Category Archives: sabbatical

We should all embrace ‘Embracing Complexity’

Occasionally you come across a book which says all that you wanted to, only better, and with more proof and analysis than you could hope to assemble yourself. Well, Embracing Complexity is that book for me. It brilliantly describes the technical background to complexity, then argues forcefully that we should adopt a complexity worldview. In this review I’ll summarise the writers’ key points, and pull out some implications of what I currently think of as a modern masterpiece.




Twenty years ago I was studying to be a physicist. I soon realised I didn’t have the deep maths to do anything valuable in the field, and so I moved on. Back then I had read about complexity. James Gleick’s book on Chaos had popularised many elements. Once I joined Forum I and a few colleague tried to bring complexity thinking into our work, but without great success. We knew we wanted to get beyond a mechanical approach to change but it wasn’t clear what complexity was, especially when compared to systems thinking, nor how to put the principles into action.

Enter Embracing Complexity: Strategic Perspectives for an Age of Turbulence by Jean G. Boulton, Peter M. Allen, Cliff Bowman. As it happens, I know one of the authors, Jean, and was at the book launch back in September 2015. But when I read the book it really resonated with my past reading and current experiences of trying to create profound change. The effectively has a series of big claims, and then applies those claims to the domains of management, strategy, economics and, politics.

Let’s start with the big claims. The first, and the foundation stone for the rest of their thesis, is that we can treat complexity as a worldview, one which “sees the world as essentially interconnected, and rich with forms and patterns that have been shaped by history and context…[it] reminds us of the limits of certainty, it emphasises that things are in a constant process of ‘becoming’ and that there is potential for startlingly new futures where what emerges can be unexpected and astonishing”.

The primary contrast, of course, is with the mechanistic worldview we have inherited from Newton, that the world is just a clock that will predictably tick round. The other contrast is with a worldview inherited from a later physics, that of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics says the best way to understand a liquid or a gas is by treating the very large number of molecules as independent agents. Predicting an individual agent is hard, but the sheer statistics of their bouncing off each other like billiards balls, mean you can predict how the gas or liquid will move towards equilibrium. (In this sense, thermodynamics is Newton plus statistics, and is a subset of mechanistic worldview.) Beinhocker shows in The Origin of Wealth it is thermodynamics that inspired the orthodox economics that we know.

What do the authors mean by a complexity worldview? In a nutshell, they are saying the world is:

  • Systemic: the world cannot be understood through taking apart he bits and understanding them separately. Factors work together synergistically, that is, the whole is different from the sum of the parts. We live as part of patterns of relationships.
  • Path-dependent: history matters and the sequence of events is a key factor in giving shape to the future.
  • Sensitive to context: one size does not fit all, and the way change happens and the way the future emerges is dependent on the detail and particular events and patterns of relationships and particular features in the local situation. By generalising, we risk throwing out the very information that sheds light on why things happen and what might happen next.
  • Emergent, uncertain, but not random: although the future does not follow smoothly from the past, neither is what happens random. The world is neither chaotic not predictable but somewhere in between.
  • Episodic: things are becoming, developing, and changing but change happens in fits and starts. The intriguing thing about the world is that on the surface patterns of relationships and structures can seem almost stable for long periods of time, although micro-changes may be going on under the surface. And then radical change can happen suddenly and new patterns of relationships can self-organise and some completely new features that could not have been predicted may emerge.”


Individually and collectively, these aspects are strongly at odds with the mechanistic worldview, where the whole is the sum of the parts, where there is no past contained in a situation, just the current dynamics, where the same starting point should merely wind forward again and again. The authors claim that their complexity worldview is many ancients had already intuited and what Darwin recovered when he wrote about evolution. Their main descriptions of complexity rely more on ecology than on physics, perhaps because the maths is just too hard to translate into English.

Here is their central tenet of complexity theory:

“it is in the detail and variation, coupled with interconnection, that provide the fuel for innovation, evolution, change, and learning.”

Any proposed worldview has to do a few things. First, how is it different and bette, than others? As well as the contrast to the mechanistic worldview, the authors contrast with systems thinking:

“systems thinking deals with stable patterns and history deals with the particularity of events, conditions and individuals – but complexity thinking marries the two and provides us with a sophisticated and unique theory of change.”

Which leads to the key weakness of systems thinking: “simple systems analysis are helpful in describing stability, they tells little about change – what may cause it, and what may emerge as a result”.

The other thing a worldview must do – especially one that claims to ‘include and transcend’ the previous ones – is explain how the others can give useful explanations. If the mechanistic worldview is built from the wrong foundations, why hasn’t it simply fallen over? Why can it be useful? Here is their answer:

“When things are very stable over a long time, the macro-characteristics of complex systems tend towards behaviour that looks machine-like and predictable”


Why does this matter for sustainability? Well, if you take the mechanistic worldview then we can solve the sustainability question one issue at a time. You don’t need to look for a deep layering of causes behind, say, climate change. And the way to solve problems is simple. You just reduce your emissions and move on to the next problem. Any attempt at change which has a list of things to do, in order, that can be written in advance and then never changed is subscribing to this worldview (though they may not know it). In a mechanistic worldview holistic is so much horseshit.

But people know intuitively that “sustainability is a property of a web of relationships means that in order to understand it properly we need to shift our focus to the whole, and learn to how to think in terms of relationships, in terms of interconnections, patterns and context” (Boulton et al quoting Evitts, S., Seale, B., Skybrook, D. (2010)). Developing an Interconnected Worldview: A. Guiding Process for Learning). That cannot be done within a mechanistic worldview. It needs something more.

What Boulton et al is that something more, the worldview through which we can address the sustainability crisis of our times.


The complexity worldview gives us two new lenses onto change.

First, it allows us to understand change as a cycle of an ecology. Let’s imagine there is an absence of order. From this period of chaos there is self-organisation, patterns of relationships between the different parts that emerge and sustain. These parts and their relationships start to co-evolve, that is changes in one induce in and are the response to changes in another. Over time the web of web of relationships becomes mutually sustaining. This is a period of self-regulation where incremental differences lead to incremental changes. Without further external shocks this moves to lock-in, as the  relationships become tighter, more rigid, more efficient. But they are so finely tuned that a shock from outside the immediate system leads to collapse. And we start again.

This cycle is familiar to anyone in an organisation as it starts, finds its niche, grows, standardises, becomes more rigid and then struggles to change until too late. The move to self-regulation is ‘needed’ for efficiency but contains the seeds of the organisation’s failure. My point of view on why there are so many business books on leadership and change is because lots of people find themselves in charge in that ‘self-regulation’ or lock-in phase. They are trying to do something about it, but it is hard, because the organisation is defined now by the self-sustaining, self-reinforcing relationships – by what made it successful until now. It’s why we shouldn’t expect the current incumbents to be the source of fundamental change.

Embracing Complexity says that the lock-in is not inevitable, it happens when the framing context is stable, and so no push to keep self-organising. The suggestion is to keep in changing more than the context might otherwise need you to, so you don’t become fixed. There’s an interesting parallel here with Taleb’s notion of AntiFragile, where things get better when stressed. His point of view is that change and shocks are inevitable, and so better to design situations to benefit from that, rather than merely recover (his take on resilience). Needless to say, any senior manager will tell you how much attention and sheer willpower is required to avoid useful ways of getting things done from becoming standardised routines of thought and deed.

The authors are keen to address one pervasive mis-understanding: self-organising “does not necessarily imply that the situation [is] just left to itself”. Self-organisation occurs when there are top-down intentions, as well as bottom-up activity. As such, enabling self-organisation is not just a case of senior managers or government getting out of the way.

Second there is describing change. This is a bit technical, but very much worth it. There are some definitions that we need:

  • “State space – a representation of the information in a situation or system through looking at the set of its constituent dimensions or variables rather than representing it in time and space. Contains a map of attractor basins and areas where there are less definite features.”
  • “Attractor basins (or attractors) – Stable configurations of interacting variables which show what combinations of factors mutually reinforce each other.”

These two terms help us unpack three types of change (examples are mine, which means they might be wrong): within attractor basins, between existing ones and evolution of new ones.

  1. “Unfolding change” staying in the same attractor basin. Through the 90s Tescos simply beat Sainsburys in being an out-of town supermarket, with a mix of brands, a mix of price points and a great variety of choice.
  2. “Self-organisation – in to a new attractor basin. giving different configuration of relationships but no new dimensions.” Lidl and Aldi have a different formula compared to the existing grocers: low cost, all own-brand, less variety.
  3. “Evolution (or emergence) – the process of variation, self-organisation and selection that leads to emergence of new qualities and types.” On-line retailing is a massive disturbance, adding new factors to include in what makes you successful (i.e. new dimensions in state space), which means that new configurations of mutually reinforcing factors (i.e. new attractor basins) are there to find. These new attractor basins will also affect the supply chains and the customers, who will all co-evolve as the basins do.

Another way in to this (again, my example) would be Brian Eno. In the early 70s he started treating the studio as a musical instrument, not just a passive way of recording other instruments. This change the number of dimensions in the state space: different sounds were available, as were different compositional structures and very different results. I’m listening to one of those results as I type, Music for Airports. This is widely credited with forming a new genre – ambient. In the terms above, in the new, enlarged state space there are new configurations that work – new attractor basins. He found one of those with this album, and then others followed, further developing (i.e. self-organising) the genre.


What are the implications?

The authors have a list of principles for how project mangers should behave, given this worldview. But I think it could apply to anyone:

  • Aspire
    • Take a wide, systemic view of emerging trends
    • Articulate long-term goals and intentions and use these to prioritise actions, and determine which opportunities to seize
    • Judge whether to persist when there is little evidence of change
  • Anticipate
    • Think a few steps ahead during implementation. What might be the consequences of actions…or events in the wider context?
    • Thank through where critical junctures / possible tipping points might occur
    • Scan for changes in the context
  • Adapt
    • Adapt to unexpected events and unintended outcomes as they happen
    • Seize opportunities, making choices in line with the long-term goals
    • Plan activities and projects but review progress regularly, take note of changing circumstances and modify if necessary
  • Customise
    • Take account of contextual and historical factors in developing plans and programmes. Do not expect there to be a universally applicable best approach
    • Experiement – plito approaches, learn from what works.


When it comes to organisational strategy, the fundamental insight is to remain ambidextrous: “An organisation needs both to be effective in competing in today’s market with today’s economic and social and political conditions, but also to have the ability to make judgements about the future in order to be able to adapt to any changes as well as to, in some cases, catalyse change.”

But attending to both today and tomorrow is tough. Their conclusion is the importance of constantly testing how dynamic your contest tis. If it is stable, then you can bias toward effectiveness (mostly today, and a little of considering tomorrow). If it is fluctuating, then develop a core competence of entrepreneurialism, anticipating future trends and tastes. If unstable then build for emergence.

For all these, it is crucial to keep experimenting, seizing opportunities, learning and adapting to circumstances — it’s just a question of degree.

The implications for economics get the most hefty treatment from the authors. Neoclassical thinking is attacked for requiring an equilibrium which will never come, for seeing futures as independent of the past, of relying on a super-rational decision-maker (Homo Economics) that is a dangerous fiction, and for separating economics from society, and growth from development.

They stress two things that come from ecology. First, that in nature there is both competition and collaboration:

“Ecological competition is a common feature of the bio-economic relax, but so also is inter-dependency, cooperation, symbiosis and division of labour. Moreover, competition is not the fundamental ‘organising principle’ in the economy of nature, as many theorists have asserted. The touchstone is the problem of earning a living an reproducing – adaptation – and both competition and cooperation are subsidiary phenomena. The are contingent ‘survival strategies’.”

Second, that evolution is “about the survival of the fittest ecology rather than the survival of the fittest individual. The evolutionary process becomes ‘variation—self-organisation—selection’, rather than ‘variation—selection’.”

This has big implication for innovation. We should not look to individual companies for innovation. Instead, innovations come from the competition between, and collaboration within, whole ecosystems of organisations. These innovations are driven by the factors pushing on an ecosystem, whether that is competition from another or an incentive from a customer or a regulation from government or more. Innovation is not manna from heaven, or the result of one lone genius. I’ll be returning to this when I write about Grubb’s Planetary Economics, and when thinking about a pro-sustainability innovation policy.

It also has big implications for competition policy. “One thing Smith seems to have concluded is that this process [of self-organising] works best when the players in the system are of similar size, where there is equal power and diversity of choice, and potential for interconnectivity.” When that is not the case, then we move into a situation where the big can use their dominance to get bigger. If business leaders are told that the purpose of private enterprise is to make profit, then they will use their dominance to remove risk, “to simplify their markets and make suppliers and supply chains and even consumers act in the way that suit them. Indeed, an unregulated market…tends to allow ‘lock-in’ – the big get bigger, and the dominant more dominant.such dominance can ‘win’ in the short-term or even in the medium-term, such organisations are less able to adapt to changing circumstances. They be more efficient but they are less resilient”.

Hence the need for all those books on change, leadership and innovation. Hence, also the case for an active government: “Regulation is needed to counter the tendency for the big to get bigger, the powerful to get more powerful, the risks taken to get more risky, and economic forces to win over concerns for equality and sustainability.”


What does all this mean for growing the political economy we need for a sustainable future?

There’s a lot to unpack and explore. Some things that come to mind now, and doubtless will develop and change:

  • I’ll try to use ‘state space’ to describe the possible ways of we organise ourselves in society – the interplay of economics, law, politics and more that set the operating context for individuals and organisations, and are expressions of dominant beliefs in society (that is, the political economies).
  • The complexity worldview provides a theoretical basis to my experience and intuition that the mechanistic worldview is part of the problem, and needs to be replaced with something that allows for humans acting as part of nature, not separate.
  • We need to organise ourselves for evolution, to create a variety of ecologies that can self-organise, then select on the basis of ‘fit’ and then develop further. It all points to the  importance of learning from experiences, plus using and developing what is there already. We need to accept there is no single, perfect answer but there are always unintended consequences.
  • That will require removing the existing lock-in – which crowds-out the evolution in the short-term but makes the chance of collapse higher in the medium-term.
  • Part of the existing lock-in is an inner dynamic of ‘big get bigger’ (what in system archetypes is called Success to the successful). The implication is a need for all players to have relatively similar power, rather than a small number who win big.
  • One of the dimensions in state space for us to play with is the type of actor that is important in a political economy. Political economy has traditionally considered actors of nation-states and individuals 9then, depending on your flavour, perhaps class). My thinking has been that we’re seeing the emergence of a different sort of political economy, made up of collaborations between non-state actors. Don Tapscott calls these Global Solution Networks, and claims these are new multi-stakeholder models for global cooperation, problem solving and governance. In the language of Embracing Complexity these are ecologies that are evolving, and which then frame the behaviour and incentives for businesses, other organisations and people.  They may be the vehicle to promoting well-intentioned send-organisation, and fulfil the author’s call-to-arms: “We have a responsibility for ‘seeding the system with good ingredients’, for shaping intention, for surfacing values, and for spotting where the powerful are ‘winning’ at the expense of the less powerful — and by so doing locking-in resources and locking-out competition”.
  • We’ll have to address the profit motive. I’ve had a belief up until now that what matters is outcomes, not motives. So, if someone made the pro-sustainability investment for commercial reasons or ethical reasons, what matters is they made the investment. Embracing Complexity says that’s not good enough. Jean in particular (in conversation with me) has said that the end can never justify the means as it is the means that are added to the system and we may never reach the end. Putting that into practice means, I think, accepting the starting motive someone has as inevitable, but trying to change that motive – and the beliefs underlying it – over time.


I’m sure that list will be longer by the time I finish my sabbatical! There are also two ironies I’m aware of. The first is one core message of Embracing Complexity is to avoid universal claims, while using a complexity as a worldview is to have a universal claim. The other is that the authors warn “we should not assume that the patterns that emerge at a one scale will necessarily be repeated at a larger scale”. Just because science can ‘prove’ the natural world is best understood through complexity, doesn’t mean that automatically it is the best way to understand the human world.

The authors do address this head on in one chapter, and draw the conclusion that although humans are not molecules, the extra features we bring (like intention) can be brought into a complexity worldview. Of course, when considering beliefs it is impossible to stand back and make an objective appraisal. What are you now standing on, from which you compare mechanistic vs complexity worldview? There complexity one has a couple of things in its favour. One is that it can explain why the mechanistic worldview works where it works, and also why it doesn’t in other circumstances. The other is that a ’experiment-and-learn’ approach at complexity worldview’ core means it is not fixed, but constantly being tested and refined. Therefore, it contains within it an inner dynamic to adapt with experience, not passively stay the same.

As such, I want to experiment with it for now. Over the coming weeks I’ll be applying it directly to questions of bending the curve on climate change, a pro-sustainability innovation policy, an enabling narrative for business, the digital revolution – and how we can grow the political economy we need for a sustainable future. It’s going to be fun!


Big Bang Data: frightening but familiar

Today I went round the Big Bang Data exhibition at Somerset House. It raises really important questions – many with frightening implications – but I left without many new insights.


At the start of the Big Bang Data exhibition in Somerset House, you are warned that by buying a ticket you are giving permission for video and photos of your visit to be used. It’s in quite big type, in the ticket foyer. I imagine – but don’t know for sure – most other public events have similar conditions, but tucked away. Here, though there is a stinger in the tail, one you only realise right at the end.

Mostly we don’t read the terms and conditions of using the internet, whether that’s our phone we browse with, or the website we sign up to, or the app we download. Alex Hern, a technology reporter at The Guardian did, and it made him want to die.

The exhibition shows just how much data we all produce, and how many different uses it can have, how many different ways it can be represented, and how much power accrues to those who can access and make sense of it, how much threat we are under from Big Brother gathering our Big Data.

If that sounds familiar, then it is. Anyone who has been working on the consequences of the digital revolution has had to start thinking about these things. For instance, that we talk about the internet as if it is all information, but it is anchored in the real world through cables, and ugly server buildings and energy use. (For me this echoes Cartesian Dualism, that somehow mind and body are separate. This belief is deep in the Western psyche, and, for some sustainability thinkers, the key to our separation from nature and so why we treat it so badly.)

Also, that there are issues of privacy. One artist has matched hacked photos with hacked music, to give a public slideshow where no permissions were possible. Another has turned all the sexual encounters he had with his wife into a infographic that looks very tasteful until you read the key.

There are moments of beauty, like the globes in the my photo above. Each of these is a different infographic, bewitching and somehow drawing you forward to touch them. There is a staff member there just to stop you spinning the globes.

My main feeling, though, was of having the overwhelming sense that known, huge problems are going under-addressed. There was a section on ‘Data for the Common Good’, with various examples of positive attempts to use the inevitable data tsunami in ways that help humanity. But these felt small and late compared to the efforts represented in the rest of the exhibition to apply the Big Data for private profit and a creepy form of security (yes, a public good but we don’t give the police our house keys ‘just in case’ that will be useful, so why give them the data that describes our lives?). I didn’t leave the exhibition with many new insights on what to do about it.

Contrast with Jaron Lanier‘s Who Owns the Future?. Not an easy book by any stretch, and my sense is Lanier is trying to write in a a different register to shake the reader out of analytical norms – which makes it difficult to evaluate. He has fears about Siren Servers, who concentrate wealth in the hands of the few who control the data centers and processing capability but don’t have to pay to get the data in. But he also has proposals about what to do about it, a two-way linking system that would point to the source of any piece of information, creating an economy of micropayments that compensates people for original material they post to the web.

My two take aways from the exhibition were:

  • The Big Data bang is happening, and inevitably with expand and grow further.
  •  What matters now are the ways we organise ourselves in society to get the from it all.

So, that takes me back  – with due respect to confirmation bias – to  the interplay of economics, law, politics and more that set the operating context for individuals and organisations, and are expressions of dominant beliefs in society, namely the political economy that I’m considering in my sabbatical.

What are the new sorts of institutions and regulations and norms and so on that we can provide that get the bang we need? It seems unlikely these will be initiated by, or hosted by, the nation-state. So, we’ll have to create our own. And there were flashes of this in the exhibition, for instance the Open Data Institute.

And the stinger? Well, it wasn’t that your image might be used later in some promotional material about the exhibition. You were tracked as you went through the exhibition. When you got to the end there was a live display of how people were moving around. It wasn’t data in the abstract; you were the data and the data was live.

It did reinforce the frighteners – and the sense that we need new ideas, soon, on how to adapt.


Naive starting point on a political economy for a sustainable future

This is one of the foundations of my sabbatical. I have three months exploring how we can create systemic change in business for a sustainable future. This post gives my naively simple starting point on the political economy we need.

First a step back, why am I thinking about ‘political economy’ anyway? Well, after 13 years at Forum for the Future and 2 years as a Policy Fellow at the Centre for Science and Policy at the University of Cambridge, it is clear to me that we cannot rely on ‘business-as-usual’ to get to a sustainable future. There are patches of great effort and potential, but I don’t think they will scale with the urgency we need.

As much as I think business has a role to play, we cannot be dependent on charismatic CEOs and the usual suspects. We need to change the enabling conditions for business — and others — so that all are playing their part in creating a sustainable future.

Therefore I find myself drawn to a deep question: What is the political economy we need for a sustainable future? By ‘political economy’ I mean the way we organise ourselves in society — the interplay of economics, law, politics and more that set the operating context for individuals and organisations, and are expressions of dominant beliefs in society.

Over the coming 3 months I’ll be investigating what new political economies are emerging in the domains of climate change, innovation policy, the digital revolution, and the narrative for business.

But before I got too deep into that, I wanted to articulate what I thought so far. From several decades of reading and practice, what would I guess is the political economy we need?

So, what follows is my starting point for the rest of the sabbatical. I call it naively simple because I hope to start here, go through some mess, and then end up with something profoundly simple. So, the below is definitely ‘wrong’, but it still is the best summation I can pull together of what i think (and what i think others think) right now. The next few months will be about testing, sharpening and improving.

The political economy today.

One part of this has to be what I think is the political economy today. Now, there is lots of variation, but I think the there is s set of beliefs that have been dominant. According to David Harvey these have been critical in the US, the UK, China and elsewhere since the mid-70s. He — a Marxist — calls them ‘neoliberalism’. John Kay — an economist who is a commentator in the Financial Times and absolutely not a Marxist- critiques the American Business Model. But they are talking about pretty much the same thing, with these core beliefs (here following John Kay in The Truth about Markets):

  • Greed is overwhelmingly the most important reservation in economic affairs
  • You should impose as few restrictions and limitations as possible in the operation of markets
  • A successful business needs a minimal state
  • There is an overriding need for low taxation

The political economy we need for a sustainable future (naively simple version)

Below I put the simplest version I can in one place. I haven’t put all the references, you can see a bibliography at the bottom. I’ve chosen to structure it according to Donella Meadows ‘Leverage Points — places to intervene in a system’. I had thought that would make it easier, but playing around with it all today, I’m not so sure. Anyway, here goes

Simple table.001

Let’s unpack that just a little, shall we?

Paradigm — the mindset out of which everything else arises

  • People are complex and should be give the chance to flourish in their own way, without impairing others chance to flourish, now or in the future. Therefore, we should act so the following are true:
    • Ensure people have the capabilities they need to make their own choices.
    • All fundamental needs are met
    • Avoid concentrations of power that crowd-out chance for others to flourish
    • Have diverse ways of flourishing, to avoid being reliant on accumulation of material things for as everyone and anyone’s goal.
    • Economic growth as a means which allows more people to have more ways to flourish.
  • Complexity worldview: our world is systemic, path-dependent, sensitive to context, emergent and episodic. Therefore, we should act so the following are true:
    • A stoic attitude: seeing change and shocks as inevitable challenges to rise to.
    • Be long-term: our intentions, methods and outputs now will effect on flourishing of future generations
    • A systemic understanding: history and the pattern of relationships are better ways to understand what’s happening than looking at individual elements of the whole..
    • A proactive learning stance: long-term success more possible from failing fast and cheap, loving the insights that gives, and applying them to do things better, do better things and choose a new ‘better’.
  • We are part of the natural world (not separate to it), and we are dependent on it. Therefore, we should act so the following are true:
    • Model, and be inspired by, natural processes, whether on the ‘human-rest of nature’ interface or within the human sphere.
    • Interdependences and interconnections between individuals, their local context and the world Some call this empathy, or compassion or love.
    • Competition is only part. There are important limits to what can be achieved through competition or everyone trying to ‘win’.

Goal — the purpose of function of the system

  • Meet the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Self-organisation — the power to add, change or evolve system structure

  • Social technologies’ that have a track record that deserves of our trust. Therefore, we should act so the following are true:
    • SDG16. Institutions — Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
    • SDG17. Sustainability — Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development
  • People who have the skills to act. Therefore, we should act so the following are true:
    • There are sufficient creative and critical thinkers
  • Organise for experimentation and change. Therefore, we should act so the following are true:
    • Look to learn and adapt as you go: 1. go slowly at first; 2. try things out; 3. collect results and welcome them either way; 4. act on the insights to do things better; do things better; choose a new better.
    • Allow for customisation so we can reach common goals in local circumstances
    • Build readiness in: create situations that benefit from shocks and variability.
    • Avoid collapse by preventing rigidity: open up new and different channels through which we can change incumbents and power structures
  • Apply evolution and other natural processes through markets and more. Therefore, we should act so the following are true:
    • Use markets where they can accelerate evolutionary progress (variation, selection and amplification)
    • Diversity of approaches: sometime better to start small, or have a portfolio of options,
    • Allow variability now rather than be overwhelmed by shocks later. Support risk-takers now (rather than be overwhelmed.
    • Requisite variety: Organise for functional redundancy not for efficiency
    • Circular economy: the waste from one process in the human sphere is food for another process (whether in the human sphere or in the rest of the natural world).


I know this is wrong. I know it needs to be better. There’s so much more in my head, but I can’t quite get it out right. And I’ll spend the next 3 months on this.

But I would be delighted to hear from you, if you have thoughts, ideas, improvements, disagreements, agreements or whatever. Just comment below and I will get back to you (unless you’re a troll, but you know what I mean).

Selected bibliography

Beinhocker — The Origin of Wealth
Boulton, Allen and Bowman — Embracing Complexity
Meadows, Randers, Meadows — Limits to Growth 30 year update
Porritt — The World We Made
Taleb — AntiFragile
Forum for the Future — Sustainable Economy Framework
Forum for the Future — EU Innovate scenarios and analysis (not published yet)

Note: this post has been updated to make it slightly (!) easier to read. None of the content has changed.

How will I tell if I have had a good sabbatical?

So, I’ve just started my sabbatical. I have three months ‘off’ — which I have chosen to be three months exploring how we can create systemic change in business for a sustainable future. This week has been about setting myself up. I’ve been trying to figure out what I want to achieve. When it finishes on Mon 16 May, how could I tell if I have had a good sabbatical?

The first evidence of a good sabbatical are the outputs associated with the different lenses I have: climate change, digital revolution, innovation policy, enabling business narrative and political economy (my meaning: the way we organise ourselves in society — the interplay of economics, law, politics and more that set the operating context for individuals and organisations, and are expressions of dominant beliefs in society).

On ‘bending the curve on climate change’ my hypothesis is that the ways we try to re-organise ourselves in the near-future to urgently address climate change are likely to become the vehicles we then use to address other sustainability challenges (like delivering the Sustainable Development Goals). For instance, much of the analysis of The Paris Agreement says that the surprisingly-ambitious outcome (working towards 1.5C) came from new forms in the negotiation process: Chinese appreciation of the impact of climate change; business-NGO-government high ambition clubs; a move from the negative framing of ‘burden-sharing’ to a more positive one of opportunity; and so on. Imagine if these continue, and start to be applied to other global, diffuse challenges like inequality.

So, I want to know more about:

– what features of a new political economy are emerging in order to address climate change?
– how could we nurture them, so they are stronger and more effective?
– what might the long-term consequences be, especially constraining our ability to address other important (but less urgent) challenges?

Also, as part of that I’d like to see what happens when I try to help a fabulous institution to act. I’m chairing a panel on the 17 March where various luminaries from across the university will be exploring the role of a university like Cambridge in the societal transformations required to bend the curve on climate. I’m seeing the university as a microcosm of the bigger picture. At the least, I’d like to know more about the barriers to prominent institutions playing a role that matches their potential with the scale of the problem, on the presumption that this will be useful data for others. Even better would be helping move the university forward at least a little how it helps society to address climate change.

When it comes to surfing the digital revolution to a sustainable future my hypothesis is that it is not possible to put the genie back in the bottle, that positive social, environmental and economic impacts are very possible, but will not just ‘magically’ appear. Instead we must be proactive in getting the best from the profound changes that come alongside the technological revolution. I have some handle on the hopes and fears (which will come out in an article in Forum’s annual compendium called The Long View in March). Less clear to me is what you would do to be proactive. What institutions, regulations, etiquettes, incentives and more would you use? How could you experiment with them starting now?

So, the output I’m going for here is a ‘concept note’ of what that programme of experimenting might look like, alongside more connections that can provide the insight into that concept note, and would be interested in using the analysis.

The output on pro-sustainability innovation policy is in many ways more straightforward. A friend of mine is a senior politician (not in the UK, and I’m not sure yet if I can say who). He has asked for an input into their manifesto. So, I’m going to be writing a report which is ready to use by at least that person, and I hope by other policy-makers plus others who are interested in fostering pro-sustainability innovation. My instinct — and we’ll see how true this is — is that many of the recommendations will also be applicable to large businesses, investors, technology transfer firms and more.

The enabling business narrative is a bit more uncertain because it depends on others. At the least I want to have a map of the different ‘narratives’ that are currently in plan (such as Volans’ Breakthrough Capitalism, or Alex Steffen’s Bottleneck Decade, or Forum-BSR-Shine’s Net Positive Project). Better would be to see if there is some coordination and connection between many of the different players to provide more coherence. But that means others wanting to play, which isn’t in my control.

The final lens — creating the political economy we need — is where the ends is the means and vice-a-versa. Given that I’m saying ‘political economy’ is the way we organise ourselves then how I go about my sabbatical is itself an expression of the potential political economy.

So, the second evidence of a good sabbatical, alongside these outputs, is that I have experimented with being the change I wish to see in the world. I want to try ways of creating those outputs that are the pre-cursors of the political economy we need. My starting point there — which I want to share soon — has already been well-articulated, I think, in ‘Embracing Complexity’. In one sentence the mindset is systemic, allows for emergence and therefore acting with and through others with a proactive attitude to change and learning.

The third and final evidence of a good sabbatical is that more change is happening. The outputs are being used (even if to say “not that, but this”). There are the first signs of impact One person reading, thinking, talking, connecting, writing is not enough — any more than 70 people. The impact will come being a catalyst with and for others.

Which leads to my invitation. If you are interested in any part of this — if you have insights, want to do something, are already doing something relevant, know someone I should connect with, have a suggested piece of reading, whatever — then do get in touch.

If you have better ideas on what I should achieve in the next 3 months then let me know. I’d love to help you, in our attempts to create a sustainable future.