Food and fuel in the news

DrumBeat: April 25, 2008 offered two particularly interesting links.

First, Time offered How to End the Global Food Shortage, their suggestion on three actions we can take in the short term. I'm not sure I see a long-term solution there, for I sense that global population is still growing exponentially, while their solutions seem focused on taking current food production to a new level, not creating matching exponential growth in the production and distribution of food. Put in systems terms, I sense population is still driven by a reinforcing loop, while the three Time proposals seem driven by goal-seeking loops. The short-term effects do seem beneficial, as long as we don't forget the longer term.

Second, oil financier Matt Simmons has published more presentations. Check out The 21st Century Energy Crisis Has Arrived. Slides 9-10 should not be a surprise to any who took IMT 586 at the University of Washington last winter or who have worked the challenge on pages 212-213 in John Sterman's Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World with CD-ROM.

While you're there, also see his Are We Nearing The Peak Of Fossil Fuel Energy? Has Twilight In The Desert Begun? He does offer optimism, but only if we act well and only after some, um, "transitional" times. If anything, I wonder if his estimate of the rate of decline of production is optimistic, for, with the high raw demand for petroleum these days, I suspect we will deplete available reserves at a rather rapid rate.

The voice of a child ...

I write here about the environment from time to time, for I think there is a significant likelihood that we will face important transitions in our lifetimes or the lifetimes of our offspring that will impact us in multiple ways: personally, in the way we live, and professionally, in the way we produce what we need to live and earn what we need to acquire those things we need to live. (If TIME is right, we may not have to wait that long for those transitions.)

Presentation Zen posted You can learn a lot from "a child", a speech by Severn Cullis-Suzuki at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro. It touched on the big issues I perceive we face: figuring out how to make life sustainable on this planet, and figuring out how to live together. Watch it.

I also write about presentation skills from time to time. As Presentation Zen reports, Al Gore called this "the best speech at Rio."

Guiding principles, ethics, and values

As a member of the American Evaluation Association, I thought it only appropriate to post a link to their Guiding Principles for Evaluators on my Links page. I've also posted a link to the IAF Statement of Values and Code of Ethics for Facilitators, which I helped craft, there. Even though I am not a member of the IAF, I use that as my guide when I am in a facilitation role.

I'm posting these so you can see some of the standards to which I hold myself and so that I can have a ready link to those as a frequent refresher. Perhaps they will be useful for some of you, too.

There's another problem, too

In my last two postings, I've written about what I think is a very important issue we face as individuals, as businesses, and as a society. I think there's another issue that goes hand-in-hand with that issue: how we deal with tough, stressful problems, how we deal with conflict, and how we deal with perceived inequities. In almost any significant situation, we'll have differences of opinion, some small, some very large. (If we didn't, we should perhaps wonder if we're considering all the evidence.) How we deal with those differences can make all the difference as to what sort of outcomes we achieve.

No matter whether we're talking about differences between individuals, differences between groups in our companies or organizations, differences between factions involved in our local or national governments, or differences between nations, we have various approaches. Some approaches are violent; some are not. Some seem to lead to good resolutions; others do not. Some seem coercive, at least to some involved in those deliberations; others do not. Some seem to solve the problem today while creating new problems for the future; others don't.

If we can't figure out how to act effectively in such situations, I fear we'll have increasingly difficult times as stress mounts from climate change, from energy shortages, from perceived inequities (whether between individuals, groups, or nations), or simply from the challenges of doing business in competitive markets.

There are many ways to make communications in such situations more productive. As I've advocated for the use of multiple approaches (triangulation) in making sense of problems, I will say that I don't think any one approach has ability to save all deliberations about differences. Yet I have found the work of Chris Argyis, work he calls action science, to be impressively powerful in helping groups to hold productive discussions, to make breakthroughs in their organizations' abilities to get work done, and, as a nice side benefit, to help people feel good about working in their groups, not because they get their way, but because they get heard. It's based on three premises about productive decision-making in times of conflict and stress:

• Free and open decision making
  
• Testable and tested data
  
• Mutual commitment
  

The first, among other things, means I can't force you to use this approach. I can at best model the behavior I believe in and that I would like you to adopt; I have to give you the right to decide whether you want to follow suit.

The second means that we are willing to test data about all our important assumptions, not just the ones about quantitative data. Perhaps I (think I) know you'll never accept a certain proposal. If I'm following my principles, I'll figure out a effective way to test that assumption on my part (perhaps as simple as asking); otherwise, I'm unilaterally taking one possible solution off the table without us having the ability to talk about it.

While these are all hard in practice, while they require great attention to one's self, and while they sometimes require great courage, the third sometimes seems the hardest. Perhaps you and I disagree about a situation. Perhaps you've made your best case, and I see important issues I perceive as favorable to your position that you didn't bring up. If I'm committed to the first two premises of making free and open decisions with tested and testable data, then I'm committed to bringing up those issues, even if I perceive they weaken my case, for that's the path towards more productive, effective decisions. That may sound easy now; it isn't always so easy when I'm in a discussion involving a strongly-held belief.

I can introduce this approach to a group in perhaps 15 minutes, including some techniques for applying these premises in practice. It's hard work, though; it may take months of active help before a group begins to internalize these ideas in their routine interactions. This work is some of the hardest and yet some of the most rewarding I do. The first time I saw a group I had helped really begin to act this way, I was blown away by the progress they had made. Using these ideas along with others, they had shortened their process times by over 80%. They were highly effective at working together, cutting the time of making decisions from hours and days down to minutes, and the quality of those decisions had improved markedly. Deliberations were sometimes amazingly direct, and yet people felt really good about them. As one said (paraphrasing), "Now I know that people really hear me." If you're curious, you can read about that project in "Emphasis on Business, Technology, and People Cuts Turnaround Time at Hewlett-Packard's Lake Stevens Division." If you'd like to talk about this for your organization, give me a call.

And, when you're thinking about the topics of climate change and oil depletion (or business strategy and customer satisfaction), remember that how we talk about those issues may be as important as what we now think about those issues in achieving good results.

Ethics

We all bear responsibility for our own ethical behavior. Period.

That said, when we are in positions to direct others' behavior and when our actions can be shown to lead to less ethical behavior, we have a signal to act. I've written before about the challenges long hours at work can make and about the benefits of having a few lazy employees. Professor Sandy Piderit has written about it.

Now Deloitte & Touche USA LLP has published Deloitte & Touche USA LLP Survey Finds Strong Relationship Between Work-Life Balance and Ethical Behavior.

Is it as simple as having everyone in your company work 40 or perhaps 37 or 35 hours a week? No, it's clearly not that simple. Customers deserve the goods and services they paid for. Employees and the community need jobs, and we can't provide secure jobs if we sacrifice all our productivity gains and more to shorter hours. Unforeseen, short-term crises do arise. Besides, the length of the workweek clearly isn't the only factor affecting ethics in the workplace. As I said before, that's ultimately up to each of us.

But it does mean that there's yet another factor to put on the side of the scale that weighs against longer hours. It does mean that decisions aren't as simple as the calculation that "if 40 hours a week are good, then 80 must be twice as good." We as managers and consultants do bear responsibility for thinking about such things and for balanced decisions that take these factors responsibly into account.

Part of thinking responsibly is thinking skeptically, so I encourage you to provide any disconfirming evidence you might have. I'm not looking for anecdotes ("Sam only worked 30 hours a week, yet he stole more paperclips last year than you could believe!"), for I'm sure they exist. I'm looking for valid studies and good, statistical reasoning.

Thanks to Chief Learning Officer magazine for pointing this out.