Simon Black – Page 6 – The Conservation Leader

Tell me: what’s your purpose?

Simon Black –

To be clear about our work, who (or what) we are serving, how to do the work, how to change, what improvement looks like – we need to be clear about one thing:

WHAT IS OUR PURPOSE?

Peter Scholtes was one of the clearest writers on this concept; for him, like Deming before, everything starts with purpose; “Without a purpose there is no system”.

Until we have clarity of purpose, all we are doing is completing sets of tasks. ‘Purpose’ should be embedded in our thinking about work, people and organisations. We should be focused on the needs of the sepcies and ecosystems of concern. If not our goals can easily drag us off-track.

Scholtes offers a very clear analogy to illustrate the importance of purpose:

“Cleaning a table cannot be a system until the purpose of the clean table is made clear. A table clean enough to eat on requires one system of cleaning. Clean enough to dance on requires another. Clean enough to perform surgery on requires yet another. Everything starts with purpose.

“What is your purpose?” is the most useful question one can be asked.

When thinking this way, conservation work is transformed from being seen as tasks to carry out, to become a reason to do something which adds real value; a framework for making decisions and seeking ways to improve.

Black, S.A. & Copsey, J.A. (2014). Purpose, Process, Knowledge and Dignity in Interdisciplinary projects. Conservation Biology. 28 (5): 1139-1141. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12344

Deming, W. E. (1993) The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education, second edition. MIT CAES, Cambridge MA.

Scholtes, P. R. (1998) The Leader’s Handbook: A guide to inspiring your people and managing the daily workflow, New York: McGraw-Hill

Scholtes P.R. (1999) The New Competencies of Leadership, Total Quality Management, 10: 4&5, S704-S710.

Why bother with mind, emotions and matter?

Simon Black –

Even if ‘people issues’ are the bug-bear of many conservation leaders, there is plenty of material which draws us to consider the rational and emotional aspects of leading people. It is easy to shrug off the importance of emotions at work. Emotions, rather than being dealt with and utilised, are often herded into one of two extreme boxes; ‘negative’ feelings (e.g. fear, discouragement, depression, disillusionment, upset) on one hand, or ‘positive’ feelings (e.g. celebration, recognition, encouragement) on the other.

However if we are sharing opinions or ideas or even managing more complex changes in the workplace, we should take more care to consider the importance
of the emotional engagement of colleagues. Rarely does rational argument win the day; often either physical elements (e.g. hierarchy) or emotional elements (e.g. engaging support) are needed.

As Seddon states, time and time again, change is a normative process. What does he mean by this? What IS ‘normative’? Normative status is based upon our social understanding and values – we stick to what we stick to; we believe what we believe. Until these perspectives (or ‘paradigms – jargon again!) are challenged and a person is willing to re-educate themselves, then different possibilities will often remain rejected or ignored.

Change has to be an experiential process and part of that process is to ‘un-learn’ previous thinking. It is possible to do this – even world -class golfers can unlearn and re-learn how to hit a golf ball in order to make significant improvement. Nevertheless this is a difficult thing to do. A person has to be ready and willing – emotionally engaged – to want to make the change. And that is just to change a golf swing!

STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE – which will work best?

Power ~ Coercive

BUT…

Assumes that people are generally compliant so will usually do what they are told or can be made to do. Change is achieved by exercising authority and by imposing sanctions. Relies on authority, and the ability to police future actions.

Empirical ~ Rational

BUT…

People are rational and will follow self-interest — once those interests have been revealed to them. Change is based on the communication of information and offers of incentives. Focuses on incentives, which need to work over the long term.

Normative ~ Re-educative

*TRY THIS APPROACH!

People are social creatures and will follow cultural beliefs, traditions and values. Change is based on redefining and reinterpreting these norms & values, and developing people’s commitments to new ones.

If you encourage people to seek knowledge and identify changes that will be helpful, you steer their learning towards the issues which people need to learn in order to make things better. It aslo preserves the dignity of the people you are trying to lead and influence.

Does ‘best’ conservation method mean ‘best’ results?

Simon Black –

Best practice standards are commonly seen as a sure-fire route to successful improvement. After all – who could question the value of implementing best practice? However a prudent conservation leader should be prepared to question the supposed value of ‘best practice’. What does the approach mean in the context of your conservation work?

Why question it?

Any method has to make sense in the context and purpose of what it is trying to deliver. Best practice in cleaning tables might be vital in preparing an operating theatre but might be excessive, costly and irrelevant when applied to a door making factory. The purpose of the work is important. For example, best practice in breeding passerines might not be ‘best’ for your species if you find that all of your captive clutches perish.

Conservation is rife with uncertainty and unknowns. In delivering conservation projects you need to build in flexibility. This means that you have to think carefully about what your species and ecosystems of concern need and therefore what you must do to meet that need – otherwise a poorly considered method will not deliver what is really needed. Deming, the management ‘guru’ of the 20th century always used to ask ‘by what method?’ What he meant was this – the way that you go about something influences the outcomes that you achieve.

Over and above this, if you do implement a standard way of working, you tend to build in both rigidity (a lack of flexibility to meet differing needs). This rigidity has proven to hold many conservation projects back from achieving real progress (Clark, 1994; Black, Groombridge and Jones, 2011). You are also likely to push your results further away from the ideal, because natural systems experience huge amounts of variation; one clutch of birds in one tree will differ in their needs (to some degree) from the clutches in any other tree.

Seddon states “Don’t codify method” – in other words don’t write it all down and demand that everyone sticks to the written code. But why? Surely standardisation will ensure quality (especially if the standard is shown to be best)? Of course writing down method tells us what we are doing, but if a better way becomes available we need to be ready to flex the method, or apply a one-off approach if needs demand it. However as conservation scientists we should not do this as a random approach – we need to use proper experimental design and hypothesis testing.

We need to keep observing and thinking as we conduct conservation work, not just carry out procedures ‘parrot fashion’. To paraphrase Mitch Ditkoff, when imitation replaces creativity, something invariably gets lost – and innovation eventually goes down the drain.

As a leader keep thinking and encourage your team to think about their work too.

Black, S. A., Groombridge, J. J., & Jones, C. G. (2011a). Leadership and Conservation Effectiveness: Finding a Better Way to Lead. Conservation Letters, 4, 329-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00184.x

Deming, W.E. (1993) The New Economics, MIT CAES, Cambridge MA.

Seddon, J. (2005) Freedom from Command and Control, Vanguard Press, Buckingham, UK.

Never forget this fact: There is no such thing as factual information

Simon Black –

This blog title is provocatively paradoxical. The assumption is that somthething measured is something proved. this is a habit of thinking which we are trained to establish in our minds as scientists.

This is not the case.

In practice, when we decide to define a fact, we then define what it is, how it is to be measured, then measure to verify.

In deciding the measurement, we simply place a judgement – our opinion of reality, onto something that isn’t there. For example:

The label on a blanket reads “50 per cent wool” What does this mean? Half wool, on the average, over this blanket, or half wool over a month’s production? What is half wool? Half by weight? If so, at what humidity? By what method of chemical analysis? How many analyses? The bottom half of the blanket is wool and the top half is something else. Is it 50 per cent wool? Does 50 per cent wool mean that there must be some wool in any random cross-section the size of a half dollar? If so, how many cuts shall be tested? How select them? What criterion must the average satisfy? And how much variation between cuts is permissible? Obviously, the meaning of 50 per cent wool can only be stated in statistical terms (Deming 1975).

Is it now becoming clear?

“Without theory (hypothesis), data are meangingless or nonexistent. There is thus no true value of anything: true value is undefinable operationally. There are, however, numerical values that people can use with confidence if they understand their meaning (for the tensile strength of a batch of wire, for example, or for the proportion of the labor force unemployed last month).” (Deming 1967).

The trick is to understand the meaning of numbers. this is clearly important if we are conudcting a population census (which individuals, where, within what boundaries, at what point in time, by what method of observation, how to record etc.) buit more so when we consider more nebulous things, like the ‘perceptions of local communities’, or ‘support for conservation action’ or the ‘involvement of local partners’.

Not everything that can be counted counts.
Not everything that counts can be counted.

So the first useful question about somethnig is:

“what do we know about this?”

Think about this next time you set a goal, or measure results…

Systems Thinking – the oldest ‘new idea’ for conservation?

Simon Black –

If we are working in conservation that is because we want things to get ‘better’ for species or ecosystems or at least (if circumstances move the goalposts) ‘different’ and ‘sustainable’. It could be really difficult to find the best way to manage – the path of management learning over the past 40 years is littered with passing fads and trends which have only delivered disappointment, but a few ideas outlast these comings-and-goings.

Nearly thirty years ago I first encountered the work of Dr W Edwards Deming whilst I sat in an undergraduate management lecture in the late 1980s. I have had the opportunity over the intervening decades to apply, test, avoid, seek alternatives or attempt enhancements to Deming’s ideas (and those of many other management practitioners and theorists). Some of my work has been in small departments or projects, others in very large organisations; some in conservation, others in industrial, commercial, or educational contexts. My own thinking has emerged from a growth in understanding.

The forces along the top rob people of innovation and applied science. We must replace these forces with management that will restore the power of the individual (adapted from Deming 1994) — Fig 1. “The forces along the top rob people of innovation and applied science…replace these forces with management that will restore the power of the individual” (Deming 1994)

A freshly edited book which pulls together his collected papers was published in 2013. His illustration (Figure 1) of how a person’s motivation withers over their lifetime under “forces of destructive management thinking” rings as true today as in previous decades.Whislt grading systems and merit awards are less familiar in a conservation setting (although we should be aware of the impact of financial incentives on community partners and land-users), competition, goals, variation and suboptimisation of work are all very relevant. How many times do project budgets get unevenly distributed to the detriment of the work being undertaken for species or ecosystems. The Po’ouli is just one example of this (Black et al 2011).

Deming’s books draw on his teaching conducted over 60 years ago in industrial recovery of Japan, ideas which arose from concepts developed by his professional mentor Walter Shewhart at Bell Telephone Laboratories over 80 years ago. Shewhart’s own book published in 1931 is a classic, (its style perhaps less accessible to present-day readers). The observations and principles identified by Shewhart and Deming early in the 20th Century still stand up to scrutiny and practice. Their centenary approaches…

… much more than can be said for many management ideas since.

The Head, Heart and Guts of Leadership Character

Simon Black –

Are leaders born or made? This question dominated leadership thinking until the 1940s and, despite the growth in leadership development (particularly since the 1960s and 1970s) is a question that is still frequently asked in conservation circles.

The question (or its answer perhaps) is usually framed in terms of ‘personality’ on one hand and ‘skills and abilities’ on the other. ‘Personality’ is seen as something that we are born with, or at least is shaped in early shildhood, whilst many of our ‘skills and abilities’ can be learned. We can achieve this learning to some level of effectiveness or another, perhaps by training, or reflection of experiences or (common to many conservation leaders perhaps) by a form of unconscious ‘osmosis’.

As human beings we have enormously elastic capabilities – our learning is often governed by choice, not just genes. When I discuss practical leadership – working with people to get things done, I often use a simple three-part model – Head, Heart and Guts. An imbalance in one of these three dimensions would make us appear either cold, or gushing, or irrational, or inconsistent, or unpredictable, or a steamroller, or someone who bends in every wind (or worse).

The balancing of these things becomes important as we juggle the need for scientific rationality (e.g. in monitoring data) with managing the sensitivities of local communities, or trying to engage sponsorship from businesses or government.

Steven Covey talks about balancing ‘consideration’ with ‘courage’ (Heart versus Guts). We also know that we need to balance our ‘rational’ side with ’emotional’ empathy (Head versus Heart), and also maintain balance between our Guts and Head!

If you want to develop as an effective leader, then remember to develop skills in planning and decision-making in combination with interpersonal skills and the development of sound judgement.

Reading:

Black, S.A. & Copsey, J.A. (2014b). Purpose, Process, Knowledge and Dignity in Interdisciplinary projects. Conservation Biology. 28 (5): 1139-1141. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12344

Covey, S. (1989) 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Simon & Shuster, New York, NY.

Jacobs, C.J. (2009) Management Rewired: Why Feedback Doesn’t Work and Other Surprising Lessons from the Latest Brain Science. Penguin Group Portfolio, NY

The beauty of learning – nothing is wasted

Simon Black –

The term ‘learning organisation’ first gained popularity in the 1990s and is, unusually in the faddish world of ‘management-speak’, one which seems to have endured. What does ‘learning organisation’ mean in conservation and why try to become one?

An organisation that learns is best able to adapt. It finds out what works and what doesn’t and, most importantly, does something with that knowledge.

However, a learning organisation doesn’t just accrue information. Some organisations appear to be addicted to data – searching for the ‘facts’ before decisions can be made. Many government-led species recovery projects have almost ground to a halt in the pursuit of data rather than action. This is not a characteristic of a learning organisation and it will cause one of two things (or both): either the organisation will boil itself to death in trivia and noise and not pick up the important signals; or statically churn data without adapting – a paralysis by analysis. This is not learning.

A definitive feature about learning is that it involves proactively seeking out knowledge; to make good judgements based on insight. If we want people in our team or organisation to start learning, then we should steer them towards good judgements based on insights from analysis. The statement ‘costs are out of control’ is an opinion. However, if we define ‘costs’ and ‘out of control’, we can then test that hypothesis and progress in our understanding (Scholtes 1998). This requires new disciplines of thought. For Deming, part of this transformation is about getting managers to see themselves as experimenters who lead learning.

The Learning Cycle (adapted from Scholtes 1998)

A good way to represent this type of approach is the Deming Wheel (or Shewhart Cycle, as Deming labelled it) Plan-Do-Study-Act; the never-ending cycle of learning (Scholtes 1998). Deming called for a change from ‘opinions’ to hypotheses which we can test, understand and then apply that learning to our work activities.

Scholtes explains the phases of learning. ‘Plan’ and ‘Act’ are the stages of developing and reviewing theories and hypotheses. ‘Do’ and ‘Study’ are about application – work and the examination of work and outcomes. The phases of thinking and doing are intrinsically linked.

“There is nothing as practical as a good theory”
Kurt Lewin

Don’t be discouraged: keep your eyes wide open

Simon Black –

In Peter Senge’s (1994) work on ‘Systems Thinking’ and change he observes that often things (including behaviour) appear to “grow worse before it grows better”. He suggests that this happens because we start to see underlying issues more clearly. For us, those issues were previously either unmentionable, unnoticed or just not a priority.

This bubbling up of negativity, challenge and expectation can cause despair – we start seeing the dangers of the iceberg lurking below the waterline. Conservation scientists are often accused of seeing the bleak side of things – and maybe this is why. Also, other people might not like a challenge to ‘the way things are done around here’, whether that is how an team has always operated, how local communities do things, or how a government department prioritises its work and budgets. Don’t be discouraged!

Resistance is a measure that things can get better; formerly ‘undiscussable’ problems have simply risen to the surface – things can now change! As Senge notes, taking things forward might mean that an occasional toe will be stepped upon. But keep experimenting, keep building a better understanding of what is needed and keep seeking solutions to make things better.

“RESISTANCE IS USEFUL”: A NEW ASSUMPTION?

Simon Black –

Conflict in conservation is a commonly encountered issue. If we want to see meaningful conservation changes occurring, we need to start seeing any resistance that we encounter in a different light. Rather than considering resistance an unhelpful roadblock to change, we should perhaps see it as both an opportunity and an indicator of progress. The opportunity is that resistance opens a door to new dialogue with others. As an indicator, resistance shows us that people are noticing what we are doing.

As Herrero (2006) points out, the assertion that “People are resistant to change” is untrue. The reality is that people are resistant to change if nothing in terms of what people expect from them actually changes. Extending that notion, Seddon (2005) suggests that the reason people are resistant to change is that they often don’t see its relevance to their lives, because the rest of the system – how they are managed, doesn’t change. With the right encouragement these people can identify and discuss the other areas where change might be required – and themselves, with the right support, start to influence that wider change.

Hererro suggests that we need to REJECT the position that “skeptical people and enemies of change need to be sidelined.” Instead when we manage change, Herrero suggests that greater care is required;

don’t assume that people have excluded themselves.
expect resistant behaviours to disappear when alternatives are reinforced.
give sceptics a bit of slack (they may well have something to contribute).
suspend judgement, be willing to be surprised, don’t write people off too quickly.

Changes in your behaviour will influence others

We should also recognise that discord provides opportunity for debate and the development of new ideas. We always need to examine what these ‘outsiders’ are saying and learn from them what the issues or problems really are.

This means that anyone involved in change, at whatever level, needs to take on responsibility for getting on with the change, to be seen to do the things we want to see done. We need to be open minded and able to discuss and debate effectively, not quash dissent, but seek opportunities for engaging new ideas.

Rather than challenging the nay-sayers with a dogma that ‘resistance is useless’ perhaps we should have a new perspective that will engage their input: resistance is useful!

Decisions: where rationality and identity should meet

Throughout our lives we are educated to make rational decisions. What are the costs, what are the benefits, what are the impacts, what is possible? These are relatively easy elements to learn. Unfortunately our experience tells us that things don’t always work out as planned.

Later in life we understand that we need to make value-based decisions. Not on economic value, but using another criteria. Many decisions are not based on rationality but on our identity (Heath and Heath, 2011). It would seem that there is a dynamic tension between the rational/economic side and the identity side of decision making. For example, people make identity-based decisions on politics , but can also make economic decisions contrary to their ethical principles. Furthermore, people say they will do one thing, but can decide something entirely different when it comes to the crunch (Azjen, 1991).

However this can offer opportunities for the work of conservation. Chip and Dan Heath (2011) discuss Paul Butler’s work to conserve the St Lucia parrot and how he achieved a breakthrough once local people began to identify with the parrot. People began making different decisions about what was important and support for conservation of the bird increased dramatically.

Of course this type of change is only possible if the message about conservation is clear and credible. It is important to balance your rational/emotional/intuitive parts of your mind when persuading others or when making decisions. You need to be able to judge what is important to others as well as show them your own commitments and values.

Reading:

Ajzen, I. (1991) “The theory of planned behavior,” Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2): 179–211.

Heath C. and Heath D. (2011) Switch: how to change things when change is hard. Random House, NY