insights

When asked recently to design a course in Sustainability for Systems Thinkers I wondered who could be considered the foundational thinkers who have inspired the present leaders in the sustainability field?

So I went to my community of practice and asked 12 leaders in sustainability thinking who I have had the privilege to work with to name their sources of inspiration. Their responses were worth sharing.

Being from many disciplines and backgrounds the composite list had many names in common and a diverse range of inspirations. Combining the contributions of all suggested the following three groups of writers, philosophers, activists, artists, architects, theorists and environmentalists (in no particular order):

The Inspiring (the pioneers):

E.F. Schumacher
Donella Meadows
Buckminster Fuller
Amory Lovins
Francisco Varela
John Elkington
Joanna Macy
David Holmgren
Peter Senge
Christopher Alexander

The Inspired who we follow in their work: Lance Gunderson, C. S. Holling, Gunter Pauli, Paul Hawken, Lester Brown, Ingrid Stefanovic, Lynne Margulis, James Lovelock, William A. McDonough, James Grier Miller, Jane Jacobs, Bill McKibben, Anne Wilson-Schaef, Margaret Wheatley, Myron Kellner-Rogers, Peter H. Kahn, Stephen Kellert, Jack Turner, R. Bruce Hull, Dexter Dunphy, Bill Torbert, Joseph Tainter, Thomas Homer-Dixon, Jared Diamond,

And The Inspirational who are applying their thinking in contemporary practice: Paulo Lugari, Frank Fisher, Darcy Riddell, Alexander Lazlo, Vandan Shiva, Ann Dale, Brian Walker and Graham Harris.

We hope to see your name on such a list some day soon.

The Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy (ISTP), which has over 80 post-graduate and 100 undergraduate students doing research into the many fields of sustainability, recently asked that we help coordinate an Advanced Sustainability course in Organizational Sustainability for Engineers Australia.

While probably not the first Integral Organizational Sustainability course in the world, we did design the course structure to look at all the facets of sustainability across 4 quadrants, 6 levels and 9 lines for all different types of organizations. The case studies presented by different leaders in organizational sustainability on Argyle Diamonds, Water Corporation, Pilbara Iron and the Sultanate of Oman covered a spectrum of approaches to the concepts, culture, systems and measurement of sustainability.

Talking about the levels of sustainability is always difficult, mostly because everyone’s approach is completely right - just at different times for different organizations. One thing that was different about this course was the way we integrated the stages of sustainability within the phases of sustainability - to see all sustainability steps as appropriate.

A useful way to look at this major part of an integral approach is provided by Dexter Dunphy’s perspective on the six phases of sustainability commitment:

1. Rejection
2. Non-Responsiveness
3. Compliance
4. Efficiency
5. Strategic Proactivity
6. The Sustaining Organization

Each of the six phases builds on (and assumes) the economic, social and ecological mastery of all the activities of all previous phases. It also holds within it the many different models of corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship that often confuse our sustainability thinking. It is a model of great depth that transcends and includes many initiatives across all stages. It correlates well with a 4Q approach.

What was rewarding about doing the course in this way was how the working groups were able to find the appropriate present level of sustainability existence for their organization and the (tetra-evolutionary) path to where their sustainability programs should be in the near future.

If we all only did this - how much better would our world be?

Read an early Chapter: (pdf)
Read the Book: Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability - Dunphy, Griffiths and Benn (2003)
Read a Case Study: Argyle Diamonds
See tetra-evolution

I have been meaning to write about the Doug McKenzie-Mohr training on Fostering Sustainable Behavior. Many of those working locally on societal and social change went to his advanced workshop recently (and seeing so many people there was inspiring in itself).

His model for community based social marketing came out of his work as an environmental psychologist. It’s rare to see a perfect model for systemic change. It highlights why many efforts at developing a healthy society partially miss the mark - even though motivated by very good intentions. He has also created an amazing resource for societal growth (and an impressive network for those who want to log in and learn from the successes of others).

Many of the issues we face in our organisations and our communities we all have in common and now have the answers to (e.g. water demand management, organisational culture change, community waste reduction, energy efficiency etc.). So the question is not so much about “What to do?” but more “Why don’t we?”. Doug answers this question.

The five steps of: 1. Selecting the actvity to encourage, 2. Identifying barriers and benefits to change, 3. Developing strategies using tools that cover those barriers and benefits, 4. Conducting a pilot to test in the area of response and 5. only then, broadly implement and measure - all seem sensible and logical. It is the essential sub-elements covered in the workshop that make the discipline behind his approach exciting in its potential.

But the problem with perfect processes is we are imperfect beings. There are lots of things we miss. For example, the consideration of the barriers and benefits to change should look at the new behavior, and also the barriers and benefits of the existing behavior. It should also consider the physical (UR), socio-structural (UR), cultural (LL) and intentional (UL) reasons - such as the pragmatics of action, the supporting laws, peer pressure and individual awareness. We would not often do all sixteen sets of inquiry.

Some others things that came up for me in the workshop that impact on otherwise excellent programs of behavior change were:

1. Lack of a Compelling Vision - “I get what you are saying - but so what!”.
2. No Effect Data - “We changed something - but tell me again why we did this?”.
3. No Impact Analysis - “Oops! - sorry, we’ll now need to fix that”.
4. False Barrier Perception - “Oh - You didn’t ask about that!”
5. Cross Functional Actions - “What, we both did it?”
6. Invisible Response Costs - “We can change that - but 50 other things will change too!”
7. Ongoing Iteration - “We were 58% successful - but only had funding for one go?”

With careful analysis we can get them all. These programs for sustainable change can be successful.

What is more interesting is why we wouldn’t follow the model and Doug’s learnings when these are available. In asking the question “Why don’t they? ” - the real insight is “Why didn’t we?”. That asks something about our own thinking.

This was the topic of a research paper on Sustainability Assessment I gave at the IAIA conference in Vancouver last May. Given the choice of changing our thinking or changing the process - we’ll often unconsciously change the process - so it doesn’t work. That’s fascinating.

It means even if we know how, without help, we might not. It is one of the topics I am speaking on at the 12th International Conference on Thinking next month.

but more on that later …

The events of Boxing Day 2004 caused all of us to reflect on our reaction to crisis and on the inspiring depth of our capacity for response.

It caused me to also review my papers from the MAAOE 2003 Conference - the theme for which was ‘Organisational Excellence in the Face of Crisis’.

In an insightful paper by Robert Herriot a different view of crisis was presented. Using the familiar examples of Cyclone Tracy and the Canberra bushfires he showed how a crisis is really the succession of decisions or circumstances that lead to an event, not simply the catastrophic trigger at the end of that sequence. After looking at the organizational lifecycles of 110 companies, his proposal is that excellence in decision making can avert crisis, or at least minimise the effects of the event. This is why the same ‘crisitic event’ can affect companies differently.

The (Oxford) dictionary defines ‘crisis’ as 1. a time of danger or great difficulty, and 2. a decisive moment or turning point. The second definition is often overlooked. These two meanings of crisis highlight the choice between two approaches - management ‘in crisis‘ - and the management ‘of crisis‘.

For example, one organisation I know of has found themselves in the position of not having the time to develop the skills needed to respond to the challenges ahead. They have decided to focus on their speed of response, rather than proactive prevention. While effective in the day-to-day… they no longer plan for or take holidays. Management in crisis has replaced the management of crisis.

The other approach is explained by Richard Slaughter in his integral discussion “Futures Beyond Dystopia: Creating Social Foresight”. He concludes that having a way to think about the complexity of the future can remove our fear of it. This requires of us the ability to clearly read the signs that point to a dangerous or diminished future, to interpret them correctly and to take effective action.

I suppose this is why we see each Board meeting or critical management decision that marks a potential turning point as being so important.

It is the way to avoid the great difficulties of the future.

Read article: Samith Dharmasaroja

With the kind support of the Integral University, I was fortunate enough to travel to Westminster, Colorado last month to attend, present and facilitate a working group at the world’s first Seminar on Integral Ecology and Sustainability.

Seventy five of the leading thinkers and practitioners in sustainability from around the globe joined together to learn integral multi-disciplinary approaches to ecology and sustainability practices and to find out how we can work together, potentially on issues of global significance.

This emergent community includes Biologists, Environmental Scientists, Systems Modellers, Ecologists, Economists, Artists, Architects, Educators, Mediators, Community Leaders, Academics, Researchers and Practitioners with qualifications in Philosophy, Comparative Religion, Transpersonal Psychology, Anthroposophy, Child Psychology, Cultural Studies, Law, Economics, Ecopsychology, Permaculture, Mechanical, Water, Environmental and Aerospace Engineering and Interdisciplinary Technologies.

The significance of this particular event, is not that this is the first time something like this has been done, but that the Integral Ecology and Sustainability domain that organised the seminar is only one of 20 domains that the Integral Institute is forming for simultaneous launch in the next few months to create what they call the Integral Multiplex.

This will bring together into virtual space similar groups working in areas such as Integral Psychology, Integral Law, Integral Ecology, Integral Education, Integral Consciousness Studies, Integral Art, Integral Business, Integral Religion, Integral Medicine and Integral Transformative Practice all linked into one worldwide learning community.

One of the most interesting experiences from the Seminar I attended was a simulation involving over 50 participants in different roles modelling, in a day-long simulation, the 20 year management of the Florida everglades eco-system - putting the competing interests of developers, industry, environmental groups and fast growing communities into a real time dynamic learning space. This gives us a way to see and experience if what we do will be sustainable, before we do it - at a whole of society level.

People originating from Mexico, Russia, Canada, Taiwan, Germany, Brazil, Belgium, Australia, Philippines, Norway, Holland, England, Scotland and all corners of the USA worked together intensively for a week at a level I have not seen before.

These are all people with big hearts and big minds committed to big solutions to the multitude of micro-problems being faced by communities everywhere. The reverse slogan ‘Think Local Act Global’ becomes real in this space.

We have been waiting a long time for this - and it was an honour to be there to experience its beginning.

The essence of sustainable growth management is the conscious understanding of where an organisation is in its lifecycle. At each stage different dynamics are in play. Knowing what they are and should be makes them manageable.

For those that have seen many organisations at all their different stages this meta-perspective is easy. For most, to see it from within their own organisation, is very hard. What is happening is just the here and now.

Dr. Ichak Adizes is one person with that meta-perspective. He wrote the book on how organisations grow and die and what to do about it. His organisational lifecycle uses 10 stages. There are others (like Robert Jones or Lawrence Miller ) who have similar models. What is important and different about Adizes work is he identifies the key dynamics that exist and must be sustained in the organisation at each stage.

For example, he uses the four dynamics of Purpose, Administration, Entrepreneurship and Integration. An Infant (Paei) reactionary business does not shift to its prime growth phase until its dynamics change. Until it develops its ‘Administration’, sales may go up for a while but growth will stop. At the later stage of Bureaucracy (pA_i), removing the ‘Administration’ handcuffs is vital to survival.
The insight is that all the management theorists are right - even those that contradict each other - it is just that they are right for different stages of the lifecycle. Knowing how the stages work means you know which part of the bookshelf to embrace, and those to avoid, for now.

But getting the stages right is only part. Despite what change management models may suggest, healthy organisations don’t often change character in jumps, but in gradual transitions, as tensions emerge and are resolved in a continuously reforming dynamic equilibrium. This process of transition will be uniquely different in each organisation.

The final part to sustainable growth management is in understanding the subtle dynamics in the transitions between stages. We then seek not to manage change, but to allow emergent change.

When we do this, development is less painful and more natural, relying not on survivalist shifts, but moving instead towards conscious sustainable growth. We achieve this when we go beyond the flatline leading to decline and begin truly emergent development.

If we can learn to do this in our organisations, just perhaps, we might be able to do this as a species.

On Sunday I managed to catch The Corporation - the highlight documentary of the Revelation Film Festival. You will be hearing a lot more about this insightful and award winning independent release in the future.

Canadian and Sydney contacts had already told me to catch it and The Corporation didn’t disappoint. The documentary is based on Joel Bakan’s book “The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power which asks the interesting question:

“If the corporation is a person - what sort of person would it be?”

It’s a question no-one asked when 150 years ago we gave the incorporated entity all the legal rights of a natural person, but without the same social or moral obligations. The documentary answers the question with over 40 interviews of leading CEOs, social commentators, psychologists, leadership writers and activists. People like management writer Peter Drucker, nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman, social scientist and critic Noam Chomsky and filmmaker Michael Moore provide insightful views.

For anyone who has ever wondered what the ‘corporate social responsibility’ issue is about, The Corporation candidly illuminates the existence of a blindspot that will eventually mean the social death of some of our largest corporate citizens.

For me the movie highlighted that, having left the question unanswered for so long, many CEO’s feel they no longer have the ability to guide and control the moral personality of the places in which we work. On the other hand, those who understand this movie will probably be the ones who will successfully manage the (inevitable) transition from ‘the Corporation’ to ‘the Corporate Citizen’.

The Corporation is screening on SBS on Wednesday January 5 at 8.30pm as Part 1 of a three part series.

Check it out: Synopsis

Sustainable Excellence is “insights” name for when organisations have survived the first three tests:

1. Can they create a sustainable business model?
2. Will they be able to respond to their environment?
3. Can they find a way to anticipate the leadership stretch?

If they do this ~ then there is a chance the organisation can become a learning organisation and move towards sustainability (in every sense of the word).

And as they do this, will they be able to then respond to what is required of a sustainable organisation in a world where “big” paradigms are shifting?

Sustainable Excellence is actually what FCG is all about. Continued existence depends on our collective effort in moving towards a change. Organisations that lead this will be the survivors.

Will the list of survivors include your organisation?

An interesting question ~ because if your organisation is one of those that does something worthwhile and important, it will be a question that ultimately affects us all.

So let’s go find the answer - shall we?