hands on leadership – Page 3 – The Conservation Leader

How to reinvigorate your conservation team

Simon Black –

Are the same old issues arising in your team?
Is the team stuck in its ways?
Are the team’s current work challenges seen as intimidating?
Have you ever felt “we’ve been here before“?
Are the moaners still moaning?
Might the team admit to being stagnant, uninspired, or cruising?

What would make a difference; how can things change; are people the problem or is it something else? These issues are important in operational conservation field teams as much as in more complex interdisciplinary project teams (Black and Copsey 2014).

All teams go through various stages of development, from confidence to crisis, from challenge to success, from discomfort to familiarity, from suspicion to support. These cycles can occur in any order, sometimes a positive progression forwards but occasionally involving backsliding and disillusionment. A third common state is to have absolutely no change at all – being stuck in a rut – for months, or even years.

The classic observation on team development was made by Bruce Tuckman and his memorable ‘Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing’ model. This model is helpful because it sets out some of things to address which will help to oil the wheels of more positive team development.

Clear goals, clear ground-rules (i.e. the ways we work together, talk to each other and use the time and space that we share), clear roles. These are the simple building blocks of effective teams. These things give space for individuals to get on with the work that they do alone and to interact effectively in the things that they need to do together. Clarifying these things as a team should also give space for people to raise questions or challenge things which don’t work well or appear to have little purpose.

So change the way the team works without meddling with the people in it. This gives everyone the choice to make progress alongside their colleagues – which, frankly, most people are quite happy to do.

Reading:

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

Tuckman, B.W. (1965) Developmental sequence in small groups.Psychological Bulletin 65, no.6: 384–99.

Tuckman, B.W. and Jensen M.A. (1977) Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies 2, no. 4: 419–27.

The A-B-C of motivation

Simon Black –

Interestingly, research suggests that in terms of guiding behaviour and performance, people tend to prefer feedback (i.e. a consequence of what they have done) rather than guidance (an antecedent). Time spent highlighting rules and having team meetings to brief people on work or remind them of key issues (like health and safety) is less effective in shaping the desired behaviour required at work. This is important in deciding where interventions are needed to enable people to become more productive (not much productivity is achieved by attending a meeting!).

Remember the ABC of motivation: Consequences drive behaviour more than Antecedents. However, this does NOT mean we should manage people by ‘punishment and reward’! Punishment and reward conditions people into behaviours, stifles creativity, reduces feedback and suggestions and encourages people to hide mistakes or problems, even to cheat the figures (otherwise they get punished). Punishment and reward is a very blunt and undiscriminating instrument – it can easily punish good behaviour and reward bad behaviour (think about bankers bonuses here!).

Consequences must be carefully design: do people know the purpose of what they are doing, be committed to it, be able to monitor their work to achieve it and be able to adapt and improve things intelligently to achieve the desired outcomes?

The latest motivational thinking is described in ‘Self-Determination Theory’ (Ryan and Reci, 2000). This theory suggests that the conditions supporting a person’s autonomy, competence,and relatedness enable higher levels of motivation and engagement (including enhanced performance, persistence, and creativity). Also, conversely, if these three psychological needs are not supported there will be a detrimental impact on well-being; in other words, not doing these things will demotivate people and make them less effective in work.

This has important impact on the way we consider how to set goals (http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/theory/), build team relationships, design work, rewards and give feedback, agreeing team values, or our personal approach to leading people.

Further Reading:

Deming, W. E. (1994). The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Center
for Advanced Engineering Study.

Kohn, A. (1986). No Contest: The Case against Competition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Komaki, Judith L. ; Collins, Robert L. ; Penn, Pat (1982) The role of performance antecedents and consequences in work motivation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1982, Vol.67(3), pp.334–340

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Other useful sources:

http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/

Acting fast to save species demands clarity of purpose

Simon Black –

In recent years it has become clear that fast action is often required to save threatened species. This is important because even if sometimes we might prefer to think about options, make grand plans or gather scientific evidence, circumstances might not give us that luxury (Martin et al. 2012).

The only way to know the answer to ‘what must we do now?’ is to have a clear PURPOSE in our work (Black, 2015). For example, if we need to save the orange bellied parrot, then what we must do today is something concrete in line with that mission; if emergency action is required (such as bringing wild individuals into protective captivity for an accelerated breeding programme), then that must be carried out. By contrast, if conservation managers decide to conduct monitoring and devise a recovery plan they must consider…WHAT WILL MONITORING AND PLAN CREATION DO TO RECOVER THE SPECIES NOW?

The Panamanian golden frog is one example where extreme measures were taken (removing all individuals from the wild to evade fatal chytridiomycosis infection) simply to save the species (Gagliardo et al., 2008).

Of course, the action itself must be purposeful. The capture in 1980 and care of the juvenile male Yangtze river dolphin (or Baiji) known as Qi-Qi did not progress to become a breeding programme, despite a female being captured in 1996. The male died alone in captivity in 2002, and the species was considered extinct by 2007 (Turvey et al., 2007). The purpose of Qi-Qi’s capture appears to have been to act as an ambassador (i.e. an exhibit) of the species rather than to save the species itself.

One must identify the correct purpose of work in order for that work to serve the right system (i.e. the species and its ecosystem), not a corporation, or an NGOs publicity machine, nor a person’s career, nor a particular political system, nor a university’s research programme.

Reading:

Black S. A. (2015) A clear purpose is the start point for conservation leadership. Conservation Letters, 8(5), 383–384. doi: 10.1111/conl.12203

Gagliardo, R., Griffith, E., Mendelson, J., Ross, H., and Zippel, K. (2008). “The principles of rapid response for amphibian conservation, using the programmes in Panama as an example”. International Zoo Yearbook 42 (1): 125–135.

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

Turvey, Samuel T.; Pitman, Robert L.; Taylor, Barbara L.; Barlow, Jay; Akamatsu, Tomonari; Barrett, Leigh A.; Zhao, Xuijiang; Reeves, Randall R.; Stewert, Brent S.; Wang, Kexiong; Wei, Zhuo; Zhang, Xianfeng; Pusser, L.T.; Richlen, Michael; Brandon, John R. & Wang, Ding (August 7, 2007). “First human-caused extinction of a cetacean species?”. Biology Letters (Royal Society Publishing) 3 (5): 537–40. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0292

True ‘hands-on’ leadership: what does this really involve?

Simon Black –

To keep close to work some managers think that by asking about the numbers or looking over people’s shoulders is an effective way to work, but neither is actually helpful (Deming 1993):

Micro management just interferes with work, distracts the people doing the work and often results in meddling, reduction in creativity (people have no point in giving ideas – because the boss will question it/have their own idea anyway); this reduces trust and motivation.
Asking for ‘the numbers’ (an attempt to show others a results-oriented mindset) merely indicates that you don’t care about the work. Remember, Douglas Adam’s answer to life, the universe and everything was 42, which didn’t really tell us anything helpful. Outcomes are much more that just the numbers (particularly more than just this week’s numbers)

Hands on leadership is NOT micro management. A hands-on leader understands the work, knows the demands placed on the project, can ask helpful questions that enable people to develop better insight, has conversations that relate to the work and how it can be improved (rather than judging people or playing motivational mind-games). A hands-on leader knows their staff and people’s capabilities, sensitivities and aspirations. The leader also gives away responsibility, ensuring that people have skills, authority and information to enable them to make decisions that help species and ecosystems. A hands-on leader expects to get questions back form the team, including concerns, or ideas for improvement. A hands on leader listens.

Few of these characteristics can be found in micro-managers and those who just ask for the numbers. There is a better way to lead.

Orientate towards “hands-on” management, working with staff.
Have highly developed biological and/or operational skills .
Be able to prioritize the work by asking key questions.
Know people’s strengths; channel their energy and passion.
Understand cultural differences and handle views sensitively.
Check results with staff and empower them to get the job done.
Involve people doing the work with data, decisions, and changes.
Place responsibility for information with people doing the work.
Ensure that ‘what matters to biodiversity’ steers people’s work.
Have 2-way communication; clarifying, testing and listening.
Spend time with staff, listen to concerns & enable contributions.

Further Reading:

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.

Other things of interest:

Adams D. (1979) The hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy. New York: Pocket Books

Good performers will fail in a bad system

Simon Black –

Examples of failing systems are numerous, although often the finger of blame is pointed at the people who are at the sharp end.

In a blame culture managers will identify the problem as being the people at the sharp end. Blame is both self-fulfilling and self-deluding: it does not help us to understand what has gone wrong and why, because we are basing our judgement on a misplaced assumption ‘people are the problem‘.

There is a neat way to define the power of the system, versus the expectations placed on people, in a quote attributed to Geary Rummler:

“Put a good performer in a bad system
and the system wins every time”

So should we blame the manager? Well, simply, yes, because their job is to manage the system (and to improve it). In fact, that is pretty much all that their job should involve. As a coservation leader you must set up the goals, roles and work for your teams so that they are able to deliver the purpose of the conservation programme – and so that they know whether they are achieving this or not.

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.

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

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!