‘The twentieth century will be chiefly remembered in future centuries not as an age of political conflict or technical inventions, but as an age in which human society dared to think of the welfare of the whole human race as a practical objective.’ - Arnold Toynbee.  Toynbee might have been on the right track but he missed the century. Perhaps his prediction will come to be in the 21st Century? In my view, it had better be this one and the sooner the better! We don’t have another ninety years to turn around all our crises worldwide. The window for changing course is closing and even the next few years could be pivotal.

Have you been as puzzled by how Bernie Madoff pulled off possibly the biggest and longest running scam in U.S. history? How did really smart people fall for his $50-65 billion Ponzi Scheme* and remain gullible for decades? My curiosity about this seeming impossibility prompted me to dig a bit into the Madoff con, read his pre-trial plea confession, review the history of his career and research articles and interviews since his scam came to light in late 2008.

Have you ever wondered if the debates, discussions and general conversations that occupy our consciousness most of the time are all essentially “small talk” when it comes to what’s really important? I’m not saying that constructive discussion about the crises facing us today – the economy, climate change, population growth, terrorism, environmental sustainability, and other such things - are not important. But don’t you have a nagging feeling that these situations – serious as they are – are simply symptoms of some larger crisis?

We have been conditioned to seek leaders who can fill those heroic slots for us, leaders who are capable of taking strong committed stands in the tradition of World War II heroes Churchill and Roosevelt, civil rights heroes Anthony, Mandela and King and medical heroes such as Nightingale and Salk. But democracies have gotten used to electing prospective political superheroes and then sitting back and critiquing their performance – not too dissimilar to the way people engage in detailed Monday morning post-mortems of the weekend’s sporting events, often leveling criticism at their heroes.

Remember the 1998 movie “Pleasantville” where the mainstream townspeople passed a resolution making it illegal to teach anything other than the “non-changes view” of history in the schools? The black, grey and white world of this 1950s town - where everything was “pleasant” - was invaded by two teenagers from the 1990s, touching off a revolution in self-expression which resulted in the arrival of color for the first time, setting off a huge outcry for a return to the good old days of certainty, pleasantness, routine, predictability and no color.

Resorting to cynicism seems to provide comfort or a palliative for the psyche. There’s an old saying that if you scratch a cynic you’ll find a disillusioned idealist underneath. This is how most cynics are born – out of some painful or disappointing event in their history. And they vowed never to try anything “idealistic” again. The cynic has adapted a prejudice against anything he or she judges to be idealist and is, therefore, predisposed to oppose anything that suggests things can be really better than they are.

For the past five years or so I have made a practice of reciting The Serenity Prayer several times a day, often while on my daily walkabout up and down the hill on which I live in San Francisco.  I have also learned a few things in this practice and they each have to do with the integrity with which I engage this prayer.

Those of us who have been writing and talking about organizational and social transformation for some time continue to encounter resistance to change everywhere we look. As a systems thinking scholar I see it from the system/culture perspective which is fine for an academic take on it. But where does it show up in individual action? What is the forensic of the resistance, the fingerprints of sabotage or the lineage of rationality that prevents lasting meaningful change from occurring in complex cultures, be they familial, organizational, communal or social?

It is time for we Americans to wake up from our self-absorbed, egocentric trances and start taking on the more adult responsibilities of being global citizens, sharing this planet with many others in a sustainable, thoughtful and compassionate way. Instead of building walls around our neighborhoods or our country, we can start engaging with the other 95% of the world as neighbors and help create a world of neighborliness. In such a world there is a place for everyone, even cowboys!

As we grow in consciousness and become more self aware, we will start being more responsible for our world. We will make decisions that are based on what’s best for all instead of pre-programmed reactions mostly based on personal survival strategies adopted in childhood. It is a process - for some of us a lifetime one. And, like many processes, it has plenty of surprises, twists and turns, none predictable, all exciting!

I hear it almost every day: “It was the right thing to do.” But how often is this heard in the average corporate environment? In most corporate cultures the normal attitude – even if unstated - is “it was the smart thing to do” which usually means it was politically expedient. In this context, “smart” means one played it safe, didn’t stick their neck out very far and most of his/her peers agreed it was a wise decision. Imagine a corporate culture in which the everyday decisions and choices are not only viewed as “politically smart” but as “the right thing to do” – that is they are both moral and ethical, regardless of the potential political fall-out. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

What is the most popular personal commitment, not gauged by what people tell you but observed from their actions and behaviors? Parenting children? Personal relationships, like with a spouse or partner? Excelling in a personal endeavor such as a sport or a business? While all these are fine examples of popular commitments in today’s world, I would like to suggest something you probably weren’t thinking about: People are more committed to their thoughts and opinions than anything or anyone else ...

“Drink responsibly,” reads the ad for a Kentucky whiskey. But the big headline and alluring photos in the advertisement scream “buy our product” and imply they want us to drink it. Do they fear they may get sued if customers get loaded and hurt themselves or others so they add this message to protect themselves? Does it serve as a sort of disclaimer? Or are they good corporate citizens concerned that people will overindulge unless they include the admonition? Admonition or disclaimer, the words remind me that some of us are not responsible in the way we consume. And it applies to many things not just alcohol.

Our Preoccupation With Trivia
 
The other day I came across a podcast entitled “Attention: The ‘Real’ Aphrodisiac.” I learned of a phrase apparently coined by former Microsoft VP Linda Stone: “Continuous Partial Attention.” It describes that “always on” way many people operate, not only in their work lives but their private lives as well.