Architecting the Future: Turning Systemic Risks into Shared Opportunities

In this session of the Dean’s Distinguished Speaker Series, Professor Charlene Zietsma, Max McGraw Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan, examined how climate change, geopolitical tensions and rapid advances in AI are reshaping markets in ways no organisation can tackle alone. She argued that forward-looking leaders are turning to cross-sector collaborations, bringing together businesses, regulators and stakeholders to address systemic risks that cut across industries and societies.

Through real-world examples, Professor Zietsma showed how moving beyond short-term, siloed thinking enables organisations to convert shared risks into opportunities for innovation and collective value creation. Moderated by Mr David Yat Ho, President of Alpha Ladder Innovx and President of the NTU CCDS Alumni Association, the session highlighted the practical challenges and possibilities of building trust, aligning incentives and shaping more resilient, collaborative futures.

The following is an edited transcript of the Q&A segment:

Mr. Yat: Thank you for the very insightful talk and for defining “wicked problems” so clearly. It resonates with many of the big challenges Singapore faces today. You also gave us clear, prescriptive steps and the values needed to work through these challenges. I appreciated that you used examples from Singapore. In business school, we often studied cases from companies like General Electric, but sometimes we overlook our own success. Singapore’s founders mapped our constraints – no water, no defence force, no industry, no capital – and designed a city-state fit for foreign investment and jobs. They were very much “people who get the job done”. I hope more business schools highlight Singapore’s success in this systems perspective. I’m also very interested in your toolkit, because it helps make those steps tangible, especially when different parties with conflicting needs, interests and motives must work together, build trust, and form relationships. Emotions and relationships are rarely discussed in business school.

Prof Charlene: Absolutely. This focus on emotions emerged very strongly in my research, and led me to write a book and several articles on emotions in conflict situations. I could clearly see how much they mattered. One example involved 28 people representing different parties in a water-scarce, wine‑growing region. They needed water for vineyards, forestry, development in a tourist area, salmon spawning, and wildlife. Indigenous groups, biologists, farmers and others were involved, and many of them deeply distrusted one another.

They spent the first year simply telling their stories. Using an indigenous practice, they passed around a talking stick. Whoever held it could speak; everyone else could only affirm or ask clarifying questions. They focused on understanding one another’s positions. Over that year, they built relationships, spent time together, shared meals, and gradually learned to like and trust each other. Eventually, they developed a water‑allocation scheme they all agreed on. It was award‑winning and worked well for a while.

Then someone violated the agreement and broke the trust. The mood turned very negative; people were depressed, energy was low, and the process stalled. It took another year to rebuild trust, but they did. That emotional side is crucial. In every cross‑sector deal I’ve studied, emotions are central. You need emotional energy to transform anything.

Mr. Yat: And you can draw that energy from relationships. In our context, one of the reasons Singapore has been successful is honouring our word. As former Head of Civil Service Lim Siong Guan has said, we honour our commitments. That builds trust – with investors, who believe their capital is safe, and with workers, who believe they will receive a fair share of the economic gains. Singapore is a high‑trust society, and international surveys often rank us highly on trust. You also emphasised trust in your talk. So if we intentionally build relationships, we can create feelings of trust among stakeholders, and solutions can emerge. Is that what you are saying?

Prof Charlene: Yes. When people trust each other and listen to each other, that makes all the difference. I quoted the line: “If I care about what you care about, you’ll care about what I care about.” Trust comes from that reciprocity and deep listening. When I truly listen to you, you feel understood, and that goes a long way toward creating solutions. It also helps us see the different kinds of value we can create. We can “multi‑solve”. If I know what you care about, I know what I can offer in any solution so that you’re satisfied as well.

Mr. Yat: And on the flip side, if we lose trust, then no matter what practices we put in place, solutions won’t emerge because the relationship is gone.

Prof Charlene: Exactly. Theoretically, trust has been called “the grease of society” – it lubricates transactions and makes things happen. If you’re looking to the future but don’t trust your partners, you can’t plan long term. You focus instead on what you can secure for yourself right now so you’re not taken advantage of. With long‑term trust, it becomes much easier to plan for the future.

I really appreciated what you said earlier in the car about how central trust is in Singaporean society. It feels like this is your century. That high‑trust culture is a huge opportunity and asset in today’s world.

Audience member: I liked the way you talked about co‑creating the future. I’ve experienced Singapore that way. Our founders set out to build a first‑world country when that was almost unimaginable to my father’s generation. If you had come to Boat Quay a few decades ago, it smelled; now it’s clean, and people swim in the river. Singapore’s founders truly co‑created a desirable future, as you described. That vision was crucial in bringing people together.

Prof Charlene: Yes, having a compelling vision and inspiring people with it provides the emotional energy to act and gives direction. Economist Mariana Mazzucato talks about how governments can take that perspective – to lead, to make sense of things for people. She often cites Kennedy’s “We’re going to the moon” speech. That vision aligned many actors and made people move in the same direction. When the vision is inspiring and people buy into it, collective action becomes possible.

Audience member: You contrasted the traditional “divide and conquer” approach to problem‑solving – especially common in engineering – with the complexity of multi‑stakeholder, wicked problems. Your case studies seem to suggest that even with many stakeholders, you still need two key stakeholders to first build trust and create a partial solution before bringing others on board. Would you agree? If we bring too many people together at once, we may go nowhere. The Canadian forest example seemed to support that.

Prof Charlene: Let me first say that the Canadian forest case was about 25 years ago, and our context has evolved since then. I understand your point, but I think there’s a risk when only two key stakeholders work things out: they may lack full information. Even though it’s more complex, it’s better to start with more people in the room to understand the problem, especially those with less power, so their perspectives are properly heard.

From there, you can form working groups that focus on specific issues. Those groups will naturally include the major resource holders and key stakeholders most affected by the problem. Working groups make the process more manageable while ensuring the initial problem‑framing is inclusive.

Audience member: If we bring this back to today’s global issues – whether global trade, war, or climate change – sometimes there’s a “big elephant in the room”, a powerful actor that doesn’t even believe, for example, in climate change. Maybe others must first come together, create optimism and solutions, and only then bring that recalcitrant country into the picture. Would you agree?

Prof Charlene: Yes, in some cases you need a coalition of willing actors to move first. My “other” favourite leader, Mark Carney, has been trying to do this with middle‑power countries – building coalitions among them to bring more stability and sanity into the global system. That kind of coalition can lead and demonstrate what’s possible, even before all major powers are on board.

Audience member: Thanks for the presentation. I moved to Singapore from the US about a month and a half ago – good choice, I think! My question is about how institutions and culture affect the speed of co‑creation. In the US, political cycles are short, and companies focus on short‑term shareholder value. In the Netherlands, where I used to live, there’s the polder model – everyone collaborates. Many Asian countries have more long‑term plans. With your six‑step process, can these changes happen faster or slower depending on culture, institutions and political structures?

Prof Charlene: It probably does vary. On one hand, in the US the short‑term mindset suggests it would take longer to build trust. On the other hand, people are also less patient, which creates pressure to move quickly. So it’s hard to generalise. And I have to say: the polder model is great – and I’m also Dutch, so I’m fond of that example.

Mr. Yat: There are many questions coming in online. One is: what is your view on the adoption of sustainability and renewable energy when architecting the future?

Prof Charlene: I’m fully supportive. We’re now at a point where renewable energy is cheaper than almost any alternative. There is no good reason not to use it unless someone has a personal or political vendetta against it. Decarbonising society is critical, and renewable energy is one of the necessary and relatively straightforward steps to justify and accelerate.

Mr. Yat: It’s hard these days to have a talk without a question on AI. What should leaders do to manage the rise of AI adoption, especially when expectations are high but resources are limited? How can companies become AI‑ready, and what strategies can organisations adopt to stay ahead amid AI disruptions and potential job losses?

Prof Charlene: If I had a complete answer, I’d be very popular. These are very tough challenges. We need to ask: how do we get the best out of AI without letting it get the best of us? How do we avoid cognitively surrendering to it? We should be having multi‑stakeholder discussions at the societal level to figure this out.

I like the example of my son’s fintech company. They knew they had to address AI, so the top management team rented a conference room in a downtown Toronto hotel for a week. The whole company gathered, and they spent the week working through how they would use AI. They discovered they could save about two years in re‑architecting their system. At the same time, they put guardrails in place so they could manage AI responsibly.

That example shows the value of people coming together first: asking how to use AI, how to prepare, how to set policies, how to get comfortable with it, and how to make decisions. At a societal level, we will also need to decide what to do about the workforce, because the impact on jobs is already huge and will continue to be.

Mr. Yat: From your example, it sounds like the company cared about its employees first and then explored how AI could be used. Many people worry, “Will I still have a job?” Addressing that concern head‑on, with trust and relationships and clear values, seems important.

Prof Charlene: Absolutely. Even with care, we will still see job losses and role changes. I don’t know how you’re experiencing recruitment and the MBA job market, but we’ve seen some losses and shifts in how companies approach hiring. They are still making sense of AI, and as a result they’re moving cautiously. But centering people, trust and values can guide better decisions.

Audience member: I have a question from an external perspective. As David pointed out, Singapore has done very well for decades, but many systemic risks you mentioned are global. Singapore is still a relatively small country. How do you see Singapore’s place on the global stage, given that many forces are outside its control? Can Singapore continue to thrive and maintain its position as a “little red dot” in Southeast Asia?

Prof Charlene: This is my first visit to Singapore, but I’ve been very impressed. On the world stage, I like the example of the Port of Singapore and the Global Maritime Decarbonisation Initiative. I first heard about it when I was teaching a case on shipping and thought, “Singapore is doing some really interesting things.”

If a country can select specific domains in which to develop deep expertise and become a global leader, that goes a long way. You can’t lead in everything, but strategic choices matter. At the same time, you must also ask: what do we want for ourselves here in Singapore? How do we create a future that works for people living here?

Mr. Yat: As a follow‑up: in the global landscape of collaboration and coordination, how can a small country like Singapore play a role on major issues such as sustainability, where the largest emitters are big powers? How can Singapore contribute when we are a small city‑state?

Prof Charlene: Singapore can act on several levels. Within its borders, it can legislate and create enabling conditions. It can also develop templates and models others can adopt. Returning to shipping, Singapore is developing mechanisms others can say, “This is how it will work; let’s adopt it.”

Then there is diplomacy. As a non‑threatening power that bridges East and West, Singapore can have significant influence. You understand both perspectives and can play a bridging diplomatic role, helping connect and coordinate across divides.

Mr. Yat: Yes, even in your short trip here you may sense that we are a mix of East and West. Early in my career, Singapore was a gateway for bringing Western technologies and industries to the East. Now I help Chinese technologies and companies internationalise, and they are coming through Singapore again. We have a unique cultural and geographic position that allows us to facilitate flows both ways.

Prof Charlene: We had a very interesting discussion in the car about this. You explained it very clearly. I agree that diplomacy is a natural opportunity: when you can bridge divides and connect networks, you add a lot of value and can gain influence, even without being a large power.

Mr. Yat: On behalf of NTU and Nanyang Business School, thank you for your insightful lecture and for travelling here to share your ideas on architecting the future. Your toolkit particularly resonated with us, because in Singapore trust and relationships truly matter. People here trust the government, and that trust has been earned over time. Even in challenging periods and amid systemic risks, the mood here remains optimistic. Many see Singapore, and ASEAN more broadly, as “the place to be” in a turbulent world. I’m glad you chose to come to Singapore, where opportunities extend beyond our borders to a region of some 600 million people. Thank you very much for joining us today.

Watch the webinar here: