Business Transformation Requires Transformational Leaders

John R. Ehrenfeld looks to the present model of the brain, in which fundamental rationality is taken for granted, and asks if the answer to the need for systems change lies in the ways the human brain works. This argument raises provocative and (perhaps) discouraging implications. If our economic, social, and political systems reflect the biological structure and function of the brain, what is the potential for changing those systems? Does systems change require fundamental change to cognition, and, if yes, how might that be accomplished? What are the ethical implications of equating systems outside the body with systems inside the body, given the apparent diversity of human thought and behavior? Do we risk valuing one way of thinking over others? If yes, will the privileged group occupying positions of political power decide system structure and function?

This first of two Amplify issues probes the necessary scope and scale of systemic solutions. What does systems change mean? What systems need to change, and how? Which possible future world do we want, which do we need? How can markets deliver such change?

The authors conclude this issue of Amplify by analyzing systems for governing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in markets in the US. They argue that public-private partnerships (PPPs) have the potential to fill the void in market governance left by the failure of the government to enact comprehensive climate change legislation. The authors highlight the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) as a tool that provides companies and other organizations with the means to make specific, credible plans to achieve decarbonization. They argue that aligning PPPs with SBTi target setting would be an effective mechanism to accelerate carbon emissions reductions.

When looking at the characteristics of both the Industrial Revolution and the new knowledge revolution, there is a synergy between them that is critical to helping us understand how to reconcile them.

The elusive question, “Are we doing enough?” is the one we ask privately and quietly when reflecting on our progress toward workplace inclusivity. We ask this question among ourselves and feel somewhat reassured that no one else quite knows the answer either. However, bigger questions remain: Why are the achievements of diversity, equity, and inclusion always somewhere in the future? Why are they always “bonuses” beyond profitability, sustain­ability, and achievement of an organization’s mission?

Leaders need to avoid falling victim to the sunk-cost fallacy. Measure your organization’s perceptions about its emotional investment as well as whatever reputation, political capital, money, time, or any other resource it has committed to the project thus far. The most important step to freeing yourself from making poor decisions based on sunk costs is to recognize the logical fallacy. Even simply being aware of it will help you make more rational decisions in the future.

This article is a compilation of contributions from the Guest Editor’s colleagues at the Atlantic Systems Guild, who believe that the work modes of the pandemic years may have signaled a change in the way we need to work from now on. The article is organized into six potential patterns, from reinvention of the office, the value of group work, and challenges of remote work to work-life-balance, team cohesion difficulties, and the potential to move to an entirely virtual model.

Bill Fox advocates for leaders to transform internally in a way that enables them to shape the future rather than just respond to events. He describes six areas of growth that are key to transformation: forward thinking, self leadership, inner awareness and intuition, inner-leader journey, listening and dialogue, and understanding how the mind works. Fox stresses that insight for new leadership resides not in the “other”; rather, it is accessible to everyone. By enhancing our ability to look and listen within, we shape our world from the inside out.