Here's the follow-up discussion from the 8 December 2009
GVI Visionary Conversation with Kisore Mandhyan,
Deputy Director, Political, Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Affairs, Executive Office of the UN Secretary-General. 

WHAT DO YOU THINK?:

With respect to a vision for the international system, the absence of egos and a more expansive sense of identity that went beyond a “silo” mentality were significant elements. It was felt that the UN was a microcosm of the world, which made it more imperative to “do it right”. Participants pointed to the value of building a community beyond the individual, and being part of communities such as GVI that support the individual in the face of the sometimes disheartening or frustrating UN culture. 

Regarding the reality to be addressed, a participant noted that when one made the choice to live simply, one may have to deal with an inordinate degree of bureaucracy since simple living is often perceived as a sign of powerlessness.  It was also important to focus on how one can approach colleagues or be of assistance on a human level rather than in bureaucratic terms.  The quickest way to create change may be through leaders but leaders may not be seeking change.

In terms of options for the way forward, it was suggested that it could be helpful to challenge people to think of how or when they feel like they are losing their power, and explore ways in which their power can be regained. Resilience was a significant factor, and meditation could play a role in remaining grounded and centered.  Emphasis on openness rather than competition was also key to developing a new culture.  One participant also thought it helpful to open up the UN more to contributions from non-UN persons who are inspired to work with the ideal the organization represented, perhaps sharing data-sets and other materials for wider application. In this vein, it was also critical for the UN to make better use of the enormous talent that the organization convened in its staff and activities, which would best serve realization of the vision.

 
 
 

I regard the crisis as one resulting from values. However, we would be wrong to assume the response to that is to work towards the expression of
different values within existing market rules. Rather, the rules of the
financial system have been set up to ascribe value to intangible assets
through a process based on a system of 'might is right': if your
financial institution is big enough for its opinions to move markets
then your opinion is "right" as it affects the actual value of an asset.
(Information on this I detail in my new annual review, along with other
critiques of the causes of the crisis.
http://lifeworth.com/lifeworth2008/2009/05/the-end-of-financial-triumphalism/)

Therefore, rather than espousing or advocating different values within
the existing rules, we need to change the rules so that different values
can be rewarded rather than punished through the financial system. It
also raises deeper issues about the accountability of property rights,
which again raises the question of the values embodied in our current
assumption about private property. (I explore this in my new book, "The
Corporate Responsibility Movement"
(http://www.greenleaf-publishing.com/productdetail.kmod?productid=2767)

The first step to all of this is to reveal the values that are implictly embedded in current rules and norms about property, finance, and valuation.

Comment posted on behalf of Dr. Jem Bendell - GVI Advisory Board Member