Brugos Angels

MENV VISION

SHORT AND SIMPLE?: YES IT'S SHORT AND SIMPLE, BUT COULD USE SOME IMPROVEMENTS, SIMPLE BUT NOT SPECIFIC

BINARY FUTURE STATE?: IT WANTS TO CAPTURE, THIS IDEA, BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY DO SO. IT'S HARD TO COMPREHEND THE VAGUE LANGUAGE UTILIZED TO CAPTURE A BINARY FUTURE.

INTRINSICALLY MOTIVATING?: YES, THE VALUES ARE MOTIVATING. THE IDEA OF CREATING PRODUCING ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERS IS EXCITING.

FOLLOW A FORMULA?:  NO, THERE IS NO FORMULA FOR HOW TO GET THERE, OR WHAT TOOLS ARE UTILIZED

MISSIONS BRING ABOUT VISION?: YES, I THINK FULLY IMMERSING STUDENTS IN THIS MISSION WILL PRODUCE THE VISION, ITS WELL ROUNDED HERE.

RARE AND PRECIOUS?: YES, AS STUDENTS THROUGHOUT THE DURATION MAY UNVEIL THEIR TRUE VISION

MENTAL MODELS?: YES, SINCE THE PROGRAM OFFERS A PROGRESSIVE EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE

CULTURE AND MENTAL MODELS?: YES, THE COHORT ITSELF HAS SHAPED THE PROGRAM

MISSION, VISION AND CULTURE?: NOT ALWAYS. THE LEARNING STRUCTURE COULD USE SOME WORK TO REALLY CREATE THE BEST AND MOST ABLE STUDENTS TO ENTER THE WORKFORCE

 

THE CLASS HAS HELPED ME UNDERSTAND HOW COMPLEX SYSTEMS CAN BE, AND THE DIFFERENT WAYS TO ANALYZE AND UNDERSTAND THESE SYSTEMS. I THINK THE MISSION AND VALUES REPRESENT EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED OUT OF A GRADUATE PROGRAM, BUT THE PROGRAM ITSELF HAS STRUGGLED UPHOLDING THESE VALUES. THEY COULD BE MORE CONCISE AND SPECIFIC, BUT OVERALL THEY ARE MOTIVATING AND EXCITING. THE CLASSES THEMSELVES COULD BE WORKED ON.

 

Getting in on the Ground Floor

1. Are they short and simple? Yes, very well composed.
2. Does the vision statement capture a binary future state? No, but I think this works. This could’ve been worded differently and included concept like community, commitment to the greater good, environmental stewardship...Might be difficult to use some of these words without sounding overly-righteous.
3. Is the vision intrinsically motivating? Yes, absolutely inspiring.
4. Are the mission statements simple rules that follow a formula? No, not really. There’s a clear commitment to “transcending” traditional education and professions, but no real indication of what that is. The Mission statements seem to offer alternative strategies to what we know hasn’t worked, but don’t define why/how they’re different. This “grass is greener” promise is actually quite seductive and doesn’t provide any real substance beyond, “hey, let’s try something different.”
5. Will repeatedly performing the mission statements lead to the vision? Yes, in theory.
6. Is Mission-->Vision measurable? Yes, in some ways. We can look to rate the content of the syllabus by how well it support experiential learning, stakeholder engagement, sense of community, etc.
7. Are mission moments rare and precious? Yes. It’s very difficult to “transcend” an existing system and power structure. Opportunities to do so are fleeting and difficult to capitalize on.
8. Are the Mission-->Vision statements mental models? Yes. They involve a unique perspective of the world. This is probably what the M&V statement does best. It proposes an inspiring mental model for how we want the future to be.
9. Is Culture built on shared core mental models? Yes. You can see it in the cohort. We all came with different perspective, but a shared vision of the future. There have been times when those visions have been questioned, debated, and tested, but those conversations only strengthen the culture.
10. Does Learning constantly improve Mission, Vision, and Culture? Yes, it’s the only way. The MENV program needs to be proactive about this, especially in such a “changing world”. It’s imperative that the MENV faculty and MENV students design this program together, in unison. This cohort has the advantage of multiple perspective across multiple age groups. It’s a purposefully organized eclectic bunch and this potential should be harnessed to better the program.

In truth, it’s impossible for me to critique the MENV Mission & Vision statement against a set of objective guidelines without separating it from my own experiences in the program. Instead of focusing our time on fine-tuning a Mission & Vision statement that is already sufficient, we should be focusing our energy on closing the gap between what this program promises and what it actually delivers. The MENV Mission & Vision statement has Passion and Conviction, but the program itself feels hesitant. If we’re not going to be a “traditional program” as the M&V statement promises, then we shouldn’t have the traditional power structure and hierarchies of other graduate school departments. We have a unique opportunity to experiment with something brand new and I can’t help but feel like we’re squandering it with weak communication. The program prides itself on teaching “leadership”, “systems-based approaches”, “problem-solving”, “collaboration”, and “community”, but in many ways, fails to practice these methods under its own roof. As students, how can we hope to learn about these concepts without feeling empowered? Perhaps the best and most “experiential”, hands-on learning experience we can get is coming together to design a better program for ourselves and for future cohorts.

As far as systems-thinking takeaways, I think this class was most helpful in teaching me to visualize stakeholders, value, strategies, and desired outcomes in a particular system. So mainly the 3SO process. As promised, systems-thinking seems to be one of those things that you’re not sure if you’ve learned until you start using the terms and making the connections in seemingly unrelated parts of your life. Some of the language has unexpectedly crept into my thought process as AJ Grant suggested when she visited our class. In many ways this class embodies the spirit of the Mission & Vision statement. The non-traditional education and experiential learning from guest practitioners.

Testing MENV's Mission and Vision

Mission and Vision Testing: MENV

Below is an assessment of the MENV program in the context of the Cabreras’ mission and vision testing.

Missions/Visions Short and Simple: Yes, this is a simple statement, though overly broad and far reaching.  The program should focus on refining this statement to clarify its vision in a more tangible way.  Phrases such as “productive planet” do not provide a clear vision, nor is there universal understanding of this concept.

Vision Captures a Picture of a Binary Future State: The vision adequately addresses this test, though could improve on how well this picture resonates by refining this statement.

Visions are Intrinsically Motivating: Yes, this vision provides a motivating call for action to the general sense of improving the environment, but does not provide a differentiator from other such programs. Again, statement is too broad.

Missions are Simple Rules that Follow a Formula: The values statement should be redesigned as a mission statement. The values statement currently focuses on what the program wants to be, rather than providing assertions as to what the program does.  This should focus more on what the program delivers - particularly as the professional nature of the program attracts student and employers who want to know what we do.

Repeatedly Doing Your Mission Should Bring about the Vision: Again, the values statements are not a mission. It is hard to align them with the vision unless they provide a frameworks for what the program seeks to deliver.

Mission/Vision Must Be Measurable: Neither the vision nor the values statement are measureable. Since the scope of the vision is too broad, it is almost impossible to measure. How do you measure impact of a “more productive plant” through your students? The values statement, again, focused on what the program wants to be rather on what it is. This makes it nearly impossible to measure.

Mission Moments are Rare and Precious: As this is a new program, it’s difficult to connect the program with such mission moments.  Capstone experience will likely provide such connections.

Mission/Vision are Mental Models, Not Statements: The MENV program currently provides statements, not mental models, thus making it difficult to pass the “9 year old test.”  Here are a few examples of effective mental model statements through corporate branding: Accenture: High Performance. Delivered. Apple: Think Different. Nike: Just Do It. New York Time: All the News That’s Fit to Print. GE: Imagination at Work. These are extremely clear statements that are easily understood by their employees, clients, and the public, and provide an still address what the company values.

Culture is Built on Shared, Core Mental Models: Yes. As MENV chose a values statement over a mission, a shared vision of culture is easily understood.

Learning Constantly Improves Vision, Mission, and Culture: The program’s openness to feedback and improvement puts in on course to meet this test, but how much it chooses to value this going forward will determine whether they will be successful. Lessons learned should not be limited to the classroom.  The program should consider: How successful were our students in attaining meaningful employment? Did the program and capstones provide our students with experiences that are meaningfully impactful in their professional lives?

Class Takeaway: Systems are ever evolving, and those who recognize and understand this will be best positioned to introduce and successfully manage elements of change in a system.

Question: Does the MENV leadership have a good understanding of the broader system in which it resides outside of CU Boulder?

MENV Mission and Vision Critique

This week we are using Cabrera’s 10 test for effective mission and vision to critique MENV’s mission, vision, and values.

Test #1: Short and simple— Improvement needed, I think the mission could be improved to be simpler (more straightforward) by focusing on keywords of professional experience, interdisciplinary, and sustainable sectors. It’s a university program so it's obvious that the purpose to educate so highlight what makes this program different. The vision, however, looks simple and broad enough to cover all students’ goals.

Test #2: Vision capture of binary future state--- Pass, Future-oriented, as learning/know, leads to skills to build a better world. I would add language around empower or challenge a student to build a better world. (I feel like we haven’t learned that many hard skills L)

Test #3: Visions are intrinsically motivated—Improvement needed, I think adding a better action work, like innovating or creating a better world, could help to make more motivating.

Test #4: Missions are simple rules that follow a formula- Improvement needed, No formula for the mission and vision. There needs to be better alignment between vision and mission. Working to set up the mission to lead into the vision would be important here.

Test #5: Repeatedly doing your mission should bring about vision-   Pass, classes, and exposure to real work problems lead to the knowledge and skills to build a better world.

Test #6: Mission- vision must be measurable- Pass, Build a more just, sustainable, and productive planet as measurable. (at least according to text. I think this test didn’t applicable for all situations)

Test #7: Mission moments are rare and precious- Pass, Mission moments are the ‘aha moment’ students experiences in classes that lead to understanding the vision. (In my opinion, this could be clear but meets test expectations)

Test #8: Mission- visions are mental models, not statements- Pass, shared understanding and agreement on the importance of the program to build a more just, sustainable, and productive planet.

Test #9: Culture is built on shared, core mental models- Improvement needed, shared understanding of vision but admitted students, current students and faculty and staff have different ways to meet mission and vision, therefore the core mental model aren’t fully shared

Test #10: Learning constantly improves vision, mission, and culture- Improvement needed, Due to a lack of shared core mental model, learning and strengthening culture is crucial in improving vision and mission  

Lastly, one thing I learned from this class is individuals hold a false understanding that “underneath complex things are complicated explanations” (36). To more accurately understand systems is to realize that“underneath complex things are simple rules” (36). This concept, in summary, highlights the need to not overthink or over the complicated system but to simplify the system to help better communicate and understand the vast complexities that reside.

Question: One big concern I have with the 10 test is that it doesn’t thoroughly evaluate the work behind the mission and vision.  For example, looking at MENV, I could believe that building a more productive, just, and sustainable path would require working on natural gas production vs another person who believes working on renewable energy would build a better world. Where is this capture in the 1o test?

An Analysis of MENV

Mission –> Vision statements are short and simple

• I would argue that the values are relatively short, but nowhere near simple or easy to execute upon

Visions capture a picture of a binary future state

• I believe the MENV mission and visions capture an idea, not necessarily a state that is measurable or quantifiable

Visions are intrinsically motivating

• I found the vision and values very moving, which is why I chose this program over so many others

Missions are simple rules that follow a formula

• There is nothing simple about these rules

Repeatedly doing your mission should bring about the vision

• In theory, yes, in practice I believe we are deeply struggling with executing upon any of these missions

Mission –> Vision must be measurable

• I feel that both of these things are somewhat qualitative and not very measurable

Mission moments are rare and precious

• I struggle with what this really means, but if it representative of what we cherish, hold dear or is precious to me personally then yes? Is it rare? No, many Environmental programs have these same ideals

Mission –> visions are mental models, not statements

• I would argue yes, in a way, as these mental models seek to close the gap between academia and practice, ushering in a new environmental education model

Culture is built on shared, core mental models

• Very much so, the mission and values of MENV have been deeply formative of our culture

Learning constantly improves vision, mission, and culture

• Completely agree, but I would add that increasing flexibility and adaptability would also serve us well.

 

My biggest take-away from Systems class is just the overwhelming understanding of how complex the problems are that we are facing within the environmental field. In addition, reviewing the mission and vision statements of the MENV program, reinforced my understanding that the MENV program has excelled at crafting a mission and vision statement that truly connects with the goal of the program. The values that provide the foundational base of the program are why I chose this program over so many others. It is not the values or the vision that are driving my lack of satisfaction with the program, but instead the program management’s complete failure to deliver upon them. In Investment Banking we call the tactic that was utilized to represent this program to the first cohort as “over-promising and under-delivering.” The program has a mission that I can stand behind fully, and one that looks extremely promising on paper, unfortunately the program has managed to deliver upon very few of these values.

One of the greatest selling-points of MENV was that we would be moving beyond traditional instruction, learning tangible marketable skill-sets that can be leveraged into the public and private sector. And yet we find ourselves, class after class, being subjected to the highest level of theoretical frameworks and instruction, unable to break away from academia. Hard skills have been learned from my own study, a sincerely gratifying certificate program through the CU Denver, and my own chosen electives. There are very few, if any, skills I can attribute to any core required class for my section, and that is a sincere systematic failure on all levels of this program. I have not gained the skills or know-how to succeed in the new and emergent field of resilience. Instead, I have taught myself, found my own mentors, and built a new academic program in the place of what MENV should have been providing. There is not a culture of innovation within the program, as administrators have shown themselves to lack adaptability or flexibility in meeting or listening to the cohort’s needs. And in turn, the active community of learning and the values the program sought to enable, has resulted in a disillusioned group of committed and passionate students who felt this has been at best, a waste of money, and at worst, a waste of an educational opportunity.

There is not one thing I would change about the MENV Vision or Mission statement. I paid to be here, to learn under those pillars, and I truly believe that when the program begins to execute upon them, that this will be a world class environmental program. Until then, I will continue to advocate for change, remain committed to seeing this through, and lend my voice and ideas to making this program a better place to learn.

Testing the MENV Vision and Mission Statements for Effectiveness

1. Are they short and simple? I think like the vision is succinct enough, but the mission statements could be refined into more clear and direct bullet points.
2. Does the vision statement capture a binary future state? I think not—a
   “more just, sustainable, and productive planet” is vague. How do we know when we’ve succeeded at building that?
3. Is the vision intrinsically motivating? Yes, at least for me. The thought of building a better world is what motivates me to pursue a career in the environmental realm.
4. Are the mission statements simple rules that follow a formula? No, they aren’t simple. I don’t know if it’s possible to boil the main points of the mission statements (driving thought leadership, moving beyond traditional instruction, embracing different educational approaches, providing skills for new fields, leveraging Colorado ethics, and celebrating diversity) into formulaic rules, due to how ambitious and inherently complex they are.
5. Will repeatedly performing the mission statements lead to the vision? Ideally, yes. I think this part is set up well—if you impart the type of education described in the mission statements onto MENV students, they should have the skills, knowledge etc. required to make the changes described in the vision.
6. Is Mission-->Vision measurable? Both the mission and vision strike me as difficult to measure. However, it’s likely that metrics exist which can capture things like stakeholder engagement and skill building. A basic vision success metric would be employment rates in relevant environmental fields upon graduation.
7. Are mission moments rare and precious? I’m not exactly sure what this gets at. The MENV mission moments shouldn’t be rare—nor should any mission moments, since they are by definition “simple rules that must be repeated to bring about the vision.”
8. Are the Mission-->Vision statements mental models? Yes, and this is an area where they seem best suited. The mission statements are mental models about education, which seek to buck the trend of traditional graduate programs and provide a different type of experience (one that imparts useful knowledge and applicable skills). The vision statement also is a mental model in terms of career impacts: we should be trying to build a more just, sustainable, and productive planet rather than work for the sake of employment.
9. Is Culture built on shared core mental models? Absolutely, though I think that the shared mental models of the cohort differ significantly from the shared mental models of the MENV faculty and staff. But there’s definitely overlap.
10. Does Learning constantly improve Mission, Vision, and Culture? I believe there’s always room for improvement, but feedback has been incorporated in a meaningful way on several occasions. The MENV program needs to be adaptive and flexible in order to evolve to meet the needs of students. It’s a little too early to tell whether that’s being done successfully.

Class Takeaway: This class has made me cognizant of systems concepts (like adaptability, resilience, stakeholder relationships, and perspectives) in my other studies and day-to-day life. I think this is a good goal for systems thinking educators—to foster a ”systems awareness” in the general public.

Culture Crisis in Scaling Organizations

In Section 3 of Systems-Thinking Made Simple, the authors demonstrate the value of systems-thinking in both personal and organizational development. I enjoyed this real-world application of systems-thinking to growth management. In particular, Chapter 11, which is about rethinking organizational structures especially resonated with me. Having worked for several small, medium, and large companies in my architecture career, I've decided that the most effective company leaders are those that are able to rethink the organizational structure as they scale up. This has proven to be much more difficult than it sounds, especially for architects who are not trained in business administration, but instead, prefer to focus on things like buildings design and materials (all of them). It also requires the firm's founder and president to question a system that's already brought them success, which is risky business, literally and metaphorically. In one case, I joined the company as employee #6. Two years later, there were 50 employees and we'd  moved to an over-sized office across town in anctipation of future growth. The company's growth seemed largely unintentional. We had just come out of the Recession and, naturally, the Principal Architect was afraid to turn down new projects. The problem was that this Principal Architect refused to let the organizational structure evolve as we added new employees. He was intent on overseeing all design decisions in the office. This was a reasonable task with 3 projects and 7 employees, but increasingly difficult as the company grew to 25 projects divided among 50 employees. The growing pains were excruciating and eventually, after several of his original employees quit working for the company, the Principal Architect was forced to seek outside business consultation. The command structure model had failed him and now the company was forced to shift its mental-model toward a more "distributed management" approach. In a way, we were sad when the system changed. It meant that relationships were being reconfigured. It's the feeling I would imagine during the death of a start-up. A phasing out of the scrappy-DIY mentality. To me, this is the fundamental challenge of scaling up. One of the most visible companies that is struggling with this problem today is Uber. They seem to be in denial about their size and scope, clinging desperately to the hard-nosed, competitive, organization structure that won them so much success. I'd imagine it's a difficult thing to achieve so much success while having the self-awareness to look in the mirror and question your approach. Uber has proved increasingly resistant to this organizational evolution, so much so that it's in the News nearly every day. It has the reputation of the "revolving-door" in Silicon Valley as countless young and talented software engineers are attracted to the mission, but cannot handle the company culture, and so they leave. As former-Uber COO Jeff Jones said after he'd left Uber, "the beliefs and approach to leadership that have guided my career are inconsistent with what I saw and experienced at Uber." As the book asserts, company culture is a stubborn beast, especially for globally successful companies. It's unfortunate, but logical, that it would require a significant setback or "wake-up call" for these companies to reconsider their traditions. After numerous sexual harassment allegations, lawsuits over stolen AV technologies, demonstrations of privacy invasion, and divorces from partnering cities, it seems as though Uber is finally being forced to reconsider they way it thinks. 

Why do some organizations evolve consciously (Google) while others seem to expand until they implode (Uber)? 

Even MBAs Do It

Culture building has become increasingly important to large organizations, but what we may perceive as generating and nurturing organizational culture could in fact just be cherry picking elements of successful other organizations. The Cabreras' discuss this common problem of becoming the 'next Google,' and how attempts to replicate visioning and culture from other organizations often shows a lack of inherent understanding of the system in which an organization operate. However, even the most traditional companies are beginning to realize that preserving the cultural and vision that propels the rapid growth of a small company is worth preserving - or at least thoughtfully shifting.  

A recent guest speaker in our capstone lab addressed this issue in her presentation on shifts in the natural food market. While 'big food' previously used only a traditional acquisition model for buying up smaller natural food companies, many have shifted to an investment model. Under this model, the successful operations and culture embodied in these smaller operations remain in tact, providing the resources of the parent company without inadvertently disrupting vital elements of an organizations operations that may be perceived as trivial. Regardless of the successful and rapid growth of a small business, it's acquisition worth is arguably dependent on how well the parent company understands what it's acquiring.  This has long been the practice of tech companies. Unlike more traditional companies, the tech industry is loaded with companies that will never try to be the next Google. They already understand that the industry rewards the inventors and innovators, not the reproducers. It's an industry that loves thought leaders, and has found successful ways of identifying them. For those who are not in this coveted category, understanding perspective is important to an effective leader.  

It's easy to make assumptions about people. We do it all the time. For the Cabreras', one can easily acquire the label naysayer if we believe they are not onboard and resistant. We should attempt to understand perspectives that could influence why they exhibit resistance before we ignore them. One person's naysayer could be another's thought leader.

Question: In these early interactions with your capstone partners, how well do you think the leaders of these organizations understand the culture? Is visioning embodies in the organization, or is it trivial?

The Importance of Organizational Culture

The last section of Systems Thinking Made Simple highlighted the importance of motivating individuals to be system thinkers in order to shape a successful system thinking organization. To support this claim, Cabrera unveils the organizational design and leadership method called VMCL. This concept represents:

• Vision (V)- An organization's future goal
• Mission (M)- An organization’s rules that help lead to the vision
• Culture (C) - Individuals in an organization's ability to shape mental models, mission, and vision
• Learning (L)-  Using systems thinking to improvements of culture, mission, and value

I really enjoyed this concept, especially the idea of culture (C). The author defines culture as “a cycle that revolves around building an organizational culture that supports the learning, mission, and vision” of an organization (193). One can’t build this culture without a shared understanding and belief of the mission and vision of the organization. Cabrera continues stating that the more deeply these mental models are shared the more robust the culture is, leading to faster, better and more adaptable operations. Working at B Lab, I see this concept in motion daily. Becoming a B Corp takes hard work in implementing and sustaining impactful operations in an organization’s DNA. To become a B Corp, you can’t just add a fluffy mission statement to your website. As Cabrera states “words mean nothing” and “if every member of your organizations cannot recite and explain your mission- vision, you don’t have one” (228). Building a shared mission and vision requires the whole organizations to come together to build a cohesive culture that meets all individuals values. Once this culture is created, organizations gain the ability to grow faster and more efficiently and even become more resilient and adaptable. Evaluating B Corp performance, once a company's builds a culture working collective towards a clear goal, in this case, sustainability, individuals work hard, smarter, faster together.

Do you agree that strengthening an organization culture leads to a more productive company? If so, do you have an example?

 

Systems Thinking Applied to Organizational Structure

In the last section of Systems Thinking Made Simple, the authors highlighted how systems thinking and particularly their systems framework might be incorporated into organizational structure. I find their (VMCL Cycle) methods idealistic in their “simple solutions” which they claim will enhance all organizations:

1. The selection of agents (aka systems thinkers”)
2. The explication of simple rules (mission statement)
3. The explication of the goal (corporate vision)
4. Building a culture that supports learning, mission, and vision

These are pretty straightforward goals, and every company that I have ever worked with, essentially tries to do these four things, with varying success. These “simple” rules sound great on the pages of a theoretical book, but in real life, are again, anything but simple. While I continue to struggle with the Cabrera’s esoteric system’s thinking framework, I did find myself agreeing (somewhat) regarding their theory of “Control & Command” and that an adaptive responsive organization needs to place the power in the hands of the employees. This reminded me of Katrina, and the lack of responsiveness from several federal agencies, particularly the National Guard, FEMA, and Homeland Security. All of these agencies were somewhat frozen during the crisis, waiting for orders from their “bosses” to come down the chain of command. But a failure in communication undermined the quality of information that the “bosses” were receiving, resulting in the crisis being downplayed and leading to thousands of deaths, that could have been prevented. One of the bright spots during Katrina, was the performance of the US Coast Guard, which has been deeply praised and lauded for their timely effective response during the disaster. The Coast Guard has widely credited their efficiency and effectiveness with individual Coast Guard members being granted the power and trust to make decisions hard and fast while on the ground. They were able to respond and adapt quickly, and had the ability to make drastic decisions in a high-pressure environment of which time was of the essence, without waiting on the hierarchal chain of command to approve their rescue efforts. In doing so, they saved countless lives and aided significantly in response and recovery efforts.

Are there times and places in which the traditional chain of command is helpful or even necessary?