Responsibility & Wisdom:
Exploring the issues at the core of Ethical Decision-Making and Leadership
by Dr Bruce Lloyd, Emeritus Professor of Strategic
London South Bank University.
objective is simple: ‘Better decision-making’. The only issue is that
there are so many different views over what we mean by ‘better’. At the
core of all decision-making is the need to balance Power with Responsibility,
as the vehicle for resolving the ‘better’ question. This article explores
why that is so difficult? It also argues that exploring the concept of
Wisdom can provide invaluable insights into how to achieve the most effective
balance between Power and Responsibility, which is central to what our
values mean in practice, as well as how we incorporate ethics into our
is essential to start by recognising that not all change is progress,
and that there are, inevitably, differences in how different people interpret
what they mean by progress. The importance of that difference between
change and progress is at the heart of most of our decision-making difficulties,
especially in particularly sensitive areas that involve our values and
decision-making also, inevitably, involves moral/ethical choices and this
occurs every time we take a decision. Hence it is not surprising that
we find that the comments we might define as Wisdom are essentially comments
about the relationship between people, or their relationship with society,
and the universe as a whole. These statements are generally globally recognised
as relatively timeless and they are insights that help us provide meaning
to the world about us. In theory, the use of teams, committees, even opinion
polls (and other efforts to capture The Wisdom of Crowds) are attempts
to capture collective Wisdom. But what certainly surprised me when I started
looking at this subject, was the paradoxical gap between how critically
important this area was in all our lives, and yet how often it seems to
be almost totally ignored in Futurist, Strategy, Knowledge Management,
and even Ethics, literature. Another paradox is that we appear to be spending
more and more time focusing on learning knowledge, or facts, that have
a relatively short shelf life, and less and less time on knowledge that
overlaps with Wisdom, that has a long shelf life. Why is that? What can
we do about it?
sociological and management/leadership literature is full of references
to Power. How to get it? How to keep it? And How to prevent it being taken
away? In parallel, but rarely in the same studies, there is also an enormous
amount of literature on the concept of Responsibility.
Power is the ability to make things happen, Responsibility is driven by
attempting to answer the question: ‘In whose interest is the Power being
used?’ Yet the two concepts of Power and Responsibility are simply different
sides of the same coin; they are the Ying and Yang of our behaviour; they
are how we balance our relations with ourselves with the interests of
others, which is at the core of what we mean by our values. Power makes
things happen, but it is through the exercise of an appropriate balance
between Power and Responsibility that helps ensure as many ‘good’ things
happen as possible.
critical relationship between Power and Responsibility is reinforced by
examining how these two concepts interact in practice, through a variety
of different management dimensions.
it is useful to visualise a two-by-two (Boston) box (see diagram below),
with Power (+&-) along the horizontal axis, and Responsibility (+&-)
along the vertical. In one square, where there is a strong Power-driven
(+) culture, combined with little sense of Responsibility (-), there is
a high probability of megalomaniac or dictatorial behaviour. While another
square would combine a high degree of Responsibility (+), with little
Power (-), which is a classic recipe for stress. In fact, this is a major
cause of relatively unaddressed individual, organizational and societal
stress, reinforced by many empowerment programmes, that are more concerned
with giving individuals more Responsibility than giving them more real
authority (ie: Power). A further square has low levels of both Power (-)
and Responsibility (-) producing the net result of ‘drop-outs’, whether
individual, organisational or societal. This category is often viewed
as an attractive option when individuals consider it relative to the alternative
to the stress, which is all too often associated with situations where
the feeling of impotence is associated with the feeling of Responsibility.
The ideal is to work towards the final square where there is an appropriate
balance between Power and Responsibility (+/+). Although this compartmentalisation
is an inevitable simplification, it does show how the underlying pattern
of Power <> Responsibility relationships influence individual behaviour,
which is particularly critical in areas related to ethical decision making.
Power – Responsibility Relationships
basic relationships between Power and Responsibility are confirmed from
experience in several other organisation/societal dimensions:
can be considered as either one that encourages the sharing of information,
as opposed to a ‘Knowledge is Power’ culture. (Although I consider it
is more appropriate to use the word Information, rather than Knowledge,
for reasons that are discussed in more detail later.) Almost all management
techniques (Total Quality Management, Learning Organisations, and Knowledge
Management, to name but three) are based on the assumption of a sharing
knowledge culture and these techniques are unlikely to be effective within
a ‘knowledge is power’ culture. Teams, and virtually all other management
techniques, flourish best under a Responsibility-driven culture. In addition,
as we increasingly move further into a knowledge economy, the effective
sharing of information/knowledge will become an even more critical success
factor for all our decision-making whether as individuals, within organisations,
or for society as a whole.
It is often argued that
people oppose change, when the underlying problem is that there is a difference
of opinion on how to define progress - or what we mean by ‘better’. In
a culture where those affected by change are either in control, or they
trust those driving the change, there is usually general agreement on
how progress is defined, and there is little opposition to any change
initiatives. The greater the trust levels, the easier it will be to undertake
change, simply because there is general agreement that the change will
be equated with progress. Despite all the talk of the need for change
in many situations, what is really required is the need for greater emphasis
on the concept of progress. Unfortunately, it is very rarely the case
that all change can be equated with progress. This difference between
change and progress is at the heart of most organisational difficulties
in this area, partly because the vast majority of change is still top
down driven, and this is, unfortunately, combined with the widespread
existence of a Power-driven culture, which has fostered a breakdown in
trust in far too many situations.
Another important dimension
of the Power-Responsibility relationship arises in many organisations
where they experience the damaging effects of bullying, corruption, as
well as sexism and racism. These problem behaviours are, essentially,
in the vast majority of cases, essentially little more than the ‘Abuse
of Power’. If individuals took a more Responsible-driven (i.e., ‘others
focused’) approach to their personal relationships, there would be an
enormous reduction in these harmful anti-social behaviours.
The issues considered above
are also reflected in the language we use to discuss them. Phrases, such
as ‘Corridors of Power’, ‘Power Struggles’, even ‘Lusting after Power’,
are widely used, but would not attitudes and behaviours be different if
the language used was more focused on using phrases such as ‘Corridors
of Responsibility’. Why do we never hear about ‘Responsibility Struggles’?
And certainly there are very few, if any, examples of people being accused
of ‘Lusting after Responsibility’. Why not? If Power and Responsibility
are two sides of the same coin, shouldn’t the words Power and Responsibility
be virtually interchangeable?
greater the level of a Responsibility-driven decision-making culture,
the more effective and sustainable will be the consequences of that process;
and the less regulation will be required to manage the inter-relationship
between the various stakeholders. In contrast, more and more regulations
will be needed in an attempt to regulate Power-driven cultures, where
those regulations are designed, in theory, as an attempt to make the decision-making
processes more accountable, and so encourage more responsible behaviour.
If we all behaved more responsibly in our relationship with each other,
there would be much less pressure for more and more regulation and legislation.
addition, it can be argued that it was a pity that there has been such
an emphasis on ‘Rights’ during the twentieth century (The UN Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the European Declaration of Human Rights,
etc.), rather than emphasising a combination of Rights with Responsibilities.
The reason for this apparent separation is worthy of further exploration.
First, those arguing for Rights, tended to feel that any emphasis on Responsibilities
diminished their case for Rights, while those with Power, who feel they
would have to give up some of it by making themselves more accountable,
also feel that any emphasis on Responsibilities would only result in undermining
their position. Unfortunately, the implicit conspiracy between these two
positions resulted in an important opportunity having been missed. Increasingly
political agendas, both national and international, are now being driven
by a dual focus on Rights and Responsibilities, and this also needs to
be reflected in our personal and organisational agendas. Again, in almost
all current ethical debates (as well as legal and other regulatory structures),
the ultimate objective is to try to achieve the appropriate balance of
Rights and Responsibilities. If individuals behaved more Responsibly and
ethically towards each other, it would be much more likely that the net
result would be a higher standard of ethical decision making overall.
This is a classic case where the outcome and process are closely inter-linked.
the context of the above comments, it is worth mentioning that probably
90% of violent behaviour arises because there is an imbalance, or discontinuity,
between Power (self-focused), and our sense of Responsibility (others-focused),
which leads to a breakdown in the ability to communicate effectively between
those involved. This breakdown becomes even more acute, and problematic,
if it is combined with an inability to undertake a constructive dialogue
in the first place—a point that will be expanded on later.
is this relationship between Power and Responsibility so important to
the debate about leadership and ethics? Simply because, in essence, leadership
is nothing more than the ‘well informed, Responsible, use of Power’. The
more the leadership related decisions are Responsibility-driven (i.e.,
the more they are genuinely concerned with the wider interest), not only
will they be better informed decisions, but the results are much more
likely to be genuinely reflect the long term interests of all concerned,
which also happens to be a sound foundation for improving their ethical
where does Wisdom come into this argument? In essence, the above leadership
definition (‘the well informed, Responsible, use of Power’) is exactly
what could also be called ‘Wise Leadership’. In this context the concepts
of leader, leading and leadership are used interchangeably, although it
could be argued that leaders are individuals (including their intentions,
beliefs, assumptions, etc.), while leading is their action actions in
relation to others, and leadership is the whole system of individual and
social relationships that result in efforts to create change/progress.
However, the above definition can be used to cover the integrated inter-relationship
of those three dimensions.
my view, there is an enormous amount of literature that explores Wisdom,
and this can provide useful insights into what works and what doesn’t?
However, partly because, for various reasons, the word Wisdom has been
widely misused and misunderstood, it might be useful to explain where
I am coming from and how I got involved in exploring this generally neglected
(except for a few notable exceptions, some of whom are listed at the end
of this article) dimension of thinking about how people, organisations
and society work well in practice.
background is Science, with Engineering and Business degrees, and a zig-zag
career in industry and finance that ended up with my writing and lecturing
on Strategy. I consider Strategy to be about ‘understanding what makes
organization, people and society work’, and what helps them work ‘better’.
Recognising that ‘better’ is a values-driven word.
other words, I have a very practical approach to these issues. It is worth
emphasizing that I didn’t have a classical education, although a trip
to Troy and Crete over 25 years ago opened my eyes to the importance and
influence of old civilizations, and trips to Nepal and Tibet a few years
later compounded that interest with insights into various religions and
philosophies. Perhaps I should also mention that in this journey and discussion,
I have no religious agenda. I consider myself to be a ‘positive agnostic’.
I am interested in, almost compulsively, asking questions and searching
for answers; especially to the big questions, such as: What is life really
all about? and How do we make sense of fitting all the pieces together?
years later, by coincidence, reflecting on those earlier experiences -
combined with other events - lead to exploring over the past decade: What
do we mean by Wisdom? And why is it an important subject for both organizations
and society? This interest arose particularly from two directions. First
my interest in strategy in the early 1990’s was very influenced by the
widespread discovery (or more strictly re-discovery) of the importance
of Organisational Learning, (largely thanks to the work of Peter Senge
and his book The Fifth Discipline) and this is reflected in two relevant
"Effective learning is the only sustainable competitive advantage."
"Only if the rate of learning is greater than the amount of
change are we likely to find change equated with progress?"
net result of this emphasis on learning naturally leads to the question:
What is it important to learn? Trying to answer that question leads to,
or is at least reinforced by, the massive growth in the Knowledge Management
industry. I was brought up on the Data/Information/Knowledge pyramid,
which ended with Wisdom at the top; where Wisdom was considered as the
most important. Yet most Knowledge Management books, with a few notable
exceptions, do not discuss the role and importance of Wisdom.
in the late 1990’s, I was involved in a number of ‘Futures’ related activities
in the run up to the Millennium, and these focused on exploring the big
issues, such as: Where have we all come from? and Where are we going?
In fact, the recent move into the new Millennium was probably the most
focused point in human history for exploring these questions. In these
discussions there was an enormous emphasis on technology. But, somewhat
to my surprise, I found that almost no-one had looked at what had we really
learned over the past two or three thousand years that was really important
to pass onto the next generation—i.e., Wisdom. (An attempt to fill that
gap lead to a project for the World Future Society, ‘Messages for the
New Millennium’, which is still on their website, http://wfs.org).
is something everybody seems to talk about; we all appear to want more
of it, yet few people appear to reflect on what Wisdom really is, especially
in management/leadership literature. And there is little consideration
of how can we learn Wisdom more effectively? An over-riding objective
of these brief comments is simply that it would be very useful for us
to try to rehabilitate the word / concept of Wisdom.
what do we really mean by Wisdom?
to the Wikipedia (5/8/05) entry for Wisdom:
is often meant as the ability and desire to make choices that can gain
approval in a long-term examination by many people. In this sense, to
label a choice ‘wise’ implies that the action or inaction was strategically
correct when judged by widely-held values….
Insights and acts that many people agree are wise tend to:
from a viewpoint compatible with many ethical systems,
life, public goods or other impersonal values, not narrow self-interest
grounded in but not limited by past experience or history and yet anticipate
future likely consequences
informed by multiple forms of intelligence – reason, intuition, heart,
briefly Wisdom can be considered as: "Making the best use of knowledge…by
exercising good judgement’….‘the capacity to realise what is of value
in life for oneself and others"….Or as "the end point of a process
that encompasses the idea of making sound judgements in the face of uncertainty."
course, Wisdom is one thing, ‘being wise’ is quite another. Being wise
is certainly more than the ability to recycle Wisdom. In essence, ‘being
wise’ involves the ability to apply wisdom effectively in practice. This
issue is aptly reflected in the comment:
"Those who are arrogant with their wisdom are not wise."
recognise there is a risk in expounding the concept of Wisdom that I might
be seen to be supporting the view that somehow I know all the answers.
That is certainly not the intention. The prime objective is simply to
raise some questions that, in my view, do not appear to be asked often
enough. The first step is always to start by being reasonably sure that
we are asking the right questions, and that we are improving the quality
of the conversations/dialogue about those questions, answers and decisions.
This is a particularly important starting point when these conversations
involve the sensitivities associated with any discussion of values/ethics
statements are those that appear to be useful in helping us all make the
world a better place in the future. They are not absolute statements;
they are simply statements that reflect our understanding of behaviour
patterns that appear to work in a positive direction in a sustainable
way. This statement is, in itself, full of explicit and implicit value
judgements. But a statement of Wisdom is only useful if it also checks
out with our own experience.
course, that relatively simple objective is not quite as easy as it sounds,
for at least two reasons:
the word 'better' inevitably means that we are involved in considering
the whole complicated subject of values that are embedded in the question:
"What do we mean by 'better'? It should surprise no one that a critical
part of the content of any Wisdom statement is the extent to which it
incorporates judgments about values. In fact, in many ways, that is a
critical part of the definition of what we mean by Wisdom. But that does
not mean that all statements that reflect values can be defined as Wisdom;
the extra dimensions required are that they are widely accepted and that
they have 'stood the test of time'. In addition, while all wisdom is reliable,
useful, information, not all reliable information can be considered as
Wisdom; they are insights into values, people and relationships that work.
They are not simply technical statements that have no human or relationship
it is important to recognise that in trying to 'make the world a better
place for us all' we can easily run into potential areas of conflict.
For example, making things 'better' for some people is sometimes at the
expense of making it worse for others. Much of the conflict that arises
in this area is because different people use different time horizons,
when they talk about the future. Some people are obsessed with tomorrow,
whilst others are primarily concerned with what they perceive to be the
needs of the next hundred years. How, or whether, differences in perspectives
are resolved is critically dependent on the quality of dialogue between
my view, there are no absolute answers; consequently the only way to make
progress is to try to ensure that the quality of the dialogue between
all concerned (i.e., all the stakeholders) is as effective as possible.
In the end, the quality of our decisions depends on the quality of our
conversations/dialogue; that is not only dialogue about information but,
perhaps even more important, it is about what is the best way to use that
information. In other words it is about our values. Dialogue facilitates
both the transfer of technical knowledge, as well as being an invaluable
part of personal development. Having a quality dialogue over values is
not only the most important issue we need to address, but it is often
the most difficult. In this area, there is a paradox with the concept
of passion, the importance of which is emphasised in much current management
literature. If this passion is exhibited by a Power-driven person who
tends to think they have all the answers and they are all too often not
interested in listening, then holding a positive dialogue can easily become
problematic! The only way to ‘square that circle’ is to ensure that all
the other people involved are convinced of their integrity, and that they
are reflecting a genuine concern for the wider interest in the decisions
that are taken. The greatest challenge that most organisations face is
how to manage effectively Power-driven, passionate, people in such a way
that their priority is encouraged to be consistent with the long term
interests of the organisation as a whole, rather than just with their
own personal interests. Incorporating this wider (Responsibility-driven)
interest into our decision-making at all levels, irrespective of whether
they are personal, organisational or societal, is the ultimate test of
both values and leadership.
addition, it is important to recognise that democracy does not produce
perfect answers; it is simply the best system relative to the alternatives.
(As Churchill put it: "It has been said that Democracy is the worst
form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from
time to time.") The critical element of any democracy is not that
the will of the majority prevails, but that the interests of minorities
are understood and protected. And the most effective way of producing
the best balance between the two is through effective dialogue between
all those involved, within the framework of the Responsible use of Power.
Although it might sound paradoxical, it is not unreasonable to argue that
the degree to which we use our freedom Responsibly, the more freedoms
we will have. Another approach to this dilemma is recognising that the
greatest challenge to any concept of freedom lies in attempting to answer
questions such as: How far can we be allowed to be free from our Responsibilities?
and Who decides?
the Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom relationship
has been mentioned already the traditional approach to the data-information-knowledge-Wisdom
link sees a close relationship within a pyramid that starts with data
at the bottom, moves through information and knowledge, to end with Wisdom
at the top, giving, in theory, greater 'added value' as we move up that
pyramid. In my view, this progression has a fundamental flaw, arising
from the fact that the relationship between these four items is not linear
and, as a result, there is no basic step-by-step, linear, movement up
the pyramid from data to Wisdom. The mechanistic view of that progression
is partly a reflection of the Newtonian tradition, repackaged by the Management
Science of Taylorism.
practice, the integration of all four elements requires at least one,
if not two, quantum (/qualitative) jumps. Information can certainly be
considered a ‘higher’ form of data, as it provides greater context and
so greater meaning. However, the transformation of information into knowledge
requires the first quantum jump. A book that describes how a jet engine
works is an example of information. It is only when information is actually
used that it is turned into knowledge. In a similar way science produces
‘value’ and ‘values’ free information. It isn’t until something is done
with that information that we need to recognise that all our choices (/decisions),
are concerned with ‘adding value’, as well as being values driven, and
these decisions are driven by our perception that one alternative is somehow
‘better’ than another.
essence, knowledge is information in use and, of course, it is through
its use, and through the feedback learning loop, that you gain further
information, which then gets turned into even more legitimate knowledge
based action. Overall, this is a never ending, dynamic, process.
where does Wisdom come in? Wisdom is the vehicle we use to integrate values
into our decision-making processes. It is one thing to turn information
into knowledge that makes things happen through its use, but it is quite
another thing to make the ‘right’ (/’good’/’better’) things happen. How
we actually use knowledge depends on our values. Instead of moving up
from data/information/knowledge to Wisdom we are, in parallel, moving
down from Wisdom to knowledge—and that is how we incorporate our values
into our decision-making. Hence we can see the application and relevance
of what is generally called Wisdom. It is only justified to consider that
decisions can be reduced to a cost/benefit analysis, if it is possible
to quantify all the ‘values’ elements within the equation in monetary
terms. In the past values have been included implicitly, whereas today
that dimension invariably needs to be made much more explicit. All decisions
involve the integration of the economics dimensions of ‘added value’,
with the ethical (i.e., ‘right’) dimension of ‘values’.
course, this is a dynamic process and there is continual feedback from
the experience of our actions into whether we need more information. But
what and how much further information is required is also a values influenced
decision. It is how values are assessed and applied, both as the ends
and means that are critically important dimensions in all our decision-making.
is our values/Wisdom that defines the limits of what we consider acceptable
choices in the first place and those decisions determine our knowledge/action
priorities. These priorities then determine what information is required,
in order to try to ensure that the decision is as well informed as possible.
In turn that information need determines what further questions have to
be asked about what additional data is required. In practice, we need
to understand how these two pyramids/progressions relate to each other,
if we want to understand how we incorporate values into our decision-making
processes, as well as understand why Wisdom plays such an important role.
It also needs to be recognised that the way the word (/concept) Wisdom,
has been used in the past has not always helped this process.
decisive is easy; being decisive about the ‘right’ things, in the ‘right’
way, is the real challenge that confronts us all. I would argue that we
do (and should) start with Wisdom (/our values) as our base, which then
provides the framework within which to manage knowledge, and so on through
the pyramid to information and data. Consequently, without a sound base
at one level, it is difficult, if not impossible, to manage effectively
the next layer up (or down). In summary, it is useful to see knowledge
as information in use, and Wisdom as the integration of knowledge and
values to produce wise action. This is confirmed by the comments below:
“Wisdom is the power that enables us to use our knowledge for the
benefit of ourselves and others.”
(Thomas J. Watson)
is not wisdom, unless used wisely.”
without wisdom is a load of books on the back of an ass."
hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we
use our power the greater it will be.”
is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many people
know a great deal, and are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool
so great a fool as a knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is
to have wisdom."
(Charles H. Spurgeon)
is of no value unless you put it into practice.”
(Anton Chekhov (1860-1904))
dimension of any study of Wisdom that should not come as a surprise, because
it consists of statements about relationships between people, either individually
or collectively in societal context, or about our relationship with the
universe as a whole, is their general universality in that they have ‘stood
the test of time’. Many of the important messages about the state and
future of the Human Race were made over a thousand years ago, in China,
the Middle East and other early sophisticated societies. As a result Wisdom
insights are very similar irrespective of which part of the world identified
as their source.
my view, Wisdom is by far the most sustainable dimension of the information/knowledge
industry, although I recognise that this article has not covered how you
could teach Wisdom. Or whether it is teachable? Or is it, like values?
In many ways, probably not. But it is learned somehow, and as far as I
know, there is no ‘values’ gene. Consequently, there are things that we
can all do to help manage the learning processes more effectively, although
detailed consideration of these are outside the scope of this paper.
H.G. Wells ((1866-1946), The Outline of History (1920)) was right when
he said that: "Human history becomes more and more a race between
Education and Catastrophe."
need to recognise that the more change that is going on in society, the
more important it is that we make sure that our learning is as effective
as possible. That is the only way we have any chance of being able to
equate change with progress. If we want to have a better future the first
- and most important - thing that we have to do is improve the quality
and effectiveness of our learning. And this learning process starts very
early on in our lives, with our basic values being often difficult to
change later on in life.
has been already mentioned an underlying assumption of the word 'learning'
is that we are trying to do things 'better'. We are trying to improve
things. We are trying to make progress. Of course, the concepts behind
the words: 'improve', 'better' and 'progress' are powerfully values-driven.
Organisations and individuals don’t have a problem with change, only with
how we perceive progress. And our success in this area is, of course,
critically dependent on the quality of our dialogue as discussed earlier.
is not easy to be optimistic about current trends, when the media is so
focused on sensationalism and confrontation. This is not only an issue
for the mass media, but it is also fostered by many, so called serious
programmes where confrontation, rather than constructive consensus building
dialogue is encouraged in the name of ‘good television’ from Coronation
Street to Newsnight, as examples from the UK. It is also my impression
is that there is evidence to support the view that our ability to hold
constructive conversations is declining.
this media agenda has a significant influence on our political agenda,
and our democratic processes, it cannot be ignored. These pressures can
be particularly important when considering potentially sensitive ethical
issues. As a result it is not the issues themselves, but the way we discuss
them, that ultimately determines the quality of the action taken. Unfortunately,
much of the media has more interest in encouraging dissent and confrontation
than constructive dialogue and consensus over these issues. This issue
is not easily addressed but it is, at last, a start to for it to be more
is probably the case that about 80% of the violence in society is simply
due to a breakdown in our ability to hold constructive conversations with
other each other.
examples of statements about Wisdom that not only reflect the points made
above, but provide additional insights into the meaning and usefulness
of the word, would include:
is a process of piling up facts; Wisdom lies in their simplification."
(Martin H. Fisher)
can be communicated but not wisdom. One can find it, live it, be fortified
by it, do wonders through it, but one cannot communicate and teach it."
(Hermann Hesse, (1877-1962, Siddartha ))
Outweighs any wealth”
is the intelligence of the system as a whole.”
Wise people through all laws were abolished would lead the same life.”
some of the general Wisdom messages that we might like to pass onto future
generations might include:
doubting, we come to examine, and by examining, so we perceive the truth."
price of greatness is responsibility”
you won't be better tomorrow than you were today then what do you need
(Rabbi Nahman of Bratslav (1772-1811))
must be the change you want to see in the world."
(Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948))
purpose of studying history is not to deride human action, not to weep
over it or to hate it, but to understand it -- and then to learn from
it as we contemplate our future.”
for others is the best form of self interest”
is your passport to the future. For tomorrow belongs to the people who
prepare for it today."
(Malcolm X (1925-1965))
are the implications of these ideas for us all?
recent years we have seen considerable effort to move people from the
idea of 'Working Harder' to 'Working Smarter'. But what is really needed
is to move beyond 'Working Smarter' to 'Working Wiser'. We need to move
from ‘The Knowledge Society’ to ‘The Wise Society’. And, the more we move
along that progression, the more we need to recognise that we are moving
to a situation where the important issues primarily reflect the quality
of our values, rather than the quantity of our physical effort. If we
want to improve the quality of our decision making, the focus needs not
only to be on the quality of our information but, perhaps even more importantly,
on the ‘right’ use of that information, hence the importance of improving
the dialogue related issues mentioned earlier.
we want to manage complexity successfully, and make progress in the world
today, we have to start by getting the simple things right. This needs
to be based on more effective understanding, and use, of accumulated Wisdom.
Unfortunately, all too often problems arise precisely because we haven't
got the simple things right in the first place. This includes the need
for a greater emphasis on sharing knowledge, rather than the more traditional
concept of 'Knowledge is Power', as well as the need to combine that with
being sure that we start by asking the right questions.
the most important of those simple things to get right is for leaders
to 'walk the talk'. It is relatively easy to know what is the ‘right’
thing to do; the hard thing is to ensure that it gets done. It also appears
to be relatively easy to recognise Wisdom on paper, but it appears to
be so incredibly difficult to be wise in practice.
analysis can help understand the map of the Power/Responsibility relationships
within decision-making processes. All decisions require trade-offs and
this involves judgement between the interests of the various stakeholders,
within a framework of a genuine concern for the long term—and the wider
interest. It is also the case that where there is no common agreement
over objectives, values are invariably the dominant agenda in any discussion.
It is here that Wisdom reflected in both content and process, can be critical.
How often do we seem to be either obsessed with technology—or so focused
on the experience of the here-and-now—that the issue of Wisdom appears
to be virtually ignored? Are we really focused on what is important, rather
than on just what is easy to measure?
reason for the recent obsession with an information-based approach is
because that provides a relatively easy framework within which to get
agreement of decisions. Any focus on the values dimension can make decision-making
much more problematic. There are two answers to such a view: First, values
are implicitly involved in all decision-making and all we are doing is
making the discussions about the values dimension more explicit, a process
that is, after all, at the core of Knowledge Management. It is also through
making information/knowledge more explicit that we can improve the effectiveness
of our learning processes. Secondly the evidence suggests that there is
much more agreement across all cultures and religions about fundamental
human values (and Wisdom) then is generally recognised. This view is confirmed
by both the work of the Institute for Global Ethics, as well as an unpublished
dissertation by Richard Hawley Trowbridge on The Scientific Pursuit of
Wisdom, which found ‘no indications of a conflict between religious and
practical wisdom’…and ‘little difference in levels of wisdom between women
and men’ (email communication from author 01/09/2005).
I come back to the point I made at the beginning. Why are we interested
in Ethics and the Future? The answer is, simply, that we are concerned
with trying to make the world a ‘better’ place. But for whom? And how?
To answer both questions we need to re-ask fundamental questions: Why
do we not spend more time to ensure that the important messages that we
have learned in the past ('Wisdom') can be passed on to future generations?
How do we ensure these messages are learned more effectively? These are
critical strategy questions, as well as being at the very foundation of
anything we might want to call 'The Knowledge Economy', although what
is really needed is to focus on trying to move towards a concept closer
to ‘The Wise Economy’. This focus naturally overlaps with the greater
attention recently being given to values/ethical related issues and ‘the
search for meaning’, in management/leadership literature.
hope I have not given the impression that I know what this illusive concept
of 'Wisdom' actually is? Or how we can pass it on more effectively? Or
what the answer is to all the ethical dilemmas we currently face, or will
face in the future? All I am arguing is that we urgently need to give
the whole subject of Wisdom much more serious attention in management
literature than has been the case is the past. Wisdom is critical to our
understanding of ‘The Knowledge Economy’ and ‘The Knowledge Society’,
as well as Strategy and Ethics in general. If we cannot take Wisdom seriously
we will pay a very high price for this neglect. We need to foster greater
respect for other people, particularly those who have views, or reflect
values, that we do not agree with. This requires us to develop our capacity
to have constructive conversations about the issues that divide us and
that, of itself, would go along way to ensure that we improve the quality
of our decision making for the benefit of all in the long term.
paper has argued that understanding, and integrating, the relationship
between Power and Responsibility needs to result in a greater emphasis
on the more Responsible use of Power and this needs to be combined with
a greater emphasis on a Wisdom-based approach. Together this would enable
us both improve the quality of the conversations/dialogue that are so
vital in the management of the decision-making processes, as well as improve
our ability to evaluate more effectively the ethical issues themselves,
today and in the years ahead. We need to recognise that, overall, Wisdom
is a very practical body of knowledge (/information) that has an incredibly
useful contribution to help us understand the world we live in. Such an
approach would help us all take ‘better’ (/wiser) decisions, lead ‘better’
lives and experience wiser leadership, particularly in areas that involve
explicit ethics and values related issue.
Questions? / Research Agenda
- How do you measure
- How do we learn
- How do we learn
to live with Responsibility?
- How could we develop
a Wise Society Index?
- Are those at the
top actually more Responsible?
- How could we develop
a Leadership Performance Index?
- How could you audit
/ measure values / trust levels?
- Where does passion/commitment
come from? And how can it be developed?
- Are there Gender
differences in the Power <> Responsibility agenda?
- How could this
analysis link into the assessment of Governance effectiveness?
- How important is
the trust dimension in change ‘management’ issues (ie Power <>
- What is the relevance
of Power <> Responsibility issues to stress related problems?
- What are the general
issues around the Power <> Responsibility relationships?
- How does the meaning
of the words Power <> Responsibility differ in different languages?
- Where do megalomaniac
tendencies come from?
- How do we measure
whether we have a ‘Knowledge is Power’ or a ‘Sharing Knowledge’ culture?
- How do we research
the quality of conversations / dialogue?
- Do rules and regulations
actually encourage more Responsible behaviour?
these questions can be researched within a specific organization and/or
across stakeholders. What comparison can be made of the position across
public/private and Not-For-Profit sectors? These issues also overlap with
many individual and wider social problems.
Wisdom publications – further reading:
- Aubrey, R and Cohen,
P. M. (1995). Working Wisdom: Timeless Skills and Vanguard Strategies
for Learning Organizations. Jossey-Bass.
- Baltes, P. B. (2004).
Wisdom as Orchestration of Mind and Virtue, (book in preparation – www.baltes-paul.de/Wisdom.html).
- Barrett, L. F and
Salovey, P. (Editors). (2002). The Wisdom in Feeling: Psychological
Processes in Emotional Intelligence. The Guildford Press.
- Bloom, H. (2004).
Where shall Wisdom be Found? Riverhead / Penguin.
- Bourgeault, C.
(2003). The Wisdom Ways of Knowing: Reclaiming an Ancient Tradition
to Awaken the Heart. Jossey-Bass.
- Brague, R. (2003).
The Wisdom of the World, University of Chicago Press.
- Broomfield, J.
(1997). Other Ways of Knowing: Recharting our Future with Ageless Wisdom.
- Bunson, M. E. (Editor).
(1997). The Dalai Lama’s Book of Wisdom. Rider.
- Ching, J. (1976).
To Acquire Wisdom. Columbia University Press.
- Cleary, J.C. (Editor).
(1991). Worldly Wisdom: Confucian Teaching of the Ming Dynasty. Shambhala.
- Conway, D. (2000).
The Rediscovery of Wisdom: From Here to Antiquity in Quest of Sophia.
- Costa, J. D. (1995).
Working Wisdom: The Ultimate Value in the New Economy. Stoddart.
- Covey, S. R. &
Merrill, A. R. (1994). The Wisdom Literature, Appendix C in First Things
First. Simon & Schuster.
- Curnow, T. (1999).
Wisdom, Intuition and Ethics. Ashgate.
C. (2006). Wonder and Wisdom. Templeton Foundation Press.
- Devereux, P. (2002).
Living Ancient Wisdom: Understanding and Using its Principles Today.
- Dyer, W. W. (1998).
Wisdom of the Ages; Eternal Truths for Everyday Lives. Thorsons.
- Feldman, R. (2000),
Wisdom: Daily Reflections for a New Era. Saint Mary’s Press.
- Figueria, T. J,
Brennan, T. C. and Sternberg, R. H. (2001). Wisdom from the Ancients.
- Fletcher, J, Matschek
C, Siebert A, and Tycer G (2003), Gathering Wisdom. Practical Psychology
- Follmi, D. &
Follmi, O. (2000). Indian Wisdom 365 days. Thames & Hudson.
- Gabriel, M. (1954),
The Decline of Wisdom, The Harvil Press.
- Goldberg, E. (2005),
The Wisdom Paradox: How your mind can grow stronger as your brain grows
older. Free Press.
- Gouinlock, J. S.
(2004), Eros and the Good: Wisdom according to nature. Prometheus Books.
- Gracian, B. (1993).
The Art of Worldly Wisdom, adapted from the translation by Joseph Jacobs.
- Jacobs, A. (2005).
The Ocean of Wisdom. O Books.
- James, A. (1998
reprinted – originally 1993). The Unfolding of Wisdom. Aukana
- Kekes, J. (1995).
Moral Wisdom and Good Lives. Cornell University Press.
- Kessler, E. H.
and Bailey, J. R. Editors (2007), Handbook of Organizational and Managerial
- Kilberg, R. R.
(2006), Executive Wisdom. American Psychological Association.
- Macdonald, C. (1993).
Toward Wisdom: Finding Our Way to Inner Peace, Love & Happiness.
- Manz, C. C, Manz,
K. P, Marx, R. D. and Neck, C. P. (2001), The Wisdom of Solomon at Work.
- Marcis, D. (1997).
Managing with the Wisdom of Love. Jossey-Bass.
- Maxwell, N. (1984).
From Knowledge to Wisdom. Basil Blackwell.
- McLyman L. A. (2005),
Wise Leadership (2005). Mitchigan State University Press.
- Midgley, M. (1989,
paper 1991). Wisdom, Information and Wonder: What is knowledge for?
- Mitchell, S. (1998).
The Essence of Wisdom. Broadway Books.
- Novak, P. (1994).
The World’s Wisdom. HarperSanFrancisco.
- Pruzan, P and Pruzan
M.K. (2007). Leading with Wisdom: Spiritual-Based Leadership in Business.
- Raineri, E. K.
(1996). Wisdom in the Workplace: On the Job Training for the Soul. Braino
- Reed, R. (1998).
Practical Wisdom & Timely Advice. Catawba Press.
- Rockwell, I. (2002).
The Five Wisdom Energies. Shambhala Publications.
- Saher, P.J. (1969).
Eastern Wisdom & Western Thought. George Allen & Unwin.
- Shanahan, T. and
Wang, R. (2003, second edition). Reason and Insight: Western and Eastern
Perspectives on the Pursuit of Moral Wisdom. Thomson Wadsworth.
- Smith, R. L. (1998).
A Quaker Book of Wisdom. Orion.
- Solomon, R. C.
and Higgins, K. M. (1997). A Passion for Wisdom: A Very Brief History
of Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
- Sternberg, R. J.
(Editor). (1990). Wisdom: Its nature, origins and development. Cambridge
- Sternberg, J. R.
(2003). Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized. Cambridge
- Sternberg, R. J.
and Jordon J. (Editors) (2005). A Handbook of Wisdom: Psychological
Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
- Surowiecki, J.
(2004). The Wisdom of Crowds. Random House.
- Sveiby K-E, and
Skuthorpe T. (2006). Treading Lightly: The Hidden Wisdom of the World’s
Oldest People. Allen & Unwin.
- Tolstoy, L. (1997).
A Calendar of Wisdom: Wise Thoughts for Every Days. Hodder & Stoughton.
- Upton, C. (1959).
What is Wisdom? Linden Press.
- Warburton, O. (2000).
Wisdom for the Ages. Lion Publishing.
- Watts, M. (1997).
The Wisdom of Saint Columba of Iona. Lion Publishing.
- Wolff, R. (2001).
Original Wisdom: Stories of an Ancient way of Knowing. Inner Traditions.
- Achenbaum, W.A.
(1997). The Wisdom of Age- An Historian’s Perspective. Institute on
Aging, University of Michigan, April 3.
- Ackoff, R.L. (1989).
From Data to Wisdom, Presidential Address to ISGSR, June 1988, R.L Journal
of Applied Systems Analysis. Volume 16, p3-9.
- Ardelt, M. (2000).
Intellectual versus Wisdom-Related Knowledge: The Case for a Different
Kind of Learning in the Later Years of Life. Educational Gerontology,
- Ardelt, M. (2003).
Empirical Assessment of a Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale. Research on
Aging, vol25, no3, May, 275-324.
- Ardelt, M. (2004).
Wisdom as Expert Knowledge System: A Critical Review of a Contemporary
Operationalization of an Ancient Concept. Human Development, 47: 257-285.
- Ardelt, M. (2005).
How Wise People Cope with Crises and Obstacles in Life. Revision, Vol
28, No1, Summer, p7-19.
- Atlee, T. (2002/3).
Empowered Dialogue Can Bring Wisdom to Democracy. (as “Wisdom,
Democracy and the Core Commons’ in Earthlight, Fall/Winter (www.earthlight.org)).
- Awbrey, S. M, and
Scott, D.K. (1995). Knowledge into Wisdom: Unveiling Inherent Values
and Beliefs to Construct a Wise University.
- Baltes. P.B. and
Kunzmann U. (2004). The Two Faces of Wisdom as a General Theory of Knowledge
and Judgement about Excellence in Mind and Virtue vs. Wisdom as Everyday
Realization in People and Product. Human Development, 47:290-299.
- Baltes, P.B, Staudinger,
U.M, Maercker A, and Jacqui Smith, J. (1993). People Nominated as Wise:
A Comparative Study of Wisdom-Related Knowledge. Psychology and Aging,
Vol 10, No2, pp155-166.
- Baltes, P.B, and
Staudinger, U.M, (2000). Wisdom: A Metaheuristic (Pragmatic) to Orchestrate
Mind and Virtue Toward Excellence. American Psychologist, Vol 55, No1,
- Bellinger, G, Castro,
D, and Mills, A. (2004). Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom. Systems
- Bezold, C, Bettles,
C, and Fidler, D. (2008). Wiser Futures: Using Futures Tools to Better
Understand and Create the Future. The Institute for Alternative Futures,
presentation to 2008 Annual Conference of World Future Society.
- Bierly III, P.
E, Kessler, E. H. And Christensen, E. W. (2000). Organizational Learning,
Knowledge and Wisdom. Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol
13, issue 6, p595-618.
- Bluck, S. and Gluck,
J. (2004). Making Things Better and Learning a lesson: Experiencing
Wisdom Across the Lifespan. Journal of Personality, 72:3, June, 543-572.
- Brown S.C, and
Greene, J.A. (2006). The Wisdom Development Scale: Translating the Conceptual
to the Concrete. Journal of College Student Development, January/February,
vol47, no1, pp1-19.
- Case, P, and Gosling,
J. (2007). Wisdom of the Moment: Pre-modern Perspectives on Organizational
Action. Social Epistemology A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy,
Volume 21 Issue 2, April- June, pp87-111.
- Chatterjee, D.
(2006). Wise Ways: Leadership as Relationship, Journal of Human Values
2006, 12; 153-160.
- Curnow. T (2000).
Wisdom and Philosophy. Practical Philosophy, March, Volume 3.1 page
- Gluck, J, Bluck
S, and Baron, J. (2005). The wisdom of experience: Autobiographical
narratives across adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
29 (3), 197-208.
- Hall, S.S. (2007).
The Older-and-Wiser Hypothesis. The Times Magazine, May 6.
- Hammer M. (2002).
The Getting and Keeping Of Wisdom: Inter-Generational Knowledge Transfer
in a Changing Public Service. Research Directorate, Public Service Commission
of Canada, October.
- Jearnott, T.M.
(1989). Moral Leadership and Practical Wisdom. International Journal
of Social Economics, vol 16, No 6, p14-38.
- Kekes, J. (1983).
Wisdom. American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 20, Number 3, July,
- Kessler, E. H.
(2006). Organizational Wisdom: Human, Managerial, and Strategic Implications.
Group & Organization Management, vol 31, no3, 296-299.
N, Korec-Kakabadse, A, and Kouzmin, A. (2001). Leadership Renewal: Towards
the Philosophy of Wisdom, International Review of Administrative Sciences,
Volume 67, Number 2, June, pp207-227.
- Kupers W.M. (2007).
Phenomenology and Integral Pheno-Practice of Wisdom in Leadership and
Organization, Social Epistemology A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and
Policy, Volume 21 Issue 2, April-June, pp 169-193.
- Leggat, S.C. (2003).
Turning Evidence into Wisdom. HealthcarePapers, 3 (3), 44-48.
- Lombardo, T. The
Pursuit of Wisdom and the Future of Education, www.cop.com/LombardoWFSarticle01.doc
- Lynch, R.G. (1999).
Seeking Practical Wisdom. The Journal of Business History Conference,
vol28, No2, Winter, pp123-135.
- Malan, L. C. and
Kriger, Mark P. (1998). Making Sense of Managerial Wisdom. Journal of
Management Inquiry, Vol 7, No3, September, pp242-251.
- Marchand, H. (2003).
An Overview of the Psychology Of Wisdom. Prometheus Research Group.
- Maxwell, N. Can
the World Learn Wisdom? www.pelicanweb.org/Solisustv03n04.html
- MacDonald, C. The
Wisdom Page, www.cop.com/wisdompg.html
- McKenna, B and
Rooney, D. (2005). Wisdom Management: Tensions between theory and practice
in practice. Knowledge Management in Asia Pacific Conference; Building
a Knowledge Society School of Information Management and the School
of Government, Victoria University of Wellington, November.
- McKenna, B, Rooney,
D. And Liesch (2006). Beyond Knowledge to Wisdom in International Business
Strategy. Prometheus, Vol. 24, No.3, September, pp283-300.
- McKenna, B, Rooney,
D, and Bos, R. T (2007). Wisdom as the Old Dog …. With new Tricks. Social
Epistemology A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, Volume 21 Issue
2, April- June, pp83-86.
- McKenna, B and
Rooney, D. (2007). Critical Ontological Acuity as the Foundation of
Wise Leadership. 6the Annual International Studying Leadership Conference
Warwick Business School: Purpose, Politics and Praxis, 13th/ 14th December.
- Roca, E. (2007).
Intuitive Practical Wisdom in Organizational Life, Social Epistemology:
A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, Volume 21 Issue 2, April-June,
- Rooney, D and McKenna,
B. (2005). Should the Knowledge-based Economy be a Savant or Sage? Wisdom
and Socially Intelligent Innovation, Prometheus, Vol. 23, No. 3, September.
- Rooney, D and McKenna,
B. (2007). Wisdom in Organizations: Whence and Whither. Social Epistemology
A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, Volume 21 Issue 2, April-June,
- Rowley, J. (2006).
What do we need to know about wisdom? Management Decision, Volume 44,
Number 9, pp1246-1257.
- Rowley, J. (2006).
Where is the wisdom that we have lost in knowledge. Journal of Documentation,
Vol62, No2, pp251-270.
- Small, M.W. (2004).
Wisdom and now managerial wisdom: do they have a place in management
development programs? Journal of Management Development, Vol23 no 8,
- Smith J. (1989).
Feminist Spirituality: The Way of Wisdom, British Journal of Religious
Education, vol 12 (1), pp11-14.
- Statler, M, Roos,
J, and Marterey, R (2005). Practical wisdom: re-framing the strategic
challenge of preparedness, at ‘Wisdom, Ethics and Management Stream
Critical Management Studies Conference’ July.
- Statler, M, and
Karin Oppegaard, (2007). Practical Wisdom: Integrating Ethics and Effectiveness
in Organizations, in Business Ethics as Practice, Representation, Reflexivity
and Performance, Edited by Carter, C, Clegg, S, Komberger, M, Laske
S. and Messner, M, Edward Elgar, p169-189.
- Statler, M, Roos,
J, and Victor, B. (2007). Dear Prudence: An Essay on Practical Wisdom
in Strategy Making, Social Epistemology A Journal of Knowledge, Culture
and Policy, Volume 21 Issue 2, April-June, pp151-167.
- Staudinger, U.M,
Smith, J, and Baltes P.B. (1992). Wisdom-Related Knowledge in a Life
Review Task: Age Differences and the Role of Professional Specialization,
, Psychology and Aging, vol 7, No2, pp271-281.
- Staudinger, U.M
(1999). Older and Wiser? Integrating Results on the Relationship between
Age and Wisdom-related Performance, International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 23 (3), pp 641-664.
- Staudinger, U.M
and Pasupathi, M. (2003). Correlates of Wisdom-Related Performance in
Adolescence and Adulthood: Age-Graded: Differences in “Paths”
Toward Desirable Development, Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13
- Sternberg, R. J.
(1998). A Balance Theory of Wisdom, Review of General Psychology, Vol2,
- Sternberg, R. J.
(2001). Why Schools Should Teach for Wisdom: The Balance Theory of Wisdom
in Educational Settings, Educational Psychologist, 36 (4), 227-245.
- Sternberg, R. J.
(2001). How Wise is it to teach for Wisdom? R. Sternberg, Educational
Psychologist, vol36, no4, 269-272.
- Sternberg, R. J.
(2002). It’s Not What You Know, but How You Use It: Teaching for Wisdom,
The Chronicles of Higher Education, June 28.
- Sternberg, R. J.
(2004). Words to the Wise about Wisdom? Human Development, 47:286-289.
- Webster, J.D. (2007).
Measuring the Character Strength, International Journal of Aging and
Human Development, vol 65(2), pp163-183. www.wisdomcentredlife.com
- Wisdom, (2007).
Special issue London Review of Education, Vol 5, no 2, July, including
From knowledge-inquiry to wisdom-inquiry: is the revolution underway,
Nicholas Maxwell; Commercial influences on the pursuit of wisdom, Leemon
McHenry; Teaching for wisdom: What matters is not just what students
know, but how they use it, Robert Steinberg et al; Wisdom and life-long
learning in the twenty-first century, Richard Trowbridge; Wisdom remembered:
Recovering a theological vision of wisdom for the academe, Celia Deane-Drummond;
Shakespeare on wisdom by Alan Nordstrom; and Coda: Towards the university
of wisdom, Ronald Barnett, as well as an Editorial, Wisdom in the university,
by Nicholas Maxwell and Ronald Barnett.
- Wisdom, (2008).
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 8 Jan.
- Wisdom in Management,
(2007). Special issue of Social Epistemology A Journal of Knowledge,
Culture and Policy, Volume 21 Issue 2.
- Wisdom Society
Survey Results. (2002). January.
- World Wisdom Rising,
(2007). Special issue of Kosmos, Fall/winter.
- Wright, A. (2003).
The Contours of Critical Religious Education: Knowledge, Wisdom, Truth,
British Journal of Religious Education, 25 (4) pp279-291.
Professor Bruce Lloyd, PhD
Bruce spent over 20 years in industry and finance before joining the
academic world a decade ago to help establish the Management Centre at
what is now London South Bank University.
has a degree in Chemical Engineering and a MSc (Economics) / MBA from
the London Business School. He obtained his PhD (by published work) in
1996 for his work on 'The Future of Offices and office Work: Implications
for Organisational Strategy'.
the past twenty years he has been involved on the Executive of the Strategic
Planning Society and as a Council Member of the (now) Chartered Management
Institute. He was a member of the latter's Advisory Board for a research
project on 'Leadership: A Challenge for All' and was involved in a development
of that project which was specifically concerned with leadership issues
in the public sector.
the late 1960's he has written extensively on a wide range of strategy
related issues, including an article 'Leadership and Power: Where Responsibility
Makes the Difference', in 'Coaching for Leadership: How the World's Greatest
Coaches Help Leaders Learn', Edited by Marshall Goldsmith, Laurence Lyons
and Alyssa Freas, Jossey-Bass (2000)) and more recently he has been exploring
the relationship between Power, Responsibility, Leadership, Wisdom, Knowledge
Management and Strategy which has resulted in several articles on that
has also undertaken over 30 interviews with leading thinkers on leadership
published in 'Leadership and Organizational Development Journal', as well
other interviews for the 'Tomorrow Project Bulletin'. He was also the
UK co-ordinator for ACUNU 'The Millennium Project' 1999-2005.