Systems Thinking Tools: understanding hierarchy
This post examines the structure of hierarchy using a systems thinking lens. Like many of my friends who have a “problem with authority“, I always struggle with the concept of hierarchy. I think this is because the dominant form of hierarchy working in the human world is based on what peace and social justice activist Starhawk calls power-over and is manifested as domination (at best) and oppression or abuse (at worst).
POWER-OVER HIERARCHY – A HUMAN CONSTRUCT
Power-over hierarchy is most apparent in the military, but is also found in corporations, universities, and many religious organizations (that is, just about every major human organization ever known). Power-over hierarchy, built upon “command and control” relationships is deeply rooted in human history.
One of the early records of hierarchy is found in Exodus 18. When Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, came to him “in the wilderness, where he was camped near the mountain of God,” he found Moses sitting all day making decisions over disputes among his people. He asked Moses “why do you sit alone as judge?” He advised Moses to “select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain —and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.” There it is! One controls the 10, ten controls the 50, etc., etc….
Human hierarchy runs deep. This mode of decision making is the standard way humans have organized for thousands of years. It is so much part of our culture that it appears to be the ONLY way to understand hierarchy. While efficient in one sense, it is inherently unjust.
But there is another way to think about hierarchy….
POWER-WITH HIERARCHY – NATURE’S WAY
While its true that humans have had thousands of years of experience organizing as power-over (command and control) hierarchies, ecological systems have several billion years of experience operating as power-with hierarchies. That is, rather than power being manifested as command and control (power-over), it is seen as participation and inclusion (power-with). Perhaps there is something we can learn from Mother Nature?
References to nature’s hierarchy are almost as old as the story of Exodus. The first time we find nature’s hierarchy in literature is associated with Aristotle and is called the Great Chain of Being, or scala naturae (literally the “ladder or stair-way of nature”). This ancient understanding of all relationships in the universe began to provide us with a sense of order and meaning. More recently modern systems thinkers have added to this model of the universe.
Today, we understand a natural hierarchy (or holarchy in systems jargon) as a nested set of “systems within systems” of increasing complexity. An organism (like you and me) contain “lower” or less complex subsystems like the human heart, and likewise are contained within the “larger” more complex subsystem of the human population. This is how living systems are organized and might depicted like this.
Now, what can we learn from this understanding of hierarchy? Well…… one of the most important lessons has to do with the relationship between the levels of complexity. A basic truth about natural hierarchies is “we look up for purpose and down for function.”
WHAT?
That’s right…. we look to more complex subsystems for purpose. For example, an individual cell finds purpose in serving an organ (like the heart). The purpose of the human heart, in turn, is to serve the human body (organism). And, the organism looks to the less complex subsystems for function. The organism looks to the heart for function. The heart looks to individual cells for function.
GET IT?
Well, if this makes sense to you we might then ask the question…. so what?
YIKES….. its a big “so what!” In fact it helps me to understand who I am and why I am here. If I am indeed “a part of nature rather than a part from nature” then my relationship with all that is living is clear. I too “look up for purpose” – that is, I am a “child of the universe” and my purpose is to be useful to something larger than myself. If we apply the principle of “look up for purpose” we might see ourselves as part of “larger” or more complex “selves.”
For example, I am certainly part of a “family-self” and a “community-self”, so why not think of myself as part of an “ecological-self”, “universal-self” or even a “divine-self”? This helps me to see that my purpose is to serve something larger than my personal self.
In a society when so many people seem to lack purpose (and therefore may substitute amusements or worse addictions for a meaningful life), the recognition that you and I are necessary to the function of more complex systems can be empowering. The system we serve may be our family, community, nation, Mother Earth, or perhaps a sense of the divine.
This understanding of hierarchy based on living systems theory, might allow us to organize more human endeavors based on power-with relationships. In this case, power comes from working with others at the same level of the hierarchy in service to a larger or more complex level. Working in local communities for example, we can take actions together that serve others in the nation or protect and nurture “Mother Nature” (the eco-self). Unlike the human hierarchy, the natural hierarchy is less likely to be unjust.
IMPLICATIONS
Power-over hierarchy it is NOT the only way of organizing human activities. Some businesses have learned that as they add layers of organization between top management and customers they lose access to feedback and begin to make poor decisions. Likewise political leaders lose touch with constituents when there are many layers of organizational hierarchy. This also explains why “conquerors” throughout human history rarely retain power for very long.
Conservationist, Aldo Leopold, reminded readers in his classic essay The Land Ethic, that conquest is always self-defeating, as conquerors rarely know “what makes the community clock tick, and just what and who is valuable… in community life.” Power-over conquest always fails, eventually. The “command and control” hierarchy that represents the dominant mental model governing how humans choose to organize has certain deficiencies.
If you have to cross a desert with a “stiff-necked people” (Exodus 32:9), then perhaps a command and control hierarchy is needed. Or if you are fighting a war, then perhaps power-over is the relationship of choice. However if you are trying to create a sustainable society based on economic vitality, environmental quality AND social equity….. the human hierarchy just isn’t adequate. For example, (with apologies in advance to all of my fellow Roman Catholics who I may offend) I do not believe the Catholic Church will ever be fully successful sharing the message of peace, justice, forgiveness and love attributed to Jesus as long as it is organized as a command and control hierarchy. As I stated at the beginning, If power-over is the dominant relationship in an organization, it will ALWAYS result in domination (at best) and oppression or abuse (at worst).
The only human examples I can think of that might at least partially model a natural hierarchy are the first century Christians and modern 12-step programs. Do you know of any human organizations based on power-with?
Perhaps after thousands of years of trying to get the power-over human hierarchy to work, it is time to give the much older power-with natural hierarchy a try!
==========================================================
A printable version of this blog may be found here.
Systems Thinking Tools: fixes that fail!
My last few posts focused on systems thinking as a necessary means of understanding complex, real-world problems.
- Learn to Think Like a Mountain introduced the need and value of systems thinking.
- Systems Thinking Tools: the Mind Map presented one of the simplest and most useful tools to help you get started.
- Systems Thinking Tools: Finding the Root Cause of BIG Problems presented a way of thinking about problems that “just won’t go away”
I’ve been thinking a lot about systems science lately as I prepare to teach a new course in Agricultural Systems Thinking at UMass. This post on Fixes That Fail was triggered by a radio interview I participated in a few weeks ago on WBUR in Boston in which University of Toronto Professor Pierre Desrochers, co-author of The Locavore’s Dilemma: In Praise of the 10,000-mile Diet, claimed the growth of the local food system was a dangerous trend. He said things like…
“If everything was so great when most food was sourced locally centuries ago, why did we go through the trouble of developing a globalized food supply chain?”
And….
“If widely adopted, either voluntarily or through political mandates, locavorism can only result in higher costs and increased poverty, greater food insecurity, less food safety and much more significant environmental damage than is presently the case.”
According to Desrochers, we must globalize the entire food system to maximize economic efficiency, keep food prices as cheap as possible, and avoid the ecological disaster that he claims will be caused by local food. He believes local food will only be accessible to rich people and that poor people benefit from the global food system.
My response on the radio proposed a balanced approach, in which there was room in the marketplace for local, regional, national and global food. Desrochers claimed that a little bit of poison (referring to local food) is still poison. Hmmmmmmm…. not much room for negotiation!
Lots of folks have punched holes in Desrochers’ academic thesis, so I won’t bother. I’d prefer to use his theory to help understand how the Fixes That Fail tool can help us understand a complex system. Specifically, we’ll examine the flaw in the argument that the corporately controlled global food system is necessary and beneficial to people with a limited income.
Fixes That Fail
Okay, so the reason some arguments make sense is that if you don’t consider the whole system… well, they make sense. Desrochers argues that poor people benefit from the global food system because large corporations have produced lots of cheap food. In systems language we would depict it like this:
We would read this systems model as follows… “as the problem symptom increases, the fix increases (S = moves in the same direction). As the
“easy fix” increases, the problem symptom decreases (O = moves in the opposite direction).” This is called a balancing feedback loop (labeled B).
Applying this balancing loop to Desroches thesis, we would say “as financial stress or poverty increases, people will buy more food from the global corporate food system (the fix). And as the fix increases, financial stress will decrease. And of course on an individual basis this is true. People experiencing financial stress should surely buy food from the least expensive source, and that is generally a corporate food store (not always however).
Here is the problem. When we look at the larger system we can see that the globalized corporate food system is NOT a solution but in fact part of the cause of the problem. The corporate system drives down wages and moves jobs overseas, CREATING not preventing poverty. In systems language this is called an “unintended consequence” of the system.
The Unintended Consequence
First some facts from a recent report on jobs in the global food system:
- About 20 million people in the U.S. work in some aspect of the food system. This is about 1/6 of the total workforce.
- Most jobs in the food system offer low wages with little access to health benefits and opportunities for advancement. Only 13.5 percent of all U.S. food workers surveyed earned a livable wage.
So the global food system that provides lots of cheap food does so on the backs of poorly paid workers (and exploitation of the environment – but that is another story). Global food corporations represent a “Fix That Fails” and would be depicted in systems language like this:
Cheap food from the global food system (easy fix) does in fact alleviate poverty (problem symptom) in the short term. It also increases poverty in the long run by reducing opportunities for people to earn a livable wage. The problem is that there is a “delay” before the unintended consequence (fewer well-paid jobs) is experienced and it may not be obvious that the cause of the unintended consequence is in fact the “easy fix” itself. This second loop is called a reinforcing feedback loop (Iabeled R). This model reads “as the easy fix increases, the unintended consequence increases (moves in the same direction) and thus increases the problem symptom. Hey, that’s not what we intended!
The lower prices generated by the corporate food system does so by driving down wages (ask anyone who works for a big box store or a fast food restaurant) and moving jobs overseas (where wages are lower and health and safety regulations are nonexistent). Thus the so-called “fix” actually increases the original problem (financial stress).
We know that real job growth in the U.S. comes from small, local businesses not corporations. Those businesses that are cooperatively managed have the additional advantage of providing a decent wage and participation in ownership for the workers. The larger the corporation, the more likely it is to “outsource” jobs to overseas markets. Corporations (and their rich owners and shareholders) do not create more good jobs in the U.S – it just the opposite!
Further, corporate retail sales drain money from the community to make financial investors more money. When we shop locally, we support our neighbors. When we shop at national food chains, we support people wealthy enough to make investments in the corporation (stockholders and upper level management).
Conclusion
The globalized, corporate food system is a CAUSE not the solution to poverty!
It is in fact a fix that has failed……
The Fixes That Fail model is called a systems archetype, that is, something that happens over and over again in human behavior. There are lots of other examples, such as:
- Putting out small forest fires actually is the cause of big fires (because there is more flammable material when it does burn).
- Widening a road to prevent accidents actually causes more accidents (because people drive faster).
- Saving money by not repairing a roof on a house actually costs more money (eventually).
- Borrowing money to pay the interest cost on loans (bad idea).
These are all obvious when you understand the Fixes That Fail archetype, which we teach as part of systems thinking. The solution is always advanced planning to avoid the situation in the first place. Of course, this isn’t possible in the U.S. food system, as it has already been thoroughly globalized. Estimates of the extent of local food purchases range from 1 to 4 percent of total agricultural sales nationally. We are already a victim of the problem of almost total corporate control of our food supply and nobody in authority seems to have noticed!
The answer must be a shift in personal behavior AND public policy to help grow the local food system. Personally, I don’t believe we face the many dangers Desroches describes in his book. I don’t expect we will ever (nor should we) completely eliminate global food trade as he threatens. I’d just like to see a little more balance. But what about you? What would you propose to address this fix that failed?
==========================================================
A printable version of this blog may be found here.
Systems Thinking Tools: finding the root cause(s) of BIG problems (like lettuce we are told not to eat)
Don’t eat the Romaine lettuce!
The latest CDC announcement that our food is not safe to eat arrived just in time for Thanksgiving dinner this year! No big surprise that California is likely the source…
While we need to pay attention to warnings like this…. it is also important to dig for the root cause of the problem. This post examines how we can use systems thinking to understand the root cause(s) of complex social problems (you know the BIG ones, like poverty, hunger, social inequity, environmental degradation, food safety…… and yet another recall of California lettuce).
Here is an example I use in my Agricultural Systems Thinking class at UMass.
An Example
A while back, I got an email from one of my “foodie” listserves telling me that the Dole Food Company had recalled thousands of bags of pre-cut salad due to concerns about contamination by the bacteria listeria.
In fact, the Blomberg Businessweek Report stated:
“Dole Food Co.’s fresh vegetable unit has recalled more than 1,000 cases of bagged salads sold at Kroger and Wal-Mart stores in six states because of the possibility of listeria contamination.
“No illnesses have been reported.
“A representative for Dole could not be immediately reached for further comment.”
Okay, so that is interesting but might easily be overlooked (as long as you were not in one of the 6 states where the bagged salad had already been sold). If you looked a little closer you might learn from the FDA statement that…
Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause foodborne illness in a person who eats a food item contaminated with it. Symptoms of infection may include fever, muscle aches, gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea or diarrhea.
If we look at the frequency of food recalls, we might be surprised. The Dole salad recall was NOT an isolated event, but part of a larger pattern that has become “the new normal” in the American food system.
This recall provides an opportunity to use a systems thinking tool to discover possible root causes for the recurrence of food contamination. .
Here is a simple model depicting the relationship among events (one recall), patterns (many recalls) and the structures (root causes “below the water line”) that create an environment in which these patterns persist (even when they may not be in our best interest).
If we apply the iceberg tool to this particular food recall, we can see that:
- The bagged salad recall is the event
- Multiple recalls of food every day is the pattern
So, next we will ask “what are the structures that result in the recurring patterns?”
Finding Structures
Structures are relatively permanent components of human organization that create patterns and events. For example, a stop light at a cross roads and the government policy that requires drivers to stop at a red light are structures that result in a specific pattern of behavior. Structures are powerful. The general categories of structures are:
- physical things – like vending machines, roads, traffic lights etc.
- organizations – like corporations, government, schools…
- policies – like laws, regulations, tax incentives….
- ritual – like habitual behaviors so ingrained, they are not conscious.
In the case of fresh food recalls, these structures represent all that is good and bad about industrial agriculture, which is a system in which the farm is viewed as a machine (a very efficient and profitable one but still a machine) rather than a living system. Some of the structures that result in food recalls are:
- Large corporate farms with the primary objective of making a profit
- Monoculture farming that creates large amounts of single food items
- Mechanically assisted harvest equipment (that spread bacteria)
- Washing and handling equipment that handles enormous quantities of fresh food quickly in shared water baths
- The corporately controlled global food distribution system that ships products by truck, rail, air and boat anywhere in the world
- The Food and Drug Administration inspection system and the policies that test, track and recall potentially contaminated food
These structures which support a very efficient industrial agricultural system will ALWAYS result in food recalls. To eliminate food recalls we have to change the structures that create an environment in which recalls are inevitable.
Recent efforts to do a better job tracking adulterated food have been proposed but do not address the root cause of the problem. Proposals to irradiate food treat the problem after the contamination has occurred. A recent British study on global food safety only focused on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the same structures that ALWAYS result in food recalls. The influence of structures on behavior are poorly understood but unless we can change these structures….. it will be very difficult to change human behavior.
Unless we change the structures that ALWAYS result in certain patterns of behavior and events…. nothing will change.
============================================================================
A printable version of this blog post may be found here.
Systems Thinking Tools: the mind map
My last blog, Learning to Think Like a Mountain, introduced “systems thinking” as a useful means of understanding why “linear thinking” is inadequate when a problem under study: 1) is complex; 2) involves multiple relationships; and/or 3) involves human decision-making and uncertainty.
This post introduces one of the simplest and most useful of all the systems thinking tools, the mind map. There are many variations of this tool, including concept mapping and spider diagramming but they are all generally used to view multiple, complex (non-linear) relationships in a system. One of the failures of industrial agriculture is the assumption that it functions as a machine, with inputs (seeds, sun, fertilizer) that flow into a farm and outputs (food, fiber) flowing out.
This simple, linear understanding (which Annie Leonard described so well in the popular video The Story of Stuff) is inadequate as we work toward an agroecological frame for agricultural sustainability. The mechanistic, linear view will rarely account for questions about environmental justice, decay of soil health, offsite impacts of pesticides, or vitality of rural communities, which may be discounted as “externalities.” These perspectives, will on the other hand, be considered using systems thinking.
The mind map is also a nice tool for telling a story, such as how a household designed on permaculture (or ecological) principles is likely to view a “cup of tea.”
Instructions
Some suggestions on how to get started are:
- Start in the center with a description of the topic or theme
- Write whatever comes to mind next as a “sub-topic” and draw a connecting line, do it again, and again….
- Use images and symbols as much as possible
- Select key words and print clearly
- Each word/image should sit on its own line or inside its own bubble
- The lines should be connected, starting from the central image. Important connections between concepts in different sub-section should be indicated
- Use colors to code for key ideas or sub-systems (sections of the map)
- Use thicker lines to indicate more important connections
- Put the most important ideas are near the center (its a hierarchy of ideas)
- Do it your own way!
Using Mind Maps in Agricultural Systems
Mind maps are useful tools for beginning to understand a complex system (like a farm). Here are a few examples:
Mind maps are particularly useful for:
- understanding complex problems
- taking notes
- initial stages of designing a project
- team collaboration
- creative expression
- presenting complex material in a concise format
- team building or synergy creating activity
There are lot of mind mapping software packages available, but I find the best way to learn to do this is drawing by hand. Here is an example of a hand drawn mind map on a local project, Grow Food Northampton.
Mind maps are particularly useful for describing a farm because they are complex systems with multiple relationships managed by humans. There is no “right or wrong” way to do this. Whatever works is fine.
Why not give it a try?
============================================================================
Learn to “think like a mountain”
Aldo Leopold’s famous suggestion that only a mountain has lived long enough to “listen objectively to the howl of a wolf” reminds us that to understand how ecosystems function, we need to “think like a mountain.” If you’ve never heard this quote, its time to read A Sand County Almanac! And if you are a student of agricultural ecology or a related field at the University of Massachusetts, perhaps its time to take a class in Agricultural Systems Thinking.
I’ve not offered this class for the past few years, but I’ve decided to resurrect it next fall (2012) because so many students in the Sustainable Food and Farming major at UMass seem interested in creating a way of farming consistent with ecological principles. The dominant form of farming in developed countries, industrial agriculture, violates just about every ecological principle we know in an attempt to maximize short-term financial success.
Leopold was hard on industrial farming in his 1949 essay in which he wrote that farmers and ranchers have “…not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea.” We also have dead zones in the oceans, anti-biotic resistant bacteria developing from factory farms, nitrates in the groundwater, herbicides in the surface water, floods and drought, and on and on and on…..
The solution is a more sustainable agriculture designed in ways that are consistent with ecological principles. It is unlikely however that we will be successful in developing such techniques until we learn to think like a mountain and come to appreciate the profound interconnectedness of the components of an ecosystem (either natural or agricultural) over both space and time.
Our educational system trains students to think in a linear, logical, analytical way at best, or simply to memorize disconnected facts at worst. Graduates are well-prepared to take exams and write papers, but not to think creatively and systemically about climate change, war, poverty, hunger, environmental degradation etc.
These intractable problems won’t budge in response to linear thinking. Systems thinking tools are needed to begin to understand why these systemic problems are so resistant to our efforts. Systems thinking is a way of understanding complex real-world situations such as those often encountered in sustainable food and farming careers.
Systems tools are needed to complement more traditional scientific approaches when a problem under study: 1) is complex; 2) involves multiple relationships; and/or 3) involves human decision-making. Agricultural Systems Thinking (STOCKSCH 379) will introduce students to systems tools for unraveling complexity and integrating their learning from previous courses and experience.
I’ve written about this in Digging for the Root Cause(s) of Global Crises. My intention is to write more extensively about systems thinking in my next few blog posts. I’d appreciate your own thoughts and feedback in the comments box below. But for now, lets just remember Leopold’s famous description of the howl of the wolf…..
“A deep chesty bawl echoes from rimrock to rimrock, rolls down the mountain, and fades into the far blackness of the night. It is an outburst of wild defiant sorrow, and of contempt for all the adversities of the world. Every living thing (and perhaps many a dead one as well) pays heed to that call.”
And his final thought:
“In wildness is the salvation of the world. Perhaps this is the hidden meaning in the howl of the wolf, long known among mountains, but seldom perceived among men.”
Systems thinking provides us with the tools to learn to…
think like a mountain.
============================================================================
A conceptual foundation for teaching “Sustainability” courses
Have you noticed the word “sustainability” showing up in the titles of many new courses at universities and colleges these days? I surely have at the University of Massachusetts – and for the most part I think it is a good thing. It worries me a bit however, when I hear my faculty colleagues talking about sustainability as if its little more than environmentalism. This blog was written in preparation for a Five College Sustainability Studies Seminar.
My observations on the emergence of sustainability as an academic discipline are flavored by my own experiences in sustainable agriculture. When this field of study appeared in early 1980’s it was largely driven by the thinking and interest of farmers. The academy first ignored the call for more research and education on agricultural sustainability. This was followed by ridicule, derision, and eventually acceptance (helped along by a source of federal funding).
Over the next 25 years, sustainability studies spread throughout the university and today we even have a major national association called The American Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. Things have certainly changed!
A few faculty (perhaps who were not part of the early debates about the nature of sustainability studies) may be inclined to attach the word sustainability as an adjective in front of the title of a course they have been teaching for years. This blog post challenges us all to develop our own intellectual foundation for teaching sustainability courses before we name them “sustainable”…… here is a brief look at mine.
Almost everyone accepts some version of the “sustainability triangle” which includes 3 “E’s”…
- Environment
- Economy
- Equity (as in social equity or justice)
While the words used by different communities of scholars or practitioners may differ, we often see symbolic representations of these three basic concepts associated with the word sustainability.
Here are a few more visual representations of this concept
These commonly depicted and generally accepted symbolic representations are useful, as they clearly require us to consider social equity or justice (often overlooked) as part of the sustainability equation. However, they all have a common flaw…. they each assume competition among equally important perspectives. This limited view allows us to negotiate tradeoffs between environmental quality and economic vitality, for example.
How often have we heard a business executive decry that “we just can’t afford to protect the environment today.” Or perhaps a congressperson claim that some social justice legislation is a “job killer.” As long as we accept these symbolic representations of sustainability, I suspect economic considerations will always win out over environmental or equity concerns.
But what if we took the same three symbolic circles and put them inside of each other, with the economy at the center?
We might then begin to understand that we can’t sustain a healthy economy within a sick society, nor a healthy society within a sick environment. This symbolic representation of the same three concepts shifts the relationship they have to each other. This is the representation of the three perspectives we need for the long term, which is what sustainability is supposed to be all about!
This picture changes everything!
We can not afford to have “either/or” conversations about money and society – nor about society and the environment. We must begin to see that the economy is thoroughly embedded in society and the environment and change the assumption that it is okay to grow an economy by exploiting people and the natural world….. this cannot be sustained.
Does this mean that the environment is more important than the economy? NO! It means that they are each critical to each other but there is a “directionality” to our sense of purpose. In the study of living systems we learn to look to the “smaller” circles for function and the larger circles for purpose. That is, human society can look to the economy as a tool to a serve a higher purpose, such as a healthy community and livable natural world.
This only makes sense if we see human nature as an integral part of “mother nature.” Understanding that humans are apart of (rather than a part from) nature and subject to the “laws of Mother Nature” allows us to know who we are and where we fit in the world. It gives us a foundation upon which to explore the big questions, like “who am I” and “why am I here?” Students and teachers studying sustainability should be challenged by these questions in ways that are engaging and purposeful.
But how do we teach our classes based on this holistic, integrated nature of sustainability? For me, the answer is by telling stories! In my sustainability classes, I invite academics and practitioners to share stories about their lives and work in ways that integrate our desire for financial security, community connections, and a livable natural world.
A course on sustainability cannot afford to be merely objective. There are values and purpose embedded in the study of sustainability…. yes, even within the academy. There are even times when I’ve engaged in discussions of spirituality in class! Here is why...
Continuing our exploration of the symbolism of circles within circles, lets now ask… “whats the next realm to consider that is larger than the natural environment?”
For some I suspect it might be the study of the universe.
For others, perhaps cosmology.
For me, its the divine….
Sustainability studies, for me, is an opportunity to explore our relationship with some power greater than finite ourselves. And what could possibly be more important than that?
—————————————————————
What is your conceptual foundation for teaching sustainability? Please share your thoughts in the comments box below….
==============================================================================
I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends and perhaps comment below. Also, you might be interested in a related blog post on this topic. For more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please check out my web page Just Food Now or John M. Gerber. And go here for more of my World.edu posts.
On creativity and the sources of “new ideas”
A few years ago, I ran a cross a little book called The Use of Lateral Thinking by Edward DeBono. I’d like to share some of Professor DeBono’s thinking on creativity and the sources of “new ideas.”
DeBono was a Maltese educator and thinker. He has a Ph.D. from Cambridge University and has had faculty appointments at Oxford, Harvard, and Cambridge. He has consulted for academic institutions, governments, and corporations worldwide on educational theory and learning. He has written 25 books on cognition, which have been translated 20 languages.
DeBono is given credit for the concept of lateral thinking, a tool used to create fresh ideas. He claims that most ideas come from vertical or logical thinking, which may produce “an answer” but is likely to be inadequate in the face of new and complex “real world” problems. Really fresh “new ideas” won’t emerge from logical thinking.
DeBono uses the image of digging holes to describe the quest for new ideas. He says you can’t find the answers to new problems by using old ideas. Sometimes you have to dig in a new place.
DeBono writes:
“It is not possible to dig a hole in a different place by digging the same hole deeper.”
If we need new and creative solutions to emerging real world problems, it is unlikely that we will find them in our text books, classrooms, libraries, or even the scientific journal articles….. the ideas that we have “dug out of the old holes.” An example of a new idea is the “communiversity” that I wrote about some years ago, and turned out to be just another new hole that was ignored by the university. So why are new ideas so difficult to take seriously?
DeBono writes,
“…it is easier to go on digging in the same hole than to start all over again in a new place.”
University research and education programs are really good at digging in places that have proved successful in the past. Institutions are designed to be conservative and giving up the old holes is difficult. DeBono continues…
“The disinclination to abandon a half-dug hole is partly a reluctance to abandon the investment of effort that has already gone into the hole. It is far easier to go on doing the same thing rather than wonder what else to do.”
DeBono says that it is easier to follow along the path of current understanding, present knowledge, old ideas when he writes….
“…no sooner are two thoughts strung together than there is a direction, and it becomes easier to string further thoughts along in the same direction, than to change your thinking.”
DeBono paints the unglamourous picture of scientists digging away at old holes, exploring old ideas, when he writes…
“by far the greatest amount of scientific effort is directed towards the logical enlargement of some accepted hole. Many are the minds scratching feebly away or gouging out great chunks according to their capacity. Yet great new ideas and great scientific advances have often come about through people ignoring the hole that is in progress and starting a new one.”
DeBono explains that the process of education is designed to make people appreciate the holes that have been dug for them by their teachers, supervisors, or elders. And enlarging the hole that has already been started, offers an opportunity for progress and the promise of rapid advancement within the academy.
Our education and evaluation systems encourage us to jump down into the hole with our teachers (the experts) and dig along side of them. This is how we achieve recognition and advancement, we join the experts.
DeBono offers the following observation about experts:
“An expert is an expert because he understands the present hole better than anyone else.”
and
“Experts are usually to be found happily at the bottom of the deepest holes.”
In our university system diggers are rewarded, even if they are at the bottom of out-dated holes, ones that were appropriate last year, or the last decade.
If college and university educators are to remain relevant in a rapidly changing world, we’ve got to climb out of the old holes and have a look around. DeBono encourages us to dig new holes in more original places. He says we never will see a better hole from the bottom of the one we are currently in.
New ideas abound, but we will need to look outside of our own professional organizations, our own academic departments, our university culture to see them.
We need to broaden our horizons, first by listening more carefully to what our students are talking about and then perhaps by reading an internet newspaper, or create a customized RSS feed for those topics that interest you. If you are new to this, perhaps just follow World.edu on Twitter, or “like” us on Facebook. We all need to open ourselves to creative thought from many places if we want to be relevant in the future.
The social networking world seems intimidating (and foolish) at times, but it can really open our eyes if we are willing to wade in! I believe this web portal is a wonderful way for global educators to stay linked to some of the freshest new ideas in sustainability and higher education. I called for such linkage when I first wrote about the communiversity in 1997. The updated version of my essay adds some specifics about the technologies predicted in the late 90’s. But its not too late! Why not “get linked?”
==========================================================================
I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends. And for more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.
“Talking Sustainability” – to change how we think!
Last week I posted a blog claiming that “mental models” (our worldview, the stories we tell about ourselves, and core values) must change before we are likely to see a significant shift towards more sustainable human behavior. That is, before we are able to change social policies or large scale behavior…. we must change how we think!
Well, if that is true….. the next question might be….. “how do we change human minds?” I will use the same iceberg model to describe a process for creating a convincing argument for change. Remember this?
If not, be sure to read my earlier blog to become familiar with the model.
One of the core competencies of a successful human in our world is the ability to create a convincing argument for your perspective. Another critical competency is the ability to listen and learn from others. To convince someone they should change their behavior to be more sustainable, the first necessary condition is trust (which is built by learning to listen respectfully). Without trust…. don’t even bother to present your case! This is where “cor ad cor loquitur” becomes really important.
Of course, it can be pretty frustrating having to listen to folks who are not interested in learning, growing or changing. I will deal with how to think about people who are “just not interested” in a future blog. For now, lets focus on how to talk with the many people who already know “something is wrong” but aren’t quite willing to change their behavior (yet).
Know any of these folks?
Maybe you are a student, headed home to visit Mom and Dad. Or perhaps you are just hanging out with good friends. In either case, here is how to go about presenting an argument which might convince people who already trust you to change their behavior.
——————————————————————–
First, turn the iceberg model upside down!
We begin by talking about mental models. If you share what you truly care about with someone you trust, you set the “frame” for the discussion.
But remember, honesty is really important. This is not “spin.” Speak from the heart…..
If I am trying to encourage a friend to consider a new and more sustainable behavior, I might begin by getting their attention with some facts that seem inconsistent with their own mental models. Like this…
“Did you know that the Walmart Corporation is the largest grocery retailer in the U.S.? Yup, they seem to be ready to take over the world!”
Walmart? A grocery store? Hmmmmmm….. Now, most people are overwhelmed with information today and are no longer surprised (or even interested) in facts. If we spend too much time talking about facts, our listener is likely to get bored. So we change the subject quickly (now that we have their attention) to an expression of our core values. We talk mental models and speak from the heart…..
“You know, as corporations get more and more powerful, I keep wondering about what happens to ‘the little guy.’ I mean, do individuals even have a chance today to create a good live without being owned by these corporations? “
At this point, we hope our listener is engaged. If so, we continue…..
“I’ve been thinking about the things I really care about…. like people having enough food to eat. I care about clean air, water and a living soil. I care about children having chance for a decent life. I care about Mother Nature. I care about the place that I live, my family, and my work. These are the things I hold most dear. I don’t think the corporation cares about these things.
What do you care about most deeply?”
Getting someone to talk about their own deeply held values begins to set the frame for the rest of the conversation. So far, we are talking at the level of mental models. As we work down the “upside down” iceberg, the next stage is systemic structures. These are;
- physical things,
- organizations,
- policies, and
- rituals.
Changing structures has the power to change behavior. But I would try to avoid talking about structures in the abstract. Rather, lets share a story about a particular structure that is consistent with our professed core values. For me, it might be the North Amherst Community Farm. This is what I’d say….
“Did you know there is a group of crazy people in my neighborhood who got together and bought a farm? Yup, it seems that about 30 acres right in the middle of my suburban neighborhood was about to be sold for housing development. My neighbors got together and raised enough money with help from the state and town governments to save the farm.
“We’ve still got a mortgage of course. But this little neighborhood group saved this land from development and it is now being farmed by two terrific families who live right there on the property. They have a 300 member CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) the world’s best vegetables, grass-fed beef, sheep, pigs, and chickens. It is very cool….. and it is right in my backyard!”
NACF represents a real life structure that is consistent with my core values. It represents a “reasonable” change option (because it is true), even though none of us ever thought we’d “own a farm.”
Now that I have my listeners attention, I talk about a pattern of behavior that emerges out of the structure I’ve just described. And once again, I do it by telling a story…..
“One of the biggest surprises that grew out of saving this farm was all of the people in town who got interested in raising egg laying chickens in their backyard! The farm has about 200 laying hens as part of the CSA. Once folks were introduced to fresh eggs, it was difficult to go back to industrial eggs. And several of them are now raising their own!
This “hopeful story” represents a pattern of behavior that grew out of the structure and mental models we’ve been talking about. We continue….
“We organized this workshop around Mother’s Day last year, called ‘Homes for Hens’ and 50 people showed up. Parents and grandparents and lots of kids came to learn how to have a few hens in their backyard. We let them hold the hens and talked about how to take care of them. It was really fun! There were lots of good questions and stories being told by the teachers as well as the participants!”
“And now, we’ve got a half dozen or so families in the area raising hens and teaching others. We are not changing the world of course, but it sure does show kids something valuable about where their food comes from!”
I’d keep the story short and let my listener ask questions. At this point, we continue to move down the “upside down iceberg” and suggest an action, consistent with the pattern of behavior (raising chickens), the structure (the new farm), and the mental models we have been talking about.
The key to shifting mental models – is taking action. Unless we “make it real” – nothing changes. So maybe next I’d say…
“Hey, you want to run by the farm and help collect some eggs? I’ll bet the farmers would appreciate some help, and maybe give you a few so you can try them out for breakfast tomorrow. If you want a little exercise, we can pull some weeds while we are there too. Anyway, I’d like you to meet the farmers. They are great folks!”
That’s it. Simple but it can be effective. To change how people think:
- we begin with an expression of common values (mental models),
- share a success story of a real life structural change,
- tell a story about how behavioral patterns have shifted, and
- conclude with a suggested action (consistent with those values).
Mental models don’t change when we tell someone they are doing something wrong. Arguing with people who just don’t want to hear it will fail!
For example, we know that the world is full of cynicism, selfishness and irresponsible behavior. Telling someone not to behave in this way will not result in systemic change.
When we see someone throwing a plastic water bottle in the trash for example, simply shouting “hey, don’t do that” will not shift mental models, but rather cause people to retrench and protect their own worldview.
To change an old mental model, it needs to be replaced with a new mental model that is more empowering.
“Out with the old and in with the new” is a tactic that can change mental models. The new worldview must be compelling and honest. It must be based in possibility and consistent with commonly held values.
This can work!
Or at least, it is worth a try. Take the iceberg and “turn it upside down.” To convince a friend or family member to shift toward more sustainable behaviors, why not try John Henry Newman’s motto:
“Cor ad Cor Loquitur” – heart speaks to heart
——————————————————————-
As an example, I’ll close with one of my favorite short videos. Notice that Paul Hawken begins with an expression of values and a new compelling worldview (mental model) and then introduces thousands of structures (organizations) that are real (realistic). He presents a pattern of behavior represented by these structures and closes by claiming that “human kind knows what to do.” This is a clear call for action. See if you are moved by the story……
————————————————————————-
I believe the shift in mental models that Hawken is talking about is possible – and in fact is happening now…….
Do you?
==============================================================================
I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends. And for more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.
Which comes first – sustainable policies or sustainable behavior? Neither – sustainable thinking must come first!
Last week one of my Sustainable Agriculture students declared “you’ve got to change government policies before you can expect people to change their behavior.” Of course we know that policies such as tax incentives and regulations are effective in influencing human behavior. But changing policies (particularly in the current divisive political climate) is a daunting task. This blog post presents a framework for thinking about social change. We’ll begin with an iceberg!
The “iceberg” model is used by systems thinkers to understand the root cause of human behaviors. In this model, an “event” such as stopping your car at a red light, is influenced by the “pattern of behavior” of everyone stopping at the red light, which is caused by “systemic structures” such as the traffic light and state and federal motor vehicle regulations. But the root cause of the entire systems is the “mental model” or the thought that safety matters and society has a right to regulate individual behavior. Get it?
Lets apply the iceberg model to try to understand why so many of us participate in non-sustainable behaviors. Another example… An event might be something like putting a dollar in a vending machine and purchasing a bottle of water. This simple action is part of a larger pattern of behavior in the industrialized world we might think of as “convenient lifestyle.” It is so common that most of us don’t even think about it. When we are thirsty, it is “common sense” to buy water delivered in a plastic bottle – so we do.
Of course environmental activists shudder when they think about this everyday act. We buy millions of plastic water bottles daily, drink the water (it takes just a few minutes) and then……. we throw the bottle “away” (most plastic water bottles are NOT recycled in the U.S.). We know that a plastic water bottle will not decompose in a landfill. So for a few minutes use…… we toss out a product that will last a thousand years! Yikes, not very sustainable, huh?
How can this be? Well, lets look around and notice the systemic structures we have created to support this behavior. I don’t know about you, but when I look around, I see Dasani vending machines EVERYWHERE. We buy plastic water bottles because we have created structures to make this kind of behavior easy.
To change behavior, we MUST change systemic structures, such as:
- physical things – like vending machines, roads, traffic lights etc.
- organizations – like corporations, government, schools…
- policies – like laws, regulations, tax incentives….
- ritual – like habitual behaviors so ingrained, they are not conscious.
————————————————————
The dominant structures in the industrial world encourage non-sustainable behavior. For example:
- a national highway system that makes individual driving more convenient than mass transportation,
- fast food restaurants on every corner,
- subsidized fossil fuel,
- tax incentives for factory farms,
- weak regulations on off-shore drilling, and
- plastic water bottle vending machines EVERYWHERE,
…..are all systemic structures that encourage non-sustainable behavior. And why have we created physical things, and organizational and policy structures that support and encourage non-sustainable behavior?
Right – mental models! Mental models support systemic structures that in turn influence social behavior (patterns) and individual behavior (events).
Mental models are powerful!
The iceberg helps us to understand why it is so difficult to change human behavior. Unless we look well “below the waterline” of the iceberg, we will never understand the root cause of non-sustainable behaviors.
Non-sustainable actions and patterns dominate mainstream society. We burn fossil fuels carelessly, we allow toxins to enter our air, water and bloodstream, we purchase products that are cheap (because someone in a developing country isn’t paid a living wage). People frustrated by this behavior, try to change regulations (structures) and encourage more sustainable behaviors (patterns). But change comes slowly – primarily because of mental models.
As a faculty member at a major agricultural university in the late 1980’s, I spent a lot of time and energy trying to change patterns of behavior within the conventional farming community by flying around the U.S. giving speeches about sustainable agriculture. As a university administrator, I spent much of the 1990’s trying to change the structure of university research and extension education programs to be supportive of a more sustainable agriculture. Neither strategy proved effective, primarily because of rigid mental models.
Maybe we need to try another approach. While activists are working to change policies and educators are trying to help change personal behavior, we also need to change the way we think. Unless mental models (common sense) shifts, changes in behavior and patterns won’t last.
When mental models begin to shift, structures, patterns of behavior, and events will follow.
This is basic systems theory (which I will explore more in a future blog). For now, lets just say this concept is represented by the reinforcing feedback loop pictured on the left.
Not convinced? Lets look at how a powerful mental model prevents us from protecting human health. Remember the salmonella outbreak and egg recall that struck the U.S. egg industry last summer? The industrial system for producing eggs not only treats live hens as if they were part of a giant machine, but can’t adequately protect human health. Of course, industrial egg production is part of a larger pattern of behavior many of us think of as factory farming. These farms make sense in the context of the industrialized worldview that is our dominant mental model of agriculture today. Many of us believe this must change.
However, as long as most humans continue to pursue busy, stressed and competitive lives focused money, power and prestige, we will not likely take the steps necessary to change the way we grow food. The mental model of “industrialized living” not only results in human stress but also recalled eggs. Lets have a look at an example….
Can you identify characteristics of the mental models that result in BOTH industrial eggs and industrial human lives? What attributes drive both of these systems? Well, perhaps……
- a desire to increase productivity (at all costs)
- systems which focus on efficiency (at all costs)
- the belief that success is defined by how much money you make
- the belief that humans are not subject to natures rules
- what else?
- please share your ideas in the comment box below.
Systems thinkers know that while mental models are difficult to change, this is where we will find the leverage needed to create a sustainable human society.
The next logical question is… how?
I will attempt to deal with this question in a future blog.
For now, please share your own thoughts in the comment box below. Thank you…..
==============================================================================
I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends. And for more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now.
Social justice must remain one of the three pillars of sustainable agriculture
Last week I posted a blog exploring the recent announcement that the Walmart Corporation plans to sell over $1 billion of goods purchased from small and mid-sized farms. Walmart also intends to train 1 million farmers in sustainable farming practices around the world.
I congratulated the corporation for their efforts to improve the economic status of small farmers and to enhance environmental quality by minimizing waste. But I’m concerned that the significant economic power of the Walmart Corporation will cause a shift in emphasis of sustainability programs to focus on only two of the three pillars of sustainable agriculture.
An earlier blog examined the three pillars of sustainability: 1) economic vitality, environmental quality, and 3) social equity/justice.
As sustainability becomes increasingly recognized as a good business strategy, there may be a tendency to “sanitize” the concept by focusing more on environmental practices that are economically feasible and leave social equity out of the equation. I believe it is vitally important to keep social equity as a central goal of sustainable food and farming systems.
I’ve been involved in sustainable agriculture research, teaching and policy debates for over 20 years. In the early days, the dominant voice calling for a more sustainable agricultural system came from disenfranchised and struggling farmers working in community. University scientists slowly joined the chorus and today, with the Walmart announcement, sustainable agriculture has entered the mainstream.
While its important to recognize the progress we’ve made over the past 20 years, I’m concerned that if we allow the power of corporate money to expunge social equity from the quest for sustainable food and farming systems, we will lose the soul of the movement.
The good news is that there remains a powerful voice calling for social equity in food and farming systems, not only professing a strong commitment to the ideal of food sovereignty, but also presenting practical steps toward that end. And much like the early days of sustainable agriculture, the leadership in the quest for food sovereignty is coming from community groups including family farmers.
The concept of food sovereignty emerged from the struggle against oppression and was coined by the international peasant movement La Via Campesina. In the U.S., the National Family Farm Coalition recently joined with a host of hunger, poverty, environmental, and faith-based non-profits to give birth to U.S. Food Sovereignty Alliance. As we grow more sustainable farms, we need to stay true to the vision of the people who began the movement…. those farmers and others working in community to improve their lives.
As an example, my University of Massachusetts Sustainable Agriculture class visited the Seeds of Solidarity Farm and Education Center in Orange, MA and identified them as a terrific example of a sustainable food and farming organization based on all three pillars.
As Walmart enters the sustainable agriculture arena, I hope we will hold true to the original vision and support those people and organizations that remain committed to all three pillars of sustainability. I’ll conclude with the opening statement from a resolution created by the Food Sovereignty People’s Movement Assembly..…
“…over a half-century ago, Mahatma Gandhi led a multitude of Indians to the sea to make salt—in defiance of the British Empire’s monopoly on this resource critical to people’s diet. The action catalyzed the fragmented movement for Indian independence and was the beginning of the end for Britain’s rule over India. The act of “making salt” has since been repeated many times in many forms by people’s movements seeking liberation, justice and sovereignty: Cesar Chavez, Nelson Mandela, and the Zapatistas are just a few of the most prominent examples. Our food movement— one that spans the globe—seeks food sovereignty from the monopolies that dominate our food systems with the complicity of our governments. We are powerful, creative, committed and diverse.
It is our time to make salt.”*
I believe social justice requires us to consider the impact of our actions on others. When “normal” behavior, such as buying cheap food at Walmart, results in the suffering of others, I need to stop and think about my behavior. The only way for food prices to remain as low as they are at Walmart, is for the corporation to exploit workers and farmers. This is not sustainable – nor just. It is a choice.
* From: A resolution of the Food Sovereignty Alliance.
==============================================================================
I’d appreciate it if you would share this post with your friends. For more ideas, videos and challenges along these lines, please join my Facebook Group; Just Food Now, or check out my blog, Just Food Now, or my webpage, Just Food Now. In the face of hunger, poverty and social injustice – just grow food and grow food justly.
- ← Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next →
Agricultural Systems Thinking 