Bringing Systems Back

The Dawn of a Paper Full of Contradictions and Common Knowledge

Alright. So, "The Dawn of a Systems Leader." What? Leaders are both given a pass for ignorance but also must undertake the "high-risk," skills-needed, good-intention-are-not-enough task of bringing together stakeholder with varying goals, backgrounds, and histories of collaboration. No. A leader should not be ignorant. Open to new ideas? yes. Able to listen? yes. Willing to engage with people "across borders"? yes. Willing to learn? yes. ALl of these ideas are so incredibly basic it blows my mind that it's not presented via pop-up book. This paper was astoundingly superficial. This paper is ineffective, in my opinion, outside of its target audience of people under the age of 10 and those residing in the oval office. Though, Trump definitely is embracing the ignorance of a strong systems leader... maybe omit that part and then submit it to the oval office.

The second Senge reading, well I guess the first technically, "Collaborating for Systemic Change" was an interesting read. The problem with reading papers that are 10 years old is that they are out-of-date. The beginning of this paper claims that "cross-sector collaboration is unexplored," this is only partially true-even when this paper was published. In 2002 a publication titled "Conservation Medicine: Ecological Health in Practice" presented the idea of 'Conservation Medicine,' which is the cross-sector, collaborative effort to conservation looking at connectivity of ecosystem, animal, and human health. This field of Conservation Medicine is what socio-environmental systems thinking truly is, and much of the work done in conservation medicine is work that addresses very extensive and intricate systems that currently inhabit the world. A systems thinking class would be much better served if it were to look at papers or books related to conservation medicine as they provide intricate systems and how collaborative efforts have been made to address the extensive and interweaving problems. If anybody is interested in resources on Conservation Medicine, I have a substantial list of peer-reviewed articles that emphasize good and bad collaborative conservation efforts, along with a textbook ("New Directions in Conservation Medicine," A. A. Aguirre et al., 2012). I also would recommend "The Ghost Map: The Story of London's Most Terrifying Epidemic - and How it Changed Science, Cities and the Modern World" which is a great read about the cholera breakout in London in 1854, it presents a dynamic system full of balancing and reinforcing feedback loops and all those other cool system words.

Signing off. Peace ooot.

Systems Leadership: A Summary

The Dawn of System Leadership is an interesting article that describes the ways that leaders are using systems thinking. Great leaders apply these principles in both their professional careers as well as their personal lives. Nelson Mandela’s impact is cited as one of the prime examples to illustrate the transformative impact that systems thinking can have on a population.

Further into the article, the authors describe the three main applications of systems thinking. The first core capability of an effective system thinker is to recognize that situations fit into the context of a much larger and more complicated phenomenon. Often times, individuals will view challenges as relative to themselves, focusing narrowly on how circumstances apply only to a single entity. In this type of thinking, the individual is not able to see the much larger plan in motion, thus they are unable to apply beneficial solutions to the larger problem. The result is formulating a solution that is effective to a small aspect, yet may leave the larger problem completely unaddressed. An effective system thinking leader will encourage their team to see the larger obstacle and then apply an all-encompassing approach to achieving the desired results that benefit the whole problem, not simply a portion of that problem.

The second characteristic of a leader of systems thinking is to encourage others to recognize their own beliefs. This is known as reflection, and simply points to an individual becoming increasingly more aware of their own thought patterns. Once a person is able to accept their own limited point of view, they gradually become more able to respond to others in an effective manner. For example, when a person is unaware of their own implicit bias towards a situation, they may fall into the mentality that their opinion is the only correct one. “What I believe is the most accurate and natural approach,” tends to be the repetitious thought that circulates the mind. Rooted in unconsciousness, these types of opinions often lay the regimented bricks that build walls between individuals. Because of the broken record of impulsive and automatic thinking, the individual is trapped within a reactive mind instead of a mind that responds to situations. This is a damaging pattern that a strong leader will both bring to light, as well as offer solutions to overcoming.

The third element of an effective leader lies in their ability to shift the intentions of a team to create a more meaningful future. Once the team has been led to transcend the pitfalls of a habitually reactive mind, they begin to create their new reality that is based on mutual respect and trust. From this newly manifested freedom from thinking combined with the creative power of building new realities comes the satisfaction of being able to accept situations for what they are in the present. Following this preliminary step into the realm of consciousness, the confidence that arises from both observing and creating becomes their own reality.

In conclusion, a systems leader is a person who can inspire, challenge, and nurture their teams. They have power and charisma that flows from their dedication to nurturing a lucid and non-reactive mind. Creativity for overcoming challenges flows from this place of stillness. From here, the mind becomes more alert and the leader is able to step forth into their true potential of walking into a future that is in tune with the intentions of the leader’s desire to harmonize and awaken the minds of all they encounter.

Collaboration is key

Being an effective leader does not mean doing everything yourself. According to Peter Senge et al., system leaders have three core capabilities contributing to their effectiveness: 1) vision of the larger system 2) cultivating reflection and generative conversations, and 3) moving from reaction to a positive vision of the future. Creating change cannot be forced. It needs to be a learning experience tailored to the group responsible for effecting that change. Goals are set based on a group’s vision, and tasks are assigned to align with these goals. And there needs to be room for reflection, mutual learning, and growth.

Working in a group comes with each group members’ unique background and experience. The Skilled Facilitator Approach guidebook provides support for how leaders can implement a more facilitative approach, so these multiple perspectives turn out to be beneficial rather than disruptive. A crucial understanding facilitators must reach is that these groups are social systems that generate their own social dynamics. As a facilitator, you enter the system and contribute to those dynamics. However, as a facilitator, it is important to remain neutral.

New perspectives should be seen as new learning opportunities. When issues arise, it is important to encourage feedback and incorporate it. Leaders should be receptive, not dismissive. They should lay a groundwork for trust to ensure those that are being led know they are also being listened to. Working as a group in a collaborative manner will foster change better than an antagonistic approach.

As someone who is very environmentally focused who will be a new member of the workforce soon, it will be very important to keep all of the aforementioned things in mind. Although I likely won’t start out in a direct leadership position, leaders can be found at all levels of employment.

LAST BLOG LAST BLOG LAST BLOG

ISomething I took away from the “Dawn of Systems Leadership” reading was the claim that systems leaders have great contributions due to the strength of their ignorance. This made me pretty annoyed, to be honest. The reading claims that their ignorance “gives them permission to ask obvious questions and to embody an openness and commitment to their ongoing learning and growth.” I think that you can be open and committed to learning and growth without being ignorant. To me, this little section seems like the authors are making an excuse for leaders who claim to be “systems leaders” but don’t know what is going on. I might be mad because I was listening to the podcast Pod Save the World and it was all about Rex Tillerson (not a fun listen). He probably considers himself a systems leader because he is looking for big shifts and changes and is doing it by being ignorant to diplomatic norms and international relations. He is “so convinced that something can be done that [he] does not wait for a fully developed plan.” Does this sound like a good leader?? I really did not think so when reading this article and reflecting on Rexy. (OK friends, rant over. Sorry.)

I do, totally understand that a lot of leadership is learning by doing. As an undergraduate, I took over an organization that sent students on service-learning trips across the country during spring and winter breaks. The previous leaders didn’t feel the need to clue me in to how things were done, so I had to jump in and figure everything out as I went along. My executive board and I met frequently to reflect on our work and what we could do better and we also talked about the future of the organization. Sometimes, I had to learn to let it all go. I’m a control freak, sometimes, and because I loved the organization so much, I was even more so. But, I learned that not everything can be controlled and I had to go with the flow. For example, my publicity coordinator was always late on deadlines. He did a great job, but not in a timely enough manner for me, an early bird. It always worked out, and after a couple times of being frustrated, I realized I had to let him work at his own pace. Even though learning on the job was exhausting and I just wanted someone to guide me sometimes and I wanted everyone to work on my very exacting timeline, it was a successful year. Am I a systems leader? Sure, let’s go with that.

 

 

It has been real, blog group. LATER GATORS.

Polycentric Free Riding

David Sibbet argues that his RE-AMP system shows climate change results. Elinor Ostrom (with reasonable counter-arguments) wants to believe that a polycentric system shows results. So why do I not see results?

As Ostrom states “While the actions to reduce GHG emissions already taken have not yet generated a major reduction of emissions across the entire globe the result of these efforts is slowly cumulating.” There is a debate to be had on whether this is just a delay in the feedback loop or if this is a sign that the polycentric approach does not have the traction to make wide scale change. This is my critique of RE-AMP and their system mapping process. If you are talking about seeing change, Sibbet does very little to show that they are.

I think the risk that we run into here is that everyone is doing something but collectively we are doing nothing. You can make the argument that the ocean is just hundreds of trillions of drops of water. But, with the human propensity to not facilitate large-scale change without a driving factor, complacency is an issue. Ostrom refers to this as “free riding.” I don’t think that the free riding would be intentional. I do think that polycentric approaches can be misleading in thinking that groundbreaking things are happening at a greater rate than reality. Whether it is a developing country or a private citizen reaping the benefits of others activism and concern, each of the levels of the polycentric system needs to show results to squash the idea that collective action theory is not the way to go. By definition, shouldn’t a polycentric system also include collective action? It seemed the article argues for one or the other or maybe “network weaving” in between?

The Brugo article states, “The challenges of social-ecological resilience and sustainability extend beyond the capacities and boundaries of existing institutions…” Key word: existing. I wouldn’t give up on collective-action theory just yet as I think there is something that could come of an initiative on that scale. In the meantime the polycentric model is and should also strive to become the existing institution to tackle this problem.

Redesign the Systems

The article by Goldstein and Butler does an great job of setting the scene for change within a system. There was the obvious problem of improper managing of natural resources through outdated methods of managing fires resulting in the "Rigidity Trap" that the authors refer to. When such a rigidity trap exists, how can it be broken down to allow for new action and management to improve for the future? In this case scenario, the problem got bad enough that there was governmental interference to try and improve the matter. Although I see government mandates as a viable option to crack rigidity traps, I do not think that this is the only way or even the best way. Public engagement and collective community action may also be an avenue to change the system and break the rigidity traps. What other situations can rigidity traps be identified in? The Goldstein article is complimented nicely by the philosophies discussed in the Ostrom article. I expect that approaching the rigidity traps using a polycentric focus could be another way to make progress and change. I found it particularly interesting that Ostrom discussed the behaviors of individuals based on the behaviors of their peers. Specifically, when it is mentioned that someone is more likely to be onboard with a mandate or a ruling if they believe that the others around them are also willing to get onboard. This is not a mind blowing notion, but I find that it is valuable to understand these nuances of human behavior for change to occur. Additionally, it is interesting to think about the scope of such a problem like GHG emissions and climate change. As Ostrom discusses the different levels for action to be taken in alignment with the polycentric ideal, a combination of enough actions could eventually make a change. What is the best area to target to start moving the ball in the right direction in a situation that is as drastic and overarching as this one?

 

Polycentricity for Adaptability

In the reading this week we are introduced to non-conventional approaches to addressing global systemic change. In the Ostrom reading, we are challenged to consider alternative strategies to hierarchical solutions amidst political contention and global disagreement. Through Brugo’s analysis of wildfire mitigation strategies, we are clued into the inevitable collapse of rigid systems. The theme for this week seems to meet at the confluence of these two issues. Do polycentric system approaches provide the flexibility necessary for a resilient system, and if so, how can we get independent actors to network together for effective change?

One of the greatest challenges to achieving international buy-in for global initiatives is that the cost to benefit ratio is often unevenly distributed. The wealthiest countries are expected to invest enough to support developing nations, meanwhile, developing nations feel as though their efforts are in vain against the harms of wealthy countries. A proposed solution to this dilemma is the Polycentric Systems approach, whereby each actor sets out on independent initiatives that support a common goal.

Initially, this concept of fragmented collective efforts seems counter-intuitive, but upon examination may provide the adaptability necessary to maintain system resilience. Consider Apple’s App Store, for instance, its true success was unlocked once millions of independent third-party developers introduced individual apps. Although each developer was working in their own interest, they all contributed to the overarching goal of promoting smartphones.

Gaining global consensus on values, priorities, and action steps seem like an insurmountable goal. Finding methods to appeal to each actor’s independent interest in a way that serves a common cause seems much more approachable. I think it is important to remember that it is a select few that base their actions on altruistic motivators. Behavioral change often depends on appealing to personal incentive.

Of course, there are challenges with polycenetricity. The lack of leadership and organization may lead to poorly distributed funding, redundancy in research, and disconnect from the overarching goal. So what is the middle space between fragmentation and top-down control? Is there a way to get organizations that have been historically competitive to cooperate through a network, and what would that require?

Rigidity or Lock-in...why not both?

QWERTY keyboards and 12 hour clocks do not seem to have much in common on the surface but a deeper look at their origin brings forth one solid correlation between the two, seemingly unrelated, objects. Lock-in. Lock-in is a process we see in our everyday life via several products and processes. Lock-in is the process of a products or processes ability to beat out competition through a slight edge in either money, development, or exposure. This process may start as small but slower creates a monopoly of a market where competitors no longer seem viable. Like an opponent to the 12 hour clock, the idea seems ridiculous but was a reality at some point. This process may likely be what lead to the rigidity trap mentioned in this weeks readings. Where we become locked-in to a system and struggle to leave our path, though better opportunities and processes may be present. This rigidity trap can be addressed through multiscalar collaborative efforts like the polycentric systems mentioned in the Ostrom reading, where  activities can be undertaken by multiple units at diverse scales that cumulatively make a difference" (Ostrom,  2010). This reminds me of how people believe we can solve the load supply problems correlated with a switch to a mostly or entirely renewable fuel sources, robustness. By meeting energy demand with multiple sources of renewable energy we can avoid the arguments about the intermittent energy supply correlated with most renewable energy, like solar energy. Yet, if we looked at energy supply vs demand through the day and measure this against the flows of multiple energy sources, like wind and solar, we can see how the sources can be used with each other and meet societies demand. This process may not be realized with out "Network efforts" and network weavers working on the wicked problems of the world. 

Networking for Change

In Environmental Leadership class, we took the MBTI II and StrengthsFinder assessments to determine our strengths, learning what we as individuals should focus on developing, instead of trying to find ways to get great at everything. The saying, “Jack of all trades, master of none,” represents an individual’s inability to truly master anything if they try to focus on everything. However, those that specialize get to know their specialization very well, and are able to advise others on it. Within a system, different individuals and groups might be familiar with different components of that system. Thus, there is a need to collaborate among and within these different specializations for successful systems change to be implemented.

For example, the RE-AMP project in the upper Midwest brings together several organizations and foundations, collectively working to better understand funding of renewables and to increase demand for them. Another example is the Fire Learning Network, as discussed by Butler and Goldstein, which works to help transition fire management plans from suppression to control oriented. It “links multiple place-based collaboratives together into a larger network at regional and national scales.” Practitioners within the network respond to management challenges, and these responses and experience subsequently inform policy. The FLN encourages innovation and learning to hopefully initiate systemic change and overcome the rigidity trap fire management currently finds itself in from the bottom up.

Depending on the scope of the problem needing to be fixed, change might have to come from multiple levels within the system. Elinor Ostrom argues that, based on conventional collective-action theory, issues surrounding climate change will not be tackled unless an external body imposes such changes. Like the collaboration enabled by the FLN, Ostrom notes that a polycentric approach could be beneficial because of the collaboration between independent agencies. With multiple learning centers working together, there is a higher likelihood of coming together over a shared value, but in a way that is more holistic and realistic. Combating climate change in sub-Saharan Africa likely looks different than in the Midwest; therefore, having a single overseer for change might limit its success.

The Network Weaver Handbook discusses the Network Effect, which is the effectiveness of a network approach at successfully inciting transformation; it depends on innovation and collaboration. Often, innovation occurs in organizations not well represented. Innovation can arise from necessity, and marginalized voices have the potential to offer unique perspectives and contribute to systemic change. Ultimately, changing a system requires a network to link components of the system, especially ones that typically go unseen. Linking these components gives better insight to the whole picture. And as Kanter notes, thinking of the small picture is essentially useless unless considered “in the context of the big picture.” Context, collaboration, and innovation are key to change.

RE-AMP-ing network thining

Laura B’s Blog

Hi, I’m Laura. Welcome!

This week’s readings addressed how a network mindset can be beneficial for organizations and their systems. David Sibbolet’s blog about the RE-AMP efforts highlight how people and organizations can work together in a multiscalar and collective network for change. The crazy system they came up with at their meeting demonstrated all of the different players on all the different scales came together. While they found they hadn’t accomplished as much as they wanted to, the network could piece together their efforts, weave new networks, and create new and fruitful relationships. I think that it was a good way for them to overcome the changing contexts of environmental problems (which is what the YouTube video talks about). It was a way for them to access collective intelligence (the opposite of co-stupidity)

They were also doing what Beth talks about in her blog- “connecting people strategically where there is potential for mutual benefit.” Before this meeting, it seems like the RE-AMP people were divided into silo groups. The network mindset looks at how all of these parts work together as a whole in the whole system, and values sharing (information, effort, people…) instead of hoarding control.

A rigidity trap is when a system is unable to break from the status quo and take advantage of innovations and novelty.  Now, can this approach with David and RE-AMP fight the rigidity trap that Bruce addresses in his article? I think so! Clearly, the RE-AMP group/system is not rigid or myopic. The blog mentions that new working groups have formed with different goals. They seek out consultants to help them think differently as well as understand their work in new ways. But what if they started heading in a more rigid direction? Well, I think that the cross-scalar Circulation of people from just this on meeting can combat that.

I also think that the network approach of RE-AMP took the Ostrom article into account. They looked at the polycentric approach. The group understood that actions are not just being taken at a global scale to make a difference. However, I wonder if in this situation, the number of actors might generate negative outcomes. There are so many people, places, and ideas at play with RE-AMP. It seems likely that there will be issues, especially with policy inconsistencies. There needs to be a lot of communication and collaboration to make sure that people working in the different working groups are all on the same page. The group seems to be addressing issues on a state-by-state basis, and while yes, each state is different and needs to be treated as such, policies need to align.

The network mindset and those who weave networks are building more resilient systems that won’t get caught up in rigidity traps. I liked the Network Lens versus Organization Lens that was introduced in both the YouTube video and the Network Weavers Handbook reading. The network lens is really important for solving environmental issues. Just reading through the check boxes can prove that. I don’t think I need to go through it!

I feel like this is definitely what the room looked like during the RE-AMP meeting.