Back once again with the fantastic Pam Atherton on A Closer Look Radio, Eric ties together the disparate topics of locavore restaurants, revolution in Egypt, and fake government shutdowns to what it all means for YOU and your business.

Culture is a huge issue in competitive intelligence. It all comes down to whether your organization can handle good news AND bad news, or just the happy “We’re number one!” sunshine reports. If a corporate culture can’t maturely deal with both positive and negative information, real intelligence is nearly impossible.

This is probably worst in America. In the words of former Senator Adlai Stevenson “You will find that the truth is often unpopular and the contest between agreeable fancy and disagreeable fact is unequal. For, in the vernacular, we Americans are suckers for good news.” In all but the most sophisticated companies, good news goes up the chain and earns a pat on the head, while if you try to pass along negative information about your competitive position, people may say that you’re “not a team player.”

That said, get a load of Nokia’s new CEO in a memo to his company about the competition in the smartphone market!

“The first iPhone shipped in 2007, and we still don’t have a product that is close to their experience. Android came on the scene just over 2 years ago, and this week they took our leadership position in smartphone volumes. Unbelievable.“

What? A CEO saying to the entire company that they are headed in the wrong direction and honestly assessing the position of their competitors in public? These are the Finnish, a wary and shrewd people historically surrounded by aggressive empires and bitter cold. Their skeptical nature is what led them to get into cell phones at the end of the Cold War, realizing that the end of the USSR could mean the end of their business – and they acted boldly to make new investments.

Want more? Check out the brutal honesty:

• “…there is intense heat coming from our competitors, more rapidly than we ever expected. Apple disrupted the market by redefining the smartphone and attracting developers to a closed, but very powerful ecosystem.”
• “They changed the game, and today, Apple owns the high-end range.”
• “Google has become a gravitational force, drawing much of the industry’s innovation to its core.”
• “We have some brilliant sources of innovation inside Nokia, but we are not bringing it to market fast enough. We thought MeeGo would be a platform for winning high-end smartphones. However, at this rate, by the end of 2011, we might have only one MeeGo product in the market.”
• “…Symbian is proving to be an increasingly difficult environment in which to develop to meet the continuously expanding consumer requirements…”
• “Our competitors aren’t taking our market share with devices; they are taking our market share with an entire ecosystem.”
• “We poured gasoline on our own burning platform. I believe we have lacked accountability and leadership to align and direct the company through these disruptive times. We had a series of misses. We haven’t been delivering innovation fast enough. We’re not collaborating internally. Nokia, our platform is burning.”

Read the whole thing.

Now tell me, does a culture of competitive intelligence come from the top, or what?

Does anybody need economists?

This is the subject of a fascinating polemic raised by our colleague Gregor MacDonald. He notes, in an incredible understatement, “economists don’t ‘do’ energy.” They are content to set Keynes and Hayek in a never-ending cage match over monetarism versus free markets, while petroleum dwindles, Boomers retire, technology flattens work hierarchies – while real things are actually happening.

Some of the debate is set off by the paper embedded below by a Federal Reserve Bank economist. As the title indicates, he doesn’t think much of the input of non-specialists. We then have a similar question for his profession – how is it that we all participate in economic activity, and only you feel qualified to comment on it? And while we’re on the subject, why didn’t you predict an absurdly obvious bubble and subsequent crash?

Some things are too difficult for the laity to understand. Most of the hard sciences are really impossible to comprehend to outsiders, and news reports on their breakthroughs are often comically misunderstood. But is economics a hard science? Isn’t it a social science based around people trading things? Can we discuss our economy without the need for technocrats of this sort?

Economics is Hard

For those of you who know Gregor MacDonald, you know you’re in for a treat with this podcast- a full hour of some of Gregor’s latest forecasts on energy, economics and society, insights you simply won’t get anywhere else.

For those of you who haven’t discovered Gregor yet, he is one of the top energy analysts in the world, and in our minds, one of the top analysts of anything, period.

This podcast covers sweeping ground:

• Why we’re at peak automobiles
• The end of cheap oil
• Coal’s role in the development of the world economy
• The return to human capital and small towns
• Why waterways are the future
• Our current period of “late phase economic decadence
• Why PAKISTAN holds the key to the Copenhagen Protocol

Crazier still, we could have spend ANOTHER hour talking to him and still not exhausted him of insight.

Enjoy.

Professor Karl Moore from McGill, who did that interview with Michael Porter the other day on the future of business’ role in society, is back with a TED talk he gave on the future of post-modern management. He notes that as the internet creates a system of “algorithmic authority” and tears down the rigidity of authority, “leadership” and “management” will have less impact on team-building than partnership, especially for those under age thirty-five.

Given the role of larger and larger bureaucracies in many key industries, this reality will be quite disruptive.

This is a timely and very mature view on the changing role of business in society. Michael Porter, still the world’s leading authority on traditional business strategy, leaps out and asks some fascinating questions of private industry as a whole: does it realize the difference between its narrow self-interest and the broader society to which it is indelibly interconnected?

I particularly like how he distinguishes between multiple levels of not understanding social interconnection and responsibility. One end of the spectrum, you have the Madoffs and “banksters” of the world, pathologically removing value from society and giving absolutely nothing back. Toward the grey zone, you have businesses who may profit while destroying the social and economic fabric of the places around them, throwing on some charitable giving as a band-aid.

This talk is an important signal to private industry. Clearly, the lack of connection between business and society is so great that you not only have the occasional death threat on banking executives for taking bonuses straight from the US federal treasury, you have well-paid, world-famous consultants actually asking the question, “So why do we even have business, anyway?” Seriously, Michael Porter isn’t exactly a Trotskyite radical.

This isn’t connectivity for the sake of feeling good, it is a methodology that will lead you to provide value to your customers and withstand the forces of competition. Superconnection is the future.

A thought drifts through my head as I consider the Dubai debacle and the high-traffic/low-sales results from the semi-sinisterly named Black Friday retail festival:

Seriously, wasn’t that just a few months ago that everything was green, since the price of oil was driven so high by speculation?

Then September of 2008 arrived and suddenly things were about ethical business. After all, it was that nasty greed that ruined everything – and a lack of transparency! That’s it, now all business needs to be ethical and transparent…and green, too, of course!

Yet today, we’re thinking about just how many world banks were up to their knees in can’t-miss Dubai real estate projects and hoping that the world’s currencies don’t catch fire.

This is why leadership needs to be about long-term structural trends. The media can’t hype up the Boomer retirement, it can’t negotiate with the oil present in Brazil, nor deny that most of the world’s young people live in Latin America, Africa, and Central Asia. When we build our plans around real trends rather than hype, we don’t have to re-write our strategies every few months. Real leaders will find that comforting.

Clay Shirky recently began exploring a significantly important idea in Intelligence 2.0, that of algorithmic authority, a new form of trust that befits the complex informational environment of the 21st century. For those of us who assemble large amounts of data for decision makers, authority is critical, and it is under major stress due to the Internet. Until recently, you could help leaders make the most informed decisions by assembling the most authoritative sources, interpret the implications of that data, and go forth understanding several potential courses of action. Today, we must also add a new dimension – evaluating the validity of the information as the barriers to entry fall in the world of printing and distribution. Shirky’s theory helps us in this regard:

Algorithmic authority is the decision to regard as authoritative an unmanaged process of extracting value from diverse, untrustworthy sources, without any human standing beside the result saying “Trust this because you trust me.” This model of authority differs from personal or institutional authority, and has, I think, three critical characteristics.

First, it takes in material from multiple sources, which sources themselves are not universally vetted for their trustworthiness, and it combines those sources in a way that doesn’t rely on any human manager to sign off on the results before they are published. This is how Google’s PageRank algorithm works, it’s how Twitscoop’s zeitgeist measurement works, it’s how Wikipedia’s post hoc peer review works. At this point, its just an information tool.

Second, it produces good results, and as a consequence people come to trust it. At this point, it’s become a valuable information tool, but not yet anything more.

The third characteristic is when people become aware not just of their own trust but of the trust of others: “I use Wikipedia all the time, and other members of my group do as well.” Once everyone in the group has this realization, checking Wikipedia is tantamount to answering the kinds of questions Wikipedia purports to answer, for that group. This is the transition to algorithmic authority.

The most important implications of any strategic trend is usually not that your organization must do something drastic, it is that your organization is obsolete and can’t respond effectively at all.

Case in point: newspapers and the Internet. It’s not so much that newspapers could have done something to maintain their business model of classified advertising, it’s that they need a brand new business model and structure to survive. If that is the major implication of the trends we track as strategic analysts, then we almost must develop skills to help organizations change quickly and painlessly.

On that note, check out this talk from Aurora WDC’s Arik Johnson on the future of organizations, recorded at last month’s Intelligence Collaborative meeting in Washington.

Nokia is the poster child for futures thinking at the corporate level. They pulled off the amazing feat of transitioning their company from logging supplies, rubber boots and toilet paper over to cell phones, spurred by the transformative event of the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union. (How did they pull this off? I detail it in my book “Future Inc.”)

Finland in general, due to their somewhat obscure position in Europe and the humility of being regularly invaded by Swedes and Russians alike for centuries, has become REALLY good at foresight. Thus, it’s no surprise to see Nokia’s vision for our digital lives in 2015 laid out in beautiful graphical scenarios as in the video below.

I’m very excited for our upcoming inaugural meeting, this Thursday of our new, increasingly global, professional society, The Intelligence Collaborative.

The following video explains what intelligence is, why we need to collaborate, and why now is the perfect moment.

Have a look at the video, and if you’re anywhere in the MidAtlantic region, consider a trip to our nation’s capital this Thursday. Tickets are free – just bring your interest in how social media will change the practice of intelligence.

It is more than enough work thinking about how the world is changing. Exceedingly few people think about how people think about the changing world. I’m proud to say I know some great folks who are on the cutting edge of understanding intelligence and decision making. Here, we’ve got a copy of the latest Competitive Intelligence Podcast, the brainchild of August Jackson. This time, he’s interviewing our friend and colleague Arik Johnson of the intelligence consulting firm Aurora WDC, on his view of the present and future of intelligence and its effect on leadership. The interview is broad ranging

• A new paradigm of intelligence: scarcity of analysis instead of scarcity of information
• The “perpetual beta” mindset, one of rapidly-changing technology and reduced barriers to entry
• The next decade of competitive intelligence: CI 2020
• CI’s evolving role as a mechanism and process to correct for cognitive bias
• The importance of a customer-centric model in delivering intelligence

It’s a great year to revisit our assumptions on how decisions are made. This is a great discussion to get you kicked off.

It is impossible to fix any problem while continuing to use the mindset that created that problem. This is an old saw, used to extoll the virtues of examining your assumptions.

Naturally, if you want the opposite of the Wall Street-speculator-growth-at-all-costs model, you need to talk to people who remember lots of past and have been around to see lots of future – Native Americans. I have the great honor of working with Mr. Jack Soto, director of the Washington Internship for Native Students (WINS) program at American University on issues of tribal leadership and the future. Jack’s program brings native students from around the continent to Washington to connect them with the mechanistic workings of Washington.

In this podcast, we go deep into the difference in perspective between US corporate, suburban culture and the constant rebirth going on in the native communities, what it means for their nations, and what we can learn from each other about the recreation of communities.

And we’re not diving into the typical, “Native Peoples Are More Holistic” claptrap. During the hour, we get into the deep background in complex business transactions that most tribes have, their process of constantly recreating nations and governments to suit evolving reality, casinos and their effect, Jack Abramoff (“Live and Learn“), why natives aren’t really environmentalists, and much more.

Enjoy.

I am glad to see Douglas Ruskoff weigh in on our current situation. He’s a fantastic thinker, humanistic and often contrarian, the author of many books including the recent Get Back in the Box: Innovation from the Inside Out, which is about the foolishness of senseless innovation. If I read Rushkoff correctly, he sees economics as a distinctly human, connected enterprise, and the absolute opposite of where our commercial leadership has taken us.

He presents some major, major ideas:

• The recent goal of business has been to make every company a holding company, one whose purpose is the acquisition and/or management of debt as opposed to a group of competent people who do things for other people
• People at all levels have become more interested in the perceived value of assets (homes, shares of companies, CDOs) than the actual value that they might ever produce
• Most of these ideas are supporting people who may not even be in the system – long-gone investors, maybe even dead guys
• The monetary system is not about encouraging trade, but often preventing trade
• The American Revolution came about because England forbid people from providing each other with services
• LOCAL CURRENCIES used to be very popular and could be again
• We were probably better off economically in the Late Middle Ages (the Black Death notwithstanding)

We need to revisit our total concept of value creation. It’s great that Rushkoff is lending a hand.

One of the great missing pieces in futures research is an adequate understanding of the human psychology of foresight. We have been talking to leaders about a rapidly moving future for around 70 years, and yet most people would agree that we haven’t quite arrived at a “foresight culture.”

The Long Now Foundation just pointed out a new article in the venerable journal Science which is finally seeking to understand The Psychology of Transcending the Here and Now.

People directly experience only themselves here and now but often consider, evaluate, and plan situations that are removed in time or space, that pertain to others’ experiences, and that are hypothetical rather than real. People thus transcend the present and mentally traverse temporal distance, spatial distance, social distance, and hypotheticality. We argue that this is made possible by the human capacity for abstract processing of information. We review research showing that there is considerable similarity in the way people mentally traverse different distances, that the process of abstraction underlies traversing different distances, and that this process guides the way people predict, evaluate, and plan near and distant situations.

From my own experience, the future is certainly abstract to people – something they consider – whereas the present is visceral – something they feel in their guts.

If I tell you the 2007 Case-Schiller price index indicates a once-in-a-lifetime bubble for housing, one that will soon pop, you file this under “interesting ideas to consider.”

When I show you a picture of the 4000 sqaure foot house that you are inexplicably allowed to purchase under lax banking regulations and unverified income, you file this under, “very awesome things.” The abstraction of the banking system is no match for the visceral awesomeness of being able to purchase a suburban castle with six bathrooms.

I think most people in a global economy will not take the time to consider the roots of confirmation bias is such depth. But I sincerely hope that every leader of business and government will.

This weekend I came together with philosopher Chris Largent and “America’s Top Ego Rancher” Sue Snyder for an event called “The First 100 Days of the Future.” This all-day seminar was designed to bring participants quickly up to speed on major trends and to apply them right away to a “Template for Recovery” that they could use immediately to move themselves and their organizations to a more positive future.

The major takeaway for us: people are tired of bad news and excited to begin the process of creation. The best feedback we received was, “I came in here nervous about the future of the world and walked out full of hope, new ideas, and new tools I can apply today.”

And that, folks, is why we do this.

With the release of Future, Inc. in Korean and Chinese, I’ve had the great opportunity to do interviews with Asian business magazines. I find that they ask more interesting, more insightful questions than many of their Western counterparts, so they are often fun interviews. The only problem is, once they are translated, I have NO IDEA what they said.

I just finished an interview with Korea’s KRX Magazine, which covers the Korean stock market and business in general, and I decided to post the whole text in English, so someone can appreciate it.

The questions:

Companies have hard time in business due to the global financial crisis. What new trends can we look for?

The most important trend is away from the philosophy of growth at all costs. For years, particularly in the United States, management has followed a typical playbook – get big, quickly, through borrowing money from private venture capital or public offerings. Then, you can go national or international, reaching bigger markets and gaining leverage over vendors and distributors. Once you have leverage over vendors and distributors, you cut costs by firing excess employees and force downward price pressure on the market. With the extra cash from operating expenses, you buy more national or international companies. For around forty years companies have repeated this formula.

The theme here was BIG BIG BIG. The problem with “big” is that it sometimes comes at the expense of “smart.”

The financial crisis in the United States illustrates this theme perfectly. Financial institutions were merging at an unprecedented rate, devouring already huge national banks until only a few savings banks, investment banks, and insurance companies remained. The international approach leaves managers little room to be creative or to make exceptional strategies. Once you are at a global size, you are less able than ever to adapt to a changing world. All these companies had the same goals and the same risk models. To obtain profits for their international stock holders, they felt obligated to balloon the size of the housing market – even though this ultimately destabilized the world economy. Presumably, smaller companies would have had the agility to choose different strategies in response to these unprecedented changes.

As a result, I believe the counter-trend of the next couple of decades will be SMALL, ENTREPRENEURIAL, and LOCAL. This is the opposite of many of the trends we have seen in the past decades, which is why I believe we are in such a critical moment in history. This point should be of particular interest to Koreans, since this change will have important implications for the chaebol system.

The pharmaceutical industry illustrates why small and smart companies may likely beat large organizations in the future. The past decade has seen unprecedented mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical sector, making enormous global corporations like  Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKlein, and Novartis. The thought was that large corporations could combine their research and development budgets and make new, maybe even revolutionary drugs faster and more profitably. That simply hasn’t happened. New drug applications at the Food and Drug Administration appear to be unchanged since 1999. The strategy today, as a result, is to find small, innovative companies and to buy their intellectual property while it’s cheap. The implication is interesting -  it says that size is not the benefit it has been assumed to be.

What efforts should countries make home and abroad, respectively, in order to be a leading power.

The future of economic prosperity will be dependant on a number of social, economic, and political factors, but there are some characteristics that will make the winners of tomorrow.

INFRASTRUCTURE: A country’s infrastructure – railways, airports, roads, hospitals, electrical grids, telecommunications, etc. – leads the way for entrepreneurial companies to create new business. Look at Asia versus Latin America. The Western countries have moved significant portions of their manufacturing sector to Asia in the past twenty years.  The theory behind this is that companies wanted to take advantage of lower labor costs – after all, China is a long way from France and the United States!

But wait, if all America needed was cheap labor, Latin American countries featured low-cost labor forces, all of whom speak a language closer to English than Mandarin, and much, much closer. The difference was infrastructure – the port of Shanghai can process container ships in a few hours, while the ports of San Salvador can require WEEKS of wait time. Interconnected rail, roads, airports, and seaports made the difference in the economic fate of nations.

You can thus see the potential winners of the future today. China is investing 9% of its GDP in infrastructure. The Korean government’s “Vision 2030” program focuses heavily on infrastructure investment, which you can see in that it has the best Internet connectedness in the world (I believe.) Meanwhile, the United States is investing less than 2% of its GDP in infrastructure – and our levies are bursting (Hurricane Katrina) and bridges are collapsing for no reason (Interstate 35 in Minneapolis.) Europe is fixing bridges and building more high-speed rail.

Another part of infrastructure is EDUCATION. This will be particularly interesting in light of the trend in online education, which could bring all sorts of training to the developing world. We’re evolving into a knowledge economy, moving to higher value-added products. Education and job skill training will determine who will win and lose in the coming decades. Once again, I am particularly worried for the United States, which has been increasing the cost of education at a rapid pace without increasing the quality. As a result millions of our young people enter the job market with thousands of dollars in debt.

Also part of national infrastructure is HEALTHCARE. Since the population of the developed world is aging at such a rapid pace, success will come to those countries who can provide their citizens with good quality healthcare without overly taxing businesses and citizens.

What strategies and blue prints for the future should business leaders have?

ANY plan for the future would be nice. I think that a professional approach to foresight must be standard skills for every leader of business and government. I travel the world talking to executives, and it shocks me how few leaders are able to answer the following question: “What are three major trends in the world, and how will they affect your organization in the long-term.”

So I don’t have specific recommendations for future blueprints – I simply recommend that leaders learn how to make them.

What would happen in the global economic landscape when all the dust in the financial markets settles down?

My prediction is for an increase in trade barriers, slowing of globalization, and increase in national regulations.

Globalization is positive in the way it has increased prosperity and alleviated poverty – but the downside is that it is very hard to manage. We can trade together, but it quite difficult to manage multi-national problems such as global warming and the credit crisis because all leaders must answer to their own citizens, each with a special set of values and goals. The credit crisis has been particularly toxic, since so much of it began in the United States and its decisions about regulations in finance and housing. What do you do if you are affected by one set of decisions, but you can’t really influence them? I think the answer will be to insulate nations from the decisions of other countries, at least in the short-term.

What are the challenges for the new president of the United States regarding the financial debacle?

The challenge is to regulate while allowing innovation. It’s not fair to any one president -  an incredible task in the face of decades of policy that lacked foresight – but I believe the Obama Administration can set the stage for decades of success or failure in its reaction to this crisis.

Many American policymakers, unlike their Asian and European colleagues, have been operating under the assumption that private industry can act in its own interest with minimal guidance from national policy and regulation and that the result will be positive for both individuals and nations as a whole. The financial crisis shows that actually, companies can act in their individual interest and lead both individuals and the nation off a cliff.

The answer is NOT the establishment of giant national regulatory bureaucracies that remind us of Soviet-era politburos – it was a disaster then, it would be a disaster now. So this government has to strike a very delicate balance – it must set up a strong national economic and industrial policy, accompanied by regulators who can exact penalties on companies that commit transgressions. But it must allow those companies to be started quickly and easily and to choose innovative strategies, to keep the spirit of American entrepreneurialism alive and well.

I think the Obama Administration has a lot of work ahead of it.

Let’s say the America used to be the center of the world in the past and China would take over the U.S. in the future. What changes would the ordinary people on the globe experience in a world where China is the most powerful country?

First, it will be difficult to directly compare China directly to the United States in the post-Cold War era. The United States had an economic, industrial, political, and culture advantage in a way that might not ever be duplicated. The rest of the world has been developing economically in the meantime, and the United States is unlikely to disappear from the world.

Also, language will change how China can extend its power in the 21st century. English is currently the international language, and that is unlikely to change no matter what China does. There are already billions of people who use English as a first or second language.

What is your outlook on the Asian economies, including Korea?

One of the biggest issues is AGING POPULATIONS. Japan, China, and Korea all have unprecedented proportions of their populations reaching old age in the coming decades and an insufficient number of young people of working age to support social programs. This is no different than Europe and the United States, but both of those regions will benefit from more liberal immigration policies to attract talent workers. The future of Asian economies will depend significantly on the responses to this issue.

Otherwise, I’m interested to see how China will balance its rural populations and its newly urbanized industrial population on its east coast. The difference in the values and needs between both populations will cause much difficulty for the Chinese government, and there is already the spectre of unrest that threatens growth in the country.

Could you tell me ‘keyword of future’ that people need to know.

Entrepreneur. The future belongs to those who can create new businesses quickly in respond to rapid change. Nations need to create a culture and an infrastructure to encourage entrepreneurial activity, or these changes will appear very unwelcome.

The last question. Could you give some advice to Koreans as to what they must do to prepare for the future?

Maintain your national identity! The age of undifferentiated global brands and mass manufacturing seems to be coming to an end, and those who are thriving (nations and companies) have a competitive advantage because they do something very well that nobody else does. France still does luxury very well, as does Italy. Japan and Switzerland excel at ultra-complex manufacturing because as a people, they love details.

Besides if you give up kim chi, bulgoki, and tae kwon do, I’ll be very upset.

Again, stop whatever elese you were doing, like reading things I wrote about 2009, and read Jim Kunstler’s forecasts about 2009. The author of The Long Emergency is experiencing the unenviable task of seeing dire structural change ahead, change that won’t be mollified by new gadgets, and being right about its consequences.

Some highlights:

He’s not a fan of techno-solutions. (not unlike yours truly)

The various tech industries are full of MIT-certified, high-achiever Status Quo techno-triumphalists who are convinced that electric cars or diesel-flavored algae excreta will save suburbia, the three thousand mile Caesar salad, and the theme park vacation. The environmental movement, especially at the elite levels found in places like Aspen, is full of Harvard graduates who believe that all the drive-in espresso stations in America can be run on a combination of solar and wind power. I quarrel with these people incessantly. It seems especially tragic to me that some of the brightest people I meet are bent on mounting the tragic campaign to sustain the unsustainable in one way or another.

He sees Dow 4000:

A consensus in the blogoshpere says that the stock markets will rebound strongly during the first Obama months. This is possible just on the basis of pure “animal spirits,” but the Obama Bounce will occur against a background of continued dismal business and financial news. It will appear to defy that news. By May of 2009, the stock markets will resume crashing with the ultimate destination of a Dow 4000 before the end of the year.

He believes that you’ll actually need positive cash flow to make a business run (old-fashioned, but radical!):

We’ll turn around early in 2009 and discover that we are a much poorer nation than we thought because from now on credit will be extremely hard to get for anyone for anything. The businesses that survive will have to keep going on the basis of accounts receivable…Giant enterprises requiring giant loans to get from quarter to quarter will tend to not make it. Borrowing from the future will become a practical impossibility as past bad debts from previous borrowings continue to unwind, cease performing, and get written off.

Real change. Not new technologies for old philosophies. Nobody will save the day. We’ll need to make workable solutions for many different types of people.

And still – people will need things. Goods and services will be required, perhaps just different types.

Business development will need to be on its toes! Are you ready?

The following is a response to “Future Trends 2025″ from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf.)

Despite its goal of looking incisively at the next 17 years, its total inability to provide insight on the future is a danger to all of us. With our institutions failing at around one per week (!) it seems it’s time for a real discussion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The meltdown of the financial system; the collapse of the automotive industry; the impending bankruptcy of several American cities — these events tell even the casual observer that our institutions are weak when it comes to the ability to perceive and act on future trends. Most people might say that this is part of the human condition, the result of our natural short-term thinking in a complex, rapidly changing world. But this shortcoming of foresight is reaching a dangerous level that can no longer be considered acceptable. We must develop an institutional capability in the public and private sector to have frank, courageous discussions about the implications of strategic trends – and the actions they require – if we are to guide our society safely and prosperously into the years ahead.

A recent release by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shows how pervasive the lack of a professional method of foresight has become, even in the places where we expect it and need it most. The ODNI just published a report entitled “Global Trends 2025,” a major effort of the nation’s sixteen intelligence agencies and several think tanks, supposedly intended to inform the new presidential administration. Given the resources committed to such an endeavor, one would expect the project to be a tour de force of professional foresight, a foil for stimulating discussion among leaders everywhere. Instead it is a cautionary tale of group think, narrowness of scope, and faulty methodology.

The content of the work offers little insight for those would guide our institutions in uncertain times. The summary of these global trends is: “By 2025, the accelerating pace of globalization and the emergence of new powers will produce a world order vastly different from the system in place for most of the post-World War II era.” In other words, the next seventeen years are unlikely to be like the last sixty years. This is not exactly “actionable intelligence.”

The individual trends detailed in the report are just as weak, combining unexamined assumptions and sclerotic analysis. Other projections in “Global Trends 2025″: include:

• “Russia’s emergence as a world power is clouded by lagging investment in its energy sector and the persistence of crime and government corruption.” Poverty, lack of investment and corruption in Russia has been going on for about 1000 years. What’s new?

• “A worldwide shift to a new technology that replaces oil will be under way or accomplished by 2025.” This is wishful thinking at best. The International Energy Agency’s recent forecast sees fossil fuels continuing to supply the vast majority of the world’s energy through 2030. This report offers vague hopes for biofuels, and assumes oil will be on the way out – a canyon-jumping leap of faith.

• “The likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used will increase with expanded access to technology and a widening range of options for limited strikes.” This forecast has been written repeatedly, on a regular basis, for the past 50 years. What should we do differently?

• “The impact of climate change will be uneven, with some Northern economies, notably Russia and Canada, profiting from longer growing seasons and improved access to resource reserves.” This is a landmark entry in the annals of positive spin, and one that ignores that the most important part of global climate change will be the actions we take in response.

The bland, inaccurate and un-provocative content, shows that while these agencies go through the motions of a foresight methodology, they have lost the spirit of the exercise entirely. It was the threat of thermonuclear holocaust that led these very organizations in the 1960s to invent futures research in the first place. The tools of forecasting and scenarios were designed not for their capacity for prophecy, but to provoke an examination of our cherished – and potentially harmful – unexamined assumptions. To become lost in groupthink in 1960 was to perhaps lead our country aimlessly into nuclear annihilation. Foresight was intended to make us think while there was still time.

The DNI’s latest report seems to show that our intelligence agencies no longer study the future with rigor and intellectual stimulation as the goal. Instead, we see a view of the future that was agreed upon by committee: unoffensive, ambigious, and of minimal utility to leaders attempting to think deeply about the challenges to come.

A rigorous, courageous approach to foresight is no longer a luxury, reserved to times of plenty or relegated to philosophers. Leaders of all organizations – everywhere – must commit themselves to developing an organizational capacity to understand future trends, examine their impact completely, and to motivate others to action. To fail in this challenge is to continue to suffer the fate we see in our critical institutions today.

This Thursday at 6:00 pm I’ll be speaking at the American Society for Training and Development’s local chapter meeting here in the Washington DC area. This influential group asked me to put together a program on the specifics of training leaders to think about the future, especially given all the new stuff happening at this moment in history. I’m quite looking forward to the discussion!

Are you in the DC area? If you want to come, just click here to sign up for the event. More info below.

Future Leaders Now!

November 13, 2008
6:00 pm – 8:30 pm

Hyatt Bethesda
One Bethesda Metro Center / 7400 Wisconsin Avenue
Bethesda, 20814 / ph: 301.657.1234

Unprecedented social trends on the horizon will make the profession of training and development more important than ever. Our institutions are faced with challenges with no parallel in history: shrinking water tables, global immigration, climate change, skyrocketing healthcare costs. The world needs leaders now, to do that which has never been done.

These leaders won’t just appear – the must be trained and developed. The need for education of new skills and mindsets is staggering. Even the needs are changing every day as the global economic system shifts before our very eyes. Join Eric Garland, a futurist and consultant to leaders around the globe, in a dialogue about how the training industry has the opportunity to shape our common future – and what you can do today!

As a result of participating in this engaging presentation you will:

• Understand the worldwide professional demographic challenge
• See the latest in global economic changes and their influence on the workplace performance industry
• Preview the critical role that the workplace performance industry will play in shaping the future workforce

God bless YouTube, this is very cool.

In case you want a taste of the logic behind major change, this is JFK reading the Declaration of Independence, in its entirety.

Words written by fallible human beings, but powerful, and remembered.

This post comes from the fabulous Caribou Coffee on East-West Highway in Silver Spring, Maryland. It’s a calm, gray day here across from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration building as people mill dreamily about, trying desperately to adjust to the time change as the morning’s caffeine sets in.

Tomorrow we will have a national election. My district’s voting will be right here, at NOAA. My neighbors and I will gather, likely to sit in line for what we will perceive to be an absurd amount of time. Out of pure faith, we assume that these votes will be accurately counted, and that the policy direction of this nation will be changed.

Does any of this matter? Aren’t we the prisoners of demographic and economic shifts? Don’t the entrenched and powerful cancel out any change we might try to engender? Can a leader really get anything done in just a few years?

Yes, it matters deeply. Leadership is still critically important in these complex, confusing times – perhaps moreso. I think that people in Western countries have been in stable political and economic systems for so long, that we are sometimes skeptical about the ability to change for good or for bad. That change is made possible – or impossible – by individual leaders, their mindsets, their skills, and the actions they take. The world is a different place because of them.

I am currently reading about Caesar Augustus, a man who said on his deathbed, “I found Rome made of clay; I give it to you made of marble.” His actions, in a few short decades, likely led to the establishment of Europe as a coherent cultural and political entity for two millennia after his death.

OK, so he’s probably credited as the most effective leader ever – how can we match up to historical standards on a daily basis?

By using the same process of long-term vision, tempered by modern management techniques. How do you do that?

We’re working on it. In fact, today, a group of like-minded managerial philosophers are meeting today for a project we call the “Next Generation Leadership Institute.” Over the next year, we’ll be exploring these questions in great detail. The moment is too important to let pass.

More to come.

At a conference in Charlotte, North Carolina, working with executives on future trends and their relationship to risk management. It’s an exciting time to be discussing global change and potential scenarios, especially in the wake of the financial debacle where real things are changing at a breakneck pace.

One woman put a fine point on our predicament. “The worst part of this is that our leaders are being revealed as the emperors who have no clothes. We require a certain degree of strength and trustworthiness in our authority figures. But a lot of these guys are looking ignorant, fraudulent, or worse.”

I think the answer here is not anarchy. Our economic system is far too complex to ever revert to operating our countries and industries without some degree of hierarchical leadership.

Trust in leadership is already shaken by the terrifying sudden meltdown of the world credit market. Thinking in terms of scenarios, if we have one or two or crises to follow up the financial catastrophe, how much less power will our institutions carry? Why listen to the news? Why pay attention to cabinet ministers? What does the boss know? He might be out of a job tomorrow too.

The fact remains, we will need leadership to guide institutions through the many challenges on the horizon. Reputation will be an important part of maintaining influence.

We live in a rapidly changing world, yet it often seems that our leaders are more terrified than ever in admitting mistakes. Think of the standard Washington political non-denial-denial, the expert blame deflection, the passive-voice “mistakes were made” begrudging semi-admission of responsibility.

Imagine how rarely we hear the words, “I got it wrong. I thought the world was one way, but it turned out to be more complex than that. Now I know better.” It’s as if authority figures are afraid that anybody who admits error will never be trusted again.

Yesterday, I expressed shock that Greenspan did not see the broader picture of the United States financial system, new kinds of risk, and the complex interaction with world markets. For somebody with so many advisors and access to information at any price, I am still a bit surprised.

Still, I don’t want to let the moment pass without simply expressing gratitude to a man big enough to admit his assumptions did not match the moment. More than ever I believe that we are on the verge of a new paradigm in leadership, in management, in economics, and in society. Paradigm has been overused and badly used, but I think it’s finally appropriate. If there is change this significant on the horizon, many people will make mistakes.

For our institutions to survive and thrive we must possess the ability to admit mistakes, take responsibility, seek new perspectives, and move forward. I read people who are surprised that Greenspan was willing to “take abuse” and “take part of the blame” in his testimony to Congress. Yes, it’s that rare. But far more important is the example of a man of the highest position in society willing to admit that his assumptions were invalid.

I remain critical, but I am impressed and grateful.