Category Archives: Socio-Economy

Chaos Today, Creativity Tomorrow

Why the World’s Falling Apart, and Why It’s a Good Thing

Author’s Note: After having written for Triple Bottom Line for three years, it is time to string the work together. My work has been about defining the Big Picture, re-imagining new definitions for old concepts, and indicating a path ahead. This is to give a context for social responsibility. If we understand what things are, and how they work, we may be internally motivated to make the right individual and collective decisions. This has been my drift. With this review, the reader may understand the great canvas upon which today’s dramatic events are painted. They will realize that this chaos was predictable all along.

Tip: View all the articles reprinted together on The Salaam Matrix website here. 

True Government of the People: It Starts!

As the scenes of a nation-by-nation Arab uprising unfold on the TV screen, I am reminded of the foresight published on the pages of Triple Bottom Line: “The Internet is the government of the commons, which has leveled social, and class and racial and other barriers. For the first time in history, humans across the globe have created a government that is truly a government of the people, by the people, for the people.” (The Internet: True Government of the People; Dec 2008 issue.)

Two years later, the words have rung true. On Facebook and Twitter, people are gathering to take down governments, to form alternative and inclusive governments, and to create bottom-up constitutions. Saudis have taken to the Facebook to create a group, “The people want reform of the system” (in Arabic). This group is proposing a 10-point constitution that includes “public freedoms and the rights of women”.

The point? The change that has been spoken of for so long is finally here. Internet has changed the nations, and it may even begin to reform physical boundaries if need be.

Meanwhile, WikiLeaks has transformed the art of governance using guerrilla tactics. One may say that WikiLeaks opens governments and Facebook & Twitter change governments. The change is not only of a national and international nature, but it is at once local and micro.

Change: All Hands, On Board!

That was the point of the June 2010 article, 6point8 Billion: The Citizen Stakeholders. We now have the technology to engage each and every person, potentially, in governance and creative enterprise. No human left behind. Using electronic connectivity, the human specie can develop the inclusive efficiency and enterprise of bee and ant colonies, and we can be as elegant as a shoal of fish that dances in amazing, instantaneous synchronicity.

But with great power comes great responsibility, and, some fear, great danger. Who will control this suddenly empowered humanity? Do we not need to return to an era of tightly controlling super-ethical rulers who rule badly behaving humans through a mix of fear and punishment? No. The times of humanity’s darkness are over (though the opposite seems to be the case). The evolutionary course of humanity has been running on such a path that eventually each person shall be responsible for their own action, and also have the capability to choose and comprehend their action without the need to turn to a single hero human (or ‘guru’) for their interpretation.

This is the highest form of an ethical society. This is not a governance-free society, rather a self-regulating one. In such a society, the core unit is an individual: their aspirations, enterprise, and the benevolent-for-others path that they take in order to both thrive personally and do well to the other.

This individual can only thrive in a hyper-connected world with instant accountability on the basis of a benevolent intent.

Benevolent Intent: ”I Am Here to Give”

What is a benevolent intent? The May 2008 interview, Intent, Care & Growth, with transformation consultant Etsko Schuitema answers: Intent is of two types — being here (in this life) to give or being here to take. The former intent is benevolent, and the latter, malevolent. It is not as though human beings must not receive from the world. Indeed, being receptive is a subtle quality of character. The difference in what a person pays attention to: the receiving part of the cycle, or the giving part?

The ideal collective ethic is that each being pays attention to what it has to give, to offer. In that case, the rightful receivers will automatically receive — and, in turn, they will give forward. (And when they do not receive their right, they struggle with incremental levels of force. This is just and fair.)

The cycle of life, in fact, starts with giving, not taking. That is the premise of the essay How Collaboration Can Save the Planet, and Your Business (Feb 2009). “Everything on this planet is part of a cycle of birth-death-regeneration. There is a water cycle, a carbon cycle, a consumption cycle. Money, too, revolves. It is spent-earned-spent. Each cycle has a starting point, and that point is ‘contribution’.” The effortless continuation of these cycles, and the deliberate removal of blocks that arise, is what Sustainability essentially is. Why We’re Failing to Sustain, and How Can We Succeed Right Now (July 2009) takes this theme further, and shares how Sustain-ability is not about ‘a very long time’; it is about presence, about doing things right in the moment.

Only then will eternity take care of itself. For what is eternity, but a string of single moments?

From Scarcity to Abundance

This shift to being concerned with giving, however, is difficult for some people. This may more likely be the case in a society that is marked with oppression and a lack of communal care. The individuals in such a society may perpetually experience a state of crisis, a lack of due attention. How can such a person make a shift to being a part of the flow of life (‘Sustainability’)? Why would not people be compelled to act selfishly? This is a genuine question, an authentic state of (sorry) affairs.

The answer may lie in shifting to an abundance perspective. The August 2010 Ramadan special article, This Ramadan, Count Your Riches: Scarcity to Abundance Perspective, sheds a surprising light on how accessible it is to shift to an abundance mindset with a simple question: “What do I have, right now, to get where I want to be?”

I will take a moment to swear for the effectiveness of this simple question by sharing my own story. I was thinking about my project Pakistan Changemakers Hub, and it occurred to me that this is the question a changemaker asks, versus a change-awaiter who is focused on needs. As I picked this thought to expand in the Ramadan article, I felt surprised by what I was writing: shifting from focusing on what one needs to what one has. I asked myself: how would that change my own life?

I realized I do not need another degree to start a new career; rather, I am enjoying the process of teaching myself a creativity course. I did not, after all, need another creative space to rent, too. My own house has become the backdrop of video productions, and I have finally realized that I prefer to toy with the Internet over traditional media in order to move an audience. (Before this insight, I wasn’t making focused use of the media I was advocating!) Now, I can create with more focus, and less distraction and waste of energy. A focus of what I needed was depleting my energy on search; a focus on what I have has brought me back to creation. As an extra reward, the process itself has become a continuous joy.

Asking this question is just as applicable to corporations. Or nations. Or groups of any kind. Focus on assets rather than needs. One would be surprised even further: they may find that what they considered a liability and a burden that was not leaving them alone was indeed their asset all along! The other August 2010 story, Not Flat But Textured, explored a subject that is at once dear and taboo to many: the subject of one’s family and community as one’s asset, not a liability, as one engages in creation.

Caring Co-Creation

Creativity (which is perhaps the real thing that is referred to by the much smaller concept of economic activity) is an embedded human trait. All humans create. Yet somehow the world of creativity has shrunk to refer only to ‘economic activity’, and that has shrunk further to only mean ‘jobs’. By this line of thinking, those who do not have jobs are not participating in creative activity. Enter: families. Mothers engaged in caring for children, people who are supporting other people who do jobs, and others such who create, but are not necessarily employed or selling. Families also make mobility less likely, and somehow, jobs can be dispersed in geographical areas that one may not even prefer to work in, but one must relocate to because of employment.

There is not anything necessarily wrong or evil about this. It is only that this was a less-than-perfect system which did not fully accommodate the needs of those who would balance freedom with (personal) growth and the ability to create.

This requires several spinal adjustments for the society. First, the issue of mobility is now largely solved through the Internet. Also, work has restructured such that one person can do the multi skilled job of an organization (Future Scape: An Organization of One; July 2008). Secondly, if creativity is seen as more than ‘having a job’ but rather as value addition and service, more people will be relieved of the burden of feeling and acting uncreative. This re-definition may foster greater creativity within families and communities, where some members currently lie dormant as ‘reserves’, making no good of their talent because there is no attention on them, no opportunity for them. Third, seeing families and communities as resources rather than as liabilities can yield several benefits to each creative member of the family: this ranges from psycho-social relief to lower carbon footprint to the opening of new possibilities of doing projects with people who are most willing and available to one, and with whom there is a natural relationship of care, trust, and interdependency. The family and the community as a creative unit is an untapped, phenomenal force of benevolent change in the world. The key factor is CARE.

This care-based co-creation is the subject of ‘Service’ Lets the World Stay Round (March 2010). If we create to serve, the needs of individuals in the social group will be spontaneously fulfilled.

A self-organizing, coherent system will arise which will simultaneously fill need gaps and create less junk on the planet.

The question now arises: what is my community? The answer is: how far can you see?

From ‘The Individual’ to ‘The World’

The template for seeing the individual in the context of their family and society and ‘world’ is presented in The People-Centered Model of Business (March 2008). In this simple visual model, the individual “I” is at the center, with four life-zones mapped around them: the spiritual zone, the personal-familial zone, the socioeconomic zone, and the ecological-political zone. Premise? All this activity, which I called ‘business’, owes to the presence of the individual. This is a tool first and foremost for seeing– seeing the society in terms of its individuals, and study them in the four life zones.

Perhaps I should rename this tool The Person-Generated Model of Creativity. I never felt it had quite the right name. I did define business as ‘busy-ness of life’, which must have been my then-word to refer to the big elephant in the drawing room: CREATIVITY!

Note: The model is now called The Salaam Matrix.

Our Future: Collective Creativity

The story comes full cycle: why are humans tearing down the boundaries? Boundaries of what, and for what? I am willing to bet that it is a frustrated creative force at work. The Internet has unleashed the giant of human potential. It can no longer be contained within the bounds of conventions. The nature of the struggle of various peoples is different; their direction is the same.

Our world is not operating in a balance right now. To redress the drastic imbalance, we are applying patchwork fixes, such as the Giving Pledge by Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and other billionaires (Giving: The New Imperative; Oct 2010). Currently, these fixes are needed. Ultimately, humanity needs to move beyond this historical seesaw of injustice/ drastic redressing.

Humanity needs to move, with each person on board, towards collective creativity.


NOTES:

This article is part of a series of articles Ramala Hubb’Allah wrote (with her then name) during 2008-11 for Pakistan-based publication, Triple Bottomline Magazine, published by Asiatic Public Relations. The publication’s focus was Corporate Social Responsibility, Climate, Environment, and Developmental themes. This is the twelfth and the last article in the series, published in May 2011. Original version in print; web version on the TBL site here.

This article has been published largely without changes, in its original form, on the Hubb’Allah website. It is reproduced to present the collected body of Ramala’s works on the Triple Bottomline Magazine. An updated version with new cases and applications will be available on the Hubb’Allah website soon.

If you enjoyed this article, you may enjoy this YouTube playlist by Ramala Hubb’Allah (below).

Giving: The New Imperative

The Giving Pledge – Billionaires Give Back!

Finally, all those chain email hoaxes about Bill Gates giving his wealth away have come true in a form that may defeat even the most fanciful imagination: Bill & wife Melinda Gates have pledged to give billions of dollars’ worth of wealth away to philanthropy. They are joined by billionaire investor friend Warren Buffet who has pledged 99% of his wealth away. More dramatically, together this team of three have created an initiative, The Giving Pledge, which invites billionaires to pledge to give a majority of their wealth away either at death or within their lifetime.

Because the task of convincing billionaires to part with their money is complicated – not the least due to legal implications, or the need to know what exactly to give money – the proposition of the pledge has been kept simple: commit to give at least 50% of one’s wealth. The total Buffet and the Gates are aiming at? US$ 600 billion.

So far, over 40 pledges have been gathered and shared at a website curated by Melinda Gates: givingpledge.org. The exact total cannot be
determined, for wealth of such magnitude is likely to shift over time.

See the full list of pledgers on the Giving Pledge website.

How Will This Change the World?

Each pledge is personal, with money being channeled to a cause dear to the giver. The donors have written letters sharing what their view of philanthropy is, what cause they are dedicating to, and why. Director George Lucas for instance is “dedicating the majority of [his] wealth to improving education”. The Gates are giving to health and education especially for the very poor.

An examination of the letters, shared on the website givingpledge.org, reveal that these donations will quench some very thirsty needs of the world.

The point of the Giving Pledge is more in the spirit of unconditional giving. The idea is that the very rich should actively (and necessarily) consider philanthropy; and that not just with a relatively small part of their wealth – but that only a small part is retained for the self and the heirs. By sharing letters from the billionaire who have taken the oath, the Pledge creates a positive ‘peer pressure’ for their proposition.

Criticism

Critics have taken issue with the Pledge, or the very idea of giving. Some have argued that one has every right over her/his wealth, and does not need to ‘feel guilty’ or morally obliged to share (Don Watkins and Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Center of Individual Rights).

Cynics wonder if this is about tax play or a publicity stunt.

The writer’s view is that it’s reasonable to assume that one (such as Warren Buffet) does not give away 99% of their hard-earned billions to look good, especially if they are already considered good. Indeed, the truth is that motives would be individual and complex — ranging from joy, to guilt, to joining the good billionaires’ club, to realizing that this may be the way forward for doing business in a world that is ailing with need.

The Multiplier Effect and The Giving Ratio

Consider this interesting fact: each billion dollar given multiplies into billions of dollars worth of giving.

This is due to the Multiplier Effect, which suggests that each time a unit of money is spent, it creates an onward cycle of spending from one receiver to another. So, if you give Rs. 100 to someone, they will keep some (it’s called their ‘propensity to save’) and spend some (‘propensity to consume’). Say they save 30% and spend Rs. 70. If the next person has the same saving/spending ratio, they will spend Rs 49 and save Rs. 21.

If the population’s average propensity to save is 20%, then Rs. 100 translates into a total income of Rs. 500 in the population. At 30%, it’s Rs. 333; at 40% saving or withholding rate, it’s Rs. 250. The higher the savings, the less money is passed on each time, and this also means fewer persons become part of the cycle of ‘income’. On the converse, the higher the giving ratio, the more number of people benefit, each beneficiary receiving a higher amount. In sum, where there is a giving habit, more people flourish, support one another, and are collectively better off.

Note that we have shifted the word from ‘consume’ to ‘giving’. Consuming, which in pure economics may simply have alluded to spending away without describing the quality of that spending. Giving is different: it is for charity, for philanthropy, or for fostering community by building something that is not for one’s immediate use. Giving is not about consumption of material by the giver (though these sometimes overlap in the case of social business ? such as when one would buy crafts from disabled or underprivileged people to help them).

In Pakistan, Pleading for the Pledge

The spirit of the Giving Pledge has traveled far and wide partly through the word getting out, partly because Buffet and the Gates are now reaching out to rich people in other parts of the world to encourage them to replicate the same idea. In China, long-time philanthropist Chen Guangbiao has convinced a 100 other rich Chinese to commit a majority of their wealth to charitable causes.

In Pakistan, construction giant Bahria Town’s CEO Malik Riaz Hussain has come forth with a pledge of US$2 billion for flood relief. In a manner typical of these very large commitments, he is dedicating his wealth to an area where he has passion and, in his case, expertise: constructing places to live.

It is in this sense that this newer form of giving is more than just parting with one’s wealth. It is about giving smartly, ensuring that specific, measurable objectives are achieved. Riaz has also issued an open appeal to the 100 richest Pakistanis. As he perceives, the rich of Pakistan could face a violent uprising against themselves and their assets if they do not choose to voluntarily step up and share with the poor of Pakistan.

To date, there is no public pledge in response. Ironically, it is only giving that can cure the economic ailment and restore mutual trust by building inter-dependency. Other alternatives may lead to closed ends.

I would go further to propose that the Propensity to Give become a separate, independent metric from the propensity to consume, and be recognized as such in positive economic literature. It recognizes that giving is an imperative, not just an occasional act of personal greatness.

Human societies have taken all kinds of shapes and structures. The kind of society that considers itself integrated, cohesive, and communal is more likely to have members that understand that giving is a part of the cycle of life; that the one who earns (money) is not the sole consumer (of money), but must share that earning with others such as family, neighbors, deserving poor, and the sick.

Is World-Wide Cluttering Impoverishing the Human Body?

Leading thinkers, such as the curator of TED conference Chris Anderson, are foretelling the forming of humanity into a super-organism. In short, this means that all humanity will organize like a single body — an idea familiar to those who have engaged in a philosophical examination of the world.

This has several implications. For once, the accumulation of ‘stuff’ at one point means a depletion of necessities at another point. Interestingly, this does not benefit the accumulator, for the disease that arises in the deficient part affects the accumulating part. This process accelerates in an interconnected world (because the ‘damage’ can transmit more seamlessly in a better-connected world).

Hoarding, saving above and beyond need, and cluttering are behavioral issues with real economic costs. They lead to mass depravity, crime, and a morose socioeconomic structure. This behavior occurs within nations, and even between nations because geography and the transmission of benefit or harm know no national boundary. Take the recent global viral scares, for instance. Originating in one place, the viruses, such as flu, hopped planes quickly to spread globally.

On the flip side, the opportunity in this inter-connected world is that if giving for doing good becomes a habit, then it can unleash massive positive change, from nation to nation.

Historically, some nations are more inclined to accumulate than others which has, arguably, led to depravity in other parts of the world. This is an imbalance with such deep consequences that not just governments but also businesses and humanitarians have now risen to redress the balance.

It is my understanding that once such massive, unconditional giving crosses national barriers, and it becomes not an occasional incident but a way of doing things, that humanity will be rapidly able to overcome its most abject crises that include super-floods, droughts, mass deaths, disease, and war and terrorism that arise in deprivation and poverty. We may even begin to find a way out of that most damning crisis of all: a human-unfriendly shift in the Earth’s climate.


NOTES:

This article is part of a series of articles Ramala Hubb’Allah wrote (with her then name) during 2008-11 for Pakistan-based publication, Triple Bottomline Magazine, published by Asiatic Public Relations. The publication’s focus was Corporate Social Responsibility, Climate, Environment, and Developmental themes. This is the eleventh and the penultimate article in the series, published in October 2010. Original version in print; web version on the TBL site here.

This article has been updated with a headline, with the rest of the text unchanged, on the Hubb’Allah website. It is reproduced to present the collected body of Ramala’s works on the Triple Bottomline Magazine.

Not Flat But Textured

Relationships and Growth in an Interconnected World

Thomas Friedman declared that we live in a flat world that has got even flatter. That technology especially the Internet has the most significant part to play in it. Those who have grown with the Internet and are inextricably glued to their cellphones will testify to this.

But with 6.8 billion humans on the planet, how flat can the world get?
Does this flatness mean you must connect with everyone?
Does that not pulverize the individual or the group?
Have all boundaries truly eroded?
And if so, how are we ‘safe’?
Where do we belong?
In the face of overwhelming flows of information and noise, where is the individual’s voice?
How does this affect our relationships?

The fact is that information is eroding the boundaries of the individual and the group. Secondly, it fundamentally alters the landscape of relationships by apparently making everyone ‘equal’ and therefore making priorities hard to determine, leading several people to make confused choices that may overtax their system and resources.

The Keyword Is: Apparently

Here is the good news: there is, indeed, a design, a sense, a scheme to this ‘flat’ world. That it is equal, but not so equal that an individual or a group cannot determine their priorities. There is a way that an individual in the contemporary world can render sense, all over again, to their self, their relationships, and their business of life.

The story of this sense, and alignment of an individual, their purpose (passion), and their global context begins with an individual’s attention and intention…

Attention & Intention: The Building Blocks of Life

Attention: Seeing The World

The most powerful tool a human has is their attention. It is by way of investment of attention that anything is created and grown, and it is by divestment of attention that things deplete and fall in disarray. (Decay and death, however, is part of the natural cycle of life. It is not to do with lack of attention, but the end of one life-cycle.)

When the attention is focused on contribution, an interesting thing happens: a natural scope is determined. Why? Because an individual is restricted by their organism (the body) and the environmental context and is subject to natural limitations of speed, time, distance, aging, incoming energy. Contributing takes away from the individual, and therefore, one can only give as much. This gives a limitation to one’s extent of involvement in the world’s affairs.

When the attention is focused on taking from the world, the natural limitation on attention erodes. Theoretically, one can take on the entire world. One can take on three jobs, unnecessarily, at one time. One can sign up for as many classes as they want, and have as many friends as they like if they are not going to pay any attention to what they have.

There is an interim state, too: recruiting someone else, by power (or money) or sheer force, to manage what one has acquired. Manipulation is the tool of the taker to sustain their acquisition. Entire nations construct laws that permit them to overtake other territories in order to fulfill their own needs. This may be in the form of war or even trade.

Intention: Giving or Taking?

There are fundamentally two kinds of outlooks on the world with respect to the self: either one sees that the self is here to take from the world, or here to contribute to the world. These two outlooks determine one’s character. The first kind of character is concerned with more, and grows through acquiring. The second kind of character is concerned with less, and grows through contribution and service (which can be for pay, of course).

These two characters have moral and ethical implications. Interestingly, they also create a different ecological footprint and organizational design. Conglomerates and inefficient mergers that attempt to take on the world with size and encroaching urban landscapes are two instances, intangible and tangible, of the taking mindset.

Life, Growth and Relationships: The Connection

Growth is an outcome of being alive and it takes place through interconnections which we can call ‘relationships’. An organism that is not connected to any other organism cannot find incoming nourishment and thus will not sustain. In reality, a wholly disconnected organism does not even exist.

Hence life is a system thriving on relationships, and it grows by its very design. But what is growth?


At the time of the publication of the article in 2010, Facebook allowed external applications such as Social Graph to connect to Facebook profiles and access data such as Friends lists, which were categorizable into labels that a user gave them, for example “Colleagues”, “Family”, “Classmates”, and so on. The writer generated a map to study what their Facebook relationships look like, and where is the highest concentration. This graph happens to be representative of a young urban person with a sociable profile. The graph, if generated today, could be highly insightful. Perhaps an app can be used to generate a map of one’s contacts and relationships, and one can study where their time and attention is concentrated the most. This is where their life will grow–but do the groups that they hang out most with, truly grow them? The answer depends. While our article proposes the natural family as the highest alignment, it is possible that people define families variably or find peace in a different group (that acts as a family). Also, the article assumes functional and well-formed families, and an ecological civilization where families are aligned, and people are connected to Land. When achieved, this is the easiest form of natural alignment.

Growth Is Not Just One Thing

Growth has long been defined in material terms: more money, more space, more territory, more things. It is seen in terms of more of the exterior.

The emerging understanding of growth is shifting towards an inner meaning. Nalini Nadkarni, an ecological scientist who studies tree canopies, observed: if one sees the tree’s growth and movement in terms of its dynamic twigs and not its static trunk, they will notice that trees, too, move. A single vine maple tree in her study made a movement equivalent to circling the Earth 7 times, in a single year!

That observation gave Nalini an insight: one can move and grow even when standing in one place. Armed with this insight, she started programs for Washington prison inmates that engaged them to become productive members of the society within confinement. Her inmates voluntarily attended science workshops and began a conservation program planting nurseries for local forest restoration. This also healed them as condemned individuals. Thus by redefining growth, Nalini opened the doors of growth and connection for those who are physically restrained.

I am advancing the idea that growth is not just one thing: it means different things to different people ? and that subjective definition is not just acceptable, it is the only way to have an interesting, rewarding experience of the world. The world is richer for the variety of aspirations and thus contributions of individuals. The narrative that has long defined growth in only one way has destroyed relationships, created exploitative businesses and structures prone to collapse because they cannot be sustained by definition.

Destruction as Opportunity

Relationships are the structure upon which life thrives. Life by definition is a forward movement, a bristling, an evolution, a growth. Even the apparently static thing is in movement, the disconnected is connected. Yet if the attention is veering off, and the intent is based on taking, both the structure and growth suffer. We are observing the malevolent structures premised upon taking & more are collapsing. We are also observing a world with depleting restrictions where access is becoming fluid and open.

This is actually a time for great opportunity. What we are witnessing is not a deluge of information out to get us, but a release from traditional constructs. We are no longer bound by restrictions. Yet, with their erosion, we are also experiencing a lack of comfort that came within these walls, a massive dissolution of familiar structures. By focusing our attention on what is, and with good will, we can begin to render a new, fluid, open, dynamic structure suitable for these times.

Inside-Out Relationships: A Structure for Growth

I propose that this new structure is built inside-out: from the individual to the family to the community to the larger world. Further, that it is based on a benevolent intent (contribution). The inside-out structure supports sustenance of attention, which is not dispersed all over the place. The proximity in this structure ensure a history of transactions which in turn becomes a basis of incremental trust. Care is the fiber this system is weaved of.

To take an example: if you are to grow a food farm, would you rather do it in your city, or the neighboring town? If you wish to do business in the next town, why are you in this town? I am arguing that we bring businesses and their infrastructure home or migrate to where our heart is, thus bringing ourselves home one way or the other. This will reduce the footprint that is caused by being distant from wherever your purpose is taking place.

Online communities, too, are arranged on similar principles. We are increasingly observing that the netizens are congregating around local issues. This is more visible in geographies that were previously politically closed or economically disadvantaged. Nations which were already organized are ahead on the curve: communities-of-purpose are arising and these nations are on the forefront of discharging benevolent ideas within the global population. Think TED.com–the great reservoir of best human ideas in the contemporary world.


This image roughly shows the alignment of a person and their outlook with their family, their work and their land (second part) vs. when their being is scattered in the instance of misalignment between their family, their outlook, their land and their work (first, left part).

Individual: The Epicenter of Growth & Relationships

All growth starts from one person, and that ‘one person’ is not a hero figure or a privileged person, but one’s own self. Hence when I think of growth, I tackle the question for me; when you think of growth, you tackle the question for you.

Attention and intent of the individual are the starting points of growth: that which is paid attention to, grows. Intention determines how the relationships around the individual get rendered. An intent of giving allows one to connect with the exterior, even if the exterior is an alien, say, a foreign country. In other words, paying attention with an intent to give allows an individual to create a relationship by becoming useful.

Families: The Natural Partners in Growth

The blind poet John Milton consoled himself thus about his condition: “Those also serve who stand and wait.” This has long struck me as very insightful, for at any given point in time, most members of the population are physically rooted in one place and inextricably linked to their relations.

When I was a young child and had natural aspirations for growth, I could not reconcile how those who stay put. I was thinking of most of my family members who never grow by the external standards of the world. If growth was the acquisition of more, certainly most members of most families failed the criteria. That includes mothers and grandparents as the epitome of those who are ‘losing’ by way of caring for the other.

If we see these relations by the externalist measure, these are the most sorrowful individuals on the planet. And yet, many find their roles joyful (though they may be made to believe otherwise by the cultural narrative), and they are making real economic impact and contribution. Attempt replacing families and their care with institutions, and we will end up with an unmanageable task and an emotionally dysfunctional population prone to crime.

This massive opportunity cost is a clear indicator of the real, valuable contribution families and communities are making even if they are not snatching territory. Indeed, their greatest contribution, whenever they make it, is not snatching territory while providing nourishment and opportunity to the world’s population.

Communities: Infrastructure for Growth

Communities provide a context and infrastructure for growth. There are two factors at work: the hard element, that is the physical landscape, architecture and design of the community; and the soft element, that is the culture of the community.

The individual has two choices: to align with their given community (and transform it slowly from within through their contribution), or to migrate, and in some cases, initiate a new community. The choice is determined by the individual’s assessment of which situation grows them best.

The right local community (including online communities) nurtures its individuals and may grow them by occasionally challenging them. However, if the balance is tipped out of favor of nurturing and tilts towards taxing (burdening), the society, that is to say, a constellation of individuals, perishes as a collective.


A Global Alignment

It is increasingly possible in this world today to be emotionally and physically in a place that is aligned with the individual’s inner purpose, while being an involved part of the larger world. This balance of the micro within the macro is an unprecedented occurrence in human history. The only thing needed to make this change is the individual’s courage to embrace it.


NOTES:

If you enjoyed this article, you may enjoy this YouTube playlist by Ramala Hubb’Allah (below). This article is part of a series of articles Ramala Hubb’Allah wrote (with her then name) during 2008-11 for Pakistan-based publication, Triple Bottomline Magazine, published by Asiatic Public Relations. The publication’s focus was Corporate Social Responsibility, Climate, Environment, and Developmental themes. This is the tenth article in the series, published in August 2010. Original version in print; web version on the TBL site here.

This article has been updated with new images and the text is republished as it is, with light formatting, on the Hubb’Allah website. It is reproduced to present the collected body of Ramala’s works on the Triple Bottomline Magazine.

‘Service’ Lets the World Stay Round

A Need Spotted

Image is representational image of a modest family home, the kinds of places the author has later seen during travels, and sometimes wanted to serve or connect to the larger grid of social activity and giving and service, where there is need as felt by the author and affirmed by the stakeholders.

I went to visit the doctor two days ago. At the clinic, I was given a waiting number. Now this clinic is a bit of a run-down operation, but I trust the doctor for his accurate diagnostic skills and the ability to treat a patient with more kindness and less medicine. He also chooses to run a clinical practice in a less-privileged area. When asked why, he once said, “This is where I am needed.”

So, I sat with the square little cardboard paper card that bore my patient-calling number. I noticed, during the ample idle time, this card. It had been fashioned out of medicinal packaging ‘repurposed’, so to speak with the number ’23’ written with a blue ballpoint pen. Highly unimaginative, this piece announced, “You are sick!” in subtle ways.

My mind wandered at this sight, and I thought: “Why, in all my years of visiting this clinic run by a rather selfless man who could have earned millions healing people in a ‘better’ facility, have I not thought of contributing anything to this clinic?”

I looked around and saw many flu-ridden children amongst the patients. I noticed that the bookrack had books that were wilting due to overuse. There were some nice posters on the wall masked advertisements of pharmaceutical companies. All in all, the clinic could use a paint job, some fresh art on the walls, and new books and magazines in the racks. It could use something to engage the children in waiting, something better than the ancient TV overhead. It could use some engagement for the men and women, seated in separate quarters, who sometimes spend more than an hour waiting for their turn. Precious productive time was idled away at this clinic.

Finally, the clinic could certainly use more imaginative and perhaps enduring – not to mention hygienic cards or chips with waiting numbers.

I imagined:

What if I go home and make artistic cards for them with a beautiful, heartening picture and perhaps some uplifting words? What if I bring some art for the walls? What if I bring some of my magazines and books?

Then I ploughed a bit deeper with my question:

Image is representative of a generic art class. An appropriate image of ‘discarded art’, as was often the case during the years of the writer’s own schooling where art and murals were locked and forgotten in stores, is not shared here.

Art classes. There are so many art classes in so many schools in this city. And they create ‘stuff’ only to relegate most of it to the dark, fungal cupboards of the class. Some schools do not let the children take their projects home – especially if those are examination assignments – and most of the productions simply end up as piles of junk.

In school, we often made art no one eventually cared for. Most children created with half a heart because they could not ‘see’ the end purpose of this enterprise. “What’s the use of all this?” is a common complaint in classrooms and campuses.

Yet here, in this city, there are clinics and homes and bus stands that could use more art, more beauty.

Why is There a Gap Between the Two?

In this gap, one is forever needy, and the other is forever producing unappreciated, unused junk. There is a break in what ought to be a cycle of giving and receiving.

I recalled that some years ago, I became familiar with the idea of ‘service learning’ – that is, learning in academic settings through real service projects. For instance, a student of architecture would actually implement a working solution for a (needy) community in order to obtain a pass in the subject. Real service projects are carried out under this paradigm. What an idea! Academia does not waste years of knowledge that children acquire, asking them to wait till they grow up to become functionally useful (as traditional education does). One serves and learns as one goes – and (almost) everything that is produced is utilized.

Service. That was the key theme that I was digging for. Business, academia, communities, individuals – if they act to serve, not only will there be many needs fulfilled and bonds created but so, too, will there be less physical junk in the world.

Service. Service keeps our relationships cyclic, in action – service keeps us connected as people and as organized groups.

Service. This is what makes a human of whichever station or status useful and therefore connected to other humans.

Service. This is going to make life (more) sustainable – for sustainability is nothing more than ‘elements of life in an effortless perpetual cycle’, a definition I proposed in my article ‘Why We’re Failing to Sustain – and How Can We Succeed, Right Now’ published in tbl in July 2009.

It all made sense to me. I looked down at the little crumbling cardboard slip in my hand. It was made out of the cover of a package which must have contained a cough syrup bottle within. The negligible little card had educated me about the scheme of things. It also showed me the way to begin.

jareedah
Archive image featured with the article, featuring the items selected by the writer for donation. Even old books are great for children who cannot read, but enjoy images.

Bridging the Gap

On my next trip to the clinic, I am taking along with me some posters and books and magazines that I have tried to give away in the past. Mysteriously, they have refused to go away and ended up with me again. They know better; that there is a just-right place in the world for them; they refuse to be sold away to a paper junk dealer (one who thought they are ‘too good’ to be taken away) or to be taken up by visiting friends (“Too heavy! I shall take them next time!”).

I shall donate those to the clinic. My junk will become treasure through service.

Perhaps such discards can be salvaged for donations to needy communities, in a zero waste, circular society

NOTES:

This article is part of a series of articles Ramala Hubb’Allah wrote (with her then name) during 2008-11 for Pakistan-based publication, Triple Bottomline Magazine, published by Asiatic Public Relations. The publication’s focus was Corporate Social Responsibility, Climate, Environment, and Developmental themes. This is the seventh article in the series, published in March 2010. Original version in print; web version on the TBL site here.

This article not been edited except a headline and images, and republished as it on the Hubb’Allah website. It is reproduced to present the collected body of Ramala’s works on the Triple Bottomline Magazine.

Collaboration: How it Can Save The Planet – AND Your Business!

What’s Our Problem?

By the time this article is being written (February 2009), it is clear: those who warned against the unsustainability of greed (getting more than one deserves) and fear (contributing less than one’s potential) are vindicated. No matter what the consultants advocate, the truth is that the old way of working is over. Now that we have damaged the planet sufficiently, and as a result hurt the population that rests upon it – is it any surprise that neither the planet nor the people can afford the ways profit is made?


The lesson is clear: No Planet, No People. No People, No Profit.

This is a mantra that needs no other proof than the current state of affairs. No matter the details of the collapse, there is a single concept that sums the situation and its possible remedy: ‘Sustainability’.

Sustainability: a Simple Definition

Everything on this planet is part of a cycle of birth death regeneration. There is a water cycle, a carbon cycle, a consumption cycle. Money, too, revolves. It is spent-earned-spent. Each cycle has a starting point and that point is ‘contribution’. It starts when Entity A chooses to contribute to the ‘Whole’/System (Entity B). Then Entity B pays it forward, until the contribution returns to Entity A in a new form. Entity B can be one person, or it can be many. For example, if I work as a guard in a TV channel, I contribute by letting in the right person (who has the potential to become a talented actor) through the door and keeping the gatecrashers out. Overtime the actor clears audition and performs in a play. The play is aired and earns the channel its income. I get my salary. This is a cycle – this is ‘Wholeness’. It is true for all systems of the entire world; the only difference is the level of complexity.

Given that the start of a cycle is at contribution; the life cycle starts at birth, the water cycle at rain, the money cycle initiates at spending, and the cycle of business starts at enterprising talent.

But there can be no continued contribution unless there is graceful reception on the other side. So in totality we can see a cycle as ‘an act of cooperation, a continued collaboration’. The giver is also a receiver – always. We receive with realization and give with choice.

Simply defined: Sustainability is “the act of elements revolving in an effortless cycle.”

A cycle is a complete loop. The very definition of unsustainability is an incomplete loop – a cycle broken by excess (accumulation) or by withholding (depletion).

The Giant Collapse of 2008

If material stuff is produced, but not recycled back into the system, we will end up with pollution: blocked drains, toxic landfills, and smoke-filled air. If there is money earned such as through big business, but not spent back such as through fair wage, we will end up with vast populations unable to afford business any longer – and at a tipping point, the whole system will suddenly collapse. That tipping point was reached in 2008 – when all unsustainable cycles from the natural to the economic collapsed together.

The Solution: Enable Sustainability Through Collaboration

When bad times hit, do what the poor do: help one another. Create sustaining relationships, keeping in mind the definition above: sustainability is a cycle when it is in smooth motion. This also means that when it is time for a certain cycle to end, such as in the case of an end to an entire industry, everyone in the cycle can sense the closure at once and get prepared to move on. It is more difficult to move on to bigger and better things when one is either too empowered or too weakened by a dysfunctional cycle. The first one has a vested interest in keeping things as they are, and the second one has no willpower.

It is tragicomic that in spite of the 2008 catastrophic wipeouts, most organizations are still pursuing the aim of meeting their old projected profits and other objectives using the same methods that often directly brought about this breakdown.

It is clear by now that the game and the rules have changed. But how do we move on? The real issue at this time may be a sense of insecurity and high uncertainty – the end of greed and the beginning of fear.

In my view, this is exactly the current challenge. We are no longer oblivious of the fact that the planet is in peril, and people are severely endangered from our own actions and the backlash of nature. It is also apparent by now that we have at once the responsibility, and (some say perhaps) the power to do something.

Interestingly, at this point in human history, we happen to have a technology for every need. We have also tested almost every social, political, and economic system great human minds could envision. In other words, the “hard” and the “soft” elements are present. What, then, do we need?

Answer: Collaboration

Wikipedia defines collaboration as: “A recursive process where two or more [entities] work together towards an intersection of common goals. For example, an intellectual endeavour that is creative in nature – by sharing knowledge, learning and building consensus.”

Precisely because we have all the requisite technology and ideology at our disposal, our next task is to put things together in a way that benefits the wholeness of our systems. The systems are already whole (cyclic) by their nature and definition. Our real task is to develop a method that facilitates the motion of cycles. And that method is a value: working together. Collaboration.

Collaboration is a means to an end: the end is sustainability – enabling the cycle of life.

The Principle of Collaboration

There are several processes, behaviours and conversations that relate to collaboration. They are too many to remember intellectually. Another approach is to understand the fundamental principle, and then apply it to individual situations. The basic principle is: Collaboration is to facilitate the motion of a cycle. The two aspects of the cycling principle are:

  1. Increase/facilitate flow.
  2. Reduce blocks.

The first aspect is about being creative. The second aspect is about removing obstacles to creativity. Essentially both achieve the same result, but are needed together. In my view, it is the second aspect that is the real need of the time.

Easy Guidelines for Situational Collaboration

It has been assumed for a while now, especially in the business and political world, that relationships can be ‘created’. There exist fundamental principles of relation between the large and small, giver and taker, weak and powerful, etc. The task of collaborative practices, then, is to honor that which exists and to orchestrate that to use – not to attempt to forge something beyond the system.

Based on this understanding, situational collaboration can be developed.

1. Work With What Is

Resource utilization is a critical contemporary issue. Though often we are concerned with “over-utilization,” the sustainability principle suggests that in each instance something is over-utilized, there is another thing that is being under-utilized – because it is ignored or sacrificed.

The solution is to ‘work with what is’ – evaluate one’s assets, and contribute. Rather than want more resources than are already given, work with what is already given. It is far better to adjust one’s ambitions and ideas than to stretch or waste one’s resources.

2. Work With Who Is

One of the anomalies of the workplace is the poor utilization of people’s talent – though humans are the fundamental orchestrator of all creativity! Author Etsko Schuitema suggests in his “Care & Growth Model of Leadership” that we only have the license to help someone grow if we care for them.

If the utilization of a person’s energy under our supervision is to help them grow, what precedes this is taking care to get to know the innate potential of that person.

There is an inborn quality in each person. That quality shapes their contribution. It is the task of the system as a whole and a leader in specific to see that quality and co-create work around it. Schuitema suggests that work is a means to engage the individuals in a relationship. This brings delight back into relationships, even in the work arena.

An implied application is to use experiential experts’ help. Receive the knowledge that others have to offer. Often we refuse to work with talent that is available, in order to pursue imaginative goals. In Pakistan’s context as well as of other developing nations, this non-acceptance of our unique abilities and offerings is leading to the belief that there is a dearth of talent. If that were the case, none of the developing nations would be able to destroy as much as they do, for destruction suggests the presence of energy not utilized.

3. Increase Collaboration, Reduce Competition – Deliberately?

Competition has long been a virtue, and it had its rightful place in the evolution of human endeavor as we strove to push the boundaries of our potential and existence. I think there is less blame to be assigned to competition itself – rather the need is to realize that the time to compete has simply passed.

In this age, we must intentionally lower “competitive think” and replace it with “collaborative think”. In my work with a beauty products client, for instance, we have chosen to see household-based women entrepreneurs as friends and partners rather than as threats to our business. There is an acceptance that there will increasingly be small entrepreneurs who will test their own mettle. Traditionally the Big Business attempts to drown them out. My client took the approach of changing their business model to a modular one that suits the variable nature of workers in the fragmented marketplace for today. The immediate benefit is that energy is now reserved to co-create joyful solutions, and to do the real task of carrying the product to consumers to enhance their life – rather than being consumed by the anxiety of overcoming beyond control “competition.” (Note: We used homebased bloggers as beauty influencers in 2008, before it was a thing!)

4. Minimize Legislation, Maximize Relation

Legislation is oft invisible but often the most powerful of blocks in the way of human endeavor and relationship. The problem is very simple: we have come to believe that legislation exhausts the list of all possibilities.

Therefore, there must be a law for every DON’T and a description of every DO. This is a fallacy. Law is a limitation, and its only function is to mark boundaries and off-limit areas in a relationship. The off limits are those where, by definition, the relationship ends if one or all partners venture there.

Legislation is not the fullness of a relationship. It is the boundary of a relationship.

The best constitutions of the world, therefore, are short or non-existent. A constitution as exacting as that of Pakistan, for instance, anticipates being violated as relationships and their needs evolve and as boundaries – which are not fixed – are re-marked.

Part of this practice in business is to create projects based on mutually ‘engaging’ rather than ‘acceptable’ terms. When we engage another on the basis of their fulfillment and joy they would co-create happily with us, while we can also create a beneficial ethic amongst ourselves, which helps the whole system.

The Technology

There are two broad types of technology: one is soft (conceptual), the other hard (quasi-physical/physical). The best kind the first technology is described already: it is relationships – amongst people, and then people and every living and non-living thing.

The best of the second type of technology is the Internet, identified as “the supreme communication network” and the “enabler of people” [the first and the vastly more important element in collaboration] in this Intent and Attention Era.

Outcome: Benefits of Collaboration

One would like to round off a solid case for collaboration by listing a set of definite outcomes. This, however, is not a great idea because ‘definite’ also means ‘limited’ – and limitation is resisted by human nature. Indeed it is a block in the cycle of growth. The truth is that the outcome of collaboration depends upon the clarity of understanding what it truly means to work together, to contribute, and the sincerity and intelligence with which this way is made a practice.

Despite this, the very technology of collaboration – such as shared workspaces – immediately yield certain benefits, such as:

1. Reduced Activity Footprint

Using fewer things means lesser material is being churned out on the planet and there is less pressure on the already exhausted systems. Carbon is a fundamental measure for “activity.” Eliminating the non-essential and sharing resources implies reduced activity and therefore reduced carbon footprint.

2. Reduced Cost: Competition is Cost

Primarily because it takes attention away from creative opportunities and the right application of one’s talent. Often an entity competes with one that is different from it. I have seen media enterprises in Pakistan who ditched their niche to chase the rival’s territory (such as entertainment) – and hence led to the decline of both. Competition is a cultural phenomenon that has led to megalomania-driven growth, and decline. Henceforth, our growth should be based on service to the whole system, not competing with elements.

3. Healthy Interdependence

This is a state where all elements in a cycle support and rely on each other and are clearly aware that mutual benefit is the real benefit. This is most practical at a local level where community members work with each other and support others’ enterprises.

It is my belief that the issue that we face is not of meltdowns and painfully wrenched bailouts. It is the issue of bringing values back to the way we work. The values, in turn, are employed so we can experience the joy of being alive. That joy, I believe, is the real aim and must become a part of the world of business – and the business of the world. Collaboration, when practiced faithfully, is that joy in itself.


NOTES:

This article is part of a series of articles Ramala Hubb’Allah wrote (with her then name) during 2008-11 for Pakistan-based publication, Triple Bottomline Magazine, published by Asiatic Public Relations. The publication’s focus was Corporate Social Responsibility, Climate, Environment, and Developmental themes. This is the fifth article in the series, published in Feb 2009. Original version in print; web version on the TBL site here.

This article is lightly edited for clarity for republication on the Hubb’Allah website. It is reproduced to present the collected body of Ramala’s works on the Triple Bottomline Magazine.