Tag: standards

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.