The traditional tit for tat strategy says to start cooperatively then match the other party’s response (but don’t escalate).  However it may still escalate if you are not careful, so when things seem to be getting out of control, the enhancement of “gratuitous friendliness” means you can call a halt to the escalation.

Examples include “let’s take a step back”, “I think we are furiously agreeing here”, “let’s check in what we both agree on”, “we seem to have gotten off to a rocky start, let’s start over”, “I’m sorry if I have misunderstood”.  All these friendly / accommodating phrases, now make even more sense as ways to break a spiral of aggression.

Should we only be answerable to shareholders, or do we also have some obligation to our societies in which these businesses operate?

The responsibility to shareholders as the primary beneficiaries is currently enshrined in legislation which is created by legislators to serve society (supposedly). When this legislation no longer serves the needs of society we can either put pressure on corporations to do more than the legislation requires, or society can put pressure on the legislators to change the law.

It’s interesting that corporations seem to have become a law unto themselves, but with sustained pressure we can change the legislation as has happened in the USA with B Corporations legislation which allows corporations to serve stakeholders not just shareholders. Bring on this option in Australia I say!

He then tried the ultimate command “open the pod doors Siri” to a response of “sigh” and after some funny back and forth about insensitivity to intelligent agents, finally got the response, “I’m afraid I can’t do that Steve…are you happy now?”

Is this technology getting clever or humans programmers having the best time of their lives with technology that can deliver their dreams into reality.  I can only imagine how much fun it must have been in the Apple programmers’ workplaces calling out “what about this one Steve?”  - Steve Jobs RIP.

This implies that ‘what is’ is not enough and that more is better and this common business view continues to trouble me.  For me sustainability is closer to sufficiency but I don’t quite know how to apply this to examples such as health, love etc. because more more health or love does sound better than sufficient health or love, except to the extent that I don’t need to strive so hard with the former.

The meaning I prefer is adaptiveness - where sustainability means our leadership, organisational and national capacity to adapt to changing environments.  And in some environmental contexts more is better, whilst in others less is sufficient.

Towards the end of the year I will be starting a series of case studies around common Australian business ethical dilemmas - with a sustainability theme.  Watch out for new workshops in the new year.

First I’ll listed to McCall himself talk about the idea of society being broken and whether and how we can knit it back together with civility and kindness.  Or are they old-fashioned ideas?

Next, I’ll listen to a panel discussing whether some aboriginals are more aboriginal than others.

Then I’m off to hear Cheryl Kernot, Dick Smith and Philip Nitschke talk about changing their minds, a deeply unfashionable trait in the current environment.

Finally, I will listen to a panel discussing citizen’s revolutions and how we can participate in creating a world we all want to live in.

Looking forward to it.  Join me if you dare.

Watch him give a TED talk here about the business logic of sustainability.

Mark Cavendish’s team mates have one goal - to get him to the finish line with the best possible chance of winning the stage - and in Stage 19 they’ve done it again.

It takes courage to be a leader because you can equally be considered just a lone nut, but in the view of Derek Sivers, its even more important to be the first follower, that’s what gets the momentum rolling.

So leaders, remember to nurture your first followers, not think “it’s all about me”.