Strategy · Geopolitics · Leadership · Resilience
Turning geopolitical complexity into action.
Almost every organisation currently under pressure calls its situation unprecedented. That is often the case internally, but the underlying pattern seen across sectors rarely is. That pattern includes competitions across the international political economy unfolding at once, market alignments shifting, commercial technology outpacing the international rules written for it, and sovereign power being used more protectively than at any time since the Cold War. Recognising the pattern helps without providing an answer, but it does stop every shock from being treated as wholly new.
Geopolitical awareness is a matter of knowing which questions are worth asking, and of recognising which assumptions about organisational resilience are most likely to fail.
I unpack geopolitical and institutional complexity so organisations can keep moving through it rather than brace against it. I learned how through service in military and international institutions, through work in government and with industry, and most recently through helping businesses in Australia navigate a period of generational change.
Where this comes from →
Five reflections on organisational resilience
Organisations rarely struggle because the people inside them are careless or ill-intentioned. They lose momentum because the machinery built to produce outputs is also what eventually makes them slow to notice, slow to translate and slow to act, and because that machinery tends to forget that the people running it are what actually hold it together.
Resilience, as I use the word here, is not the ability to withstand a shock. It is the ability to keep moving through one that started well outside your control and well outside your expertise.
-
Strong organisations know where expertise and influence really sit—and buy in only what is genuinely missing.
Organisations frequently misallocate expertise by assuming capability must be imported rather than discovered, commissioning external specialists to solve problems already understood internally by individuals whose knowledge, credibility or cross-hierarchical influence is simply not visible to formal structures. Dispersed knowledge, formal decision rights and genuine gaps in capability are often conflated, leading to the costly assumption that external procurement is the default remedy. In reality, most large organisations already contain the relevant insight, spread across functions, professions and levels of seniority; the real challenge is identifying it, connecting it and translating it into action. This requires disciplined internal mapping of capability and privileging institutional understanding over the superficial authority of external advisers who may lack contextual depth. The opposite error is assuming internal presence guarantees sufficiency, which can entrench inertia under the guise of self-reliance. The judgement therefore rests in knowing what is absent as much as what is available.
Organisational influence rarely aligns with formal hierarchy. An organisation chart defines accountability, not decisiveness, and the ability to move an organisation often sits with those who make ideas acceptable, bridge informal networks of trust, or remove friction without mandate. Escalation can compel resolution, but it does not generate understanding; informal relationships determine whether decisions are absorbed and acted upon. Organisations that rely only on escalation tend to mistake procedural compliance for coherence, leaving them more fragile than they appear. Those that recognise and cultivate the networks through which influence flows are better able to convert decisions into action, because authority on paper is only one dimension of how organisations function.
-
Capable people easily tell the difference between being trusted and being left to carry risk.
Being told to take initiative is not the same as being trusted with responsibility. Genuine empowerment rests on clarity of purpose, access to the information on which decisions actually turn, and confidence that reasonable judgement will be supported at senior levels, including when a decision made logically and in good faith produces the wrong result. This is not about shielding people from accountability. It is about recognising the difference between incompetence and an honest mistake made under uncertain conditions.
Delegation becomes meaningless when it merely transfers risk downwards while preserving control at the top. Declaring people empowered costs a leader nothing. Standing behind them when a defensible decision goes wrong is the part that carries a price, and it is the part people remember. An organisation that cannot absorb reasonable failure will gradually fill with people who wait to be told what to do precisely when speed and judgement matter most. Freedom without boundaries produces hesitation; control without trust produces only compliance.
-
A commercially attractive choice can still be strategically wrong.
For much of the past forty years, organisations were encouraged to treat markets, capital, commercial technology and the supply chains sustaining globalised economies as though they could be assessed principally through price, efficiency and legal compliance. That approach was commercially rational during a period of confidence that economic interdependence would moderate political difference. It is becoming harder to sustain. Businesses do not float free of the political systems from which they emerge. Their conduct and constraints are shaped by governance models, legal obligations, strategic relationships, cultural assumptions and state expectations, whether formally imposed or simply embedded in how they operate. Not every state separates commerce from strategy, and a profitable relationship can still weaken institutional trust, national resilience or an organisation’s future freedom of action.
None of this requires economic isolation or the assumption that every relationship is hostile. It requires organisations to distinguish between relationships they can manage, dependencies they can diversify, exposure they can tolerate and arrangements that would compromise their ability to choose later. Nuance matters because not every risk warrants the same response, but it cannot become an excuse to avoid alignment. Openness is a strength only while it preserves the institutions and freedoms that make openness possible. The choice is neither closing off nor selling out. It is remaining open where possible, drawing lines where necessary and accepting that some commercially attractive decisions are strategically wrong.
-
The critical skill is knowing what must remain protected, what can be explained and how to connect the two.
Communications teams denied access to the real reasoning are left to produce slogans, while experts who treat every nuance as sensitive make the organisation’s strongest evidence invisible. Neither generates confidence. Without trusted people who can bridge the inside and outside, external communication loses its grounding.
External trust is built by explaining enough of the evidence, reasoning and constraints for others to understand why a position is credible. That requires disciplined judgement about what is secret, what is merely sensitive, what is already open source and what can be said safely with the right context. In an information environment where falsehood travels quickly, repetition can harden fiction into belief and silence is rarely neutral. Organisations that cannot make these distinctions leave the public field to actors with fewer scruples and simpler stories.
The durable capability is therefore not privileged access alone. It is the ability to protect what must remain protected while using what can be shared to make the truth intelligible.
-
The people closest to execution should shape the strategy, not allow present constraints to define its limits.
Strategy often fails because practical constraints, institutional friction and the experience of the people expected to deliver are treated as problems to resolve after direction has already been set. By then, the strategy has usually embedded false assumptions about authority, capacity, incentives, sequencing and time. Strategic distance can help leaders see beyond immediate tactical constraints, but only when they understand which constraints are real, which are self-imposed and which can be changed.
The opposite failure is to mistake change itself for strategy. Proven systems should not be dismantled simply because prevailing ideas make them appear unfashionable, just as present friction should not determine what an organisation is willing to attempt. Organisations subjected to repeated, poorly grounded transformation often end up either chasing novelty or retreating into plans that can be delivered without changing anything important. Good strategy does neither. It preserves what works, changes what obstructs the objective and uses delivery evidence to identify what must be resourced, redesigned, sequenced or removed so that ambition becomes executable.
Putting the reflections to work
Ideas matter most when they meet a real decision.
These reflections and more come alive when tested against real questions by people who have decisions to make or knowledge to develop.
Through chairing and MC'ing, teaching and mentoring, and analysis and commentary, I help organisations, professional and academic audiences examine complex issues clearly, challenge assumptions and make accessible wider geopolitical and institutional change impacting us all.
Analysis & Commentary
Testing ideas on the page.
Writing is my filter to best understand complex issues myself. I publish because an argument put on the record is about accountability as much as credibility. My goal is always to identify what matters, explain why, and make complexity legible to people who want to understand it without already being experts.
That work has appeared through the Lowy Institute, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, The Diplomat, the Wavell Room and defence journals including the British Army Review. The Security Sitrep is the continuing home for everything else, following the same sequence each time: what happened, why it matters and what it means for the decisions that follow.
Recent analysis
- 12 June 2026 The Diplomat AUKUS After AUKMIN: The Test Beyond Washington
- 10 June 2026 Lowy Institute · The Interpreter Actually, the UN is broken – and that’s exactly why reform matters
- 13 May 2026 Lowy Institute · The Interpreter The budget patches an energy system built for a different world
- 12 March 2026 The Diplomat The Iran War Is Now Impacting AUKUS
Continue