Mental Capital and social well-being

Vuyo Jack has made a useful contribution on what is needed to build our society in South Africa. In an article published in Business Report (‘Mental capital, well-being key to better SA society’) recently, he refers to work done in the UK on mental capital and well-being. Mental capital is here defined as encompassing:

“a person’s cognitive and emotional resources. It includes their cognitive ability, how flexible and efficient they are at learning and their ‘emotional intelligence’, such as their social skills and resilience in the face of stress” This could be summarised as the ability of people to engage effectively with people and the world around them, and to cope with and learn from what life throws at them.

This can broaden our thinking on the concept of social capital, which focuses mainly on the networks and relationships that we create and sustain. It also poses a challenge to our education systems, which tend to focus primarily on developing cognitive ability. And also to our workplaces, which are really where people have to learn to work, solve problems and be innovative together for the first time.

Jack points to 5 imperatives that can be a personal manifesto: build and maintain personal connection; keep physically active; stay aware, be reflective and understand our feelings; keep learning; and give more than what we get.

De Klerk, lies, apartheid, memory, and the destruction of social capital

Virtually worthless stamps from the old Transkei

FW De Klerk has absolutely no understanding of apartheid and that it was what the United Nations categorised as a crime against humanity.  His recent reported comments on CNN, which his Foundation states have been ‘twisted’ and taken ‘out of context’, deserve little attention in themselves – De Klerk is no longer particularly politically significant – and can be dismissed as a feeble attempt at revisionism and bolstering his fading reputation.  The unfortunate consequence of his naïve, misplaced and incorrect remarks is that they will serve to confirm the perception that white leaders and ex-leaders in South Africa still display racist attitudes, and indeed have no real understanding of what racism actually is.  As such, his comments weaken attempts to build trust and social capital amongst and between communities in South Africa.

Racism as a form of oppression and exploitation cannot be reduced to simple incidents of ‘behaviour’ that target different race groups unfavourably or treat people different on arbitrary racial grounds – with no distinction between behavior of whites targeted at blacks and vice versa.  Racism as it has been practiced throughout history takes the form of institutionalised and state-sponsored oppression and exploitation, generally introduced, perpetrated and sustained by governments and peoples that work from a sense of racial superiority over the ‘other’ groups or peoples.  In this sense, racism and racist policies have supported colonialism and economic exploitation throughout the history of imperial conquest and domination. 

It is this, perhaps, that De Klerk does not really understand, and which shows how out of touch he is with people in South Africa – who know well how the racist system of apartheid was used to exploit and disenfranchise people systematically and supported by hundreds of laws.  It is untrue when De Klerk asserts that the ‘homeland’ system did not disenfranchise people (because they supposedly ‘voted’).  People were, by being forcibly removed to these artificial homelands (he refers to them as ‘self-governing territories’ and ‘independent states’) systematically deprived of any remaining possibility of citizenship in their own country – South Africa.  Indeed, the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970 legally deprived people of their South African citizenship.  De Klerk was just 34 then and still a young man, and had only just become an MP.  He might however remember voting for this Act and that it disenfranchised people…

Of course, the Venda, Boputhutswana, Transkei and Ciskei bantustans were never recognised as independent states by the international community, and although they produced their own stamps (or did they?) they were not in any sense ‘independent’ from Pretoria.

De Klerk also repeats the lie that the ‘homelands’ established under apartheid were historical lands (a lie promoted by his party leader HF Verwoerd) and that people were not put there.   Of course, even before the rise of the Nationalist government in 1948, previous colonial administrations had established ‘reserves’ for black people and regulated land ownership (Native Land Act of 1913).  The policies of forced removals under apartheid have been systematically documented and it is absolutely astonishing that De Klerk can assert anything about the ‘homelands’ without acknowledging what happened.  Indeed, De Klerk was Minister for Internal Affairs between 1982 and 1985 when many removals happened, so either he was actually responsible for forced removals, or he was negligent in that things happened without his knowledge.  He was not such a young man then of course (mid-late 40s).

For anyone who has doubts about the policies of forced removals, I would highly recommend ‘South Africa – The Cordoned Heart’, edited Omar Badsha, Gallery Press , 1986 – prepared for the Second Carnegie Inquiry into Poverty and Development in Southern Africa – and David Goldblatt’s ‘The Transported of Kwandebele’, 1989, Aperture & the Center for Documentary Studies at Duke University.

In South Africa it is a truism that apartheid was a unique and evil form of institutionalised racism – perpetrated by a white minority government seeking to exploit other race groups and particularly black people.  Forced removals and the creation of the ‘homelands’ was an integral part of the apartheid system, and not just a failed attempt at creating distinct nations via partition.  A consequence is that black people in South Africa have a unique experience of racism that can perhaps never easily be understood by white people in this country.  If white people are to aspire to real and effective leadership positions in this country in the future it is perhaps important to acknowledge this difference of experience as a first step in trying to understand where we have come from as a country.

Incidentally, De Klerk appears, via his Foundation, to endorse policies of partition in trying to retrospectively justify the ‘homelands’ policies, and cites examples of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia (where the break-up of the country along 'ethnic' lines led to various wars), and points to support for a ‘two state’ solution to the problems of Israel and Palestine (which has not been implemented) and makes no mention of other support for a ‘one-state’ solution.  He doesn’t mention the partition of Ireland in the 1920s, and the years of conflict that followed.

The FW De Klerk Foundation appears to justify De Klerk’s naiveté as a young politician by affirming that he grew up in an Afrikaner society that was deeply aggrieved by defeat in the Boer War, and that the central theme of Afrikaner politics was a desire for self-rule.  Fortunately there were a few brave Afrikaners who came out of the same tradition, such as Bram Fischer, who took a different route.  Bram Fischer died in 1975 after being cruelly treated in the apartheid goal - when De Klerk was of course still a young man (39) and only an MP.  Perhaps he never heard of Bram Fischer and how he was treated, or, if he did, did he care?

A separate question that arises now again is whether De Klerk deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.  Terry Bell has reported De Klerk's admission that he ordered a massacre of supposed Azanian Peoples' Liberation Army fighters shortly before going to Oslo in 1993.  In fact, teenage children were killed on De Klerk's orders.  Little known, and deeply shocking.  I won't go into the lingering question about whether De Klerk was completely honest with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission except to refer people to Antjie Krog's 'Country of My Skull'.

Perhaps the best contribution that FW De Klerk could now make to South Africa would be to retire completely from public life.

Walmart, poverty and social capital

Walmart's merger with Massmart in South Africa has been opposed by the trade union movement on the basis that it is likely to lead to a net reduction in jobs and an increase in imports from abroad.

What has been highlighted less is research that shows that poverty increases as a result of Walmart's presence, and a study also indicates that Walmart has a negative impact on levels of social capital.

Do we need Walmart in South Africa?

Exciting new Learning Workshops in Johannesburg

Together with my colleagues in Kessels & Smit, we have planned an exciting new series of learning workshops over the next couple of months. All the workshops will be facilitated with a participative and engaging methodology, in which participants will work with their questions and real issues pertaining to their work, and their professional growth and development. Workshops will be limited to 12 participants each. Each workshop will offer some theoretical perspectives (with reading material) as well as practical opportunities to work with and practice new approaches. The interactive nature of the workshops will attract participants who are open to trying new ideas and who are comfortable with ambiguity.

The workshops are 3 hours long and will take place on Thursdays (either afternoon or evening) at Unit 7, The Rosebank Fire Station, Bath Avenue, Rosebank. Afternoon workshops will start at 2pm (coffee and biscuits from 1.30pm), and evening workshops will start at 6pm (coffee and biscuits from 5.30pm). Bookings and payments can be made by contacting Kgomotso Ratswana at kratswana@kessels-smit.com or on 011 447 9898.

Details of the workshops are as follows:

1. Working with Appreciative and Integral Perspectives
Facilitator: Mark Turpin
Date: 4th August 2011
Time: 1:30 pm

This workshop will introduce the thinking behind ‘appreciative inquiry’ and ‘integral thinking’, drawn from the work of David Cooperrider and Ken Wilbur respectively. These perspectives will be contrasted with more common problem-centered and deficit-based approaches to working in organisations, and to how larger ‘wicked problems’ are addressed in society.

Participants will be encouraged and supported to apply these new approaches to organisational issues that they face, and also to think about how these approaches can also be used in their personal lives, with the objective of uncovering new perspectives that can support personal empowerment and liberate new energy for solving problems and resolving conflict.

2. Designing Learning Processes: Exploring Different Paradigms on Learning
Facilitator: Paul Keursten
Date: 4th August 2011
Time: 5:30pm

Learning is of critical importance, and there are many ways to learn. But it’s not so easy to know which approach works for what and when. Over the past 50 years, various paradigms on learning have developed, each with its own strengths and pitfalls. Every paradigm has a different vision and definition of learning and how learning can be best supported. Every paradigm uses its own language. Understanding these paradigms and the language and approach that comes with it helps us to navigate the field of learning and development. It helps to understand the often implicit views of key stakeholders and why some discussions never get solved. Most importantly, it enriches the way we can create the powerful learning interventions that are so needed in organisations.

3. The Intelligent Conversation
Facilitator: Mark Turpin
Date: 11th August 2011
Time: 1:30 pm

This workshop introduces the idea of a productive and generative form of dialogue that can be utilised when important outcomes are desired and when a building conversation is needed. A number of simple rules are introduced that can easily be learned and internalised by groups and teams that need to work effectively together.

Participants are then encouraged to practice a real dialogue utilising these new ‘intelligent conversation’ rules and to hold each other accountable in using the rules. They are then given an opportunity to reflect on the experience and develop plans to use this new dialogue format in their day-to-day work.

4. Managing Complexity through Simple Rules
Facilitator: Andrea van der Merwe
Date: 11th August 2011
Time: 5:30 pm

This workshop will explore concepts of complex systems and the relevance and value of this frame for individuals and organisations today. Drawing on the work of amongst others Senge, Stacey and Snowden (Cynefin model), this workshop will explore some of the foundations of complexity thinking and useful frameworks for personal, business and organisations that can help us manage challenges in ways that create more simplicity and meaning, while creating results.

Participants will be encouraged to apply the frameworks and properties of complexity thinking to challenges they face, while creating their own ‘simple rules’ to manage and thrive in complex contexts.

5. The Brain at Work: Using the skill of Reframing to Increase your Effectiveness
Facilitator: Andrea van der Merwe
Date: 18th August 2011
Time: 1:30 pm

The savvy use of our most important tool, the brain, plays an important role in our success in the work and relationship environment. In his book, The Brain at Work, David Rock describes the skill of reframing or reappraisal as the brain’s ‘killer application’. Using this skill effectively can become one of your most important tools for social intelligence. Reframing is about changing your perception by understanding something in another or different way, and the ability to do this in highly charged or emotive situations can change the course of the situation and your ability to shape it. Being able to think about things in a variety of ways, builds a spectrum of understanding and responses for individuals and especially leaders.

Drawing on the growing field of neuroscience and behavioural psychology, participants will have the opportunity to learn how the brain can be used for reappraisal and have the opportunity to apply a number of practical methods on their own challenging situations or relationships as the start of a practice.

6. The Odyssey of the Young Professional
Facilitator: Neliswa Fente
Date: 18th August 2011
Time: 5:30 pm

This workshop is aimed at young professionals who have just entered into a new working environment - maybe you have moved to a new organisation or have just entered the cooperate world. The workshop will focus on the individual journey as well as how to incorporate this journey into that of the organisation. What makes this workshop special is that it is led by a young professional who understands the journey and has experience in both large and small corporates.

The workshop introduces the Heroic Journey framework, a way of understanding, describing and planning for processes of change at the personal, organisational or community level. It is an archetypal story of transformation found in cultures around the world – in myths, fairy tales, ancient stories, legends, books and movies. It is a way of understanding the lives of great leaders – such as Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. A successful journey is a transformative experience, where basic attitudes and assumptions are often challenged, and we are frequently different at the end from when we set out.

7. The Logical Levels Framework
Facilitator: Mark Turpin
Date: 25th August 2011
Time: 1:30 pm

This workshop introduces the thinking framework of Bateson & Dilts as a structured way of developing effective responses to complex social problems and individual/societal relationships. The framework can be used for problem-solving and conflict resolution, as well as for finding purpose.

Participants will be supported in applying the framework to particular questions or problems that they are concerned with as a logical and systemic way of developing effective strategies. The framework will create clarity and insight on issues of purpose, identity and values as tools for guiding thinking and decision-making that is aligned with what is desired.

8. Social Capital and Learning
Facilitator: Mark Turpin
Date: 1st September 2011
Time: 5:30 pm

The idea of ‘social capital’ has recently been popularised by Robert Putnam though his book ‘Bowling Alone’, which deplores the decline of social and collective activities in American society. This workshop examines the idea of social capital as a very real form of capital that can brings returns to individuals and society. Social capital in the workplace can also be seen as the basis for powerful learning that can unleash innovation and creativity, as well as stimulating happiness. Participants will be encouraged to explore their own social capital and how it can be developed and exploited.

9. Learning to Innovate: Facilitating Breakthroughs
Facilitator: Paul Keursten
Date: 8th September 2011
Time: 5:30 pm

Innovation and learning are strongly linked: without learning there is no innovation. But it requires a special kind of learning: learning that creates new knowledge, that results in answers and practices we did not know before, that creates a breakthrough in thinking and in doing. How do you organise this kind of learning processes? What are some ways to create such breakthroughs? These fascinating questions prompted us to start a research programme in 2002, in which we investigate many innovative practices to uncover principles and methods that work.

Participants will gain access to the main outcomes of this research and are invited to link these to their own practices. We will focus on finding ways to deal with issues and challenges where more of the same is not enough and breakthroughs are needed.

10. Learning to change: Exploring Paradigms on Change
Facilitator: Paul Keursten
Date: 15th September 2011
Time: 5:30 pm

As the saying goes: change is the only constant. But change is such a broad concept and there are so many visions on change. Ask people ‘what is needed to create change’, and you will hear many different answers - often rooted in strong beliefs. In many companies there are heated debates on how to achieve the desired change. De Caluwé and Vermaak conducted extensive research into various approaches to change and discovered five basic worldviews on change. Their conclusion is that the best chance to achieve change is to balance these five views and include elements of all five.

Participants will explore these five different worlds of change. Through a self-assessment participants will learn their own view on change in thinking and in practice.

11. Leadership for Learning
Facilitator: Amanda Barnes
Date: 22nd September 2011
Time: 1:30 pm

It is said that organisations that have developed the capacity to learn are more able to adapt to the fast rate of change. Too often in organizations, the responsibility for learning is limited to the learning and development manager.

Drawing on the work of authors such as Peter Senge and Michael Fullan, this workshop will explore how organisations can develop a learning culture that permeates the organisation and the leadership required at various levels of the organisation to sustain such a learning culture.

12. Performance Management as a Learning and Progressive Process
Facilitator: Kholiswa Menemene
Date: 22nd September 2011
Time: 5:30 pm

Most articles on employee performance management deal with the basics of the process. They provide managers with guidance on how to: measure and track performance; give feedback effectively; conduct a performance appraisal meeting; and coach to sustain performance throughout the year.
However, there are a number of other highly effective and sustainable practices that can enhance your process but often get overlooked. At this workshop we will go beyond the basics by looking at:
• helping employees improve and succeed with Development Plans;
• aligning the individual goals with the organisational goals;
• conducting self assessments to get the individual’s perspective.


We plan that this series of workshops will become a continuing rolling programme, and also to offer workshops by other professionals in different fields. Watch this space...

SA 51st position in Legatum Index

The 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index, which measures the relative prosperity of 104 countries, rates South Africa at 51 overall.

The Legatum Institute describes itself as “an independent research, policy, and advocacy organisation that promotes political, economic and individual liberty in the developing and transitioning world”, and describes the Index as “the world’s only global assessment of wealth and wellbeing; unlike other studies that rank countries by actual levels of wealth, life satisfaction or development, the Prosperity Index produces rankings based upon the very foundations of prosperity – those factors that help drive economic growth and produce happy citizens over the long term”.

Well how independent the Institute actually is I cannot be sure. The Institute has an interest in ‘free markets’ and according to their website key personnel have links with the US National Security Council and the Heritage Foundation, so you may be able to form your own opinion.

Nonetheless the Prosperity Index makes interesting reading. The South Africa country profile is based on an assessment of 9 indices – economic fundamentals (regarded as unstable), entrepreneurship and innovation (moderate), democratic institutions (basic freedoms guaranteed “but there is interference in South Africa’s judiciary”), education, health, safety and security (“notable domestic security problems”), governance, personal freedom, and social capital.

On the social capital index, South Africa is ranked 30th overall, and the report notes that “social trust is low, with only 17% of individuals believing that other people can be trusted”. However, the social capital ranking is boosted as a result of reported high levels of organisational membership (especially religious affiliation), and a willingness to assist others in need.

The safety and security ranking (96th) gives cause for concern. The Index reports that “the South African government allegedly engages in practices such as torture or political imprisonment”, implying that torture and political imprisonment are used as instruments of state repression. The Amnesty International 2009 country report on South Africa (which I would consider a more credible source) indicates that “torture and other ill-treatment by police, prison warders and private security guards continued to be reported and sometimes led to the deaths of detainees”, but does not imply that this is done as a matter of state policy. Which is not to say that the South African government should not be doing more to prohibit the mistreatment of prisoners and detainees.

Interestingly, the US is rated 19th in terms of safety and security, despite one of the highest homicide rates in the world, the continued existence of the death penalty, and the use of torture, mistreatment and rendition by US forces around the world.

Reasons to be cheerful!

One of the people who commented on my last post criticised my posting for lacking in insight and another assumed that I need some kind of political education. While I do not intend to defend myself on either charge, and being quite conscious that I do not pretend to be any kind of political analyst, I do feel it useful to perhaps explain the context in which I will on occasion share my perspectives on our political situation – apart from the fact that anyone has a right to comment on politics even if not a political commentator or analyst (or Helen Zille supporter!)

My purpose in writing my last posting was really to illustrate some of the ways in which politicians sometimes betray the trust of the electorate – by using trite slogans, trying to be on more than one electoral list at the same time, projecting image above policy, pretending to be what you are not etc.

And the reason the issue of trust in politicians is important, and related to this blog, is that trust in politicians is an aspect of social capital. Inasmuch as politicians set themselves up to be political leaders, trust in politicians goes to the core of how we see ourselves as a nation and what we want to become. In seeking our trust, and asking for our votes, politicians should be modelling and representing the social capital we need to create and invest in. Trust is therefore a vertical as well as a horizontal phenomenon, existing - or not existing – between people in communities and networks as well as between those who govern and aspire to govern, and those who are governed. (To read more about political capital, see Kenneth Newton's article 'Trust, Social Capital, Civil Society, and Democracy').

A healthy democracy is one in which significant numbers of people vote, and do so to make real choices about politics – policies and leadership. And to facilitate this process we need political parties and political leaders that are able to articulate a clear national vision and alternative choices that appeal to the people of our country on the basis of policies that rise above racial, tribal or sectarian divisions of the past.

Some further feedback I received on my previous posting is that I was surprisingly cynical and unappreciative! So I thought I would take up the challenge and point out various aspects that I do appreciate about the way the parties have conducted their election campaigns.

I am impressed with the moderation (in style and content) displayed by Jacob Zuma. He has been measured and calm in his rhetoric, and I believe this has helped to create a more peaceful atmosphere – important in the light of political tensions in KwaZulu Natal and the arrival of COPE on the political scene.

I am impressed by the DA’s commitment to working in coalition – this bodes well for the development of opposition politics in South Africa.

I guess I am impressed by the fact that COPE has just arrived on the political scene and has managed to conduct some kind of national campaign within a few short months.

I believe that the PAC has done well to come through its recent troubles and is presenting itself in a more coherent fashion to try and win votes.

The Independent Democrats have run a quite focused campaign and have also managed to project themselves as being slightly more than just a political machine for Patricia De Lille.

The ‘A’ party has done well to arrive on the political scene as a smart combination of smaller and minority parties that by themselves would not have been able to afford the deposit to run on the national list.

Well let me stop lest I am next accused of damning with faint praise! Considering that our democracy in South Africa is still less than 6,000 days old, and despite many reasons to be cynical or despairing, I believe that there are also quite a few positive signs that we are a steadily maturing political democracy.

Social capital in the workplace

Miro's 'Personages in the presence of a metamorphosis'

So, following on from my last post, if we accept that social capital is a real form of capital (even if it is hard to measure), then why do we invest so little in creating it?

Joseph Kessels and Rosemary Harrison distinguish between human capital and social capital – describing human capital as “the knowledge, skills, competencies and attributes embodied in individuals that facilitate the creation of personal, social and economic well-being” and social capital as comprising “networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate cooperation within or among groups” (Harrison, R. & Kessels, J. 2004. Human resource development in a knowledge economy. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan).

In South Africa we invest significant resources in human capital development – a whole bureaucracy (SETAs, SAQAs, national qualifications frameworks, unit standards and so on) exists to skill and train our people, even beyond the formal schooling and tertiary level education sectors. And yet, by comparison, almost no resources are directly allocated to promoting social capital.

Three years ago the Macro-Social report produced by the Presidency recognised the apparent low levels of social capital in South Africa – reporting that over half of all South Africans claim to have no close friends, with almost another 30% claiming to have only one or two close friends. The Report indicates that membership of voluntary groups (churches, youth groups etc) has fluctuated since 1994, with no clear trends emerging, suggesting that the value of belonging to such groups is not obvious to all. Somehow I found these figures quite disturbing – I had imagined that communities in South Africa contain vibrant networks and that people have strong support networks and friendships, but maybe many relationships are more casual, occasional and temporary than appears on the surface…

Social capital can bring significant advantages to individuals, communities and society at large. So much so that the World Bank supports social capital development projects around the world. The advantages are many and varied – for individuals a strong social capital network can bring support in times of crisis, new business contacts, support in bringing up children etc. Communities benefit from a stronger sense of identity and cohesion, and society at large benefits from the harnessing of new ideas, higher levels of innovation and productivity and a stronger sense of shared values.

And there is an increasing interest on the relationship between social capital and learning in the workplace. My colleagues Tjip de Jong and Joseph Kessels have argued that whereas the returns on investing in human capital development (through more traditional training interventions) can be measured in terms of improved performance within the confines of existing job descriptions and linear performance management systems, investing in social capital in the workplace can contribute to higher levels of productivity, innovation and creativity (see their paper.

Investing in social capital then is different from training and ‘capacity building’, and is more concerned with building lifelong learning and supporting a learning perspective to how we work. This could involve, for example, building communities of practice, action learning sets and ‘brown bag’ events, as mechanisms for connecting professionals both within their own working environment and connecting them with their broader professional community.

Social Capital – a trendy concept, or a real form of capital?

The popular debate about the value or usefulness of social capital is a relatively recent one – popularised by Robert Putnam, who wrote a book called Bowling Alone, in which he looks at the decline in popularity of bowling clubs in the US, as people stay at home to watch TV, and how this is symptomatic of a decline in social capital in that country. Putnam sees social capital as consisting of features of social organisation that depend on trusting relationships and networks that facilitate business and cooperative activity in society.

One of the challenges in building an understanding of social capital is that it appears to be very intangible and is hard to pin down and measure. How can we put an objective measure on the value of our relationship with our next-door neighbour? While we may instinctively understand and appreciate the importance of that relationship, it may only provide real or significant returns in times of crisis or when we need each other, and the importance of that relational social capital is not given a value by society.

While it may not be easily visible, we instinctively create and invest in these social relationships, knowing that they may also be useful for us and provide returns at some point, as with other forms of capital. The ‘returns’ may simply be the value we gain from having social contact (friendship), but may also be more (practical assistance in times of hardship, business engagement etc).

It is useful to think of the trust and networks that constitute social capital as constituting a real form of capital, similar to human, physical and financial capital – even if it is less easy to measure.

Paul Adler and Seok-Woo Kwon, writing in the prestigious Academy of Management Review (Adler, P.S. & Kwon, S. 2002. ‘Social capital: Prospects for a new concept’, Academy of Management Review, 22(1): 17-40) examine whether social capital is actually a real form of capital, and they argue that social capital is similar to other types of capital in that it represents an asset that one can invest in with expectations of future returns, that it can be used for a range of different purposes and that it can substitute for other resources, and that it requires maintenance (similar to human and physical capital, but unlike financial capital).

As such, social capital can be understood as a real form of capital with meaningful value that can be exploited in similar ways to other forms of capital, even if it cannot be seen and measured easily.

If it is a real form of capital, then it is perhaps surprising that we as a society do not invest more in creating and stimulating social capital. I will explore this question further in future blog posts.

Cry the Beloved Country

On a regular basis I come across new initiatives aimed at building and supporting a better and nicer South Africa. Sometimes these are government programmes, but as frequently they are initiatives taken by ordinary people, by non-government organisations, or by the private sector. A good example is the SATheGoodNews initiative (see their website on my recommended list). It is possible to subscribe to a weekly e-mail update from SATheGoodNews.

Another good example is the Stop Crime, Say Hello initiative. Like many other good ideas this is small and simple! Stop Crime, Say Hello encourages people to greet each other in the course of their daily interaction. It sounds simple, even naïve. In some ways it is troubling that we have to see this as important, but a small idea like this can be the first step in building a connected and connecting society. There are parts of the world where people avoid connecting and greeting each other – infamously the London Underground is a place where people do not greet even the person sitting next to them. This can be one of the first symptoms of a sick society – where we lose the opportunity to greet strangers.

A reluctance to greet a stranger can arise from fear – a fear of not wanting to know, of being afraid of what happens when we get to know people and share what is going on. So we retreat and let our fear take over. And fear starts to govern all our relationships. Alan Paton, in his Cry the Beloved Country, wrote about the fear of bondage and about the bondage of fear – we have known both in South Africa of course.

By staying in our fear, we victimise ourselves and disempower ourselves as people that can take responsibility for our future. So, how to liberate ourselves from fear. Three ideas are important here. One is to accept responsibility for our situation (we alone can change things). The second is to take the first steps to move away from our fear – and this is where the Stop Crime, Say Hello initiative is important – it encourages us to take some first steps to get to know each other, and to build bridges with strangers. This is the first step to building new social capital in society. The third idea is that we have to decide to trust. Trust ourselves and our ability to change ourselves and our situation.

If we embrace these three ideas we can liberate ourselves from our fear (of others, of our situation). Alan Paton acknowledged the cry of our beloved country “for the unborn child that is the inheritor of our fear". We have freed ourselves from the fear of tyranny, now we need to free ourselves from the tyranny of fear.

Social capital and building our society

The World Values Survey, mentioned in my previous post, paints a grim picture about levels of trust in South Africa. However, this survey probably does not give the full story. The Survey asks a simple question:

“Generally speaking would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you can’t be too careful when dealing with people?”

with the following response options:

1. Most people can’t be trusted
2. You can’t be too careful when dealing with people
3. Don’t know

Tracy Jooste’s article (also mentioned in my previous post) suggests that one of the difficulties with this question is that it offers no positive response options, and she argues that trust is a situational concept that cannot easily be measured in a general sense. A more nuanced approach is called for. While people may give a negative response to a generalised question, if you ask them about particular engagements (eg. with neighbours, members of their community etc) you may find different responses.

Social capital exists in trusting relationships between people in their interactions in communities, organisations and society in general. It is increasingly recognised worldwide as a valuable form of capital, (although the value of it is harder to measure than financial or physical capital).

South African economist JP Landman has argued in Business Day that social capital is one of four factors that can lay the basis for sound economic development of the country. The four factors he identifies are: a growing economy; ‘re-creating’ social capital; strengthening institutions, and enforcing rules (I guess with underpinned by the concept of the rule of law).

I especially like one of his comments: "It's nice to live in a society where people are getting richer, but it's also nice to live in a society that's getting nicer".

Realising the full potential of stimulating social capital development requires a new focus. Currently, we as a country put huge resources into human capital development – essentially training people in specific skills to be able to meet the skills shortages in the country. In relative terms, we put practically nothing into creating social capital. Increasingly there is evidence showing that stimulating social capital can bring returns by way of increased innovation, creativity and smart thinking – all badly needed if we are to be able to solve complex problems in this country and the continent.

Affirmative action going backwards?

The latest Employment Equity Commission Report (2007/8) makes disturbing reading. The Report indicates progress being made at normalising the demographics of the South African workplace through the implementation of employment equity plans in companies employing 50 people or more.

While progress in bringing in previously disadvantaged people to senior levels is still slow, there is worse news at the middle Professionally Qualified & Middle Management levels.

At these levels the representation of black people generally showed a decrease of 8.7% from 50.0% to 41.3%. The representation of white people increased by 8% from 49.2% to 57.2% over the same period.

As these are the levels from which the next cadre of senior managers are recruited, the indications are not good for creating a more representative senior manager level in the short-medium term. It makes one wonder what is actually happening in companies if the reported numbers are going in the wrong direction?

While this is not good news, it does make one wonder about all the whinging from white people who claim that they cannot get jobs due to reverse discrimination.

Social capital alive and well in South Africa!

There was a nasty accident on Glenhove Road this morning involving 2 cars colliding at a junction. What was interesting was that a number of people - pedestrians and other motorists - immediately stopped to help. One was on the phone within seconds to call the emergency services, some others were immediately attending to the two drivers involved, another person started directing the traffic safely round the scene. Without any apparent coordination, people immediately took on roles that seemed to them to be useful at the time. I chose not to stop as I was a distance away, and my take on the situation was that everything was quickly under control and there was no useful additional role that I could play at the time.

This is in a country that apparently, according to the World Values Survey, has low levels of trust and in which people are supposed not to trust strangers (trust is generally understood to be a key aspect of social capital in a community). Tracy Jooste has conducted research in the Western Cape (www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0002147/index.php) that suggests we need a more nuanced understanding of 'trust' and that despite the generalised distrust of strangers in the above Survey, people are quite willing to trust neighbours and workplace colleagues.

The incident above confirms for me that we have an abundance of trust and willing engagement in South Africa, and that it shows itself everyday in smaller and larger ways, if only we are willing to recognise and appreciate it, and see that it is the people who make up our land.