Catalyst

April - June 2022 The World’s Leadership Institute®

Catalyst Leadership for a lost world™

THE PAIN OF UKRAINE

WAR OF THE WORDS The Language of Leadership

COMIC GENIUS How a comedian made a fool of President Putin

£9.99 €11.95 $12.95

www.owls.global

DIFFERENT PEOPLE SINGLE IDENTITY Our Leaders are invisible in plain sight. At the Institute of One World Leadership, we create Leaders who make a difference, not crave the limelight. Leaders who understand the difference between right and wrong, that black and white are shades of the same palate.

From Architects to Chemists, Engineers Oceanographers, Paramedics to Teachers…

to

We create Leaders who aren’t out to win the race, but who are determined to encourage a Humane Race.

# Humane Race

iowl.global

CONTRIBUTORS Aaron Martin, Associate Professor, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of Melbourne

Jakob Stollberger, Associate Professor of Organisational Behavior, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Scott L. Montgomery, Lecturer, Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington

Ajnesh Prasad, Canada Research Chair, Royal Roads University

James Dwyer, Associate Lecturer and PhD Candidate, School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania

Scott Schieman, Professor of Sociology and Canada Research Chair, University of Toronto

James Gacek, Assistant Professor in Justice Studies, University of Regina

Sharon Horwood, Senior lecturer in Psychology, Deakin University

Jamie Gruman, Professor of Organizational Behaviour, University of Guelph

Sheila Fitzpatrick, Professor of History at the Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, Australian Catholic University

Alan Renwick, Professor of Democratic Politics, University College London Alma Diamond, Candidate, Doctor of Juridical Science, New York University Anda David, Senior researcher, Agence française de dévelopement (AFD) Andrea Carson, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, Media and Philosophy, La Trobe University

Jolanta Burke, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Positive Psychology and Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences Justin Phillips, Senior lecturer, University of Waikato

Andrew Gibbons, Postdoctoral Fellow, Edward A. Clark Center for Australian and New Zealand Studies, The University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts

Libby (Elizabeth) Sander, Assistant Professor of Organisational Behaviour, Bond Business School, Bond University

Andrew Moreo, Assistant Professor of Hospitality Management and Director of Research, Florida International University

Lisa Cain, Associate Professor of Hospitality Leadership and Marketing Management, Florida International University

Brock Bastian, Professor, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne

Marion Thain, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Humanities, King's College London

Carin Runciman, Director, Centre for Social Change, University of Johannesburg Christian Harrison, Reader in Leadership, School of Business and Creative Industries, University of the West of Scotland David Tuffley, Senior Lecturer in Applied Ethics & CyberSecurity, Griffith University David Whitney, Professor of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley Egon Dejonckheere, Postdoctoral Researcher, KU Leuven Erik Gustafsson, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of Portsmouth Gina Scott Ligon, Director the National Counterterrorism Innovation, Technolology, and Education (NCITE) Center, University of Nebraska Omaha Gregory A. Daddis, Professor and USS Midway Chair in Modern U.S. Military History, San Diego State University Imran Rahman, Associate Professor of Consumer Behavior, Auburn University

Shweta Singh, Assistant Professor, Information Systems and Management, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick

Steve Fletcher, Professor of Ocean Policy and Economy, University of Portsmouth Taha Yasseri, Associate Professor, School of Sociology; Geary Fellow, Geary Institute for Public Policy, University College Dublin Taha Yasseri, Associate Professor, School of Sociology; Geary Fellow, Geary Institute for Public Policy, University College Dublin

Mauro Manassi, Assistant Professor in Psychology, University of Aberdeen

Thomas S. Bateman, Professor Emeritus of Organizational Behavior, University of Virginia

Michael Blake, Professor of Philosophy, Public Policy and Governance, University of Washington

Trishna G. Mistry, Assistant Professor of Hospitality Management, University of South Florida

Michael E Mann, Director, Earth System Science Center, Penn State

Trudy Meehan, Lecturer, Centre for Positive Psychology and Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences

Mireia Las Heras, Professor of Managing People in Organisations, IESE Business School (Universidad de Navarra) Mohammad Amir Anwar, Lecturer in African Studies and International Development, University of Edinburgh Murray Leibbrandt, NRF Chair in Poverty and Inequality Research; Director of the Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town

Xin Ming Matthew Zhou, undergraduate research assistant, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto Yasin Rofcanin, Reader and Associate Professor of Organisational Behaviour & Human Resource Management, University of Bath

Nita Chhinzer, Associate Professor, Human Resource Management and Business Consulting, University of Guelph Robert Danisch, Professor, Department of Communication Arts, University of Waterloo Sam Hunter, Professor of Psychology, University of Nebraska Omaha

Irina Surdu, Associate Professor of International Business Strategy, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick

1 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Institute of One World Leadership®

EDITOR’S LETTER Catalyst or catastrophe?

When we considered a name for this publication in 2016, ‘Catalyst’ was chosen to represent our aspiration that readers and members of the Institute of One World Leadership would be - Catalysts - for positive change in business and society.

On 24th February 2022, the world witnessed the catalysis of a catastrophe, as Russia invaded Ukraine, demonstrating that a catalyst can create a negative impact, as opposed to a positive effect.

The fact that neutral terms can be adulterated, is a reason we established the framework and Centre for ‘Positive Value’ Leadership™ – to counter the weakness of Value Driven Leadership (have a look at page 80) I have heard those aligned with Putin, such as Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, pontificate that other countries have undertaken similar ‘Special Military Operations’, such as the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, just because someone else has done something, doesn’t make it right. The right thing to do is hold other entities to account and say, “don’t do that” – not take note to justify your future malfeasance.

“Precedent does not confer precedence.”

Lets take the Harvey Weinstein case and the #MeToo movement. It would be akin to other movie producers expecting sexual favours from aspiring actors, because someone else has done it. Precedent does not confer precedence. Using someone else’s bad behaviour to justify your own simply makes you as bad.

There have been opinion pieces in the media and press, by the likes of Andreas Kluth, writing for Bloomberg, and Hal Brands, in the Washington Post. They have referred to a term which must be challenged. The term was even used by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.

The World’s Leadership Institute®

Putin’s public approval is soaring?

Viewed from outside Russia’s digital Iron Curtain, it seems incomprehensible that Putin’s public approval amongst Russians has increased.

by NOEL FERGUSON

Unfortunately, we should not be surprised, and we should not blame Russian citizens for their belief in Putin.

If a child repeatedly presents its parents with a school report card, full of good news, the parents will be pleased and praise the child.

“It’s not a ‘sphere of influence’, but a ‘spear of imposition’.”

The term is ‘Sphere of Influence’.

Stoltenberg publicly stated it is ‘Unacceptable [sic] that Russia should have a sphere of influence’ While the argument that Russia has no right to have a sphere of influence is likely to infuriate Moscow – Russia’s actions have nothing to do with a sphere of influence.

Commentators and journalists have stated that “Russia wants to extend its ‘Sphere of Influence’.”, but what these pundits have failed to understand, is that it isn’t a Sphere of Influence, but a Spear of Imposition.

Influence requires dialogue, shared understanding, and alignment of aspirations.

Artillery shells, cruise, and hyper-sonic missiles are projectiles with intent to pierce, kill, annihilate - not influence.

Only if the parents realise that their offspring has surreptitiously changed the grades, will they question the validity of the message.

While Putin commands the press to pump propaganda to the population, it will be problematic to penetrate the ingrained perception which people possess.

At the IOWL we encourage the Leadership Exemplar of Probity, containing the Positive Values of Integrity and Honesty.

Withholding information and manipulating the message is dishonest and duplicitous.

We’re making this Spring edition Free of Charge, containing accurate information and analysis. It’s up to you, should you choose to support our Ukrainian fund.

Tyranny in all its forms, no matter who the instigator, should be challenged.

The cost of doing nothing – far exceeds the cost of doing something.

Be a Leader – not a Mis-Leader

Additionally a sphere of influence can be created directly and indirectly. People and countries create this sphere from their actions towards others, and also from others witnessing actions.

NOEL FERGUSON Editor & Executive Director

“ Is silence Joint Venture?”

Twitter NoelAFerguson Instagram NoelAFerguson

April 2022 | Catalyst | 2

CONTENTS Management Executive Chairman Noel Ferguson Operations Director Alexander Knapp Curriculum Director Dr Robert Harrison Development Director Michael Page Academic Director Prof Michele Russell

Advertising and Commercial owls.global/marketing Email Imarketing@owls.global Tel/WhatsApp +44 79 3825 6953

Subscriptions & Registration owls.global/register Tel/WhatsApp +44 79 3825 6953 Email client-services@owls.global Post Institute of One World Leadership, Forsyth House, Belfast, UK, BT2 8LA

International Advisory Council Dr Karen Blakeley United Kingdom Dr Rut Diamint Argentina Dr Rachel George United States Dr Kiran Hassan United Kingdom Dr Victoria Ann Hasson Netherlands Prof Vlatka Hlupic Croatia Dr Oleg Konovalov United Kingdom Dr Tony Matchaba-Hove South Africa Dr Pippa Malmgren United Kingdom Dr Andrea Reid Ireland Laura Round United Kingdom Prof Michele Russell United Kingdom Dr Katrin Stefan Germany Dr Juliette Thiolas France

Contributions All articles are copyright of the individual authors or contributors, as stated. Articles are curated, ameliorated, contextualised and formatted to meet Catalyst brand and style guidelines.

Catalyst only publishes articles by academics employed by, or otherwise formally connected to, accredited institutions, including universities and accredited research bodies, which are part of the ‘The Conversation’ – the not-for-profit media outlet which focuses on expert opinion and analysis.

The Institute of One World Leadership® curates articles which align with its Positive Value Leadership™ framework or which aid understanding of the Positive Values and Exemplars developed by the Centre for Positive Value Leadership™ The Institute of One World Leadership® makes an annual contribution/donation to the work of the non-profit Conversation foundation.

On The Cover 52 Comic Genius The Comedian who made a Fool of Putin - Zelenskyy antithesis of Putin who proved you don't need to be a strongman to be a great leader

56 The Pain of Ukraine During Ukraine's darkest hours, Volodymyr Zelensky has shown himself to be a man for the people, of the people - not just in rhetoric, but more importantly, in action.

Analysis

Features

38 Insight

48 Empathy

Ukraine as a 'borderland': a brief history of Ukraine's place between Europe and Russia

Empathy, not apathy, is needed now more than ever before

49 Everything we see is a mash-up of the brain's 3 ways Russia has shown last 15 seconds of military ‘incompetence’ during visual information its invasion of Ukraine

41 Hindsight

The brain is a time machine that ensures what we see is stable and continuous

60 Foresight The power to save the planet is inside us all - how to get past despair to powerful action on climate change

46 Oversight The cognitive bias that tripped us up during the pandemic

68 An excess of empathy can be bad for your mental health Here are three steps for overcoming the distress caused by a surfeit of empathy

92 The Lighter Side of Leadership Our round-up of the unbelievable, the unachievable, and the avoidable; if only every Leader would have foresight and not hindsight…

3 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Institute of One World Leadership®

April to July 2022 Business & Economy 8 Bad managers, burnout and health fears Why record numbers of hospitality workers are quitting the industry for good

10 Even Google agrees there's no going

26 Passionate about your job? Here's why that might not be good for you

Devotion to work can lead to burnout

27 How your colleagues affect your home life (and vice versa) Getting on well with your work mates will improve your domestic partnership.

back to the old office life Hybrid work is here to stay. Employers will either embrace the change or find themselves being left behind.

12 TikTok's secret algorithm is its greatest strength - and could also be its undoing

Perception & Cognition 48 For some, ignorance is bliss; for others, ignorance is something else Our age of agnosis is increasingly coming into contact in ways beyond historical standards and recorded memory. Empathy, not apathy, is needed now more than ever before

49 Everything we see is a mash-up of the

Analysis

brain's last 15 seconds of visual information The brain is a time machine that ensures what we see is stable and continuous

30 How do Russia's reasons for war stack up? An expert on 'just war' explains

The Chinese platform has become a major thorn in Mark Zuckerberg's side.

14 For workers in Africa, the digital economy isn't all it's made out to be

Over centuries, theory on just war has developed six main criteria for assessing conflicts.

On the Cover

33 All American presidents have lied - the

52 Zelenskyy - antithesis of Putin who

question is why and when

proved you don't need to be a strongman to be a great leader

Whereas digital work can bring freedom and flexibility into the lives of workers in Africa, it can also contribute towards their precarity and vulnerability.

A political philosopher argues that while all American presidents may lie, those who appear to lie for the public good are often celebrated.

16 Why big firms are rarely toppled by

36 The promise and folly of war - why do

A political philosopher explains the moral symbolism ascribed to Zelenskyy's 'heroism' and why he offers hope to those who hold democracy dear

corporate scandals - new research

leaders enter conflict assuming victory is assured?

54 Putin, Zelenskyy and Biden all have

The mud rarely sticks

18 How businesses can best help employees disconnect from work

Wars are not easy to win - something political leaders often forget when looking at the calculus of conflict.

The best way to help employees disconnect from work is to allow them the autonomy to choose for themselves how, when and where to disconnect.

38 Ukraine as a 'borderland': a brief history

20 Show me the money: Employees not only

Borderlands are all about diversity and competing understandings of community and nation

want better pay, they want status Many workers regularly report that they don't make enough to support their families. Status plays a role - while money can't buy happiness, it can bring status, which can lead to happiness.

22 Five rules for effective leadership in difficult times COVID may be receding, but the fall-out will continue to affect business in the coming year, requiring strong leadership to navigate uncertain times.

of Ukraine's place between Europe and Russia

unique leadership styles Ukrainian conflict - three key leaders, each with different approach to the crisis

56 Volodymyr Zelensky's appeal lies in his service to Ukrainians above all else During Ukraine's darkest hours, Volodymyr Zelensky has shown himself to be a man for the people, of the people - not just in rhetoric, but more importantly, in action.

41 3 ways Russia has shown military ‘incompetence’ during its invasion of Ukraine Between a lack of air support, use of older weapons and poor morale overall - it seems Russia isn’t fighting smart.

43 Burying the past and building the future in post-apartheid South Africa The death of Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu in 2021 has triggered renewed frustrations over the elusiveness of a 'new' South Africa.

Planet & Environment 58 War in Ukraine is changing energy geopolitics Russian President Vladimir Putin has used his country's massive energy reserves effectively for political influence. But with war in Ukraine, nations are looking for ways to cut those ties.

24 Why formal employment is not a guaranteed path to social equality Many formal sector jobs are increasingly precarious and poorly paid, meaning formal work is not an avenue to greater social equality for many people.

The World’s Leadership Institute®

46 The cognitive bias that tripped us up

60 The power to save the planet is inside us all - how to get past despair

during the pandemic Anchoring bias meant we found it hard to get rid of the first bit of information we heard.

How well people exercise their agency will determine the severity of global warming - and its consequences.

April 2022 | Catalyst | 4

April to July 2022 62 Tackling inequality will break gridlock on

78 7 ways to spot polarizing language

what to do about climate change

The reduction of inequality is crucial from an ethical point of view as well as the fact that will open new possibilities on how to tackle climate change.

65 Plastic waste treaty: expert Q&A on the

If we learn how to disengage from communication circuits that lay the groundwork for fear and aggression, we have a better chance of managing conflict constructively

Science & Technology

promise of a global agreement to reduce pollution

82 Twitter for the right: a look at Truth Social, Trump's ethically dubious social media platform

Health & Well-being

The platform's data usage and privacy implications raise serious concerns.

68 An excess of empathy can be bad for your mental health Here are three steps for overcoming the distress caused by a surfeit of empathy.

84 There are challenges but also potential benefits of digital distractions 'Attention snacking' may help keep us alert.

Politics & Society

86 Want to delete your social media, but

72 Fact-checking can actually harm trust in

Social media has some redeeming features - and its utility will depend on how you use it. But for many of us, the reward no longer outweighs the harms.

media: new research Study finds high levels of trust in media reports but that trust can be eroded by fact-checking.

Journalists need to rethink how they report political stories.

can't bring yourself to do it?

88 Why we trust experts - even when they admit they don't know the answer

75 Research finds countries that focus the most on happiness can end up making people feel worse They say to improve your mood you should fake a smile and roll with the crowd. But research suggests the more pressure you feel to be happy, the worse you'll end up feeling.

A look at how we decide which experts are the most trustworthy - and the possible biological basis behind it.

The Lighter side of Leadership 92 Slips trips and fails

77 Voters value honesty in their politicians above all else - new study

Our round-up of the unbelievable, the unachievable, and the avoidable; if only every Leader would have foresight and not hindsight…

Boris Johnson continues to insist the public cares more that he 'gets on with the job' than what happened in Downing Street over lockdown. But he may be wrong.

5 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Institute of One World Leadership®

This one is on us

Ethics

00 How do Russia's reasons for war stack up? An expert on 'just war' explains Over centuries, theory on just war has developed six main criteria for assessing conflicts. 7830

Business & Economy 00 Bad managers, burnout and health fears: Why record numbers of hospitality workers are quitting the industry for good New research shines light on what is driving hospitality workers - like waiters and hotel workers - to abandon the industry as part of the 'great resignation.’ 7830

Catalyst

00 The promise and folly of war ? why do leaders enter conflict assuming victory is assured?

00

A military historian and U.S. Army veteran explains how wars are not easy to win - something political leaders often forget when looking at the calculus of conflict. 8091

00 How businesses can best help employees disconnect from work

A political philosopher argues that while all American presidents may lie, those who appear to lie for the public good are often celebrated.

00 Five rules for effective leadership in difficult times

The best way to help employees To help our displaced Ukrainian disconnect from work is to allow them the autonomy to choose for and have families, we are making Allmembers American presidents themselves how, when and where to lied - the question is why and disconnect. 7373 Catalyst free of charge this quarter. when 7671

Please help Ukraine

00 Why big firms are rarely toppled by corporate scandals

The threat of COVID may be receding, but the fall-out will continue to affect business in the coming year, requiring strong leadership to navigate uncertain times. 7359

If you enjoy the content, please make a contribution to our Ukrainian appeal – 00 How your colleagues affect visit www.owls.global/ukraine OR your home life (and vice versa)

The mud rarely sticks – new research 8158

00 Twitter for the right: a look at Truth Social, Trump's ethically dubious social media platform

just scan the QR Code

The platform's data usage and privacy implications raise serious concerns. 7593

Empathy 00 For some, ignorance is bliss; for others, ignorance is something else Our age of agnosis is increasingly coming into contact in ways beyond historical standards and recorded memory. Empathy, not apathy, is needed now more than ever before.

7991

Getting on well with your work mates will improve your domestic partnership. 7631

Perception 00 Bad managers, burnout and health fears: Why record numbers of hospitality workers are quitting the industry for good New research shines light on what is driving hospitality workers - like waiters and hotel workers - to abandon the industry as part of the 'great resignation.’ 7830

The World’s Leadership Institute®

The World’s Leadership Institute®

April 2022 | Catalyst | 6

Business & Economy → ALSO IN THIS SECTION 8 Bad Managers, burnout & health fears 10 There’s no going back to old office life 16 Why big firms survive corporate scandals

18 Helping employees disconnect 22 Leadership in difficult times 27 How colleagues affect your home life

Business & Economy

→ ALSO IN THIS SECTION 8 Bad Managers, burnout & health

18 Helping employees disconnect

10 No going back to old office life

22 Leadership in difficult times

16 Why big firms survive scandals

27 How colleagues affect home life

Bad managers, burnout and health fears Why record numbers of hospitality workers are quitting the industry for good Professor Andrew Moreo Florida International University Professor Imran Rahman Auburn University Professor Lisa Cain Florida International University Professor Trishna G. Mistry University of South Florida

Dealing with customers every day can put significant stress on hospitality workers.

About 3.5 million people have at least temporarily left the U.S. workforce since March 2020. Over one-third of them ‘1.2 million’ are in the leisure and hospitality industry.

This has created huge problems for restaurants, hotels and other leisure and hospitality businesses that have struggled to find workers for record numbers of job openings in 2021.

A big part of this decline seems to be explained by the 'great resignation.' Leisure and hospitality workers are quitting at the highest rates of any industry. About 1 million quit in November 2021 alone. And the data suggests many of them are not simply swapping one hospitality job for another but leaving the industry entirely.

Why are these workers quitting, where are they going and what can be done to bring them back?

We recently commissioned a survey aimed at tracking down some of these workers and answering these questions.

The research is ongoing, but our early qualitative results offer some clues to answering these questions.

Reasons for attrition Before we get to our early data, there are several characteristics of leisure and hospitality work that help explain why the industry has unusually high turnover rates.

For one thing, the wages are very low. Leisure and hospitality workers were earning an average of US$515 a week 'including tips’ as of December 2021, making them the worst-paid of all sectors, according to Bureau of Labour Statistics data. That's less than half of the average for all private workers and translates into annual income of under $27,000 based on 52 weeks of pay.

This puts financial stress on these employees, often forcing them to work multiple jobs to get by.

The working hours are also challenging, often involving nights, weekends and holidays, which means hospitality workers routinely miss out on time with friends and family, limiting opportunities to recharge their emotional batteries.

Moreover, the nature of the jobs in this sector are particularly stressful and emotionally draining. In fact, sociologists and economists have a phrase for this: emotional labour. This concept refers to the suppression of whatever emotions an employee may be experiencing to provide good service to a customer and often ‘with a smile.’

In hospitality, employees must regulate the outward expression of their emotions to the benefit of the outwardpurpse

>>

The World’s Leadership Institute®

April 2022 | Catalyst | 8

Business & Economy customer and their employer, regardless of what they are feeling. Sometimes this puts little or no burden on the employee, but at other times it takes a great emotional toll.

The new stressors include massive furloughs and layoffs since March 2020, significant risks to personal health by having little choice but to work at a physical location where workers regularly are in close proximity to colleagues and customers, as well as fights with patrons over enforcing mask bans and vaccine mandates. The news media regularly report on angry and even violent confrontations between customers and service workers, whether on planes, in restaurants or in other types of establishments.

Finding the ‘quitters’ While there's been a ton of coverage of the sector's record quit rate “which dipped slightly to 5.8% in December” there's less hard data on why hospitality workers are leaving their jobs now and where they are going.

So as part of an ongoing project studying employee attrition, we asked Qualtrics “an employee and customer experience datagathering company” to find people who worked in the hospitality sector before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and have since left the industry “a process that was exceedingly difficult.”

We completed a qualitative unpublished pilot study in December 2021 to help inform a larger quantitative survey we're working on right now. Our initial results, which include open-ended responses from 31 people, aren't necessarily representative of all or even most workers who have quit their jobs but allow us to paint a more complete picture of what's driving the decisions of these specific individuals. We asked them why they left, where they went and what could lure them back to a hospitality job.

We used their answers to construct questions that are appropriate for in-depth statistical analysis, which will then be administered to 350 people who agree to take part in the quantitative survey. Results of that survey will be available in a couple months.

Why people are leaving Our first question focused on what drove people to not only quit their jobs but leave the hospitality sector. The most common responses related to health and safety concerns, burnout and issues involving managers or co-workers.

One of our respondents was a 35-year-old single mother who said she had been working in the food service industry for about five years before the pandemic hit. She quit her job four months later.

being overworked,' she said.

A 20-year-old man said he left the hotel industry during the pandemic after five years 'because I truly wasn't happy' and 'didn't have the will to keep going on.'

Another 35-year-old woman said she quit her job on a cruise ship because she cares for her elderly parents, who would be more at risk were they exposed to COVID-19.

'They didn't care about our well-being,' she said. 'I have family at home that can die if exposed to COVID.’

Where did they go?

As for what the people in our survey decided to do after leaving the industry, the most common answer was to get more education. But others emphasized a desire to go into business for themselves or to a different type of service job, such as in retail.

A 21-year-old man who had been working at nightclubs for over three years said he quit to go to college.

Both the 35-year-old single mother and 20-year-old man said they decided to become self-employed.

Another 23-year-old single mother who had worked in food service before and during the pandemic left for retail, stating: 'I got another job as a cashier and it was the only thing I could find at that moment.’

Would they go back?

Most of our participants told us nothing would bring them back to these types of jobs - they were done with the industry. The 35-year-old single mother, for example, said there was nothing that could be done to bring her back now that she had moved on with her own business.

But others said better money or hours would help lure them back, as well as stronger managerial support.

A 42-year-old woman who spent nearly a decade in the food service industry said she would return for 'better pay and more respect,' a sentiment echoed by others.

An 18-year-old woman said she quit a food service job because of a manager with a 'really bad temper' who would 'cuss at customers and employees.' She said that the only way she would go back to hospitality work is if a company showed her 'that managers are actually there to help employees.'

'I would also like customers to be more patient and humble,' she added.

■

'My safety and my family's safety were on the line and I was

9 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Institute of One World Leadership®

Business & Economy

Even Google agrees there's no going back to the old office life Hybrid work is here to stay. Employers will either embrace the change or find themselves being left behind.

Libby (Elizabeth) Sander Bond University

The great enforced global experiment in working from home is coming to an end, as vaccines, the Omicron variant and new therapeutic drugs bring the COVID-19 crisis under control.

But a voluntary experiment has begun, as organisations navigate the new landscape of hybrid work, combining the best elements of remote work with time in the office.

Yes, there is some push for a 'return to normal' and getting workers back into offices. But ideas such as food vouchers and parking discounts are mostly being proposed by city councils and CBD businesses keen to get their old customers back.

A wide range of surveys over the past 18 months show most employees and increasingly employers have no desire to return to commuting five days a week.

The seismic shift in employer attitudes is signalled by Google, long a fierce opponent of working from home.

Company employees were expected to return to the office from early April - but only for three days a week.

That's still way more than tech companies such as Australia's Atlassian, which expects workers to come into the office just four days a year, but it is a far cry from its pre-pandemic resistance to remote work.

Hybrid work is here to stay. Employers will either embrace the change or find themselves being left behind.

Gains in productivity Google began - under pressure - to soften its opposition to remote work in 2020. In December of that year chief executive Sundar Pichai told employees:

“We are testing a hypothesis that a flexible work model will lead to greater productivity, collaboration, and well-being.”

Its chief concern has been protecting the social capital that springs from physical proximity - and also perhaps with keeping employees under surveillance.

But longstanding (and widespread) management concerns that employees working from home would lower productivity have proven unfounded.

Even before the pandemic there was good research showing no productivity penalty from remote working - the opposite, in fact.

For example, a 2014 randomised trial involving about 250 Shanghai call centre workers found working from home associated with 13% more productivity. This comprised a 9% gain from working more minutes per shift ‘due perhaps to fewer interruptions’ and a 4% gain from making more calls per minute attributed to a quieter, more comfortable working environment.

Research in the past two years supports these findings.

Harvard Business School professor Raj Choudury and colleagues published research in October 2020 that found allowing employees to work wherever they like led to a 4.4% increase in output.

In April 2021, Stanford University economist Nick Bloom and colleagues calculated a the shift to remote working resulted in a 5% productivity boost. Though their working paper, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, was not peer reviewed, it was based on surveying 30,000 American workers, which is a decent sample size.

>> The World’s Leadership Institute®

April 2022 | Catalyst | 10

Business & Economy Changed expectations of work The importance underestimated.

of

these

things

should

not

be

In a June 2021 study by McKinsey of 245 employees who had returned to the office, one-third said they felt their mental health had been harmed.

The experience of the pandemic has lowered our tolerance for this old world of work.

Nothing exemplifies this better than the growth of the 'lieflat' trend, which began in China and is now a global phenomenon. Increasing numbers of people are rejecting the idea of pursuing a career at all costs.

Our relationship with work has changed There are good reasons most of us don't want to go back to the old normal. It just wasn't that great.

While working from home can brings challenges of other kinds, not least the ability to switch off and stop working when work is done, working in an office can increase stress, lower mood and reduce productivity.

Google's corporate headquarters in Mountain View, northern California. It has softened its historical opposition to remote working by insisting workers must return to the office for three days a week.

My own research has measured the effects of typical openplan office noises, finding a 25% increase in negative mood even after a short exposure time.

Then there's the time spent commuting. Not having to go into the office every day frees up hours of time to do other things. Particularly in winter it's nice to not have to leave and arrive home in the dark.

They don't want to spend their life being a cog in the wheel of capitalism and are choosing to work less - even not at all.

No one size fits all Rather than a bastion of meaning and fulfilment, the structures around how we have conducted work has for many people meant an existence of quiet desperation. The pandemic has brought an unforeseen opportunity to change this narrative and rethink both the way we work and the role of work in our lives For some, no job is better than a bad job. The rest of us will settle for the flexibility we've had over the past two years.

No one size fits all. The downsides of working from home include missing co-workers and losing the benefits of serendipitous conversations. The nuances of how much time we need to spend together in the office for outcomes like creativity, belonging, learning and relationship building varies between individuals, teams and job types.

But what is certain is we don't need to be together five days a week to make these things happen. With a shrinking workforce and an increasing war for talent, employers who don't provide flexibility will be the losers.

■

Preferred number of days working at home, by occupation Preferred number of days working at home, by occupation

11 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Institute of One World Leadership®

Business & Economy

TikTok's secret algorithm is its greatest strength - and could also be its undoing The Chinese platform has become a major thorn in Mark Zuckerberg's side.

TikTok has over 1 billion monthly users, and its user base has virtually doubled in the past year. As my niece Divya exemplifies, it's heavily skewed to younger users, with under 19s making up 25% of the total, potentially giving it a major advantage for the future.

The average Facebook user is roughly a decade older. Even Instagram, Meta's other huge social platform, with 2.1 billion users, has a slightly higher age range to TikTok. And although Instagram is adding comparable numbers of users, it is losing younger ones.

So is TikTok likely to keep doing as well in the future, and what will be the deciding factors?

Facebook's user problem Strange to think that Facebook was once the Gucci of social media platforms. It was an exclusive club, with membership via invitation, for students of elite universities only. This helped to generate the buzz that carried it into the mainstream.

TikTok now has over a billion daily users.

Professor Shweta Singh University of Warwick

I have a ten-year-old niece named Divya (not her real name) in rural northern India. Two years ago, I visited and she came running to hug me. I asked what was the best gift I could give her, and all she wanted was for me to follow her on TikTok. Divya posts videos of her Bollywood dances and loves receiving likes for them. With around 10,000 followers, she already thinks she is a superstar. I didn't have a TikTok account when she asked me to follow her, but, naturally, I signed up and have been enthusiastically supporting her ever since.

On seeing the news that Meta's share price lost US$200 billion (£148 billion) in a day, and that Mark Zuckerberg was blaming TikTok, I must admit that my first thought was that Divya must be doing really well with her Bollywood dance videos. But joking aside, after more than a decade in which Facebook (now rebranded as Meta) has seemed impregnable as the superpower in social media, with nearly 3 billion monthly active users, it suddenly looks possible that this may not continue forever.

The platform exploited some of the basic principles of human psychology, not least that people feel connected to their friends when they feel close to them. Thus Facebook harnessed the power of pictures, along with other early options like the 'poke' to make the whole interaction feel as tangible as possible.

Instagram was also built around pictures, but TikTok's focus since launching in 2016 has been on building long-lasting connections via short, fun videos. Initially, these were a maximum of 15 seconds long, though now they can run to three minutes. After launching outside China in 2017, it also grew quickly because its technology seemed to understand users' behaviour and preferences so well. Meta responded by launching the video-sharing service Instagram Reels in 2020, but this has not slowed down TikTok's massive growth.

For TikTok, which is owned by China's ByteDance, it didn't take long before network effects kicked in, where each additional user attracts a multiple of other users: if all my friends are on there, I need to be there too. The reverse has happened to Facebook, probably aggravated by its flawed privacy policies and the way it drives users to extreme content for profit - as highlighted by whistle-blower Frances Haugen. It has just reported the first loss of daily users in its history.

>> The World’s Leadership Institute®

April 2022 | Catalyst | 12

Business & Economy Facebook has become the worst example of social media abuses.

Annie Spratt, CC BY

TikTok uses both human and algorithmic moderators to try and prevent harmful content from being spread by users.

Nonetheless, it has at times been banned in numerous countries over obscene or vulgar content, and is still banned in India (though many people manage to use it). It has also faced lawsuits over how it uses children's data.

Clearly, TikTok has the potential to become the world's biggest social media platform. It also faces newer rivals such as Likee, Clash and Triller, but they all have fewer users.

But if TikTok becomes two or three times bigger, it will have the potential to cause more and more harm. Handled wrongly, it will become increasingly vulnerable to the sort of long-term reputational damage that is arguably now an issue for Facebook.

What next?

Like other platforms, TikTok has faced concerns over users' privacy, the spread of misinformation and scrolling addiction.

But its biggest risk for the future is probably also its greatest success - a secret algorithm that understands the deepest intricacies of users' behaviour without asking any personal information. It simply looks at the amount of time they spend on any video and uses this to drive more content towards them.

It should therefore definitely find ways to protect user privacy more aggressively, and design even more sophisticated solutions for enhanced content filtering via advanced artificial intelligence. If TikTok doesn't do it, rivals will, which could quickly make them a more serious threat.

Yet this also gives TikTok the ability to exploit human vulnerabilities to maximise our screen time. And the fact that it is so embedded with the youngest web users worldwide makes this potentially even more controversial.

As for Meta, it could potentially buy TikTok in the same way as it bought Instagram and WhatsApp, but the mood in the US is against allowing big tech to become more dominant. The other potential saving grace for Meta might be the metaverse, an immersive online world that Zuckerberg believes is the future of the internet.

The same algorithm that can make a video viral by targeting a very specific cross-section of people can also, say, make young users more conscious of their body image by pushing them content that plays on these insecurities. For similar reasons, I worry about Divya, who thinks that unless she gets ample likes for her TikTok videos, she is not good enough and her dancing is not worthwhile.

If his bet is right, one important question will be how digital avatars will socialise with each other. I'm pretty sure that at least as far as Divya is concerned, she would want to use TikTok. Meta might therefore want to think about how to incorporate TikTok into the world it wants to create. If it can't control the communications interface itself, that would surely be the next best thing.

■

Get the next edition of Catalyst Free too Sign up at www.owls.global/register

13 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Institute of One World Leadership®

Business & Economy

For workers in Africa, the digital economy isn't all it's made out to be Whereas digital work can bring freedom and flexibility into the lives of workers in Africa, it can also contribute towards their precarity and vulnerability.

Staff members of an e-commerce company in Rwanda.

Prof. Mohammad Amir Anwar University of Edinburgh

Today more than half of the world's population is connected to the internet. In Africa, there are over 590 million internet users and over 800 million mobile phone subscribers.

Some observers note that such diffusion of digital tools and connectivity is bringing political, economic, social and cultural transformations on the African continent.

One such change is that workers from Lagos to Johannesburg to Nairobi are carrying out various forms of digital work. These are activities which involve manipulation of digital data using tools such as mobile phones, computers and the internet.

Examples are transcription, article writing, image tagging, search engine optimisation, and inbound and outbound customer services, which can be done for clients anywhere.

As a result, governments, development organisations and

The World’s Leadership Institute®

civil society look towards digital work as a fix for African countries' development problems, including unemployment, poverty, and inequality.

For our new book, The Digital Continent, we conducted a five year study to investigate call centre work and the remote gig work and its implications for workers in five African countries: South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria and Ghana.

We argue that job quality in digital work remains questionable.

We show that while digital work can bring some forms of freedom and flexibility into the lives of workers in the five countries, it can also contribute towards their precarity and vulnerability.

Employment insecurities We conducted in-depth interviews with call centre workers and remote gig workers to understand their experiences of digital work, income, working hours, employment relations, and algorithmic management of their labour and body.

>>

April 2022 | Catalyst | 14

Business & Economy employment relations, and algorithmic management of their labour and body.

Platforms also give employers access to a planetary workforce, so workers have become more expendable than ever. Workers we spoke to noted that clients preferred lowercost labour destinations, such as India and the Philippines.

Employment insecurities Managed by algorithms We conducted in-depth interviews with call centre workers and remote gig workers to understand their experiences of digital work, income, working hours, employment relations, and algorithmic management of their labour and body.

A majority of those we interviewed noted new digital jobs as one of their important sources of income. But this should be read with caution.

Call centres are notorious for contingent employment relations - that is, flexible and short-term contracts Firms' use of temporary staffing agencies to cut labour costs is also common. Call centre agents can be hired and fired easily. For example, an agent in Nairobi told us that in April 2016 his firm fired 70 workers.

Companies also relocate with relative ease. Though in South Africa call centre operations have grown in recent years, several have closed down in Kenya, Nigeria and Ghana.

Some companies moved to destinations with cheaper labour.

Unfortunately exact data on this is hard to come by.

Similarly, workers on the continent see the digital gig economy as a new opportunity. While technological barriers may have been reduced, they face various hurdles to earning a living in the global gig economy. A worrying trend is that few actually earn an income on platforms where flexible digital work is made available.

Upwork is the world's largest platform in terms of registered workers and the most popular among workers on the continent. But our estimates suggest that less than 6% of the Africans registered on it ever earn a single US dollar. In the case of Ghana and Uganda, these figures are as low as 3.1% and 2.7% respectively.

There is an oversupply of labour on the gig economy platforms. Respondents also told us that some clients do not want to give contracts to workers on the continent.

On platforms, work is primarily short-term. Some tasks (like image tagging) take as little as a minute to complete; others can last longer (like virtual assistant work). The short-term contracts mean that workers have to constantly search for work on platforms to earn an income. Yet compensation can be low.

Because some platforms pay as little as $0.10 per task, workers resort to working on multiple contracts, which means longer and unsociable hours. Some of those in our study spent up to 80 hours a week working.

15 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Increasing use of algorithmic management for surveillance and control of workers and the labour process is making digital workers even more vulnerable.

In call centres, technological tools like customer relationship management and workforce management are used to maximise workers' time on call. Call centres are known as 'assembly lines in the head' for this reason.

In the gig economy, workers face similar pressures with algorithms keeping track on them by taking a screenshot of their laptops.

While some platform workers can schedule the time and place of work the way they want, this flexibility isn't available to everyone. Only experienced gig workers were able to achieve some form of flexible working.

Surveillance and algorithmic control result in loneliness and social isolation. Complaints about mental and physical stress, including sleep deprivation, were common among our respondents.

Some gig economy platforms openly state that clients do not have to pay if workers fail to meet the target or if clients are not satisfied with the work. There were dozens of stories of workers in our sample who never got paid for work done.

Wage refusal or withholding pay is considered forced labour by the International Labour Organisation.

Lack of career opportunities Call centres are considered flat organisations with very few opportunities for internal progression within a firm. A majority of the agents we interviewed did not consider their work at call centres as a long-term career option. We met workers who had been in the sector for over five years with no real progression in salary or working conditions.

Platform companies and organisations such as the World Bank have built a rhetoric around the gig economy as enabling self-employment or entrepreneurship. Our book shows a less positive reality. Digital work opportunities don't always translate into good quality jobs, and may not be sustainable.

We see a need for research and activism that exposes how digital work is done. We also call for government action to uphold worker rights. And we advocate for building worker solidarity in digital economy networks.

■

Institute of One World Leadership®

Business & Economy

Why big firms are rarely toppled by corporate scandals - new research The mud rarely sticks.

Professor Irina Surdu University of Warwick

attention can lead to greater brand awareness, proving the old adage that any publicity is good publicity.

Why big firms are rarely toppled by corporate scandals ? new research

Take the recent furore over Spotify. In early 2022, the world's largest music streaming service was accused by science and health professionals of offering a platform for misinformation about COVID.

Everyone makes mistakes. And that includes the world's biggest companies, which are reliably prone to gaffes, errors of judgment and wrongdoing.

Some of these moments could even be labelled as corporate scandals - the kind of incident which shoves firms into the spotlight and places their activities under detailed public scrutiny.

But do these events do lasting damage? Does an oil spill, fraudulent activity or other unethical behaviour really affect highly valued reputations, sales and market value?

Our research suggests not. In fact, our analysis of the effects of a wide variety of business scandals shows that only rarely is the effect as severe as we might imagine.

Instead, it seems the public has a strong tendency to forget and move on. And even initial unplanned (and at the time unwanted)

The World’s Leadership Institute®

So what happened next? At first, there was a dip in the stock market price of about 12% when artists including Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and Graham Nash announced they were withdrawing their music from the service. This financial hiccup was followed by an immediate stock price rebound that is likely to climb beyond prescandal levels. Spotify went on to add disclaimers to its COVIDrelated content and removed some content.

So in the long term, this will probably turn out to be nothing more than a slight bump in the road for Spotify. As a business, it provides a hugely popular service and boasts 172 million premium subscribers around the world, 28 million of whom joined in 2020.

How many of them will cancel their subscriptions and forgo access to their carefully curated playlists because Young and Mitchell have decided to walk?

>>

April 2022 | Catalyst | 16

Business & Economy

And while it is true that the company's business model relies on musicians and other content providers, the reality is that most artists cannot afford to not be on the platform. Giving Spotify the benefit of the doubt, it's entirely possible it made an honest mistake and underestimated how sensitive some people have become to discussions about the pandemic. Customers will probably make peace with this.

Likewise, Netflix will doubtlessly survive recent controversies over some of its content, such as the British comedian Jimmy Carr's comments about the Holocaust. With so many subscribers around the world attracted by the service's wide range of content, Netflix is another example of an industry giant that can shrug things off.

And remember Facebook's market collapse after it was linked to the personal data of millions of users being collected by the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica? Don't feel bad if you don't, it lasted about seven seconds (OK, maybe seven days). The company then recovered all of the US$134 billion (£102 billion) it had previously lost in market value.

Law and disorder So what makes some scandals stick? In our research, we found that only certain scandals tend to have significant negative effects on corporate reputations and performance. One apparently vital element is a company being found liable in a court of law. The legal process gives weight and depth to a scandal that might otherwise have quickly disappeared.

The Volkswagen emissions scandal for example, started in

17 | April 2022 | Catalyst

The Royal Courts of Justice in London.

It's the court that counts.

Shutterstock/ Chris Dorney

2015. Seven years later, the company is still negotiating settlements in class action lawsuits brought against it for cheating on emissions tests.

The company's share price dropped 30% immediately after the scandal (it has improved since the move towards electric vehicles) and Volkswagen's reputation is still tarnished by the event, as it continues to attract significant regulatory scrutiny, affecting its status among investors.

Similarly, years after being found responsible for the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, BP is still paying the price of its negligence, as it continues to be embroiled in many lawsuits. And following regulatory intervention, German financial services provider Wirecard is not even around anymore to tell the story of how '1.9 billion (£1.6 billion) disappeared from its balance sheet.

Yet without corporate culpability determined by the court of law, very few accusations stick, even in the face of media scrutiny. Without clear evidence of harm caused to a group of people, there is very little in the way of measurable negative impact, or demand for compensation for the damage caused.

As consumers, we often like to signal moral superiority and enjoy some of the drama provided by the corporate discomfort of a juicy scandal. But our research found that people's response to a company is driven by more mundane considerations. These are price, convenience, loyalty, ease of use and habit - and there aren't many scandals considered quite scandalous enough to make us change any of those.

■

Institute of One World Leadership®

Business & Economy

How businesses can best help employees disconnect from work The best way to help employees disconnect from work is to allow them the autonomy to choose for themselves how, when and where to disconnect.

Professor Jamie Gruman University of Guelph Professor Nita Chhinzer University of Guelph

A number of countries have recently introduced legislation giving employees the legal right to disconnect electronically from work. Originating in France, right-todisconnect initiatives mandate that organizations cannot expect employees to be available outside of their established working hours.

This legislation has now expanded to Ireland, Canada, Spain and other countries.

However, by maintaining a focus on a set of established working hours during which employees must be available, the right to disconnect simply takes the physical time clock off the wall and figuratively puts it into the cloud. Although an important initiative, a greater focus on employee autonomy is needed to maximize the benefits intended by these laws.

Although the right to disconnect may foster high

The World’s Leadership Institute®

performance by allowing employees to recharge their batteries, the major intent is to promote employees' work-life balance by allowing them to disengage from work, handle different responsibilities and ensure their well-being. Right-to-disconnect laws signal a greater focus on employee well-being, and a rejection of the idea that workers need to be 'always on.'

Hands are seen typing on a keyboard.

Limitations of the right to disconnect But right-to-disconnect legislation has limitations. It focuses on specific hours employees are free to disconnect and establishes a window during which they must be accessible.

However, establishing working hours during which employees must be available is a holdover from the industrial age when the value of employees was based on the inputs they provided - physical labour, for example.

It fails to recognize that the value of today's employees is often based on their outputs, including creative work.

>>

April 2022 | Catalyst | 18

Business & Economy However, when organizations implement policies that allow employees the freedom to choose for themselves when and how to disconnect, the well-being and performance benefits of disconnecting are maximized.

when, how and where they work may be largely immaterial.

For example, someone working at home may choose to disconnect in order to go for a run at 2 p.m. and then work at 8 p.m., after their kids are asleep. Also, different people operate more effectively at different times of the day.

Different jobs have different levels and forms of autonomy they support. For instance, an emergency room nurse cannot choose to work from home or independently decide when to arrive at the hospital for a shift. The relationship between autonomy and work outcomes may vary depending on the nature of the work and the employer.

Limits to autonomy

Similarly, an employee completing a series of intense meetings might want to take a break before re-engaging in work. Giving employees the right to disconnect on their own terms may be the best formula for promoting both performance and well-being.

Fostering autonomy These benefits can be maximized when work is designed to provide employees with an appropriately high level of autonomy, which refers to the discretion employees have over how, when and, increasingly, where they complete their work tasks. Numerous classic and contemporary studies demonstrate the value of employee autonomy.

For example, research shows that employees who have the freedom to choose how to structure their workday and schedule their tasks (work-scheduling autonomy) have higher levels of work engagement and innovative work behaviour.

Other studies indicate that allowing employees to make decisions (decision-making autonomy) and choose for themselves how to perform tasks (work-method autonomy) reduces mental strain, increases work motivation and improves job performance.

Similarly, research shows that when employees have the discretion to choose where to work (location autonomy) they select environments that promote both their productivity and well-being.

As these studies demonstrate, there are a variety of forms of autonomy. Employee well-being and performance will be enhanced if greater autonomy, of various types, is built into right-to-disconnect initiatives.

In structuring work this way, organizations effectively separate work hours from work outputs and focus squarely on results rather than the time clock. Doing so also reduces concerns over how to manage employees remotely.

Overseeing an employee's work behaviour may not, in fact, be necessary as long as workers are generating outputs on time, within budget and at an acceptable level of quality. As long as employees are meeting organizational objectives,

19 | April 2022 | Catalyst

If workers are high-performing, it shouldn't matter when, where and how they work.

Issues such as the nature of the work, co-ordination requirements, dealing with deadlines or crises, work standards and employee tenure should all be considered in deciding how much autonomy is warranted. But the general principle should be to provide as much autonomy as a job will allow and support employees in their exercise of it.

Additionally, work groups should have the opportunity to establish the parameters of autonomy themselves and revisit this issue on a regular basis.

The right to disconnect is an issue that has emerged due to technological developments that have allowed organizations to keep employees tethered to work 24/7.

Implementing this right effectively requires overcoming the industrial age mentality that imposes constraints on employee autonomy that are unnecessary, and possibly counterproductive, in the modern age.

The best way to help employees disconnect from work is to allow them the autonomy to choose for themselves how, when and where to disconnect.

■

Institute of One World Leadership®

Business & Economy unfavourable perception has spiked from previous years. But looking back through two decades of U.S. data from the General Social Survey (GSS) - a highly reputable national survey of Americans - we were surprised by how prevalent and stable the 'no' responses have been.

In 2018, the last time the GSS asked this question, 50.8 percent of American workers reported that the income from their job was not enough to make ends meet. And the percentage was even higher in previous years: 52.9 in 2014; 53.4 in 2006 and 55.9 in 2002. The highest on record - 58.2 per cent occurred in 2010 at the tail end of the Great Recession.

How fair is what you earn?

Show me the money: Employees not only want better pay, they want status Many workers regularly report that they don't make enough to support their families. Status plays a role - while money can't buy happiness, it can bring status, which can lead to happiness.

Professor Scott Schieman University of Toronto Xin Ming Matthew Zhou University of Toronto

There has been endless chatter about the Great.

Resignation. Renegotiation. Reshuffle.

Regardless of the descriptor used, employees across the globe and in the United States are purportedly re-evaluating the role of work in their lives. While some of this is related to deeper existential questions - like 'What am I doing with my life?' or 'Is this really how I want to be spending most of my waking hours?' - there might be a much simpler and more practical explanation for the take-thisjob-and-reinvent-it wave.

A classic quote from the 1996 film Jerry Maguire captures it well. Sports agent Jerry Maguire (played by Tom Cruise) has been fired and as he embarks to become an independent agent he desperately tries to retain one of his clients, football star Rod

The World’s Leadership Institute®

Tidwell (Cuba Gooding Jr.).

Tidwell shouts his demands: 'Show me the money!' He adds: 'I have a family to support, Jerry!’

Earning enough to make ends meet Given what Americans say about their earnings, you'd think many would be bellowing like Tidwell. From Jan. 19 to Feb. 2, 2022, my research assistant and I partnered with Angus Reid Global to field a national survey of 2,000 working Americans. We asked: Do you feel that the income from your job alone is enough to meet your family's usual monthly expenses and bills?

Considering the ominous news about inflation lately, we figured that this

But 'show me the money' isn't only about having enough for life's necessities. It's also about the sense of fairness - what scholars refer to as distributive justice. In our survey, we asked: How fair is what you earn on your job in comparison to others doing the same type of work you do?

While 37.9 per cent feel they are paid appropriately, 52.7 per cent feel they are paid less than they deserve. On this indicator, the shift is substantial. Between 2002 and 2018, 40.6 per cent on average have described their pay as being somewhat less or much less than they deserve, with 2010 again being the outlier at 46.2 percent.

We need to earn enough to live, and the amount should be just. But there's another element of pay that reflects something deeper. A fundamental human motive: status.

Justifying his 'show me the money' plea, Tidwell roars: 'I'm a role model, Jerry,' adding 'it's a very personal ' very important thing.’

Status matters. Not only in the eyes of others, but in our own self-evaluations too.

Sociologists refer to this as subjective social status. To measure it, we told respondents to think of a ladder. At the top (10) are the people who are the best off. At the bottom (1) are the people who are the worst off. And, we asked: Where would you put yourself at the present time?

>> April 2022 | Catalyst | 20

Business & Economy On average, American workers report a 6 on the status ladder. But those who report insufficient earnings and feel severely underpaid score significantly lower (4.9), compared to those who have sufficient earnings and feel their pay is appropriate (6.6). That difference holds regardless of education, occupation, income and job authority.

Can money buy happiness?

Some say money can't buy happiness, but it goes a long way to providing status. And status often translates into happiness.

In our survey, Americans who don't earn enough to make ends meet and feel underpaid are less happy and hopeful about the future. Life, for them, is less enjoyable.

Inadequate earnings and feeling underpaid also erode happiness more strongly than the objective indicators of

low socio-economic standing do. And one's position on the status ladder eclipses all other socio-economic indicators in predicting happiness.

Our sample doesn't include any professional football stars.

But it does contain a broad cross-section of American workers - doggie day-care assistants, accountants, truck drivers, software engineers, sous chefs, electricians, candlemakers and on and on. All have a few things in common: They want to earn enough money to make ends meet, they want to be paid fairly for the work they do and they all share the fundamental human motive for status.

As dated as Jerry Maguire feels, 'show me the money' still resonates. Maybe it always will. Given how consistent these indicators of income dissatisfaction have been for the past few decades, perhaps the Great Re-evaluation of work should focus first and foremost on compensation. Channel your inner Rod Tidwell!

■

Dr Oleg Konovalov The Vision Code How to Create and Execute a Compelling Vision for Your Business Available Now

21 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Institute of One World Leadership®

Business & Economy

Five rules for effective leadership in difficult times COVID may be receding, but the fall-out will continue to affect business in the coming year, requiring strong leadership to navigate uncertain times.

Christian Harrison University of the West of Scotland

After another punishing year dominated by COVID, the omicron threat appears to be receding and many people may now be looking at the beginning of the end of the pandemic. But the fallout from COVID will still pose huge challenges in 2022 in terms of economic growth, supply chain issues, labour shortages and employee confidence.

As ever, effective leadership in business is paramount.

But strong leaders need to be thinking beyond the pandemic. So how do they navigate a future filled with uncertainty? Here are the five core skills which all leaders facing these challenges must demonstrate and embody.

aerospace and defence company Mercury Systems, had been tracking the virus for several months and had a clear vision for how his organisation could address the emerging challenges. His three-fold plan was to protect the health, safety and livelihoods of Mercury's employees, reduce operational financial risks to the business and deliver its commitment to customers and shareholders.

Aslett communicated this clearly in a way that resonated with employees, customers and shareholders alike. The success of his vision has been reflected in the strong financial performance demonstrated throughout the pandemic, leaving the company poised for further success in the year ahead.

2. Adapt and be open to change 1. Have a vision The pandemic has caused the unprecedented disruption of commerce in most industry sectors. Envisioning involves creating a picture of what the future will be like for an organisation and which will serve as a road map to success. When that vision is understood and shared, it generates enthusiasm and motivation, and builds the confidence in employees. Good leaders cultivate not just a plan of how the vision may be achieved but also a deep conviction that it will be successful.

When COVID-19 emerged, Mark Aslett, CEO of

The World’s Leadership Institute®

Good leaders develop appropriate strategies for their organisations in periods of crisis or stability alike, anticipating and being open to change. Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson did just that when faced with a public backlash following the arrest of two black men waiting for a friend in a Philadelphia branch. Because they hadn't purchased anything, the manager allegedly deemed the two men to be suspicious and called the police.

The arrest caused public outrage. Johnson not only apologised but closed 8,000 US stores while 175,000 employees underwent training in unconscious racial bias.

This kind of policy change is important in inspiring and motivating employees while reassuring customers and

>>

April 2022 | Catalyst | 22

Business & Economy motivating employees while reassuring customers and helping to restore the company's reputation.

3. Generate new ideas The uncertainty of a volatile business environment experiencing everything from environmental pressures to supply chain problems means innovation and creativity will be key in 2022. The ability to question the way things are done, challenge assumptions and generate new ideas is vital in good leaders.

This means creating an environment that fosters innovation among the workforce. Employees should be encouraged to challenge the status quo and look at alternatives to traditional perspectives and problem solving.

Leaders need to make teams think about existing challenges in new ways and re-examine assumptions about their roles.

This could involve more creative thinking and idea generation through useful tools such as mind-mapping, brainstorming and gamification.

4. Solve problems creatively

Solutions will be found by analysing the root cause of the problems with employees at the centre of the process.

Communication is key. Good leaders recognise the value of their teams' input and motivate people to work together to solve thorny problems. Most importantly, listening carefully to customers' needs and concerns is also crucial.

Reacting to pandemic challenges such as falling demand accelerated shipping company Maersk's shift from being a port-to-port transport operation to an integrated logistics company. Maersk's speeded-up transformation capitalised on digital technologies to enhance its expertise and provide customers with better, faster and more integrated supply chain information.

5. Inspire and motivate After almost two years of pandemic conditions, the fallout from COVID for the coming year includes workspace concerns, low employee morale and burnout. People need inspirational leaders at the helm to unite the workforce and reinvigorate the workplace. In motivating people, empathy is critical. Effective leaders need to understand the fears, hopes and concerns of those who work for them.

In 2022 there is likely to be a variety of social, economic, environmental and technological problems affecting businesses. Labour shortages are expected to be an issue of concern as COVID self-isolation continues and some people are hesitant to re-join the workforce.

Working separately and often in isolation has taken its toll on some people, demonstrated in the rise in mental health issues across the population. Some workers may now prefer the work from home arrangements, and leaders will need to look at continuing flexibility while balancing the needs of the business.

Supply chain issues that were evident throughout 2020 and 2021 may not be resolved. Companies will need to consider how much of their supply chain should be international versus domestic in an effort to address environmental issues, future production and supply chain problems.

Compassionate and supportive leadership is vital in inspiring confidence in employees and reassuring them in difficult and uncertain times. Concerted efforts to support and maintain employee wellbeing is crucial to morale and achieving company goals.

■

■ 23 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Institute of One World Leadership®

Business & Economy

House painter Emanuel Chisiya and other jobseekers wait for casual jobs work offers on the side of a road in Cape Town.

Why formal employment is not a guaranteed path to social equality Many formal sector jobs are increasingly precarious and poorly paid, meaning formal work is not an avenue to greater social equality for many people.

Carin Runciman Director, Centre for Social Change, University of Johannesburg

The theme of this year's World Day of Social Justice was 'Achieving Social Justice through Formal Employment'.

Gaining access to formal employment can greatly reduce poverty. As it is, more than 60% of the working population in the world '2 billion people globally' eke out a living in the informal economy. In theory, formal employment provides a more stable income, social protection and employmentrelated benefits.

However, the reality is that many formal sector jobs are increasingly precarious and do not provide any of these benefits, meaning that formal work is not a guaranteed path to greater social equality.

Internationally, there has been a rise in socalled precarious work. While there is no single definition of precarious work, it is generally used to refer to insecure, poorlypaid work and work without access to benefits, such as medical aid. Examples of these forms of work include seasonal work,

The World’s Leadership Institute®

casual work, gig work and agency work, what is most often called labour broking in South Africa.

In South Africa, these various forms of precarious work have increased substantially. Between 2004 and 2017 the number of people employed in the 'noncore' segment, another term for precarious work, increased by 71%, two times faster than in the formal or informal sectors of the labour market.

As a result, it is estimated that four out of ten workers in the formal sector may be in some form of precarious work.

These workers are likely to earn, on average, half of what a permanent worker makes and they are more likely to suffer violations of their basic labour rights, such as not receiving paid sick leave. Such forms of precarious work entrench inequality and poverty rather than achieving the goal of social justice.

Decent work for all?

The UN Sustainable Development Goals include the creation of so-called decent work. Decent work is defined as work that provides a fair income, security, social protection, the prospects for personal development and the right to organise at work.

Decent work is, therefore, about more than simply getting more people into work. The challenge is to create socially transformative labour markets that can create employment for inclusive, prosperous and equitable societies.

However, South Africa's record in this regard is patchy.

The national minimum wage, which was introduced in 2019, was and continues to be set at a level that does not cover basic needs.

In October 2021, the NGO the Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity Group, found that the cost of the average household food basket was R4,317.56 a month.

Yet a worker earning the national minimum wage and fortunate enough to be in fulltime employment (45 hours a week) would only have earned R3,904 in a month.

>>

April 2022 | Catalyst | 24

Business & Economy Not enough to cover just basic food items, never mind costs for transport, electricity and a range of other essential items.

The data provided by the NGO is based on tracking food prices on the most commonly bought food items, such as maize meal, rice and bread, in 44 supermarkets in working class areas of the country. This provides the real cost of basic items rather than estimates based on rates of inflation. And, therefore, provides real insight to the extent to which many of those working in the formal sector are 'working poor’.

For the range of precarious workers who may not even work 45 hours a week due to the increasing use of variable hour or zero hours contracts, their situation is even worse.

Achieving greater social justice through formal employment is only a realistic possibility if such work provides, at least, a living wage and protection of labour rights.

When workers open cases against their employers, either at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration or at bargaining councils - which solve labour disputes - employers often victimise workers and continually delay proceedings in the hope that the workers will give up their case.

Furthermore, many of these workers take up these cases themselves as most precarious workers do not belong to unions.

Indeed, only just over a quarter (27%) of the total formally employed workforce is unionised, the majority of whom are workers in skilled and supervisory positions. Yet the rules of representation at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration and bargaining councils only permit representatives of registered trade unions or lawyers to represent workers in these forums.

But it is estimated that 60 per cent of the workforce in South Africa experience some violation of their labour rights

This puts non-unionised workers in a David versus Goliath situation where they must follow the rules of the Commission and argue their case while facing, at least, trained human resources professionals or, at worst, several lawyers from some of the most prestigious law firms in the country.

But it is estimated that 60 per cent of the workforce in South Africa experience some violation of their labour rights. Yet most of these violations go unreported. In the context of high unemployment, workers fear reporting these labour violations for fear of dismissal.

Workers complain that they often feel pressured by Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration commissioners, who are themselves performance managed on how many cases a day they settle, into accepting settlements that do not resolve the injustice that they seek to address.

Even when workers do report their employers the road to justice can be long, as I have been documenting for a number of years following labour broker workers seeking to access their rights to permanent employment.

Thus, it has been estimated that as much as 80% of labour broker workers have not been deemed permanent and continue to work in precarious conditions.

Achieving social justice Tackling precarious employment One positive intervention that the state has made in attempting to address precarious employment has been its attempt to regulate the use of labour broking.

Labour broking is when a company provides workers to client companies, supposedly on a temporary basis. However, very often labour broker workers work for years at the same company, performing the same work as permanent workers for inferior wages and no benefits.

In 2014 the Labour Relations Act was amended to restrict labour broking to work of a genuinely temporary nature. It requires that labour broker workers become permanent employees of the client company after three months. While this was not the ban on labour broking that the labour federation Congress of South African Trade Unions called for it was, in theory, a significant step forward in the rights for labour broker workers.

However, the path to gaining these rights has been arduous for many workers.

25 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Getting a formal sector job is not on its own going to create greater social equality. Workers need a living wage and an environment in which rights are protected and enforced.

This requires both strong state enforcement and the organisation of workers.

Declining rates of unionisation among workers is a result of the increasing precarious nature of work, and the limited responses that unions have had to this.

However, workers are not waiting for unions to come and organise them and have taken the initiative to organise themselves in a variety of sectors and, in many cases, are successfully winning their demands.

Yet, such workers formations are excluded from the labour institutions. One advance that could be made in promoting social justice through formal employment would be to recognise all forms of worker organisation, and afford them greater rights in protecting and advancing worker rights.

■

Institute of One World Leadership®

Business & Economy as 'My work is in harmony with other activities in my life', or 'I have difficulties controlling my urge to work'.

Finally, we categorised their jobs, using a system which scores various types of work according to six descriptions: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising and conventional. (You can use this online test to get an idea of what kind of work you might be looking for.)

Passion killer

Passionate about your job? Here's why that might not be good for you Devotion to work can lead to burnout.

Professor Taha Yasseri University College Dublin

You might wish you were more passionate about your job. Or that you had the kind of job you could at least imagine being passionate about. Something that made you jump out of bed in the morning, excited about a new day filled with fist pumps and joy.

But psychologists differentiate between two types of work-related passion - and they may not both appeal, even if you're more than a little fed up with your current role.

'Harmonious' work passion refers to situations in which a person not only enjoys their job, but also has control over their relationship with it. People with harmonious work passion have often chosen their career because it is something which interests them, and they gain great pleasure from how they earn a living.

Crucially, the work does not profoundly interfere with other important elements of their life.

But a person with 'obsessive' work passion has little control over their relationship with their job. They consider their occupation, and related factors such as promotions and pay rises, to be central to their lives.

The World’s Leadership Institute®

The obsessively passionate rarely disengage completely from their jobs, and even though they might be very successful at what they do, this often comes without a sense of satisfaction. Such an approach can take over lives, and lead to burnout, when you are physically and emotionally exhausted, and feel helpless and trapped.

So how do you make sure you end up filled with the right kind of passion? If you have obsessive work passion, is it you or the job? Our research suggests it's probably both.

To study the relationship between personality traits, work, and the type of passion people develop, we analysed data from a psychology project which collected data and test results from over 800 participants.

We measured some of their personality traits, referred to in psychology as the 'big five': openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.

We also assessed their attitudes to work, using the degree with which they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements such

Our findings suggest that personality traits (especially neuroticism) interact with the work environment in a complex way, and trigger different types of passion. In particular, people prone to neuroticism (mood swings, anxiety and irritability) are much more likely to develop obsessive work passion if they work in a job in the 'enterprising' category. In general, these are careers which rely heavily on the power of persuasion and place a great deal of emphasis on reputation, power and status.

For example, a person who agrees with statements such as 'I get upset easily' or 'I worry about different things at the same time' is much more vulnerable to burnout if they work as a lawyer, a fundraiser, or a broker. But that same person is less likely to become obsessed with their job if they work as a dentist, engineer, nurse, surgeon or social worker.

It's important then, to work out what kind of passion you have for your job. Do you feel in control, do you enjoy your successes? If the answer is no, or there are other hints that your work passion is of the obsessive kind, then you might want to consider a change in direction to avoid being at risk of burnout.

In the example above, that might mean trying to find a role which has less of an enterprising element; something more artistic or social, perhaps. For while we might not be able to change our personalities, a job change might lead to a greater sense of satisfaction and control and potentially more time to find our passion in the world outside of work.

■

April 2022 | Catalyst | 26

Business & Economy

How your colleagues affect your home life (and vice versa) Getting on well with your work mates will improve your domestic partnership.

Professor Yasin Rofcanin University of Bath Professor Jakob Stollberger Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Professor Mireia Las Heras IESE Business School

There are benefits to being part of a couple in which both are in paid work. A dual income brings, if not necessarily great wealth, at least an element of greater economic freedom, while the relationship can be a source of love and support.

But such couples also face particular challenges related to their domestic set up and achieving a good work-life balance. There may be greater tension over who does what at home, whether that's household chores or childcare, and whose career takes priority when it comes to progression, development and time.

Such conflicts might seem to be part of the familiar distinction between home life and work life. But our new research suggests the two are more closely linked than we might think.

For example, we found that someone who benefits from a positive working environment with supportive colleagues, is likely to pass on those benefits to their partner at home. In the other direction, a loving

27 | April 2022 | Catalyst

relationship at home is likely to translate into greater dedication and creativity in the work place.

Put more simply, if you're happy at work, you'll be happier at home, which in turn will make you better at your job.

We discovered this by studying the everyday experiences of 260 dual income heterosexual couples in the US over a period of six weeks, to understand how their home lives and work lives affected each other. The main goal of our research was to discover where people looked for support, and whether or not they found it.

Previous studies had suggested that someone seeking to address conflicts between their work and home lives (such as asking for more flexible hours) would typically go to a manager or supervisor for help.

But our work revealed the importance of immediate colleagues in resolving such issues by providing vital support and advice. Indeed co-workers at a similar professional level can be seen almost as 'work-spouses' for emotionally challenging times.

They are the starting point of what we call a 'gain spiral', in which the benefits of a supportive relationship with

>>

Institute of One World Leadership®

Business & Economy in which the benefits of a supportive relationship with colleagues then transfers to an employee's home life, where they are subsequently shared with a partner.

Taking your work home with you Essentially this means that employees take the support they receive from co-workers home with them, and in a loving relationship, transfer this support to their partners. This might mean they encourage them to open up about stresses, seek to resolve issues, or make improvements to how they juggle work and family life arrangements.

That support in a loving relationship causes partners to feel happier, more satisfied, and more positive about their own work, where they subsequently become more engaged and productive.

Our research highlights the role of these two key relational 'resources': valued colleagues and loving partners. The two appear to be clearly linked and vital elements of a healthy work-life balance.

So perhaps it might be time to re-evaluate your relationship with your colleagues. Rather than seeing them simply as people who share your workspace, think of them as people who have a significant impact on your home life too. (And you on theirs.) This is true whether you share a tightly spaced office or engage with them mostly online.

And while we don't think employers should meddle with their employee's personal lives, they may be able to contribute to the quality of relationships at home by putting policies and procedures in place to minimise work-family conflict. This may include limiting excessive working hours and reducing expectations of responding to messages outside of work. They should also be aware that if colleagues get on well, everyone benefits - at work and at home.

■

Dr Pippa Malmgren & Chris Lewis

The Infinite Leader Balancing the Demands of Modern Business Leadership Available Now

The World’s Leadership Institute®

April 2022 | Catalyst | 28

ANALYSIS → ALSO IN THIS SECTION 33 All US Presidents have lied – but when?

36 The promise and folly of war 38 Ukraine as a border land

41 Russian military incompetence 43 A a future in post-apartheid Africa 46 Cognitive bias during the pandemic

ANALYSIS

How do Russia's reasons for war stack up? An expert on 'just war' explains Over centuries, theory on just war has developed six main criteria for assessing conflicts.

Professor Valerie Morkevicius Colgate University

War is always a tragedy. It sometimes seems inevitable. But is it ever justified?

Philosophers, theologians, politicians and military leaders have wrestled with this question for millennia. And to a large degree, they've come to some basic agreements about what makes a war morally defensible: a set of ideas known as the 'just war tradition.'

That's not to say that they always agree on how to apply just war principles to an actual conflict. Given the Kremlin's attempts to justify its invasion of Ukraine, including its groundless accusations of genocide, it's worth analysing Russia's position through the lens of the just war tradition - the focus of my work as a political scientist who studies the ethics of conflict.

Many religions, including Judaism, Islam and Hinduism, have traditions about when war might be justifiable.

Although many contemporary approaches are secular, they have been particularly influenced by Christian thinkers. This tradition dates to the fourth century, when Augustine of Hippo, also known

The World’s Leadership Institute®

Two men speak in the backyard of a house damaged by a Russian airstrike, according to locals, in Gorenka, Ukraine, March 2, 2022.

as St. Augustine, grappled with how people could reconcile their beliefs about nonviolence with political and military service to their country.

Ultimately, the tradition evolved to encompass six principles to evaluate the justness of a war: legitimate authority, just cause, proportionality, likelihood of success, last resort and right intent.

1. Legitimate authority Historically, just war analysis began by asking about legitimate authority. Had the war been declared by a responsible sovereign?

In the classical just war tradition, the right to wage war was limited to the highest secular authority in a particular political community.

Today, some scholars suggest that only the United Nations holds this authority, since the U.N. charter has outlawed the use of force except in self-defence. And Vladimir Putin's legitimacy can certainly be questioned, given the lack of free and fair elections in Russia.

However, classical just war thinkers were deeply concerned about

>>

April 2022 | Catalyst | 30

ANALYSIS civil disorder. Thirteenth-century scholar Thomas Aquinas went so far as to caution against overthrowing a tyrant if the community would suffer 'greater detriment from the ensuing disorder than it did from the tyrannical government itself.'

Moscow have been fighting Ukrainian forces since 2014.

That conflict has killed more than 14,000 people, including more than 3,000 civilians from both sides, though the scale of violence had decreased dramatically in recent years.

United Nations members vote on a resolution concerning the Ukraine during an emergency meeting of the General Assembly at U.N. headquarters on March 2, 2022.AP Photo/Seth Wenig

2. Just cause To be justifiable, a war must also be fought with the aim of accomplishing a just cause. Traditionally, two motives were considered just: self-defence and righting wrongs. Aquinas defined a just war as one fought to 'avenge injuries, if some nation or state ' has neglected to punish a wrong committed by its citizens, or to return something that was wrongfully taken.'

These are slippery definitions, and the Kremlin has argued for war in Ukraine on both counts.

A woman cries outside a house damaged by a Russian airstrike in Gorenka, outside the capital Kyiv, Ukraine, March 2, 2022.

AP Photo Vadim Ghirda

But the conflict in this region, known as the Donbas, fails to meet the legal definition of genocide, which separates tragic but unintended civilian casualties in war from deliberate attempts to destroy a people. There is simply no evidence corroborating Russia's claims. Nor is Ukraine a fascist state, despite Putin's claims.

3. Proportionality Moscow's concerns that Ukrainian-language policies discriminate against Russian speakers, who make up about a third of the country, have some validity. Still, the new law does not ban the use of Russian, despite Kremlin media reports to the contrary.

Even if protecting language rights were a just cause, justifying war would be difficult because of another principle: proportionality. All wars cause harm, but a justifiable use of force cannot cause more harm than the good it hopes to promote.

Russia's war has already led to significant damage to civilian areas in major cities. As of March 3, 331 civilians had been killed, according to the U.N., and deaths will likely rise as Russian forces increase their attacks on cities. One million people have already fled the country.

First, does Russia have a legitimate self-defence claim?

Russian officials have repeatedly claimed that Ukraine poses a threat to Russian security because of its potential admission to the NATO alliance.

But joining NATO is a lengthy, complicated process that requires significant reforms within the aspiring member state and unanimous agreement from the existing members. Many member countries have been resistant to the idea of enlarging NATO to include Ukraine, although the nation has been cooperating with the alliance for decades.

Putin has also claimed that Ukraine seeks to 'bring war' to Crimea, which Moscow annexed in 2014, and that it has 'laid claim to several other Russian regions.' Yet the Ukrainian government denies any plan to forcefully retake the occupied territories. What's more, Ukraine's standing army is just a quarter of Russia's, and its air force, less than a tenth.

What about Russia's justice concerns?

The Kremlin claims that Ukraine is committing genocide against Russian-speakers in the self-proclaimed Luhansk and Donetsk People's Republics, where separatists supported by

31 | April 2022 | Catalyst

The weakness of Russia's claimed just cause means that this war cannot be considered proportional. As Catholic philosopher Francisco de Vitoria put it in the 16th century, pursuing 'trivial offenses' by military means is wrong because of the 'cruel and horrible' effects of war.

>>

Institute of One World Leadership®

ANALYSIS 4. Likelihood of success The logic of proportionality also requires considering the probability of success. As one contemporary ethicist put it, ‘probability' is considerably more likely than a mere 'hope,' 'chance,' or 'possibility.’ There must be a real chance that the use of force can actually accomplish the war's stated aims.

At first glance, this principle might seem biased against the weak. Some scholars have argued that countries should be allowed to defend themselves from aggression, even if the chances of success aren't high.

If the Kremlin's war aims could not be achieved, any war it initiated would be inherently unjust, as lives would have been sacrificed to no avail. And as Western pundits and at least one retired Russian general have warned, Russian attempts to take over all of Ukraine would likely generate a drawn-out insurgency.

5. Last resort The principle of 'last resort' demands that all other reasonable means of resolving the conflict must be exhausted before going to war.

The day before the invasion, Putin claimed to be willing to negotiate. Yet as alarm spread in early February about Russia's force build-up, the Kremlin spurned cooperation with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, an intergovernmental institution that aims to reduce military tensions by fostering transparency. Ukraine asked for clarification about Russia's forces near its border, as OSCE members must give prior notification for exercises involving at

The World’s Leadership Institute®

least 9,000 troops. But Russia refused to attend joint sessions on the matter.

Security analysts have argued that Russian draft agreements presented to NATO and the United States in December 2021 seem to have been intended for rejection, though the U.S. and NATO responded by suggesting talks on nuclear disarmament and missiles.

By contrast, as late as the day before the war, Ukraine was still calling for a diplomatic solution while responding to increasing threats with significant restraint.

6. Right intent Finally, the principle of right intent asserts that the attackers' stated cause must be the actual motivating cause.

This principle is difficult to weigh. Putin's rhetoric is preoccupied with the supposed glories of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, and even his own legacy It's impossible to know with certainty what someone is thinking, but measuring people's actions against their claims is one way to evaluate intent. Claims about protecting Russian speakers ring hollow as escalating violence endangers Russianspeaking Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. The Kremlin's fasttrack process of giving Russian citizenship to Ukrainians in the Donbas jars with claims that Russian citizens must be rescued.

The Kremlin clearly sought a plausible moral justification for its war. Failing to find one, it will likely find itself even more isolated on the world stage.

■

April 2022 | Catalyst | 32

ANALYSIS

All American presidents have lied the question is why and when A political philosopher argues that while all American presidents may lie, those who appear to lie for the public good are often celebrated.

Critics of President Joe Biden have accused him of lying. Most American presidents have been accused of deception.

Professor Michael Blake University of Washington

Those who dislike a president tend to emphasize the frequency or skill with which he lies.

During the Trump administration, for instance, The Washington Post kept a running database of the president's lies and deceptions - with the final tally running to over 30,000 falsehoods. President Joe Biden's critics have insisted that he, too, is a liar - and that the media is complicit in ignoring his supposed frequent deception of the American people.

The frequency of these criticisms would seem to indicate that most people do not want a president who lies. And yet a recent study of presidential deception found that all American presidents - from Washington to Trump - have told lies, and knowingly so, in their public statements.

The most effective of presidents have sometimes been effective precisely because they were skilled at manipulation and deception.

33 | April 2022 | Catalyst

As a political philosopher with a focus on how people try to reason together through political disagreement, I argue that what matters most is not whether a president lies, but when and why he does so.

Presidents who lie to save their own public image or career are unlikely to be forgiven. However, those who appear to lie in the service of the public are often celebrated.

The morality of deception Why, though, are lies thought so wrongful in the first instance?

Philosopher Immanuel Kant, in the 18th century, provided one powerful account of the wrongness of lying. For Kant, lying was wrong in much the same way that threats and coercion are wrong. All of these override the autonomous will of another person, and treat that person as a mere tool.

>>

Institute of One World Leadership®

ANALYSIS When a gunman uses threats to coerce a person to do a particular act, he disrespects that person's rational agency. Lies are similarly disrespectful to rational agency: One's decision has been manipulated, so that the act is no longer one's own.

Confederacy, knowing that much of his own party thought that only unconditional surrender by the South would settle the question of slavery. At one point, Lincoln wrote a note to his own party asserting - falsely - that there were 'no peace commissioners' being sent to a conference with the Confederacy.

Kant regarded any lie as immoral - even one told to a murderer at the door.

Modern-day philosophers have often endorsed versions of Kant's account while seeking exceptions from its rigidness. One common theme is the necessity of the deception for achieving an important political goal. For example, a political leader who gives honest answers about a forthcoming military operation would likely imperil that operation - and most citizens of the state engaging in that military action would not want that. The key is that people might accept such deception, after the fact, because of what that deception made possible.

During World War II, the British government sought to deceive the Nazi command about its plans for invasion - which entailed lying even to British allies. The moral imperative of defeating Nazi Germany is generally thought to be important enough to justify this sort of deception.

This example also illustrates another theme: Deception might be permitted when it is in the context of an adversarial relationship in which truth-telling should not be expected.

Lying to one's own citizens may or may not be justifiable - but there seems to be very little wrong about lying to one's enemies during wartime.

Honorable lies?

A member of the Congress later noted that, in the absence of that note, the 13th Amendment - which ended the practice of chattel slavery - would not have been passed.

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton addresses the nation to apologize for misleading the country about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

William Philpott AFP via Getty Images

Good lies and bad lies The problem, of course, is that a great many presidential lies cannot be so easily linked to important purposes.

These ideas might be used in defence of some presidential lies.

President Bill Clinton's lies about his sexual activities were either simply self-serving or told to preserve his presidency.

During the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was convinced that Hitler's expansionism in Europe was a threat to the liberal democratic project itself, but he faced an electorate without any will to intervene in a European war. Roosevelt chose to insist publicly that he was opposed to any intervention - while doing everything he could to prepare for war and to covertly help the British cause.

Similarly, President Richard Nixon's insistence that he knew nothing about the Watergate break-in was most likely a lie.

John Dean, Nixon's legal counsel, confirmed years later that the president knew about, and approved of, the plan to rob the Democratic National Committee headquarters. This scandal eventually ended Nixon's presidency.

As early as 1948, historian Thomas Bailey noted that Roosevelt had made a calculated choice to both prepare for war and insist he was doing no such thing. To be open about his view of Hitler would have likely led to his defeat in the 1940 election.

Before Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln made similar calculations.

Lincoln's lies regarding his negotiations with the Confederacy described by Meg Mott, a professor of political theory, as being 'devious' - may have been instrumental in preserving the United States as a single country.

Lincoln was willing to open peace negotiations with the

In both cases, these presidents faced a significant threat to their presidencies - and chose deception to save not the nation, but their own power.

President Biden, President Trump and truth It is likely that President Trump lied more than most presidents.

What is striking about his lies, however, is that they have tended to be told to defend his own self-image or political viability rather than in service of some central political good.

>> The World’s Leadership Institute®

April 2022 | Catalyst | 34

ANALYSIS Indeed, some of President Trump's more implausible lies seemed best understood as tests of loyalty; those in his circle who repeated his most obvious lies demonstrated their loyalty to President Trump in doing so. Most recently, he has attacked as disloyal those members of the Republican Party who have not repeated his false claims about electoral fraud.

Recent studies indicate that President Biden, thus far, has not shown himself equal to President Trump in his deceptiveness. He has, however, made deceptive and misleading claims on a number of topics, ranging from the costs of particular policies to his own history and early life.

These lies seem somewhat unlike those told by Lincoln and

by Roosevelt; they seem generally told in the interests of making a rhetorical point more powerful rather than as necessary means to an otherwise unobtainable political goal. They seem, in that respect, less morally justifiable than these earlier falsehoods.

A justification for these lies might be found with reference to practices which - like warfare or politics - necessarily involve conflict and gamesmanship. No one would expect honesty from the enemy side during warfare, and perhaps one should not from opponents in politics either. Some

political philosophers have thought that, when politics becomes an adversarial game, politicians might be forgiven when they seek to deceive the other party. President Biden might rely upon this idea, and could note that the Republican Party is less open to bipartisan negotiation than at any time in its history.

Even this last justification, however, may not be enough.

Lying to one's political opponents might be permitted in an adversarial context. The lies told by presidents are often addressed to constituents, and such deception seems harder to justify.

And finally, even the most important of lies must be believed for it to be justifiable; a lie that is immediately recognized as such is unlikely to achieve the goal justifying that lie. This is an increasingly difficult burden. Modern presidents find it more challenging to lie without having their lies recognized as untrue than presidents serving before the advent of social media and dedicated factchecking.

If presidents must sometimes lie to defend important political values, then, it seems as though the good president must be both able to lie and able to lie well.

■

Dr Vlatka Hulpic

Humane Capital How to Create a Management Shift to Transform Performance and Profit Available Now

35 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Institute of One World Leadership®

ANALYSIS

V is for victory?

Or vanquished?

The promise and folly of war - why do leaders enter conflict assuming victory is assured?

War’s promise Wars are not easy to win - something political leaders often forget when looking at the calculus of conflict.

Professor Gregory A Daddis San Diego University

Amid a staunch and passionate defence that has slowed the Russian advance to Kiev and global condemnation, Vladimir Putin’s motivation for invading has been subject to speculation: Just what does he hope to achieve by war in Ukraine?

It’s worth evaluating if this war is as much about local and regional questions over who controls the eastern Ukraine Donbas region as it is about an unquestioning faith that using armed force is the surest path to achieving one’s political aims.

Some have argued that Putin was responding to NATO expansion or was driven by a compelling sense of Russian nationalism.

Others maintain he saw an opportunity to revive Cold War Soviet influence in Eastern Europe. Still others claim he is simply delusional, an oligarch divorced from reality.

Some U.S. foreign policy analysts, like the University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer, contend that American support of NATO’s eastward expansion is just as important in explaining the current crisis in Ukraine.

But what if Putin’s decision to invade was based partly on a commonly held assumption that offensive wars of choice, more often than not, will deliver?

The World’s Leadership Institute®

But as a military historian who served in the U.S. Army for 26 years, I believe a more fundamental question is why policymakers, not just in Russia, have so much faith in war when even small miscalculations can lead so easily to disaster.

War’s promise has enticed political and military leaders for millennia. The Athenian historian Thucydides spoke of Greek citystates motivated to war by honour and profit as well as fear of their enemies.

Roughly 2,200 years later, America’s Founding Fathers saw war as the surest way to break from British imperial control, to forge a new identity free from external influence and to create a sovereign nation. It would take a major civil war less than 100 years later to decide "though surely not settle" similar questions for African Americans enslaved by those same revolutionaries and their descendants.

The spoils of war can be great: independence, increased power, and land and resources.

And yet for every military success, the historical record offers ample instances that should give pause. Napoleon, for example, may have been on the precipice of near total European control in the early 1800s.

>>

April 2022 | Catalyst | 36

ANALYSIS But the same instrument of mass armies that brought him to such heights assured his downfall when wielded by a coalition of rival continental powers.

In two world wars a century later, German leaders envisioned a new world order delivered by grand military victories. The results, however, left tens of millions dead across the globe and a twice-defeated Germany seeking redemption and relevance during the Cold War. During those post-World War II decades, French military forces would face defeat in Indochina and Algeria, the Americans a similar fate in South Vietnam, and the Soviets in Afghanistan. Wagering on war clearly wasn’t always a safe bet.

The lure of armed victory What makes war seemingly worth these inescapable risks?

Perhaps it is the conviction that armed victory is the ultimate decider within any international political arena.

In the Cold War era, Soviet leaders from Josef Stalin to Leonid Brezhnev relied on war, and the threat of war, to compete globally with the United States.

In practical terms, brutal Soviet military incursions into Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 seemed the most efficient means of keeping Eastern European satellites within the Warsaw Pact orbit. It appears that Putin reviewed his recent successes in Chechnya, Georgia and Syria as a harbinger of victory in Ukraine.

But flexing military muscles comes at a cost. The placement of Soviet missiles in Cuba in the early 1960s brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.

The costs of maintaining an enormous Cold War army and navy enfeebled an already unstable Soviet economy. And, without question, the long war in Afghanistan contributed to the ultimate demise of the Soviet empire as the Cold War itself drew to its close.

Motivations for war So, what perspectives can we gain from this devotion to war’s promise?

First, the moral aspects of choosing war matter. As philosopher Michael Walzer contends, there often is a thin line between offensive wars of choice and criminal acts of aggression. I

37 | April 2022 | Catalyst

believe more Americans need to spend time considering where these lines may be drawn; there’s a great deal of moral illiteracy about the causes of America’s wars and its conduct in fighting them.

Writing about the justness of the U.S. war in Iraq, journalist Matt Peterson wrote in The Atlantic that “There’s a broader sense of moral confusion about the conduct of America’s wars.” Putin’s assault on Ukraine serves as a reminder that people should examine more deeply their nation’s stated reasons - and stated justifications - for going to war.

The assumption that war is a transformative force that engenders political and social change also has not always proved true. When the George W. Bush administration decided to invade Iraq in 2003, key advisers saw an opportunity to transform Iraqi governance and society.

Yet local leaders proved far more resistant to external change than these policymakers foresaw, which was also the case in the Afghan and Vietnam wars. In Ukraine, Putin seems also to have miscalculated the strength of local opposition.

The costs of war Indeed, many modern conflicts have illustrated that victory is not quickly and cheaply achieved. At the end of his presidency, Dwight D. Eisenhower counselled about the hidden costs of a military-industrial complex feeding an enduring state of war.

His fears appear to have been realized.

The Costs of War project at Brown University calculated that the Pentagon has spent ‘over $14 trillion since the start of the war in Afghanistan, with one-third to one-half of the total going to military contractors.’ That war killed at least 47,000 Afghan civilians and more than 6,000 American service members and contractors.

All this raises a reasonable question over whether the benefits of these wars have been worth the tremendous financial and human costs.

As the world follows the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine, I believe it important to consider the enduring, yet faulty promise of war.

Athenian history might be a good place to start. As Thucydides cautioned, “It is a common mistake in going to war to begin at the wrong end, to act first, and wait for disasters to discuss the matter.”

■

Institute of One World Leadership®

ANALYSIS In this 1919 caricature, Ukrainians are surrounded by a Bolshevik (to the north, man with hat and red star), a Russian White Army soldier (to the east, with Russian eagle flag and a short whip), and to the west a Polish soldier, a Hungarian (in pink uniform) and two Romanian soldiers.

Ukraine as a 'borderland': a brief history of Ukraine's place between Europe and Russia Borderlands are all about diversity and competing understandings of community and nation.

Professor Sheila Fitzpatrick Australian Catholic University

One interpretation of the name 'Ukraine' is borderland. This needs to be taken seriously.

Borderlands are all about diversity and competing understandings of community and nation. They are always mixtures of people with different languages, religions and customs. Some will think of themselves as kin to the people on one side of the border; some look to the other side.

In Ukraine, the West (Europe) is one side of the border, the East (Russia) the other.

The World’s Leadership Institute®

Among those in the eastern parts of Ukraine (Donetsk, Luhansk) who tend to look East are descendants of the Russian peasants, like the parents of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, who around the turn of the 20th century came to work in the Donbass mines.

In borderlands like Ukraine, there are generally competing origin stories.

Ukrainians tell a story of the origins of the Ukrainian nation going back to 11th century Kyiv, surviving centuries of oppression by Russia and Poland, and, finally, emerging out of the wreckage of the Soviet Union as a sovereign Ukrainian state in 1991.

For the Russians, the various western and southern provinces now called 'Ukraine' were populated by Slavic border people (Ukrainians) who were essentially Russian. They considered this land as a part of the Russian Empire for centuries.

The Australian press has been treating the Ukrainian origin story as 'truth' and the Russian one as 'lies,' but things are never that simple. Like all origin stories, both are a mixture of historical fact and political imagination.

>> April 2022 | Catalyst | 38

ANALYSIS A modern country Ukraine's modern history as an independent state amounted to a few tumultuous years of a shaky Ukrainian People's Republic between the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917 and the consolidation of the Soviet Union in 1920.

Ironically, its incorporation into the Soviet Union as one of its original constituent republics was an important milestone on the path to national sovereignty.

This map, published in the New York Times in February 1918 shows the boundaries of the Ukrainian People's Republic, which existed from 19171920.Wikimedi a Commons

This incorporation established territorial boundaries, recognised Ukrainians as the republic's titular nationality, and, for 70 years, offered the republic's communist leaders a substantial degree of autonomy (increasing over time) in the internal government of their territory.

Post-Soviet Ukraine has built a national identity around the memory of Holodomor, the famine of the early 1930s which is seen by the current Ukraine state and some historians as a punishment Stalin intentionally visited upon Ukrainians.

There were undoubtedly black chapters in the history of Soviet Ukraine, as of the Soviet Union in general.

From the mid 1950s, the top official in Ukraine was always a Ukrainian, and Ukraine had its men in the party Politburo (the top Soviet policy-making body) and substantial influence in Soviet national affairs.

Nationalist and, ultimately, separatist feeling increased in Ukraine during Gorbachev's perestroika (1985-91), but less than in the Baltic states or even the Caucasus.

As late as March 1991, 70% of the Ukrainian population voted to remain in the Union.

But by December the great majority of Ukrainians voted for independent sovereignty.

This map shows the areas of the Soviet famine of 1932-1933, with the worst affected areas in black.

Ukraine is marked by the '12'.Wikimedia Commons

39 | April 2022 | Catalyst

>> Institute of One World Leadership®

ANALYSIS Kith and kin In recent weeks, the depth and sincerity of the commitment to Western democracy, the repudiation of the Communist past and rejection of the Russian connection has been impressively demonstrated by the Ukrainian government and people.

Russians whose memories go back 30 or 40 years might see the Ukrainian situation differently.

guide to the future. It is not clear if the younger post-Soviet generation - in particular, young men liable for military conscription - see Ukraine and its current Western orientation in the same way as their elders.

Putin's past wars and acts of aggression on the international scene (Chechnya, Crimea) raised his popularity at home, but they were successful wars. So far, Russia's Ukrainian adventure is not looking like a success.

This is not just a matter of one deluded autocrat (President Vladimir Putin) leading Russia into a deranged quest for aggrandisement. This is a story of the attitudes and assumptions of the majority of the Russian population, which up to now has supported Putin and (at least pre-invasion), his Ukrainian policy.

In the case of Crimea (which, as all Russians know, was transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 on a whim of Khrushchev), this aggression was essentially bloodless.

The appalling and tragic decision to invade Ukraine may have been Putin's alone. Pre-invasion Russian opinion polls are an unreliable

It remains to be seen how the Russian Army and Russians back home will feel about the killing of Ukrainians: Slavic kith and kin.

Chechnya was bloody, but the victims were not Slavs.

■

A map of Ukraine in 1993, following independence from Russia.

Wikimedia Commons

The World’s Leadership Institute®

April 2022 | Catalyst | 40

ANALYSIS

3 ways Russia has shown military ‘incompetence’ during its invasion of Ukraine Between a lack of air support, use of older weapons and poor morale overall - it seems Russia isn’t fighting smart.

James Dwyer University of Tasmania

Two weeks into Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it has become apparent Russia's military is experiencing failures 'both technical and strategic' that are perhaps unexpected from one of the world's largest military forces.

There are multiple issues one could look at in relation to Russia's poor military performance in Ukraine to date, such as being unable to effectively counter Ukrainian drones, or failing to deliver on the kind of cyber warfare expected.

But failings in three specific categories warrant a closer look.

Organisational failures The first issue that became quickly apparent was the poor performance of Russia's armed forces. There has been, at times, a complete lack of logistical support for Russia's forces on the front lines - bogging down the Russian advance and at times completely stalling it.

There have also been extraordinary communication failures, both between military units, and to soldiers prior to the conflict. Reports emerged following the initial stages of the invasion, revealing many Russian soldiers were completely unaware they were invading.

Rather, captured Russian soldiers claim they were under the impression it was a military exercise, up until the moment they came under fire from Ukrainian units.

Many Russian communications have also been transmitted over unencrypted mediums. Russian bombers transmitting over open high-frequency radio have had their conversations listened in on by amateur radio enthusiasts.

Even communication between Russian units on the ground are being transmitted in the open, leading to easy interception by Ukraine. Overall, this paints a clear picture of Russian incompetence.

To top it all off, the lack of morale (with many Russian soldiers surrendering or abandoning vehicles and equipment) has only exacerbated the effects of Russia's poor military performance.

Lack of air superiority One of Russia's most significant failures, and potentially the most damaging to its campaign, has been its inability to achieve air superiority.

In military terms, this refers to a state having a sufficient degree of dominance to conduct aerial operations (such as close air support or air strikes) without significant interference from opposing forces and air defence systems.

There have been numerous reports of Russian tanks and armoured personnel carriers running out of fuel, leading Russian soldiers to request, commandeer and steal diesel to continue progress.

Russian soldiers, many of them conscripts, have been forced to forage for food, with reports of soldiers being forced to steal chickens, and special forces soldiers breaking into shops to loot food.

Rations provided to Russia's troops have reportedly only been sufficient for a few days, and video has emerged claiming some rations seven years out of date.

Russia had a significant amount of time to prepare its invasion and move logistical support into place, with months of open build-up.

But scenes of enormous, stalled convoys being unable to progress speak volumes to Russia's astonishing mismanagement.

This series of logistical failures are as embarrassing for Russia as they are beneficial for Ukraine.

41 | April 2022 | Catalyst

>> Institute of One World Leadership®

ANALYSIS Before the invasion began, it was widely anticipated Russia would quickly achieve air superiority. This is because on paper Russia's air force is vastly superior to Ukraine's.

Prior to the invasion, Ukraine possessed Europe's seventh-largest air force. While this sounds potent - and in relative terms, it is - it amounts to some 200 aircraft of all types (fighters, close air support, helicopters, transport aircraft and others). In comparison, Russia possesses about 1,500 combat aircraft alone.

The backbone of Ukraine's air force are older Soviet era fighters, namely 50 MiG-29s and 32 Su-27s. Meanwhile, Russia employs modern versions of Soviet aircraft, such as the Su-30, Su-33 and Su-35 (updated variants of the Su-27 Ukraine operates).

Russia also has modern strike aircraft such as the Su-34 (another update on the Su-27, optimised for strike operations) as well as long-range strategic bombers like the Tu-22, Tu-95 and Tu-160.

However, images have emerged suggesting Russia's strike aircraft are reliant on generic, consumer-grade GPS units. If this is true, it only reinforces Russia's lack of capability.

Just prior to the war, US Intelligence anticipated an invasion would commence with a blistering assault by Russia on Ukraine's air power.

Yet two weeks into the conflict, Ukraine still reportedly possesses the bulk of its air and missile defences. This has raised questions about why Russia did not make full use of its air power. Is it holding back in case the conflict broadens?

Regardless of the reason, Russia's lack of air superiority early in the conflict may be one of its most significant strategic errors, to the benefit of Ukrainian defenders.

Russian aircraft are struggling to provide the support needed by Russian ground forces, giving Ukrainian forces an opening to counter Russia's advance.

Weapons performance and failures Russia's high-tech offensive capabilities have also demonstrated lacklustre performance.

The initial stages of the invasion included a strategic bombardment of Ukrainian targets using cruise missiles and Iskander short-range ballistic missiles.

Reports indicate that as of March 1, Russia had fired as many as 320 missiles, the majority being Iskander short-range ballistic missiles - making this the largest and most intense short-range ballistic missile bombardment between two states.

The Iskander is estimated to have a range of 500km and an accuracy of 2-5 metres. Prior to the invasion, it was expected to be an effective and devastating weapon system. Intriguingly, its performance has been lacking.

For example, Iskanders were used to attack Ukrainian air bases, to destroy runways and prevent Ukraine's air force from operating effectively. But as can be seen below, the previously vaunted accuracy of the Iskander appears far less impressive than what was anticipated.

As the conflict has progressed, Russia has made more frequent use of lower-tech weapons systems, such as unguided 'dumb' bombs and cluster munitions. This might indicate Russia has either expended its limited number of high-tech weaponry, or is holding back reserves in case the conflict escalates.

The Ukrainian air force remains in the fight, despite all odds.

Russia will no doubt learn from its issues and attempt to correct.

Unfortunately, it does still have the advantage with numbers, in terms of both troops and equipment.

However, it's likely the conflict can't be sustained for long on Russia's part, particularly with the impact sanctions are having on the Russian economy. For Ukraine, the delays caused by Russia's errors may well lead to better outcomes.

■

■

The World’s Leadership Institute®

April 2022 | Catalyst | 42

ANALYSIS

Burying the past and building the future in postapartheid South Africa Former South African president Nelson Mandela on his 91st birthday in 2009

end one of the most racist regimes in modernday history.

Much like the United States, South Africa was shaped by more than three centuries of colonialism, slavery, violent racial conflicts and racial segregation. Started in 1948 and known as apartheid, the violent system of legal segregation finally ended in the early '90s in part because of the anti-Apartheid movement in the United States and across the world. The system was brutal, and it was enforced with all the coercive machinery of the state, including government-sanctioned death squads that tortured and killed scores of anti-apartheid activists.

The death of Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu in 2021 has triggered renewed frustrations over the elusiveness of a 'new' South Africa.

Alma Diamond New York University

With the recent deaths in 2021 of South African Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu on Dec. 26 and Frederik Willem (F.W.) de Klerk on Nov. 11, three of the men that laid the foundation to transform South African society are no longer able to see the result of their work - and the growing disillusionment over the lack of progress.

The deaths of Tutu and de Klerk evoked the dark days after Nelson Mandela died in 2013, when hundreds of thousands of South Africans traveled from across the country, spending hours and sometimes days in long queues to pay their final respects.

As a 32-year-old, native South African, I once believed that giants like Mandela and

43 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Tutu” de Klerk's role was always questionable - had entrusted us with a new South Africa. As a legal theorist, I now see instead that they left us merely with an invitation to make that dream into reality.

Their lasting legacy is a deep and abiding commitment to the rule of law that belongs to all South Africans equally. I wonder how long that legacy can survive alongside extreme inequality.

Past Injustices Back in the early 1980s, a grassroots movement took hold throughout the United States. It was part of an international effort, energized by unrest on college campuses, to

Among those killed was Stephen Biko. The founder of the Black Consciousness Movement, Biko was found dead after being tortured while in police custody. His murder in 1977 sparked an international outcry.

The moment of racial reckoning hit its zenith in 1990 when the South African government released Mandela, the leader of the African National Congress, from prison after serving 27 years. Convicted of acts of sabotage against the South African government, Mandela was punished for his unrelenting efforts to gain full citizenship rights for nonwhite South Africans then ruled over by the white minority.

But apartheid's prominent place in racial justice history is not only because of its status as a crime against humanity, but also how it came to an end. Apartheid wasn't eliminated after a widely predicted violent civil war, but rather in a legally negotiated, largely peaceful, constitutional transition. Ultimately, the dismantling of apartheid came by the hands of South Africans.

>> Institute of One World Leadership®

ANALYSIS Reckoning Tutu and Mandela recognized the need to deal - explicitly and purposefully - with the injustices of the past. To that end, the transitional South African Constitution included a section of 'National Unity and Reconciliation.' The final constitution, one of the most progressive in the world, explicitly states that South Africans 'recognize the injustices of the past' and commit the government to 'establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights.’

With the transition came international acclaim and three Nobel Peace Prizes. The first was awarded in 1984 to the Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, Tutu, 'for his role as a unifying leader figure in the non-violent campaign to resolve the problem of apartheid in South Africa.’

In this 1985 photograph, civil rights leader Jesse Jackson marches in an antiapartheid rally in London.

Photo by PA Images via Getty Images

The other two went to Mandela and de Klerk, the last president under apartheid, both in 1993, 'for their work for the peaceful termination of the apartheid regime, and for laying the foundations for a new democratic South Africa.’

Unlike Mandela and Tutu, de Klerk remains a divisive figure. Indeed, both Mandela and Tutu were critical of him. During negotiations to end apartheid, de Klerk infamously told one of his cabinet members that 'We are basically the liquidators of this firm.' It wasn't until 2020 and while he was on his death bed that de Klerk unequivocally renounced apartheid - for the first time.

The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, known as the TRC, represented a concerted institutional effort at such healing. It was established by legislation in 1995 to 'establish the truth in relation to past events ' in order to prevent repetition of such acts in the future.’

Over the course of four years of public hearings, perpetrators came forward and confessed, victims told their stories and reports were made public.

Acknowledging the past has its merits. Legal scholars such as New York University Law Professor Peggy Cooper Davis suggests that the United States is in need of a similar process of collectively facing the truth in its own reconciliation about 'group-based cruelties.’

Nelson Mandela and South African President F.W. de Klerk give remarks during negotiations in 1990 to end apartheid.

Louise Gubb/SABA/Corbis via Getty Images

But in the end, South African reconciliation was never merely about burying the past, it was about building a future. As South African historian Jacob Dlamini has argued in his book, 'Native Nostalgia', we remember the past so that we can imagine alternative futures.

That future remains elusive.

Present inequality The wealth gap in South Africa is one of the highest in the world and remains largely unchanged since the end of apartheid.

For most Black South Africans, the reality of life remains on the margins of an economy set up to serve a class of privileged few. White unemployment is around 9%, Black unemployment is 36.5%. Income in the country remains 'heavily racialized': White South Africans earn, on average, three times more than Black South Africans.

>> The World’s Leadership Institute®

April 2022 | Catalyst | 44

ANALYSIS An uncertain future Widespread student protests in 2015 have been characterized by some as the first sign of a profound disillusionment with the new South Africa. Similar disillusionment was visible in widespread riots in 2021.

It is in this crucial moment of disillusionment that South Africans are left to fend on their own without the leadership of our founding fathers.

In this March 2004 photograph, Desmond Tutu, head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, talks with reporters.

Photo by Cambridge Jones/ Getty Images

They did not, we see now, leave behind a transformed South Africa.

As Tutu said in his foreword to the TRC report in 1998: 'The past, it has been said, is another country. The way its stories are told and the way they are heard change as the years go by. The spotlight gyrates, exposing old lies and illuminating new truths.'

He then explained: 'The future, too, is another country. And we can do no more than lay at its feet the small wisdoms we have been able to garner out of our present experience.'

Tutu's lesson to South Africans was that by accounting for the past, we are also becoming accountable to the future.

Ultimately, reconciliation lies in the much harder work of committing to a just future a task that remains unfinished.

■

In this 1994 photograph, newly elected South African President Nelson Mandela holds hands with former president F.W. de Klerk in Cape Town. Jerry Holt/Star Tribune via Getty Images

45 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Institute of One World Leadership®

ANALYSIS

The cognitive bias that tripped us up during the pandemic Anchoring bias meant we found it hard to get rid of the first bit of information we heard.

Prof. Taha Yasseri University College Dublin

The human brain is a marvellous machine, capable of handling complex information.

To help us make sense of information quickly and make rapid decisions, it has learned to use shortcuts, called “heuristics”.

Most of the time, these shortcuts help us to make good decisions. But sometimes they lead to cognitive biases.

Answer this question as quickly as you can without reading on: which European country was hit the hardest by the pandemic?

If you answered “Italy”, you’re wrong. But you’re not alone. Italy is not even in the top ten European countries by the number of confirmed COVID cases or deaths.

It is easy to understand why people might give a wrong answer to this question – as happened when I played this game with friends. Italy was the first European country to be hit by the pandemic, or at least this is what we were told at the beginning. And our perception of the situation formed early on with a focus on Italy. Later, of course, other countries were hit worse than Italy, but Italy is the name that got stuck in our heads.

The trick of this game is to ask people to answer quickly. When I gave friends time to think or look for evidence, they often came up with a different answer – some of them quite accurate. Cognitive biases are shortcuts and shortcuts are often used when there are limited resources – in this case, the resource is time.

This particular bias is called “anchoring bias”. It occurs when we rely too heavily on the first piece of information we receive about a topic and fail to update our

The World’s Leadership Institute®

perception when information.

we

receive

new

As we show in a recent work, anchoring bias can take more complex forms, but in all of them, one feature of our brain is essential: it is easier to stick to the information we have stored first and try to work out our decisions and perceptions starting from that reference point – and often not going too far.

Data deluge The COVID pandemic is remarkable for many things, but, as a data scientist, the one that stands out for me is the amount of data, facts, stats and figures that are available to pore over.

It was rather exciting to be able to regularly check the numbers online on portals such as Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center and Our World in Data, or just tune in to almost any radio or TV station or news website to see the latest COVID statistics.

Many TV channels introduced programme segments specifically to report those numbers daily.

However, the firehose of COVID data that came at us is not compatible with the rate at which we can meaningfully use and handle that data. Our brain takes in the anchors, the first wave of numbers or other information, and sticks to them.

Later, when it is challenged by new numbers, it takes some time to switch to the new anchor and update. This eventually leads to data fatigue, when we stop paying attention to any new input and we forget the initial information, too. After all, what was

the safe length for social distancing in the UK: one or two metres? Oh no, 1.5 metres, or 6 feet. But six feet is 1.8 metres, no?

Never mind.

The issues with COVID communication are not limited to the statistics describing the spread and prevalence of the pandemic or the safe distance we should keep from others. Initially, we were told that “herd immunity” appears once 60%-70% of the population has gained immunity either through infection or vaccination.

Later, with more studies and analysis this number was more accurately predicted to be around 90%-95%, which is meaningfully larger than the initial number. However, as shown in our study, the role of that initial number can be profound and a simple update wasn’t enough to remove it from people’s minds. This could partially explain the vaccine hesitancy observed in many countries; after all, if enough other people are vaccinated, why should we be bothered to risk the vaccine’s side-effects? Never mind that the “enough” might not be enough.

The point here is not that we should stop the flow of information or ignore statistics and numbers. Instead, we should learn when we deal with information to consider our cognitive limitations. If we went through the pandemic all over again, I’d be more careful with how much data exposure I got in order to avoid data fatigue. And when it comes to decisions, I’d take time not to force my brain into shortcuts, I would check the latest data rather than relying on what I thought I knew. This way, my risk of cognitive bias would be minimised.

■

April 2022 | Catalyst | 46

Perception & Cognition → IN THIS SECTION 48 For some, ignorance is bliss

49 The brain’s 15 seconds of mashed info

Perception & Cognition Supporters cheer on truck drivers in the 'freedom convoy' headed for Ottawa from an overpass in Kingston, Ont., on Jan. 28.

For some, ignorance is bliss; for others, ignorance is something else

Ignorance and the absence of knowledge

Professor James Cacek University of Regina

Is ignorance truly bliss? Or is it destructive?

What role does it play in our daily lives?

What harms can it cause, or leave behind?

These are just some of the questions my colleagues and I are studying in our ongoing research of agnosis.

Agnosis means without, or lacking, knowledge. Agnotology is the study of ignorance, the apathy towards knowledge and the creation of non-knowledge and stupidity.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of examples to suggest ignorance continues to be a concern in Canada.

Often, victims of ignorance are left unaware, or at least uncertain, about the source of their harms - and sometimes, they're not even aware they've been harmed.

'Ignoring' as an activity People, organizations and governments can all partake in 'ignoring' as an activity. When information isn't sought out - in other words, ignored - it can offer motivation and excuses for the perpetration of even the most harmful actions.

For example, we continue to live through world events that suggest many Canadians are 'ignoring' the harm they can cause when they disregard science and public health measures needed to combat COVID-19.

Too often, marginalized and immunocompromised communities face the brunt of these choices. By ignoring science and believing in conspiracies, these

The World’s Leadership Institute®

communities are placed in harm's way.

In Strength to Love, Martin Luther King Jr. says 'Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.'

And in the current era of 'post-truth' politics, there are new and very worrying developments in the generation of false 'facts,' ignorance and stupidity.

When we study ignorance and stupidity together, we see how ignorance and stupidity act against a persons own selfinterests and how there can be fatal consequences.

Fatal consequences of ignorance Consider twice-impeached and disgraced former president Donald Trump. His administration's politics invoked potentially moral dimensions of ignorance, where ignorance in decision-making processes were an indication of choosing stupidity by avoiding responsibility.

Such avoidance of responsibility by the anti-vax and 'freedom' rallies that we have seen throughout this pandemic similarly speaks to Trumpist politics, as the ongoing ignorance and denial quietly (or not so quietly) moves us towards further challenges, suffering and loss.

In both cases, public attributions of stupidity are political, and the role of power here points to the challenges of balancing ignorance with, and alongside, an absence of knowledge.

We know pandemic public health measures work, and complicit ignorance and denial of scientific evidence does not. But, has a failure to embrace critical thinking, or claims to extreme conservative ideologies, provided comfort to people wishing for 'bliss' in their lives? Regardless of the cost to and sacrifice of others? Some would say so.

In any case, when 'freedom' rallies incorporate conspiracies, Nazi symbols and Confederate flags, it is difficult to see how someone's rally stands for freedom or is backed by knowledge.

If someone's cause garners support from conspiracists, Nazis and other hate-filled groups, it is probably worth wondering why. But I would guess there is a deeply embedded and dehumanizing ideology at work here.

Studying ignorance highlights how there are certain groups of people who become excluded from the moral and legal protections normally owed to others. It has been a shocking revelation to some, in recent years, that human deception and selfdeception have remained as undiminished as they have.

Efforts to spread false 'facts,' ignorance and stupidity have never been as easy as it is to spread now.

The potential of our 'post-truth' era far exceeds what George Orwell could have ever dreamed of in his time. He presented a predictive and dystopian vision in 1984, but even he couldn't have envisioned the agnosis we see today.

Our age of agnosis is increasingly coming into contact in ways beyond historical standards and recorded memory. Empathy, not apathy, is needed now more than ever before. My colleagues and I continue to explore agnosis, hoping to save critical thinking from obscurity.

■

April 2022 | Catalyst | 48

Perception & Cognition time. It's like an app that consolidates our visual input every 15 seconds into one impression so that we can handle everyday life. If our brains were always updating in real time, the world would feel like a chaotic place with constant fluctuations in light, shadow and movement. We would feel like we were hallucinating all the time.

We created an illusion to illustrate how this stabilisation mechanism works. Looking at the video below, the face on the left side slowly ages for 30 seconds, and yet, it is very difficult to notice the full extent of the change in age. In fact, observers perceive the face as ageing more slowly than it actually is.

Everything we see is a mash-up of the brain's last 15 seconds of visual information The brain is a time machine that ensures what we see is stable and continuous Professor Mauro University of Aberdeen Professor David Whitney University of California, Berkeley

Our eyes are continuously bombarded by an enormous amount of visual information millions of shapes, colours and everchanging motion all around us. For the brain, this is no easy feat. On the one hand, the visual world alters continuously because of changes in light, viewpoint and other factors.

On the other, our visual input constantly changes due to blinking and the fact that our eyes, head and body are frequently in motion.

To get an idea of the 'noisiness' of this visual input, place a phone in front of your eyes and record a live video while you are walking around and looking at different things. The jittery, messy result is exactly what your brain deals with in every moment of your visual experience.

Yet, seeing never feels like work for us.

Rather than perceiving the fluctuations and visual noise that a video might record, we perceive a consistently stable environment.

49 | April 2022 | Catalyst

So how does our brain create this illusion of stability? This process has fascinated scientists for centuries and it is one of the fundamental questions in vision science.

The time machine brain In our latest research, we discovered a new mechanism that, among others, can explain this illusory stability. The brain automatically smoothes our visual input over time. Instead of analysing every single visual snapshot, we perceive in a given moment an average of what we saw in the past 15 seconds. So, by pulling together objects to appear more similar to each other, our brain tricks us into perceiving a stable environment. Living 'in the past' can explain why we do not notice subtle changes that occur over time.

In other words, the brain is like a time machine which keeps sending us back in

To test this illusion we recruited hundreds of participants and asked them to view closeups of faces morphing chronologically in age in 30-second timelapse videos. When asked to tell the age of the face at the very end of the video, the participants almost consistently reported the age of the face that was presented 15 seconds before.

As we watch the video, we are continuously biased towards the past and so the brain constantly sends us back to the previous ten to 15 seconds (where the face was younger).

Instead of seeing the latest image in real time, humans actually see earlier versions because our brain's refresh time is about 15 seconds.

So this illusion demonstrates that visual smoothing over time can help stabilise perception.

What the brain is essentially doing is procrastinating. It's too much work to constantly deal with every single snapshot it receives, so the brain sticks to the past because the past is a good predictor of the present. Basically we recycle information from the past because it's more efficient, faster and less work.

This idea 'which is also supported by other results' of mechanisms within the brain that continuously bias our visual perception towards our past visual experience is known as continuity fields. Our visual system sometimes sacrifices accuracy for the sake of a smooth visual experience of the world around us. This can explain why, for example, when watching a film we don't notice subtle changes that occur over time, such as the difference between actors and their stunt doubles. their stunt doubles.

>>

Institute of One World Leadership®

Perception & Cognition Repercussions There are positive and negative implications to our brain operating with this slight lag when processing our visual world. The delay is great for preventing us from feeling bombarded by visual input every day, but it can also risk life-or-death consequences when absolute precision is needed.

For example, radiologists examine hundreds of images in batches, seeing several related images one after the other. When looking at an X-ray, clinicians are typically asked to identify any abnormalities and then classify them. During this visual search

and recognition task, researchers have found that radiologists' decisions were based not only on the present image, but also on images they had previously seen, which could have grave consequences for patients.

Our visual system's sluggishness to update can make us blind to immediate changes because it grabs on to our first impression and pulls us toward the past. Ultimately, though, continuity fields promote our experience of a stable world. At the same time, it's important to remember that the judgements we make every day are not totally based on the present, but strongly depend on what we have seen in the past.

■

Dr Karen Blakeley & Chris Blakeley

Leading with Love Rehumanising the Workplace Available Now

The World’s Leadership Institute®

April 2022 | Catalyst | 50

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been lauded for his resistance to the Russian invasion.

On the cover → ALSO IN THIS SECTION 52 Zelensky – antithesis of Putin 54 Putin, Zelenskyy & Biden all have unique leadership styles

56 Zlensky’s appeal lies in his service to Ukrainians above all else

ON THE COVER

Zelenskyy - antithesis of Putin who proved you don't need to be a strongman to be a great leader A political philosopher explains the moral symbolism ascribed to Zelenskyy's 'heroism' and why he offers hope to those who hold democracy dear.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been lauded for his resistance to the Russian invasion.

Professor Michael Blake University of Washington

something else is at work in the widespread reverence shown to Zelenskyy.

Whatever happens in the coming weeks, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will go down as the face of Ukrainian resilience during the Russian invasion of his country.

Zelenskyy has demonstrated, during the invasion, a style of political presentation that is the antithesis of that shown

by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Matters of political style - the choices made by leaders about the words they use, the jokes they tell, even the clothes they wear - are frequently taken to be unrelated to matters of substantive political justice. The history of thinking about authoritarian politics, however, demonstrates that antidemocratic politics, and a certain sort of personal style, often come together.

His response to the Russian invasion of his country has been widely praised, both at home and abroad. His speech to the European Parliament in early March received a standing ovation. Western press outlets have referred to him as a 'hero,' as the 'voice' of his nation, and as a 'focal point' for democratic resistance to tyranny.

Some of this acclaim can be explained simply with reference to the fact that Zelenskyy is the president of a beleaguered nation standing up against a powerful and belligerent aggressor.

The Russian invasion is widely regarded as a brutal act of violence, cynically clothed in the language of 'deNazification.' Any president who resisted this invasion would likely receive some portion of moral praise.

As a political philosopher, however, I would argue that

The World’s Leadership Institute®

Putin demonstrates a tendency toward authoritarianism in both political action and in political style. Zelenskyy, in contrast, presents a more modest and understated vision of political leadership - one more appropriate for democratic institutions, in which the leader is not thought to be morally superior to the governed. If the world is increasingly suspicious of democratic ideals and practices, then Zelenskyy might represent one of the few recent signs that those in favour of democracy have reasons for hope.

>> April 2022 | Catalyst | 52

ON THE COVER Masculinity and authoritarianism

whose relatives were murdered in the Holocaust, he invokes history more as warning than as aspiration.

There are three key aspects worth noting about Putin's carefully crafted political image. Putin is particularly concerned to present himself as a traditionally masculine male, frequently appearing shirtless and often competing in - and (improbably) winning - athletic competitions, including both ice hockey and judo.

Democracy and the freedom to speak plainly

He presents himself as shrewd and contemptuous of his opponents, frequently showing a smirk in response to any showing of weakness. He was, for instance, visibly happy to see German Chancellor Angela Merkel's discomfort in the presence of his dog Konni. This casual cruelty is expressed even toward his own subordinates, as seen in his recent public humiliation of spy chief Sergei Naryshkin.

He is, finally, keen to present himself as uniquely chosen by history to restore an empire he believes unjustly dismantled - in particular, the Soviet Union, whose dissolution Putin described as the 'greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.'

Italian philosopher and novelist Umberto Eco noted that traits such as these three may seem superficial - but that they speak of an authoritarian hostility to disagreement, and ultimately to democracy itself.

Eco notes that when a leader emerges who promises to use traditional masculinity, and thereby restore the former greatness of the nation or the polity, that leader is inevitably drawn toward the rejection of limits to centralized power.

Such limits include, in the end, such notions as democratic accountability and human rights. In Eco's words: For such a leader, disagreement is treason, and those who are weak deserve nothing but contempt.

Zelenskyy's leadership style If these arguments are correct, however, then Zelenskyy's style of leadership represents a symbolic repudiation of Putin's authoritarianism. Zelenskyy is, to begin with, unconcerned with presenting himself as traditionally masculine. Before his life in politics, for instance, he appeared - in a variety of vaguely comic costumes - on the Ukrainian edition of 'Dancing With the Stars.’ He has, as the Russian invasion continues, presented himself unshaven and exhausted“ as vulnerable, frightened, but nonetheless unbowed.

In this, Zelenskyy represents an image of not only resistance to authoritarianism, but also how leaders might appear as they engage in such resistance. Eco, who grew up in fascist Italy, describes his surprise at how simple was the speech of those who took over after fascism's fall.

Democracy, Eco marvelled, entailed the freedom to speak plainly. It was not only freedom from fascist political institutions, but also freedom from rhetoric.

When Zelenskyy is lauded for his resistance to the Russian invasion, it is because he is demonstrating a number of central virtues - including the courage to remain where he is, in the line of Russian fire. But at least some of this praise, I am convinced, is the result of his style of governance, in which he resists not only authoritarian violence, but the authoritarian style of political presentation - including Putin's assertions that he is unique in both destiny and in masculine strength.

There is, however, some irony at work in the moral symbolism ascribed to Zelenskyy.

The democratic hope ascribed to Zelenskyy reflects the thought that the leader is no better than those who are led; that the president does not have to be uniquely strong, or endowed with a unique historical destiny. He has frankly admitted that he is afraid of dying, afraid of his family's dying - and that he remains in Kyiv out of duty, rather than any desire for glory or for warfare. The president, instead, is a person much like anyone else.

It is natural for the West to pin a great many hopes on Zelenskyy, in his resistance to the authoritarianism of Putin.

The West should, however, not forget the most central lesson of democratic politics - that the leaders are no better, morally speaking, than those they lead.

If Zelenskyy represents a democratic hero, it should nonetheless be remembered that democracy does not need and should not seek - the sorts of hero worship that authoritarians like Putin demand.

■

He is, finally, inclined more often to speak about Ukrainian unity in the present than about any glorious history. As a Ukrainian of Jewish descent, many of

53 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Institute of One World Leadership®

ON THE COVER

Putin, Zelenskyy and Biden all have unique leadership styles Ukrainian conflict - three key leaders, each with different approach to the crisis.

Professor Sam Hunter University of Nebraska Omaha Gina Scott Ligon University of Nebraska Omaha

Crises have the capacity to reveal who leaders really are, and how differently they operate.

Our research over the past 20 years has identified three primary types of leadership across a wide range of situations and circumstances.

The current conflict in Ukraine has three key leaders, each of whom uses a different approach to the crisis.

Zelenskyy personified the charismatic style of leadership in his 2019 campaign. He branded himself as an anti-establishment candidate, seeking to provide new leadership and change for his nation.

During the present crisis, Zelenskyy’s widespread emotional appeal is on full display. He has inspired his own people but also has become a global icon nearly overnight.

Putin, the ideologue Zelenskyy, the charismatic hero In Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the world has found its charismatic hero, albeit a reluctant one.

Charismatic leaders offer their followers hope and visions of a better future. They influence people by making emotional appeals about what that future might look like.

The World’s Leadership Institute®

Russian President Vladimir Putin embraces his role as an ideological leader. These leaders typically seek a return to a bygone era, offering to turn back the clock to a time when followers were more satisfied with their lives. They often use negative emotions to stress what could happen if such a shift does not occur.

Putin most directly illustrates the ideological leadership style in his

overarching desire to return Russia to the era of Stalin and Lenin. Putin once called the end of the Soviet Union 'The greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.’

In recent years he has literally begun to rebuild this union by annexing portions of Georgia and the Crimean Peninsula in Ukraine. Putin also exemplifies the ideological style of leadership by attempting to physically embody the values he believes represent Russia, including projections of strength, history and imperialism.

Biden, the pragmatist U.S. President Joe Biden is the pragmatist.

Pragmatic leaders seek a path forward by solving problems, attempting to achieve influence through logic and rationality rather than emotional appeals.

His attempts at influence have largely focused on problem-solving, using data to defend his decisions. In recent speeches, which are by design, less emotional than speeches by Zelenskyy or Putin, Biden has described his plan to confront Putin’s Ukraine invasion through economic sanctions and international coalitionbuilding.

Pragmatic appeals lack big emotional swings. Yet even in the world’s divided "and subdivided" political landscape, a pragmatic approach offers a pathway to unity.

>>

April 2022 | Catalyst | 54

ON THE COVER pragmatic approach offers a pathway to unity.

Three leaders collide Their three differing leadership approaches provide a glimpse of how they will respond to whatever happens next.

Pragmatic leaders are the most flexible and adaptable, shifting their approach as needed to solve the problem.

Biden’s current trajectory suggests that as a pragmatic leader, he could include novel and far-reaching economic sanctions. And though direct combat involving U.S. troops is currently off the table, with pragmatic leaders, no tool is ever completely excluded.

Charismatic leaders like Zelenskyy can energize followers in ways other leaders cannot. This has already resulted in massive donations and other types of support from around the world, and a Ukrainian army that is fighting hard against a formidable enemy. But physical and emotional energy are limited, and eventually charismatic appeals may become less effective.

55 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Finally, and perhaps most notably, ideological leaders such as Putin are often unwavering and unwilling to compromise. They can encourage their followers to make sacrifices in ways that charismatics and pragmatics cannot, but only if the followers share the same values as the leader and view the leader as representative of those values.

Some Russians are already showing signs of rejecting Putin’s aggressive vision of a resurgent Soviet Union.

Beyond everyday Russians’ frustrated reactions to the world’s economic sanctions, some Russian soldiers are signalling that they feel unnecessarily pulled into conflict with neighbours. And some reports indicate a Russian attempt to assassinate Zelenskyy failed in part because Russian government officials secretly warned Ukraine.

The math on this conflict is clear: Russia has a much larger military. If Ukraine survives the conflict, it may well be due to the disconnect between Putin’s ideological leadership and his people’s tangible practical needs.

■

Institute of One World Leadership®

ON THE COVER

Volodymyr Zelensky's appeal lies in his service to Ukrainians above all else

Placing himself at risk Zelensky's decision to remain in Kyiv is both exceptional and profound. There are few recent examples of political elites willing to put themselves at risk personally for the collective good - Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Mandela and Mother Teresa are some servant leaders of the past. His decision exemplifies the spirit of servant leadership.

Ajnesh Prasad Royal Roads University

To gain popular appeal among voters, political elites routinely cast themselves in the role of a servant leader - that is, someone who sets aside self-interest in favour of serving others. For the servant leader, the office they occupy is not intended to capture and maintain power, but rather to advance the interests of the constituents they serve.

There's no better example of this at the moment than Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

His commitment to Ukraine and Ukrainians is at odds with many recent examples from across the ideological spectrum of political elites claiming to function as servant leaders while exhibiting wholly contradictory behaviours.

Take California Gov. Gavin Newsom's decision to attend a group dinner at the tony French Laundry restaurant in the Napa Valley during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when he was advising his state's residents to stay home as a public health precaution. Or British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's attendance at a party when the country was under a stay-at-home order.

These examples suggest that although they may claim otherwise, political leaders consider themselves to be part of a distinct, elite class for whom the rules that govern ordinary citizens do not apply. Indeed, their behaviour is predicated on the underlying belief that constituents ought to do as leaders say and not as they do.

Courage of his convictions Not so for Zelensky, who's captured the admiration of the world in large part by

The World’s Leadership Institute®

aligning his rhetoric with his actions during the Russian invasion of his country.

Comparing Zelensky's words with his conduct in recent years shows how he's the quintessential servant leader even under the most precarious of circumstances.

In May 2019, in his inaugural address after being elected president, Zelensky alluded to the importance of political office-holders performing as servant leaders. Under his leadership, he hoped to establish Ukraine as a country where, in his words: 'Everybody is equal before the law and where the rules of the game are honest and transparent are the same for everyone. And for this to happen, people who want to serve the nation need to take office.'

While political leaders often make such lofty claims, rarely are they practised through their actions.

When Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine, his intention was clear: to overthrow Zelensky's democratically elected government and establish a puppet regime in favour of the Kremlin. With this objective in mind, the Russian military set its sight on Kyiv, and Zelensky immediately became 'Target No. 1.'

In a show of moral fortitude and unwavering courage, Zelensky refused to flee Kyiv. As the violence crept closer to the capital in the days that followed, and with Zelensky's life under threat, U.S. President Joe Biden offered to evacuate him from Ukraine. Rejecting the offer, the Ukrainian president responded with his now famous line: 'I need ammunition, not a ride.’

Zelensky has asked Ukrainian men and women to confront the invaders and to defend their country. In a last-ditch attempt to dissuade Putin on the eve of the invasion, he said: 'When you attack us, you will see our faces, not our backs.'

Consistent with servant leaders who relegate their own self-interest in order to protect the interests of the people they serve, Zelensky stayed put to be part of the country's resistance. He asked nothing of citizens that he wasn't determined to do himself.

To be sure, many ordinary Ukrainians have heeded the call to defend their country against the invasion from the military superpower. Their individual and collective heroism should not be negated.

But for the citizenry's resolve to resist and persevere against the Russian occupation, it's critical to have a political leader who is standing alongside the people, serving them in leading by example. During the country's darkest hours, Zelensky has shown himself a man for the people, of the people - not just in rhetoric, but more importantly, in action.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine continues.

While the Ukrainian president's fate remains uncertain, one outcome is clear: Zelensky's embodiment as a servant leader during this time of crisis means he will either live on as a hero or die a martyr. He has shown the world what it means to be a leader whose foremost commitment is to the citizens he serves.

■

April 2022 | Catalyst | 56

Planet, Environment & Energy → IN THIS SECTION 58 War in Ukraine is changing energy geopolitics 60 The power to save the planet is inside us all – how to get past despair to action

62 Tackling inequality to save the planet 64 Plastic waste treaty: expert Q&A on the promise of global reduction of pollution

Planet, Environment & Energy

→ ALSO IN THIS SECTION 00 Helping employees disconnect

00 Helping employees disconnect

00 Leadership in difficult times

00 Leadership in difficult times

00 How colleagues affect home life

00 How colleagues affect your home life

War in Ukraine is changing energy geopolitics Russian President Vladimir Putin has used his country's massive energy reserves effectively for political influence. But with war in Ukraine, nations are looking for ways to cut those ties.

Scott L. Montgomery University of Washington

expertise. Italy has frozen a loan for a new natural gas export terminal in the Russian Arctic. And in the longer term, the Ukraine war has kicked Europe's transition away from fossil fuels - especially Russian oil and gas - into high gear.

Russia's war against Ukraine will change the landscape of global energy and its geopolitics in profound ways. Pieces of this terrain have already begun shifting.

As the world's largest combined exporter of oil and gas, Russia has direct energy relationships with more than two dozen European nations, as well as China, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and others. If coal exports are added, a dozen more countries, including India, are relevant. Russia has used these exports for political leverage since Soviet times.

But invading Ukraine in violation of international law has made Russia a pariah. Its energy customers are not just concerned about sanctions; most are rethinking their reliance on Moscow itself. They see supermajors like BP, Shell, Equinor and ExxonMobil exiting Russia, potentially abandoning billions of dollars in assets, after decades of investment.

Replacing Russia: Oil options

A woman holds a blood-stained portrait of Russian President Vladimir Putin at a protest at the Russian Consulate in Montreal on Feb. 25, 2022.

In the short term, Russian oil will be hard for its European customers to replace. But options exist. For oil, three stand out.

1. Restore the Iran nuclear deal, a foreign policy priority for U.S. President Joe Biden. Reviving this agreement, which offered Iran relief from economic sanctions in return for limiting its nuclear weapons activities, would allow Iran to add 1.2 million to 1.5 million barrels of oil per day to the global market this year.

Other Russian relationships may also be in trouble. Since 2016, Moscow has partnered with OPEC, the global oil producers' cartel, to control world oil supply and prices against competition from U.S. shale production. This socalled OPEC+ partnership has had some success - but now, with sanctions forcing Russia into financial isolation, its future is uncertain.

The most pressing issue is Europe, Russia's main market.

Russian President Vladimir Putin clearly believes his country's exports are too important to sanction and make Russia's energy sector too valuable to attack. In my view, he is, at best, partly right.

This is because, besides the exodus of international oil firms, there has been a mass withdrawal of investor support for Russia's own energy companies. This suggests the private sector is doing some of the work of sanctions on its own. In any case, Putin's strategy will fail for other reasons as well.

By leaving, Western energy companies will deprive Russia's energy sector of much-needed capital and

The World’s Leadership Institute®

>> April 2022 | Catalyst | 58

Planet, Environment & Energy Iran is already loading tankers in anticipation of this happening. Not all of this oil would go to Europe, but just half of it could replace up to 30% of Europe's Russian imports, which currently total around 2.4 million barrels per day.

2. Increase U.S. oil production and exports. This is already happening in response to prices over $90 per barrel. But companies have moved cautiously, seeking to avoid overproduction that could trigger a price collapse and possibly even bankruptcies.

Federal regulators could accelerate production increases by offering tax or royalty relief for wells on federal land. Based on recent history, I estimate that U.S. output could rise by 1 million to 1.2 million barrels per day over the next 12 months.

Depending how much goes to Europe, this could replace another 30% of Europe's Russian oil.

3. Pressure Saudi Arabia to raise output. This hasn't worked so far, but war in Ukraine may change things. Estimates suggest that OPEC, led by the Saudis, has between 3.7 million and 5 million barrels per day of surplus oil production capacity available. A surge of 1.5 million barrels per day could offset another 40% of Europe's dependence on Russia.

Since the fall of 2021, OPEC has been restraining production while claiming that it has increased its output. This strategy appears designed to keep prices high and not anger Russia.

OPEC's calculus may shift, however, given Russia's sinking status and the fact that persistent high prices create demand for alternatives to oil.

supplies, causing an energy crunch in Europe. Russia aimed to pressure the EU into certifying the new Nord Stream 2 natural gas export pipeline and to deter energy sanctions.

From left, Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic attend an inauguration ceremony of the new 'TurkStream' gas pipeline in Istanbul on Jan. 8, 2020.Ozan Kose/AFP via Getty Images

To help alleviate the crunch, U.S. firms sent 60 liquefied natural gas shipments across the Atlantic. Absent an unexpected cold snap, Europe now has enough gas in storage to carry it into spring without relying heavily on Russia.

Some help in the meantime might come from inter-EU exporters of electricity, if they are able to redirect power to neighbors with especially high reliance on Russian gas.

Given its Asian natural gas contracts, the U.S. doesn't have enough peak export capacity to replace Russia's supply. But more is coming: U.S. peak capacity is set to rise to 13.9 billion cubic feet per day in 2022 and 16.3 billion cubic feet per day by 2024.

Growth plans also exist elsewhere. Qatar aims to raise its capacity substantially by 2027. Newly expanded gas reserves in East Africa, Papua New Guinea and the Eastern Mediterranean will underwrite new liquefied natural gas export terminals.

None of this bodes well for Russia, which sends 70% of its gas exports to EU countries. Going forward, European governments could use tariffs to raise the price. Meanwhile, although China has inked new oil and gas deals with Russia, leaders in Beijing are not about to become handmaidens to Putin's energy plans.

Instead, I expect the Chinese will continue to spread their energy dependence widely.

Long-term energy security through decarbonization The war in Ukraine has galvanized support for accelerating the EU's European Green Deal. This enormous project aims to make the continent climate neutral by 2050 by putting climate concerns at the center of energy policy.

Approved in 2020, it includes a package of measures known as 'Clean Energy for All Europeans,' designed for member nations to adopt into law. The plan covers every major domain of energy use, from buildings and efficiency to electricity markets, with a strong emphasis on shifting to carbon-free and low-carbon sources.

Options for natural gas

Battles over national energy choices have slowed progress so far.

Howls rose from some observers in 2021 when the EU agreed to categorize nuclear power as 'low-carbon clean energy.' France, meanwhile, recently announced plans to build six to 14 new advanced reactors to improve its energy security and maintain its low emissions status.

Europe is more dependent on Russia for natural gas than for oil, yet options exist here too. As recently as 2019, Russian gas deliveries to the European Union and the United Kingdom averaged about 16 billion cubic feet per day, mostly by pipeline.

As I see it, the EU needs to move forward more aggressively with noncarbon sources, including renewable energy, nuclear power and green hydrogen. Decarbonization offers a pathway to energy security and can benefit from Europe's newfound unity in the face of war.

■

Then Gazprom, Russia's state-owned firm, started cutting

59 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Institute of One World Leadership®

Planet, Environment & Energy

The power to save the planet is inside us all how to get past despair to powerful action on climate change How well people exercise their agency will determine the severity of global warming and its consequences.

Professor Thomas S Bateman University of Virginia Michael E Mann Penn State

Our species is in a race with climate change, and a lot of people want to know, 'Can I really make a difference?'

The question concerns what's known as agency. Its meaning is complex, but in a nutshell it means being able to do what you set out to do and believing you can succeed.

How well people exercise their agency will determine the severity of global warming - and its consequences.

The evidence is clear that people are changing the climate dramatically. But human actions can also affect the climate for the better by reducing fossil fuel burning and carbon emissions. It's not too late to avert the worst effects of climate change, but time is running out.

Despite abundant technical agency, humanity is alarmingly short of psychological agency: belief in one's personal ability to help. A 10country survey study in the Lancet, a British medical journal, found that more than half of young people ages 16-25 feel afraid, sad, anxious, angry, powerless and helpless about climate change.

As professors, we bring complementary perspectives to the challenges of taking action on climate change. Tom Bateman studies psychology and leadership, and Michael Mann is a climate scientist and author of the recent book 'The New Climate War.’

Believing ‘I can do this' Human activities - particularly relying on coal, oil and natural gas for energy - have dramatically affected the climate, with dire consequences.

As greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuel use accumulate in the atmosphere, they warm the planet. Rising global temperatures have fuelled worsening heat waves, rising sea levels and more intense storms that become increasingly harder to adapt to. A new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change describes some of the dangerous disruptions already underway, and how they are putting people and the environment at risk.

Just like humans can choose to drive gas-guzzlers, they can also choose to act in ways that influence the climate, air quality and public health for the better. Scientific knowledge and countless opportunities for action make that agency possible.

A key part of agency is one's belief, when faced with a task to perform, a situation to manage, or a long-term goal like protecting the climate, that 'I can do this.' It's known as self-efficacy.

This may be the most important psychological factor in predicting how well people will cope with both climate change and COVID19, recent online survey data from Europe indicate. People feeling adequate agency are more likely to persevere, rebound from setbacks and perform at high levels.

With climate change, a high sense of self-efficacy strengthens a person's willingness to reduce carbon emissions (mitigation) and prepare for climate-related disasters (adaptation). Studies confirm this for actions including volunteering, donating, contacting elected officials, saving energy, conserving water during extreme weather, and more.

How to boost your sense of agency To build agency for something that can feel as daunting as climate change, focus first on the facts. In the case of climate change: Greenhouse gas emissions cause the most harm, and people can help far more than they realize.

Successful agency has four psychological drivers, all of which can be strengthened with practice:

>> The World’s Leadership Institute®

April 2022 | Catalyst | 60

Planet, Environment & Energy 1) Intentionality: 'I choose my climate goals and actions for high impact.'

'Collective agency' is another form of agency. A critical mass of people can create societal

Deciding to act with purpose-knowing what you intend to dois far more effective than thinking 'My heart's in the right place, I just have to find the time.'

Together, these efforts can rapidly improve humanity's capacity to solve problems and head off disasters. Fixing the world's climate mess requires both urgency and a sense of agency to create the best possible future.

In the big picture, one's highest climate efficacy is in participating in larger efforts to stop fossil fuel use. People can set specific ambitious goals for reducing personal and household energy use and join others in collective actions.

2) Forethought: 'I am looking ahead and thinking strategically about how to proceed.’

Knowing your goals, you can think strategically and develop an action plan. Some plans support relatively simple goals involving individual lifestyle changes, such as adjusting consumption and travel patterns. Wider reaching actions can help change systems - such as long-term activities that advocate for climate-friendly policies and politicians, or against policies that are harmful. These include demonstrations and voter campaigns.

■

Personal action is important.

Collective action that encourages systemic change can go even farther.

3) Self-regulation: 'I can manage myself over time to optimize my efforts and effectiveness.'

Worrying about the future is becoming a lifelong task-off and on for some, constant for others. Climate change will cause disasters and scarcities, disrupt lives and careers, heighten stress and harm public health. Seeing progress and working with others can help relieve stress.

4) Self-reflection: ' I will periodically assess my effectiveness, rethink strategies and tactics, and make necessary adjustments.'

It's difficult to imagine a greater need for lifelong learning than as we navigate decades of climate change, its many harms and efforts by fossil fuel companies to obscure the facts. Reflection - or, more precisely, keeping up with the latest science, learning and adapting - is vital as the future keeps presenting new challenges.

Personal agency is only the first step Even seemingly minor first steps can help reduce carbon emissions and lead to paths of greater action, but individual actions are only part of the solution. Big polluters often urge consumers to take small personal actions, which can deflect attention from the need for large-scale policy interventions.

Individual agency should be seen as a gateway for group efforts that can more quickly and effectively change the trajectory of climate change.

61 | April 2022 | Catalyst

A coordinator for a treeplanting nonprofit organization participates in an event at a New York high school.

John Lamparski/ Getty Images

Institute of One World Leadership®

Planet, Environment & Energy The Biggest Shanty Town in Latin America Favela da Rocinha, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Inequality polarises societies and makes them less inclined to act for the common good.

Tackling inequality will break gridlock on what to do about climate change The reduction of inequality is crucial from an ethical point of view as well as the fact that will open new possibilities on how to tackle climate change.

Murray Leibbrandt University of Capetown Anda David Agence française de développement (AFD)

There have been a lot of discussions on the urgency of climate change. But it's universally accepted that the steps that have been agreed to stop global warming are too little too late.

The reduction of inequality is crucial not only from an ethical point of view, but also because it will allow us to tackle climate change.

We argue that inequality is part of the answer as to why there is little action.

However, if we want to reduce inequalities, we need to recognise that a different kind of growth is needed. And that it has to be intertwined with the actions to curb climate change and adapt to its impacts.

On the one hand, inequality polarises societies and makes them less prone to act.

On the other hand, inequality results in elites capturing the power of action and being less inclined to give up their privileges.

The challenge is that what we know about such sustainable development is framed within the contexts of high-income countries.

But how does this translate in African countries?

Why is this?

Inequality and climate are intertwined We are growing increasingly aware that the patterns of growth and development in the world are not sustainable, either from the climate, or the social perspective (and this was true even before the COVID-19 pandemic).

The recent data from the World Inequality Report show the historical CO2 emissions linked to the development paths from 1850 to 2020 have considerably shrunk the remaining emission-budget which would allow us to stay under 1.5C or even under 2C from now until 2050 (see over).

What the graph also tells us is a story of inequality: inequality of CO2 emissions and inequality of development.

With the onset of the COVID pandemic in 2020, this situation has only worsened as it is estimated that it between 119 and 124 million people have been pushed into extreme poverty.

>> The World’s Leadership Institute®

April 2022 | Catalyst | 62

Planet, Environment & Energy Historical emissions vs. remaining carbon budget.

World Inequality Report 2022

So, in assessing our current state, the World Inequality Report concurs with the Oxfam Davos report, titled this year 'Inequality kills', as they both show a significant increase of inequality in the aftermath of the pandemic.

Oxfam's report shows staggering facts on how, because of COVID-19, the wealth of the 10 richest men has doubled, while the incomes of 99% of humanity are worse off. A recent Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development survey also shows that people are increasingly concerned with this rise in income disparities.

And we know that poverty would decrease even more if inequality was lower.

It is the extractivist type of growth that led to this situation of increased inequality both between and within countries, and also led to unsustainability from the climate perspective.

Going back to old ways is a bad idea Voices have started to rise on how the fallout from the COVID pandemic could be a window of opportunity to rebuild differently, to redefine solidarity, social values and prosperity.

A number of influential commentators, such as Nicholas Stern, ex-chief economist of the World Bank and of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and lead author of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, have seen this moment as an opportunity to put more sustainable social and economic processes in place too by linking these social and economic changes to more climate friendly production and consumption patterns.

For a short period, it seemed that many agreed. But now that recovery strategies are being implemented, it is being seen as

63 | April 2022 | Catalyst

imperative to restart growth as it was before, despite the fact that it is commonly acknowledged that it was an unsustainable growth path.

This disjuncture between where inequality, COVID and the climate emergency took us and the seeming amnesia of this business as usual approach is perplexing.

AOf course it is imperative that economies get going again.

But, single-minded attention to restarting growth once more rests on the view that this growth will trickle down to include all in society and will lower inequality. But we know that this is not true.

A different approach If existing growth processes do not trickle down and exclude potentially productive sections of the population from participating in the economy, then a starting point for thinking about what it might mean to build back differently should be a detailed interrogation in each country context of the multidimensional inequalities that restrict inclusion.

Economists Dani Rodrik and Stefanie Stantcheva provide a useful framework to use (see below). Each of these dimensions needs to be considered together. In this framework there is an insistence on the need to consider economic and social policies jointly and in an integrated way.

Moreover, the required policy combinations differ for those who fall in the bottom, middle and top income classes of a society. Therefore the extent and nature of current inequalities are central to evaluating and planning growth policies that benefit everyone.

These policies need to be based on a detailed understanding of the way inequalities empower - or constrain - possibilities.

>>

Institute of One World Leadership®

Planet, Environment & Energy South Africa serves as a good example. Its very high inequality sees the bottom half of population sharing only 8.5% of the total income (while the richest 10% concentrate 52% of total income). The main reason for this lies in the fact that the bottom-income group, which represents almost half of the country's population, is largely delinked from the labour market. This is due to the intersection of different types of inequalities, ranging from spatial, racial to wealth and assets.

Growth has to focus on enhancing the productivity of this bottom-income group.

For this to happen social and infrastructure spending are key investments. Inclusive growth cannot happen without them.

Investing in people is not only crucial for socioeconomic sustainability, but also for climate sustainability. The 'Yellow vests' movement in France was only a glimpse into why the ecological transition needs to be backed by social policies, but there is growing awareness of the looming risks.

Some options When thinking around the role of inequality reduction in the fight against climate change, a couple of channels stand out.

The most obvious one is the enormous gap in emissions between the poorest and the richest. Oxfam estimated that 20 of the richest billionaires emit, on average, as much as 8,000 times more carbon than the billion poorest people.

But the distorting impact of inequalities on climate change goes beyond inequalities of emissions. Inequality polarises societies and makes them less inclined to act for the common

The World’s Leadership Institute®

good. This is particularly problematic for effecting socially optimal change as inequality results into elites capturing the power of action and being less prone to give up their privileges, which are often linked to the current non-inclusive and unsustainable structures of production and consumption.

Reducing inequalities allows us to shift from the gridlock of only talking to the established elite. In turn, this will facilitate climate action and open up the possibility of doing things differently.

■

April 2022 | Catalyst | 64

Planet, Environment & Energy

0

The resolution mentions a mechanism for directing money to countries in poorer countries so that they can afford to implement the agreement. This might improve waste collection, build recycling plants or eliminate the open burning of plastic. Finance has been a major point of contention in negotiations for delivering the Paris agreement on climate change.

How far will the agreement shift the world towards a truly circular economy for plastic, in which the value of plastic is maintained from production through to the manufacturing of products, their use, re-use, recycling and disposal? If plastic waste is given intrinsic value, it should remove the logic which allows pollution to happen.

Plastic waste treaty: expert Q&A on the promise of a global agreement to reduce pollution Professor Steve Fletcher University of Portsmouth

The flow of plastic entering the ocean is expected to double by 2040. To prevent this tsunami of difficult-to-decompose waste, experts have proposed a global treaty which could oblige all nations to reduce how much plastic they produce and emit to the environment.

At a recent meeting of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) in Nairobi, Kenya, ministers and representatives from 173 countries agreed on the terms for negotiating such a treaty over the next two years.

Is this the turning point for plastic pollution the world needs? And how will it work? We asked Steve Fletcher, a professor of ocean policy and economy at the University of Portsmouth and an advisor to the UN Environment Prograamme on plastic.

What has actually been agreed in Nairobi?

The UNEA is a gathering of all United Nations member states to discuss and adopt policies for tackling global environmental problems. It is the highest environmental decision-making body in the world. On Wednesday March 2 2022, ministers and representatives from 173 countries formally adopted a resolution to start negotiations for a legally binding agreement to end plastic pollution.

Agreeing the mandate and focus of the negotiations is just the start. Before the end of 2024, the substance of the agreement will need to be thrashed out.

It's currently unclear how ambitious the legally binding elements of the agreement will be. For example, will the agreement oblige countries to totally eliminate plastic pollution, and if so, by when and how?

The resolution stresses the importance of engaging a broad range of people and groups in developing the agreement, which will be important given the range of interests involved in the plastics sector and the widespread support needed to develop an effective global agreement.

What will be the specific aims of this treaty?

The treaty will aim to prevent plastic becoming pollution in the first place by setting rules to eliminate the use of unnecessary plastic, which could include measures to reduce excessive plastic packaging, among other things, and replace it with more sustainable alternatives. This is more ambitious than some observers had predicted at the outset of the recent UNEA meeting, as some worried the scope of the treaty would end at improving the management of waste plastic (such as through better collection and sorting).

Countries have different waste management systems, so the agreement is likely to require each one to produce its own national action plan to show how it intends to achieve the goals of the agreement, although the legal status of these plans is unclear from the resolution.

>> 65 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Institute of One World Leadership®

Planet, Environment & Energy The resolution also includes options for public campaigns to reduce plastic pollution, support for scientific research and opportunities to share knowledge between countries. It emphasises that the agreement should be developed in collaboration with civil society organisations, indigenous communities, and businesses. Only this way, it is argued, can a holistic approach to eliminating plastic pollution emerge.

gas industry (most plastics derive from fossil fuels) and plastic manufacturers, and will require major innovations in material science, product design, green chemistry, waste and recycling management, product labelling and public behaviour. Every country is faced with unique circumstances and challenges, but the global agreement should provide a framework capable of supporting this transition.

Plastic pollution blights the lives of the world's poorest people.

Tinnakorn Jorruang Shutterstock

It is always difficult to draw lessons from different agreements, but let's try. Over the last 30 years, the provisions of the 1989 Montreal protocol have managed to shrink the hole in the ozone layer. The protocol's success is often attributed to national targets for progressively reducing the production and use of ozone-depleting substances in refrigerators and aerosols, for instance. This structured approach might be a useful template for reducing plastic production over time.

How will the treaty be implemented?

An alternative model is the Paris agreement of 2015, which requires countries to specify their own nationally determined contributions to reducing total greenhouse gas emissions, in line with a goal of limiting average global temperature rise to no more than 2C (and ideally, 1.5C) above pre-industrial levels. This approach has had limited success, as COP26 demonstrated. Few countries have adopted actions in line with the global target.

This is the tricky part. Other multilateral environmental agreements have struggled to achieve their goals as a result of poor enforcement.

A plastics agreement is likely to be enforced through the UN legal system, as with any other legally binding global agreements. Countries breaching the terms of any global agreement face legal and financial sanctions. Disciplinary action is used sparingly, however, with countries more likely to be offered support in delivering the treaty.

What approach the final agreement includes will be decided during discussions over the next 21 months.

What are some of the biggest obstacles to achieving the treaty's aims?

The treaty seeks nothing more than a transformation in our relationship with plastics.

Expect stiff resistance from plastic producers and other powerful businesses.

Gumpanat Shutterstock

complete

That will require a fundamental shift in how plastics are produced, used and disposed of. The eventual goal will be move from a linear system, in which plastics are made, used and then thrown away, to a circular system in which plastic becomes a valuable resource which it makes sense to conserve.

This will challenge vested interests, particularly the oil and

The World’s Leadership Institute®

What lessons can negotiators draw from the success and failures of other environmental treaties?

Given the clear need for globally coordinated action to tackle the plastics crisis, the agreement may need to borrow more from the prescriptive actions of the ozone-saving Montreal protocol to achieve its targets.

■

April 2022 | Catalyst | 66

Health, Medicine & Well-being

Health, Medicine & Well-being

An excess of empathy can be bad for your mental health Here are three steps for overcoming the distress caused by a surfeit of empathy.

Trudy Meehan RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences Jolanta Burke RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences

Have you found yourself irritable, sad or close to tears when watching the news lately? If so, you are not alone.

watch upsetting news on TV, especially when they relate to specific people and their lives.

Experiencing empathy has its benefits, but there are also many downsides to it, which is why we must learn to practise healthy empathy.

But emotional empathy isn’t just about experiencing negative emotions.

Empathetic people may experience an abundance of positivity when watching other people’s joy, happiness, excitement, or serenity and can get more out of music and other daily pleasures.

Empathy is an ability to sync emotionally and cognitively with another person; it is a capacity to perceive a world from their perspective or share their emotional experiences. It is essential for building and maintaining relationships, as it helps us connect with others at a deeper level. It is also associated with higher self-esteem and life purpose.

There are broadly two types of empathy: cognitive empathy and emotional empathy.

Emotional empathy is about sharing feelings with others to the extent that you may experience pain when watching someone in pain, or experience distress when watching someone in distress. This is what happens to many people when they

The World’s Leadership Institute®

While this emotional contagion is suitable for positive states, having too much empathy when watching people suffer can be very upsetting and even lead to mental health problems. Too much empathy towards others, especially when we prioritise other people’s emotions over our own, may result in experiences of anxiety and depression, which explains why so many of us feel bad when watching the news about the war in Ukraine.

The other type of empathy "cognitive empathy" refers to seeing the world through other people's eyes, seeing it from

their perspective, putting ourselves into their shoes without necessarily experiencing the associated emotions and, for example, watching the news and understanding at a cognitive level why people feel despair, distress or anger. This process may lead to emotional empathy or even somatic empathy, where empathy has a physiological effect (somatic being from the ancient Greek word ‘soma’ meaning body).

The effect of empathy on the body has been well documented. For example, parents experiencing high levels of empathy towards their children tend to have chronic low-grade inflammation, leading to lower immunity. Also, our heart beats to the same rhythm when we empathise with others. So the impact of empathy when watching the news is both psychological and physiological. In some circumstances, it may result in what some refer to as ‘compassion fatigue’.

Misnomer The burnout experienced by excessive empathy has traditionally been termed compassion fatigue. But more recently, using MRI studies, neuroscientists have argued that this is a misnomer, and that compassion does not cause fatigue. The distinction is important because it turns out that compassion is the antidote to the distress we feel when we empathise with people who are suffering.

>>

April 2022 | Catalyst | 68

Health, Medicine & Well-being We need less empathy and more compassion.

3. Take action

Empathy and compassion are distinct events in the brain.

Empathy for another person’s pain activates areas in the brain associated with negative emotions. Because we feel the other person’s pain, the boundary between the self and others can become blurred if we do not have good boundaries or selfregulation skills and we experience ‘emotional contagion’.

Empathic distress evokes negative feelings, such as stress, and prompts us to withdraw and be unsociable. In contrast, compassion produces positive feelings of love for another. It prompts us to take action. Most specifically compassion helps motivate sociability. One way to is to get involved: donate, volunteer, organise.

We get entangled in the distress and find it hard to soothe our emotions. We want to depersonalise, become numb, and look away. In contrast, compassion is associated with activity in areas of the brain associated with positive emotions and action.

Compassion can be defined simply as empathy plus action to alleviate another person’s pain. The action part of compassion helps us decouple our emotional system from others and see that we are separate individuals. We do not have to feel their pain when we witness it. Instead, we have the feeling of wanting to help. And we have a rewarding, positive emotional experience when we feel compassion towards another.

Here are three ways to practice compassion while watching the news.

1. Practice loving-kindness meditation

4. Stop doomscrolling

When you are overwhelmed by the news, practice lovingkindness mediation, where you focus on sending love to yourself, people you know, and those you don’t know who are suffering.

Understandably, we look for information in times of crisis. It helps us be prepared. However, doomscrolling "continually scrolling through and reading depressing or worrying content on a social media or news site, especially on a phone" is not helpful.

If we can create a buffer of positive emotions with compassion, we can think about how to practically help and act in overwhelming situations. Training your ‘compassion muscles’ provides a buffer against the negative emotions so that you can be better motivated to help and not get overwhelmed by the distressing emotions.

Loving-kindness meditation does not reduce negative emotions.

Instead, it increases activation in areas of the brain associated with positive emotions like love, hope, connection and reward.

Research on social media engagement during the pandemic showed that we need to be mindful of our news consumption to avoid increases in stress and negative emotions. To avoid the news altogether is unrealistic, but limiting our consumption is helpful. Another suggestion is to balance our media consumption by seeking out stories of acts of kindness (kindscrolling?), which can lift our mood.

■

2. Practice self-compassion Are you beating yourself up for not being able to help? Or feeling guilty about your life while other people suffer? Try being kind to yourself. Remember that while our suffering is always specific to us, it is not uncommon. We share a common humanity of all experiencing some kind of suffering. While being mindful of your suffering, also try to not over-identify with it. These acts of self-compassion help reduce the distress experienced in empathic burnout and improves feelings of wellbeing

69 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Editor’s Note: Empathy is one of the Positive Leadership Values we encourage all Leaders to develop. Remember however, that Empathy towards your own feelings needs to be in check before you are able to be empathic towards other people.

Institute of One World Leadership®

March4Humanity.org PUT YOUR FOOT DOWN !

Enough is Enough, we’ve decided to put our foot down, and want you to join us and do the same. We’re running out of time to save humanity and the planet, so between 1st and 31st March 2022 we’ll be holding our inaugural ‘March for Humanity’ campaign.

It’s 11 months away, but put it in your diary today!

It’s part of our commitment to develop the next generation of global leaders who will not just change, but save the world. Grounded in our distinct values, vision and ventures, this GBP 250 million fundraising Campaign strives to fortify our academic excellence, drive breakthrough innovation and transform society on a global scale by 2050. Help us increase grants, bursaries, leadership education, and access to disadvantaged Young Leaders. Be Wise and Empathise.

Politics & Society → IN THIS SECTION 72 Fact checking can harm public trust in media 75 Focusing on happiness can make people feel worse

77 Voters want honesty in their politicians 78 Seven ways to spot polarising language

Politics & Society

→ ALSO IN THIS SECTION 72 Fact checking can harm public trust in media 75 Focusing on happiness can make people feel worse

77 Voters value honest politicians 78 Seven ways to spot polarising language

Fact-checking can actually harm trust in media: new research Study finds high levels of trust in media reports - but that trust can be eroded by fact-checking. Journalists need to rethink how they report political stories.

More than 340 fact-checking outlets now operate worldwide.

Professor Andrea Carson La Trobe University Professor Aaron Martin The University of Melbourne Andrew Gibbons The University of Texas Justin Phillips University of Waikato

'Fake news', 'false facts', 'lamestream media', and 'we won the narrative', are just a few terms we have grown accustomed to hearing. Their prevalence of use does not however give them credibility as descriptions.

We could go into the exploration that there is no such thing as a ‘false’ fact, it is either a ‘fact’ or it isn’t. With elections around the world and a significant federal election expected in Australian in May, we take a look at the critical need for trusted media to accurately inform voters' choices and debunk myths spreading globally through society.

Studies show about two-thirds of Australians are worried about misinformation, especially about COVID-19, and do not know who or what to trust.

This is further complicated when politicians are the culprits, making false claims in the news media and online.

The World’s Leadership Institute®

So what role should journalists play in calling out these falsehoods? Or should this role be left to third parties, such as independent fact-checkers, to test verifiable claims?

The fight against 'fake news' Fact-checking is one global response to countering fake news, which has become a multi-billion-dollar industry.

More than 340 fact-checking outlets now operate worldwide.

In Australia, independent fact-checkers include newswires AAP and AFP, and RMIT ABC Fact Check (a collaboration between RMIT University and the public broadcaster). Yet little is known about what effect independent fact-checking has on public trust in news where false claims can be found.

In a new study published in a major international journal, we investigate if third-party fact-checking affects public trust in news. To do this we used the case study of the 'sports rorts' scandal.

>>

April 2022 | Catalyst | 72

Politics & Society As a quick refresher, the sports rorts scandal unfolded just before the 2019 federal election. Sporting clubs in Coalition and marginal seats disproportionately benefited from a taxpayer-funded community sports grants program.

The Australian National Audit Office later investigated the funding process. It found the then sports minister and National Party deputy, Bridget McKenzie, had not allocated funds based on independent advice given to her. Several senior ministers, including Peter Dutton, defended McKenzie's actions before she was forced to resign from that role because of the alleged pork-barrelling.

Political partisanship has some impact, with Labor supporters the most trusting of the news story overall (87%).

Consistent with other Australian surveys, we found the ABC had higher levels of public trust overall than News Corp.

However, some strong Coalition and right-wing supporters had greater trust in the news.com.au story, as other research has also found.

The research focused on fact-checking around the 'sport rorts' affair, which ultimately led to the resignation of Senator Bridget McKenzie.Marc Tewksbury/AAP

Concerningly, we found that when participants read the AAP fact check after reading the news story, trust in the original story fell sharply (by 13% overall), even after respondents' political or news source preferences were taken into account.

Counter-intuitively, the act of fact-checking had a clear negative influence on readers' trust in the original news story for both the abc.com.au and new.com.au stories as the chart below shows.

We use this real-life example in an experimental design to see what impact a real AAP fact-check about the scandal had on Australians' trust in news. We mocked up two news stories, one presented as being from ABC online and another from Newscorp's news.com.au. The stories contained identical wording and headlines, but used different fonts and banners.

Both stories contained a real quote from the then home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, about McKenzie's decision-making process. On January 23 2020, Dutton stated: “Bridget McKenzie made recommendations, as I understand it, on advice from the sporting body that these programs that have been funded were recommended.”

Dutton restated this position in other media that week, including on Nine's Today program, suggesting his words were not a slip of the tongue. The AAP fact-checked the statement and labelled it 'false'.

Months after the scandal subsided, public recall of specific details was likely overtaken by pandemic news stories. So, we invited 1,600 adult Australians to do an online survey and randomly assigned them to read either our constructed ABC or News Corp story, and then answer questions about the trustworthiness of that story (and the media outlet more generally). We randomly assigned half the respondents to also read the AAP fact-check.

The findings tell both a positive and negative story about how Australians view political news. On the up side, trust in the news story (without seeing the fact check) was high for

73 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Measurements of trust in the news story when fact checked and not fact checked, the news source and political party.Authors

This suggests news audiences may not separate a politician's false claims within a news story from the news reporting itself. Think about that for a second: - the politician told a falsehood - a fact-checker corrects it - but, as a consequence, the news story itself suffers the loss of public trust.

This finding is particularly important given Australian journalists' reliance on a 'he said/she said' news reporting style (this excludes opinion pieces), in which readers are presented with competing statements, one or both of which may be false, rather than the reporter actively adjudicating the false claim.

>> Institute of One World Leadership®

Politics & Society In this case, letting fact-checkers determine the truth may be a deeply unwise strategy for journalism.

While fact-checkers unquestionably do many positive things such as identify misinformation, in this instance it lowered trust in political journalism.

which has impartiality as a duty in the ABC Act 1983.

With the public demanding the truth, it seems journalists have a very important role to play by critiquing politicians' false claims in news stories at the time of reporting.

However, the ABC's 2019 revised code of practice specifies that 'impartiality' does not mean every perspective receives equal attention. Other media have the same policy.

For example, The Conversation's approach to reporting climate change has decided in favour of the scientific evidence and does not give air time to climate denialism.

While some outlets like Crikey already practise active adjudication in political stories, we acknowledge it might be problematic for an organisation like the ABC,

We see lessons in our findings for independent fact-checkers as well. Factcheckers might help increase trust in news by more clearly stating they are fact-checking a

owls_dot_global

politician's specific claim, rather than the media coverage that contains it. Some factcheckers make this distinction already on their websites, but rarely on every fact-check explanation.

Spelling this out may help audiences avoid conflating a fact-check of a specific political falsehood with the trustworthiness of the news story and media outlet.

With a federal election just months away, this study is a timely reminder of the important role that political journalists can play as sense-makers rather than just conveyers of political information.

■

owls_dot_global

Anti-Social Media – we ask the questions others won’t Our pictures paint a thousand words; our questions probe a million minds

The World’s Leadership Institute®

April 2022 | Catalyst | 74

Politics & Society

Research finds countries that focus the most on happiness can end up making people feel worse Broadening our search For several years, my colleagues and I have been researching the social pressure people may feel to experience positive emotions and avoid negative ones.

This pressure is also communicated to us through channels such as social media, selfhelp books and advertising. Eventually people develop a sense of what kinds of emotion are valued (or not valued) by those around them.

In an ironic twist, our past research has shown that the more people experience pressure to feel happy and not sad, the more they tend to experience depression.

While this previous research has mostly focused on people living in Australia or the United States, we were curious about how these effects might also be evident in other countries.

They say to improve your mood you should fake a smile and roll with the crowd.

But research suggests the more pressure you feel to be happy, the worse you'll end up feeling.

Professor Brock Bastian University of Melbourne Egon Dejonckheere Postdoctoral Researcher, KU Leuven

Have you looked at the international rankings of the world's happiest countries lately?

Measuring a country's subjective levels of happiness has become something of an international sport. People look with interest (and a little jealousy) to nations such as Denmark, which consistently tops the world happiness rankings.

It has also led to Danish practices such as the 'hygge' lifestyle gaining popularity elsewhere. If only we could add more cosiness to our lives, perhaps we would be as happy as the Danish!

But is living in one of the worlds happiest

75 | April 2022 | Catalyst

nations all it's cracked up to be? What happens if you struggle to find or maintain happiness in a sea of (supposedly) happy people?

In our new research, published in Scientific Reports, we found that in countries which rank the highest in national happiness, people are also more likely to experience poor wellbeing due to the societal pressure to be happy.

So living in happier countries may be good for many. But for some, it can end up feeling like too much to live up to, and have the opposite effect.

For our latest study we surveyed 7,443 people from 40 countries on their emotional well-being, satisfaction with life (cognitive well-being) and mood complaints (clinical well-being). We then weighed this against their perception of social pressure to feel positive.

What we found confirmed our previous findings. Worldwide, when people report feeling pressure to experience happiness and avoid sadness, they tend to experience deficits in mental health.

That is, they experience lower satisfaction with their lives, more negative emotion, less positive emotion and higher levels of depression, anxiety and stress.

Interestingly, our global sample allowed us to go beyond our prior work and examine whether there were differences in this relationship across countries. some countries in which this relationship is especially strong? And if so, why might that be?

>> Institute of One World Leadership®

Politics & Society Not a uniform problem To investigate this, we obtained data for each of the 40 counties from the World Happiness Index, collected by the Gallup World Poll. This index is based on the subjective happiness ratings of large-scale nationally representative samples.

It allowed us to determine how the overall happiness of a nation, and therefore the social pressure on individuals to be happy, might influence individuals' well-being.

We found the relationship did indeed change, and was stronger in countries that ranked more highly on the World Happiness Index.

That is, in countries such as Denmark, the social pressure some people felt to be happy was especially predictive of poor mental health.

That's not to say on average people are not happier in those countries - apparently they are - but that for those who already feel a great deal of pressure to keep their chin up, living in happier nations can lead to poorer well-being.

activities. These signals tend to be stronger in happier countries, ratcheting up the effects of social expectations.

In these countries, feeling happy can easily be viewed as the expected norm. This adds to the social pressure people feel to adhere to this norm, and exacerbates the fallout for those who fail to achieve it.

What's the solution?

So what can we do? At a personal level, feeling and expressing happiness is a good thing. But as other research has found, it's sometimes good to be sensitive about how our expression of positive emotion may affect others.

While it's good to bring happiness and positivity to our interactions, it's also good to know when to tone it down - and avoid alienating those who may not share our joy in the moment.

Why might this be the case? We reasoned that being surrounded by a sea of happy faces may aggravate the effects of already feeling socially pressured to be happy.

More broadly, perhaps it's time to rethink how we measure national well-being. We already know that flourishing in life isn't just about positive emotion, but also about responding well to negative emotion, finding value in discomfort, and focusing on other factors such as meaning and interpersonal connection.

Of course, signs of others' happiness are not limited to the explicit expression of happiness, but are also evident in other more subtle cues, such as having more social contact or engaging in pleasurable

Perhaps it's time to rank countries not only by how happy they are, but how safe and open they are to the full range of human experiences.

The World’s Leadership Institute®

■

April 2022 | Catalyst | 76

Politics & Society

Voters value honesty in their politicians above all else - new study

Boris Johnson Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

parliament. Also asked about whether judges should play a role in resolving whether a new law violates rights. Depending on the rights that we asked about, between 65% and 77% of respondents said that the courts should have their current powers under the Human Rights Act or even be given stronger powers to strike down laws directly.

Professor Alan Renwick UCL

As pressure mounts on the UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, members of his party are considering their options. Should they topple him or keep him? Those who want him out fear that the public will not forgive the string of alleged social events held in Downing Street while the rest of the country lived under strict COVID lockdowns.

Their anger may cost the Conservatives dearly at the next election. Those who are hesitating do so because Johnson had been such an electoral success story before this scandal.

We at the UCL Constitution Unit are conducting a major study of public attitudes to democracy in the UK that sheds new light on what matters most to voters. Our latest findings from a large-scale survey of the UK population conducted last summer suggest Conservative MPs are right to be concerned about the fallout of 'partygate'. Integrity is extremely important to voters. It is in fact valued above all other traits in a politician.

When we asked about a range of characteristics that politicians should have, 'being honest' came top. This was followed by 'owning up when they make mistakes'.

'Getting things done' and 'being inspiring' were far behind.

Johnson has a trademark tactic - seen repeatedly at Prime Minister's Questions - of batting away critics by saying he is focused on delivering the people's priorities. When asked about any potentially questionable behaviour or incidents, he insists that members of the public care more about 'getting Brexit done' than it does about anything else. However, our findings suggest otherwise.

When we asked respondents to 'imagine that a future prime minister has to choose

77 | April 2022 | Catalyst

between acting honestly and delivering the policy that most people want', 71% chose honesty and only 16% delivery. When we asked whether respondents agreed more that 'healthy democracy requires that politicians always act within the rules' or that 'healthy democracy means getting things done, even if that sometimes requires politicians to break the rules', 75% chose the former and just 6% the latter.

A large majority also said that civil servants should be 'neutral and permanent government employees' rather than 'appointed by the government of the day'. And most respondents thought that someone who had previously said the BBC should be neutral in its reporting could be a suitable candidate for BBC chair, but that someone who had said the BBC should be less critical of government could not.

It is worth repeating that these findings come from the summer - before the Owen Paterson affair and 'partygate'. They are not knee-jerk reactions to short-term headlines. The vast majority of voters expect politicians to act honestly and follow the rules.

The reason for these answers appears clear: most people don't trust politicians, and they trust the politicians closest to power least.

They therefore welcome limits on what those in power can do.

Limiting power at the very top Another less obvious but equally important pattern emerged from our findings. Voters do not want power to be unduly concentrated in the hands of the prime minister and their government. Many favour at least somewhat greater powers for parliament - 45% think MPs should decide what the House of Commons debates, against 30% who think the prime minister or government should do so.

Even more clearly, and perhaps surprisingly, most want judges to constrain ministers too.

We asked respondents to 'imagine there is a dispute over whether the government has the legal authority to decide a particular matter on its own or whether it needs parliament's approval', and to consider how the dispute should be settled. Most (51%) said it should be settled by judges and only 27% chose government ministers or politicians in

Our study is investigating public attitudes to democracy not only through surveys, but also through a citizens' assembly, which shows whether people think the same or differently once they have thought and learnt about the issues in depth. We will publish full results of the Citizens' Assembly on Democracy in the UK in the spring. But initial findings fit the survey responses closely. Assembly members said 'we feel dissatisfied with how democracy is working in the UK today because there is a lack of honesty and integrity in politics'. By large majorities, they favoured greater powers for parliament and the courts vis-à-vis the executive.

However the current ructions in the Conservative Party pan out in the coming weeks, those in power should be clear: people in the UK expect their leaders to act with integrity - and they expect a system of checks and balances on executive power to be maintained. A leader who violates these principles harms him or herself and damages confidence in democracy.

■

Institute of One World Leadership®

Politics & Society

The impacts of our words should be of greater concern in our political discourse.

7 ways to spot polarizing language If we learn how to disengage from communication circuits that lay the groundwork for fear and aggression, we have a better chance of managing conflict constructively.

Professor Robert Danisch University of Waterloo

Words have consequences. They can make us feel love, anger, fear, hope. Those emotions, depending on how strongly they're felt, can incite actions.

Communication scholars, ancient rhetoricians, legal scholars and psychologists have all studied some of the most basic pathways along which words do their work how love is sustained in lasting relationships, how political leaders rally troops to war, how treaties are made or conflict de-escalated.

The effect of words is both a concern in our interpersonal and social interactions, in which small acts of incivility can leave us feeling anxious and angry, and in our political discourse, where some Canadians worry about whether Trumpist rhetoric is making Canada feel like a more polarized and dangerous place.

The World’s Leadership Institute®

At the grocery store, political protests Whether we are talking about civic rudeness at the grocery store where strangers seem more inclined to insult or offend one another - including in racist ways, as evidenced by a spike in anti-Asian racism during the pandemic - or how we conduct ourselves in political protest, the rhetorical techniques likely to amplify conflict and tension are relatively easy to spot.

Violent rhetoric inspires violent action maybe not all of the time, but violent rhetoric is the surest pathway to violent action. This is true all along the continuum from interpersonal relationships to political rallies.

When deciding what to amplify online or in civic discourse, we can improve how we

contribute constructively to our society's fragile social predicament if we're aware of the most prominent seven rhetorical tactics that are likely to amplify polarization, leading to anger and potentially violence. Research shows that divisive, violent, dehumanizing rhetoric can sanction negative or hateful views that people may otherwise have hidden, and embolden people to act on these.

What's worse, these seven rhetorical tactics tend to beget one another and inspire a communication cycle in which emotions are amplified and conflict is escalated.

Protesters are seen in a crowd beside a truck, and one is giving the driver the finger while another holds a sign that says 'truck off and go home.’

1.

Division/Identification:

We often try to understand the world by looking for similarities and differences. This tendency manifests itself in communication when we try to draw a clear line between an 'us' and a 'them.' look to strengthen these conservative, left versus right, and so on.

>>

April 2022 | Catalyst | 78

Politics & Society divisions by celebrating what 'we' stand for and denigrating what 'they' believe in - liberal versus conservative, left versus right, and so on. These divisions can leave people feeling a stronger sense of identification with their in-group and a stronger hatred for the out-group. Any time we hear someone use 'us/them' language, we ought to pause to recognize that this division is a rhetorical invention - and we ought to ask what kinds of work this invention is designed to do.

creating a pathway to violence. My last article in The Conversation produced a string of emails calling me a range of nasty names: libtard, cuck, fascist, soyboy, Marxist, etc.

None of the name calling engages substantive reasons or arguments, but instead simply aims to amplify feelings and conflict.

2. Hyperbole: This word comes from the Greek for 'overthrown' (as in a ball launched too far to be caught). Hyperbole is a creative inaccuracy meant to exaggerate or highlight some property of an event or person in order to intensify some feelings. This is the favoured technique of the internet troll. Exaggeration can drive attention because of the ways in which emotions are amplified. When hyperbole is combined with 'us/them' rhetoric then you are certainly on a pathway to violence.

Hyperbole does not lead to rational deliberation; it's not intended to have that effect. If your child tells you it's the worst day of their life because of homework, or if a political commentator suggests that the Liberals use of the Emergencies Act is an unprecedented over-reach of government power, both are committing hyperbole to get your attention and amplify your emotions.

3. False equivalence/false analogy: American entrepreneur Elon Musk recently compared Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler. This is a false analogy. Vaccine protestors comparing their treatment to Jewish people during the Holocaust is a false equivalence. Like hyperbole, these are exaggerated attempts to amplify feelings of division and stoke emotions. To argue against the comparison between Trudeau and Hitler will only further amplify emotions because the comparison starts from a position of unreason. A false equivalence is a sure sign that the speaker wants conflict and wants to heighten emotions.

4. Appealing to force: Arguments that appeal to force or threat - in the western rhetorical tradition called 'ad baculum' arguments, from the Latin that means 'appeal to the stick' - are the most obvious form of communication that can lead to violence. When we threaten someone, whether we tell our child we'll spank them if they don't go to bed or our political opponent that we'll ruin their career if they don't vote a certain way, we have abandoned any attempt to persuade and instead are trying to force compliance. Words, in these cases, are weapons, directly intended to exert power.

5. Name calling: Calling someone names instead of engaging their arguments or taking an 'ad hominem' (Latin meaning 'for the man') approach - is another way of amplifying conflict and

79 | April 2022 | Catalyst

A resident gestures at the driver of a pickup truck in Ottawa on Feb. 13. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang

6. Objectification: When we treat other people as objects, beasts or vermin instead of people, we make it easier to commit violent acts against them. Former President Trump did this repeatedly by comparing immigrants to animals; men do it to women when they describe women only in terms of sexualized body parts.

This is the process of reification, and it steals from other people their humanity and complexity in order to amplify emotional disdain.

7. Overgeneralization:

This is a distorted way of thinking that draws conclusions that are too broad to be justified. Any time someone says a version of 'All X is Y,' we have an overgeneralization that cannot possibly be right. The purpose of this kind of distorted thinking and communication is to advance a particular position that often strengthens an us/them division and amplifies emotions directed toward whoever the speaker is generalizing about.

In all of these cases, these forms of communication seek to get our attention, make us feel some emotion more strongly, lead us away from reason and deliberation and lay the groundwork for fear and aggression.

If we learn how to disengage from communication circuits that lay the groundwork for fear and aggression - whether by carefully choosing how to respond to social media content or what to share online, or the language we choose in our personal and civic interactions - we have a better chance of amplifying dialogue that is constructive and does not fuel polarization and potentially violence.

■

Institute of One World Leadership®

Probity

- OWLs will not use their position to influence, force or coerce any individual, entity or organisation into acts which are harmful to the same.

OWLs will also challenge any individual who undertakes any such harmful acts.

Potency - OWLs will be inclusive to all, exclusive to none and will uplift people with every interaction.

Planet

- OWLs will use resources; human, natural and capital, responsibly in an efficient manner, taking account of and mitigating the organisational, societal, and planetary consequences of their use.

As the World’s Leadership Institute®, we’ve developed a unique Leadership & Influence model that integrates perfectly with any work role, career, profession, or specialism. The measure of a One World Leader is determined against the Positive Value Leadership Map, and we give candidates full and free access to the learning framework.

Sign up today at www.owls.global for immediate access

People

- OWLs will treat people with dignity, respect, and be mindful of the emotional, mental and physical impact they have on the well-being of others.

Perception

OWLs will encourage and facilitate the exchange of information, not withholding or using information for inequitable advantage.

Participation

- OWLs will be forthright in engendering a collaborative approach in all working relationships, assisting others where they can, being virtuous and ethical.

Probity Judgement Strength Integrity Honesty

Attitude and Values Humility Empathy Humanity Equitability

People Positive Value Leadership™ Framework v 2022.1 © 2022 Institute of One World Leadership C.I.C

Science & Technology → IN THIS SECTION 82 Twitter for the right: Trump’s Truth Social 84 There are challenges but also benefits of digital distractions

86 Want to delete your social media, but can’t bring yourself to do it?

88 Why we trust experts – even when they admit they don’t know the answer

Science & Technology

→ ALSO IN THIS SECTION 82 Twitter for the right: Truth Social

86 Want to delete your social media?

84 Challenges & benefits of digital distractions

88 Why we trust experts – even when they admit they don’t know the answer

Twitter for the right: a look at Truth Social, Trump's ethically dubious social media platform The platform's data usage and privacy implications raise serious concerns.

David Tuffley Griffith University

Few people in recent times have created as much controversy as Donald Trump. A year after his utterances got him banned from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, his new enterprise, Truth Social, has made its debut on Apple's App Store.

The platform, which is available as both an app and website, was made available to download on the US Apple App Store on February 21, topping the download charts. It will also be 'coming soon' to the Google Play Store and other countries.

One week after its launch, Newsweek reported that some early adopters were beginning to lose interest in the app due to low numbers of users and poor engagement, although others were willing to persevere with the app to see if things would improve.

Already hacked?

The Truth Social website has reportedly already been the target of hackers. It seems some users who managed to get early access also secured user handles including 'donaldtrump' and 'mikepence'.

The timing of Truth Social's debut on the symbolic US Presidents' Day is certainly no coincidence. Is it, at the end of the day, another tool in Trump's political arsenal?

The site is offline at the time of writing this article, presumably while its cyber-security capabilities are upgraded. It may be the site came under a sustained attack, or developers realised the need to thoroughly debug it before it goes live.

Let's just say Trump is likely keeping his options open.

Data privacy

The platform has been criticised for its poor performance at launch time, with waitlisting of users attempting to register, and extended outages. A day after the product launch, the Washington Post described it as "a disaster".

Truth Social's developer, the Trump Media and Technology Group (or T Media Tech LLC), said the platform will routinely collect data about users' browsing history, contact information (including their phone

The World’s Leadership Institute®

>>

April 2022 | Catalyst | 82

Science & Technology The platform will also gather 'non-identifiable' data on how the user interacts with the application - supposedly to analyse usage patterns and personalise the user's experience.

However, while these data are described as not being linked to a user's identity, they nonetheless include the user's email address and ID. This suggests they are, in fact, personally identifiable.

Potential implications of data collection Having such richly textured information puts Truth Social in a position not only to learn about users' opinions and behaviours, but also to target them with personalised political messaging.

The legalities of this practice would have been carefully vetted to be on the right side of the law (morally questionable as it may be). And the technology for it already exists. It was used in the now infamous Cambridge Analytica scandal which, as evidence suggests, could have aided Trump's victory in the 2016 US presidential elections.

Big data analytics is advancing fast, made possible by eversmarter algorithms, larger datasets and more powerful computers. It's a game-changer in the high-stakes world of politics.

Media Tech LLC, can avoid the platform becoming stridently right-wing and being delisted.

Success will depend on Truth Social attracting a spectrum of political views from a substantial number of users. This is something previous Twitter alternatives Parler, Gab and Gettr all failed to do.

Only time will tell whether Truth Social can avoid the mistakes made by other similar platforms. But it does appear to be trying to distance itself from being perceived as hard right. It has adopted a so-called 'big tent' approach.

To quote from the app store listing: “Think of a giant outdoor event tent at your best friend's wedding. Who's there? The combination of multiple families from all over the United States, and the world. Uncle Jim from Atlanta is a proud libertarian. Aunt Kellie from Texas is a staunch conservative. Your cousin John from California is a die-hard liberal ' Although we don't always agree with each other, we welcome these varied opinions and the robust conversation they bring.”

How Trump controlled the narrative Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labour in the Clinton administration, outlines seven ways unscrupulous politicians exercise control over the media.

It's also no accident Truth Social's user interface closely resembles that of Twitter: the platform used to greatest effect by Trump. In a 2019 interview, Twitter cofounder Evan Williams described Trump as a 'master of the platform'.

These include berating and blacklisting dissenting media and raising a lynch-mob mentality. Opponents are demonised, sometimes with the added threat of legal action.

It could be argued his 57,000 Tweets helped in no small way to make him the 45th President of the United States.

Also in the playbook is the exclusion of critics from interviews and comments. And last but not least is the exclusion of news outlets altogether, by using platforms such as Twitter to communicate directly with the public.

Will it be a far-right platform?

In the case of Truth Social, most of the opinions and ideas expressed will likely fall within the right of the political spectrum - everything from hardcore alt-right ideologies, to those slightly right of centre.

However, as the platform is reliant on Apple and Google distributing it on their app stores, it's unlikely the Truth Social platform can afford to become a mouthpiece for the far-right, as Gab has become.

If it is to survive, it must avoid the fate of Parler. This hardright Twitter clone was delisted by Apple and Google for hosting comments that incited violence during the proTrump riots at the US Capitol in January 2021.

Before he was banned, Trump used Twitter to divert attention away from issues that could harm him. And research suggests diversionary tweets can be used to suppress coverage of certain issues, allowing the tweeter in question to exercise control of the narrative.

For example, heightened media coverage of the Mueller investigation was countered by multiple tweets from Trump about unrelated issues. It was observed this was followed by reduced coverage of the Mueller investigation.

All of this adds up to the distinct possibility that Trump has already begun campaigning for election in 2024. Instead of settling into comfortable retirement following his defeat in 2020, he has stayed in the limelight - behaving more like a candidate-in-waiting.

■

It remains to be seen whether Devin Nunes, who heads up

83 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Institute of One World Leadership®

Science & Technology

There are challenges but also potential benefits of digital distractions 'Attention snacking' may help keep us alert.

An attention crisis?

We surveyed a nationally representative sample of 2,093 UK adults in September 2021, asking about their perceptions of their attention spans, their beliefs in various claims about our ability to focus, and how they use technology today.

Half of those surveyed felt their attention spans were shorter than they used to be, compared with a quarter who didn't. And threequarters of participants agreed we're living through a time where there's non-stop competition for our attention from a variety of media channels and information outlets.

The distraction caused by mobile phones in particular appeared to be a real issue. Half of those surveyed admitted they couldn't stop checking their phones when they should be focusing on other things and this wasn't just an issue for the young. Despite the generational stereotypes of teenagers glued to their screens, a majority of middleaged people said they struggle with this too.

Marion Thain King's College London

And although many recognised that they spent a lot of time on their phones, they still hugely underestimated just how much. The public's average guess was that they checked their phones 25 times a day but according to previous research, the reality is more likely somewhere between 49 and 80 times a day.

We are in the midst of a battle for our attention. Our devices have hijacked our brains and destroyed our collective ability to concentrate - to the extent that we're even seeing the emergence of a 'goldfish generation'. That, at least, is the story that's increasingly being told. But should we be paying attention to it?

Journalist Johann Hari's new book, Stolen Focus, has just joined a chorus of voices lamenting the attention crisis of the digital age. His and other recent books reflect, and perhaps fuel, a public perception that our focus is under attack.

Indeed, in new research by the Policy Institute and Centre for Attention Studies at King's College London, we found some clear concerns.

Faced with the kinds of findings that arose from our research, it is easy to be nostalgic about a past that existed before the digital revolution. But new technologies have been blamed for causing crises of distraction long before the digital age, so how should we respond to the current challenges?

There has long been a worry about the threat to attention brought by new cultural forms, whether that's social media or the cheap paperback sensation novels of the 19th century. Even as far back as ancient Greece, Socrates lamented that the written word creates 'forgetfulness in our souls''. There has always been a tendency to fear the effects new media and technologies will have on our minds.

The reality is we simply don't have the long-term studies that tell us whether our collective attention span has actually shrunk. What we do know from our study is that people overestimate some of the problems. For example, half of those surveyed wrongly believed the thoroughly debunked claim that the average attention span among adults today is just eight seconds, supposedly worse than that of a goldfish. There's not really any such thing as an average

>> The World’s Leadership Institute®

April 2022 | Catalyst | 84

Science & Technology attention span. Our ability to focus varies hugely depending on the individual and the task at hand.

tasking at work, switching frequently between email, phone calls, or other tasks, can create a more efficient and satisfactory work experience.

Attention snacking

So what if we explore the benefits of distraction as well as the negative impacts? Might we find a more balanced picture in which distraction is not always in and of itself a bad thing, but a problem in certain contexts and productive in others? In other words, what if those lamenting a crisis in attention are not wrong, but only represent part of the picture?

It's also important to not overlook the many benefits that technology brings to how we live. Much of the public surveyed recognised these, so while half thought big tech and social media were ruining young people's attention spans, roughly another half felt that being easily distracted was more to do with people's personalities than any negative influence that technology may or may not have.

That aside, is "dispersed' attention always a bad thing?

Does getting distracted by phones stop people from efficiently completing tasks?

GoodStudio/ Shutterstock

Two-thirds of the public in our study believed switching focus between different media and devices harms our ability to complete simple tasks - a belief confirmed by psychological studies. Intriguingly, half of the public also believed multi-

85 | April 2022 | Catalyst

For all the challenges we experience in having our attention toggle between tasks, in some scenarios, this might help refresh the mind, keep us alert, and stimulate brain connections and creativity. Unified attention may be an ideal, but it may not always be a realistic good for the type of animal that we humans are.

We hear about the benefits for the body of 'exercise snacking' or circuit training, so perhaps we need to ask how we might harness the potential benefits for the mind of 'attention snacking'. The brain is, after all, a physical organ.

There is no question that we need to figure out how to live better with the 'attention economy', and that the monetisation of our attention is challenging us in fundamental ways. However, our electronic gadgets are not going away and we need to learn how to harness them (and the distractions they pose) for individual and social good.

Our attention has always been the only real currency we have, and for that reason, it has always been fought over; this is not a new problem, but in the digital age it is taking new forms. We need a better response to this situation - one that understands the risks but is also bolder in asking questions about the opportunities.

■

Institute of One World Leadership®

Science & Technology

Want to delete your social media, but can't bring yourself to do it?

Social media has some redeeming features - and its utility will depend on how you use it. But for many of us, the reward no longer outweighs the harms.

Sharon Horwood Senior lecturer in Psychology, Deakin University

For more than a decade we've been deeply immersed in a love affair with social media.

And the thought of ending things can be painful. But like any relationship, if social media is no longer making you happy - and if curating your online persona is exhausting instead of fun - it might be time to say goodbye.

Late last year, Meta (previously Facebook) came under intense scrutiny after leaked documents revealed the company was fully aware of the negative impact its products, Instagram in particular, can have on users' mental health.

Meta went straight into damage control. But it seemed no one was particularly surprised by the news - not even teenage girls, who Meta identified as most at risk. Was the leak just confirming what we already suspected: that social media has the potential to be much more harmful than helpful?

How did our once carefree relationship with social media turn sour? And perhaps most importantly, can (or should) it be salvaged?

The World’s Leadership Institute®

Spotting the red flags Relationship counsellors will often ask troubled couples to think about what made them happy in their relationship. Social media, for all it's annoying peccadilloes, does have some redeeming features.

Throughout the pandemic, the ability to stay connected to people we can't see in person has become incredibly valuable. Social media can also help people find their tribe, particularly if the people in their offline world don't share their values and beliefs.

But if you can't go a day without trawling through the sites, feeling compelled to 'like' or be 'liked', your relationship is in trouble.

Though far from settled, the bulk of screen time research focuses on the detrimental effects of excessive or problematic screen use on well-being and mental health. A 2021 meta-analysis of 55 studies, with a combined sample size of 80,533 people, found a positive (albeit small) association between depressive symptoms and social media use.

An important finding was that negative consequences were more likely to come from how social media use made participants feel, rather than how long they used it.

Information overload In trying to understand why social media can leave us feeling less than content, we can't look past the effect of the 24/7 news (and fake news) stream on our collective psyche.

A 2021 Deloitte survey of Australians found 79% thought fake news was a problem, and only 18% felt information obtained via social media was trustworthy. Having to navigate content that deliberately aims to perpetuate fear and dissent only adds to people's cognitive and emotional burden.

But here's the rub. It seems while we're generally concerned about technology having a negative impact on our well-being, this doesn't translate to behaviour change on an individual level.

>>

April 2022 | Catalyst | 86

Science & Technology For more than a decade we've been deeply immersed in a love affair with social media. And the thought of ending things can be painful. But like any relationship, if social media is no longer making you happy - and if curating your online persona is exhausting instead of fun - it might be time to say goodbye.

What leads to this apparent cognitivebehavioural dissonance? The results of a long-term study by University of Amsterdam researchers might provide a clue. They found living in a 'permanently online' world leads to decreased selfcontrol over social media use and, subsequently, lower well-being.

Late last year, Meta (previously Facebook) came under intense scrutiny after leaked documents revealed the company was fully aware of the negative impact its products, Instagram in particular, can have on users' mental health.

In other words, we know what we're doing might be bad for us, but we do it anyway.

A 'soft delete' lets you see how you'll feel without your social media before committing to a hard delete. Let friends and family know you're taking a break, remove the apps from your devices, and set yourself a goal of maybe one or two weeks where you don't access the account/s. If the world is still turning at the end of this trial, keep going! Once you no longer feel the pull of social media, you'll be ready to hit delete.

2. Reduce the number of platforms you engage with

Meta went straight into damage control.

But it seemed no one was particularly surprised by the news - not even teenage girls, who Meta identified as most at risk.

Was the leak just confirming what we already suspected: that social media has the potential to be much more harmful than helpful?

If you have Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Tumblr, Pinterest and Reddit on your phone, tablet and computer, you're probably past saturation point and into drowning territory. Pick one or two apps that genuinely serve a meaningful purpose for you, and ditch the rest. Gen X'ers find it hard to say goodbye to Facebook, but Gen Zers in the US have largely bid it farewell.

If they can do it, so can you!

How did our once carefree relationship with social media turn sour? And perhaps most importantly, can (or should) it be salvaged?

Spotting the red flags

Simple steps you can take

Relationship counsellors will often ask troubled couples to think about what made them happy in their relationship. Social media, for all it's annoying peccadilloes, does have some redeeming features.

How do you know when it's time to reevaluate your relationship with social media? There's one deceptively simple question to ask yourself: how does it make you feel?

Throughout the pandemic, the ability to stay connected to people we can't see in person has become incredibly valuable.

Social media can also help people find their tribe, particularly if the people in their offline world don't share their values and beliefs.

Think about how you feel before, during and after you use social media. If you feel like you're wasting large chunks of your day, your week (or, dare I say, your life) on social media - that's a clue. If you feel negative emotions such as sadness, anxiety, guilt or fear, you have your answer.

My own research published last year found more than two-thirds of survey participants believed excessive smartphone use can negatively impact well-being, yet individual usage was still very high, averaging 184 minutes per day. There was no relationship between the belief and the behaviour.

But if divorcing social media abruptly feels like a step too far, what else can you do to slowly break away, or potentially salvage the relationship?

87 | April 2022 | Catalyst

1. Start with a trial separation

3. If steps 1 and 2 are still too much, try to reduce your time spent on social media First and foremost, turn off all your notifications (yes, all of them). If you're conditioned to respond to every 'bing', you'll find it almost impossible to stop. Set aside some time each day and do all your social media catching up or browsing. Set an alarm for your predetermined time allocation, and when it sounds, put the phone down until the same time tomorrow.

None of this will be easy, and walking away from social media might hurt at first.

But if the relationship has become uncomfortable, or even abusive, it's time to take a stand. And who knows what untold happiness you might find, beyond the four walls of your screen?

■

Institute of One World Leadership®

Science & Technology assumptions about the scientists' expertise in their field.

In contrast, the most pronounced reason for distrusting the scientists was a perceived lack of benevolence because scientists are often dependent on the funders of their research.

So, the researchers recommended that science communication emphasised the good intentions, values and independence of the scientists.

In the UK, 72% of people reported a high level of trust towards scientists during the pandemic, compared to 52% towards the government. Although no studies specifically investigated perceptions of the scientists' expertise, integrity and benevolence, negative attitudes towards the vaccine were mainly caused by lack of trust in the benefits of vaccination and concerns about future unforeseen side effects.

Why we trust experts - even when they admit they don't know the answer A look at how we decide which experts are the most trustworthy - and the possible biological basis behind it.

Erik Gustafsson University of Portsmouth

Much of the time we're bombarded with massive amounts of information on all sorts of different subjects, from science and health, to social issues, economics and politics. But no matter how hard we try 'or brilliant we are' none of us can understand everything, and correctly assess the risks associated with the issues affecting ourselves and our communities.

We have no choice but defer to others, and the decisions we make about a person's or organisation's trustworthiness can play a huge part in our health and mental wellbeing.

In some situations, such as whether to take a vaccine, it can be a matter of life or death.

During the pandemic, researchers conducted a series of large surveys investigating which factors were linked to vaccine hesitancy. One survey questioned more than 8,000 Americans in five different states, another almost 7,000 individuals in 23 countries and

The World’s Leadership Institute®

a final one included over 120,000 respondents in 126 countries. They all found that trust in science was a key factor in determining whether people intended to be vaccinated.

But what influenced this trust in science?

Researchers on 'epistemic trust' "which is our trust in someone as a knowledgeable source of information" have identified three main factors which we use to determine trustworthiness: how we perceive an expert's level of expertise, integrity and benevolence (concern and care for society).

A recent study in Germany measured trust in science throughout the pandemic, and the factors affecting it. By analysing data from four surveys done at different points in time, and involving over 900 respondents, the researchers found that trust in science increased substantially after the pandemic began, and it was mainly due to positive

It's okay to say 'I don't know’ Many of us, whatever our field of work, fear that showing uncertainty can damage our image "and we may compensate by expressing overconfidence in an attempt to win trust. This strategy has been seen from university press officers when writing about the findings of academic research" and also from some public health officials when communicating to the public during the pandemic.

But some studies show that while confident advisors are judged more favourably, people do not inherently dislike uncertain advice. In fact, when faced with an explicit choice, people were more likely to choose an advisor who provided uncertain advice (by providing a range of outcomes, probabilities or saying that one event is 'more likely' than another) over an advisor who provided certain advice with no doubts.

It seems that advisors benefit from expressing themselves with confidence, but not from communicating false certainty.

In many situations, people are willing to trust those who can admit they don't have a definitive answer. Good news come from recent experimental studies on physician-

>>

April 2022 | Catalyst | 88

Science & Technology patient interactions, witness credibility and science communication which found that communicating uncertainty and even admitting our mistakes is not detrimental and can even be beneficial to trustworthiness.

So, failure in 'expertise' can be compensated by higher integrity and benevolence.

When communicating uncertainties in a transparent way, we are perceived as less biased and willing to tell the truth.

There's a neurological basis Another characteristic of trustworthiness is that it can also be weakened by what is known as 'guilt by association' (you can be judged by the company you keep) 'or moral contagion' the psychological mechanism behind that belief.

There's a saying that a spoonful of tar can spoil a barrel of honey. And in fact, the food analogy makes some sense.

It is believed that throughout evolution, our disgust mechanisms, originally evolved to assess contamination and avoid disease from rotton or soiled food, also started to assess people. Our disgust reaction - when disgusted by people's untrustworthy behaviour - is the same neurologically as our disgust reaction if food is off.

In support of this hypothesis, both disgust in food and moral judgement activate the same areas of the brain and the same facial muscles.

Interestingly, our disgust sensitivity (how easily we are disgusted) does indeed show a positive association with our level of distrust in others. In other words, if we are inclined to worry about pathogens on food, we'll also be inclined have a lower level of

social trust and feel that most people should be avoided.

But it is still unclear how this psychological process of 'moral contagion' can affect our trust towards many organisations or individuals allegedly collaborating closely with each other, such as scientists, government, pharmaceutical corporations, universities and international bodies during the pandemic. In such a melting pot of organisations, it will depend on the groups we feel drawn to, and our personal sensitivities to misconducts such as lies, political scandals, conflict of interests or nepotism.

In the current climate, any person or institution who genuinely wants to be trusted should work on communicating their expertise, honesty and benevolence, and encourage those they work with to do the same.

■

Leadership Solutions for every sector

www.owls.global

89 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Institute of One World Leadership®

Ethics

This one was on us

00 How do Russia's reasons for war stack up? An expert on 'just war' explains

Over centuries, theory on just war has developed six main criteria for assessing conflicts. 7830

Business & Economy 00 Bad managers, burnout and health fears: Why record numbers of hospitality workers are quitting the industry for good New research shines light on what is driving hospitality workers - like waiters and hotel workers - to abandon the industry as part of the 'great resignation.’ 7830

Catalyst

00 The promise and folly of war ? why do leaders enter conflict assuming victory is assured?

00

A military historian and U.S. Army veteran explains how wars are not easy to win - something political leaders often forget when looking at the calculus of conflict. 8091

00 How businesses can best help employees disconnect from work

A political philosopher argues that while all American presidents may lie, those who appear to lie for the public good are often celebrated.

00 Five rules for effective leadership in difficult times

The best way to help employees To help our displaced Ukrainian disconnect from work is to allow them the autonomy to choose for and have families, we are making Allmembers American presidents themselves how, when and where to lied - the question is why and disconnect. 7373 Catalyst free of charge this quarter. when 7671

Please help Ukraine

00 Why big firms are rarely toppled by corporate scandals

The threat of COVID may be receding, but the fall-out will continue to affect business in the coming year, requiring strong leadership to navigate uncertain times. 7359

If you enjoyed the content, please make a contribution to our Ukrainian appeal 00 How your colleagues affect visit www.owls.global/ukraine OR your home life (and vice versa)

The mud rarely sticks – new research 8158

00 Twitter for the right: a look at Truth Social, Trump's ethically dubious social media platform

just scan the QR Code

The platform's data usage and privacy implications raise serious concerns. 7593

Empathy 00 For some, ignorance is bliss; for others, ignorance is something else Our age of agnosis is increasingly coming into contact in ways beyond historical standards and recorded memory. Empathy, not apathy, is needed now more than ever before.

7991

Getting on well with your work mates will improve your domestic partnership. 7631

Perception 00 Bad managers, burnout and health fears: Why record numbers of hospitality workers are quitting the industry for good New research shines light on what is driving hospitality workers - like waiters and hotel workers - to abandon the industry as part of the 'great resignation.’ 7830

The World’s Leadership Institute®

The World’s Leadership Institute®

April 2022 | Catalyst | 6

The Lighter side of Leadership Slips, trips, gaffs - humour, laughter, gasps Our round-up of the unbelievable, the unachievable, and the avoidable; if only every Leader would have foresight and not hindsight…

The Lighter side of Leadership We took a serious look at how Russia has shown military ‘incompetence’ during its invasion of Ukraine on page 41.

The conflict is having a terrible impact on the citizens and conscripts from both countries. Such news is painful to hear, and more so for relatives of those killed, injured and displaced.

Amongst the madness, murder and mayhem, there have been stories from the region which have made us stop, smile, and occasionally laugh in disbelief.

Leaders always Learn?

On 24 February 2022, the first day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia bombed six aerodromes in Ukraine, including the one in Chornobayivka. On the morning of 27 February, Russian forces took control of the aerodrome.

Russia’s intent was to use the airfield as a command and logistics centre, moving supplies, aircraft, vehicles – onto the aerodrome.

Airfields are difficult to defend and easy to attack, so on the same day, Chornobayivka saw its first Ukrainian attack against Russian forces in the aerodrome. The Ukrainian forces bombarded the Russian military with the use of Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 combat drones.

Afterwards the Russian’s stationed replacement helicopters, supplies, vehicles at the aerodrome.

The Ukrainians attacked it again on 7 March, when the Ukrainian military claimed the destruction of 30 Russian military helicopters that had been landed on the aerodrome of the town.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

— not Albert Einstein Different versions of this quote appear everywhere (doing the same thing twice, expecting the same result, etc.), and we owe none of them to Einstein.

After Michael Becker, an editor at the Bozeman Daily Chronicle (a local paper in Montana, USA), let the wrong version slide into an editorial, he did some research on his personal blog.

Becker traced the original back to Rita Mae Brown, the mystery novelist. In her 1983 book "Sudden Death," she attributes the quote to a fictional "Jane Fulton," writing, "Unfortunately, Susan didn’t remember what Jane Fulton once said. 'Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

The World’s Leadership Institute®

Shooting foot?

yourself

in

the

Since the conflict began in late February, Russia has lost an estimated 143 planes, 131 helicopters, 625 tanks and 316 artillery pieces.

Russia has also fired at least 1,100 missiles, raising questions about how long it can maintain such an expenditure rate.

So, the Russian’s replaced the helicopters and equipment, and on 16 March, the Ukrainian forces once again shelled the Russian-controlled airport claiming the destruction of seven of their military helicopters.

In the Soviet Union era, Ukraine produced 30 per cent of the Union's weaponry and military equipment. But after Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 and began the conflict in the Donbas region – aided with Ukrainian equipment – Kyiv drastically reduced supplies to its neighbour.

On 19 March, Ukraine again defeated Russian forces at Chornobayivka. Oleksiy Arestovych. Adviser to the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, stated "Simply do not laugh. We caught them again in Chornobayivka. For the sixth time."

Ukraine's revenues from arms exports plummeted from £1billion in 2012 to £100million in 2020. According to UK sources, Russia faces drastic shortages of 'helicopter, ship, fighter jet and cruise missile parts’.

This has gone on now for thirteen times, with the Russian equipment being destroyed.

The thirteenth Ukrainian attack on Chornobayivka was on 1 April, with the Governor of Mykolaiv Oblast - Vitaliy Kim, wishing Russian forces a happy April Fools' Day.

■

Russia’s cruise missiles were manufactured in Ukraine's second biggest city Kharkiv, which has been bombarded by Russian artillery and aircraft.

The state-run instrument-making plant at Izyum also made essential components for Russia's T-72 range of tanks.

■

April 2022 | Catalyst | 92

The Lighter side of Leadership On the road to Kyiv There are some Russian soldiers marching along the road towards Kyiv.

They hear a voice shout from over a hill, “I bet one Ukrainian can beat 10 Russians!”

The Russian sergeant, thinking that it would be easy, sends ten men over the hill to fight. They hear fighting and noise – then silence. Not a peep from beyond the hill, and not a single Russian soldier returns.

After a minute, they hear the voice again, “I bet one Ukrainian can beat 100 Russians!”

The sergeant, getting more annoyed now, decides to send 150 men over, to finish this Ukrainian off.

More noise this time, bangs, shouting, yells, then again – silence, and not a single Russian soldier returns from beyond the hill line… …and then, the voice shouts again, “I bet one Ukrainian can beat 1,000 Russians!”

The sergeant, now incandescent with rage, thinking that one soldier could not possibly beat 1,000 of his men, sends more of his troops over the hill.

This time the sustained noise was deafening and protracted, then silence.

The sergeant, content that the Ukrainian had been defeated - smiled to himself, until one Russian soldier limps over the hill towards him, bloody and bruised, barely walking.

The Russian soldier shouts. “Stop! Don’t send any more men, it’s a Ukrainian trap!

There’s two of them!”

Proving that persistence and belief in your vision will outcompete the resources of a competitor without vision.

■

"ԠҰ DԐҪЇSЇФИS ДЯԐ ԠДDЭ ДӺҬԐЯ Д ҪФԠPLЇҪДҐԐD PЯФҪЄSS ФӺ ГЊФЏGҢҐ."

93 | April 2022 | Catalyst

Institute of One World Leadership®

Make a world of difference, by making a difference in the world.

The Institute of One World Leadership® is The World’s Leadership Institute® The Institute is committed to expanding the adoption of Positive Value Leadership™ - to develop Leaders who are an exemplar to society and a catalyst for the adoption of social change for the benefit of all humanity.

Established as a not-for-profit educational organisation, the Institute is headquartered in Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK. It is independent, impartial, self-financing and not tied to any special interests.

It is guided by an International Advisory Council (IAC), exceptional individuals who act as guardians of the Institute's mission and values, and oversee the Institute's work in promoting Positive Value Leadership™ and the pursuit of One World Leadership™ throughout and across the world; that is, the need to work as a global society to address the challenges facing humanity.

The Advisory Council, drawn from across the world, comprises outstanding leaders from business, academia and civil society. IAC members do not represent any personal or professional interests.

iowl.global

owls.global

International Advisory Council Members Dr Karen Blakeley Dr Rut Diamint Dr Rachel George Dr Kiran Hassan Dr Victoria Ann Hasson Prof Vlatka Hlupic Dr Oleg Konovalov Dr Tony Matchaba-Hove Dr Pippa Malmgren Dr Andrea Reid Laura Round Prof Michele Russell Dr Katrin Stefan Dr Juliette Thiolas

United Kingdom Argentina United States United Kingdom Netherlands Croatia United Kingdom South Africa United Kingdom Ireland United Kingdom United Kingdom Germany France

PhD Management Learning PhD International Relations PhD International Relations PhD Political Sciences PhD Parliamentary Practice PhD Information Systems DBA Business and Macroeconomics DCom Business Management PhD International Relations PhD Customer Relationship Management MSc International Relations EdD Educational Leadership PhD Economics PhD Political & Social Sciences

Applications for IAC Membership The Institute welcomes applications from suitably experienced and qualified individuals who can contribute to the work of the IAC and the aims and aspirations of the Institute.

The World’s Leadership Institute

Catalyst www.owls.global +44 79 3825 6953 owls_dot_global

owls_dot_global

Institute of One World Leadership® The World’s Leadership Institute® Registered trademarks are trading names of One World Leadership C.I.C. A non-profit community interest company – registered in the UK NI655262

Institute of One World Leadership Forsyth House, Cromac Square, Belfast, BT2 8LA United Kingdom