Book Reviews




Adam Tooze situates the genesis of the Global Financial Cri

by Dr Sebastian Schwark and Anton Strukoff

Adam Tooze’s Search for Modern Power

Born in London and schooled between Heidelberg and England, Adam Tooze, the grandson of a Soviet spy turned British senior civil servant equally describes himself as possessing dueling left-liberal loyalties, split between ‘England, Germany, the island of Manhattan and the EU.’ A Cambridge- educated economic historian by training and thinker who finds his location in the marketplace of ideas as that of a European social democrat, Tooze
views his own œuvre as no less than that of the ‘history of power in the modern age’. By his own admission, Tooze’s most recent book, Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World should be situated as an episode in his wider bibliography, including works such as The Deluge, a study of America’s remaking of global order between 1916 and 1931,
The Wages of Destruction, a history of the economy of Nazi Germany, and his first book, written for his PhD at the London School of Economics, Statistics and the German State: The Making of Modern Economic Knowledge from 1900 to 1945. Tooze’s impressive output of academic and
popular histories has likewise been matched by his prolific voice as a public intellectual. After completing his PhD, Tooze taught at Jesus College, Cambridge and Yale University before moving on to Columbia University in the City of New York, taking up both the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Professorship of History and the post of Director of the European Institute.
From the pages of the London Review of Books, to The Guardian, Foreign Policy, and the Financial Times, Tooze’s writings on the contemporary political economics of Europe and the United States grants his readers a privileged view into the mind of a preeminent thinker on critical contemporary questions ranging from the systematic shocks of Covid-19, the economics of climate change and energy politics, to central banking and the international institutions that seek to forge and define the global order.

Crashed: When the Music Stops

In Crashed, Tooze seeks to challenge popular understandings of the Global Financial Crisis by situating it amongst a longer historical horizon, from the birth of the Bretton Woods System to the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Along the way Tooze jumps from the American mortgage crisis to the European debt crisis, from the rise of nationalist movements and demise
of social democratic politics amongst North Atlantic voters and politicians, to the financialisation of Eastern European economies to the collapse of Southern European ones, the Russian annexation of Crimea and the colour revolutions of Ukraine and Georgia, the wars of the Middle East to China’s astronomic rise alongside the stagnation of the wider developing world. Warren Buffet’s maxim that “only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked” may be apt, and for Tooze in Crashed, the answer appears to be: nearly everyone. For Tooze: ‘Tracing the inner workings of the Davos mind-set is not the only way to understand how power and money operated in the course of the crisis.’ Instead, he examines the wider structural and historical factors of the Crisis, rooted in the financialisation of the global economy centred around the London-New York banking corridor.

Tooze argues that though the idea of an ‘all-American crisis’ was eagerly taken up by all sides, from politicians to commentators, the reality of the financial crisis is one of ‘profound interconnection’ and an ‘interlocking matrix’ revolving not around the trade corridors of China and the United States but the North Atlantic.

Tooze punctuates his chapter on the roots of the subprime mortgage crisis by relaying the late- summer of 2007 tale of Citigroup CEO Chuck Prince telling journalists that ‘as long as the music is playing you’ve got to get up and dance. We’re still dancing.’ Quotations of political and especially financial hubris and triumphalism punctuate Crashed and are Tooze’s way of illustrating to his reader that the lessons of the Global Financial Crisis have not only not been learnt, they have not even begun to be grasped. Tooze argues that though the waves of the financial crisis were seen to have crashed against the shores of economic stimulus, quantitative easing and bailouts, in reality, the impacts of the financial crisis are only starting to be felt.

The Covid-19 Shocks and Crashed

By his own admission, and as a result of conversation with British essayist Perry Anderson in the New Left Review, though global in scope, Tooze’s work makes notable omissions when it comes to including the financial, political, and economic experiences of states such as Japan, alongside wider regions such as the Middle East and North Africa.

Despite these omissions, Crashed marvellously succeeds in elevating financial and economic jargon to the heights of readability through weaving his history with anecdotes from the halls of modern power. From the towering European Central Bank in Frankfurt, to the US Federal Reserve, the skyscrapers of Wall Street and the City of London, Tooze ensures that the human element, be they the mandarins of Brussels and Paris, or the powerbrokers in Davos and the Kremlin are highlighted in his gripping economic tale.

When asked about the influence of the French Revolution on world history, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai is reputed to have replied that it was ‘too early to say’. Though the quote was perhaps taken out of context, it can be seen to exhibit the difficulty of evaluating the repercussions of world-historical events without the benefit of a long period of perspective. For most historians, a globally significant event such as the financial crisis of 2008 would require far more than a single decade of hindsight to accurately evaluate its myriad impacts.

Readers of Crashed will thus do well to compare Tooze’s conclusions drawn the crash of 2008 with the systematic economic shocks caused by the Covid-19 crisis. Writing presciently in 2018, for Tooze: ‘What we have to reckon with now is that, contrary to the basic assumption of 2012-2013, the crisis was not in fact over. What we face is not repetition but mutation and metastasis.’ Mario Draghi’s statement that the ECB would do ‘whatever it takes’ to save the euro at the height of the debt crisis pales in comparison to the expansion of government balance sheets as a result of drastic collapse in demand stemming from the disruptions to supply chains, border closures, and rolling lockdowns. While a history of the impacts of the Covid shocks to the global economy a decade onward may be too short of a historical timeframe to holistically portray this similarly world-spanning event, one hopes that when such a project is mounted, Adam Tooze is its author.

Position Papers

3Rs™ – Robustness, Resilience, Response

3Rs™ – Robustness, Resilience, Response

by Dr Sebastian Schwark

Uncertainty is the new normal. Executives need to learn how to better withstand crises, respond to the unexpected and thrive despite ambiguity.

We cannot forecast events but we can foresee them. Our capacity to peer into the future determines our robustness, resilience and response. The 3Rs™ offers leaders and future leaders the opportunity to enhance their strategic foresight skills, for their own benefit in managing their work and their careers, and for the benefit of the organisations they serve.

Purpose and Impact of 3Rs™
3Rs™ is designed to empower professionals and executives, from mid-career to CEO level, to manage the unexpected successfully and seize the opportunities that uncertainty entails, for their own benefit and for the benefit of their organisations. Going beyond the well-known techniques of crisis management, 3Rs™ introduces a three-tiered approach – robustness, resilience and response – that refines professionals’ management skills by providing tools and techniques to enhance their situational awareness and decision making in times of ambiguity, elevating their effectiveness within their organizations and beyond.

In large organisations, 3Rs™ also provides an enhanced standard of crisis preparedness and crisis management that serves as reinsurance and common reference point for the entire organisation by becoming a shared experience of executives, thereby safeguarding the value and reputation of the organisation.

Process of a 3Rs™ Program
3Rs™ can be designed for an individual CEO or other executive, or for groups of professionals. Especially when provided as seminars for select groups—including by Zoom or other videoconferencing services—3Rs™ is divided into three movements.

First Movement: Understanding robustness and resilience
Developing the concepts and context for the entire program, this movement provides the foundation for the practical techniques in the second movement.

Second Movement: Managing the unexpected
This movement has two parts: robustness, or the art of withstanding the unexpected; and resilience, or the science of demonstrating agency while facing the unexpected.

Third Movement: Thriving in uncertainty
This final movement focuses on how resilience and robustness are built into strategy; and how this will help to bounce back from the unexpected and shape the future.

Every 3Rs™ assignment is structured to suit each client, whether in three, six, or nine sessions or as an ongoing advisory relationship.

First movement: Understanding robustness and resilience

  • What do we mean by robustness?
  • What do we mean by resilience?
  • Characteristics of crisis and uncertainty
  • Benefits and characteristics of robustness and resilience
  • Robustness and resilience as personal skills
  • The relevance of information
  • The primacy of communications
  • The importance of coordination
  • Robustness and resilience as elements of strategy
  • Case study: Eyjafjallajökullx

Second movement: Managing the unexpected

  • Objectives and limitations of crisis management
  • Developing personal robustness: skills and techniques
  • How to prioritise information
  • How to make decisions under uncertainty
  • How to develop messaging under time pressure
  • Public speaking while lacking information and preparation
  • The art of coordination
  • Part two: resilience
  • Strategic foresight vs. forecasting
  • The art of scenario planning
  • Gaining situational awareness
  • Explaining the facts
  • Developing an explanatory model
  • Strategic notice
  • Developing resilience

Third movement: Thriving in uncertainty

  • Building resilience and robustness into strategy: transparency, process, communications
  • Strategic review: assessing information, identifying new directions, implementing change
  • Bouncing back from the unexpected
  • Navigating conflicting interests
  • Red teaming for future shocks
  • Overcoming obstacles
  • Shaping your future

The topics in 3R™ are covered through a Socratic approach. CogitoPraxis poses a scenario, or mini-case study, or problem. Contained within these questions—and therefore within the answers to the questions and within the subsequent discussion—are the topics of influence and leadership embedded in that module. Every 3R™ assignment is bespoke to suit each client.


  • Tamara Carleton, William Cockayne and Antti-Jussi Tahavaninen: Playbook for strategic foresight and innovation, 2013;
  • Jared Diamond: Upheaval. Turning Points for Nations in Crisis, New York: Little, Brown
    and Company 2019;
  • Bernice Lee and Felix Preston, with Gemma Green: Preparing for High-impact, Low-probability Events. Lessons from Eyjafjallajökull, London: Chatham House 2012;
  • Machiavelli: The Prince;
  • OECD: A systemic resilience approach to dealing with Covid-19 and future shocks, 2020;
  • David Omand: How Spies Think. Ten Lessons in Intelligence, London: Viking. 2020;
  • Nassim Nicholas Taleb: The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, New York, Random House 2010 [1 st edition 2007];
  • Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner: Superforecasting. The Art and Science of Prediction, New York: Crown 2015.

Issue Briefs

Aura-t-on une deuxième chance?


Aura-t-on une deuxième chance ?

La réelle Raison d’être de l’entreprise est soumise à l’horizon long

par Éliane Rouyer-Chevalier

mai 20201

Aura-t-on une deuxième chance ?

Une grande sidération s’est abattue sur nous en tant qu’être humain, nous renvoyant à nous- même, à notre extrême fragilité alors que les dernières décennies avec leur lot de progrès scientifique, d’amélioration indéniable de nos conditions de vie, sans parler des promesses de longévité absolue, nous ont embarqué dans une illusion d’invulnérabilité.

S’ensuit une période de grande confusion face aux décisions à prendre à court terme, aux peurs ancestrales, au questionnement sur la vie, la mort, le sens de l’existence.

Ces interrogations philosophiques et métaphysiques sont nécessaires et s’imposent à tous en tant que citoyen(ne), salarié(e) ou partenaire d’entreprise, membre de Conseil d’administration, responsable que nous sommes tous à titre individuel par rapport aux autres, à la communauté des humains de la planète terre.

Revenons à l’entreprise. Certains prennent prétexte de l’urgence à gérer cette crise économique sans précédent pour différer la mise en œuvre de la transition énergétique, comme si la première prévalait sur la seconde. D’autres, au contraire, plaident pour accélérer plus que jamais le tournant écologique considérant avec des yeux neufs notre façon de produire, consommer, bouger… En tout état de cause, après les efforts immédiats et considérables de l’État, ce sera bien des entreprises que naîtra le nouvel élan pour sortir de la crise économique. Et la possibilité pour leurs dirigeants d’asseoir un leadership d’un autre style, alliant courage et empathie.

Covid et changement climatique, Covid et biodiversité… l’enchainement des causes et des effets, s‘il n’est encore explicitement démontré, interroge de toute façon. L’excès en tout auquel nous étions arrivés n’est plus soutenable. Il y va de notre vie, il y va de la survie de nos enfants, la génération qui va nous succéder. L’urgence s’impose partout.

Certes colmater les brèches au plus vite, protéger la trésorerie de nos entreprises est un impératif vital. Mais sans étrangler à notre tour les fournisseurs ou les clients qui sont confrontés aux mêmes atermoiements de fonds de roulement.

Et tout en ayant les yeux rivés sur la jauge du cash-flow, ne perdons pas de temps et regardons plus loin. Tirons lucidement les leçons de cette période inimaginable, collaborons avec ceux qui, fort heureusement, feront partie de l’inventaire post-crise, pour travailler ensemble, imaginer de nouvelles solutions, écouter, comprendre ce que les clients veulent, ce qui est essentiel, ce qui est plus accessoire.

Beaucoup d’entreprises s’étaient risquées à exprimer une Raison d’être. Déjà nous redoutions l’exercice un peu trop « communicant ». Le crash-test est là. La réelle Raison d’être de l’entreprise est soumise à l’épreuve de la sincérité et de l’horizon long.

Tirons parti de cette période hercynienne, pour nous réinventer en bonne intelligence avec les politiques, les syndicats, les citoyens, les étudiants—ceux qui croient dans l’Homme, son cœur et son intelligence.

Pas sûr que nous aurons une deuxième chance !


1 Ce commentaire a été publié pour la première fois sur LinkedIn le 5 mai 2020.

Issue Briefs

Strategic Significance of the US Elections


Strategic Significance of the US Elections

The good news also contains some daunting challenges

by Nicholas Dungan

November 2020

The sense of relief is palpable. The symbolism is powerful. After four years on the lunatic fringe, the United States of America might soon return to a form of recognisable normality, at home and abroad. The record voter turnout and the legitimate, if lengthy and laborious, election process have rebuilt a bit of faith in American democracy. The election as Vice President of Kamala Harris a highly competent, accomplished professional and a woman of both Asian and Caribbean-African descent, helps restore the US to its pedestal as a beacon of opportunity, an emblem of inclusiveness, all quite the opposite of the hostile, peevish, grotesque xenophobia of Trump.

Beyond the psychological effect, there are several practical benefits that arise from the election of Joe Biden as the president who will assume office on 20 January 2021. (Many have referred to Biden as the ‘next’ president of the United States but the era of Donald Trump is so volatile that to assume Trump will actually make it as far as January seems like a hypothesis that could be proved wrong; if Trump misfires, or quits, or some other surprise occurs, Mike Pence could end up being the ‘next’ president, his job then being to hand over the reins of power to Joe Biden on the day.)

The first practical benefit stems from the quality of the Biden team. Biden himself has a lifetime of experience in the Senate, the legislative branch, and as Vice President in the White House, the executive branch. Biden’s advisors are professionals and insiders. The fact that they are professionals means that they will pursue a policy agenda, not personal aggrandisement, so they will be predictable and trustworthy counterparts. It also means that they will make judgements based on rational policy criteria, not short-term political advantage or blind, unrealistic ideology.

The fact that they are insiders means that they know everybody: in DC, around the United States and throughout the world. This is an enormous advantage compared to the largely inexperienced Trump team, with its reliance on neophyte family members in key White House positions, and so many representatives of the Republican party establishment who had refused to work for the Trump administration. Professional insiders will make a huge difference in getting the business of government done—from the corona virus to climate change—both in domestic policy, particularly with the Congress, and in international relations, with a community of nations cautiously awaiting the United States as a responsible stakeholder in international affairs once again.

A further practical benefit, ironically, arises from the lack of a ‘blue wave’, that massive landslide in favour of the Democrats that would have been interpreted as total repudiation of the Republican party. The Democrat majority in the House of Representatives will be smaller than under Trump and the Senate looks to be quite evenly divided. As a result, nobody will expect the Biden administration to perform legislative or policy miracles. At the same time, the Republicans, though perhaps tainted by their subservience to Trump, can claim their status as a valid opposition party.

An evident additional practical benefit results from the open arms with which the future Biden administration is being welcomed by many world leaders. Even the UK, beset by a relatively inexperienced cabinet and a prime minister seen as too much like Trump, really need not worry: the Biden team will have little interest in settling scores, though they can clearly be counted upon to uphold the interests of the United States in a future UK-US trade negotiation. But their conviction that allies count, and the value they place on reliable relationships, will also underpin their attitude, even with a UK outside the EU. The UK is still a member of the UN Security Council, NATO and the Five Eyes intelligence network; the UK-US working relationship is vast and it is valuable.

Professionalism, experience, freedom from radical expectations and an international community waiting to engage: what more could one ask?

In his first speech as President-Elect, Joe Biden referred to the current moment as an inflection point. He is right. There is a need, as he stated himself in his January article in Foreign Affairs, to re-make American society from the ground up. He literally does need to ‘Make America Great Again’. There is also a need once again to be ‘Present at the Creation’ of a new world order. These are daunting challenges, but ones for which an older, seasoned president may well be suited.

The paradox lies in the existence of not one but two post-war periods, which policy makers have largely failed to acknowledge. One ‘Postwar’, from 1945 to 1989, worked. There was the free world, the communist world and the non-aligned world. International institutions worked because this world of the Cold War was ‘frozen’ and because nation-states dominated as sources of power and as limits to action. Countries, in the free world at least, could do what they wanted within their own borders. They remained masters of their own fate. So did the peoples in their societies.

The second post-war period, since 1989, has been disorganised globalisation. The nation-state is far from the dominant paradigm (which is why this writer teaches a course on non-state actors in international affairs). Society is divided between those perceived as the global elites—often distinguished as much by education, cultural mobility, open-mindedness and humanistic values as by any actual material advantage—and those perceived as left behind, or who self-identify as left behind. In the most recent US election, as in the Brexit referendum in the UK, the proportion of these two demographics is astonishingly close to 50-50. In America and many other societies, the anger of the ‘deporables’ is real, whether elites agree with it or choose to recognise it or attempt to address it, or not. The old left has become the new right. This problem is not going away easily.

What is needed, then, is a new vision, for societies at home and for the community of nations. The strategic significance of the Biden election is that it offers policy makers the opportunity, and the challenge, of exercising, or not, the leadership that will shape a better future for this century.

Issue Briefs

What Europe Wants


What Europe Wants

American reliability within the transatlantic alliance

by Nicholas Dungan

October 2020

There is a widespread perception outside the United States that the ‘idea that is America’ represents almost a state religion, that the US is ‘a country where traditionally it is adherence to creed … that qualifies you for membership’. To many non-US observers, what passes for patriotism in the US looks a lot like nefarious nationalism anywhere else. This was true before the arrival of the current president and has only been reinforced by ‘America First’.

The notion that the United States is ‘the land of the free and the home of the brave’, that America is ‘one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all’, that the US is a force for good in the world, that American exceptionalism is due to a quasi-biblical benediction of the country—‘We shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us.’—served to anchor this sense of creed. To question that creed was heresy, until recently.

Breaking the chains of political piety

During the 2016 presidential campaign, the taboo against Americans taking a critical view of their country began to crumble. ‘Make America Great Again’ suggested that America had lost its greatness, even the sources of its greatness. The word ‘corruption’, never before widespread in American political discourse, became common currency, notably in describing the extent to which elected officials were beholden to private interests in ways that, in most other advanced democracies, would point to prison terms.

Since 2016 Americans have increasingly recognised and debated their country’s poor rankings against other industrialised nations in healthcare, public education and infrastructure. Racism and racial injustice have been shown to be acute problems across US society. Divisiveness and bitter partisanship are acknowledged as gnawing national weaknesses. Hatred has poisoned politics.

Under the Trump administration none of these issues has been resolved, many have gone unaddressed and most have worsened.

The implications of this decline for the United States’ role in the world have become increasingly plain. Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote a book entitled Foreign Policy Begins at Home. In January 2020, former Vice President Joseph Biden published an article, ‘Why America Must Lead Again’, much of which was devoted to an analysis of the reforms required inside the United States in order to re-establish credible American leadership outside.

The former US Secretary of Defence, Robert M. Gates, has called for an end to the ‘overmilitarization’ of American foreign policy. Ganesh Sitaraman has urged ‘A Grand Strategy of Resilience’, examining ‘American power in the age of fragility’ in which he identifies a host of necessary changes to the American system, albeit he does not go far enough on education or corruption, or how these needed changes might actually occur in practice, which would require an end to partisanship and divisiveness.

‘Stronger with allies’

At the same time as they focus on the United States, nearly all these experts place great emphasis on the need for US leadership to be ‘restored’ while the country stands alongside America’s allies. In January 2019 the Executive Vice-President of the Atlantic Council2 told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the United States should ‘put our alliances at the core, not the periphery, of our strategy’.

Many of those allies are in Europe, and NATO is the oldest and strongest of the US alliance structures. For many Americans NATO is the first ‘Europe’ they think of. Increasingly, the European Union has also become ‘Europe’ for Americans, especially as the Eurozone debt crisis and the Covid19 pandemic have highlighted the strengths (and incompleteness) of the EU. Lastly, Americans tend to think of ‘Europe’ as individual nation-states, almost all of which, however, belong to either NATO or the EU or both.

What Europe wants

It is clear that Europe—defined as any one of those three forms of Europe—would welcome a set of American policies different from those of the current administration. Angela Merkel’s Germany has rejected Trump and all he stands for outright; in France Emmanuel Macron initially attempted to tame Trump before giving up. Meanwhile the United Kingdom under Boris Johnson contends with a drawn out foreign policy identity crisis, caught as it is between the end of its membership of the European Union and the dwindling of the ‘special relationship’ with Washington. These and many other European leaders would welcome an America restored to its previous pivotal place in international affairs.

But let American foreign policy planners beware. They must not underestimate how far their country has fallen and must not overestimate how much its leadership would be welcome. As US citizens themselves have lamented the frailties and failings which they have, to their chagrin, discovered as the scales of state religion have fallen from their eyes, the world has been watching, too.

In 2005, fully fifteen years ago, Robert Zoellick urged China to become a ‘responsible stakeholder’ in international affairs. For Europeans today, a United States committed to being such a responsible stakeholder would be a welcome change and a sufficient role, while the United States addresses, and repairs, its domestic ills.


1 This issue brief was first published on 22 October 2020 on the blog of International Affairs, a journal of The Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House. The writer is a member of the International Advisory Board of International Affairs.

Issue Briefs

Strategic Foresight and Fragmentation


Strategic Foresight and Fragmentation

Scenario pluralism should shape our worldview post Covid19

by Nicholas Dungan

October 2020

Too many strategic foresight scenarios share the flaw of trying to gauge everything through the lens of one paramount explanation from which all findings flow.

Sir Isaiah Berlin, in his essay ‘The Apotheosis of the Romantic Will’, wrote:
If I may be permitted an almost unpardonable degree of simplification and generalisation, I should like to suggest that the central core of the intellectual tradition in the West has, since Plato…rested upon three unquestioned dogmas:
(a) that to all genuine questions there is one true answer and one only…;
(b) that the true answers to such questions are in principle knowable;
(c) that these true answers cannot clash with one another….2

Berlin’s purpose in articulating these dogmas was to refute them. Isaiah Berlin was a proponent of ‘value pluralism’. As Joshua Cherniss and Henry Hardy explain in their contribution on Berlin to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: ‘According to Berlin’s pluralism, genuine values are many, and may—and often do—come into conflict with one another. When two or more values clash, it does not mean that one or another has been misunderstood; nor can it be said, a priori, that any one value is always more important than another.’

Fragmentation works better than concentration

In attempting to arrive at a strategic forecast of the world post-Covid19, we would do well to apply Berlin’s intellectual legacy of value pluralism to the construction of our scenarios. We might consider this, and we might call this, ‘scenario pluralism’, which would consist in the recognition that no single over-arching scenario will prevail, that seemingly contradictory actions and reactions will coexist alongside each other and that recognising those contradictions, far from undermining the credibility of our scenarios, actually makes them more realistic and thereby more robust.

Another way to illustrate this scenario pluralism would be to apply the principle of ‘transformation

maps’ used by the World Economic Forum, which are designed to ‘help users to explore and make sense of the complex and interlinked forces that are transforming economies, industries and global issues’. In this case the transformation maps would apply not to the interrelated issues of today but to the hypotheses about tomorrow.

To keep the terminology simple, we might merely designate this strategic forecasting principle as ‘fragmentation’.

Why the Covid19 crisis produces greater fragmentation

While Covid19 has affected everyone in the world, it has affected many people differently. The multiplicity of government responses stems from radically different constitutional and political structures, governance bodies and healthcare systems in different places. The effect on business organisations depends on their particular characteristics and their industry sector; and policy support for businesses and employees varies in the same way.

Fragmentation also originates in the plurality of the crisis. In the Covid19 crisis multiple forms of crisis are overlaid upon each other, with the health and public safety crisis cast atop them all. So perceptions and policies respond here to the health issues, there to the economic or financial consequences, elsewhere to the impact on society.

The Sense of Reality

Where does this lead us, then? It can only lead to one place: a heightened sense of reality which must be incorporated into our strategic foresight. And for that we may turn, once again, to Sir Isaiah Berlin, this time in his essays ‘The Sense of Reality’ and especially ‘Political Judgement’. This sense of reality, he writes: ‘entails, above all, a capacity for integrating a vast amalgam of constantly changing, multicoloured, evanescent, perpetually overlapping data, too many, too swift, too intermingled to be caught and pinned down and labelled like so many individual butterflies. … To seize a situation in this sense one needs to see … what the result is likely to be in a concrete situation of the interplay of human beings and impersonal forces—geographical or biological or psychological or whatever they may be. It is a sense for what is qualitative rather than quantitative. (3)

The sense of reality, combined with the recognition of fragmentation and an increased tolerance for scenario pluralism—rather than seeking a one-size-fits-all solution—will then lead us to strategic solutions of greater robustness and resilience.


(1) This issue brief is an abridged and updated version of a paper initially published in April 2020. 

(2) Isaiah Berlin. The Proper Study of Mankind. London: Vintage Books. 2013. p.555.

(3) Isaiah Berlin. The Sense of Reality: Studies in Ideas and Their History. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 1996. pp. 46-47.

Issue Briefs

Robustness and Resilience


Robustness and Resilience

Success after Covid19 will depend on strategic thinking

by Nicholas Dungan

October 2020

There has never been, in the lives of most of us, any phenomenon to compare to the Covid19 pandemic. Nobody is still alive to tell us whether the pandemic will change global society as profoundly as the Second World War did, or whether it will pass away, like the Spanish flu, and see life return to a pre-pandemic normal once a vaccine is found or the disease dies out. The real answer is, of course, ‘Yes to Both’ (and for an analysis of that dilemma see the CogitoPraxis issue brief from April 2020, ‘Don’t Do It — Don’t assume this crisis will “end” or that everything will change forever’).

Yet there is already enough evidence to examine the forces of change in action.A leading article in

The Economist on ‘Winners and losers’ from Covid19 introduces a remarkably complete special report on the world economy by Henry Curr, that newspaper’s economics editor, in which he assesses the opportunity and the danger arising from the Covid19 pandemic, from the standpoints of international trade, labour markets, interest rates and the role of government, with side features on market concentration and emerging economies.

Societal resilience provides little insight on who wins or loses, and why

Some societies have fared much better than others, and raised questions about the efficacy of authoritarian versus liberal societal models. China’s hard-line centralised autocracy seems to have been efficient, but the strongman tactics of Trump, Bolsonaro and even Putin have not. South Korea and Taiwan have done brilliantly through public information and testing, the United Arab Emirates initially controlled the pandemic well through technology and strict measures, Germany has succeeded best in Europe while Sweden and to some extent the Netherlands relied on citizen responsibility with considerable freedom of movement. The United Kingdom failed miserably compared to its continental European neighbours. The United States’ response exposed all the flaws, and a few virtues, of the American way. No single model can claim to be the perfect solution.

Business success looks more predictable, but varies

Among industry sectors, certain winners and losers do already stand out. Quite obviously, technology constitutes a big ‘winner’ sector as #WFH working from home has increased reliance on tech still further: the spectacular recovery of the tech-heavy S&P500 during 2020 is evidence of that. Shares of Alphabet, the parent company of Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Netflix and Salesforce are near all-time highs at this writing, while Zoom, for obvious reasons, is nearly ‘off the charts’.

Pharmaceutical companies, for equally plain reasons, have fared well, though not all of them equally. The share prices of those in the lead of vaccine or treatment research such as Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, Regeneron and Roche are, for the moment, near their historic highs.

At the other end of the spectrum lie the ‘losers’ from Covid19, many of them sound companies but whose business model is under threat from the pandemic. This includes hotels, aircraft manufacturers (except for their cybersecurity and defence contractor segments), airlines, airports, travel and tourism generally, commercial property firms and many retailers.

Companies bewteen these two extremes make an especially interesting subject. Some, such as in consumer goods—L’Oréal, Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, Unilever—are performing admirably on their existing business model. Luxury goods companies LVMH and Kering have recovered almost entirely to near their past highs, while Burberry and Richemont have not, or not yet. Manufacturing success is mixed—nothing new—with Covid19 effects felt differently across sectors and firms.

Big problems for basic sectors

More intriguing are those companies whose services or products are essential to the functioning of our world, but whose future prospects, whether from Covid19 or from other exogenous factors, or both combined, face massive strategic upheavals in their business models. The insurance industry, for example, is beset with transformations which are fundamental to business success (see CogitoPraxis issue brief ‘Challenges to the Insurance Industry’); banks are caught in the deliberately tight noose of regulations inherited from the 2008 financial crisis; both are on the back foot in the race with fintech pioneers such as Ant in China or Lemonade in the US and Europe. Fossil-fuel based energy companies—especially big oil—are simply essential in the transition to a zero-carbon economy, but have fallen badly out of fashion.

Robustness and resilience will require thought leadership

What binds all these examples together are notions which The Economist cites in its special report: ‘robustness (the ability to keep working through a crisis)’ and ‘resilience (the ability to bounce back from one)’. The only way to achieve those, whether as societies, industries or companies, is through strategic foresight (see CogitoPraxis issue brief ‘Strategic Foresight and Fragmentation’).

As time passes and we gain perspective to assess the Covid19 crisis, two truths will stand out: first, the longer the pandemic lasts, the greater will be the lasting changes to behaviours;
second and above all, once the pandemic is past—even before it is past—the true winners will be those who have thought through the implications and constructed scenarios for the future, not those who have principally reacted to events. Thought leadership, for companies and for countries, requires thinking globally and strategically. Those who can demonstrate global strategic leadership —a more sophisticated, nuanced, scientific form of thought leadership—will be the winners.

Issue Briefs

Don’t Do It


Don’t Do It

Don’t assume this crisis will ‘end’ or that everything will change forever

by Nicholas Dungan

April 2020

The Covid19 crisis will go on and on and on, because it is not one crisis, nor even a sequence of crises, but an accumulation of crises: health, societal, economic, financial, political, geopolitical.

Even if every country everywhere manages to master the pandemic, even if the pandemic never re-appears—and both of those are wildly optimistic hypotheses—the effects of this crisis will last years or even decades. It will shape the lives of Generation Z far more than the financial crisis or even 9/11 has shaped those of the Millennials.

It will continue to make a forceful impact upon our daily lives, our social interactions including distancing, but also upon our ambitions, initiatives, projects, perceptions, hopes and fears. That applies to individuals, families, societies, countries, businesses, governments, the ‘international community’, ‘global society’.

The economic effects have barely begun to be appreciated. The economic consequences of the pandemic will obviously translate into significant—and, at this point, unforeseeable—political consequences.

Those political consequences, in turn, will alter the lives of countries and influence international relations, both within regions and among regions, in ways we cannot measure today or perhaps even imagine. There is every chance of major civil unrest, class conflict, military tensions and even new wars, a far cry from the idealistic calls for a global ceasefire heard in some leadership circles.

Don’t assume everything will change

Many individual people, expert commentators and journalists have written, photographed and shared on social media the pronounced evidence during the worldwide lockdowns that humankind harms the planet. Nature has reclaimed its place quickly as humans ceased to overwhelm it.

New habits have formed. Parents have been able to spend more time with their children, and perhaps learned better how to do so, even if, in many places, grand-parents have been denied the enjoyment of their grand-children.

Traffic has virtually disappeared. Public transport, where it is running, is less overcrowded.

For those who are fortunate enough to be able to #WFH work-from-home with adequate space and privacy, the daily commute into the office in urban centres appears an increasingly futile waste of time. It also exposes us to contagion.

People, businesses and governments have adopted technology with an ease and speed that defy predictions.

Our inclination is to hope that these virtuous realisations and new behaviours will last. But the temptation to go back to business as usual will often be equally strong. Most major corporations have no alternative business model in their back pocket which they can deploy; bruised in many cases by the economic and financial fallout from this crisis, they will seek a return to ‘normality’. Organisations, both public and private, run by conservative, established people, will want to revert to what they mistakenly consider the safety of the world before the pandemic, whereas if the world before the pandemic had been truly safe, we would not be where we are now.

There will be no going back to before, but there will also not be a gleamingly pure new world either. Those who attempt to recreate the past will fail. So will those who expect a wholly rosy future to emerge from this crisis. Each extreme is equally unrealistic. Any attempt to cling to one extreme or the other is likely to lead to discontent, misunderstanding and conflict.

The post-Covid19 era will exist somewhere along a spectrum of positive and negative. Realistically, what we can do and what we should do, as individuals and as societies, is to try move life after the crisis a bit more in the right direction.

Position Paper

The Dozen Dogmas

The Fundamentals for Projecting Leadership

  1. When dealing with words, start with the metrics.
  2. Learn to speak in less than one minute and begin with your conclusion.
  3. Always stay within the time.
  4. Never talk about the time.
  5. Do not talk about your outline.
  6. Use fewer words to convey more meaning.
  7. Avoid connecting words and phrases.
  8. Speak slowly; pause and pause again: the audience will fill in the blanks.
  9. Never speak when others are speaking.
  10. Electronics require the same extreme caution as children and animals on stage.
  11. Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse: everything is beautiful at the ballet.
  12. Analysis, not opinion; facts and figures to support the analysis.

Position Paper

Corporate Citizenship


Corporate Citizenship

GSL™ requires firms to build their brand equity as standard-setters

by Nicholas Dungan

  • Major business firms need to prepare now for a sea-change in the way they fit in global society.
  • A broad-based, holistic concept of corporate citizenship, already developing considerable momentum, will soon disrupt and displace the mere exercise of corporate social responsibility (CSR).
  • Global firms—multinational enterprises, financial institutions, professional services firms—will henceforth be compelled to prove, convincingly and continuously, their commitment and their conduct as exemplary global citizens.
  • Global firms cannot eschew their responsibility to play their part as non-state actors in the management of world affairs. States are no longer the only or even the principal decision- makers on global societal issues.
  • The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda has become the world’s collective global roadmap, a rallying point and plan of action for global actors including the actual and potential customers, investors and employees of global firms. All these increasingly look hard at corporate citizenship when assessing a firm.
  • As an essential component of their corporate citizenship, global firms in the top tier of their industries and professions will therefore need to exercise a new, consistent and dynamic form of thought leadership: Global Strategic Leadership (GSL™).
  • In exercising Global Strategic Leadership (GSL™), global firms will be expected to demonstrate the quality of their strategic thinking, not only the quality of their business performance. Global audiences will evaluate the quality of that strategic thinking as an indicator of the firm’s corporate citizenship. Financial markets will incorporate the quality of that strategic thinking into their valuation models.
  • Global Strategic Leadership (GSL™) requires a firm to build its brand equity as a top-tier global standard-setter. Firms will need to produce consistent content as reliable and authoritative as any think-tank, consultancy or university. That content needs to be delivered in a variety of forms, on a variety of platforms, to a variety of audiences. The firm’s representatives must be sought out and respected as experts, to participate in shaping the global conversation, not just to convey corporate messages.
  •  Major firms which fail to exercise Global Strategic Leadership (GSL™) will run the risk of losing trust, reputation and value. Those who do it well will gain trust, reputation and value.
  • CogitoPraxis gives equal importance to high-quality thinking and effective practical action. The ultimate goal of CogitoPraxis is to advise and assist each client firm to achieve its own best form of Global Strategic Leadership (GSL™).

Corporate citizenship has a history

The origins of corporate citizenship can be traced to the publication in 1953 of Howard R. Bowen’s book, The Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. In parlance that now appears dated, but which imparts ideas well ahead of their time, he wrote: ‘The decisions and actions of the businessman have a direct bearing on the quality of our lives and personalities. His decisions affect not only himself, his stockholders, his immediate workers, or his customers—they affect the lives and fortunes of us all.’(1)

The 1973 ‘Davos Manifesto’ issued by the organization that was to become the World Economic Forum opens with these words: ‘The purpose of professional management is to serve clients, shareholders, workers and employees, as well as societies, and to harmonize the different interests of the stakeholders.’(2)

In 1994, N. Craig Smith wrote in the Harvard Business Review: ‘Like citizens in the classical sense, corporate citizens cultivate a broad view of their own self-interest while instinctively searching for ways to align self-interest with the larger good.’(3)

In 2008, Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, wrote in Foreign Affairs: ‘[A] new imperative for business, best described as “global corporate citizenship,” must be recognized. It expresses the conviction that companies not only must be engaged with their stakeholders but are themselves stakeholders alongside governments and civil society.’(4)

Corporate citizenship has gathered momentum

In May 2019, the French Loi Pacte changed the definition of corporate purpose in the French Civil Code to include environmental and societal issues and to permit companies to include their mission (raison d’être) in their bye-laws. (5)

In August 2019, the Business Roundtable in Washington DC released a new ‘Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation’ signed by more than 180 CEOs who commited to lead their companies for the benefit of all stakeholders: customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders.(6)

In November 2019, the theme of the annual Entretiens de Royaumont in France was ‘Can Capitalism be Responsible?’7 and in December 2019 the topic of the 6th Sommet de l’économie in Paris was ‘Resetting Capitalism’(8).

Also in November 2019, the British Academy released a lengthy and detailed study, ‘Principles for Purposeful Business’9 which was launched at the Guildhall in London with a speech by Lionel Barber, editor of the Financial Times, who said: ‘Reforming the corporation is not about tacking on a laundry list of nice-to-have initiatives. The prescription is a fundamental shift in how companies think about their objectives.’(10)

At the end of November 2019, Rolf Nonnenmacher, Chairman of the Regierungskommission Deutscher Corporate Governance Kodex (German Corporate Governance Code Commission), opened the Commission’s annual conference saying, ‘It is quite clear that enterprises that do not live up to their social responsibility will find it increasingly difficult to operate successfully in the market.’(11)

In December 2019, Klaus Schwab published ‘Why we need the “Davos Manifesto” for a better kind of capitalism ’(12) in which he called once again for stakeholder capitalism as opposed to state capitalism or narrow shareholder capitalism.

In January 2020, the theme of the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting at Davos is ‘Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World’. (13)

Global pressure is building

Citizens across the world are intent that institutions of all kinds should demonstrate responsible societal behaviour. This determination will only be amplified as global society faces the combined challenges of:

  • responding to and managing the impacts of climate change, which entail far more than improvingbusinesses’ environmental performance or adopting sustainable development processes andtechniques;
  • the need to regulate artificial intelligence and ensure that technology works for humans, not thereverse; and
  • the pressure to address inequalities, an issue where business firms have a critical role to play bypromoting better opportunities, upskilling their human capital and providing support for lifelong learning.

In its feature entitled ‘The Defining Ideas of 2019’, Time magazine included an article ‘Values Added: In the era of “woke capitalism,” apolitical is not an option’, which states: ‘For decades, most companies went to great lengths to avoid opining on social issues. No longer. … Nine in 10 members of Generation Z, who account for as much as $150 billion in spending power globally, believe that companies have a responsibility to social and environmental issues, according to McKinsey. … [C]ompanies are learning that it may be riskier to pretend it’s all business as usual.’(14)

HM Queen Elizabeth II, in her 2019 Christmas broadcast, acknowledged this phenomenon: ‘The challenges many people face today may be different to those once faced by my generation, but I have been struck by how new generations have brought a similar sense of purpose to issues such as protecting our environment and our climate.’ (15)

The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda (16) is today seen, and acted on, as the world’s collective global roadmap. In its integrated, relatively simple narrative, it has become a rallying point and a plan of action for an exceptionally diverse set of actors, many of whom are either actually or potentially the clients, investors or employees of global firms. All these actors are increasingly taking a hard look at corporate citizenship when assessing a firm.

Global firms must recognize their role as non-state actors in international affairs and take a much more active place at the world’s decision-making tables. Current governance structures are changing fast. States are no longer the sole, or often even the primary, decision-makers on societal issues. Global firms will be compelled to be responsible stakeholders in the management of the affairs of the world.

The move to certification as a B Corporation is on the rise. B Corporations are ‘businesses that meet the highest standards of verified social and environmental performance, public transparency, and legal accountability to balance profit and purpose’. B Corporation certification is ‘a rigorous process that includes comprehensive third-party assessment of social and environmental performance on a range of metrics’ and ‘[o]nly a fraction of applicant companies receive B Corp status on their first try’. (17)

Benefit corporations, distinct from B Corps, ‘lock in positive social, environmental and community impact (in addition to profit) in their constitutional and governance documents’ and those commitments ‘cannot be changed by a new owner or a CEO deciding to change course.’ (18)

It is not fanciful to imagine that, soon, all major global business firms will be held to the same standards as B Corporations and, indeed, may increasingly be judged by the criteria of benefit corporations.

Firms are unprepared

Despite heightened awareness, global firms—industrial, financial, services—have yet to come fully to terms with the imperative for broad-based, holistic corporate citizenship.

Corporate citizenship is stakeholder capitalism focused at the level of the individual enterprise. Most firms have not examined, much less integrated, the many practical effects of corporate citizenship. Implementing a fully-fledged form of corporate citizenship carries a multitude of implications for the management and governance of global firms.

Until now, senior managements have often adopted sustainable development and corporate social responsibility more from a spirit of compliance or fashion than from a conviction that corporate citizenship is good business, and is here to stay. Boards of directors have largely accepted the chief executive’s assurances that the firm they govern is doing what it should in pursuit of worthy environmental and societal goals.

Industrial companies have generally attempted to improve existing processes and practices rather than fundamentally altering their business models—for example by truly practising the principles of the circular economy rather than merely attempting to reduce waste. As part of the re-examination of their business models, industrial companies will have to re-think their relationships with suppliers and customers, assess the integrity of their supply chains and distribution methods, adapt their offerings from disposable products to ‘as a service’ in the sharing economy and reposition their governance towards a stakeholder, ‘purpose before profit’19 model.

Financial institutions and professional services firms will face the need to provide humanist-driven offers and outcomes rather than relying on technical forms of services that will be supplanted by digitalization.

The reality is that all leading global business firms need to reconsider their business models. And they need to prove to society their ability to think globally and strategically, in order to remain leaders.

Corporate citizenship requires Global Strategic Leadership (GSL™)

Global firms will henceforth be expected to demonstrate the quality of their strategic thinking, not just the quality of their business performance. This is a paramount implication of corporate citizenship.

Global audiences will evaluate that strategic thinking as a critical indicator of the firm’s corporate citizenship.

Financial markets will incorporate the quality of that strategic thinking in their valuation models.

The new kind of thinking that will be demanded of major firms as part of their corporate citizenship requires them to exercise Global Strategic Leadership (GSL™).

  • GSL™ is global: the breadth and depth of thinking must be all-encompassing, address multi- stakeholder relationships from a pluri-disciplinary platform and extend beyond comfortable close- to-home geographies.
  • GSL™ is strategic: the thinking within GSL™ must focus on major long-term issues facing the firm, its industry or profession and all societal stakeholders.
  • GSL™ produces leadership: the firm achieves—and then must maintain—its status as a multi- stakeholder standard-setter for the best quality thinking about the fundamental strategic issues of its business, industry or professional sector within the widest definition of global society.

How a firm distinguishes itself through GSL

GSL™ places the firm, in its areas of expertise, at the same level, and achieves the same quality of output, as the world’s best think tanks, professional consultancies and research universities.GSL™ deliverables make the firm the standard-setter in its industry or profession and reinforce the firm’s brand equity.To achieve GSL™, the firm will need to produce consistent GSL™ content that manifests its collective corporate intelligence. That content must be delivered in a variety of forms, on a variety of platforms, to a variety of audiences. The firm’s representatives must be sought out as experts, to participate in shaping the global conversation, not just to convey corporate messages.GSL™ requires cross-sector, multi-stakeholder leadership and impact from the firm. The firm’s critical strategic intelligence on priority issues must be a model both within and beyond its industry. Building the firm’s GSL™ requires inclusive change management within and around the firm, across all its ecosystems—and, especially, buy-in and ownership at all levels throughout the entirety of the firm itself.

Benefits of GSL

Senior managements of global firms should view GSL™ not as a luxury or an optional add-on but as an essential survival kit for the future health, welfare and even existence of their firm.

The discipline, rigour and professional process of achieving GSL™ will produce a positive impact on the firm’s own strategic planning for itself.

GSL™ can make an important difference to an organisation’s ability to attract and retain talent.

GSL™ provides a competitive advantage to a firm in bidding for client contracts—indeed, may serve as a tie-breaker in winning customers.

GSL™ should produce a positive impact on the firm’s share price. Faced with two otherwise identical companies, one demonstrating GSL™ and the other not, financial analysts and financial markets will almost certainly assign a privileged valuation multiple to the think-and-do firm over the do-only firm.

GSLTM should thus improve the quality of the firm’s thinking, its positioning vis-à-vis all its stakeholders and its reputation. In so doing, GSL™ allows the firm to gain trust and value.

CogitoPraxis drives GSL

The CogitoPraxis GSL™ model gives equal importance to high-quality thinking and effective practical action.

CogitoPraxis cultivates a spirit of coordinated interaction with appropriate client firm leaders.

CogitoPraxis’s networks of partners and experts provide the client firm access to worldwide GSL™ intelligence.

CogitoPraxis designs, executes and re-evaluates its GSL™ assignment jointly with the client firm, consistently seeking collaborative solutions and positive outcomes.

The ultimate goal of CogitoPraxis is to advise and assist each client firm to achieve its own best form of GSL™.

Achieving GSL™ typically involves five stages: assessment, objectives, strategy, implementation, impact.

1 Assessment

In the assessment phase, CogitoPraxis and the client firm’s GSL™ team review the client firm’s thought leadership today, compare it to industry peers and global best practice, and map its ecosystems.

  • Assemble a multi-disciplinary team from within the client firm with clear top-level commitment.
  • Review all apppropriate and available sources of existing GSL™ expertise within the client firm.
  • Professionally score the client firm vis-à-vis the full landscape of stakeholders in its ecosystem.
  • Examine the client firm’s outreach today, field test it against competitors, benchmark versus best practices.
  • Deliverable: appraisal and analysis together with a set of concrete, detailed, practicalrecommendations.

2 Objectives

In order to achieve clear, consistent, concrete objectives, CogitoPraxis and the client firm’s GSL™ team match the client firm’s GSL™ ambitions to its purpose, its audiences, ecosystems and their variants.

  • Achieve clarity and consistency on the alignment of the client firm’s GSL™ and its corporate purpose.
  • Enumerate and prioritize with the client firm team the target audiences / networks for its GSL™.
  • Construct transformation maps of the cross-cutting thematics, disciplines, types of expertise toproject.
  • Examine sub-set strands of GSL™ concerning distinct business lines, geographies, GSL™ variations.
  • Deliverable: clear road map with the client firm’s leadership of desired outcomes and their timing.

3 Strategy

Building on a realistic assessment and realistic objectives, CogitoPraxis and the client firm GSL™ team construct a plan of action, each step coordinated with all the others, and a timeline for implementation.

  • Compose a playbook to apply to all client firm GSL™ experts, spokespersons, practitioners.
  • Determine desired sequencing / scheduling with the client firm’s GSL™ team of GSL™ actionitems.
  • Plan with the client firm’s GSL™ team all GSL™ priority actions, eg content, format, outreach.
  • Design GSL™ implementation scenarios by all client firm representatives with CRM-type follow-up.
  • Deliverable: written / oral CogitoPraxis GSL™ presentations to client firm management andgovernance.

4 Implementation

CogitoPraxis stays with the client firm GSL™ team to manage initiatives and processes as the strategy is put into practice. This includes assistance with all forms of outreach and all networks of influence.

  • Designate an in-house client firm expertise task force to centralize and manage the client firm’s GSL™.
  • Execute a phased multi-stakeholder GSL™ implementation plan together with client firm representatives.
  • Capitalize on existing relationships to elaborate a series of multi-stakeholder networks of influence.
  • Produce multi-platform GSL™ content, output, outreach; monitor roll-out based on CRM methodology.
  • Deliverable: multi-year strategic plan translated into focused action steps that achieve GSL™.

5 Impact

CogitoPraxis and the client firm GSL™ team agree in advance on how to gauge the impact of the client firm’s GSL™ once it is implemented; rigorously measure success against those criteria; identify improvements.

  • Establish clear, timed GSL™ results and measurement criteria across the range of GSL™ initiatives.
  • Set specific guidelines to determine desired quantitative and qualitative impact of GSL™ goals.
  • Employ professional external evaluation methods (eg surveys) for objective impact assessment.
  • Utilize the impact evaluation exercise to critique assessment, objectives, strategy,implementation.
  • Deliverable: analysis of performance, recommendations on course corrections, strategy adjustments.

CogitoPraxis differs from other consultancies

CogitoPraxis assists leaders in optimizing their firm’s strategic positioning as a corporate citizen.

We are not a traditional management consulting firm that advises on business processes.

We are not a conventional communications firm that advises on corporate messages.

We are focused on high-quality strategic thinking translated into effective practical action.

Our goals are:

  • to support clients in achieving the highest-quality thinking in their areas of speciality andexpertise;
  • to collaborate in conveying that thinking to audiences across the client firm’s ecosystems; and
  • to create in the client firm the lasting stewardship to sustain, renew and perpetuate the client firm’s GSL™.