Something that has often held my attention the past couple of weeks is the conscious and unconscious roles of advocacy in futures work. This is particularly so in the context of where I currently work: a consulting firm that is specialised (at least on paper, the reality often seems different) in sustainability, or sustainable development - along with the often uninspiring area of corporate responsibility. As someone who has been a passionate advocate for these issues for many years and an activist it is clear to me that advocacy (along with toned-down activism) often creeps into my work... sometimes without me "knowing", other times because I want it to; because I feel nothing less than a compulsion to get people/organisations to ACT NOW to help address the myriad challenges that we face.
In analysing the current and emering issues facing a client I could, for example, only want to pay attention to the ones that are likely to lead them to embrace the concept of sustainability or to help create some aspect of the my preferred future. This may or may not be, strictly speaking, good advice (which is what a consultant is asked to provide - to lead to actions in the best interests of his or her client that will help them to achieve their objectives). Or it may be. Increasingly detached, unemotional analysis - which is the kind that I typically have to write in formal reports for clients - leaves me feeling cold... the meaning is lost in the translation... and it makes me want to join an international NGO and do some campaigning or advocacy work. What about you - do you ever grapple with this? How do you resolve these kinds of conflicts if you encounter them> What are the ethical dilemmas in amongst all of this??
A chance run-in to Sohail Inayatullah a week or so ago gave me the opportunity to ask Sohail his views on the topic...
When I mentioned to Sohail that I was reflecting on this, he recalled a lecturer he had recently given at Melbourne Business School (Mt Eliza campus). In this lecture he gave a presentation on something like 10 big trends that are changing business.
Sohail made the point that he could have chosen any 10 trends and that the things influencing his choice were aspects like what I mentioned in this post... some of them were issues he wanted senior business executives to be thinking more about - so, he said that he had included these trends over others for this reason. They may not have 'technically' been the most important to the businesses that these executives were from.
So I guess my question is this: Is it possible to not let aspects of your preferred futures into your applied foresight/futures work and analysis (be this in the way future scenarios are written, or the way drivers or change and issues are interpreted, the recommendations we write, in vision statements)... and then advise more-or-less objectively? Or is this simply part of being human and it goes with the territory in doing this kind of work?
Certainly, from a critical futures studies perspective our worldviews, assumptions and values are inseperable form the futures we see and consider (or don't see for that matter).
Beyond this, what is most effective? Do companies see the advocacy - in the style of ones heart on their sleeve - and get turned off by this... wanting a more butonned-down analyst that will deliver them report after report of fairly neutral analysis.. or is the passion infectious?
Comments (3)
Good questions Steve. Have wondered myself!
Personally, I am mindful of trying to minimise my personal slant where it is going to be noticed. If it isn't, then I often reason that they have hired this type of consultant and given permission for them to use their judgment - its part of the parcel of the hiring/contract decision. This, however, is often when it comes to written work.
On the other hand, when in more workshop styled settings I find I am acutely aware of value and worldview differences with key client representatives, and try to be very clean in my contributions - to a point. And that point is I leave little doubt about my personal ethics and reasoning, but these are offered where they belong, in asides, jokes, informal commentary in the gaps between engagements... or I simply sneak them in under the guise of another different perspective of interpretation that they may encounter in their markets and/or stakeholders and need to consider...with evidence or reference to a known stereotype, its often accepted into consideration.
Here's hoping being embodied integral foresight practitioners means that we do consciously bring our values, biases and blind spots into our work... because we're often bringing our client's into focus as part of our 'stock- and-trade.'
But then, is this evidence of a different worldview, that as the basis for our current assumptions actually often goes unexamined in such contexts? Oh well, "there be holonic madness" beyond them shores, or so my map reads for now;)
Posted by Chris | June 27, 2007 8:02 AM
Posted on June 27, 2007 08:02
Hi Stephen and Chris
This is a very good question. No easy answers from me. In respects it touches on our own sense of identity "Who am I?" and sense of existential urgency "What is my life for?".
I remember Oliver Markley likening this dilemma to a credit system. He said that in his own work he noticed that there were some situations where he could not take any risks , as he had not built up the legitimacy with the particular group he was working worth, hence he would 'build up credit', but so he could spend it later. Likewise, with his professional credentials he often would have too much credit from a group, so he would then go on a spending spree, by taking real risks.
His point was that, to make a difference anywhere and be heard we need credibility and legitimacy. But also the point of life is not just to build up status, legitimacy and credit, but to spend it by taking risks to make a positive difference.
His idea has stuck with me for many years, among his many other gifts that he gave me and the cohort I was part of at the University of Houston - Clear Lake in 2000.
His website is at www.owmarkley.org/
jose
Posted by jose | July 7, 2007 7:40 PM
Posted on July 7, 2007 19:40
An interesting question, Steve. It's difficult for me to imagine that I'm bringing my full self to my work without bringing my agendas along for the ride. They permeate absolutely everything I do, and when I'm actually paying attention I begin to notice the full range of them - which can be a bit confronting!
I've been finding that the 'functional fit' test with the world can be a pretty good indicator of whether I'm banging on for my own ego satisfaction, or truly creating something of communicable value - however small. It's one of the most humbling things I've found about working for a conservative, resource-based, profit-driven consultancy with a tiny niche of a sustainability/foresight business. Perhaps it's similar to the 'growth of a meme' test - does it take off, or does it die a loney death, leaving my pride wounded by the roadside, resolving to fight even harder next time?
Clearly there's a time and a place to take a stand and fight for a particular agenda. But recently, I'm learning that picking my fights in this place actually tests my courage and conviction more than going in hard at everything. Reminds me that the principles I'm using are at least equally as important as the outcome I think I want.
Another intriguing question for me lately has been not so much should I push my own agenda? - but how can I possibly stop? ... and how do I catch myself frequently enough to make it form a positive 'groove' rather than a perpetuation of a world at war with itself?
cate
Posted by Cate | July 31, 2007 1:11 PM
Posted on July 31, 2007 13:11