Kalle reflects on a flow of rhetoric questions about resistance
Kalle Reflects on the Resistance to Strategic Sustainable Development
and
A Flow of Self‑Explaining Questions to Overcome Resistance
A Flow of Self‑Explaining Questions to Overcome Resistance
Takeaway for leaders at all levels everywhere
In previous reflections, I have described myriad systematically worsening societal symptoms that must be halted if civilization is to endure. They follow from a limited number of inbuilt design flaws—three ecological and five social. Flaws that, if left unaddressed by too many leaders, drive us toward points of no return.
These few design flaws continue to increase the severity and number of symptoms that will ultimately become fatal to civilization. Attempting to manage these worsening symptoms one by one—for example “solving climate change”—becomes, both in theory and in practice, impossible. Impossible even for climate.
Leaders in science, politics, and business must therefore learn how to model futures that are attractive and scalable by simultaneously addressing these few design flaws. This is not only necessary; it is also more rewarding, and arguably more engaging, than continually chasing symptoms that arise precisely from not doing so.
This pattern has been deeply explored in science, validated both theoretically and empirically, and further tested through decades of applied research in private as well as public organizations and universities across the globe. Here, then, lies a striking paradox:
- We know the problem (of Civilization being designed for failure).
- We know the solution (to tackle the problem by Redesign).
- And we know that Redesign is more advantageous than in-activity (at all scales).
- So why is systemic change still so slow?
In my previous reflection, I wrote about a very prominent reason (erosion in meaning of terms leading to unclarity of minds).
I this new reflection, I explore the paradox further—this time not through arguments, but through a flow of simple questions that may be harder to ignore than answers.
Why the paradox—more specifically?
Eroding meaning of terms.
My previous reflection and podcast pointed to one such dominant mechanism—the erosion of meaning in key terms, which in turn opens the door to value‑based arguments and counterarguments, creating gray areas across political positions—while, in practice, they all miss the point.
My previous reflection and podcast pointed to one such dominant mechanism—the erosion of meaning in key terms, which in turn opens the door to value‑based arguments and counterarguments, creating gray areas across political positions—while, in practice, they all miss the point.
A series of simple questions may help frame further reflections on resistance.
Are the increasing severity and number of symptoms themselves in doubt?
For example, the systematically rising concentrations of pollutants (Boundary conditions 1 and 2), the systematic physical degradation of ecosystems (Boundary condition 3), and the systematic erosion of trust at geopolitical levels (Boundary conditions 4–8). Or is the increase in seriousness and number of symptoms from these design patterns, in fact, well established both theoretically and empirically?
For example, the systematically rising concentrations of pollutants (Boundary conditions 1 and 2), the systematic physical degradation of ecosystems (Boundary condition 3), and the systematic erosion of trust at geopolitical levels (Boundary conditions 4–8). Or is the increase in seriousness and number of symptoms from these design patterns, in fact, well established both theoretically and empirically?
Is it perceived as unlikely that innovations addressing fundamental survival challenges will prove competitive in future markets?
For sure, industrial history clearly show that inevitable paradigm shifts often happen, and that they do so with various degrees of delays. But, we already see how scalable solutions based on sustainable flows of energy and materials grow rapidly and successfully, often driven by their own internal dynamics. And we are still awaiting the paradigm shift at a global scale.
For sure, industrial history clearly show that inevitable paradigm shifts often happen, and that they do so with various degrees of delays. But, we already see how scalable solutions based on sustainable flows of energy and materials grow rapidly and successfully, often driven by their own internal dynamics. And we are still awaiting the paradigm shift at a global scale.
Is there a lack of trust in Organizations’ own competence to navigate such transitions at an appropriate pace?
Not too fast—risking investments with returns coming too late.
Not too slow—risking loss of competitiveness.
History offers many examples of both pitfalls under major and inevitable paradigm shifts. But does this uncertainty justify that so many resist the easy-to-learn knowledge of how to stay in between?
Not too fast—risking investments with returns coming too late.
Not too slow—risking loss of competitiveness.
History offers many examples of both pitfalls under major and inevitable paradigm shifts. But does this uncertainty justify that so many resist the easy-to-learn knowledge of how to stay in between?
Or are leaders awaiting precise scientific forecasts?
Must science provide exact timelines for when critical thresholds will be reached before action is justified? And if so—is that not a self‑defeating argument? When organizational risks of inaction are systematically increasing, and opportunities are both inevitable and advantageous for competent leadership, is uncertainty of exact timelines not a reason to act rather than to delay?
Must science provide exact timelines for when critical thresholds will be reached before action is justified? And if so—is that not a self‑defeating argument? When organizational risks of inaction are systematically increasing, and opportunities are both inevitable and advantageous for competent leadership, is uncertainty of exact timelines not a reason to act rather than to delay?
Finally, is the multitude of proposed methods, frameworks, and tools itself a source of confusion?
UN SDGs, Planetary Boundaries, Circular Economy, Science‑Based Targets, Corporate Social Responsibility, Biomimicry, Bioeconomy, Life Cycle Assessment…yes, there are many more of those. But aren’t they Apps, each addressing selected aspects of impacts and solutions? And therefore, do they not point toward a need for an Operative System that shows how they can be understood cohesively? I.e. developing a first ABCD strategy directly from the Operative system, then cross-read this with any of the Apps that may be called for to get further input of ideas under A, B, C and D respectively.
UN SDGs, Planetary Boundaries, Circular Economy, Science‑Based Targets, Corporate Social Responsibility, Biomimicry, Bioeconomy, Life Cycle Assessment…yes, there are many more of those. But aren’t they Apps, each addressing selected aspects of impacts and solutions? And therefore, do they not point toward a need for an Operative System that shows how they can be understood cohesively? I.e. developing a first ABCD strategy directly from the Operative system, then cross-read this with any of the Apps that may be called for to get further input of ideas under A, B, C and D respectively.
Concluding reflections
Taken together, these questions point toward a conclusion that is difficult to ignore:
It is not the absence of data and know‑how, nor of viable and self‑beneficial pathways, that explains the inertia amongst so many.
It is not the absence of data and know‑how, nor of viable and self‑beneficial pathways, that explains the inertia amongst so many.
I have yet to encounter a truly rational argument against engaging with the Operative System for strategic sustainable development, found under www.stepwise.global. It has evolved over more than three decades—peer‑reviewed in both theory and practice. The barrier, therefore, may lie elsewhere. Where?
Perhaps in social psychology?
Reluctance to deviate from prevailing norms. A discomfort with challenging established narratives framed in cultural terms—where strength is associated with certainty, and considerate doubt with weakness. But is this sufficient to explain the inertia, when both the logic and the self‑benefits of acting are so compelling?
Reluctance to deviate from prevailing norms. A discomfort with challenging established narratives framed in cultural terms—where strength is associated with certainty, and considerate doubt with weakness. But is this sufficient to explain the inertia, when both the logic and the self‑benefits of acting are so compelling?
Or couldn’t there be a deeper, almost philosophical dimension?
The speed and granularity of modern industrial development leave little room to question its foundational assumptions. Attention is continuously drawn to the constant noise of conflicts, disruptions, and fluctuations in the global economy driven by such dynamics. Or, in other words, immediate cost pressures emerging from a flawed design that remains largely unquestioned due to stress and time constraints from geopolitical conflicts. But if not now—when is there time to reflect on such fundamentals?
The speed and granularity of modern industrial development leave little room to question its foundational assumptions. Attention is continuously drawn to the constant noise of conflicts, disruptions, and fluctuations in the global economy driven by such dynamics. Or, in other words, immediate cost pressures emerging from a flawed design that remains largely unquestioned due to stress and time constraints from geopolitical conflicts. But if not now—when is there time to reflect on such fundamentals?
And so, the essential question remains:
If the direction is increasingly evident, and the means to change it are known—what, ultimately, prevents us from acting accordingly, knowing what we know?
Karl-Henrik Robèrt
Professor
Blekinge Institute of Technology
Campus Gräsvik,Valhallavägen 1
SE-371 79 Karlskrona, Sweden
Phone: +46 455385000
Blekinge Institute of Technology helps you take strategic steps toward sustainability!
Research for Real Change | Training for Leaders | Coaching for Role Models | A Movement for Change
