Flexible Thinking Forum

A week in London provided an opportunity to attend a talk held at the Royal Society for Arts, Manufacture and Commerce, called ‘What has the Gates Foundation done for Global Health?’

The question, highlighted in a recent issue of ‘The Lancet’ (May 9-15), questioned the efficacy of the impact of the mega bucks being spent by the Foundation.

While the introduction of valuable funds for medicine from the philanthropy of one of the world’s richest man undoubtedly provides help and relief to some of the world’s poorest people, it does raise questions on the consequences on healthcare provision in developing countries.

I particularly like the question asked by one academic in the audience on how the Foundation was initially hamstrung by focussing on technology as the key tool for improving medical treatment. When he first approached them about a water-borne diseases campaign he was told unequivocally: ‘The Foundation won’t touch anything with diarrhoea!’

Despite the many positives of the Foundation’s work and impact, from a variety of sources it does appear, that in spite of Bill Gates’ apparent sincerity in being prepared to listen to others in the world health arena, many of his people suffer from hubris, an arrogance borne by being extremely well-funded and potentially powerful and influential. (The fact they refused to take part and reply to the points initially raised in ‘The Lancet’ article seemingly being a case in point.)

Although I have had no dealings with the Gates Foundation, (only indirectly through speaking at a Microsoft conference in Seattle last year), the experiences recounted in ‘The Lancet’ article and at the conference seemed very similar to a number of UK based organizations I have had dealings with.

My grey hair can partially be attributed to having to deal with a European Regional Development Fund grant in my work in making the Wakefield Media Centre happen. My experiences with Regional Development Agencies seemed to echo of those with the Gates Foundation.

The organizations share being resource rich, and being led by a top-down approach in dealing with their respective problems. As a result, a culture can emerge of ‘they knowing best’, ‘you have to fit into our rules/our way of doing’, and ‘any one holding a view different from our orthodoxy is not a critical friend, but an enemy.’

As a result, these organizations can suffer from ‘hubris’ – an arrogance of knowing best, not prepared to listen, and, as a result, alienating potential friends, allies and partners.

Just because few people dare go on the record in their criticisms, they assume there are no undercurrents, and everyone shares their worldview of their being wonderful.

During the conference I mused that we need another organization with the acronym WHO, in addition to the World Health Organization. (A body, incidentally, with a smaller budget than the Gates Foundation.)

Maybe, we could do with a World Hubris Organization to create a measurement scale for organizational hubris.

This might be a flight of fancy, but at its heart is a genuine need for some form of measure, like the Richter scale for earthquakes, but measuring organizational hubris, the arrogance in how it acts, treats others, and partnership-working.

This would be invaluable for anyone involved in social change to use in his or her dialogue with organizations suffering from hubris. It would be a constructive device to get such organizations to listen more (although, there will be some bodies, who will be so arrogant that they wouldn’t listen to the World Hubris Organization!)

It is important for anyone seeking optimum creativity and flexible thinking to adopt a ‘Hibris’ attitude state: where you have a positive arrogance about your own ability tempered with a willingness to listen and learn from others.

So, instead of banging their heads against a proverbial brick wall, activists can say, ‘Hey, you are scoring 6 out of 7 on the World Hubris Scale!’ and hopefully bring about a welcome change in the relationship.

So, how about it, a World Hubris Organization?

Just a thought.