The challenges we face in the 21st century are often complex, where multiple causes lead non-linearly to multiple effects.
Complex problems are best solved by participatory processes that surface the wisdom of multiple perspectives.
New leadership models foster co-creation and co-ownership.
Which Martial Art (Leadership) is the best?
It is an important question that each practitioner/non-practitioner asks them selfs. I am frequently asked this question and a long time ago I found my answer.
If you were to climb to the summit of Kilimanjaro would you ask yourself “What is the best way to the top?”
If you were to climb to the summit of Kilimanjaro would you ask yourself “What is the best way to the top?”
The answer to upper question can vary:
YES - then you would have to define what is the best route for you.
NO - then you probably already know how you would like to achieve the top.
There are several ways by which you can reach Kibo or Uhuru Peak, which are the highest points of Mount Kilimanjaro (Machame, Marangu, Mweka, Londorossi Lemosho, Shira, Rongai, Umbwe and Northern Circuit). They are all different but all help you reach the same final goal, which is to reach the TOP.
Why are there so many routes that lead to the top? The primary issue lies within each person that wants to reach the peak. Would we like to do it fast, slow or do we want panoramic views (probably this one)?
Why are there so many routes that lead to the top? The primary issue lies within each person that wants to reach the peak. Would we like to do it fast, slow or do we want panoramic views (probably this one)?
Personal preferences are different and consequently, each route has different obstacles. It is the same in Martial Arts. Some are based on the ground, some are based on kicks and some are even based on grappling. But all have the same end goal, which is to learn the art and get experience in combat. This is why it depends on each individual.
Over the years I've also found another issue that I’d like to share. It illustrates an even deeper goal like the story above of Kilimanjaro. If we carefully watch great martial arts masters we could definitely see very similar postures, movements and use of the fighting techniques. In majority of martial arts. It actually does not matter which school or style they came from. They present the peak of martial arts’ knowledge – like Uhuru for Kilimanjaro. And the ‘routes’ (style of martial art) they took to master it could have been very different!
Why is this so?
Over the years I've also found another issue that I’d like to share. It illustrates an even deeper goal like the story above of Kilimanjaro. If we carefully watch great martial arts masters we could definitely see very similar postures, movements and use of the fighting techniques. In majority of martial arts. It actually does not matter which school or style they came from. They present the peak of martial arts’ knowledge – like Uhuru for Kilimanjaro. And the ‘routes’ (style of martial art) they took to master it could have been very different!
Why is this so?
Does the answer lay in sustainable development leadership?
I upgraded the classic Einstein quote ‘We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them’ by adding ‘with the same people!’ To me it seems particularly relevant to sustainability challenges needed in todays’ world.
Prior to argue it let me first describe what sustainable development is?
Sustainable development has been defined in many ways, but the most frequently quoted definition is from Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report:
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:
I rationale that we should aim to achieve this necessary different approach to be able to change the devastating path we are currently on and as a contrast to today mostly used economy and leadership.
In my previous posts I have already described my concerns about neo-liberal economy approach, private ownership, different views (names of) current leadership tactics. Now we are just a few weeks past the COP21 in Paris on global climate changes that draw a commitment to ‘pursue efforts’ (not to take actions) to keep the temperature increase to only 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels – admittedly, a formidable technical and political flowery phrase.
Unfortunately, this is not enough anymore! We are in need for a completely different attempt than we see today – like Einstein said.
Why?

As already Al Gore, in his foreword to the book World changing: A User’s Guide for the 21st Century, pointed out that a shift where individuals join together to create a “turning point in human civilization ... that requires great moral leadership and generational responsibility … to build that future, we need a generation of everyday heroes, people who — whatever their walks of life is — have the courage to think in fresh new ways and to act to meet this planetary crisis head-on.”
For this we need very unique and changed leaders than they are today and beside that much more conscious followers!
From the first conference on climate change in Tokyo back in 1987 a lot has changed but not enough has been done. While the international community and the politicians continue the talks on sustainable development and green economy time passes and pollution, poverty, destruction of our planet, depletion of natural resources have gone almost beyond the point of no return.
What we see today is the current leadership, depletion of resources and pollution not slowing but rising. The gap to sustainability is real and urgent, especially because complex problems we face require innovative /different thinking and networked / civilization(s) actions lead by such (new) leaders. And yes, not just those on the top positions but a whole generation needs to be inspired, motivated and engaged to think and act in a way that matches the scale of the challenge.
Prior to argue it let me first describe what sustainable development is?
Sustainable development has been defined in many ways, but the most frequently quoted definition is from Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report:
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:
- the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and
- the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs.
I rationale that we should aim to achieve this necessary different approach to be able to change the devastating path we are currently on and as a contrast to today mostly used economy and leadership.
In my previous posts I have already described my concerns about neo-liberal economy approach, private ownership, different views (names of) current leadership tactics. Now we are just a few weeks past the COP21 in Paris on global climate changes that draw a commitment to ‘pursue efforts’ (not to take actions) to keep the temperature increase to only 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels – admittedly, a formidable technical and political flowery phrase.
Unfortunately, this is not enough anymore! We are in need for a completely different attempt than we see today – like Einstein said.
Why?

As already Al Gore, in his foreword to the book World changing: A User’s Guide for the 21st Century, pointed out that a shift where individuals join together to create a “turning point in human civilization ... that requires great moral leadership and generational responsibility … to build that future, we need a generation of everyday heroes, people who — whatever their walks of life is — have the courage to think in fresh new ways and to act to meet this planetary crisis head-on.”For this we need very unique and changed leaders than they are today and beside that much more conscious followers!
From the first conference on climate change in Tokyo back in 1987 a lot has changed but not enough has been done. While the international community and the politicians continue the talks on sustainable development and green economy time passes and pollution, poverty, destruction of our planet, depletion of natural resources have gone almost beyond the point of no return.
What we see today is the current leadership, depletion of resources and pollution not slowing but rising. The gap to sustainability is real and urgent, especially because complex problems we face require innovative /different thinking and networked / civilization(s) actions lead by such (new) leaders. And yes, not just those on the top positions but a whole generation needs to be inspired, motivated and engaged to think and act in a way that matches the scale of the challenge.
Things Agility Can Teach Us About Leadership
More and more we hear about ‘agility’ in project management,
agility leadership, agility in martial arts and canine agility …
Dog’s agility, easiest to explain, is a competitive sport in
which a dog is directed through obstacles in a course that is timed and watched
for accuracy. Easy that one!?
Let’s frame what is ‘agile project management’ - it refers
to iterative and incremental method of managing the design and to build
activities in a project with aim to provide new product or service in a highly flexible
and interactive manner. A bit harder?
Further, we find that agility training is fundamental to any
(great) martial artist as well. In martial arts it is definitely true that some
genetics play an important role in the development of agility; nevertheless, with
the adequate practice anybody can improve his/her agility. That’s
understandable.
Going even deeper to define agility we meet the use of the
word ‘agility’ in leadership, too. What does it mean? Leadership agility is a
mastery competency needed for sustained success in today’s complex, fast-paced,
business environment. Such a leader has the ability and/or agility to operate
in any manner and to think and react in a number of different ways. Does this
sound more complicated?
Seeing very different connotations and the use of the same
term, let’s pose a question – “How could we suggest a common denominator and
explain it?”
Insecurity drains the life out of employees
Not long ago a
majority of workers worked for the same company for 20, 30 or more years. It
was a normal occurrence. At the time many of my friends were asking me how can I
shift so much and so easily from one employer to another? That was easy enough,
since nothing was “pushing me” out of a company except my curiosity and new, different
challenges. Same as today? No, not the same here. Those were different times and
different society back then.
In 2014 Hewlett-Packard
only eliminated 34,000 jobs, while JP Morgan Chase has cut 20,000 from its
workforce and JC Penney and Sprint announced cuts … In '70s and '80s, not so
long ago, a modification of labor market began and we were able to observe anti-worker
policies forming up. Nowadays a new business model (not so new any more) is
disentangling the ties between employers and employees, fueling the perception
that it is good to have employment flexibility.
In today’s business spheres
where results of globalization, outsourcing, contracting, downsizing, recession
and even natural disasters are all together killing ‘a job security’, how does
one deal with such uncertainties?
It is well known that people
can deal with short bursts of pressure pretty good, but that chronic
uncertainty throws them in a vicious cycle of stress and fear. According to the research done by Stuart
Whitaker at the University of Cumbria, having an insecure job has a more
damaging impact on people's health than actually losing a job.
When we do not know
whether we’ll have a job next year or, even worse, next week, how do we plan
the life? Could we consider a loan to buy a house, start family or save for
college or save for retirement? In the face of job insecurity, thoughts like these
bring only panic and more pressure. Can we still spend with easiness if we are
so insecure for the jobs we have?
When people fear that the
world around them will fall apart, when our future becomes foggy, when feelings
of powerlessness paralyze us, we tend to start to flip out. We pile on more
work than we can handle, we are afraid to take sick leaves. Some people start
to function on drugs, coffee, cigarettes, alcohol and other substances. We drop everything that is good for us – we
stop to care for our physical well-being, we stop practicing, we do not have
fun with friends or have and enjoy vacations and so on.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)




