the details & big picture – Page 2 – The Conservation Leader

Systems Thinking for Conservation Leaders

Simon Black –

In recent years we have started talking about the suitability of systems thinking in relation to conservation management. The approach is non-hierarchical (so is not reliant on a political or cultural norm) – it is a way of managing that cuts through the necessity of a hierarchy. If you do have hierarchical leaders, they just need to start asking different questions. Systems thinking (e.g. the team are a system, they operate in a work system, the organisation is part of a larger system) clearly fits with the notion of ecosystems and complexity which is at the core of conservation.

Knowledge is at the core of systems thinking, optimisation of the system is critical and anything which undermines this is to be avoided. Simplicity of intervention is paramount, and taking different approaches to managing ‘exceptions’ and ‘the norm’ is importnat.

Many of these things are obvious but the ways in which we tackle them ARE OFTEN COUNTER-INTUITIVE. For example:

to increase motivation do not attempt to ‘motivate’ people,
incentives do not incentivise what we want to be done,
re-training is not the best way to improve worker capability,
standardisation of work causes increased failure,
targets are counterproductive,
a focus on cost reduction will not reduce costs,The list goes on…

Some principles of system thinking include:

Managing improvement is about understanding predictability of the system. Predictability is based on an understanding of either:
(i) data over time or (ii) cause and effect.
The start point in working in a complex environment is to study it (not plan) and to understand how it currently supports the conservation purpose, and how (through flow of processes and systems). If the purpose of the system is understood, then measures to examine the system can be put in place and then methods for improving the system versus measures and purpose can be experimented with, thereby further informing the understanding of the system.
When you want to make a change the only plan you need is how to study the system – all the work thereafter follows. In ecosystems we are unlikely to know all of the complexity of processes, but by continual experimentation and learning we understand what has a positive impact (and what does not) for the species of concern.
The ‘demand’ (defined as species and ecosystems’ needs including threats) is the biggest lever for change – so it must be understood. It can be understood by the people doing the work (or affecting the system) only through their study of and understanding of the realities and patterns of those demands.
An understanding of ‘demand’ drives the leader to consider which bits of the system need to be learned about and for which improvement could be focused.
Cooperation is a consequence of the design of the work system – the system governs people’s behaviours, not the other way around. This is important in working with teams, communities, businesses.

Note that the only standardisation that occurs in this approach is to develop measures of purpose. All else needs to developed in the context of the species and ecosystems of concern. With the measures in place, all work will follow the measures to drive improvement.

Reading

Black, S.A. (2015) A Clear Purpose is the Start Point for Conservation Leadership. Conservation Letters. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12203

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

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…

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.

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

URGENCY TO ACT : LET’S NOT ASSUME THAT CHANGE IS A SLOW BUSINESS

Simon Black –

It is easy to consider ‘change’ as a slow and often difficult process. After all, humans are creatures of habit, enjoying the comfort of the familiar. Human beings are, however, creatures that have mastered (or, at least, have developed) the art of adapting; changing our knowledge, decisions, behaviour, environment, relationships. We are beings that not only adapt to what is around us, but we often actively choose to influence what is around us, to find ways to make things better or different. This is why we work in conservation – we choose to make a difference, to change decline into recovery, to protect rather than over-exploit resources or ignore vulnerable species.

In particular, in conservation we have an urgency to act (Martin et al 2012). We need to see change happen in noticeable timescales; sometimes in weeks and months not years. If we want people to believe in the changes we want, then they need to be able to see those changes. Paradoxically, we need to be realistic that population recovery or habitat renewal may take decades. Sometimes we are constrained by natural systems (e.g. lifecycles and breeding seasons) and sometimes we are constrained by having to change people’s attitudes and priorities.

So, what is the challenge? We need to accelerate change by engaging networks of people in making things happen. In terms of the latter, Herrero (2006) suggests that if cultural changes cannot be observed in short timeframes, then something is wrong. Small sets of changes, taken on and shared by groups of people can generate improvements in a non-linear way, as Hererro terms it, a ‘viral’ spread. This might mean sharing data or practice or supporting tests and experiments, giving feedback or insights or sharing and developing personnel.

To influence others we need to encourage quick, meaningful changes. This might mean adopting new behaviours, new ways of thinking, new habits. For example, the way that we set goals and focus people on purposeful work (to save species and ecosystems) should be influenced by urgency and purposefulness. We should have different types of conversations with team members, funders and stakeholders, focused upon the things are being done to achieve successful conservation outcomes. We need to have honesty about what works and what does not work, what is an obstacle and what might be a potential solution. We need to be open to stepping outside our own technical preferences in order to find effective solutions.

Reading:

Herrero, L. (2006) Viral Change, meetingminds, UK.

Martin, T. G., Nally, S., Burbridge, A. A., et al. (2012). Acting fast helps avoid extinction. Conservation Letters, 5, 274-280.