At any level, the Open goal is the global goal ― yes, the world, at least. There is no contradiction in this, but a mindset and a challenge – for the Open leader – to bring goals together in mutually strengthening ways.
The final goal may be so far away that it looks like it doesn’t make any difference.
Yet, it does.
The issue is the leader’s Open mindset. Then, from the leader’s Open stance and actions, eventually, everybody’s mindset. Open Leadership is about an Open mindset toward inside and outside, both to a considerable degree. This naturally evolves toward having the globe as the final goal. It’s part of the Open Leadership deal. You want Open Leadership? You get the global goal.
Furthermore, thinking from global to local and thinking from local to local are crucially different. At least, it makes one prone to see other issues and opportunities. Thus, the global goal eventually makes a positive difference locally.
What about local versus global interests?
It feels natural for a leader to defend his group against other groups. In evolutionary terms, the survival of the strongest leads to leaders who make their groups – absolutely or relatively – stronger. The reverse seems contra-natural.
No naiveté ― Indeed, this is a challenge one should take seriously.
Yet <the local versus the less local> has always been an issue. Each group may have subgroups. In the best case, the group leader brings the subgroups together and shows, one way or another, that it is in their interests to integrate themselves into the larger group. Meanwhile, the different identities of subgroups must not be eradicated. An Open Leader strives to diminish tensions in this regard. No person should feel like losing something profoundly important.
What about individual competition?
Competition – in money, assets, status, ideas, etc. – is arguably the primary motivator in a capitalist-liberal society. Motivating people one way or another is also arguably most important for running any other kind of society.
Can competing groups strive for a common global goal?
Not easily. That’s why we need Open Leadership in this ever more complex and global worldly village. Open Leadership relaxes head-on zero-sum competition and, therefore, needs to put something in place. The result may be a gradual shift toward a post-capitalist society. My candidate for the substitute, following Open Leadership, is Compassion.
No naiveté ― For a starter, it is not Compassionate to let oneself be competed out of business.
Therefore, one should integrate competition into the global goal.
This can be done by bringing some notions of global goals into the competitive framework, thereby transforming the local level. Part of the effort lies in Opening coworkers, at first toward inside. Then, from the inside out, Open Leadership can strengthen Compassionate competition toward oneself or others and let it strengthen ever broader circles.
The mason then doesn’t chisel on some stone but is building a cathedral.
This Inner Strength dissolves into people and society, making everything and everyone stronger. New opportunities to thrive arise at every level, including the local.
No naiveté ― This makes many things more challenging, requiring much effort, insight, and experience.
Isn’t it great?