The Barely Functionalists

Yay MENV!

The MENV mission-vision passes the first test: they are both short, sweet, and get to the point. The second test, however, tells me that the MENV vision could be altered. While the second half of the existing vision is adequate, it could be slightly changed to

Environmental leaders from the MENV program will take the knowledge, skills, and experience necessary to understand a changing world as they build a more just, sustainable, and productive planet.   

The third test, which says that visions should be so motivating they lift you out of bed every morning, alludes to the lack of exciting and inspiring language in our program’s vision. We could restructure it to read something like:

Environmental leaders emerging from the Masters of the Environment program will carry the theoretical knowledge, versatile skill set, and leadership experience necessary to understand an ever-changing political, natural, and cultural environment, as they design a more just, sustainable, and productive planet.

 I believe this is still not too long, because it only took up another half of a line of writing. This fourth test is achieved for the MENV Vision statement: vision and mission are aligned, how the vision gets accomplished is included, the vision is the focal point of the mission, the mission is the repetition we need to achieve the vision, and the mission is what we must do, not see. One thing I would change is that if the consumer of this consumer-centric statement, as the Cabreras say, is the student, then something is missing. What is missing is the faculty and staff, professors and instructors, because I know with complete certainty that I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for Miss Lydia Lawhon. Therefore, I would change it a bit more to read:

We educate our students to advance sustainability solutions across a wide-range of environmental careers and sectors by promoting a community of learning through engaged and inter-disciplinary classes, collaboration and guidance from impressively-accomplished professors, and real-world professional experience.     

The fifth test about the importance of repetition of the mission to achieve the vision is, as stated previously, achieved. That is, by doing the steps outlined by the program, environmental leaders will emerge, which is clearly stated. The sixth test is to create a vision that is measurable. I think from the vision to have students engage in the three things that are outlined is specific. To use those specific things that we take from this program out into the world to help us perform in our careers, whatever they may be, has measurable outcomes in what students will take with them. The phrase “advance sustainability solutions” is also measurable in that we need to move forward, instead of backward or stay the same. The seventh assessment is to ensure that missions moments are achievable among your organization, or in our case, among the students. I think our mission moments are achievable, but I don’t know that they are rare. If we are doing the things in our mission statement repeatedly, we are doing them every day; therefore, they aren’t rare moments. I think everyone in this program is more than capable of being engaged to want to achieve those mission moments. This would be good criteria for admitting students, but not as much criteria for students, because I think that is an obvious piece of this program: we are all here to achieve these things and our personal goals. It is a good reminder, but not necessary for students. The eighth test is that visions are mental models, not statements. I think that unfortunately we fail on this assessment. If we were to have a visual to go with our statements (I do believe that MENV only has statements currently), we would have a mental model, but I’m not sure that everyone has the exact same mental model because we all have different goals overall. The closest mental model I can think of would be for a more resilient and healthy mother Earth, but this is not very specific to our program particularly.  

Question: Is a mental model for the MENV program achievable, when we are so interdisciplinary, and have a wide and broad array of interests and goals? How can we make a more specific mental model for our specific MENV program?

The ninth test continues this idea, but I think is much more achievable for our specific program. Our culture is built on our shared, core mental models, because while we all have different personal goals, we can relate them to each other in some way. Those goals are connected to each other person’s goals by some node in the system of the environmental or sustainability field. The tenth test is obvious to our program: faculty and staff are constantly learning how to improve the mission, vision, and culture by the abundance of [sometimes helpful] complaints, feedback from the guinea pig class, small notes from observation, customary preliminary learning from any program in its first year, and I am sure several other things.

What I’ve learned from this System class and from this program in its first year is that just like normally-functioning systems, graduate program operations shift, incrementally change, and have feedback loops that can improve its functioning, all in a give-and-take way that seems to be constantly improving the program overall. After this class, it is more obvious to me that this Masters of the Environment program would not be perfect, or never make progress or improvements from day one. If the program did that, it would be sustainable and not resilient. By improving, which is done through shifts and feedbacks of everything and everyone, the program is becoming more resilient. For that I think it is wildly successful! Not to mention, a sustainability program as interdisciplinary and novel as this one is a regime shift worth fighting and stressing over! (So don’t feel discouraged, Bruce... or anyone else who feels discouraged by the complaining!)   

 

Putting the MENV Vision Statement Through the Test

The main thing I have taken away from this class is that we need more systems thinkers in this world because it will allow us to be able to become more aware of our own thought process, recognize relationships and distinctions between disciplines and understand perspectives from different points of views. I also understand now that wicked problems are inherently unsolvable. This one quote frames the concept of commitment nicely and what it means for us to take this step in enrolling in this program to achieve a better world for the future. “To embark on the journey towards your goals and dreams requires bravery. To remain on that path require courage. The bridge that merges the two is commitment.”

And here is my analysis of whether or not the MENV mission/vision statements achieved the status of effectiveness through the Systems Thinking Made Simple tests:

Test 1: Mission → Visions are short and simple The MENV mission and vision are both short, straight to the point and compliments each other nicely.

Test #2: Visions Capture a Picture of a Binary Future State The vision does this by describing the most ideal situation where leaders from this program will go on to create a just, sustainable and productive planet.

Test #3: Visions are Intrinsically Motivating To a degree yes it does motivate me, but could be reworded as it is slightly vague and not that inspiring. I would say the value statements embody the intrinsic motivation aspects that the vision lacks.

Test #4: Missions are Simple Rules That Follow a Formula Rather than to describe it as a “rule”, the mission sounds like more of a guideline by which the program operates. They are simple and straightforward in theory. Our classes are interdisciplinary, we are provided with real-world experience through our Capstone and the overall goal for us is to advance sustainable solutions with the education we are provided. These all sound like basic checkpoints that the program must check off in order to satisfy our needs.

Test #5: Repeatedly Doing Your Mission Should Bring About Your Vision I would agree with this as knowledge, skills and experiences stated in the vision will be bolstered by the tools, learning opportunities and professional experience provided by the program. It is a good model as it can be easily translatable from cohort to cohort.

Test #6: Mission --> Vision Must Be Measurable I am perplexed to how this vision would be measurable in the short term. Looking towards the future, the most attainable way to measure this success would be by looking at the percentage of graduates who have become environmental leaders and gone on to create a more just, sustainable, and productive planet.

Test #7: Mission Moments are Rare and Precious The mission is rare in the sense that there are not many professional degree programs that have a similar mission to this one. Perhaps in ten to fifteen years this will change. As for now, the mission is precious as it is unique in its own way.

Test #8: Mission-Visions are Mental Models, Not Statements Yes, absolutely. The mission/vision describes what we strive to attain after we graduate because we care about the world and its complex problems. It is a representation of the way we view the world and brings us together based on this shared vision to make a difference across various fields.

Test #9: Culture is Built on Shared, Core Mental Models Our cohort culture is built on these shared, core mental models especially because we come from different backgrounds and experiences. Yet we are all passionate/concerned about the environment and sustainability and are moved to do something about it.

Test #10: Learning Consistently Improves Vision, Mission, and Culture Learning but most importantly, listening to feedback will improve vision, mission and culture. 20 years from now I expect the vision and mission to somewhat be changed for the better as the program is strengthened and improved upon.

MENV Mission/Vision

1. Mission/Vision is short and simple: I think the Cabrera’s would find that our mission/vision, particularly mission is too long. Although not too difficult to understand, our mission statement is not necessarily simple and could be condensed into a concise sentence or two.
2. Visions capture a picture of a binary future state: The vision depicts a future state, “students will be able to do____ and use skills to___. “Some statements in the vision are binary, (either or) but some are not. Not all of the statements are measureable.
3. Visions are intrinsically motivated: Yes, it is a pretty inspiring vision, but it could be improved. 
4. Missions are simple rules that follow a format: Yes, it is clear that the overall program ‘rules’ include hands-on education and real world professional experience that will help students create a more sustainable future.
5. Repeatedly doing your mission should bring about the vision: Yes, each year students will follow these ‘rules,’ and gain skills to use in their careers creating a more sustainable productive planet.
6. Mission/Vision must be measurable: Kind of? We can measure how many students go on to do meaningful environmental work, but realistically it would be impossible to quantify or measure the direct environmental benefits from the program.
7. Mission moments are rare and precious: The fact that they used the words ‘rare and precious’ is kind of odd….. But I will admit I think our mission vision is extremely important. The mission of the program is the reason I am here. 
8. Mission/Vision are mental models, not statements: Yes, although the individuals in the cohort will have diverse career paths throughout many sectors of the environmental field, there is an underlying message relayed in the mission/ vision statement. The mental model is that no matter where life takes us, we have one common goal, to make the world a better place.
9. Culture is built on shared, core mental models: Somewhat… although the culture is not directly stated in the mission/ vision the underlying mental model of creating a better world as well as being inclusive and open minded is clearly present.
10. Learning constantly improves vision, mission and culture: Yes, this is a Master’s program. Learning is definitely going to be apart of the mission/ vision and culture.

Today simple 'fixes' are often prescribed to complex problems. These 'fixes' rarely ever work because complex problems contain more facets and include more stakeholders than most people realize. One important thing I learned this year is that systems thinking can help individuals think about problems from different perspectives and take into account diverse viewpoints. Stepping outside of your own mental model about how the world works, or what constitutes a problem can help you figure out the best way to go about solving a complex problem, in a way that relevant stakeholders will respond to. 

The MENV Mission-Vision & A Takeaway

    The MENV mission – vision, at least in terms of the Cabreras’ framework, is a bit of a mess. The first thing to note is that the vision and mission of the program could be switched around and I don’t think anyone notice the difference. This is a problem no matter how you evaluate missions and visions. In terms of the book’s 10 tests, I would say the MENV’s mission – vision passes only one. I will critique the mission – vision using the first 8 tests since the last two relate don’t relate to the mission – vision directly.

    Test 1: Neither the mission or vision are as short as the Cabreras would recommend. But beyond that, the bigger issue is that the statements are a word jumble. “Advance sustainability solutions” barely tells me anything.

    Test 2: “Build a more just, sustainable, and productive planet” isn’t binary. That statement could be fulfilled by getting one more person to start recycling. It could also mean a complete overhaul of our global economic system. It doesn’t give a good indication of what the program wants to get to.

    Test 3: While I think pinning down what is “intrinsically motivating” is difficult at best, I would say the MENV’s vision is not this. In large part this is due to the aforementioned word jumble.

    Test 4: This is the one test that the MENV mission – vision might pass. While it has a problem with language, I can run through the steps of: advance solutions by promoting a community of learning via classes and professional experience.

    Test 5: The vision is actually the biggest issue in passing this test. It’s hard to say that repeatedly carrying out the mission would bring about the vision when the vision itself is just too vague.

    Test 6: Just as the vision wasn’t binary, the mission – vision could hardly be considered measurable. Both are quite vague and any evaluation of success relating to them would be subjective.

    Test 7: This is my least favorite test, as “mission moments” are somehow more difficult to pin down than even “intrinsically motivating”, but I would have to say the MENV mission – vision fails this as well. Partly for the same reason that it failed test 3, but also because this is actually the first time I had ever heard the MENV mission – vision.

    Test 8: I think that it is pretty clear that both the mission and vision are just statements. They are mere descriptions of what the program and the vision itself are supposed to do, but together they are not a mental model.

    Finally, my takeaway from this class, which I’m choosing to keep positive, is to get an understanding or representative of people’s perspectives when tackling wicked problems. We come into every situation with our own preconceived biases, so it is critical that we incorporate the views of those who are not us in solving problems.

MENV Critiques

This week's task is to critique the MENV Program's Mission and Vision statements! So, without further ado:

1. Mission-->Vision is short and simple: I would say that MENV's mission and vision statements are short, since each are one sentence. I would also agree that they are relatively simple.
2. Visions capture a picture of a binary future state: I would agree that the MENV Vision does this, either the planet will be more just/sustainable/productive or it won't.
3. Visions are intrinsically motivated: I think the MENV Vision does an OK job of this, but it most definitely could be stronger.
4. Missions are simple rules that follow a format: I think the MENV Mission fits this statement. The simple rules are to educate through engaged and interdisciplinary classes and real-world professional experience. These will be repeated with each cohort.
5. Repeatedly doing your mission should bring about the vision: Each new cohort will continue the mission, while graduating cohorts will hopefully embody the vision and take it with them out into the real-world.
6. Mission--> Vision must be measurable: This needs work I think, I'm not sure how we'd measure a more just/sustainable/productive planet.
7. Mission moments are rare and precious: Well I certainly hope the mission moments as current;y written are rare and precious, or we'd have cohorts of one or two people!
8. Mission-->Vision are mental models, not statements: I don't feel like the mission-->vision statement right now is an example of a mental model necessarily, they seem more like statements at this point than something active like a mental model.
9. Culture is built on shared, core mental models: I'm not sure if this is modeled in the mission-->vision statement right now, but we have definitely created a culture on shared mental models on our own! And I think it's pretty great :)
10. Learning constantly improves vision, mission and culture: Well the point of a graduate program is to learn, right? I feel like this is implied and is stated fairly clearly in the MENV mission-->vision statement.

And finally, my one juicy takeaway from Socio-Environmental Systems: it's imperative that you take every perspective into account when making decisions. Only then can you ensure that the decision made is in the best interest of every stakeholder involved. Compromise is key!

MENV mission and vision statements evaluated

Simple can be good, but... I'm not sure I'm onboard with what the Cabreras are saying on this one. Rabbits and Catholics as examples of the best mission statements? Well, rabbits can't read or write. And Catholics at one time were pretty good  at converting folks, but really, historically, that prize should go to Islam. And maybe we can mark that down to the fact that Islam has a few simple rules- the Five Pillars of Islam? Which anyway, sound like four too many for the Cabreras

 

So, how does our Masters of the Environment look when evaluated through the Cabrera's lens?

	Cabrera's Mission → Vision Rule	MENV
1	mission→ visions short and simple	OK
2	vision captures a binary future state	no
3	vision intrinsically motivating	I think so
4	mission is a simple rule that follows a formula	not really
5	repeatedly doing the mission leads to the vision	only in the sense that the vision is essentially restating the mission
6	mission→ visions must be measurable	no- but good luck with that!
7	mission moments are rare and precious	no
8	mission→ visions are mental models, not statements	no
9	culture built on shared, core mental models	yes, to some degree...
10	learning improves vision, mission, and culture	possibly

I do think that in general terms, the advice is good... make the vision something you WANT to see happen, make the mission an action that should lead to that state of affairs. But the more detailed aspects of the implied criticism don't really hold up here. Do we want a measurable mission-- vision for an educational institution? I'm not sure we do, because that leads us to chase the things that can be measured- number of students educated, number of classes taught, rather than those qualitative moments that matter much more.

A lot of what the Cabreras say sounds good, but when it comes to operationalizing it, things get really sticky really fast. 

Stating the Not-So-Obvious

    In finishing Systems Thinking Made Simple, I am struck by how many previous systems thinking themes from the class this has touched on. The last section hammers in points about the adaptive, ever-changing nature of systems. It expresses the need for change and innovation in thinking at multiple scales. It asks that we consider a variety of perspectives while also acknowledging our own thinking shortfalls. While I have a number of issues with this book, it is making me realize that systems thinking is not the silver bullet to solving wicked problems because such a thing does not exist.

    This book, and most systems thinking reading, is about getting people to think differently and better in certain scenarios. As has been established by functionalist, soft systems, and complex adaptive systems thinking, wicked problems will never be solved by the thinking and strategies that created them. Systems thinking, DSRP, VMCL are all about restructuring our thoughts and perceptions so that we can enact innovative changes in the world and organizations.

    The reason that very little of the reading has given us any direct sense of how it could be used to solve the great environmental issues we face is because we are taking things one step to far. Solving truly wicked problems will take the emergent strategies of many people trained in systems thinking. I think this may have been part of the point of Chapter 9. Systems Thinking Made Simple has a lot of issues with examples, (I mean, using a military strategy example as a way to explain how important autonomy of thought is? Really?) it was never going to be able to show how systems thinking solves a global wicked problem. First of all, wicked problems have no real solution and secondly, the solution to a wicked problem will likely have wicked properties itself. It would be far too complex to do real justice in writing.

Systems Thinking, Ethics, and Social Identity Theory

The last few chapters of the Cabrera's book would have us believe that using their brand of systems thinking can help us think better about things large AND small, improve our educational system, build better and more effective companies, and become more moral people, to boot! Well, what about all that?

 

They say that “(i)t is perhaps ironic that the simple rules we prescribe- DSRP- are intrinsic to our thinking. It is innately human to make distinctions, to group things together, to take perspectives, etc. What is not innate is to execute the simple rules consciously and to their full extent.” (p. 238). Is it all very simple, and we're just not doing it right? I wonder.

 

Their section on how their brand of systems thinking can lead to more ethical behavior might be a good place to start. They start with how the “D” of DSRP can lead us to make ethical distinctions. They detail a number of ethically-related dichotomies, such as between thoughts and feelings, situationally appropriate and situationally inappropriate responses, and between ourselves and others, and conclude by saying that, “(e)very thought-act or speech-act is capable of being a violent distinction. We must try to gain meta-level awareness of the distinctions we are making at each moment.”

Despite how the authors attempt to deny that it is all about thinking, this seems a somewhat abstract way to wish away moral dilemmas.

How do people really act? One clue regarding this distinction between self and others can be found in the fields of psychology and sociology in what is called “social identity theory.” Social identity theory maintains that people attempt to define themselves in relation to a group identity, in contradiction to those who are of out-groups. In this idea, we do three things as part of making sense of the distinction of an “other”:

1- First, we categorize people: “social categorization”

2- Then, we categorize ourselves. How and where do we ourselves fit in, and under what circumstances: “social identification”

3- Then we compare our group with the out-groups, with our own group being the favorable one and out-groups being denigrated. “social comparison.”

That doesn't sound quite as warm and fuzzy. Maybe the Cabrera's would say we just need to try to gain a meta-awareness of the situation? I'm not sure that's a slam-dunk of answer here.

Question: Is exercising simple rules to their full extent enough, or is it unrealistic to ask people to “out-think” their baser instincts?

The Power to Change

I think the tips for organisational change are useful, but they do rely on an equal spread of power. Fast food, grocery stores and similar jobs are the new factory jobs. How are workers supposed to institute change when even the whisper of a union forming means being fired? This is all easier said than done. Their boss absolutely is the head. If they want something done you can drag your feet, but do that too many times and you'll be replaced. Sometimes the extrinsic motivation of money is the only reason they are working and even the best boss in the world won't change that. 

Let's suppose a manger DOES want to institute systems thinking-they will still likely implement it from a top-down hierarchy. Even a school, as mentioned in the text, has a principal that has the ability to fire and hire teachers. When my Mom was a teacher she was eventually fired because she did not do what the principal wanted her to do, even though her system was better for the students; that is, not allowing those who did no work but had parents who donated to the school get good grades anyways. There was a recent article about how many professors can't be as radical as they wish because they want tenure. These are not equalised power structures, as much as the author wishes.

Essentially, this system relies on there being no corruption and a willingness on the part of those given power to re-organise the system to better benefit everyone, not just those at the top of the pyramid. 

On somewhat side note, I've never heard the term non-neurotypical. I've always heard it as neuroatypical or  neurodivergent. Also I think it's a little funny that they are willing to look at ADD/ADHD from a different perspective but fail to clarify that being a "functional psychopath" does not mean you're a bad person, just not necessarily the right person for that system. A so-called "functional psychopath" may be an excellent analyst, for example, but not a team player. (Or if you're in a situation with limited resources they may be the one to make the difficult decisions because they are not concerned with the reactions of others). I think they made a good effort to include neurodiverse perspectives, but they could certainly do better.

Systems Thinking Made Simple pt. 3

    In part three of “Systems Thinking Made Simple,” Ryan and Laura Cabrera shift focus from creating individual systems thinkers, to creating a world of systems thinkers to creating successful organizations filled with systems thinkers. Chapter 11 introduces a new acronym, VMCL, representing the principles of Vision, Mission, Culture and Learning. According to the Cabrera’s, “if DSRP are the simple rules individuals follow to become systems thinkers, then VMCL are the simple rules a group of these systems thinkers follows to bring about the vision of the organization” (pg. 187). The Cabrera’s describe organizations as complex adaptive systems, systems that are constantly changing, learning how to adapt in response to their environment. If we want to bring upon change in this system we can not simply focus on the results, but rather on the underlying rules that influence the system's behavior.

    In regards to creating successful organizations, there were several concepts from the book that I agree with. For one, I believe organizations can learn from nature. Afterall, nature has mastered efficiency and complexity. I too believe that it may actually hurt an organization if they try to copy what other organizations have done in the past. It is helpful to learn from organizational successes and failures, but it is more important to create a unique, innovative company that will break the mold. Tesla didn’t get where they are today by copying what car companies have been doing for the past 100 years. Companies started by, and filled with systems thinkers, with the capacity to understand diverse perspectives, problem solve and think critically, can achieve the greatest results.

     I also agree that the most successful organizations have strong visions, and missions. It is important that a company understands its purpose and its plan to create a better future. That being said I think the Cabrera’s overemphasized the importance of the actual mission vision statement. In an upper level management position, revisiting your mission vision statement may help you reconnect with your goals as a company and make sure you are on the right track. But this, along with VMCL in general, is a gross oversimplification of the tools necessary for organizational success. It honestly seems like one of the things management does to feel like they are making institutional change when they really aren’t. While I was working for the MN Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council, the National branch decided to merge with the local chapters, who were origianlly operating independently (including Minnesota). There were several institutional changes and we had to adapt to and several new processes we had to learn. As one of the 4 employees running day to day operations I would have laughed if national sent us an updated, more concise, mission vision statement expecting it to make a big difference. Unless there would have been a complete overhaul of the system, we were still promoting green building in Minnesota, simple as that.