Women, Leadership and Society

Two straws in the wind this week which illustrate for me what seem to be rapidly shifting expectations about women’s full participation in the workplace.

In Can women fix capitalism? Joanna Barsh sets out why having more women leaders in business could be the key to a better future for us all. She describes what she terms ‘centered leadership’, an approach which builds upon what we are often described as ‘feminine’ qualities. Centered leaders, she says:

  • lead from a core of meaning by tapping into strengths and building shared purpose, with a long-term vision for positive impact
  • reframe challenges as learning opportunities by shifting underlying mind-sets to replace reactive behavioural patterns
  • leverage trust to create relationships, community, and a strong sense of belonging
  • mobilize others through hope, countering fears to take risks and to act boldly on opportunities
  • infuse positive energy and renewal through deliberate practice to sustain high performance.

Encouragingly, she found quantitative evidence that this leadership approach resonates strongly with men too – and that it seems to be linked to organizational performance improvement.

She points to research indicating that women in leadership in society tend to invest differently—for example, on health, education, community infrastructure, and the eradication of poverty. And she quotes survey evidence suggesting that women’s full and equal participation at all levels of the workplace has to be at the heart of the reformation of capitalism:

“In a global survey of 64,000 people, John Gerzema and Michael D’Antonio found that most respondents wanted to see more feminine characteristics in their leaders, and two-thirds agreed that “the world would be a better place if men thought more like women.” Feminine qualities that respondents chose included “plans for the future,” “expressive,” “reasonable,” “loyal,” “flexible,” “patient,” “collaborative,” “passionate,” “empathetic,” and “selfless.””

It’s not just that women have special strengths in some qualities. They often operate in different ways, able to draw from a wider spectrum – as  Tom Peters, veteran business guru, pointed out in a recent interview:

“They know how to do a work-around. Men don’t know how to do work-arounds, because the only thing we understand is hierarchy. That’s an exaggeration, of course, but then again the neuroscientists tell us it’s not that big an exaggeration. The male response is, “I can’t do anything about it ’cause my boss is really against it.” And the female response, by and large, would be, “Well, I know Jane who knows Bob who knows Dick, and we can get this thing done.” They do it circuitously.”

The zeitgeist runs ahead of the reality of course but there do seems to be so many encouraging developments – and worldwide.

Related Posts

16 Mar 2014   The Motherhood MBA

25 Aug 2013   New Economics: Women’s Crucial Role

Sustainability As Flourishing

FlourishingThis is a remarkable book, and fascinating from a Bahá’í perspective.  Remarkable in that it’s a radical critique of sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility programmes – and, more widely, of 21st century capitalism – co-authored by two US business school professors and published by Stanford University.

The book is a set of interviews around eight papers by John Ehrenfeld, former Director of the MIT Program on Technology, Business and Environment and still, in retirement, a Senior Research Scholar at Yale. The interviewer is Andrew Hoffmann, Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan.

Dr Ehrenfeld believes that our current understanding of sustainability, and its promise of a sustainable future, is a delusion:

“Hybrid cars, LED light bulbs, wind farms and green buildings, these are all just the trappings that convince us that we are doing something when in fact we are fooling ourselves, and making things worse….Reducing unsustainability, although critical, will not create sustainability.”

He proposes instead a wider, richer definition: “sustainability-as-flourishing”. “Sustainability is the possibility that humans and other life will flourish on Earth forever.”  It has implications for the individual and the community, for every organization and institution. The “new story” that embeds sustainability-as-flourishing in our culture and our everyday behaviour must attend to both the individual and the system.

Dr Ehrenfeld describes himself as an atheist – “I’m hesitant to talk about some inner state because I really am not convinced that anything like that exists” – but one of his recurrent themes is that we have forgotten what it is to be human. Materialism is blinding us to our reality, and our true potential. We obsess over the economy: “Growthism is our religion and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is our god”. We neglect human well-being and focus overwhelmingly on material goals – “Our metrics of success are now principally measured in material terms” – so that “in making ourselves rich, we are making ourselves existentially and psychologically poor”.

Echoing Amartya Sen, he calls for wider definitions of poverty, beyond subsistence, to include poverty of protection, of participation, even ‘poverty of affection’, where oppression and exploitation undermine dignity and well-being: “The way mainstream neoclassical economists view our humanness is the crux of our sustainability challenge”.

It’s not, he assures us, about stopping consumption; it’s about how we consume. Our pervasive consumer culture is a choice that we’ve made: “This behaviour is so embedded that it appears to be human nature… But it is a cultural phenomenon”.

Sustainability-as-flourishing, he says, requires the re-conceptualization of our lives around two big ideas. We need to shift our dominant mindsets from Having to Being, from Needing to Caring.

“Having is not a fundamental characteristic of our species. We are not creatures with insatiable wants and desires…Truly authentic living comes when one accepts that he or she is rootless, that there is no physical thing or nature that grounds our Being.

“Need is based on a deeply embedded insecurity that is fed by our modern culture telling us that we are incomplete or inadequate unless we acquire whatever thing will fill that artificial hole…Caring reflects a consciousness of our interconnectedness with the world – the web of life – and that wellbeing depends upon acting to keep these relationships in a healthy state. Institutions built on this premise will be very different from those of today.”

And at the centre of this interconnection is love: “Sustainability-as-flourishing without love is not possible”.

Wrapped around and flowing from these ideas is so much more. The championing of intelligent and compassionate pragmatism over ideology, for instance, and a belief that spirituality is at the core of sustainability.  It’s a soaring vision which also recognizes present day realities.

So radical a shift in our thinking can only, the authors accept, happen over generations. But the impact of re-imagining ourselves and our world in the light of care and love will affect every aspect of our lives and our society, including of course businesses, which will strive “to provide a more secure and enriching working place” and to ensure that ideals of care and service drive their activities.

Dr Ehrenfeld’s prescription so closely aligns with Bahá’í perspectives – as, for example, set out in The Prosperity of Humankind statement to the 1995 UN Social Development Summit – that it jars slightly when he castigates “organized religions” for not having “caught up with the modern world… They have a hard time getting beyond good and evil, but the problems we are talking about are more about how to live in a finite, complex world.”

It’s easy to see what he means, of course. But it’s fascinating too that when ‘Abdul-Bahá, eldest son of Bahá’u’lláh and his appointed successor, travelled to North America in the summer of 1912, he stopped for two nights in Boston, Massachusetts.  He spent his first morning meeting friends and enquirers, and gave three public talks. At an evening gathering in the Hotel Victoria on the evening of 23 July, he spoke to those early members of the US Bahá’í community on “true economics” – founded on love, kindness and generosity – ideas with which, a century later, the concept of sustainability-as-flourishing seems to fit entirely comfortably:

“The fundamentals of the whole economic condition are divine in nature and are associated with the world of the heart and spirit…Hearts must be so cemented together, love must become so dominant that the rich shall most willingly extend assistance to the poor and take steps to establish these economic adjustments permanently. If it is accomplished in this way, it will be most praiseworthy because then it will be for the sake of God and in the pathway of His service. For example, it will be as if the rich inhabitants of a city should say, “It is neither just nor lawful that we should possess great wealth while there is abject poverty in this community,” and then willingly give their wealth to the poor, retaining only as much as will enable them to live comfortably.

“Strive, therefore, to create love in the hearts in order that they may become glowing and radiant. When that love is shining, it will permeate other hearts even as this electric light illumines its surroundings. When the love of God is established, everything else will be realized. This is the true foundation of all economics. Reflect upon it. Endeavor to become the cause of the attraction of souls rather than to enforce minds. Manifest true economics to the people. Show what love is, what kindness is, what true severance is and generosity”.

The Right To Work

Do we have a right to a job?

The International Bill of Human Rights, the fuller expression of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, includes a ‘right to work under just and favourable conditions‘, together with a ‘right to an adequate standard of living’.  But does the community have an obligation to provide employment? Yes, if we believe that humanity is one – and it’s through the concept of trusteeship.

This was one of two particularly interesting discussion points at an exhilarating Bahá’í summer school this week.  I had enrolled on a course studying The Prosperity of Humankind, a statement prepared by the Bahá’í International Community for the UN Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995.  What became apparent through our study over the week was that its themes are possibly even more relevant now than they were then.

I will get to the point, but first let me share the context, which contributed to the richness of the discussions. This event was organised by the UK Bahá’í community (this one was at Wellington College; the other English summer school this year was held at the equally beautiful Ampleforth College) but wonderfully diverse. My small study group included people from China, Malaysia, Italy, Australia, Egypt and Switzerland. They included a physics teacher, a surgeon, a first year undergrad student, an art teacher, a prosthetist and orthotist, an unemployed architect, an engineer and a development academic (breast-feeding her young one). Ages ranged from twenty to eighty years, and it wasn’t simply Bahá’ís either. And our consultation was especially illumined by two young women who had taken courses with the Institute for Studies in Global Prosperity.

The Prosperity of Humankind statement is immense and nearly impossible to summarise. Its starting point is that we are living at an extraordinary time, a time of a profound transformation in human consciousness: “The history of humanity as one people is now beginning’”.

The statement asserts that justice is the one power that can translate this “dawning consciousness of humanity’s oneness into a collective will through which the necessary structures of global community life can be confidently erected”. It proposes that consultation – freed from prejudice and partisanship – must be “the operating expression of justice in human affairs”. It calls for the empowerment of humankind through a vast increase in access to knowledge, and a fundamental redefinition of human relationships. And it discusses the nature of power and authority in the “world that is struggling to be born”.

The statement asserts that we all share responsibility for every child born into the world:

“Since the body of humankind is one and indivisible, each member of the race is born into the world as a trust of the whole.”

This trusteeship, it says, constitutes the moral foundation for most of the economic and social rights which the United Nations has attempted to define.  It goes on to extend the notion of the right to work, beyond simply the rights to work under just conditions or an adequate income (ie through unemployment benefits) :

“The security of the family and the home, the ownership of property, and the right to privacy are all implied in such a trusteeship. The obligations on the part of the community extend to the provision of employment, mental and physical health care, social security, fair wages, rest and recreation, and a host of other reasonable expectations on the part of the individual members of society.” [italics added]

This right to employment has to be understood within the context of concomitant responsibilities for the individual to seek work and to give of their best. It’s not a call for state-sponsored sinecures but a recognition, as the statement also points out, that work is special.

“Unlike animals, which depend for their sustenance on whatever the environment readily affords, human beings are impelled to express the immense capacities latent within them through productive work designed to meet their own needs and those of others. In acting thus they become participants, at however modest a level, in the processes of the advancement of civilization. They fulfill purposes that unite them with others.”

We are, the statement asserts, so much more than simply consumers demanding goods and services that support employment within a circular economic system. We are spiritual beings and within human consciousness lie limitless latent potentialities.  We yearn for meaningful work. To the extent that work is consciously undertaken in a spirit of service to humanity, it is a form of prayer. And it is the capacity of every individual to see himself or herself in this light that can call up the magnitude of effort and commitment that the economic tasks ahead – in particular, the eradication of poverty – will require.

We need, in short, to re-conceptualise work and to develop new economic models appropriate for humanity’s future. And that’s not a question that should – or can, any longer – be left to the elites. This is a challenge to which we are all called. Women in particular have a crucial role to play – and that’s the second particularly interesting discussion point, to which I’m going to need to return in a future post.

Your comments, as ever, warmly welcomed.

Craftsmanship and Full Employment

There seems to be a growing unease about the digital economy and its implications for employment.  The Bahá’í Writings extol craftsmanship. Could craftsmanship be one small part of the solution to the problem of mass unemployment?

Economies may be very slowly recovering from the Great Recession but unemployment stubbornly refuses to fall. In the US, 12 million people are registered unemployed, a quarter of them for more than a year.  In Spain, the unemployment rate now exceeds 27% of the workforce, and is much higher for younger people. There is good reason to think that things will get worse.

In Race Against The Machine, Brynjolfsson and McAfee showed how automation and robots are eliminating jobs. From the macro perspective, it’s a process of creative destruction that is delivering significant benefits.  We need technological advances to solve many of mankind’s most pressing problems – poverty, hunger, water, climate change, population. But for many people, and across almost every occupation, it feels like a race against the machine – and the machine is winning.  Even in low wage China, the iPhone manufacturer Foxconn recently announced an investment in one million robots to replace much of its workforce.

Even worse, it’s a race that’s really only just started: it’s estimated that only 1% of all the things that will be one day be connected are currently connected. Brynjolfsson and McAfee made a convincing case that there’s a third industrial revolution under way, and, just like the steam engine and electricity before it, the computer is rapidly and fundamentally restructuring our economies and our work.

As ever, some people are winning – and big time.  Brynjolfsson and McAfee quote a study finding that over 100% of all the wealth increase in America between 1983 and 2009 accrued to the top 20% of households.  The other four-fifths of the population saw a net decrease in wealth over that 25 year period.

In a recent TED talk, Brynjolfsson made the case for the optimists, though he readily conceded that ‘we’re not doing a great job of coping with the social implications’ of this revolution.

For the poorly educated and lower income groups especially, the outlook verges on tragic. Mass unemployment looks set to remain for the foreseeable future. Thinking beyond the narrow confines of economic efficiency, continuing mass unemployment is a human tragedy, a complete waste of human potential, a blight upon the wellbeing of individuals and families.

Brynjolfsson and McAfee do offer a prescription. But their focus is on the US, not on global solutions. And their approach is focussed on making the US more competitive, which effectively just shifts the unemployment downsides elsewhere.

Against this bleak backdrop, we might reflect on the very high station of craftsmanship from the Bahá’í perspective:

“Arts, sciences and all crafts are counted as worship. The man who makes a piece of note-paper to the best of his ability, conscientiously, concentrating all his forces on perfecting it, is giving praise to God. Briefly, all effort and exertion put forth by man from the fullness of his heart is worship, if it is prompted by the highest motives and the will to do service to humanity.”

“It behoveth the craftsmen of the world at each moment to offer a thousand tokens of gratitude… [and] to exert their highest endeavour and diligently pursue their professions so that their efforts may produce that which will manifest the greatest beauty and perfection before the eyes of all men.”

“The source of crafts, sciences and arts is the power of reflection. Make ye every effort that out of this ideal mine there may gleam forth such pearls of wisdom and utterance as will promote the well-being and harmony of all the kindreds of the earth.”

There’s a lot to unpack here (way beyond the scope of this post) but we might note immediately that the concept of craftsmanship applies to every occupation. It’s not the case that potters are good, computer engineers are bad. There is a craft of software engineering. Craftsmanship in this sense is more of an ideal to which we can all aspire.

But still, I can’t help wondering if, as consumers, we came to value craftsmanship more highly – outside of the digital economy – then we would surely create many new jobs for artisan bakers, dressmakers, portrait artists, rug weavers, potters, interior designers, tailors, wood sculptors, jewellers and furniture makers – to name the more obvious possibilities.

It’s a long way from a complete or even immediate solution but perhaps a renewal of craftsmanship can play some part in re-creating secure and creative professions for those least able to participate in the digital economy, who are currently the losers in the race against the machine.

Give and Take

giveandtake-coverGivers or takers? Which group is significantly over-represented at the top of organizations?

Surprisingly perhaps, it’s the givers. And that holds true across all sorts of professions, as Adam Grant shows in his superb book Give and Take.

So why isn’t everyone a giver? Well, one clue may be that givers also dominate on the bottom rungs of organizational hierarchies.

Grant explores why it is that givers tend to succeed in the long run – or fall precipitously.  The book has practical wisdom about how to give without getting burnt out or being exploited by ambitious takers. It makes a totally convincing case for giving as default behaviour. Beyond the individual, it also explores how to nurture a giver culture in an organization.

It’s thorough – Grant is the youngest tenured professor at Wharton – but it’s a story superbly told, drawing on a rich landscape of examples from Lincoln through LinkedIn and Def Jam Records to The Simpsons creative team.

The funny thing, as Grant notes, is that most of us want to be givers. He quotes a seventy country survey,for instance, in which giver values emerged as the number-one guiding principle in life to most people in most countries.

Outside of work we behave much more often and more naturally as givers. Grant quotes recent neuroscience evidence suggesting that giving activates the reward centres in the brain. There’s a wealth of evidence too that giving is associated with happiness, satisfaction and well-being.

But at work, givers tend to hide.  Giving is often associated with weakness. Grant quotes one executive who was convinced that it would undermine her authority if it became known that she was in fact a giver.

Why have we developed this compulsion to hide our inner giver when we go to work? The evidence suggests it may be partly because we systematically under-estimate the number of people who are willing to give. But mostly it’s because we frame work as a competitive environment.

“Workplaces and schools are often designed to be zero-sum environments , with forced rankings and required grading curves that pit group members against one another in win-lose contests. In these settings, it’s only natural to assume that peers will lean in the taker direction, so people hold back on giving…

“As a result, even when they do engage in giving behaviors, people worry that they’ll isolate themselves socially if they violate the norm, so they disguise their giving behind purely self-interested motives.”

The end result is that givers hide: “In my experience,” writes  Grant, ”plenty of people hold giver values but suppress or disguise them under the mistaken assumption that their peers don’t share these values”.

Grant notes that perhaps it’s especially an American thing. He quotes de Tocqueville, the French philosopher, after his visit to the United States in 1835, expressing his surprise that Americans help others freely but find it very hard to admit: ‘they enjoy explaining almost every act of their lives on the principle of self-interest. They often do themselves less than justice’.

Brilliant book, I can’t recommend it enough.

And What Is It To Work With Love?

“And what is it to work with love?

It is to weave the cloth with threads drawn

from your own heart,

even as if your beloved

were to wear that cloth.

It is to build a house with affection, even as if your beloved

were to dwell in that house.

It is to sow seeds with tenderness and

reap the harvest with joy, even as if your beloved

were to eat the fruit.

It is to charge all things you fashion

with a breath of your own spirit.”

– from Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet

I attended my first EBBF conference this weekend, slightly daunted by its title Co-Creating The New Enterprise.  I needn’t have worried.  Re-discovering Kahlil Gibran was just one part of a rich programme of presentations and discussions that stretched from Building Altruistic Capital through Nudging Condom Adoption To Combat HIV to Building High Performing Teams Through Authentic Collaboration.

It was heartening that at least a third of the 150 attendees – from 16 countries – must have been under 30 years old. And yet quite a few of them seemed to have already founded, or been involved in creating, some form of social enterprise.

EBBF is, of course, just one small example of the extraordinary ferment of ideas around how, in the real world, we can envision enterprises and economic systems that can deliver for humankind prosperity in its fullest sense.

What distinguishes EBBF perhaps is that it is comfortable with spirituality, drawing freely upon religious insight.  It is Bahá’í inspired but also a genuinely inter-faith space, where agnostics and atheists too can feel equally at home.

It also has experimentation at its core. Its purpose is to create meaningful conversations that will stimulate a continual cycle of learning through consultation, action and reflection.

I came away with some answers and many new questions.  One is the mystery of why if, as the data suggests, many of our deepest motivations at work centre around the desire to serve others, and if, as again the data suggests, it’s when we feel we are serving others that we work at our peak performance, then why is service so rarely at the foreground of our work culture?  Why would I sound almost crazy tomorrow if I were to suggest at the water-cooler that, to quote Gibran: ‘Work is love made visible’?

Why are our deepest motivations so often hidden, and how might we surface them? These are themes to which I would like to return. Meantime, congratulations to the EBBF team of volunteers for arranging a great conference.  If you can be in Barcelona in October, you might want to consider attending the next one.

Lean Together

Lean InIt has been hailed as a turning point in the feminist debate. It has also been written off as an apology for Big Business. And everything in-between. Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead has created the media whirlwind that its author intended in her quest to disrupt the status quo.

One hesitates to add yet more words to those column inches. But there’s an important connection that seems to have been overlooked. It’s why this fine book is ultimately flawed.

And it is a fine book. Sandberg may be wildly rich, absurdly well-connected and bossy – but it’s easy to like her [just watch her TED talk]. She’s clever and sincere and kind and, in some places, LOL funny. And she’s trying to be a peacemaker: “The gender wars need an immediate and lasting peace”, she writes.

Lean In is helpful. It abounds with nudges – ideas on how we can dismantle the barriers that our subtle prejudices create. From the Goldman Sachs partner who cancelled his dinner schedule and insisted on holding one-to-one meetings with his team only at breakfast or lunch – so that he could mentor women equally and without any hint of impropriety. To the story of the hospital physician who decided never to ask for a show of hands when he turned to his junior medics on the ward rounds (men being typically far more confident of their own abilities) but instead would ask his questions directly, and always evenly between the male and female junior doctors. And the CEO of American Express who, knowing that women are more likely to interrupted, will always stop a meeting to point it out when it happens.

Sandberg cites, as an example of what can be done, an initiative at Harvard Business School to address the under-performance of women and international students. The school’s culture was rigorously examined and ‘soft’ adjustments introduced to foster collaboration and respect. In just two years, the performance gap virtually disappeared – and overall student satisfaction levels rose. In a more equal environment, everyone was happier.

Sandberg is not blaming anyone in particular – we’re all complicit. She’s trying to inspire us all to engage in a ‘final push’ that will give birth to a world where there are no female leaders, just leaders. And she’s optimistic that things are changing as younger people, both men and women, look for new models of family life.

But ultimately – as The Times reviewer described it – Lean In is a manifesto for ambitious women. That’s not meant unkindly. Sandberg recognises that everyone should be able to make their own choices, and that most women don’t have anything like her resources or opportunities: “I am fully aware that most women are not focussed on changing social norms for the next generation but simply trying to get through each day”.

To change the world, says Sandberg, we need women to reach leadership positions. Women at the top will, she believes, lead to fairer treatment for all women, and a whole new dynamic in the workplace.

It’s a worthy aim. But is it as ‘simple’ as this? Is it maybe even a mirage?

The work environment within which Sandberg operates is brutally demanding. ‘Commitment’ boils down to being what we used to call a workaholic. It’s received wisdom that only the paranoid survive. Sandberg cites research that 69% of corporate managers can’t even go to bed without checking their inbox. OK, she is a self-styled alpha – so she enjoys the pressure. But this increasing addiction to work is not confined to Palo Alto. Crazy hours are expected across many professions nowadays. And it seems to be going global as well.

Interestingly, it’s not necessarily because employers demand total commitment, overtly at least. Sandberg quotes a McKinsey managing partner calling a town hall meeting to urge the entire team in his office to take their vacation. Most of the people who were resigning reported that they felt ‘burnt out’ – but they all had unused vacation that they had chosen not to take.

Almost wherever we look, the workplace is becoming relentlessly competitive. It’s an assumed ‘passion’ that jeopardises family life. And as work becomes more hyper-competitive, women’s opportunities shrink. Pregnancy and maternity leave especially become huge issues. Sandberg acknowledges her own fears that – even at her level and with her talents – her job and prospects at Google would be diminished if she took ‘too much’ time off [that is more than a week or two] after her first child was born.

Sandberg acknowledges that it’s a rat race. “A career is a marathon”, she writes. She believes that getting more women to win the race will change things. Maybe that’s true, but there’s surely a delusion here? We can’t all be leaders. Indeed, by definition, very few of us can. We’re still stuck in a rat race.

What if we try instead to slow down and step off this devilish hamster wheel that we’ve created?

First off, I think, we would want to reflect on the culture of contest that is embedded into our societies and so into our working lives. We have to recognise the myth of the inevitability of all–pervasive competition.

The irony of course is that the attitudes that enable this, the behaviours that can best shift our work environment from hyper-competition towards cooperation are precisely the ones in which women typically excel: humility, empathy and compassion.

To be fair, Sandberg isn’t asking women to drop these qualities. Her focus is on developing assertiveness. [And, as someone who often struggles with assertiveness, I have to say that I found her advice wise and helpful.]

But even if Lean In assertiveness can win the day for women, it’s likely only to further increase hyper-competitiveness. Women can’t fight their way to the top and then work 9-5 (unless they start their email at home at 5am, and continue to work late into the night after the kids have gone to bed).

The real challenge, surely, is to escape the culture of contest, to create new forms and structures [Enterprise 3.0?] that reflect the accumulating evidence of the desire for work that is characterised by reciprocity, sharing and collaboration.

If we can do that, we can really change the world. Because in a workplace built on cooperation and reciprocity, women’s contributions would be naturally and unremarkably accepted. Mothers would be able to follow Sandberg’s advice to ‘Do What You’d Do If You Weren’t Afraid’ and take whatever maternity leave they think is right for their child – without paying a big career penalty. It would be the world for which Sandberg is calling, where “expectations will not be set by gender but by personal passion, talents and interests”.

Sandberg says that: “I have written this book to encourage women to think big”. It’s a book from the heart, and well worth reading. But to truly change the world, maybe we must all think bigger.