What Does Sector Mean, Leadership Tension, and Change

and now you think you've come in and now you're saying oh we need to give you back the power. It's like we had the power already and you took it from us when you came in. We had initially started this conversation to say, okay, we're calling this thing the Sector Debrief, but what do we mean by like, okay, to your point, Ali, what reactions did we get from that? And what do we even mean by the sector? At the risk of going into like language which is always a rabbit hole, what do we mean by the sector today and going forward and what's the what's the value? What's the utility of having a term that people can broadly understand?

Um I think we had two or three and I also received several comments on that. Um some are saying the sector stands for what? Um others they are questioning the word sector and others suggesting uh different titles. But I found it I really find it funny that we don't have a title. I think we can call it whatever. But I think I think the interesting part for me is that many times we focus at the language and we forgot the core issue. And I noticed that so many times when I was working with organizations especially at headquarter level that we suddenly start focusing at the terminology and by the end of the day that's the full attention there and you know I'm really not a fan of words like sector NGO uh global south.

I don't like nationalization. I don't like these words. I don't like the terminology but I feel that um the moment we start looking at terminology is exactly the same moment we lose our focus on the same issue. So that's why for me for example I don't focus that much at what to call it because I also believe that there are so many others they are taking that fight I am I am their ally but I feel like I prefer to focus on other thing like the core things that I think they are the main issue

I mean it's also like the sector deb we haven't specified which sector

all we're referring to is some sort of grouping of thematic people, right? Um, but I it is an interesting thing. I'm I've been part of another group

um and maybe these will converge at some point or I don't know. But last year we got together and the name of that group we're calling ourselves the humanitarian society, right? Because that doesn't exist in any form apparently. Um and the first time we started to talk to people about it, the name got challenged, right? because it was like what do you mean by humanitarian in this day and age but also society as a name where like that feels a bit exclusive and a bit elitist and a bit Victorian and archaic in that regard right particularly here in the UK where you have other sort of royal societies and we were like let's not get fixated on the name right the concept is what's important and for that

the there might be sort of soft launches coming out soon but for that we're looking at humanto human connection And then the bit that really kind of got me intrigued and excited at the beginning of all this was the focus on not just deinstitutionalization but just the sort of dismissing of institutionalization. We're not here to talk about institutionalized corporatized aid. We're here to talk about the value side of it. We're here to engage in people, humanto human connection, positive unconditional regard, and that sort of gravitational pull of people who want to engage and have conversations that expand knowledge and awareness that fulfill that sense of belonging that might be needed. And if through those it can lead to some sort of action, then that's a motivating thing as well.

that action is stemmed from and inspired by

like-minded thinking and that sense of camaraderie and belonging. All of which I think has gone from what we are assuming we mean by the sector, right? That's the step we're in.

Yeah. So, you're thinking about it like biggest envelope, biggest container.

Yeah.

possible. And what I was thinking about it, what I conversations that I've been having, maybe bringing it down a little bit to more of the a little bit more of the institutional, but stay with me because I'm going to get there's a connection here is I have been making this assumption and I've been telling this to everyone in all of the sensemaking that Ive I've I've done in the last year or so about like kind of where the sector is. I'm saying the old dominant system is crumbling or has crumbled and that new systems are emerging. I am taking this as an assumption of fact. But I will say it's not based on any sort of evidence. It's based on conversations. It's based on what I'm seeing.

It's based on what I'm thinking. And so one, is that true? And two, if there are multiple if there is no more dominant system and so there are multiple ways of doing this in some ways that frees up the term sector because it opens up the container. It can include local, domestic, individuals, you know, anyone who has a people-to-people connection and wants to do good. It can include um social enterprises, corporate, it can include any, you know, all the things. If that's the case, what is the word that binds all of that together? And how do we know what that is? Like what are the implications? What are the implications for how work gets done? How people see how things happen?

From my perspective, we could call it sector, we could call it ecosystem, we could call it industry. There are so many ways to describe that. But in the end of the day, I think being a humanitarian is not about institution or belonging to an organization or company or a team or whatever. The those who I call real humanitarians, they didn't even belong to an organization. And although I'm living right now in Copenhagen and I spend most of my time in um you know like Copenhagen or other cities that they are not country operations. I meet the humanitarians here every single day. They do basic things. Um so I think to be honest it's not about the institution as you both said.

It's not about um the label and what we would call it because we could call if we want to start digging into that from academic perspective we could call it so many things but in the end of the day humanitarian I think it's a value and a principle there's um I completely agree with you it's the value of humanity and as he said I see that taking place every day all around me the big difference is they don't use the same humanitarian industrybased language around the activities but the intention and the outcomes are very aligned and I've few years ago I did do some academic research and look at this right and I came across a political science model that was exploring democracy right they did a bit of a study on how democracy whilst they were sort of initially introduced around the world as either a sort of Westminster parliamentarian model or it was a presidential congressional model like you got in the states right those were the two that went out but then over sort of observation of democracy around the world they realized actually it evolves right so democracy doesn't stay as parliamentary sometimes they fuse and merge together sometimes they kind of create their own quasi democracy type thing right but the point of this study was and it created a word that's one of the most tongue twisting words I've heard.

Consolidology, right, was the word they came up with. Consolidology. And it was because they realized that democracy at the point this was I think this study got completed in the early 2000s or late 90s, something like that. Anyway, it realized that democracy was now no longer one of two things. It was the consolidation of multiple different models. And that really started making me think about where we were as an aid sector because we'd kind of been living through a period of liberal aid, right? I love Michael Barnett's Empire of Humanity where he frames different eras of aid. And if you haven't read that, really do look at it. It's great. and he basically aligns the current model of aid or the now old model of aid with liberal peace and the postcold war world war II era of globalization multilateralism etc.

And I was realizing, well, that doesn't have the legs and we're seeing that come to fruition now. And so, where are we going next? What does the next era of aid look like? And in my mind, I was like, well, it's going to look like a consolidation of many different things, not the roll out of one. And that to me made me realize the term humanitarianism, it's been hijacked almost by the institutionalized, corporatized, multilateral aid sector, right? And it had no right to do that. Not that it went out cynically in the beginning to try and do that, right? But I think that the citizens of the world need to kind of just take ownership unapologetically for being a humanitarian. And that doesn't mean that you have to have a home and a belonging and a contract with an NGO or the UN, right?

You can be a humanitarian in any walk of life. And that's where I think we'll end up going.

Okay. But so here's my question. the I think we all generally agree but the question that I have is okay so what because I've been doing a lot of like scenar for lack of a better word scenario planning of like what is the next in three plus years what is this going to look like because there's so many options right and in every scenario but the most positive one we're looking at more fracture right so more fractured stuff and again well I don't like to parse terminology. If people aren't feeling like they're included in a thing, if they're not part of a movement, if there isn't this feeling of some I'm part of something bigger than me because we don't see ourselves in it partially because of maybe language, then it's only going to contribute to there being things that are fractured and missed opportunities for alignment and you know le and working together and all these types of things.

So my question is the is the so what how do you what do we

do about it who we move in the right direction who are who are the we in that who's the people looking for belonging

to something in that I would say in your scen like what from what I'm hearing from you it's like individual people who are saying I embody these values I want to do something I think there is a real ground swell of people realizing the way society broadly is set up is not natural. It's not working. You know, New Year's doesn't feel like the start of something cuz it's it's it's it's fake and it's it's what you know, all of these things. And they're looking for to get back to what is real and connection. And so there's a lot of good people out there that are looking in, to use my language, you know, is trying to regenerate the soil that they are planted in. They're trying to do good in their space, which is all fantastic and all necessary, but to make that a global movement, you need to have some sort of kind of broader connection to the whole.

So the idea of humanitarianism has been, you know, professionalized, industrialized. Then what? From my perspective and the first thing that comes to my mind when you mention this um it's mainly around the three most important words that we have in the UN charter in countries constitutions in different countries in different locations and they are we the people take that build on And regardless if that's an NGO, if that's a voluntary team, if that's a UN agency, if that's a group of friends, if that's I think that's what unite us not only within this sector but everywhere because when I look at US constitution, India constitution, so many other countries constitutions, they start with these three important words. We the people you and charter start with those three important words.

I think those three words they are the most important in what we

do. So from my perspective 2026 and the coming I don't know how many years. Of course we are evolving. It will be complicated. It's complex system. So I think it will look the same. And part of the way we will evolve is by asking those questions and think about it and maybe we will not have answers. But I believe when we put those three words as the foundation and build on them, you know, that will be a good way to evolve what we are doing and we are thinking about.

I'm with you. I'm with you both, but I'm also not at the same time. So I met a I met a woman last year in Somerset where I am now, right? She's a just a therapist by trade and profession. But she had a desire she observed that there was the beginnings of a breakdown in community resilience across the county. And this is not a deprived part of the world, right? um it's got its pockets of economic deprivation but in the scheme of things it's it's it's not a deprived part one and so she set about kind of well what can we do to help change that and she created a theory of change and she presented it to me and I was like this is brilliant but it so echoed projects that I've been supporting and working with in South Sudan in Somalia etc where she the crux of what she wants to do is she basically wants to raise money, whether that's through profit share, whether that's through grants, whether that's through philanthropy, angel investors, what have you.

And she wants to then create that chest. She's calling it community chest. And she wants local organizations, local communities, local people to have a participatory role in how that money is spent. Right now, I'm like that how much do we do that? How much is that central in almost every sort of localization based conversation? and she's set about trying to trying to exercise this and I'm trying to give her some help with it, but she's exercising the value of humanity, right? And she's got this sense of belonging to something because she's got a sense of belonging to the county, to various different networks. She's creating a network. got partnerships with another woman who's um heavily invested in trying to provide support to the construction industry to prevent male suicide in the in the construction trade, right?

And so they're looking to see if that's a case study that they can test it on. And for me, it opens up this question mark around the need for the global movement that you're talking about, Kim. Right. I think

there's there's

moving forward what we're going to end up with are every part of the world exists uh as ecosystems within ecosystems and there's levels of need and there's levels of gap in provision against those needs and in certain parts of the world at certain points in time there's likely to be the need for whatever the incarnation is of the aid sector as we've sort of formerly known it. But that incarnation will need to be adaptable, much more adaptable to the gaps of provision that exist in the different parts of the world as opposed to a one-size fits-all cookie cutter model that primarily is geared against globally aggregatable data to meet a western donor ODA sort of requirement. That's gone. So we no longer have the shackles of ODA now to build around.

So, let's build or reincarnate something that's a lot more agile, a lot more adaptable, and a lot more able to work where it's needed as opposed to the steam train that comes in. Right. I'm also doing fascinating work with Ukrainian civil society at the minute and they've got the same story about multilateral aid coming in as a steam train and they're like, "Well, where's our we had it before and now you think you've come in and now you're saying, oh, we need to give you back the power." It's like we had the power already and you took it from us when you came in. Fascinating.

Okay. So, my brain is going in like six different places which is why my face which is why my face looks like this. My first thought was 100%. Like the last year I was getting so into the idea of networks of networks like I'm now convinced this is the way. It's like an elegant way to explain I think where I had struggled with locally led development before where it's like you can have local networks that make sense in Somerset or make sense in wherever and you have contextualized ways of doing things but then the networks connect so that there's there's cross learning right and there's and there's broader global connection and that is more of a bottom up type than the traditional like top down that I think I find really interesting to explore.

I think there's interesting experiments and examples that are kind of popping up, not at scale, if you will, but that are that are happening that we can learn from. But the second piece where you're saying ODA is gone, formal aid is gone. What we need is effectively like a mobilization force where it's like pockets of need are identified and then they go in and they support. How that's I mean to your point Ali like it's a system and systems are complex. So how do you move from here to there in a way that reduces harm in the transition? Because I'm all in this like transition and transition bridge and build space. This is like this year and the next couple years is going to be bridge and build.

This is where I think compatibility. I don't think we can do it with no harm. reduced harm. Sure.

As minimal we could we can mitigate to the absolute possible degree, but we will not be able to do it without any harm. And I fear that in trying to do it with no harm, we'll end up just perpetuating what we've always done. We're going to stifle any creativity about creating a new because we'll be stuck doing what we've always done. And we still won't reduce the harm. the harm will happen anyway, right? And we just won't be able to move forward into something different. And in terms of what it looks like and the how, I think I mean this is the tough choice that the executive leaders of INOS's of national local NOS's and UN agencies are going to be forced to carry at the minute is you got to choose to stop doing stuff, right?

You can't do development, humanitarian and public advocacy for rights based agendas be the beginning, middle and end of the supply chain and all in one go, right? So what you going to do and what you not going to do? What are you going to let go of? Which is another topic we said we'd talk about today, wasn't it? Like letting go.

All roads lead back to leadership behavior analysis paralysis. Ali, go ahead. But um from what I am seeing in 2024, five and this month um internally within this ecosystem more people are questioning how we do things. More people want change. More people are breaking things. Externally there is public pressure and I think we might go into institutional shock at some point. Not only because of funding cuts and access constraints and all that but because the public will question the reputation of those institutions and look how many people within this ecosystem or this sector been questioning not only international NOS's but also human agencies and asking if they are still committed to the principles and the values and so many other things. So I think one of the things that will pressure this system to change is the institutional shock that will come from the public and from within this system.

There is one thing I noticed in the United States, UK, they are those uh what they call them uh citizen journalism. They are opening files. They are trying to go and they are doing the monitoring and evaluations in indirect way. They are putting us under the spotlight. They are asking where is the money going? What's the percentage the impact and all that and the thing is that in those two countries the main reason why I mentioned them because the laws give you that power to go and act on behalf of the government and the taxpayers. And I could see that now growing also in Brussels in EU. So I think the public will start holding us accountable. It will it will cause harm to those institutions.

But on the long run I think it's going to um pressure us to change. That's the external pressure. The internal one we are part of it and there are many trying to do that. The biggest question mark I have, I'm pretty convinced in what I've said about the way moving forward

it's going to be consolidation of small rather than roll out of big and all the rest. But the big question mark I have or two big question marks I have that I can't resolve in my own mind are one how does how does human rights survive? I don't know that the institutionalized legal frameworks are going to are going to are going to stand up. Um, that's a huge risk I see and that's going to need a lot of intentional leaders choosing to prioritize the support for those. Um, so that's one that I worry about a lot. And the other is how does how does anything happen at scale right at this point in time moving forward? and I don't have an answer to that in how things are going to move forward and I don't know that anyone can at this point and I'm not more about the scale debt.

Um so the combination of small right it works when it's organic it works when there is a sort of um power shift so that actually decision makers are in the local areas and they can then go and use their own networks and their own ecosystems and that's the sign of resilience within the structure within the community systems as to whether or not they get when a shock happens that overwhelms that right whatever ever that shock might be, whether it's a fairly sort of cleancut earthquake type shock or whether it's a bit more of a economic catastrophe or some sort of political destabilization, what have you. Where does the mobilization of scale come from? because the that's where the multilateral a sector has helped in the past and I do believe that they'll be able to support that a little bit moving forward but it will only be where western ODA find that politically acceptable to support and go to scale at right so in the in parts of the world where it's not part of a political

foreign policy agenda where does the scale come from and where does it come from quickly I don't know because of also the erosion of the humanitarian principles Yes. And that unification and that ability to be able to mobilize for territories anywhere in the world. Yeah.

Right.

That's a good question.

Right. Because you need both, right? You need individual humanitarians who are doing working in their communities and are the bedrock of everything. And then you need at the organizational thei the ecosystem the sector the system level you need structures in place that upholds that and that are framework. So, I mean, I think we're all kind of talking about a future where the frameworks are less rigid and maybe more adaptable, but we're not saying like get rid of all frameworks, get rid of all structures because, you know, that's a recipe for chaos and anarchy. So, it's rebalancing of it. And I really take your point, Thomas, and we'll think about this, which is it has to break or it's just going to be basically, you know, a re a performative re, you know, wallpapering over of the old system.

And so, but some things are they are they too important to break? Like if you break the idea of humanitarian principles, then what are you letting loose while you

rebuild something? that's a Pandora's box that break those the four humanitarian principles are in tension with each other already. They have been since inception, right? So I don't know that I mean and there's been a debate about whether we reform humanitarian principles or not. I don't know that we need to reform them. I do think we need to reorientate our relationship to them. Right? I think there's two very politicalbased principles. There's two very operational based principles and I think take the operational ones and turn those into just part of the decision-m process. The political ones we can start I don't know be the be the basis be the instigator be that little spark that triggers actual engagement in politics which is something we freaking hate.

We shied away from that for years but in gap politically in the politics of humanity as Hugo Slim puts it right now. Does that need to what I don't think needs to happen sorry is that every act of humanity has to be done through the lens and the eyes of humanitarian principles. I think we can lose we can let go of that. Right. Um Yeah.

Yeah. I um one thing is it's not fully relevant to this but it came to my mind when you mentioned the activities and later Kim when you also talked about the type of this the networks and all that humanitarian diplomacy we don't talk about it that much we are actually good at it like when I was in country operations and doing program director or chief of party large portion of what I was doing is humanitarian diplomacy when you engage with those policy makers, diplomats, negotiate access and all that and we are very good at it. So I think maybe that's one of the things that especially the international actors they could they could explore further because country directors are humanitarian diplomats head of programs or head of operations they are humanitarian diplomats and maybe that will be a way to break that dependency and break that complex or something like that.

I really think we should explore that further. Especially that I mean under foreign policy and soft power many countries and institutions giving money to organizations indirect way to implement that foreign policy as part of soft power. So technically it is a diplomatic move. So if you if we play that strong element of humanitarian diplomacy could be there around the table to negotiate in better ways, navigate the humanitarian principles and the dilemas that come with neutrality in better ways, have stronger relations to institutions and maybe in a way or another we play a role that fits for purpose in a different way beyond the classic program design. I don't know. I'm just speaking and thinking out loud.

You're thinking, Thomas, I am thinking exactly what I'm doing. My thinking face. My thinking face. I'm thinking about what I'm thinking about is the barriers to all this, right? From a psychological leadership behavior perspective, right? Because I like what you're saying, Ali. I had in my mind, I don't know if this is what you meant or it will go this way, but I had in my mind like humanitarian embassies in different places, right? And you've got individ you've got you've got entire entities and where they're housed I don't know but yeah you've got an embassy that basically is there to uphold humanity um UN would probably advocate that they are that already that's what I was just thinking is that the isn't that the intent behind the UN like if you strip it all back but no but then I was thinking we'll kind of you know if you've got a CEO or you've someone high up in um and they're listening to this and they'll be like, "Well, yeah, we get that and we understand, but help us with the next." What's the what's the sort of mental block that they've got to actioning any or to taking those leaps of faith that's required here, right?

Um one's a sense of responsibility for sure. I get that, right? There's a there's a huge responsibility institutionally, staff, existing programming, existing recipients and end users of the aid and all the rest of it. There's a there's a big responsibility there. There's a there's a legacy responsibility, I guess. Um, and there's a kind of pressure of the brand um, and what does the brand mean and do, which is one that I imagine they're holding intention because they won't want this moment under their custodianship to be the moment that it completely collapses. But then there'll be pressure from a board and majority of boards of the big INOS and UN are all sort of very westernized and despite attempts of DEI to diversify the mindset and the priorities of the boards are still very much sort of corporate fiscally driven no one wants to see financial reduction and yet there is the need an acknowledged need at that level to do things differently but they can't also make those decisions independ dependently and you actually they've got to do it through consultation with their organizations and suddenly you then get into the point where the staffing bodies that remain don't want to lose what they've done.

They're fatigued with change. They don't know what the new could be. So if they're asked, they will probably just come up with a sort

of version of what they're currently doing and they ultimately don't really want to bother with a new change. They want to just get back to doing the job, right? And then there's exhaustion and trauma put on top of that over the last couple of years. So there's a huge set of challenges and problems that leaders are going to need. And I can't help but think just a lot of depth reflection on their own part around what's their true northstar morality compass telling them. And they need they need a they need a safe space. Are they talking to each other would be my first question, right? I don't know that there is any closed group forum where CEOs are all coming together and going what the did we do because I mean there are many there are many forums where yeah but are they having those real honest conversations right to your point about what this podcast is right it's it's not the pre-prepared scripted guarded I have real honest conversations with people all the time they're usually one or two levels down exactly yeah but no I'm talking about I'm talking about the David Millibands the ingers of save the Michelle some

care like those individuals

are they speaking to each other

and having a conversation and going how do we get through this and what do we do together you know what we should do we should start inviting CEOs to u the podcast and speak with them about those we'll not share the questions ahead of time and then we have a conversation

do we do we do this like the blind dating thing do we do we invite them all individually but suddenly they all turn up together.

I mean,

premise is and starting point is

no one knows anything. Yeah.

No one has a clue. We're all figuring this out.

If we all start there, then we can only go up. Listen, this is why I feel a little bit this idea of having multiple future or multiple strands of like emergent systems is actually hopeful for me because it means that there's not a monolith right way to do something. Like there are going to be some that just kind of struggle on. There are going to be some that break, but it doesn't mean you have to break the whole thing. And there are going to be some kind of like new things that are emerging that are just like fresh and new and cool and maybe that and that's just we're going to have to be okay living in all of that. And so like that way the whole system isn't being broken at once.

It's just like pieces of it aren't being fractured and put together. Um my question at the start of this was what's the container that can hold all of that's big enough? And one of the article that I was telling you guys earlier from Jess um Blitzkers and I'm sorry Jess if I'm saying your name wrong. She's saying and she wrote this like last year but I keep going back to it. She's saying when words like the international development sector stopped making sense and we became an international solidarity movement. Like is that big enough to hold us all? The formal the systems the individuals the different strands.

What's the what's the purpose of this big container? Well, part of me likes frameworks and so I can understand the big picture, but a lot of me feels like if you can't if you

there's real value in grassroots organic movement, but as you said, in order to scale where scale is necessary and useful, you need to have a big picture and container. And if not, then things become fragmented. I like the I like the term container um because I use it from a psychonamic point of view, right? A container is that ability to be able to express feeling emotion reaction and have it held have it and a co-regulation a processing of it that then helps in a constructive way. Right? So there's a there's a cathartism to that which is I guess why I'm suggesting CEOs talk to each other without anyone knowing about it. Right? because I think they'll get a lot of catharticism and therapy. I mean, I'm sure they are one-on-one.

I mean, they all know each other. Not all of them, but maybe. I hope they are. Um, and I hope it's helpful for them. Um,

I think we should invite some CEOs and have those conversation with them. I think it should be good for everyone.

Talking about CEOs and invitations possibly. You wanted to talk about Oxfam. Yeah, I think it's um it's not really only the case. It's just an observation. Um the reputational risk is growing and I see that in 2026. Um and this is one of the symptoms and in this case I think it came internally this agreement between the board, the CEO or the executive and part of the employees or something like that. I don't have full details but I could see similar case with other organizations. I also see that international NOS's at least those who I see they are trying to do reputational management by either bringing a board member to focus at the branding or bringing more people into communication, marketing, branding and all that.

And I know firsthand that part of the enterprise risks for the majority of international NOS's now is the reputation. So I really think it's one area worth looking at because the damage there will extend to the public and when that thing happen I think we will have an issue that is very hard to deal with and this is starting internally not even externally because externally there are so many things where non-governmental organizations are being considered part of a political party or a political movement or extension of it or something like that but I'm saying this those internal conflicts going out to the public turning into reputational risks that would harm not only the organization but the people that we are trying to support at country level.

I mean, you're talking about there was an article late last year, wasn't there, where there was an open letter written by staff in disagreement with to the Oxfam leadership direction of travel and it went to the board as well. And I know in 2024 there were very public versions of similar dynamics for Save the Children at least two or three times and IRC had it as well. Um the rep the just speaking a little bit from experience um there's a there's a protect the brand type mindset right um so when you say reputational risk what do you see the reputational risk being and what harm would that pause. I think there are so many things and we are seeing examples of that. One is the political uh alignment with a with a you know organizations aligning with a certain political party.

Two is fraud and waste. Three the bureaucracy and four many people asking where are the donations going. um the public is asking those questions but also of course you know there are political dynamics there are so many other things but I think what happened at least internally I'm not talking externally that organizations with very good intention they wanted to make transformation or change but the communication and the change fitness they were not good enough and then they ended up either changing a structure terminating ing employees or having this organizational institutional shock in a way that affected employees and at the same time didn't create a healthy culture. Some people reacted and they were whisters or went to the public. Other they stayed silent but they suffered in silence and many others are still struggling.

And I want to add to that

every single person I know looking for a job or in job hunting mood is complaining and not happy with the recruitment practices because they feel disrespected, they feel gusted, they feel ignored, they feel disvalued. All those accumulated issues between the way the change happened, the lack of communication, the unhealthy toxic environment, the disrespect in recruitment and add to that the bureaucracy, the delays and so many others. There are small things accumulating on top of each other and they start going to the public and they start exploding and again in countries like the US and UK now more citizens they are going to dig deeper add to that I have seen several podcasts in Africa also with questions around that in Middle East now it's dayto-day conversations but I think we have to be careful um because the good intention is not enough.

I think we have very good way at least now trying to bring a vision. We are getting there but we have a failure in implementation.

The broader topic of good intentions and the process of change and the importance of living your values and frankly very stressful and like layered like the layers of pressure in this process. But what is the impact? what is what is the impact of doing it well and not doing it well both in terms of service delivery and but in also in terms of the public narrative which is what you're saying is very much in the public eye so it's it's bigger than one organization it's it is it's how we do this transition in one of those let's say strands and that's the world that I live in I have many thoughts on it

what are your thoughts

do I model. Do we have time? Do we have time

or do we want to put a pin in it for next time?

How long have we been recording for? Probably about 40 45 minutes. I think

there's one there's one point I've got going around my head and in this whole conversation that's about transparency, right? And you know, I don't know where I sit on this sort of public airing of tension between staff and leadership. I don't think we ever get the whole story when you see it. I certainly think there's there's there's misunderstood leadership decisions that are in there. I think you've got a lot of emotion and passion and hurt coming through with staff when they do that. But clearly to get to the point where that needs to happen, there's clearly a breakdown of communication internally. Um and that's that's something that needs to be addressed. Um I don't know. I kind of I kind of think it serves a valuable purpose at times, right?

It might not feel like it in the moment, but retrospectively there's a there's a there's a lot of learning that can be done from it. There's a lot of takeaways and there's a lot of honesty that can probably be gleaned if people want to look for it. Um, which brings me back to leadership behaviors and are people being honest with themselves? Are they listening to internal narratives or is the survival brain the one driving the thinking and it's driving defensive aggression because that's the safety space? Um, go back to what we've always done. Repeat the ways we've navigated tension in the past or repeat the way that we've navigated challenge and restriction and structural change in the past because that's what that's what we know.

Um, but it's both sides, isn't it? It's a double-edged. So in my mind, transparency is a double-edged sword. And it's easy to say we believe in honesty and transparency. I've seen so many ways that it has that it can it backfires, right? And it's it's on both sides. It's both in how the transparency is communicated. I've heard many senior leaders say, "We want to be transparent, but sometimes I'm too transparent and then

and then it's not the context isn't there, the understanding because it's it's it's a two-way street where the other person has to receive it in such a way and you're always receiving it

with filters.

So

it's it's it's a very fine line to walk and I'm not saying that in any case for this particular circumstance because I don't know but I'm saying broadly from a leadership perspective walking the line of honesty and transparency in a way that's productive and kind of meets the intent is a hard thing to do and the only thing I can say is you is starting with the assumption that like we're probably going to mess it up at some point is usually a good place to start. There's there's one there's one senior I won't I won't name them but uh they had a saying um it's cons it's it's cockup not conspiracy right case isn't it and it's yeah okay we screwed that one up didn't we staff it see I told you they were up against it they were going to

but in some way isn't that's probably the most likely answer than like just massive conspiracy

all the time all the time yeah no I completely agree yeah all right Here's my question because I feel like we had an interesting conversation, but I'm still I'm I want your you help me to pull the threads together. What did we talk about in the last hour? What did what was the through line? We meandered our way across.

What did we what did you learn or what are you taking

away differently? I'm going to do something. I started doing it this year to take pictures using this one. I love that. why we all are thinking.

Thanks.

Um I've taken away um the fact that we all need to have a little bit more humility. Um and when I mentioned the sort of opportunity for honesty a second ago, I wasn't necessarily referring to sort of outward communication honesty. I wasn't it's not the outer self and that performative person that I was thinking about. it was it's the internal person and that narrative that everyone has in their own heads. How honest are we letting that narrative get? How much are we listening to that voice? Um and are people in the frame of mind where they're calm, where they're rational enough to be able to let the cognitive brain process a lot of those honest reflections and use them. Now, either they do that on their own internally or they get external help in order to do that.

find that emotional container to be able to help make sense of all this. But crucially, it's about making the cognitive brain at the front be the one that's driving the conversation and the thought process. It's not the sort of survival brain of no, this is what we've got to do and panic stations and emergency and fatigue and exhaustion and repeat what we've done before because that will get us through blah, right? stop, pause, and let that internal narrative work and have the front brain focusing on the decisions because that's the only way creativity and curiosity is going to emerge, which is what's needed, right?

Ali, what do you think? For me it's um you know I really like when I have more questions and today we had um extra questions on how this um global movement will look like and the things around what to call it and how um we can make it operational and the conversation between executives and the board and then middle management and all that. I really don't think we need or at least I'm not trying to look for answers. I'm just trying to find good questions and those questions we have today, they are very good. Um, one thing I've been telling my friends about is that as long as we have curiosity within what we are trying to do, we are okay because the moment we stop being curious, that's that's a big problem.

And I feel all those conversations they make me and the feedback I received on our first episode, they make more people curious. So I think that's a very good positive thing. Take that as a win. Yeah. And one so one thing that you've made me question I think which is a good thing is well two things actually. The first is Thomas you keep asking me well why do we need to have a global movement? Why do we need to have this big container? And it's just something that I've taken for granted and the systems brain part of me takes for granted that everything can be tied up in a nice little bow if you try hard enough. And I don't know I'm going have to sit with that for a little while.

It makes me uncomfortable in a good way. Um but also along those lines, the idea that we need to accept that there's no way out of this without breaking something and that there will be damage and actually if we don't accept that we may be doing more harm than good is a very complex question or statement to sit with and I don't have anything more eloquent to say other than that I guess. Okay, but with that we'll hope people are curious if they're listening still.

What other questions are there? send them through. We'll we'll chat about whatever people want us to if they've got opinions. If not, we're not short of subject matter of ourselves, are we?

Love it. Excellent. Cool. I'll see you both soon.

Continue with the name for now. Why not?

Take care. Bye. Bye.