Muddled mindsets make world exactly as it should not be
It is easy to be critical of Davos. The power. The perceived elitism. The suspicion of vested interests in the status quo. But it is almost certain that commentators would be considerably more critical were global decisionmakers not rubbing powerful shoulders and highlighting the major forces shaping the collective futures of humanity and the planet.
Naturally, sense-making of the global theatre is considerably more complex than the optimism I am failing to hide. Diverse perspectives on causes and solutions abound. But there resides a beguiling and often invisible circularity in the mindsets, which may prevent senior leaders from making the decisions required for notable positive change.
As any decent adviser on strategic foresight will perceive, the observable trends are simply the “text”
— what is presented to us. Sense-making for senior leaders demands reading not only the text, but also the context, in addition to the subtext and pretext.
To make sense to the point of finding opportunities for global redesign, we must also explore the forces that may have precipitated these trends, as well as the countertrends inspired by dominant shifts. UN secretary-general António Guterres reminds us that faith in governments is flagging. But the countertrend in the context is the phenomenon of citizens with a greater sense of agency.
DESERVING
Many governments are entirely deserving of their deteriorating reputations. It would be considerably worse if citizens continued to trust in archaic voting cycles, given the opportunity for real-time feedback to governments afforded by 21st-century technology. European Commission president Ursula Von der Leyen acknowledges that while “governments hold many of the levers”, business brings the innovation — an apparent departure from work by Italian economist Mariana Mazzucato on the entrepreneurial state.
The IMF anticipated matters early in 2023, arguing that geopolitics and fragmentation had emerged as serious threats to financial stability. But trying to halt globalisation is akin to trying to divert the wind direction. We are all complicit in the globalisation that has contributed to fragile geopolitics because we want to buy our favourite fruits throughout the year, despite the lack of local supply.
IMF MD Kristalina Georgieva bemoans the “divergence”, by which she means inequality, but her organisation inspires both countries and individuals to become dramatically wealthier, thus compounding the rise of inequality. we all defend our current wealth and typically aspire to even higher levels of comfort for ourselves and our families, even as we join the global call for “equality”.
The contextual risk of climate change is tragically real. Only the most heretic scientist departs from the fray, now mostly in an attempt to moderate claims rather than to dispel the notion. But we bemoan the warming of our only planet (for now) while failing to notice how our aspirant ownership of SUVs, supercars, yachts and international travel reinforces the current trajectory towards greater carbonisation.
We want air conditioning as respite from our own contributions to boiling ourselves alive, even if it means burning more coal. Almost all of our pension funds are invested in carbonintensive industries — a claim I make with little fear of contradiction due to the opaque and layered nature of global
CIRCULAR THINKING PREVENTS LEADERS FROM MAKING THE DECISIONS NEEDED FOR POSITIVE CHANGE
investment instruments.
The circular circus does not end here. The calls for “less talk, more action” are always expressed by people who seem to be talking an awful lot, while the “culprits” take strategic action in their own interests without fail. And the latter seem to be succeeding.
Time magazine suggests we will have more than 64 countries in elections in 2024, the “biggest election year in history”, according to The Economist. Will the allure of artificial intelligence trump the reality of pervasive and relentless natural stupidity? The current model can only ever produce the current future. Incremental improvements will never get us there, wherever that elusive future is. Mindsets of pro-silience (inventing forward) must be selected over resilience (vainglorious, Putinesque attempts at bounce-back).
One clear opportunity is found in the inventive education of senior decisionmakers who are imaginative about reinventing the future itself. Creative, futures-based decisionmaking is therefore no longer optional. It has become a matter of global survival.