Think Forward EP 125: Transformative Foresight with Dr. John Sweeney

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Narrator (00:01):
Welcome to the Think Forward podcast, where we speak
with futurists, innovators andbig thinkers.
Come along with your host,steve Fisher, and explore the
future together.

Steve (00:11):
Welcome, friends and fellow big thinkers to another
exciting episode of ThinkForward, where we explore the
ever-expanding horizons of thefuture.
Today's guest embodies thefascinating intersection of
ancient wisdom and futuresthinking.
Imagine starting your careerstudying religious traditions,
only to discover one of theworld's leading futures programs
is just down the hall in Hawaii.

(00:33):
That serendipitous momentlaunched our guest on an
extraordinary journey across 50countries, from the UN's halls
to humanitarians' front lines.
He's revolutionizing how wethink about and plan for the
future through transformativeforesight approaches that blend
gaming, participatory methodsand cultural insights.
As the UNESCO Chair and formerGlobal Futures and Foresight

(00:57):
Coordinator for theInternational Federation of the
Red Cross and Red Crescent, he'smade futures thinking more
accessible and impactfulworldwide.
Whether designing immersivegames to explore possible
futures or helping humanitarianorganizations prepare for
tomorrow's challenges, he'spassionate about ensuring all
voices are heard inconversations about tomorrow.
From a seaside home in Turkey,he works globally to help

(01:21):
organizations and communitiesshape the futures they want.
Today we'll explore whetherfutures work is evolving into a
full-time role or remaining askill set, how gaming can unlock
new ways of thinking and whytraditional strategic foresight
just isn't enough anymore.
Welcome to Episode 125,transformative Futures with Dr

(01:45):
John Sweeney.

John (01:48):
John, welcome to the show.

Steve (01:52):
Hi, welcome.
Thanks so much for having me.
Great to be here.
You know, for disclosure, Itook a class that John taught on
design futures and it wasabsolutely excellent and I think
we're going to, we're going todive in for everybody listening.
But you know many in thefutures community, uh, know you
through, especially UNESCO work.

(02:12):
But can you tell us a bit aboutyourself?
Let's talk about you.
What sparked you?
What sparked your interest infutures, like in your journey?

John (02:22):
Wow, okay, yeah, we'll dive right in.
Let's dive right in.
$4,000 question yeah, I mean, Ialways like to say that I guess
professionally I'm quitepromiscuous.
Right, I've gone through manydifferent kind of like phases or
stages and identities, and so Iguess that speaks in many ways
to kind of my, my approach ingeneral.
Um, I will say that likeactually I always say like I won

(02:44):
the lottery, like I happen tobe doing a master's degree in
religious studies at theUniversity of Hawaii and
randomly found out that one ofthe world leaders and one of the
founders of the field of futurestudies was running, you know,
one of the world's top graduateprograms, one of the few places
you could actually do graduatelevel study in this stuff, just

(03:05):
like down the hall, right Justaround campus.
And so I discovered thisactually through a personal
contact.
She was doing a master's degreein alternative futures in the
department of political science.
I said that was interesting.
I gave up this whole comparativephilosophy PhD plan that I had,
you know, kicked a Japaneselanguage to the curb.
I met Jim Dator and aftertalking to him for I don't know

(03:28):
90 minutes, it felt like 30years.
It was the only PhD program Iapplied for.
I was fortunate enough to getin Um right when I came to
Hawaii.
Was was actually when both um,jake Dunnigan and Stuart Candy
were just kind of leaving, so Ihad like this insane attention
from Jim Dator and I had all thehallways filled with all of

(03:49):
Jake and Stuart's work and I was.
I was just like you know, I waslike Willy Wonka, I was just
like in the factory, like Whoa,like it was this surreal,
amazing nurturing, like I alwaysI always feel like it was like
a PhD Montessori, like it wasjust go off and do an experiment
and learn and it was just themost generative and supportive
and dynamic space that one couldpossibly imagine.

Steve (04:12):
Lots unpacked there.
First, obviously, choosing togo to school in Hawaii.
Not a hard place to be.

John (04:20):
Hey, pretty yeah.
So look, I mean, of all thelife choices I've made, that's
got to be in the top five, LikeI would say hands down, like
going to Hawaii, of course, look, you give up drinking orange
juice because you can't affordit as a graduate student's too
expensive, but like everything'simported there, so yeah, so the
downside, of course, thedownside of Hawaii is the

(04:41):
islands actually only have aneight day supply of food If that
container ship stops coming,even though it has a year round
growing season.
I mean, Hawaii is a land ofcontradictions.
Of course, it's an occupiedspace.
Native Hawaiians, of course,are still struggling to, you
know, recover the kingdom andit's a really tenuous situation
in many ways.

(05:02):
But Hawaii is a unique andbeautiful place and it has
something really special andactually futures is part of that
story.

Steve (05:10):
I remember there was a project on like the future of
Hawaii.
It was like 2050, I think thatthere was like speculative
futures.
Were you involved in that atall, or is that before your time
?
So?

John (05:23):
Jake and Stuart and, of course, headed by Jim Dator, did
the Hawaii 2050, which happenedin 2005.
And what was actually quiteinteresting for me was all of
the artwork and all of the stufffrom that project were still in
office.
So I literally walked into theHawaii Research Center for

(05:44):
Future Studies thinking thatdesign futures, experiential
futures, was completely normal.
And then, six years later, in2011, I was part of a group that
did Hawaii 2060.
And we did experiential futuresin the Waikiki Marriott, we did
LARPing and all this stuff,artifacts.
So I literally from a veryearly stage and that was that

(06:05):
was two years after I startedthe PhD program had this
experience.
So those were connected.
We were meant to build off ofthe 2050 project and that that
was kind of that earlyconnection with the kind of
design, experiential stuff.

Steve (06:18):
Yeah, and for those listening, jake Dunn again, and
Stuart Candy are pioneers inthis field of and I guess they
could kind of coin the term of Imean experiential futures.
But you know, I would justdesign futures, speculative
designs, it kind of.
They're one of those kind oforiginal group, along with like
Dunn and Rabie and others.
But you know, their work isfantastic, but it's interesting

(06:40):
to hear you kind of buildingupon that, I think.
I think that's that speaks tothe field itself, is that we
build upon.
It's like standing on theshoulders of the giants, like
you have to build upon.
There's no bad methods or no,but it's like things maybe have
their time, have theirapplication and maybe it's time,
which is, you know, your work,which we'll touch on in a, in a

(07:04):
minute, with regards totransformative foresight, is
probably one of those, anexcellent example of that.
But you also like God, you knowyou said religious studies.
What were you?
What are you a?
Are you a theologian?
Are you a pastor?
Are you like a mom?
Like what?
no, just where did that comefrom?

John (07:24):
So it's.
It's it's not in any wayrelated to, you know, my, my, uh
, spirituality or practice.
I mean, I grew up Catholicright, which is a great way to
be non-religious, I suppose, Um,but I always had this interest
from a very young age.
I guess it was through figureslike Thomas Merton, like through
kind of like you know, globalspirituality, and I became
really interested in, like EastAsian Buddhism when I was, when

(07:45):
I was younger, and actually itwas one professor.
There was a faculty member atTennessee State University,
which is actually now one of thelarger state universities in
Georgia.
I did my bachelor's degreethere and I was three classes
away from a degree incommunications and I had
existential crisis.
I gave it up.
I took two classes intro tophilosophy and world religions

(08:07):
and they were taught by the samefaculty member, Dr David Jones,
and I was like, look, I put myentire life and future in this
guy's hands.
Turns out he got his PhD fromthe philosophy department in
Hawaii.
He was an unbelievable andgiving mentor and that led me
down this other path.
So I changed my degree, stayedin school for another two more
years, a history of ideas andphilosophy and his message was

(08:28):
go to Hawaii, Actually, of hisgraduate students.
I went to Hawaii and did adegree, and that's why I was
going to do philosophy and thensaid, all right, I actually want
to break, I want to dive intoreligion a little bit further,
and that religion program isunique.
It's one of the few programs inthe US certainly globally where
you can really focus in Asianreligions.

(08:49):
That's actually the focus ofthe program.
Of course they have, like youknow, native Hawaiian Pacific
traditions as well.
So I went there thinking Iwould do, let me ground myself
in East Asian religion, Let melearn language.

Steve (08:58):
First it was Chinese and then I switched to Japanese and
then I was like all right, I'llgo on and do my PhD in
philosophy just across the halland then again discovered
futures and changed my life.

John (09:13):
Are you a polyglot?
You got lots of languages?
Uh, so I will say,unfortunately I'm.
I'm quite American in the sense.
I'm very poor in languages.
I can say thank you in lots oflanguages, uh, but I, I, I had a
little bit.
I just my Chinese is reallyhorrific.
I forgotten most of my Japanese, my wife's from Belarus, so I
do a little bit of Russian.
I can say thank you in Turkish,like you know, like little
little little, like baby stuff,but I love impressing people
just by saying thank you, so Itry to learn the language of

(09:35):
wherever I'm going.
But also I didn't realize it inanswer to the question I'm
fascinated with the religion asan aspect of understanding
people and what's important tothem and, like you know, like
identity, and so for me actuallyknowing things about religion
and culture and that's been asuperpower from a futurist
perspective, right Linking up tovalues and identity, and so
it's actually been a real assetand I've done some work on the

(09:57):
futures of religion and thereare subsets of futurists that do
this kind of work.
So I think it's an interestingniche, but I wouldn't say it's
one of my like specialty areas.

Steve (10:05):
You know it's interesting you bring that up because, uh,
because the, you know, growingup Christian and I still am, uh,
you know, and more so now.
Uh, grew up Catholic, I went toCatholic school too, so, but,
you know, studying otherreligions, looking at the impact

(10:26):
of faith, you know, and I look,it's funny when I look at
places, uh sorry, uh, fictionstories, like Dune or uh,
foundation.
Right, these are 10,000 yearsin the future.
These are, like you know,millennia.
Earth is kind of a forgottenplanet, that you know.

(10:47):
But the issue of faith, when youwatch, like the apple show,
like you know, like, whereasjesus didn't really survive,
he's like different planets havedifferent face.
They've even forgotten memory,the dune, they have elements of
it, of the Bedding Jesuit, likethey have this Catholic
connection, they have likeartifacts and some of the Bible

(11:09):
and things that they do.
But, you know, it's like, whatdoes it mean to have faith?
What does it mean for a culture?
When we think of futures, whatdoes it mean to the identity and
the belief systems, that andthe value, like you said, the
values that they then hold, thatmake their futures?
What are the probable futuresor possible futures that you

(11:32):
know this is influenced by?
I think it's a.
Everyone talks about tech,everyone talks about economics.
Very few talk about faith orvalues, which I think is to your
credit.
You know, an element that needsto be brought in, because
there's so much to the historyof people, of the peoples, and
not just the Westerncivilization that dominates.

(11:54):
So what are your?
What?
How do you bring when you, whenyou do like workshops or you
work with cause it's?
Obviously you can have a veryovert conversation and probably
easily offend people, but how doyou bring those aspects into
futures work when you do likeworkshops or exploratory work
with clients?

John (12:16):
Yeah, so it it really does vary.
I would say that you know,there are of course, contexts
where a client might see it asnot being, you know, relevant or
useful.
And for me I might try to couchreligion or spirituality within
the context of culture or or,to your point, around values,
right, and I think I I've I'vealso gotten to a point where I

(12:37):
might say something like if wewant to understand people, then
we need to understand the lenseswith which they make sense of
themselves and the world, andand we can't do that without
making you know religion andspirituality and and everything
else in between.
So I think for me it's anatural part of trying to
situate, kind of not just whatwe see but how we see it and

(12:58):
from the perspective of doingagain the suture's work that's
going to have impact.
I think that's hypercritical andso I think some of the
messaging there, especiallyagain, maybe it's a corporate
context or maybe it's agovernance context where they
think of a certain issue, right,or maybe it's super technical
right, like it's on the futureof an energy transition or
something, but like how peoplethink about again those

(13:20):
decisions they might make,incentive structures right, the
types of behaviors and locatingthat and relating that was in
the context of understanding,again, you know, culture,
religion, spirituality I mightcall it different things but to
really try to get that rootsense of what are people doing
right, like how is thisaffecting and what's important

(13:43):
to them.
And I think that's been a corepart of the work.
Even if it's a one-off workshop, right To try to bring it in in
some way.
If it's a longer project, ofcourse maybe it's part of the
standing work that we do orsomething, but really try to get
it at least on the table or onthe menu.

Steve (13:59):
So how is your understanding?
As you said, you came into theMinnow program for the PhD in
2015.
And you've been in this fieldfor a while.
What's changed?
What's evolved over your career?
What have you seen in the field?

(14:19):
Because I think it's morepopular than it ever has been
rightly so, because of theuncertainty and the rapid change
.
I think it's a way for peopleto get a get a hold on things,
but what have you seen evolve?

John (14:35):
Yeah, I would say that there's definitely been this,
this emergence.
So, actually, I started the PhDin Hawaii in 2009 and then it
took me nine years.
Actually, I started the PhD inHawaii in 2009 and then it took
me nine years.
Uh, I left Hawaii in 2014because I had professional
opportunities and had a growingpractice, so that's why it took
me four more years to finish.
Um, but I would say, like, inprobably the last 10 years of

(14:57):
really strong, like you know,out on my own different
relations, like you knowdifferent types of of of
professional practice, I'venever seen it so widely and
broadly.
Just like out there, we're notat the level or degree of
normalization.
Right, it's not.
It's not a risk management yet.
Right, it's not a, you know,it's not a whatever.

(15:19):
Like, right, it's, but likesecurity it's not.

Steve (15:22):
Yeah.
The cybersecurity, it's notthat common.
Yeah, I guess, yeah.
The cyber security, it's notthat common.
Yeah, I guess, yeah, yeah.

John (15:27):
Right, but like I think we're getting, like it's
becoming clear and, look, I meanthe honest truth is is that
there was unbelievable work thathappened, you know, up until
December 2019.
There's phenomenal amount ofwork that was amazing and
impactful and powerful and greatcase studies and examples.
It was amazing and impactfuland powerful and great case
studies and examples.

(15:47):
But I think nothing has beenmore dynamically driving
foresight than COVID.
Right, that was the wake upcall, certainly for a lot of the
organizations that I work with,like the big INGOs.
Covid was the elephant in theroom, that thing that was like
oh, we should probably startformally thinking about the
future.
And if you look at you know,even quietly, what's happened
new government foresight unitspopping up, new INGO and you see

(16:10):
it, the proliferation oftoolkits and reports and
everything and like it's quiteclear that we're going to look
back and say that that was awatershed moment for getting the
field up there.
So that was one.
And I would say also to yourpoint, kind of where we started
or where we were chatting in thegreen room was like this
normalization of kind of gamesand design and experiential,
like that's been a that's beenan unbelievably like big shift.

(16:35):
So I I was doing games for again10 years or even like 13 years
ago.
We were doing a mobileaugmented reality live action,
role play, like you know,experiential integrated stuff.
And back then it was like, well, I guess we're going to you
know we'd spend more money onhot dogs and T-shirts than we
would on like the open sourcemobile augmented reality
platforms.

(16:55):
But the point is now it's like,ok, people are open and into
that, like these are projectsthat are getting funded and of
course it depends on the and the.
You know the focus, but likeI'd say that the opportunity in
the space to do that stuff oneis still growing but two is
becoming far more accepted.
You look at the success ofpeople you know, like yourself
and Phil and Superflux and Jakeand Stuart and others, like

(17:17):
really the opportunity to growthat design experiential space
is like it's still there butit's really taken off in a
meaningful way.
And of course, games I do a lotof games as well Like the game
space has really exploded at theDubai future forum.
Just uh, uh, last month therewas a whole special session
where multiple games LonnieBrooks, uh, was there, like it
was phenomenal.

(17:38):
Lonnie Brooks and Ahmed sorry,ahmed Best was there too.
It was.
It was really really cool tosee all the games just kind of
front and center in that spaceI'll cut this part out.

Steve (17:48):
So I'm I'm good friends with ahmed.
I didn't.
I have he was gonna be.
He's gonna be on the show.
We and I didn't.
I know, I know, yeah, I know, Iknow it's.
He's great guy, he's awonderful.
Uh, you know you talked about,you know dubai is a great space.
It's been interesting to methat and I believe that this is

(18:09):
a decade to democratize thistype of work.
The question I have is doesthis stay kind of a skill set or
does it become a realorganizational role department?
And there are obviouslyforesight departments, but there

(18:29):
are fewer.
There's usually like the force,the futurist team of one.
You know that evangelist, theone screaming, the crazy one
screaming from the rooftop.
Yeah, what does?
What do you think the decadeahead portends for the, for the
profession?
Do you think it becomes more ofa?
This person is a futurist orhas it become like design

(18:53):
thinking?
You're not having designthinking departments, but you
have a design department, right,you have people that are doing
product design.
Right, they use thesetechniques.
What are your thoughts on onthat?

John (19:05):
Another easy question Wow, um, so yeah, no, I mean, this
is great because I think you'vereally hit the nail on the head.
Like so much of what I've seenin the last you know, like you
know, 15 years and again 10years of, like you know, really
intense like professionalpractice that's that,
fortunately, has taken me allaround the world is like it's
still very much aboutrelationships and about

(19:28):
personalities, right, likesomeone is a diehard, someone
keeps it going.
Like you said, very few formalinstitutions that have a really
long tenure.
I mean, certainly there arelongstanding governance examples
, there are longstandingcorporate examples, but you can
count those on two hands.
We don't have this likediffused proliferation of

(19:49):
longstanding, you know futuresand foresight functions.
And the one thing that'sinteresting to me is, exactly at
this moment where we'restarting to see those things
grow, the conversation aroundskills and competency is
starting to come back.
I don't actually think and thisis where, like, again, I may be
in trouble, but like and wewere talking a bit about this

(20:11):
before like, not everybody needsa PhD, not everybody needs a
certificate, right, but you doneed if you want, I think, to
meaningfully contribute to theconversation.
Realize, like myself, likeeveryone else, we're standing on
the shoulders of giants and soengaging and interacting with
that, building a practice as adiscipline, having again some of
the theoretical, some of theapplied, and being able to do

(20:34):
that in a meaningful way, Ithink does contribute to work
that has impact.
And so we're seeing moretrained practitioners get jobs,
and that, for me, wasn't thecase 10 years ago.
Those jobs weren't there andthen when those jobs were there,
they were filled by people whodidn't really have training or
necessarily experienced.
Now we're starting to see realjobs advertised.

(20:55):
People with real training,experience get those jobs and
like it's starting to kind ofmature.
The one thing, of course, wewant to like make sure that
doesn't like calcify, right.
It doesn't like like, I think,this vibrancy of people coming
at it from different angles,right.
Like we were saying, like somepeople come at it from design,
some people come at iteconometrics, like some people
come at it from story andnarrative, like like that

(21:17):
ecosystem, that ecosystem idea,like I think is super critical
and healthy.
And we've seen this happen,right.
The emergence of theexperiential design.
We've seen the discipline ofanticipation explode in the past
10 years.
You see futures literacy reallyreemerge in a meaningful way.
Future studies is stillcontinued on, but, like all of

(21:39):
these things are now like again,there's a lot of stuff bubbling
, and so I would say like I'moptimistic, it's a really
exciting time.
Of course, at the same time,the challenge of the work are
still what they've always beenright how do you create real,
genuine impact?
How do you leverage the tech tobe able to do that?
The tech is changing, of course, every day, it feels like, so

(22:01):
being able to use the tools tocreate really impactful, dynamic
work is still I it.

Steve (22:09):
Yeah, you said there's a lot of things in there.
Uh, one comes to mind is thedifference between you think of
it as like tools, skill set wow,job, job role.
Like a function, job, function.
Right, I'll take.
Let's take excel.
Let's take excel as a tool.

(22:30):
Right, there are people thatyou could just jump right in
from day one and kind of use butyou can have training from it.
Right, there's a skillset toreally getting really good at.
But then there's an applicationto it where it's like you're a
financial analyst or you're abusiness uh, you know designer.
Like there's differentfinancial model, like there's
all different ways that use thatset.

(22:51):
So it's like we have obviouslytools, like scenarios or other
types of of engaged ways to docertain types of work.
Then it's like the.
I think it's the gap.
It's like there's this fee, the, the skill set itself, which
some have taken on self-study orthey formally gotten it that we

(23:12):
have to make the leap into thedifferent roles and it doesn't
have to be just futurist.
I think that's.
The other thing is, how do wedefine different types of
foresight roles?
Because it used to be juststraight out and the jobs that I
see are very much entry level.
For the most part, they're likethey're looking for the signals
researcher, the analyst atleast they're there.

(23:33):
But at the same time, you knowthere are more senior,
experienced hires right, butthat's usually that person
trying to build a team.
So I think as we mature and theteam matures, you'll need more.
You know other experiencedpeople at the same time.
But it is something that Iwe're gonna have to, like you
said, not to calcify it.

(23:55):
We we definitely have to atleast get some kind of bounding
for people to just understand itand how to, how to hire it, how
to buy it right.
That's the big thing.
People don't even know how tohire it or how to write a job
description.
100, a hundred percent.

John (24:11):
Yeah a hundred percent.
I'm amazed at how many times,like even with, like you know,
well-known organizations likesharing TORs, sharing RFPs, like
really trying to reorganize,because, as more people pick it
up, and I think you hit the nailon the head, like it's
incumbent upon us to make surethat the commissioners of the

(24:32):
work understand and are educated, because the last thing we want
in this kind of massive, thisCambrian explosion of foresight,
is like bad work, to just likeproliferate Right, and then it's
like, oh, then it's like, oh,this isn't, it's not having an
impact or this isn't that.
And so I think that's why, likeagain, this attentiveness
towards, towards making surethat it's it's commissioned in

(24:54):
the right way and it's it's, youknow, always managing
expectations like what can andcan't this do and how can this
be useful and what.
How are we evaluating this?
And measuring impact indifferent types of meaningful
ways is is always critical, andI think I think you also
highlighted something else Likethere are lots of, and no short
of, those entry level jobs.

(25:14):
A lot of times those higherlevel ones are tied to like a
strategy or research or a policything.
So that would be an interestingand that'd be great to kind of
monitor and measure right.
When did those start to changeright?
When do we see the chieffuturist become the role right,
like a C-suite, like it's just athing, right.
And so if we see, like an SVPof future is like these types of
things emerge that would bereally interesting to play with,

(25:37):
to try to like as an emergingissue, like okay, then we start
to see a different type of scaleemerge that could be
interesting.

Steve (25:44):
There's two types of roles over the last 30 years, 40
years that come to my mind.
One is the rise of the CIO andthe rise of the VP or the design
chief design officer.
Vp of design is in the earlynineties.
It was just you know it.
You know you just had it peopleand run of the mainframes.

(26:08):
And then networking came andfor those you know to give a
history on tech on it.
But in the early nineties, youknow to give a history on tech
on IT.
But in the early 90s you, justlike IBM was a big leader in
this is you know people werehiring the CIA and it was being
pushed in HBR and I'm sure allthe consulting firms were
pushing for this role to get itin there.
But the CIO kind of started toemerge right, and in two places

(26:29):
it was either if it was underthe CFO, it was like a cost
function.
If it was really reporting tothe CEO, it was a strategic
function.
Ctos didn't come until thedot-com era.
That's more the kind of fusionof strategy and tech, but that
function to your point.
Most people had IT managers orVP.
It was really getting through.
Now CIO is everywhere right.

(26:50):
Same with design.
You had designers living insideengineering teams and they just
kind of make it pretty.
Which is the phrase one of myleast favorite phrases in the
world is.
Then it became a design manager, a separate design group, you
know, and then it emerged andthen you started to have VPs of
design.
You still don't have chief, youhave chief experience officers,

(27:12):
chief, you know, but you.
But it has emerged and it'skind of matured the same way.
So I do think we're on thatsame path and I do think it'll
happen faster than those did.
I think to your point aboutCOVID.
We saw the same thing atMcKinsey.
It was people overnight sawtheir supply chains shatter,
everything they built forperfection, just the, the, the

(27:33):
idea.
Everything was now up in theair.
The uncertainty was a way oflife and it's going to be for,
you know, forever.
I think an AI even justexacerbated it on top of that.
So everyone is trying tonavigate all this uncertainty.
So who are the best navigatorsof uncertainty?
Futurists or foresightprofessionals?

(27:54):
Right, because we look at allthe possible futures.
So a lot of strategy is likekind of more forecasting, like
kind of extrapolate out.
Maybe there's some things outthere they really don't deal in
all the black swans.
They don't deal in a lot of thetoo much of the what ifs right,
they just don't have time andyou know they're measured on

(28:18):
different things in terms of theperformance of the business.
So I think one strategy, Ithink it'll, I think it'll
probably best reside in astrategy department or some type
of parallel function where itbecomes a really important arm.
It's kind of like theengineering has the design group
, like they have the, the havethe leadership to make the
experience, because if yourproduct sucks, no one will buy
it.
It doesn't care how great thecode is, same thing.

(28:39):
It's like if your company can'tnavigate or at least see when
things are going to change, noamount of strategy will help you
.
Yeah.
I love this discussion with somany different people, because
it comes to the same type of atleast some kind of common
threads of it is evolving.

(29:00):
It needs to be democratized.
People realize it needs to bethere.
They're getting over it.
There's one person that's likeI'm going to take charge and I'm
going to form this group andthat's where you're seeing, like
you said, we see the least theformation of entry level,
because they're trying to buildthe capacity, they're trying to
build the team to put out somestuff because they can't afford.
Maybe they don't need thesenior people yet because it's

(29:22):
just too expensive and it justthe real doing that they need
Right.

John (29:27):
So yeah, yeah, yeah, well, I think so I, I you've
highlighted and I know this iswhere we were talking about
going was like let's say, itdoes land in a, in a strategy
department, right, so a greathome for quote, strategic
foresight, right.
But maybe it lands in HR or,like you know, svp of culture or
something Right.
And so then it becomes like howdo we lead with the

(29:49):
transformative stuff?
And I know we're going to kindof dive into this but, like, I
think, like in differentorganizations, it can look quite
different.
Right, it can, it can havedifferent homes relative to
where it might fit, and maybe itis again still very relational
and personality driven until itfinds a footing in a way that
makes sense for that, thatorganizational culture or
context.

Steve (30:10):
Well, and that's, this is a great kind of segue into
transformative culture orcontext.
Well, and that's, this is agreat kind of segue into
transformative.
So, um, I think it's a goodprimer, because people always
hear about, for strategicforesight, futures.
But you have strategicforesight and then you have also
transformative foresight.
So let's start with, let'sexplain and do a little compare

(30:31):
and contrast.

John (30:39):
Let's do that first to lay the basis for people in this
conversation?
Yeah, so I think, in thestrategic foresight sense really
rooted in the work that we'veseen built up over the past 30
to 40 some odd years, where it'show do we have you know
forward-looking intelligencethat has an organizational
output or outcome, right, likeso it's a strategy, a plan, a

(30:59):
policy that is, you know,insights driven, that is, again,
is forward-looking, that isrooted in, of course, a range of
data.
I think to your earlier point,like maybe there is a real sense
of we want to forecast and seewhat you know X or Y year is
going to be, and have a sense ofmaybe where the you know the
puck is moving, so to speak, sowe know where to skate.

(31:21):
And I think that's, you know,the strategic foresight that
we've seen, you know talkedabout and thought about and
really you know become, I wouldsay, a majority of the work
that's not only performed butcertainly, you know, wanted and
commissioned.
And I think certainly for me,like where I'm picking up the
transformative work, and there'sa great paper by Andrew Curry

(31:43):
who talks about, even withinscenarios, kind of the kind of
the dualistic thread of thefield so you can think of, like
you know, herman Kahn and thework that was really, you know,
like creating scenarios as aterm, and like this recently
with the work of SohailInayatullah, and you know a lot
of narrative foresight work andfutures literacy is saying, all

(32:18):
right, hold on, let's look out,sure, but first let's look in,
let's try to understand and makesense of the self plural selves
that we're using and bringingto these processes.
I think, for me, the one majordifference and and and maybe
this is a bit harsh I think themajor assumption of strategic
foresight is that we're justbrains sitting in vats, that

(32:41):
we're somehow not embodiedbeings that have feelings and
and and fears and hopes, and soI think what I've found, and why
I'm trying to use thisdistinction a little bit more in
my work, and why I see otherspicking it up, is it gives us a
meaningful way to talk aboutthose fuzzy, perceptual aspects

(33:01):
of doing this work that maybearen't always as easy to work
into.
You know, a proper strategicforesight project, so, which is
to say like, how do we integrateimages of the future, which
shape how people think and feelabout the future, in meaningful
ways?
How do we deal with hopes andfears and narratives.
How do we bring in the kind ofmindset and the idea that, again

(33:21):
, we aren't always seeing thefuture in one way, because maybe
we might fear the future as aparent, we might feel different
as a professional?
So this idea of we need morecomplexity and depth and more
ability to kind of touch onreally the dynamism of who we
are as beings in the world, andthat's where the transformative
has really been powerful.

(33:44):
I do think it's rooted in lotsof interesting, different types
of traditions, so I'm trying tolocate it also in the work of
people like Bruno Latour, whotalks about matters of fact,
which would be on the strategicside, versus matters of concern
on the transformative foresightside.
I think, to pick up what Sohailhas talked about in metaphors,

(34:04):
the strategic side is the hero'sjourney, right, we want to win
the future.
We want to get the idea and besuccessful and achieve X or Y.
The future.
We want to get the idea and besuccessful and achieve X or Y,
whereas transformative is notthe hero's journey but the
caravan.
We're all in this together,right, how can we learn?
The real product is the process, and so I think what I'm
finding is that distinction isquite helpful, mostly because

(34:27):
and I know we touched on this alittle bit is there is an
interesting overlap space wherethe transformative can be a
super charge for the strategicand the strategic can make the
transformative meaningful in anorganizational way that maybe it
wouldn't otherwise be.
So I actually think it's thatin-between space, that ecosystem

(34:47):
of both that's really a uniqueopportunity and again starting
to see some organizations andeven even governments pick it up
.

Steve (34:55):
How how do they like in terms of real kind of rubber
hits the road, like how did theybring that into an organization
?
Is it like you said, gaming?
Is it workshops?
Is it?
Is it like an on?
Because it's.
I.
I feel like there's twoversions of there's the
foresight project we want to dolike future of x right, we just

(35:15):
want to have a futures come in.
Do some workshops be hopefullyjust the report doesn't go in
the drawer forever.
But then there's the ongoing,like you know, active.
You know there's lots of otheractivities.
It's, you know, more of afunction.
Um, how does transformativework in that way?
Because, cause you're sayingit's actually not by itself,

(35:36):
it's really connecting tostrategic as well.

John (35:40):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely so.
I the two major examples Iwould say, like I had a chance
last year to be a part of the orone of the uh advisors for
UNICEF's youth foreoresight Teamand they run a Youth Futures
Fellowship.
It's amazing work.
And they publish, theycontribute to the Future of
Children Report, like they doreally awesome, meaningful work.

(36:02):
At the Dubai Future Forum.
They just had a majorinstallation where they had
personas and all the fellowsfrom all around the world came
and what they've been able to doin a really intentional way is
integrate this transformativeperspective into the process,
the practice and the productsthat they create at large.

(36:23):
Is that they're reallyintentional and really trying to
locate and root how they talkand think about the future, with
an attentiveness towardstowards culture, uh, towards,
you know, power, towardsunderstanding, narrative and
having methods and tools thatalso support that type of

(36:45):
reflexivity.
I think I think reflexivity isreally key because, again, it's
not just this looking out,looking out, looking out but how
do we, how do we then look inrelative to what we're seeing,
and and vice versa.
And so I I use this metaphor alot Like, uh, there's a great
saying by Michelle Foucault, whowho, of course was this.
You know theoretician andtalked a lot about power and his

(37:06):
work and where there are walls,and I love that saying because
when you put a window into awall, of course, everyone
assumes you got cut off.

Steve (37:19):
Can you do the quote?

John (37:20):
again I got cut off.

Steve (37:21):
I went choppy, so, yeah, what's the quote that says
Custer?

John (37:26):
Yeah, so I love this, I love this quote by Michel
Soucault, the Frenchtheoretician, who, talking about
his own work and again he wasalways talking and thinking
about power said that he saidhe's not a prophet, so again,
he's not predicting, just likeus, but he said that his job was
to make windows where there arewalls.

(37:46):
And I love that because itspeaks to me, to both parts.
The strategic part is, yeah,you put a window into a wall,
you can look out, but a windowadds light into whatever room or
space, so it changes theinterior dynamics.
So this idea of actually awindow is a real two-way thing,
of course, because it canambient heat or other things.

(38:07):
So this whole idea of youchange the inside space through
that practice of having thatoutward view and I think that's
this kind of in-between spacethat I'm really keen on through
different practices, throughdifferent processes, through
having products that speak tothat, you can instill and create
that reflexivity.

(38:28):
Now, look, I'm not saying thatstrategic foresight doesn't have
that, but I think you know, andagain, not be totally unsayer
but that strategic foresightdoesn't have that, but I think
you know, and not, and again,not be totally unfair, but if
strategic foresight alone couldhave changed the world.
The world would probably be adifferent place.
So so we we need to find waysto kind of enhance and
strengthen that and andultimately find ways to say look
, you know, there are certaintypes of foresight that maybe we

(38:49):
don't want to do right.
Maybe maybe certain types ofmethods or tools have, you know,
their sell by date is gone,right, like.
So how do we find ways toalways enhance what we're doing
and to use again everything wecan to help to create the
changes that we want to see?

Steve (39:03):
Yeah, the it brings to mind there's a chart of like all
of the fiction or the work ofspeculative fiction or you know,
science fiction, and it haslike the utopian, dystopian and
the plausible, implausible.
It was like very like one ortwo in the bottom of like the

(39:23):
utopian, plausible type of thing, like most stuff is, is
dystopian.
Yeah, you know, we'reoptimistic as humanity and I
think your earlier point aboutthis like we like dystopia but
we believe in it's aninteresting.
It's gonna come back to me.
I'll have to cut this part out.

(39:54):
I just had it in my head.
Oh damn, man can't believe Iforgot it.
It was.
It was a really good point too.
I wanna I should have justpushed that out, because it was
how we apply.
It was something about theapplication of foresight Like

(40:22):
you know you talked about.
You know strategic had been the.
You know everything would bedifferent now, but that'll come
back um cloud to just leave ourway back, all right, so let me
go back.
So do you have like contexts orchallenges that you feel like

(40:49):
like, how do you choose theforesight approach?
Like where, where, when you getinto it, like what's, like when
you find is most appropriate?

John (40:57):
Yeah.
So I, you know, I definitely goin now with a lot of framing
around this kind of strategicand transformative.
So even earlier in a, in maybeeven an initial touch point with
a client, I might, I might kindof, like you know, lead in with
that a little bit to kind ofgive them a sense of how I want
to kind of use some of thislanguage.
And for a lot of people maybeit's it's new.

(41:20):
So you're always kind of, likeyou know, probing and testing
and seeing, and you're alwaysresponding, of course, to a, to
a call um, or it's a or it's anintroduction, um, I, I do have
my favorites right.
So, like I definitely have mythings that are, you know, kind
of go-tos.
But I'm, you know, relative Isaid relatively agnostic with
methods.
Like I try to spice it up, Itry to keep it fresh, I'm always

(41:44):
trying to hybrid.
I mean that's led to newmethodological things, it's
certainly led to no shortage ofkind of dead ends.
But I would say that you know,scenarios continue to be a
mainstay, even though I try tochallenge or undermine that very
traditional type of, you know,scenario construct.
So you know, certainly, likethe scenario archetypes, the

(42:08):
alternative futures, whetherit's Hawaii or Houston, I think,
get used.
I'm a huge fan, of course, ofcausal layered analysis.
The futures triangle has becomeprobably like a go-to and I
always open engagements, whetherit's a one-day workshop or a
project with a Pollock game.

(42:28):
I love this idea that peoplehave to kind of situate yeah,
yeah, so the, the, the Pollockgame was um, was created by, uh,
you know, peter Hayward.
Uh, well, peter Hayward andStuart Candy have an article
about it.
Uh, joe Boros is one of thecreators as well, so it kind of
comes out of the kind ofSwinburne, uh future school, if

(42:48):
you will.
And uh, the whole work is based.
Work is based on Fred Pollack'swork.
So the idea of the image of thefuture, and of course, the book
of the same name dives into thepower that these images have and
how they push and pull people.
And basically what happened andPeter kind of tells the story
is that the game kind of emergedand said, instead of talking

(43:11):
about it, let's play it.
And so there's these two axes.
So kind of running verticallyis the idea of optimism versus
pessimism.
So again, are you happy orexcited about the future?
And then, on the other end,right, are you the opposite,
right, worried, and then there'skind of cutting across that to
make this matrix is the idea ofagency.

(43:31):
Do you think the future can beshaped and changed or is there a
destiny?
The future is determined ordecided, and what you very
quickly create, of course, arefour different quadrants, that
are four generic perspectives onthe future.
Now there's versions of the game.
It can be run in different ways.
I usually run it like this,where first people are thrown
into one of the four.
You don't have a choice and youhave to defend that, and then

(43:54):
we kind of vote to see who hadthe best arguments.
So it's very rational.
It's very like, you know,competitive.
It's a game.
It's kind of gets laughs andthen, and then I completely turn
it and say, okay, now where doyou stand as an individual, and
not just one of the four, butthe extremities, right, are you
dead center with a foot?
You know, in two, are you atthe other end of the like?

(44:15):
Sometimes you do it spatiallyin a room, you can do it on a
mural board, and so I try tocreate that kind of shift.
So, yes, we're looking out, yes, we're kind of competitive.
Then all of a sudden, wow,we're deeply personal and for
some people it's quite disarmingto have to share.
I mean, I've had people whereeveryone in the room is in one
quadrant, like in one corner,and one person is standing there

(44:38):
saying I kind of more thattransformative, that perceptual,
like wait.
Are we thinking and feelingabout the future and how does
that shape what we think ispossible, what we, what we see

(45:00):
and how we make sense of thefuture?

Steve (45:04):
Do you have an example where you kind of took these
different approaches?
Could you talk about how youstart Like that really led to
something like powerful, likepowerful outcomes, like?
Can you kind of like anythingyou can show like example you
could share?

John (45:26):
like.
So people could kind ofsynthesize something direct.
Yeah, so the one example I useis I was really fortunate to
spend almost a year as theGlobal Futures and Foresight
coordinator for theInternational Federation, red
Cross, red Crescent, right soworld's largest humanitarian
organization somewhere between11 and 14 million volunteers
globally Nobody really knows, Iguess they can't count that many
190 countries and I was thereat the start of their 10-year

(45:48):
strategy process and my job wasto really kind of kickstart
using Foresight for that andthey had a strong innovation
team.
They had amazing people thereas well and we did this with
different groups.
And what was really interestingis we did this kind of
internally with kind of thepolicy team and you had kind of
mixed, but you had more biastowards the kind of you know the

(46:09):
optimism you had a lot of youknow perspective, towards the
kind of you know the optimismyou had a lot of you know
perspective on the agency sideand we saw that strongly, really
strongly, with volunteers Superfascinating.
I won't name names, but some ofthe leadership were really
entrenched into the destiny andthe pessimism which is the
quadrant of doom.
This is like the sky is falling.

(46:31):
Nothing can change, everythingis horrible and what that
Everything is horrible Like, andwhat that showed us was, as an
organization we had a gap.
We had this unbelievable spaceto say, well, okay, what is it?
And what is it about differentcountries maybe being located in
different spaces?
So that simple tool, using thatalmost like as a metric, as a
guide to like understand whatwas the internal perspective or

(46:54):
framing of the future, it reallydid bring a unique and
interesting space to think aboutthe types of you know,
priorities, objectives thatultimately made it into the
strategy, and so it definitelyinformed the conversations that
were had about the types ofengagements that we had.
So we said, okay, this isinteresting, now let's kind of
do this here.
And and so it really did open aopen, a unique space into how

(47:15):
the organization was thinkingabout the future and even some
of the things that were unsaid,because any other methods would
have been about, oh, thisemerging tech or this emerging
crisis.
This was about how people thinkand feel.
Right, this is about what theyactually believe, and so that
space again really created aunique space to actually kind of
surface some of those othermaybe hidden anticipatory

(47:38):
assumptions, other things thatreally were interesting to kind
of bring out in a, in aforesight process, in a very
strategic foresight process.

Steve (47:48):
So you've worked in well over 40, like 50 countries.
So what do you see Like, causeyou these methods and the
application of it?
You've done a lot of work, notin the traditional, like I would
call it, western civilization,for you know futurists, kind of
dealing with the U?
S or the, or you know EuropeYou've worked in 45, over 50

(48:12):
countries, or Europe, but you'veworked in 45, over 50 countries
.
What are the differences you'veobserved in how societies
approach futures?
Thinking Like what's their,because we talked about, say, in
the green room too, like values, we talked about religion, like
those things obviouslyinfluence thinking and
perspectives and just livedexperiences.

(48:32):
So how do what have youobserved, like how they approach
it, or differences?

John (48:40):
Yeah, another, another easy question.

Steve (48:44):
It's what I do, man.
It's what I do.

John (48:47):
It's uh, you know, it's like, you know, like, yeah, like
a few things that like are aremore generalizable, but I would
say like, probably the one thingthat I'm most like, I'm always
interested in, but always tryingto find that space and again,
I'm always, I'm the perpetualoutsider, right.
So I I think that's anotherthing to kind of like I'm always

(49:09):
, I'm always holding that kindof space and, of course, a lot
of times brought in as astrategic foresight expert.
But I try to subvert that byalways saying at the outset,
like I'm not the expert on thefuture of X, you know, you are
the people in the room, it'syour lived reality, it's your
context, organization, yada,yada, whatever.
So anyway, it's a kind of likeroundabout way of saying like,

(49:29):
for me, the most interestingmoments and what's been
interesting about working againprimarily outside of
Euro-American context is findingspaces where play, art, music,
like more of those types ofculturally rooted traditions can
be infused or have a space inthe process so exceedingly

(49:51):
powerful and I would say like,creates a different type of
modality, like, like people.
People might come to astrategic foresight workshop,
right, and John has flown toBangladesh or Mongolia and now
we're doing it like it can beperformative, right, they're
there in their expert role, aswhatever, but they might not be
there in that self as someonewho lives in this community and

(50:15):
you know, dah, dah, dah, dah dah.
So I think those other types oflike instruments or tools or
whatever you want to call them,open up a space where people
don't just have to be thatperformative self.
They can be that other, thatother self, and bring that
forward, and I think I've seenthat happen and that's been
super powerful.
And, again, narrative and storycan do that.

(50:35):
It doesn't have to be art andmusic, it can be.
Certainly the experiential anddesign stuff is there Games.
I love using those.
So, like these other tools Iwould say are more impactful and
I've seen them be maybe evenmore widely embraced in some of
those contexts.
Now, with that said, I've donegames with the European

(50:57):
Commission, even in the USrecently with a large government
organization, so I do thinkthat they are growing more
normalized.
But I would say that one majordifference is that maybe some of
these other spaces have a legup with regards to using quote
non-traditional method, which Idon't like that term, but like I
think, like if we say that thequote, traditional narrative

(51:18):
textual scenarios are the, arethe you know, still the quote
gold standard of strategicforesight.
I would say the one thing is,maybe in a lot of these contexts
there's an openness to thetransformative piece.
You know, relative to some,some cultural and contextual
dynamics.

Steve (51:35):
Well, it's interesting you bring up you know,
especially in the governmentside, as an example, like, let's
talk about anticipatorygovernance.
You know, you think about theconcept of that and policymaking
, you know.
Do you have any thoughts on howthat work has been influenced,

(51:55):
like how that works for withforesight?
Can you explain the concept forpeople first?
Maybe that would help.

John (52:03):
Yeah, well, I'd say first off, like it seems like an
oxymoron right, anticipatory andgovernance Right, exactly which
is why I brought it up, becauseit's just, it's such a weird,
weird term in and of itself,right yeah?
Yeah, well, it says.
It says a lot about our currentmoment if we think anticipatory
governance is an oxymoron.
But I, I mean, I hear this alot and I think, given that it's

(52:26):
not common usage, I will saythat a lot of this is kind of
rooted in the earlier work thatemerged in the 70s and the 80s,
even some in the late 60s,around anticipatory democracy,
which was how do we infuse moreforward looking perspectives in
these processes?
So, like there was Hawaii 2000,which happened in the late 60s,

(52:47):
there was even it was Iowa 2000, which happened in the same
time, and it was Iowa 2000,which happened in the same time
and really key people were partof this right back in the day of
the kind of like you know, allof the big names in the American
kind of futures crowd or evenglobally, fundamentally has a

(53:09):
forward-looking component.
That is fostering learning, thatis driving policy as ensuring
that people's livelihoods arefundamentally being and again,
not future-proofed but, in asbest and as prudent as a way of

(53:31):
possible, ensure that we'repaying attention to the signs
and the signals of theseemerging futures.
And I think, most importantly,the part that I'm really
interested in is how do weensure that there is a space for
people to participate ingovernance in different types of
ways, and so I think it isabout that collective
intelligence kind of leveragingthat.
How do we and again like havingworked in participatory futures
now for a few years,no-transcript.

(54:17):
And so I think it is abouttrying to make sure that this
kind of action learning mindsetand the work of Jose Ramos is
great in this regard to thinkabout, like how do we make sure
that governments are learningand really are action learning
organizations so that they areable to kind of better meet the
needs not only of the president,of course, but to try to be

(54:38):
more anticipatory with whatthose future needs can and could
possibly be?

Steve (54:45):
do you think it needs to be infused?
Cause I I was, I was about tojump into, like you kind of
jumped ahead.
It was like how can largebureaucratic systems become more
future ready?
Right, do you need an office ofstrategic foresight?
Do you need a?
You know I'm working on aproject here in the United

(55:07):
States, uh, that there's a grouptrying to put together the
office of strategic force sothey're trying to make it a
cabinet position and that iscompelling.
It's almost like the nationaldirector of intelligence here in
the United States.
They kind of pulls together allthe different you know groups.
So if you had foresightleadership and different of the

(55:27):
agencies and you broughtsomething to kind of at least
coalesce future vision, getaligned with overall, you know
kind of an active center point.
You know centralization theylove that in government.
It's like, but but bringingcoordination to that like, have
you seen any systems that worked?
Have have you seen anyorganizations doing it?

(55:47):
Like, what are your thoughts onthat?
Like how they can do this?

John (55:52):
Yeah, so I'm currently working with a government in
Southeast Asia I at this point Iwon't name the name because
there's still like we're stillemerging, the work is still
coming out, but like we arelooking at case studies and
examples for where this hasworked really well and there are
some really great examples.
So Singapore has a longstanding integrated foresight

(56:12):
function that has reallydeveloped into a robust
ecosystem.
Finland is another really greatexample.
And when I say ecosystem, thatmeans you not just have one unit
in one place, but like multiplefunctions that coordinate, that
can talk to each other, thatcan even share informally, that
can talk to each other, that caneven share informally learnings
.
People know each other.

(56:32):
You also have people ineducational spaces.
You have academic, you haveprivate sector, you have, you
know, civil sector as well.
So like this idea of, again, alearning ecosystem that may be
able to contribute to governancein a meaningful way.
And again, I think sometimesthat can be quite formal, right,
Like plan policy strategy, likeyou said, like a national

(56:55):
intelligence function, like ahigh level thing.
I'm really actually excitedabout a lot of this conversation
.
That, again, you know back toour earlier conversations about
what's changed.
That conversation wasn't there15 years ago, right.
So like now it's come back.
I mean, the US had the Officeof Net Assessment was killed in

(57:16):
the 90s, right.
Like this actual unit that waskind of serving, right.
It was legislative, like it wasmeant to be, like this kind of
like looking ahead, likeanalysis, emerging issue, like
that sort of a space, and thatgot killed, right.
So the whole idea of bringingit and having a high level that
people can look to, I think isreally exciting.
I'm also interested and this isthe other part of anticipatory
governance we haven't talked on,and this is also where you know

(57:38):
, let's be honest, this is liketouching the third rail.
We need new governance systems.
We don't really have goodfunctioning governance systems.
So the one thing that's uniqueabout Hawaii and the Hawaii
Futures Program Jim Dater hastaught for decades, until, of
course, his retirement, agraduate seminar on governance
design how do we designgovernance systems that actually

(58:02):
integrate futures and foresight?
And of course he has a range ofdifferent challenges that
governance systems face, butlooking at different systems
from different traditions andcontexts, even looking
historically, and then thecapstone project is actually
designing a governance systemthat deals with these challenges
and certain variables.
I had a chance later in mygraduate studies to co-teach

(58:24):
that class with him, and we evenworked with architecture
students as well.
So like it's a reallyinteresting piece and one of my
priorities for this year is tokind of bring back governance
design.
Now, on the one hand, that'streason because I'm saying we
need to tear up, like in the US,let's tear up the constitution
and design a new governancesystem, right?
So like it is this weird spaceof saying, okay, what does it

(58:46):
mean to actually buildgovernance from the ground up
again and not just beholden tothese things?
I'm not saying everything hasto go away necessarily, right,
there's a lot of richness there.
So like, well, what does itactually mean to creatively and
critically think about this?
And, of course, you know theInstitute for the Future has the
GovDesign lab and there's anamazing toolkit that emerged

(59:06):
years ago.

Steve (59:07):
But like to really be serious about.
Jake dunnigan is doing.
That's exactly right.
So, yeah, yeah, he learned hegot it honestly right.
So, from the data program,right, because, honestly, the
phd was a political science phdif I remember right.
It's not exactly a few strategicforesight.
I actually think there's goingto be a couple things.

(59:30):
One, to address yourconstitution thing you don't
have to teach doing anticipatorygovernance doesn't mean like
like burning down the con.
To me it's just let's justactually adhere to the
constitution.
Can we, when we start, can welook?
It's a, it's an a.
It's an amazing document that'slasted almost, you know, 250
years.
There's a reason it's it's gota lot.
It's the execution of it andthe bureaucracy.

(59:52):
That, to me, is where thefruits of it lie.
To actually put the things thatwe have in the Constitution and
to live by that, I think, wouldbe a way.
And then how to effectivelyconnect to the citizen to change
that or to make that they feelthat they're part of that change
and also reduce the bureaucracy.
It won't be interesting to seethe next administration.

(01:00:14):
They actually do cut anything,but I'm I'm not holding my hopes
.
I mean, it's a lot.
There's gonna be a lot ofpeople that want things to stay
the way they are, regardless ofhow you feel politically or I
don't care, but it's just it.
There's a lot of people thathave a lot invested in the, in
the status quo Right, and, yeah,I think that's a big I think

(01:00:35):
that's the biggest barrier inthat, because if you get
somebody who's a futuresthinking and futures forward,
they just want it to stay theway it is.
They don't want to change.
But until change hits them inthe face so hard that they have
no choice, right COVID?

John (01:00:57):
right, so 100%, yeah, yeah .
So.
So here's what blew my mind is,like, um, one of the things
that comes up in in data'sclasses and and I know Jake's
talked about this and like this,like this is what got me like
reinvigorated and and to thegovernance design, certainly for
this year is so the U?
S is quite unique.
Right, the presidentialistsystem, right, the three
branches, like the wholestructuring, right, this
Madisonian compromise that wentinto, like the constitutional

(01:01:18):
structure, it's quite unique.
And what's interesting is ifyou look at every single
government that has adopted thatpresidentialist system, right,
so, again, the US doesn't have aprime minister.
Power sharing is different,right, parties aren't actually
part of the constitution.
Long story short, every singlegovernment that has adopted the
US presidentialist system everysingle one and we're talking

(01:01:40):
about mostly, like Central andSouth American countries every
single one eventually went intoa military dictatorship.
Every single one, single oneeventually went into a military
dictatorship, every single one.
So, like there is.
So, to your point is like, isthere something about the
structure?
And I agree with you, like it,actually, if there are many
things in there that we werequote, abided by right, or if
other you know means andmechanisms weren't, you know,

(01:02:01):
mucking it up like, could lookand feel quite differently.
But you know, always thesethings have to be put in the
context.
And one of Dator's points andwhy governance is lied to me is
interesting is like, you know,things are designed as you know,
with certain, you knowontologies or worldviews and you
know, assumed in mind, right.
So you know the type ofworldview and the type of
thinking that went into thatdocument, which is unbelievable,

(01:02:24):
still has insane shortcomings,clearly, but like was an
unbelievable moment in humanhistory.
It's still rooted in certainworldviews, right, and so, like
what does it mean if we playwith those worldviews, if we
shift, if we open up and, youknow, enhance that or, you know,
start to tinker.
And you know, clearly, the ideaof a living document, you know,

(01:02:46):
from a governance perspectiveis unbelievable.
But that little factoid alwaysstuck with me like this you know
, clearly, the idea of a livingdocument, you know, from a
governance perspective isunbelievable.
But I that that little factoidalways stuck with me like this,
this you know this militarydictatorship kind of like
looming out there in the horizon, at least, at least for those
again who have tried to copy.
But yeah, it's, it's, I think,a big thing that we're going to
see hopefully come back to thetable.
You know, certainly globally wehave the need for governance in

(01:03:09):
different ways.
But even the conversationitself I think that's the
important bit is like how do wemeaningfully have a conversation
?
And you're right, jake andothers have been on this for a
while and I think we need morediscussion on it.

Steve (01:03:21):
You know I was thinking about Because if it looks like
it's directly impacting them andthey might be resistant to that
, you know, and there's peoplethat can play those roles and
personas, if you do role playing.
But at the same time I thinkabout the effectiveness of war

(01:03:43):
gaming, right, and the boozeallen or other companies do with
government agencies to kind ofprepare them.
I do wonder if the framing ofit because if it's that way, so
that's the first when we get tothat part, because I wanted to
ask you about other gamingexamples because we had talked

(01:04:03):
about that as well so let's,yeah, let's.
From other people Like so doyou think war game, you think
the, the messaging of it couldbe different in the, in the?
I just put it so that theydon't think that they're it's
going to take their job but it'sgoing to help them.
Like you know, prepare right,prepare for change versus make

(01:04:24):
is yeah yeah, no, I I think so.

John (01:04:29):
Like I think you know, one of the challenges, like and I
think you hit the nail on thehead is, like you know, we we
have a lot of systems that thatstill very much have that kind
of horizon, one managerialbureaucrat type of like control,
and, let's be honest, that'show systems remain stable right
now.
That pres, that presumes thatthe operating environment itself

(01:04:51):
is stable and yet, like we seethat we live that disjuncture.
So why I love the games andcertainly I was recently part of
a proper war game, like it wasthis NATO thing, and I got a
chance to just be a participant,like kind of fly on the wall,
play a little bit of a role, andI didn't design the game in any
way, but that was the firsttime I'd seen like a proper war

(01:05:12):
game.
No-transcript, a finite game islike like Monopoly, like there

(01:05:35):
is a winner right, there's ascoring system, it's quite clear
.
We start and we stop.
The infinite game is the gamethat we play to keep the game
going, and I think that's thatmentality of governance, that's
that perspective on futures andforesight.
You know, so many people have,you know, written and talked
about this kind of framing.
And I picked this, I picked upKars, through the work of Zia

(01:05:58):
Sardar and this now haveintegrated this as kind of a
lens to make sense of what it isthat we're really trying to do.
And I think this also goes backto this strategic,
transformative piece.
I think, at the end of the day,the strategic foresight is like
we're gonna play this finitegame, right, we're gonna.
You know, some people talk aboutfuture-proofing or winning the
future, that language sometimesyou know, I got to grab the

(01:06:21):
EpiPen like I have this allergicreaction, like I'm like we, we,
we can, we think, just when wethink we've won right, it's like
dun, dun, dun, like no, thefuture comes back and bites us,
like, so this idea of theinfinite game is, hey, the next
surprise is just around thecorner.
But hey, strap in, let's goRight.
Like this idea of like the get,the idea is to keep the game

(01:06:44):
going, and I think that's thepart that, like, really, at the
end of the day, does give mesome semblance of hope is like,
what role do we play?
Or how can we thenconstructively keep the future
plural, and I think that's aspace that we need more ways to
find the work that can get usthere and and that messaging is
is critical as well.

(01:07:04):
So I was kind of a roundaboutway of coming back to games, but
that's that's usually mylanding, for the games is like,
how do we ensure that we alwayshave that futures plural
perspective and use games as ameans to be able to kind of
bring that forward?
So to your earlier point aboutthe war games so the uncertainty
can be dealt with in ameaningful way, because a lot of

(01:07:24):
times if the uncertainty can'tbe dealt with, then it's just
thrown aside and it's like, ohwell, we'll just we'll do this
or that, but like wait, wait,wait.
What about the like no, no, no,we can't, we can't process, we
can't process.
So like we're going to go here,we're going to go there, and so
I think the game space is is areally powerful space to be able
to do that and I, as a modalityof kind of using foresight, you

(01:07:48):
mentioned the Dubai futureforum earlier.

Steve (01:07:51):
I want to maybe bring this into it.
You mentioned our mutual friend, Ahmed Best was in that was,
and Lonnie was.
They were teaching games.
They do a lot of work at USCteaching storytelling, teaching
filmmakers, really kind ofgetting them into design futures
.
And obviously he's had to do alot of.
He does a lot of Afrofutureswork too, but it was like the

(01:08:14):
disciplines of futures, thinkingas a filmmaker, as a creator,
Do you see any application inthat way that could go toward
government?
Or maybe what, what, what didyou see there?
And then we can kind of jumpfrom that.

John (01:08:30):
Yeah, so actually like connecting with Lonnie and Ahmed
at the Dubai Future Forum wasamazing.
We were actually part of thesame games showcase where myself
and Jose Ramos, who were partof the team that developed the
Our Futures game, which is theparticipatory futures game, were
there and Lonnie and Ahmed weredoing the Afro Rhythms game and
there were lots of other gamespace and so what was amazing to

(01:08:51):
see in here was the sheerdiversity and range of how play
was was being used and, you know, lonnie and Ahmed brought this
unbelievable energy to the space.
And we're talking about how thegame is not just about getting
from, you know, idea A to idea B, but actually creating the
opportunity for people tomeaningfully change.

(01:09:13):
And, to your point, like, howdo we have new stories that are
rooted in different types ofperspectives and traditions and
cultures and how do we callattention to often again, those
you know, the real kind ofcontradictions, the tensions,
the power imbalances, theinequalities that, of course,
certainly abound in our presentmoment, to ensure that we don't

(01:09:37):
just simply keep replicating andreciprocating those into the
future ad nauseum.
And I think that's what's sopowerful about their work and
also where games are a space tocreate and hold those tensions.
I actually find I can bringcontent in and play with ideas
just by calling it a game in away that I might not otherwise
be able to do, because some ideagets kicked aside.

(01:09:59):
So I think I kind of use itagain as that kind of space to
hold things or maybe clientsit's a bit delicate where
they're not kind of sure how totalk about it or we don't even
know what it is.
So we have to kind of literallygame it out.
And I think that was great tohear that message come from Lani
and Ahmed about the real powerand meaningful aspect of games
and the narrative and storycomponent to tell their own

(01:10:32):
stories and then finding ways ofusing play as a means to, to to
understand what the story couldbe.
So those are bringing in thatnovel aspect as well, um, by a
lot of randomness.
So like using the randomnessaspect of gaming as a, as a core
element.
Uh, again, I think has beenreally powerful.

Steve (01:10:45):
That's interesting Cause I it makes you think like
aphorisms, right, would be greatin certain parts of the world
where it wouldn't work in others.
Right, and any type of gaming,or you could reframe it maybe,
or take the.
There's the game mechanicsthemselves and there's the, uh,
the content or the theme of thegame itself, right, so could you

(01:11:05):
?
You know one thing I have toask him at um, and what I we're
going to do an interview soon isways that aphorisms could be
used in other parts, like the.
The mechanics of what they'vedone is great.
It's like you have your base.
Can aphorisms be used in anasian culture?
Right?
Could you change the framingand some of the things to create

(01:11:25):
as rhythms, right?
You know like you can do right?
That's fascinating because it'sall about that context.
You know, and you which kind of?
You know teaching people like,especially in this
pre-governance.
You're doing a lot of teachingwork and I want to talk about
education and you've worked withUNESCO as a chair.

(01:11:48):
You know what do you think weneed to educate people Like?
How do we educate them Like andwith, with all the tools at our
feet, at our let me say this,all the tools, you know in front
of us.
What do you think we need, like, what changes do you think we

(01:12:08):
need to educate people?

John (01:12:10):
yeah, this is another big fish.
I mean, I think like, at theend of the day, like I'm I'm
really impressed with unescobringing forward futures
literacy as as a key educationalcompetency, like not having it
be this kind of, like you know,unique or this boutique type of
you know, specialty skill, butlike saying actually every,

(01:12:33):
everyone, and even if you lookat UNICEF's work on youth
foresight, like you know, whenwe talk about the future of
children, and certainly now andeven in the into the next year,
where they're going to focus oneducation, like seeing this as a
core competency that thateveryone, that everyone should
be able to tap into.
Because you know, and again itgoes back to actually this idea

(01:12:55):
of like, okay, we of course aretaught history, so that we hope
to not to repeat it.
Well, that hasn't really pannedout so well.
So, clearly, we need theability to, as you highlighted
earlier, navigate uncertainty,confront the imagined futures
that shape again how peoplethink and feel, and also and I

(01:13:16):
like Riel's work, riel Miller'swork on futures literacy talking
about how it's understandingthe role that the imagined
future has in the here and now,because certainly for children
and for youth, like what'spossible?
I mean, you know, when I was akid, I never even imagined that
this profession was possible.
I didn't even know like thiswas a thing.
And yet, to kind of come backto Dubai, there are, you know,

(01:13:39):
every school children.
You know all the schoolchildren go on a trip to the
Museum of the Future.
And so now they're introducedto this idea and walk through
this museum of futures artifacts.
So that to me, is a grandsocial experiment.
And UNESCO is saying look, let'sbring future literacy to the
table and try to have and findour way towards a forward

(01:14:02):
looking type of perspective,again that we can never know
with 100% certainty what thefuture will be.
We never have the power to makeit exactly how we want it to be
, because the world is a complexand dynamic place.
And yet we can move towardsbetter futures if we
intentionally and critically andcreatively, you know, use
everything we have to try toimagine again a better future.

(01:14:24):
And I truly do believe thatUNESCO is attempting that, which
is a Herculean feat.
I mean, we're talking abouttrying to make the world a
better place, but again, if thisis what it starts to look like
and this is nothing short of agenerational scale shift, right,
I mean, this is trying toensure that, just like we saw,
you know, different types ofliteracy emerge, you know, over

(01:14:47):
the course of human history.
This is a new type of literacy.
I like that metaphor, like theidea of literacy.
Some people say, okay, it's tooda-da-da this, it's too that.
But like, even Wendy Schultztalks about features, fluency,
right, it's like the idea thatpeople can learn this, right,
it's not rocket science.
And like being able to havethese competencies, these
capabilities, like thiscapability-based approach, like,

(01:15:10):
you know, tools, the methods,the practice, the process, like
integrating this, the mindset.
All of that, I think, is is.
I'm really hopeful and UNESCOis really trying to see this as
something that it can lead andchampion on, and it is again
supporting the global chairsnetwork and ensuring that we
have the access and theresources and really the support
to be able to try to furtherthis work, again in different

(01:15:32):
ways and different places, andit not always is the same
everywhere, but like, whereverwe can, to make sure this is at
least on the menu, right, andgets on the table.

Steve (01:15:42):
You mentioned the word you know Wendy talks about.
Uh, yeah, I use the same.
I talk about futures fluency.
But if you use both wordsliteracy and fluency, literacy
means you understand it.
Fluency means you cancommunicate it and do it right.
It's, it's there.
They both need to be there.
There needs to be a literacylevel right, and then there's a

(01:16:04):
fluency level, just likelanguage.
It is a language, futures is alanguage.
So, you know, we, we covered alot of ground today and I one
thing I kind of want to, as we,you know, get into my fate.
One of my favorite topics is,uh, ethics.
You know, as this changes, andalso I don't really like the

(01:16:29):
word inclusive because I thinkit's just been misused as a term
.
But you know, how do we makesure that you know, with the
ethics of using whoever's incharge kind of controls the
future right, it's likewhoever's running that thing,
that's their future work, thatthey do Like, how do we work to

(01:16:49):
make sure that it is inclusive,it doesn't perpetuate the status
quo?
I don't like to use any kind oflike bingo buzzwords.
I think there's a realchallenge for us as futurists to
do this.
I think it's one of the, theunderlying buzz of the of the
whole thing.

John (01:17:09):
It's like we have to make sure that there's real,
effective change and thateverybody's voice is heard Right
the rootedness, within thecontext that I feel, of future

(01:17:31):
studies and organizations likethe World Future Studies
Federation, that kind of emergedduring this Cold War era and
said look like another world ispossible.
Right, there really is anotherworld possible and I recently,
like Anab Jain, one of theco-founders of Superflux right,
talks about.
You know, other worlds arepossible.
So, like, I think for me, theethical is as a, as a futurist

(01:17:51):
is someone who, like I, like,willfully identifies with, with
that contentious moniker right,like a term is thrown around,
like we were saying earlier onLinkedIn, but like to to say,
like it's really our job, it'sreally our our calling, it's
really like the ethos of what itmeans to be a futurist is to
highlight that other worlds arepossible and to do that in a way

(01:18:15):
that calls attention to youknow, the quote, the disowned,
the disempowered, thedisenfranchised, those
potentialities and possibilitiesthat are not just about, you
know, overthrowing the current,just because that's that's what
you know, the, the futurist does, it's the change and disruption
.
All of that is there.
But, like, how do we find ways?

(01:18:36):
And this is again why I lovethe work of Sohail and Nirvana
and others in this space of like, okay, we have the dominant, we
have the disowned.
What's the integrated?
Look like?
What does it mean to say thatwe have, you know, this new type
of structure that brings thebest of both?
And how do we find our waytowards those types of futures?

(01:18:57):
And then again, like, how do wekeep the conversation going so
that you know the space of doingfutures work?
And I also, again with John,like Zia Sardar talked about, we
don't just need imagination.
And I also, again with John,like Zia Sardar talked about, we
don't just need imagination, toyour point, we need ethical
imagination.
And he talks about, then, thevirtues of ethical imagination

(01:19:17):
as being humility, modesty andaccountability.
And I like that combinationbecause, okay, accountable to
whom?
Like?
Well, we're ultimatelyaccountable as future ancestors.
Like you know, we need to findour way to, you know, like this
classical adage of, like youknow, leave only footprints.
And we're not doing that, justlike, as happened previously,

(01:19:39):
the humility piece comes torealizing, like we're not going
to know everything.
There's a lot of learning bydoing along the way.
And, of course, you know, themodesty piece is fascinating,
because then, what is it aboutthe types of work that we need
to do and don't need to do to, Ithink, the heart of your
question.
That is really critical withinthis field.

(01:19:59):
And I think for me that'salways come back to the idea
that in any project, in anyprocess, how do I find a space
to call into question thoseassumptions, right, to find a
way to create provocations thatcan leverage multiple and
different perspectives and thatthat can be part of the process.
And I found that to be the workthat, again, not just feeds the

(01:20:21):
stomach but really feeds thesoul and, at the end of the day,
that's the work that you wantto try to find your way to, um,
and it's, it's a constantchallenge, it's it always feels
like it's requiring that.
That being in that, that thatmiddle space where where people
like you enough and think you doa good enough job to hire you,

(01:20:42):
but also you have to make themuncomfortably or comfortably
uncomfortable enough to like,they're willing to like, wait,
what's going on here?
Right, so it's.
It's always that kind of like,that fuzzy, weird space that you
know as a designer, like you're, you're right, you're kind of
always towing those lines andlike, and sometimes you hit that
wall and sometimes you the thetrees clear and you open up in a

(01:21:04):
field and like let's go play,so like you have to.
It's.
It's that constant type ofwayfinding that I think is
critical, that that I think isat the heart of the ethics of
doing this work.
Um, that I think is so, is socritical and central.

Steve (01:21:18):
Yeah, you're right, I mean, I it's.
It's funny.
On one hand you'll hear youknow what data there's different
.
I'm paraphrasing.
But Sahil's, like, you know, ifyou're not doing, if you're not
thinking wildly enough, you'renot really doing your job.
As a futurist, like you know,futures aren't.
You know, and I kind of pridemyself in, you know, being a bit
provocative, but I also am arealist, Like I understand, like

(01:21:40):
you know, people, what peoplewill.
There's a limit to what peoplecan consume or take at certain.
You know, sometimes you have togive it to them in small doses,
right.
But as a designer it's a great,he brought that up it's like if
I'm paid to do a design project, I'm going to.
If they're bidding it out, theyhave a better idea of what they

(01:22:00):
want, right.
So there's, there's a level ofscope in that thing.
If you're doing a futuresengagement, say, you're doing,
uh, something for their productand trying to figure out the
product landscape five, tenyears, to kind of look at.
You know, diabetes care alwaysmy go-to, because it's like how
much technology's changed withcontinuous glucose monitoring,

(01:22:21):
or like what's it going to be in10 years?
Like the evolution of that,like.
But if you go so far afield.
It's almost like I can't designsomething too far because then
they will accept it and theproject will be a waste of my
time.
So I have to manageexpectations or I have to
understand really not justmanaging but understanding their

(01:22:42):
limits to creativity.
I say late, not everyone iscreative, not everyone is super.
Like the end, the limits andthere's different, I think,
gradients of that.
I think the same applies tofutures work.
It's like you know Iexperienced that a lot at
McKinsey is that you know thatfirm is paid a lot by people to

(01:23:02):
tell them what to do tomorrow orthe next quarter, tomorrow or
the next quarter, the appetitefor three years, five years, 10
years, 20 years, no matter yourrate of change, most don't
really care, or they don't, orthey might put it in marketing,
speak for vision or other things, but the reality of action,
it's, it's.
The challenge now is findingthose people that get it.

(01:23:23):
But at the same time, I thinkshows like this and the you know
you teaching like it's it'sabout getting the right people
in those organizations tounderstand it so that they can
buy it Right, so that they'rethe ones that can communicate to
their people to buy the samething with government, right To
those people that get it, cancommunicate it to, you know, the

(01:23:44):
director of that bureau or thehead of the minister of that
bureau that they have to do this, um, and they are the ones that
usually usually kind of taketheir responsibility.
You know, take the heat.
But I think it's, I think it'simportant to understand that as
a futurist, like what yourclient would really take as
acceptable to live for, like ayou know outcome, with the

(01:24:07):
understanding that some of ityou may not like.
And are you okay with that?
Right, yeah?

John (01:24:13):
Yeah, yeah.
And I think, for me, what goesalong with this, and I think,
like you know, like I feel likeI've been fortunate enough to
come to this and clearly, likeyou're also a living testament
to this as well, like you know,we're also spreading the futures
bug, right?
Like, how do we get more peopleinfected with futures?
Bad metaphor, bad metaphor, Iget it, but like too soon.
But like, like this idea oflike we want, we want to create

(01:24:36):
more people who are like youknow, like whether this is high,
high, low, low, or whether thisis part of their formal work,
or whether it's a thing they doat night and then bring to the
office the next day or bringtheir right, like those people
who are like I'm going to dothis no matter what, because
this is part of who I am andthis is so important to to to
everything.
So I think that's the, that'sthe, the other part that I
really dig about.

(01:24:57):
This is like when somebodyclicks and they get it and you
realize that like they've,they've just how they see,
everything has just beencompletely shifted.
Like there's a beauty in thatmoment and that happened to me
and like seeing that happen inothers is like is is what it's
all about.
I think that goes along withthat, like other world or
possible, this provocation space, like a bit of that.

(01:25:20):
I think that's, that's thecritical part that is so central
to actually having this greatmeeting.

Steve (01:25:26):
Where I think it can be really successful for those who
are listening is that if youfind the levers with people,
you'll find that they've beenwanting to try and communicate
this, but they didn't know how,and now there's a.
This is an avenue and a pathwayto actually synthesize
something that can be consumedby people.
The non-futurists, or at leastthe go toward futurist literacy.

(01:25:52):
The show here yeah.
I like the, especially theinsights of careers.
You know is this is none.

(01:26:12):
This is not a common journey,it's no one typical journey, you
know, like going to law school,become a lawyer, become partner
.
What's the one thing you knowkind of taking this journey, you
know, and you found this what'sthe one thing you've learned in
your career you wish you knew,like you would, when you started
well, uh, that's a really Iguess.

John (01:26:35):
I guess that's a really great question.
I think the one thing that, asI look back, is that I really
needed to find that balance inmyself of the extra from the
introvert, like I.
I think maybe a lot of peoplehave the impression, by either
doing this work or, you know,like, uh, trying to really

(01:26:57):
connect, that like the extrovertpart is is natural and, and for
me it is in many ways because I, I really get so much energy
from connecting with people andlove that, like, love, that
those moments of realconnectivity and and opening up
and sharing and learning aboutothers, and like, and, on the
other hand, like, the need tokind of rec who I work with and,

(01:27:20):
like you know, in formaleducational spaces, or even
people who are like part ofproject teams coming to me and
like, like how and talking aboutthat balance.
So I would say like, like,having the ability to understand
what that balance looked like.

(01:27:40):
And it is, yeah, about mentalhealth, but it is also about how
we practice and what we do.
Um, because the one thing Ididn't realize when I started
and this is also about my ownpath, which has had a lot more
precarity and maybe a lot morelike moving around than others
might have, is having thatnetwork kind of mindset, like

(01:28:02):
having genuine connections andbeing able to work across
different you know organizationsor teams or units and like
being open to that as really paydividends.
But that also requires lots ofrecharging, which is why I live
in a small Turkish town anddon't do any work in this
country at all, just like I'mhere, as like hey, we live in us
, we live by the sea and that'sour life.

(01:28:23):
Because I need that.
I need that Like.
I need that space to kind oflike recharge and kind of hold
that I need that like I needthat space to kind of like
recharge and kind of hold that Ineed that keep versus the other
part Right, and I think that'ssomething that I didn't realize.
I didn't realize how much of alike, a weight or a cost there
would be to doing this work andso like coming to understand

(01:28:46):
that and then coming to find abalance with that has been been
a really interesting part.
That would have been nice tomaybe know in advance a little
bit more, but the, the, thefinding my way to it, it's also
been, it's been a process and italways is.

Steve (01:28:58):
I can completely relate to that.
You know, when you think aboutthe legacy we leave right, this
kind of looking back, you knowwe're both young, you know this
field is going to be, it's goingto have an amazing decade ahead
of it and even more so, right,it's always you know the what,

(01:29:19):
whatever the singularity, right,or what is the what is the next
20 years of life?
There's always going to be aneed for futures in some way.

John (01:29:26):
But when you're looking back, you know you work with
some great organizations whatimpact do you hope that the work
you do will have, and hope ithas, on the world?
Yeah, I, I think now I'vereally landed on one thing that,
like, is absolutely critical,that I want to feel like, look,

(01:29:48):
if I've done this, you know foranother 15 years or more that,
like I can say I've contributedtowards, and that is really
keeping the futures plural.
Um, I think, when I, when Ilook at a lot of the certainly
the negative trends, right, therisks, the, the flashing neon
signs that we all see and feel,it can feel a lot of times like
like we had discussed earlier,like this topic futures are

(01:30:12):
winning, right, and we're headedoff a cliff, like I think a lot
of people feel this way fromany number of things that seem
to be converging.
So, if we can hold this ideathat there are a range of
futures that are possible andthat we have that as a mindset
this, this alternative futuresmindset and I've contributed to

(01:30:32):
that in some meaningful wayYou're working with X and Y or a
corporation, organization,government, you name it and I'll
have felt like I did somethingthat was, you know, like
meaningful in this life and, Ithink, also too right as a, as a
parent, like feeling like I'veI've contributed to a world

(01:30:52):
where my, my, my, my childrenhave more possible futures,
right, and at the end of the day, that's that's.
That's, of course, what we want,but like be able to do that
professionally and to link that,that personal space into it is
again it feels like it's and Ithink you know you've expressed
as well like it's a callingright.
You feel like, yes, there's avocation and yes, you can make
this as a living, but like it'ssomething more and I think

(01:31:14):
that's the part that like.
I feel like again standing onthe shoulders with others in the
field of different generations.
It's such a profoundresponsibility and, like it, it
it weighs heavy at times, butalso like, wow, what a, what a
dynamic way to go through lifeand hopefully to to leave it in
a better place.

Steve (01:31:36):
Agree, it's a great place to uh wrap things up.
We've been having a greatconversation.
So, john, thanks for being on.
It's been a wonderfulconversation.

John (01:31:46):
Couldn't wait to have you on again, it's been amazing man,
and I don't think there'sanything else to say but go,
Dodgers.

Steve (01:31:53):
Yeah, go Dodgers.
Yes, for those that arelistening on the audio, we both
have a.
I have my Brooklyn Dodgers hatand John has his Los Angeles
Dodgers.
Like you say, to the end it's a.
It's a Dodgers love house, so,all right, great, thank you.

Narrator (01:32:10):
Thanks.
Thanks for listening to theThink Forward podcast.
You can find us on all themajor podcast platforms and at
wwwthinkforwardshowcom, as wellas on YouTube under Think
Forward Show.
See you next time.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

The Breakfast Club

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Think Forward EP 125: Transformative Foresight with Dr. John Sweeney

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

The Breakfast Club

The Joe Rogan Experience

All Episodes

Think Forward EP 125: Transformative Foresight with Dr. John Sweeney

On Purpose with Jay Shetty