My Approach

Let’s start with what I do…

I’m a philosopher, editor and facilitator. I help people find personal and professional clarity, as individuals and groups. This takes three main forms. I work with

• founders and leaders to foster more aligned organisations

• thinkers and researchers to bring original texts to publication

• practitioners of all kinds to reach higher levels of maturity.

In parallel, I run a writing and design practice. Working alone, in pairs or with larger groups, I develop and test ideas, models and methods to make sense of our complex world and better engage with it – a sort of DIY clarity toolbox, if you will. I share those in blogs, books and essays, as well as programs and workshops. You can find more details in My Portfolio.

All this does not add up to a typical job or career. I work across sectors and organisations, on my own and with others, blending open source and paid gigs, alternating fat and lean periods. There is no clear label for my role. To get things done – to build partnerships and for my own clarity – I’ve had to put effort in articulating what I actually do, and why it matters.

This page is my latest attempt at it. What I’m presenting here is my personal theory of change – connecting what I do with what I hope to achieve. I’ve structured it in three parts, starting with the how, then turning to the why, and finally looking at constraints and trade-offs. I hope that my approach will resonate with you. If it does, and you would like to discuss working together, or just share insights and perspectives, please contact me!

1 – How do I get things done?

For a while now, my personal tagline has been ‘I like to listen, and look for common ground’. This is a good way to sum up my craft as a coach, editor, and facilitator. Let’s unpack it.

At a basic level, I use what I call the magic of listening. Following the principle that ‘where attention goes, energy flows’, I prompt individuals and groups to listen better to themselves through role-modelling. When they discern the signal from the noise, the right action follows – or at least, it is more likely to.

I combine this with active mirroring. Drawing on wide experience and sources of knowledge, I reframe what I hear, feel and observe, translating elusive, dissonant or dispersed impressions until they find a stable verbal shape. This process has a number of benefits.

• At a visceral level, it triggers a felt sense of connection that boosts confidence.

• At a cognitive level, it matches an emerging situation or problem with existing archetypes, models or frameworks to learn from and build on.

• Interpersonally, crystallising ideas into shared language reveals alignment with diverse perspective, opening ways to build bridges, alliances, or viable compromises.

• From a practical angle, greater clarity improves people’s capacity to discern the lines of tension, challenges and pitfalls in what they do, as well as articulating next steps.  

Work one-on-one or with small groups is intrinsically nourishing, and how most things get done. However, it has structural limits of scale. This is in part why I balance it with a personal practice, in hope that I can benefit more people indirectly. In addition, the reflective work involved in writing and designing is crucial to my own clarity: it’s a way to learn, and keep myself sane. Finally, sharing blogs, books and essays is a great way to nurture a network of peers, giving myself and others a greater sense of meaning, hope and connection.

2 – What am I hoping to achieve?

My work has two core premises.

• The first is that we’re living in a period of disruption. It’s happening at the macro levels of nature, climate, technology, society, culture, politics and geopolitics. It also manifests in relationships, identity, day-to-day life, core beliefs, all the way to mental health and brain chemistry. The result is extraordinary confusion. To a large extent and for many of us, what we took for granted is no longer guaranteed, what we’ve learned is no longer valid, what we’ve worked so hard for is becoming irrelevant – causing us to hover between despair and discomfort via patches of denial.

• The second is that human action can and should shape the world positively. In the face of the present crisis, many of us feel the duty to ‘do something’. Sometimes, it’s only to preserve whatever patch of grass is in our custody – protect our family, friends, team, business, or country. Often, it’s in hope of engaging meaningfully with the bigger picture, even taking a chance to make things better, for our sake and for others.

In short, coherent action is both increasingly difficult, and increasingly desirable. This applies at many levels, whether we’re considering the mid-term future of our countries and communities in light of the climate crisis, or the way that AI, populism, trade wars, financial constraints and resource scarcity will affect our teams, organisations and industry sectors.

In this context, I work with people to gain greater clarity on three practical questions: what should I do, what can I do, and what do I want to do? Typically, this is within the more narrow context of a project, venture, book or job – though personal aspects often play in.

Ultimately, success and ripple effects are beyond our control. However, to the extent that everything is probabilistic, giving clear answers to those questions has three benefits:

• First, if we’re personally clear and collectively aligned on a goal and vision, we’re more likely to bring things to life, and less likely to cause harm by pure oversight.

• Second, if we’re more able to clearly describe what we want and propose to do, we will reduce misunderstandings and all the associated waste. We can direct more of our energy to deal with genuine conflicts in aspirations and interests. 

• Finally, I believe that clarifying those questions is good in itself. At the soul level, so to speak, we can live more meaningful and connected lives, irrespective of outcomes.

The people I directly work with tend to share two characteristics.

• First, they have a level of influence, as leaders, stewards or influencers in businesses and communities. This is in part a result of personal bias: I have more respect for those who step up and try than those who sit on the side and criticise.

• Second, I mainly work with people involved in some form of change, innovation, or emergent activity. They may be founders, original thinkers, community leaders, educators, designers, or people driving change in organisations and institutions. Those people tend to be most affected by confusion, and benefit most from clarity.

3 – What are my structural constraints?

The work I do comes with a few trade-offs. I discovered those over time, through trial and error, and have accepted them as structural constraints in my theory of change. I name those here to further clarify the shape of my portfolio, services, and principles.

• The work demands high levels of sensitivity and vulnerability. I enter most settings without an armour, by design. I’m very resilient, but occasionally get hurt when I encounter unexpected resistance or hostility. When this happens, I need the possibility to retreat and recover. I therefore need to keep slack in my schedule, and cannot depend on just one person or organisation. Concretely, this means my workload is like Melbourne weather: overall nice, but rarely perfect, with rapid shifts. 

• The work demands high levels of open-mindedness, which I maintain by avoiding the mental routine attached to a standard role, stable organisation, or even embedding myself in one sector. This allows me to bring richer perspectives to my clients, but I can’t rely on shorthand: each new project requires an effort of initial attunement.   

• The work demands high tolerance for ambiguity. Because I contribute clarity, I am most useful when things are unclear. This extends to the role I play. I like to say that if there’s a job description, it’s probably not for me. And the moment everyone sees the value that I bring is when I know the job is done. This means I often come to projects sideways, somewhat against the grain, and on blurry parameters.

• The work requires a strong dose of optimism. In a world that is coming out of whack, I believe that bold new projects and initiatives are the best chance we have. Yet they’re also more likely to fail, whether through lack of traction, poor timing, critical oversight, or pure entropy. In part, I diversify to keep my own balance, so that I’m more able to continue supporting initiatives against the odds. For their sake and for mine, I must also steer clear of cynics and self-serving leaders who play each ball to win.

So, that’s what I’m about…

At least, this is the latest iteration. If this resonates with you – whether you would like to work together on something, discuss your own theory of change, or just share insights – please contact me. I’d love to talk more!