I started Oxymoron here on Substack to explore the complex and confusing world of ‘Sustainable Business’. The word sustainability comes up a lot in business these days, alongside other terms like Net Zero, Carbon Neutral, Zero Waste and Regenerative. This is all good and I’m glad that these conversations are increasingly happening, but there’s a word that’s often missing. That word is
Thank you for sharing these thoughts. This reminded me of Chilean biologist Humberto Maturana's vision of organizations as self-creating systems that adapt to their environment through effective communication and self-awareness. Leadership, in his view, should be context-dependent, emphasizing ethical behavior, adaptability, and fostering healthy relationships. This perspective is rooted in the interconnectedness of nature, where all living systems, including humans, continuously recreate themselves through interactions with their surroundings, highlighting the importance of understanding and adapting within the natural world.
Love this piece, Tom. Inspired by a few writers and thinkers around this topic, I sometimes use the phrase “more-than-human world” instead of “nature”. I rather like the “more than” bit as it suggests something of potentially even greater importance / value than what we have typically centered as humans, or even that there is a lot “more” to know than we currently do.
Great piece Tom, really made me think and that’s what it’s all about! I don’t like definitions of ‘nature’ that exclude humans - try finding a piece of nature on the Earth that’s not impacted by us! Humans are just part of the animal kingdom after all. Ant colonies can grow, wipe out all their food resources, and die back (sound familiar?) but this doesn’t usually have a big impact on the wider ecosystem. We, like major volcanoes, appear to have the capacity to cause large-scale damage to the rest of nature. James Lovelock’s Gaia Theory had a lot to say about the self-regulation of nature!
Hi Tom! Thanks for sharing your thoughts on how nature influences decision-making and business. Your ideas are intriguing, and they've led me to challenge both my own assumptions and yours. I'm particularly interested in challenging our collective thoughts further by introducing some moral and ethical dimensions.
Your perspective offers a fresh angle on how systems like business environments could operate in a more balanced manner. The concept that nature incorporates both symbiosis and elements like predation, exploitation, and competition adds complexity. While it's appealing to view nature as an almost utopian model, this viewpoint leads us to ponder deeper moral and ethical questions. For instance, consider parasitic relationships, where one organism thrives at the extreme detriment of another.
Another compelling point is the principle of 'survival of the fittest.' While this principle has helped species adapt and survive, it also implies a certain harshness - not everyone makes the cut. Translated into a business setting, a strict adherence to this principle might exclude those who are less able, such as people with disabilities or other disadvantages. So, when we talk about 'inclusivity,' it's vital to question what exactly we mean. Are we adopting a version of inclusivity that's based on nature's survival logic? If so, what would that mean for those who don't naturally fit into this box?
I'm eager to hear your thoughts on how these more challenging aspects of nature could integrate into a business model that strives for both effectiveness and ethical integrity.
Thank you for sharing these thoughts. This reminded me of Chilean biologist Humberto Maturana's vision of organizations as self-creating systems that adapt to their environment through effective communication and self-awareness. Leadership, in his view, should be context-dependent, emphasizing ethical behavior, adaptability, and fostering healthy relationships. This perspective is rooted in the interconnectedness of nature, where all living systems, including humans, continuously recreate themselves through interactions with their surroundings, highlighting the importance of understanding and adapting within the natural world.
Here's a wonderful paper about his ideas and theories: "Leadership capability: an autopoietic perspective" https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/188344/
Love this piece, Tom. Inspired by a few writers and thinkers around this topic, I sometimes use the phrase “more-than-human world” instead of “nature”. I rather like the “more than” bit as it suggests something of potentially even greater importance / value than what we have typically centered as humans, or even that there is a lot “more” to know than we currently do.
Great piece Tom, really made me think and that’s what it’s all about! I don’t like definitions of ‘nature’ that exclude humans - try finding a piece of nature on the Earth that’s not impacted by us! Humans are just part of the animal kingdom after all. Ant colonies can grow, wipe out all their food resources, and die back (sound familiar?) but this doesn’t usually have a big impact on the wider ecosystem. We, like major volcanoes, appear to have the capacity to cause large-scale damage to the rest of nature. James Lovelock’s Gaia Theory had a lot to say about the self-regulation of nature!
– Can we afford to run our businesses in any other way?
Thanks Yesica, this is such a beautiful vision and really resonates with me!
Hi Tom! Thanks for sharing your thoughts on how nature influences decision-making and business. Your ideas are intriguing, and they've led me to challenge both my own assumptions and yours. I'm particularly interested in challenging our collective thoughts further by introducing some moral and ethical dimensions.
Your perspective offers a fresh angle on how systems like business environments could operate in a more balanced manner. The concept that nature incorporates both symbiosis and elements like predation, exploitation, and competition adds complexity. While it's appealing to view nature as an almost utopian model, this viewpoint leads us to ponder deeper moral and ethical questions. For instance, consider parasitic relationships, where one organism thrives at the extreme detriment of another.
Another compelling point is the principle of 'survival of the fittest.' While this principle has helped species adapt and survive, it also implies a certain harshness - not everyone makes the cut. Translated into a business setting, a strict adherence to this principle might exclude those who are less able, such as people with disabilities or other disadvantages. So, when we talk about 'inclusivity,' it's vital to question what exactly we mean. Are we adopting a version of inclusivity that's based on nature's survival logic? If so, what would that mean for those who don't naturally fit into this box?
I'm eager to hear your thoughts on how these more challenging aspects of nature could integrate into a business model that strives for both effectiveness and ethical integrity.