 by metafuture-admin

Sohail Inayatullah, Professor, Tamkang University, Sunshine Coast University, Queensland University of Technology – www.metafuture.org

Invariably, at the end of a lecture on paradigm change, new visions or community capacity, there is always some one in the audience who asks: but what is the bottom line? This is especially so at technical universities and business organizations.

The “bottom line” question asserts that argument, visions and language display are all interesting but ultimately unimportant. What is important is what can be counted, that which leads to economic wealth: measurability and profit. Related is the challenge to the capacity to transform, that is the world is considered a tough place and only ego-maximizing real politics (money and territory) is possible – everything else is illusion.

For any speaker focused on gender, community, health, cultural or spiritual issues suddenly there is very little to say, since, well, it is not about the bottom line but everything else. The audience walks away save for a few who are thrilled and desire to save the world, either through community building, learning meditation, or recycling bottles.

Times have changed

In Australia, Westpac Bank recently issued an expanded approach to traditional accountability standards. They now measure their progress through three criteria: prosperity, social justice and environment. Their recent corporate report (www.westpac.com.au) includes claims of ethical business, transparency, human rights, environmental concerns, caring for employees, and more. Suddenly the bottom line is not so simple – it has become the triple bottom line. Organizations have their own interests – profit, survival – but as well they live in a local and global community, and are increasingly being forced to become accountable to them. These demands by shareholder groups and social movements have led to the need for social justice and social measures. And organizations and communities live with and in a natural world, and believe that they have a responsibility toward planetary sustainability – environment is no longer something out there for others to solve, an economic externality, rather, it has become defining for the success of an organization.

The triple bottom line movement has taken off. Indeed, 45% of the world’s top companies publish triple bottom line reports.[i] This change has not come about because of the graciousness of organizations but because of a variety of other reasons. First, changing values among stakeholders (and, indeed, the notion that multiple stakeholders define the organization, not just stockholders, but employees, managers, the larger community, and the environment itself!). Employees desire an organization that they can be proud of. Along with profit, organizations are expected to consider human rights, evaluate their impact on the environment, and on future generations. Jennifer Johnston of Bristol-Myers Squibb writes: “Work is such a large part of life that employees increasingly want to work for organizations which reflect their values, and for us, it’s also an issue of attracting and retaining talent.”[ii]

Second, CEOs are part of this value shift. This has partly come about because of internal contradictions – heart attacks, cancer and other lifestyle diseases – and because of looking outside their windows and seeing angry protestors, often their children. It has also come out because of external contradictions, stock prices falling because of investor campaigns. As well, ethical investments instruments, as with Calvert, championed by alternative economist, Hazel Henderson, have done well. Moreover, as John Renesch argues, leaders and organizations themselves are becoming more conscious – self-aware and reflective (www.renesch.com). We are moving from the command-control ego-driven organization to the learning organization to a learning and healing organization. Each step involves seeing the organization less in mechanical terms and more in gaian living terms. The key organizational asset becomes its human assets, its collective memory and its shared vision.

Even nations are following suite. Bhutan has developed a gross happiness index. While OECD nations have not gone this far, the UK is taking happiness seriously. “In the UK, the Cabinet Office has held a string of seminars on life satisfaction … [publishing] a paper recommending policies that might increase the nation’s happiness (wwww.number-10.gov.uk/su/ls/paper.pdf). These include quality of life indicators when making decisions about health and education, and finding an alternative to gross domestic product as a measure of how well the country is doing – one that reflects happiness as well as welfare, education and human rights.”[iii] There are even journals (www.kluweronline.com/issn/1389-4978) and professors of happiness.

Happiness thus becomes an inner measure of quality of life, moving away from the quantity of things. As nations move to postmodern economies, other issues are becoming more important, among them is the spiritual. It is ceasing to be associated with mediums or with feudal religions, but about life meaning, and about ananda, or the bliss beyond pleasure and pain.

But where there may be a subtle shift toward the spiritual, can it become the 4th bottom line? We certainly don’t see stakeholders holding long meditations outside of corporate offices and government buildings? And writes Johnston, “Corporations are already challenged trying to incorporate social indicators.”[iv] Certainly, more measurement burdens should not be the purpose of a fourth bottom line. It must be deeper than that.

By spiritual we mean four interrelated factors.1. A relationship with the transcendent, generally seen as both immanent and transcendental. This relationship is focused on trust, surrender and for Sufis, submission. 2. A practice, either regular meditation or some type of prayer (but not prayer where the goal is to ask for particular products or for the train to come quicker). 3. A physical practice to transform or harmonize the body – yoga, tai chi, chi kung, and other similar practices. 4. Social – a relationship with the community, global, or local, a caring for others.[v] This differs from a debate on whose God, or who is true and who is false, to an epistemology of depth and shallow with openness and inclusion toward others.

Thus, there are two apparently external factors – the transcendental and the social (but of course, the transcendent and social are both within) and two internal factors – mind and body (of course, external as well and interdependent).

Are there any indicators that spirituality can become a bottom line? There are two immediate issues. First, can the immeasurable be measured? I remember well the words of spiritual master, P.R. Sarkar on the nature of the transcendent – it cannot be expressed in language[vi] – that is, it cannot be measured. There are thus some clear risks here. By measuring we enter tricky ground. We know all attempts to place the transcendent in history have led to disasters, every collectivity that desires empire evokes God, claiming that “He” has bestowed “His” grace on them. Languaging the Transcendent more often than not leads to genderizing, and thus immediately disenfranchises half the world’s population. Along with the problem of patriarchy, comes the problem of caste/class, elite groups claiming they can best interpret the transcendental. The transcendent becomes a weapon, linguistic, political, economic; it becomes a source of power and territory, to control.

And yet, this is the nature of our world. All concepts can be utilized as such, especially, profound ones. The key, as Ashis Nandy[vii] points out, is that there be escape ways from our visions – that contradictions are built into all of our measures and that we need competing views of the spiritual, lest it become official.

Taking a layered view might thus be the most appropriate way to consider measuring the immeasurable. Using the metaphor of the iceberg of spirituality, the tip of the iceberg of could be measurable, as that is the most visible. A bit deeper are the social dimensions of the spiritual – community caring, even group meditations, shared experiences. – the system of spirituality. This too can be evidenced. Deeper is the worldview of spirituality – ethics, ecology, devotion, multiple paths, transcendence – and deepest is the mythic level, the mystical alchemy of the self. As we go deeper, measurement becomes more problematic, and the deepest is of course impossible to measure.

Is there any evidence that spirituality as an issue is gaining in interest? There appears to be. As anecdotal personal experience, workshop after workshop (in Croatia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Australia, Thailand, Germany, Taiwan, New Zealand, Hawaii, for example) the spiritual future comes out as desirable.[viii] It is generally constructed as having the following characteristics. 1. Individual spirituality. 2. Gender partnership or cooperation. 3. Strong ecological communities. 4. Technology embedded in society but not as the driver. 5. Economic alternatives to capitalism. 6. Global governance.

Of course, other futures also emerge, particularly that of societal collapse and that of “global tech” – a digitalized, geneticized, abundant and globally governed world.

Interestingly, the spiritual (gaian) vision of the future confirms the qualitative and quantitative research work of Paul Ray and Sherry Anderson. They document a new phenomena, the rise of the cultural creatives. This new group of people challenge the modernist interpretation of the world (nation-state centric, technology and progress will solve the day, environment is important but security more so) and the traditional view of the world (strong patriarchy, strong religion, and strong culture, agriculture based and derived). Ray and Anderson go so far as to say that up to 25% of those in OECD nations now subscribe to the spiritual/eco/gender partnership/global governance/alternative to capitalism position (www.culturalcreatives.org). However, they clearly state that cultural creatives do not associate themselves a a political or social movement. Indeed, they represent a paradigm change, a change in values.

It is this change in values that Oliver Markley, Willis Harmon and Duane Elgin and others have been spearheading (www.owmarkley.org). They have argued that we are in between images. The traditional image of “man” as economic worker (the modernist image) has reached a point of fatigue, materialism is being questioned. Internal contradictions (breakdown of family, life style diseases) and external contradictions (biodiversity loss, global warming) and systemic contradictions (global poverty) lead to the conclusion that the system cannot maintain its legitimacy. The problem, especially for the rich nations, has become a hunger for meaning and a desire for the experience of bliss.

There is data that confirms that materialism does not lead to happiness. “One study, by Tim Kasser of Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois, found that young adults who focus on money, image and fame tend to be more depressed, have less enthusiasm for life and suffer more physical symptoms such as headaches and sore throats than others (The High Price of Materialism, MIT Press, 2002).”[ix] Indeed, Kasser believes that advertising, central to the desire machine, should be considered a form of pollution, and be taxed or advertisers should be forced to include warning messages that materialism can damage one’s health.

Spirituality, while enhancing, economic productivity, social connectivity, inner and outer health, should not be confused with economic materialism or indeed any type of materialism (even the spiritual variety, that is, collecting gurus, mantras, or using the spiritual to accumulate ego).

Spirituality and educational-life transformation

However, the emerging image of cultural creatives may not have enough staying power as it is largely associated with the baby boomer generation.[x] While the spiritual is linked to health, it is yet to be linked to economic prosperity/justice and social inclusion. Spiritual practices often lead to an escape from the material world. Moreover, the languaging of the spiritual remains nationalistic or groupist, and not neo-humanistic (ie outside of the dogma of class, varna, nation and gender)

But as Sarkar has argued, a new theory of economy would make the spiritual central (www.anandamarga.org). This is partly evidenced by reports from the TM organization (www.tm.org), which documents hundreds of scientific studies claiming increased IQ, productivity and even increased community peace. But for Sarkar, spiritual practices lead to clarity. It is this clarity, argues Ivana Milojevic,[xi] which can enhance productivity. Most of our time is spent uncertain of our mission, uncertain as to how to do what we need to do. Spiritual practices allow clarity of intent (and a slowing of time) thus enhancing productivity. Sarkar’s model of political-economy, PROUT, is based on this – increasingly using intellectual and spiritual resources for the good of all. Of course, along with the progressive use of resources is a clear ceiling and floor of wealth – a progressively linked top and bottom.

However, educator Marcus Bussey (www.metafuture.org) argues that the pedagogy of meditation must be stage-like. Schools clearly should not push spirituality for productivity purposes. Primary, is the creation of a more balanced, integrated and holistic individual and community. Children have dreamlike phases in their development and these should be supported, not quickly framed in bottom-line language. Of course, as they move to adulthood, then work practices and outcomes should benefit from regular spiritual practices and approaches. One measure or approach cannot be the same for all.

Part of the challenge in the future is to transform our template of our life itself. Currently it is: birth, student, work, retirement and death. In the Indian system, it is student, householder, service to society and then monk. In a spiritual model, spirituality would travel through all these stages. As well, “studenthood” would never terminate but rather continue one’s entire life – true life long learning. In addition, the worker phase would be forever, transformed to mission, doing what is most important, and into life long earning. Service to society as well would be daily, finding some way, every day, to contribute to others. Thus, seeing spirituality as the fourth bottom line means transforming the foundational template we have of our lifecycle. This is especially crucial as the aging of society changes our historically stable age pyramid.

Health changes

The rise of the spiritual paradigm comes as well from the health field. This is partly as the contradictions of modern man are in the health area – civilizational diseases are rampant, and not just from lifestyle but from structure. A recent study reports that city design as in suburbanization is directly related to obesity, and thus cancer/heart disease rates.[xii] Thus the paradigm of modernity – the big city outlook, faster – becomes the site of weakness, and transformation.

As a sign of public acceptance, the August 4, 2003 issue of Time Magazine is titled “The Science of Meditation.” “Meditation is being recommended by more and more physicians as a way to prevent, slow or at least control the pain of chronic diseases”[xiii]

An article in the Medical Journal of Australia finds that over 80% of general practitioners in Victoria have referred patients to alternative therapies, 34% are trained in meditation, 23% acupuncture and 20% herbal medicine. Of particular interest is that nearly all GPs agreed that the federal government should fund/subsidize acupuncture, 91% believe hypnosis should be, and 77% believe meditation should be government funded, and 93% believe that meditation should be part of the undergraduate core medical curriculum[xiv] Doctors, of course, only accept practices of which there is an evidence-base. And meditation continues to build an impressive evidence base. A recent study, reports Time magazine, shows that “women who meditate and use guided imagery have higher levels of the immune cells known to combat tumors in the breast”[xv] Even near American president, Al Gore meditates. So, does the evidence stick at the “bottom” of society, with meditation leading to decreased recidivism among prisoners

Grand Patterns

For those who study macrohistory, the grand patterns of change, this is not surprising. Modernity has brought the nation-state, stunning technology, material progress but the pendulum has shifted so far toward sensate civilization that it would be surprising if the spiritual as a foundational civilizational perspective did not return. In this sense, spirituality as fourth bottom line should not be seen as selling to global corporatopia but in fact ensuring that the pendulum does not take us back to medieval times but spirals forward. This means keeping the scientific, inclusionary, mystical parts of spirituality but not acceding to the dogmatic, the sexist, the feudal dimensions. That is, all traditions grow up in certain historical conditions, once history changes, there is no need to keep the trappings, the message remains important but there is no need to retreat to a cave.

It is also not surprising that it is gender that defines cultural creatives. Modernity has been defined by male values as were earlier eras, there is likely gender dialectic at work. Patriarchy has reached its limits. It is often those outside the current system who are the torch bearers for the new image of the future. In this case, gender is crucial. Of course, the system remains patriarchy laden. Individuals may change but the system, for example, city design, remains faulty.

However, the triple bottom line, and spirituality as the fourth, may be a way to start to change the system so that it is spiritual-friendly, instead of ridiculing and marginalizing it. This could be the very simple use of Feng Shui to a rethinking of shopping to suburban planning. And, individuals want this change. Philip Daffara in his research on the future of the Sunshine Coast reports that over 30% desire a Gaian coast – a living coast where technology and spirit are embedded in the design and policies of the area. Others preferred the triple bottom line sustainability model and the linked villages model. Only a few percent still desire business as usual.[xvi]

The evidence does point to a desire for a spiritual future, throughout the world. Indeed, sociologist Riaz Hussain writes that this complicated matters for Al-Quaeda. They become even more radicalized as the Islamic world is in the process of a religious revival.[xvii] However, religiousity is not necessarily spirituality. They overlap. But one is exclusive, text-based only and generally closed to other systems and worldviews. The spiritual is not linked to race or nation. However, it is certainly the deeper part of every religion.

For spirituality to become part of the global solution it will have to become transmodern, moving through modernity, not rejecting the science and technology revolution and the Enlightenment, nor acceding to postmodernity (where all values and perspectives are relativised) or the premodern (where feudal relations are supreme).

Measures

But for spirituality to become associated with the quadruple bottom line, the bottom line will be finding measures. Measuring the immeasurable will not be an easy task.

We need to ensure that measures match the four dimensions – transcendental, mind practice, body practice, and relationship, the neo-humanistic dimension of inclusion, an expanded sense of identity.

Measurements as well would need to be layered, touching on the easiest and obvious – the ice berg metaphor – physical practices (% in a locale engaged in regular meditation or disciplined prayer) to systemic measurements (city design) to worldview ones (neo-humanism as demonstrated in educational textbooks). Of course, this is for spirituality generally, for organizations, we would need measures that showed the movement from the command-control model to the learning organization model, to a vision of a living, learning and healing, conscious organization.

What are some potential indicators (explored further by Marcus Bussey in this issue). There are positive indicators such as well-being, happiness (qualitative measures) and negative ones (far easier to collect). Death by lifestyle diseases to measure worldview and system contradictions. Suicide indicators to measure societal failure. Hate crime indicators and bullying in schools and organizations that help us understand levels of inclusion. Cooperative growth, looking at economic partnership, at new models of economy. Cigarette consumption. Treatment of animals (wider ethics).These are just a few. This is not an easy process at any level. For example, some believe that enhanced spirituality in itself can lead to reduction in automobile fatalities ( http://www.tm.org/charts/chart_48.html) However, I would argue that it is not driver education per se but changing the nature of transportation. However, I am sure those making the meditation = decrease in car accidents would argue that there is less road rage, more clarity, less drunken driving.

One way to move toward indicators is to ask foundational questions of society or organization. These would include: 1. is the organization/society neo-humanistic (that is, expanding identities beyond nation-state, race, religion and even humanism)? 2. Is there a link between the highest and lowest income, that is, are they progressively related, as the top goes up, does the bottom go up as well. 3. Is the prosperity ratio rational, especially in terms of purchasing capacity for the bottom? 4. Does gender, social and environmental inclusion go beyond representation (number of women or minorities on a leadership board) to include ways of knowing (construction time, significance, learning, for example)? 5. does the leadership of the organization demonstrate through example the spiritual principle (and the other three bottom lines)?

Finally, there is an additional challenge. In spiritual life there can be dark nights of the soul, where one wrestles with one’s own contradictions – it is this that cannot be measured, nor can the experience of Ananda. However, after the experience of bliss, there is the issue of translating, of creating a better world.

Even with a world engulfed by weapons sales, by killing, even in a world of rampant materialism, of feeling less, of unhappiness, even in communities beset by trauma, what is clear is that the spiritual is becoming part of a new world paradigm of what is real, what is important. What is needed is a debate on indicators that can evaluate this new paradigm in process.

[i] Lachlan Colquhoun, “Corporate Social Responsibility,” Silverkris, August 2003, 57.

[ii] Ibid, 57.

[iii] Michael Bond, “The pursuit of happiness,” New Scientist (4 october 2003), 40.

[iv] Email, October 3, 2003.

[v] Riane Eisler argues in The Power of Partnership that this caring for others is central to creating a partnership spirituality – with nature, society, family, and self. “Partnership spirituality is both transcendent and immanent. It informs our day-to-day lives with caring and empathy. It provides ethical and moral standards for partnership relations as alternatives to both lack of ethical standards and the misuse of “morality” to justify oppression and violence.” Eisler, The Power of Partnership, Novato, New World Library, 2003, 185.

[vi] Sohail Inayatullah, Situating Sarkar. Maleny, Gurukul, 1999 and Understanding Sarkar. Leiden, Brill, 2002.

[vii] Ashis Nandy, Traditions, Tyranny and Utopias. Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1987.

[viii] For more on this, see reports and articles at www.metafuture.org and www.ru.org

[ix] Michael Bond, “The pursuit of happiness,” 43.

[x] And the research is far from established!

[xi] Personal Comments, August 2003

[xii] Reid Ewing et al, “Relationship between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obesity and Morbidity,” The Science of Health Promotion, Vol, 18, No. 1, 2003.

[xiii] Joel Stein, “Just say Om, Time, 4 August 2003, 51.

[xiv] Marie V. Pirotta, March M Cohen, Vicki Kotsirilos and Stephen J Farish, Complementary therapies: have they become accepted in general practice? MJA 2000; 172: 105-109.

[xv] Op cit, Time, 55.

[xvi] Sohail Inayatullah, Scanning for City Futures. Brisbane, Brisbane City Council, 2002.

[xvii] See Hasan’s Faithlines: Muslim Conceptions of Islam and Society. Oxford University Press – forthcoming.

Why Companies Fail (2004)

Posted on December 10, 2004May 4, 2025 by metafuture-admin

Capitalism forever? Why Companies Fail

Sohail Inayatullah

“Why companies fail,” a remarkable essay by Ram Charan and Jerry Useem in Fortune magazine (May 27, 2002, 47-58) offers ten reasons to explain the crash of great companies and three ways to prosper. While focused specifically on companies, what Charan and Useem miss is that their analysis can be employed to understand the globalized system of capitalism that sustains these companies.

“Companies are born, companies die, capitalism moves forward. Creative Destruction, they call it.” (48), what US Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill calls “the genius of capitalism” (48). But economic and meaning systems (that frame what it is that we do when we wake up in the morning) also fail. First, is the problem of success. “A number of studies show that people are less likely to make optimal decisions after prolonged periods of success. NASA, Enron, Lucent, Worldcom – all had reached the mountaintop before they ran into trouble.” (50). Might not this be the case with the world capitalism system itself, 500 years of success. No one can see that it too might fail, we are vested in it, from superannuation to life in the Plaza, capitalism defines what we do and how we do it. Fish cannot see water nor can we see life after capitalism. Those at the center, who are mostly deeply vested in it, especially can not see its future.

The basic assumptions of endless consumption and growth is not really contested. Maybe we might vote green or recycle but our bank account is still with a bank, which is foundational to the capitalist system. Even if we bank in a cooperative bank, they too must negotiate the larger monetary system. But assumptions we must question.

Cisco, did not, write Charan and Useem. “Cisco, more than any other company, was supposed to be able to see into the future. The basis of this belief was the much vaunted IT system that enabled Cisco managers to track supply and demand in “real time,” allowing them to make pinpoint forecasts. This technology, by all accounts, worked great. The forecasts, however, did not. Cisco’s managers, it turned out, never bothered to model what would happen if a key assumption – growth – disappeared from the equation.” (50). Even when things were looking bad, CEO John Chambers was still projecting 50% growth. He said: “I have never been more optimistic about the future of our industry as a whole or of Cisco.” (50).

As 14^th century macrohistorian, Ibn Khaldun wrote in his classic The Muqaddimah (An Introduction to Hisory): ” At the end of a dynasty, there often also appears some (show of) power that gives the impression that the senility of the dynasty has been made to disappear. It lights up brilliantly just before it is extinguished, like a burning wick the flame of which leaps up brilliantly a moment before it goes out, giving the impression it is just starting to burn, when in fact it is going out” (Khaldun 1967, 246).

Thus, the paradigm that informs how we see and create the world is not questioned. Why is this so. For companies that fail, Charan and Useem, quote Jim Collins, author of Built to Last and Good to Great. ” The key sign – the litmus test – is whether you begin to explain away the brutal facts rather than to confront the brutal facts head on.” (52).

While for companies the brutal facts are often an unsustainable business model, cash flow problems, too much risk, and acquisition lust, for the capitalist system as a whole, the brutal facts (taken from the United Nations Human Development Report, various years) are:

While there are still 840 million people malnourished and 2.6 billion people have no access to basic sanitation, the world’s 200 richest people more than doubled their net worth in the four years to 1998, to more than $1 trillion
The assets of the top three billionaires alone surpassing the combined GNP of all Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and their 600 million people.
People in Europe and North America spend $37 billion a year on pet food, perfumes and cosmetics, a figure which would provide basic education, water and sanitation Viagra health and nutrition for those deprived.

Writes Sarkar, ” When the whole property of this universe has been inherited by all creatures, how can there be any justification for the system in which some one gets a flow of huge excess while others die for a handful of grains?” (www.prout.org and in Sohail Inayatullah, Understanding Sarkar. Leiden, Brill, 2002).

Of course, it could be that others are just lazy or just not smart enough or too corrupt or too feudal or too … or perhaps we need to face the brutal facts: (1) capitalism has succeeded for the last 500 years, recreating the planet, bringing untold wealth and now placing the entire planet in jeopardy (2) capitalism can create wealth but distribution remains a quandary (3) all systems come and go, and new ones can and will be created.

Perhaps it is time to move away the metaphor of the jungle of evolution (survival of the fittest) and design and create a system that works for all – humans and gaia. And perhaps that would be the greatest genius of capitalism, self-destruction, so that a new system can emerge.

Cities Create Their Futures (2003)

Posted on December 13, 2003May 4, 2025 by metafuture-admin

Sohail Inayatullah[1]

“Cities to play a major role in global governance, in a reformed United Nations”

“Digitalization, aging, globalization, global warming, new viruses, as well as expanded expectations, all point to dramatic changes in the nature of Mayoral Responsibilities”

“Nothing will change in my role as Mayor in twenty years – just more of the same.”

These were some of the perspectives articulated by 96 Mayors from around the Asia-Pacific Region at the October 20-22 Asia-Pacific Cities Summit 2003. Held in Brisbane, Queensland, Mayors and civic leaders embarked on a foresight process to anticipate future problems, develop scenarios of the future city, and articulate a preferred vision of the “Future of the City”.

Along with plenary sessions with world renowned speakers such as green architect Ken Yeang, Time Magazine hero of the planet Vandana Shiva, “Alternative Nobel” Right Livelihood winner Johan Galtung, Feminist Futurist Ivana Milojevic, City Planner Steven Ames, Chairman of the Future 500 and former CEO of Mitsubishi Electric America Tachi Kiuchi, Mayors met in a series of sessions to chart out the direction of the future city. The sessions were facilitated by political scientist and professor of futures studies and social sciences, Sohail Inayatullah.

Familiar Ground

The first session was familiar ground for Mayors as they identified current issues (solving problems is why they were elected to their positions in the first place). Some of these issues included population drift (rural to city, small to large cities), traffic congestion, growth occurring faster than infrastructure development, lack of partnership between city and business, loss of cultural heritage, long term water supply, lack of skills of the workforce, lack of support of central government to local government and lack of employment opportunities. The main overall categories of current problems were: sustainability and the challenges of increased growth; infrastructure decline and affordability; governance, environmental protection and resource scarcity, and community capacity.

Mayors, of course, spoke from their personal experiences. Taipei Deputy Mayor Chin-Der Ou challenged Mayors to think not only of SARS but of future viruses. Mayors from Fijian cities (Gani from Nadi, Simmons from Labasa, Goundar from Lautoka) spoke of the challenges of a central government that was not sympathetic to local issues. Mayor Sirajuddin Haji Salleh of Ipoh commented that globalization – in the form of increased travel and heightened information – had raised the expectation of Ipoh citizens. They expected Ipoh to have the same levels of “development” (services, for example) as an American or European city, New York or London, for example.

From current issues, Mayors moved to identifying future problems. To do so, Mayors were asked to identify drivers that were pushing us into the future. The drivers selected included the usual suspects: Population growth, Economic and Cultural Globalization, and Environmental Changes.

Based on these drivers, Mayors then focused on emerging issues. The purpose of this was so that they could better anticipate the future and thus better meet the changing needs of citizens (and new stakeholders – global corporations, global non-governmental organizations, global institutions). These issues included what could go wrong but also opportunities for greater prosperity and democratization.

Along with the expected issue of the increased income gap between the haves and have nots being created by globalization, Mayors saw that the future would make their roles more complex. They would have to address issues such as the ethics associated with medical and technological advancements, e-governance, as well as the broader issue of the role of the civic leader in a digitalized e-city. And along with a squeeze from the Central Government – in terms of less funds but more responsibilities – Mayors would be caught in a squeeze from nature, with extensive competition for water and other natural resources. Aging as well would change the nature of the city, leading some cities to becoming increasingly dysfunctional and others far becoming retirement centers. Along with the demographic shift of aging, immigration, especially the new wave of global knowledge workers (and refugees), would change the face of the city.

But through all the changes, the Mayors were clear that their role would be to ensure that communities stayed connected. It was creating strong and healthy communities that was central, focusing on relationship building. This was a central point made by Caboolture, Mayor Joy Leishman. Without a leadership role – developing a vision of the future and creating structures and processes that could deliver that the future – cities would find themselves swamped by a rapidly transforming global, regional and local worlds.

Scenarios

From these issues, four scenarios emerged.

The first was a warning of what could go wrong if technocratism overwhelmed governance. This was High-Tech Anomie, with technologization leading not to greater community building but to further alienation. In this future, the internet would become a site of fragmentation and crime, drug shopping, for example. Improvements in genetics would only benefit the rich, creating cities divided by class.

The second was a future where Mayors were unable to meet the changing expectations of citizens. Democratization, globalization, a highly educated, technology savvy population demanding instant response from cities would lead to a condition of permanent crisis. Leadership would succumb to these pressures and citizens would resort to undemocratic expressions to get their needs met.

The third future was one where Mayors spent most of their time and resources on disaster management. Whether it was SARS (and future diseases from genetic errors) or HIV or the global water crisis, cities should expect a difficult and bleak future, where survival was of primary importance.

The fourth future was far more hopeful. Mayors argued that with a highly educated and informed populace, their jobs would become that of the facilitator. Their role would be focused on the capacity building of city employees and citizens. Creating learning organizations and communities would become the vehicle wherein citizens took far more responsibility for of the future of their city. Part of being a learning community was to embed in the city, processes of conflict resolution – mediation and arbitration – within their communities, so that the rights of individuals and groups and the pressure of social advancement could be negotiated.

The first three scenarios required leadership to ensure that the trends were managed or that they did not occur, while the last was focused on what could be done to anticipate and accommodate any future.

Fishbowl scenarios

The next session was a plenary fishbowl wherein these scenarios were tested.. Along with speakers Johan Galtung, Vandana Shiva, and Tachi Kiuchi, were Mayors Tim Quinn of Brisbane, Mayor Sirajuddin Haji Salleh of Ipoh, Mayor Ho Pin Teo of North West District of Singapore, and of Mayor Robert Bell of Gosford. In an interactive session, led by Inayatullah, these futures were refined.

Galtung evoked the rainforest to imagine the future of the city. As Ken Yeang had argued earlier, the built environment should be, and could be, integrated into the natural environment. Not only would cost savings results – energy bills, health costs, – but the beauty of the city would be restored.[2] Green could become gold. Vandana Shiva reminded participants that for cities to create the futures they wanted they had to challenge the strategies and tactics of large private corporations, particularly in the areas of water management.[3] Water, she asserted, must remain a public resource, and, as much as possible, cities needed to ensure that globalization did not erode democratic decision-making processes. Tachi Kiuchi, as well, focused on the Rainforest as the guiding image of the future. City design and planning had to be based on different principles – cooperative evolution between nature and city, technology and community, for example. Mayor Ho Pin Teo brought out practical examples of how Singapore was becoming more green and healthy while retaining its business focus

However, not all in the audience were impressed. The city as international and , prosperous, focused on economic development, attracting large projects (theme parks, for example) – , that this the Big International City outlook was brought up as a counter image – indeed, as the only realistic future. The Mayor of Cairns, Kevin Byrne, in particular, argued that the Rainforest as guiding metaphor for the city was inappropriate. Mayor Wang Hong Ju of Chongqing, as well, saw prosperity and internationalization as primary.

However, fish bowl participants saw that the Big City scenario only as only a continuation of the present. Current trends would lead to expected outcomes:.

1. A divided city, with a number of fault lines: between (A1) the winners and losers of globalization, (B) the young and old, (C) local residents and new migrants, and (D) the on-line and the off-line.

2. Urban sprawl would exacerbate loss of green areas, destroy livable communities by continuing the car-highway-oil paradigm of the future.

3. As well, in the current model, pollution and, traffic jams would just worsen, building more development would only lead to more buildings, and not only increased costs (The World Bank estimates that the cost to the world ofis $500[4] billion a year is lost on deaths and injuries plus congestion, sprawl, noise loss of forests and farms, and carbon emissions)[5] but cities would miss the financial, social and cultural benefits of creating green and healthy cities.

4. Furthermore, the current model would reduce democratization, reduce the capacity of local people to save community and public spaces and make decisions as to their own futures.

5. Finally the Big City model was being discarded by most Western cities, as they searched for new visions to lead them forward. Copying a used-future was unlikely to lead to prosperity, rather the same old mistakes would be committed again.[6]

The debate was not resolved, however, with some considering these costs as externalities, part of the price for progress.

What is clear that the future should not be seen in simplistic terms. Rather, creating a clean, healthy, urban village, public and community space focused city, where people (social, environmental, and cultural capital was foundational) were the true landmarks, and not the tallest buildings, would lead to increased prosperity for all. It was not the single bottom line of the developer or the radical green activist that was being called for but the triple bottom line of prosperity, social justice and environmentalism.

Not polluting – and ensuring that this did not happen via persuasion, fines and incentives – would enhance the desirability of the city. Traditional notions of desirability were about size, grandness – the modern city – however, new notions are focused on individual health, community capacity building, well being and quality of life. Case studies on the steps required to realize this future were presented by Prasit Pongbhaesat , the Deputy-Director General of Policy and Planning for Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (the healthy cities project) and by Deputy Mayor Chin-Der Oh of Taipei (the cities acclaimed recycling project)

VISION

The final session was focused on the preferred future. What type of city did Mayors desire? And how could cities work together to create a shared future? As expected there was not full agreement. Representatives were from a variety of cities, some with populations in the millions, others in the thousands, some the economic size of nations, others without a true middle class, however, general points were agreed upon.

1. The city needs to be clean and green.

2. The city must focus on creativity and innovation, instead of traditional models and knowledge structures. This was the best way to become prosperous.

3. The city must be an inclusive place of opportunity, offering equity of access to citizens.

4. The city must balance the immediacy of growth with protection of the environment, of people’s culture and traditions in the wake of globalisation.

5. The city of the future needs to be a city where opportunities are available to all its citizens, meaningful work, education, empowerment and self worth – that is survival, well-being, identity and freedom needs must be met.

6. Cities must remain people friendly – true communities – and ensure that their decisions today did not foreclose the options of future generations.

While there was general agreement, the debate between the large international city and the green clean and healthy image was not resolved.

However, clear steps were formulated so that cities could create their desired futures.

Vision 2020 / Summit City Commitments

A. Enhance city relationship

1. In the short term, foster information sharing between local governments through a range of expanded exchange programs.

2. In the medium term, strengthen the role and outcomes of Sister City relationships, to include technology, resource exchanges and capacity development.

3. In the long run, creating a global association of local governments, to move towards cities as central to Global Governance, making the first steps towards a House of Cities.

B. Enhance the green city

4. Focus on environmental education for young people, with a view to protecting the environment of the future.

5. Building consensus between all levels of government on key issues of environmental protection and the health of cities.

C. Enhance capacity

6. Actively engage young people in the Summit process, with delegates bringing one young person from their city to the next meeting, to ensure that their views are heard and acted upon, especially as their experiences are being formed by different drivers for change.

7. Enhance volunteer participation in community capacity building in cities, in particular through local government workforces.

8. Investigate new ways to use technology to encourage participation of all citizens in local government decision making. For example, chat rooms, SMS messaging on the future vision for cities, e-democracy and so on.

D. Ensure Future-Orientation

9. Evaluate these issues on an ongoing basis at future Ssummits, in particular the Summit of 2023, seeing visioning the future as an ongoing process.

10. Continue to measure the performance and outcomes of Asia Pacific Summits, to determine the most viable model for future city interactions.

Finally, a conclusion of the Summit was that a full record of the proceedings of the Summit and the outcomes agreed by Mayors should be placed in a time capsule, to be opened and presented to the Asia Pacific Summit of 2023, to determine progress on the Summit City Vision.

As a city planner of sorts, Lao-Tsu once said: “A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step”.

[1] Sohail Inayatullah, Professor, Tamkang University, Taiwan, Sunshine Coast University, Australia and visiting academic, Queensland University of Technology. www.metafuture.orgs.inayatullah@qut.edu.au

[2] Recent studies assert that urban sprawl is directly related to obesity. City design thus correlated with health indicators. Reid Ewing et al, “Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity and morbidity,” The Science of Health Promotion (September/October, Vol 18, No. 1), 2003. Given the direct correlation between obesity and a variety of illnesses (heart disease, cancer, to begin with) city planners have a lot to answer for.

[3] Urban sprawl is also directly related to water issues. For example, we now know that suburban sprawl – strip malls, office buildings and other paved areas – have worsened the drought covering half the United States by blocking billions of gallons of rainwater from seeping through the soil to replenish ground water. Tom Dogget, “Suburban Sprawl Blocks Water, Worsens U.S. Drought,” Science – Reuters. 28/8/2003

[4] Choosing the Future of Transportation, Molly O’Meara Sheehan (Research Associate, Worldwatch Institute), The Futurist, 35:4, July-Aug 2001, 50-56.

[5] More than one million people a year are killed on the world’s roads, and ten times as many become disabled. By 2020, road traffic injuries will be the third largest cause of “disease” in the world, according to
a research team led by epidemiologist Ian Roberts of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/revabstr/AB003734

[6] Exemplary is a recent issue of Newsweek (October-December 2003). Andres Duany, “The Best of the West,” 55, argues that “the urban landscape is changing fast. But if Asia doesn’t change course, its cities will be dark and dismal.” Instead of symbolic power – the largest city – it is quality of life that has become more important. While hard to measure, some questions are key. Writes Duany: “ Is the city a pleasant place to be? Is there free time, or is it consumed by commuting? Is the air clean? Do people have enough income to buy good housing or is it tied up in purchasing automobiles, which are necessary to get around?” Duany offers the following choices: Asian cities can be like “Dallas and Los Angeles: stuffed with high-rises and surrounded by jammed highways, shopping centers that sprawl across what was once countryside. Or they can be like Portland or Boston: cities of compact, mixed-use neighborhood with a variety of housing: pleasant, walkable streets lined with shops, and a well-run public transit system.” Of course, the key is not to purchase any used future, but to vision the preferred future within Asia’s own historical terms and alternative futures.

Are Women Transforming Organisations? (2000)

Posted on December 17, 2000May 4, 2025 by metafuture-admin

Primitive descriptions of the “manager of the future” uncannily match those of female leadership, writes futurist Ivana Milojević from Brisbane.

“Consultants try to teach male managers to relinquish the command-and-control mode. For women that came naturally – many of the attributes for which women’s leadership is praised are rooted in women’s socialised roles. The traditional female value of caring for others – balanced with sufficient objectivity – is the basis of the management skill of supporting and encouraging people and bringing out their best, a skill now highly valued by management experts.”

Working at the University of Queensland, Ivana Milojevic has a special interest in feminist futures, which she has been researching with data from Australian as well as global sources. She argues that while women have come a long way toward taking their place on an equal footing with men at work, there is still a long way to go. However much of this ground may be covered by organisations moving forward to meet feminine values, rather than women fighting for recognition in organisations.

Another key factor is the strong role of women in developing small business, and creating job opportunities in small enterprises for themselves and others.

“In the future, institutions will be organised according to the networking model (as opposed to the pyramid structure),” she said. “The top responsibility of managers will be creating a nourishing environment for personal growth, providing holistic development and motivation. The management style of women is ideally suited to these people priorities.”

More than half of women business owners (53%) emphasize intuitive or “right-brain” thinking. This style stresses creativity, sensitivity and values-based decision making. Seven out of ten (71 per cent) male business owners emphasize logical or “left-brain” thinking. This style stresses analysis, processing information methodically and developing procedures.

Women business owners’ decision-making style is more “whole-brained” than their male counterparts, that is, more evenly distributed between right and left brain thinking.

According to the National Foundation for Women Business Owners, women business owners are more likely than all businesses to offer flextime, tuition reimbursement and job sharing. Women business owners tend to share their business’ profit with employees at a much earlier stage than other businesses: nearly twice as many woman-owned firms employing fewer than 25 employees (14%) have set up such programs compared to all small firms with 20 or less employees (8%).

“Forty per cent of women-owned businesses offer flexitime, while only 30 per cent of all small firms do, which suggests that women business owners are more likely than all business owners to accommodate the special work needs of their employees.”

“This gap widens as business size increases, with 40 per cent of women-owned firms with 25 or more employees offering flexitime, compared with only 19 per cent of all firms of approximately the same size.”

Involvement in the professional development of employees is another area where women-owned businesses differ in the benefits opportunities provided. Twenty-one percent of women-owned businesses offer tuition reimbursement programs, compared with only 8 per cent of all small businesses.

“The employee benefits offered by women-owned businesses make it evident that these firms are not only a powerful economic force, but are also an important and influential social force,” says Ivana Milojevic.

“At every stage in their businesses, even when the organisations are young or small, women business owners provide their employees with a comprehensive package of benefits which set the standard for the rest of society.”

Patricia Aburdene and John Naisbitt, authors of Megatrends for Women (1992), agree that the trend is toward a women’s leadership style, based on openness, trust, ongoing education, compassion and understanding. Women are more likely to succeed because women admit they need help and surround themselves with good people: they are cautions, strategic risk takers, whose resourcefulness and resolve increase as circumstance become more difficult (this from a study by Avon Corporation and an American based research firm).

Qualities usually mentioned include attitudes towards team building and consensus. For example, a study of 550 city managers in the US showed that women were more likely than their male counterparts to incorporate citizen input, facilitate communication and encourage citizen involvement in their decision-making.
_____________

panel – WOMEN AT WORK

Women-owned businesses are now employing more people in the United States than the Fortune 500 companies worldwide.

The number of women-owned firms in the United States has jumped 103 percent from 1987 to 1999. Today there are 9.1 million, representing 38 percent of all businesses and employing more than 27.5 million people.

In 1987 two million female-owned businesses had $US25bn in sales. One year later, five million female-owned businesses had $US83bn in sales.

Top growth industries for women-owned businesses between 1987 and 1999 were construction, wholesale trade, transportation/ communications, agribusiness, and manufacturing.

Women-owned businesses are as financially sound and creditworthy as the typical firm in the U.S. economy, and are more likely to remain in business than the average US firm.

Around the world, women-owned firms comprise between one-quarter and one-third of the businesses in the formal economy, and are likely to play an even greater role in informal sectors.

In Japan, the number of women managers is still small (around 300,000), but it has more than doubled over the past 10 years.

In Australia, the proportion of women working in their own business is also growing. Women working in their own business in Australia numbered 216,300 in 1983-84 and 272,400 in 1989-90, an increase of approximately 26 per cent.