In search of resilience

Most of the time, we build our jobs and our organizations and our lives around today, assuming that tomorrow will be a lot like now. Resilience, the ability to shift and respond to change, comes way down the list of the things we often consider.
And yet… A crazy world is certain to get crazier. The industrial economy is fading, and steady jobs with it. The financial markets will inevitably get more volatile. The Earth is warming, ever faster, and the rate and commercial impact of natural disasters around the world is on an exponential growth curve.

Hence the need for resilience, for the ability to survive and thrive in the face of change.

A non-resilient hospital in New York City closed for months because the designers failed to design for a flood. A career as a travel agent ends when, fairly suddenly, people don’t need travel agents any longer. A retirement is wiped out because the sole asset in the nest egg is no longer worth what it was.

The choice is to build something that’s perfect for today, or to build something that lasts. Because perfect for today no longer means perfect forever.

Here are four approaches to resilience, in ascending order, from brave to stupid:

Don’t need it

Invest in a network

Create backups

Build a moat

Don’t need it is the shortcut to living in crazy times. If you don’t have an office, it won’t flood. If you have sixteen clients, losing one won’t wipe you out.* If your cost of living is low, it’s far less exposed to a loss in income. If there are no stairs in your house, a broken hip doesn’t mean you have to move. Intentionally stripping away dependencies on things you can no longer depend on is the single best preparation to change.

Invest in a network. When your neighbor can lend you what you need, it’s far easier to survive losing what you’ve got. Cities and villages and tribes with thriving, interconnected neighborhoods find that the way they mesh resources and people, combined with mutual generosity, makes them more able to withstand unexpected change. And yes, the word is ‘invest’, because the connection economy thrives on generosity, not need.

Create backups. Not just your data (you do have a copy of your data in two or three places, don’t you?) but anything that’s essential to your career, your family or your existence. A friend with a nut allergy kept a spare epipen at our house—the cost of a second one was small compared to the cost of being without.

Build a moat is the silly one, the expensive Maginot-line of last resort. Build a moat is the mindset of some preppers, with isolated castles that are stocked to overflowing with enough goods to survive any disaster**. Except, of course, they’re not. Because they can’t think of everything. No one can.

We’re tempted to isolate ourselves from change, by building a conceptual or physical moat around our version of the future. Better, I think, to realize that volatility is the new normal.

Putting all your eggs in one basket and watching the basket really carefully isn’t nearly as effective as the other alternatives. Not when the world gets crazy.

**Henry Mason describes a friend who said, “My dad had one job his whole life, I’ll have seven, and my kids will have seven jobs at the same time.”

**and not just preppers, but corporations that act like them

Only one word comes to mind:  Damn.

But this is also the same child who came into my room at midnight only several hours earlier and couldn’t sleep. This is the same child who usually sleeps with no problem and who hates to get up in the morning when I wake her up to get ready for school.

“You type loud,”she says and she lifts the laptop off my lap and quietly places it on the floor.  She then lies next to me with her head in my lap and covers us both with her Disney princess blanket, which she has brought down from her bedroom upstairs.  While I rub her head and we sit there quietly for several minutes, I am strategizing on how I can get this blog done before I need to get ready and head out the door.

She suddenly speaks up:  “I am reading this book I don’t like,” she says.  I ask her what it is about. She then tells me all about the novel Five Children and It.  As i’m listening to her retell the chapters she has read so far, I quickly get that not only does she hate the book, but she is pretty scared by the stories and characters and that is why we are having this conversation at 5:30am.  “Stop reading the book,” I tell her after she is finished.

“I can’t – I started it and I need to finish it,” she declares.   “Why, is it for school? Do you have a report due?” I ask. “No, there is no report.  I just need to finish it,” she replies firmly. “Says Who?”  I ask.   “Says me.” she says.  Then she adds, “Everyone tells me I am a good reader and I want to finish this book…it’s a hard one mom,” she reminds me proudly.

I am completely taken back.  Unbelievable.   It starts now?  The self-imposed deadlines? The pressure to complete a challenge?  To please others while suffering silently?   I take a deep breath.

“You don’t have to finish it…it’s OK” I tell her.  She doubts me at first.  “I’m serious,” I tell her. “You don’t have to finish it, not now – not ever.  There are plenty of other books and not reading this one doesn’t mean you aren’t a good reader,” I remind her.

She seems very relieved and in that moment – I am too.  I am also completely embarrassed because I have been here so many times before and I didn’t even see this one myself.  Thanks Sophie for reminding me that blogs aren’t “late”, that there are plenty of other important stories to write (including this one) and to experience true delight in a change of plans.

The Inherent Uncertainty of Innovation

Uncertainty is inherent to the very nature of innovation – creating something distinctively new and valuable means that you are necessarily venturing into the unknown.  Yet, to paraphrase the US military, some factors are “known unknowns” and others are “unknown unknowns”.

In the first category are well-defined issues like weak customer demand, poor channel access, technology performance issues, cost blowouts, organizational conflicts, and competitive response. These are a few of the many common factors that can stand between your innovation efforts and the success you seek. Being aware of these risk factors can help you devise ways to minimise them.

However, although uncertainty can be reduced, it cannot be eliminated entirely from innovation. There will always be unknown unknowns that resist your best efforts to control and mitigate them. Some may stem from an inability to fully understand the known unknowns, others perhaps to your implicit assumptions being flawed. By definition their nature is impossible to predict ahead of time, so the best advice is simply to expect the unexpected and plan accordingly.

Managing Uncertainty for Innovative Success

Faced with this uncertain landscape, organizations with a strategic commitment to innovation use a variety of methods to manage uncertainty and improve their chances of success.

Some of the common ways you can manage uncertainty in innovation are to:

• Generate a large and diverse number of creative ideas
• Design “better” ideas and concepts that are more likely to succeed
• Evaluate and screen existing ideas or concepts more rigorously
• Obtain superior insights into customer needs to guide idea generation
• Improve concepts with rapid prototyping and customer feedback
• Launch and learn in the marketplace, with rapid evolution of your offering
• Set up modified management practices to support new products and ventures

You can implement each of the above approaches with a variety of different techniques. For instance, you could generate creative ideas through brainstorming (and variations such as ‘shifting’), employee suggestions, customer feature requests, value chain analysis, journey mapping, and so on.

Furthermore, these approaches are often used in combination as part of an over-arching innovation framework such as the Stage Gate method, Design Thinking, Lean Startup, Discovery Driven Growth, and Outcome Driven Innovation. Each framework is guided by an overall philosophy about how and why innovation fails to deliver the expected results, and prescribes a set of actions and methods intended to mitigate the key problems and improve your chances of innovating successfully.

One was in reference to a recent op-ed in The Age. In it, I said:

If people accept the 0.0038 and 0.02 degree benefits as valid then they also accept the science behind a 5.3 degrees warming for business as usual (As in the emission scenario created by Treasury for the 2008 Garnaut Review). Who wants to live in a world warming by 5 degrees or more? Major food crops could not be grown in many parts of the world, projected sea level rise would be tens of metres, most of the shelled species in the ocean would not survive, ecosystems would be disrupted as the pace of change outstripped their ability to adapt and millions to billions of people would lose environmental security leading to mass migrations never before seen.

That prompted an email from an earth scientist wanting to know what peer-reviewed reference I was using for the projected tens of metres of sea level rise. I sent back this now famous diagram and a note saying that I wasn’t putting it on a timetable. He then replied suggesting that people could be misled into thinking that the date was 2100 (because that was tied to the two temperature measures) and that I was being alarmist. Because it would take thousands of years to be realised.

Mean global temperature and sea level with respect to observations (WGBU after Archer 2006)

This comes back to the framing of risk. Those who wish to discount the risk of large-scale sea level rise would prefer it be said this way: “Well yes, it could happen, but thousands of years into the future.” This brings up the issue of hyperbolic discounting – an uncertain risk is moved way into the future. Not to be explicit about the time frame is alarmist.

But is it? Let’s accelerate the cause and effect sequence. If I decide to push a grand piano off a tall building, when does that become a risk? When I decide to do so, when the piano is pushed off the building or when it is about to hit the ground? Quite clearly there is a risk when I decide to push the piano off the building but whether I will do so  is uncertain.  When the piano leaves the building it is committed to hitting the ground. If I was to wait until the piano was about to hit before warning people (setting aside the fact that I pushed the thing off), I would clearly be negligent.

Greenhouse gas emissions establish a risk. Sufficient emissions to produce 5 degrees warming by 2100 would commit large ice sheets to melting, ultimately leading to tends of metres of sea level rise. This could be avoided only if we could induce sufficient cooling to remove heat from the polar oceans around Greenland and Antarctica. If Earth warmed by 5 degrees I seriously doubt whether humanity would have the capacity to apply the technology required to reverse the process. Why not? Because all of the other damage to the planetary, social and economic support systems required to sustain billions of people. Natural processes by themselves would take many thousands of years, operating on a geological time scale.

Alarmist? I think not.

Looking back at my word choice, it may have better to have said sea level rise committed to would be tens of metres. I did think about this, but was not sure whether the term committed would be understood, and did not have the word limit to explain it (it was probably okay to have done so).

Another set of commentators on The Conversation were also provoked by some of my risk statements. In response to this comment:

Since opponents of the carbon tax often like to try reduce the issue to economic terms, why not contrast the $10 billion figure (a spurious one, as you point out) with the net $ benefit to Australia of a .0038 degree reduction in 2100. This would include the marginally reduced cost to Australia of dealing with weather-related catastrophes due to a warming climate (such as megafires, droughts, floods, sea level rise) not just in 2100 but in all years leading up to it and for say 100 years after. I suspect you’d end up with a figure much larger than 10 billion (setting aside for the moment the ethically thorny issue of discount rates).

I said this:

…very difficult to do, and I could have added some stuff on the economic benefits of avoided damages which would have made the story a bit more complex. Existing cost curves are very likely to be underestimates because they don’t do climate extremes very well. Even on those, the $23 per tonne (levy price) comes out as a much larger benefit with social discount rates. This is just preliminary – doing it properly would give a precise estimate. I use both Nordhaus and Tol’s curves. So the real cost is lower than $23. Therefore the benefit of reducing each tonne of CO2 has a lasting benefit for generations.

Costs of recent climate events in Australia are:
2011 Queensland floods $7 billion – human contribution likely
2011 Victorian floods $1 billion – human contribution likely
2009 Victorian fires $4 billion – human contribution almost certain
2011 Victorian hailstorm $680 million insurance payouts – human contribution possible

We definitely need more research in this area

This, of course, caused all sorts of harumphing, with comments like this:

You must surely be joking to suggest that you alone, apparently, can assuredly connect the floods in Queensland, fires, floods and hailstorms in Victoria to Climate Change. I believe there was a report from some people associated with the IPCC who, after about two years work, said that there was only a very low probability that extreme weather could be linked to Global Warming.

this:

I feel that you are drawing a pretty long bow to claim that the recent bushfires since about 1950 even, are the result of Climate change, but I will await your comments as to how you can distinguish between the cause of a bushfires in 1850, 1909, 1926 and 2009.

and this:

I find this list quite disingenuous.
Climate change has become the latest culprit in major natural disasters, as a way of absolving authorities from any culpability.

The evidence on the Queensland and Victoria floods is circumstantial. Record high sea surface temperatures occurred across Australia’s north in the summer of 2010–11, the source area for this rainfall. September–January rainfall in eastern Australia has increased by 14% with respect to the El Nino–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) index since 1910, most of it in the past 50 years. Rainfall has increased as a function of diurnal temperature range, the best climatic predictor of rainfall. Average Australian rainfall increased as a statistically significant step change in 1973, the same time as maximum temperature increased over much of the continent. Queensland rainfall stands out as an anomaly, but not quite as large as 1974. People are arguing that this means 2010 could not have been influenced by warming – but it is more likely that 1974 was also influenced by warming, and both years would have been exceedingly wet without added warming. Victoria in 2010–11 (Sep–Jan) stands out as an outlier with respect to the two best predictors, the Indian Ocean Dipole and ENSO index. The only comparable outlier is 1992, when heavy rainfall occurred earlier in the season and on a drier catchment, therefore did not cause widespread flooding.

Likewise with forest fire danger index for Victoria. In the years 1997–2009 it was more than one-third higher than in 1972–1996 (about 38%). The warming component of this index is largely anthropogenic and the rainfall component may be.

There is a contributing element of climate change in all of these events. The nature of damage in such events is that they are strongly non-linear, so when a small dose is added to the climate event, a much stronger damages response is felt. However, the methods needed to pin down better estimates of these additional damages still need to be developed. Because they cannot be quantified does not mean they are not having an impact.

The point is, if we are paying a premium in damages now due to climate change, how much can this escalate into the future? It shows that neither adaptation or mitigation can be ignored. Waiting for the piano to hit the pavement is really poor risk management.

Climate Policy will Stay a Mystery until Silent Specialists Join the Debate

Uninformed comment prevails when the facts aren’t explained.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/climate-policy-will-stay-a-mystery-until-the-silent-specialists-join-the-debate-20120723-22khb.html#ixzz21xdsAOB4

Nassim Nicholas Taleb wrote a book called “The Black Swan” to explain the nature of unpredictable highly improbable events. He gives the rise of the Internet, the personal computer, and the September 11 attacks as example of black swan events.

The challenge for all of us managing projects is how can we better manage both threats and opportunities that inherently exist in projects . Black Swan is a blog about managing uncertainty in projects to produce better project results. We will share the latest tools, techniques, and best practices to better manage both threats (negative risks) and opportunities (positive risks) in projects.

Separated by a generation, and divided by their beliefs, two passionate, intelligent and successful Australians go on a journey of mutual discovery to see if they can change each other’s minds about the most divisive issue in Australia today: climate change.

It’s a pity we don’t have cards for climate change bingo to mark off squares for “It hasn’t warmed since 1998″, “scientists are only in it for the grant money”, “the temperature record cannot be believed” and so on. Likewise, I don’t recommend drinking games. You’ll be on your ear by 9.

8:34 Misleading statistics set it up as a 50:50 issue in Australian public opinion. That’s certainly not the case.

8:39 Rose brings up future generations; Minchin brings up Australia’s competitive advantage built on cheap energy

8:47 Codling (Nova) and Evans engage in misdirection of the evidence – all easily disprovable but it sidelines Rose. She hasn’t got the ready answers.

8:50 Up Mauna Loa. Nick plays with the psychology of small numbers, Anna with the psychology of big, scary numbers.

8:53 Matt England makes a good point about feedbacks and says the science on feedbacks is nowhere as debated as some say

8:55 Lindzen maintains that the world can’t have big feedbacks because it doesn’t make sense to have feedbacks that large

8:56 Minchin loses it over 2nd-hand tobacco smoke. Either it’s the science or these views do have an element of cultural construction. Rose runs the line on previous credibility – Minchin gets angry because it’s unrelated to climate science

8:59 Mueller showed that climate scientists knew what they were doing with temperature measurements all along, despite his original doubts. He is now concerned.

9:01 Minchin doubts that anything can be done with the emissions in developing country pipeline. Rose describes it as hope and despair.

9:03 Minchin says there is no empirical evidence that humans are driving climate change. What is this evidence? I have published on this – there is plenty of evidence. This could be pointed  out if Minchin would describe what he meant.

9:06 Minchin introduces Rose to Morano, who challenges Morano’s tactics and credibility. Morano drives together so many rubbish points that if you’re playing a drinking game, you probably need to get your stomach pumped.

9:10 Minchin thinks that Morano should be listened to but glosses over the point that a person is not entitled to their own facts.

9:13 Leiserowitz introduces Rose and Minchin to his cultural construction of climate risk quiz. I fall about where Rose does. Minchin talks about scientists exaggerating – Lieserowitz sidesteps that and say fear is not sustainable. I don’t know any of the top scientists who do exaggerate. He spoke on risk but that is the language used in science communication but it is still not accepted.

9:17 Lomborg wants us to spend $100 billion a year on alternative techs rather than cutting CO2. His is a cornucopian solution and risky in Rose’s eyes. Minchin thinks the market should be free to decide (yep, the one that failed in the first place).

9:20 Zac Goldstein in the UK talks about re-industrialisation. The UK has sidestepped the science. Goldacre, science journo, talks about false balance where both sides of an uneven set of facts are made to look equivalent.

9:23 Rose asks Goldacre whether she’s making a mistake with the show. So they go to meet Mike Hulme who now works with the social side of climate having left the science behind.

9:26 The socialisation of climate change is about trying to solve these problems in a messy way – it goes beyond cost benefit, and calculated risk can’t provide neat enough answers for either certainty or cost-benefit.

9:29 30 tonnes of CO2. Geez, I hope they offset. They visit  Heron Island – where’s Ove?

9:31 Is there common ground to solve the problem, has Rose brought Minchin along a small amount via an appeal to reason?

Q&A

No-one has yet talked about the full cost of burning fossil fuel, they are talking about the production cost of standing energy supply.

Clive Palmer brought his furphy – anthropogenic CO2 3% and natural 97%. These guys are about price, not value.

Rose brought up the worst case losses to MDB ag production of ~95% by 2100. That was a “worst case” study undertaken by John Quiggin’s  group for the Garnaut Report. I’d rather these types of studies not be quoted in this way.

Minchin believes our current lifestyle is sustainable. Most earth system and global change scientists would disagree.

Megan Clark is making me glad I am no longer with CSIRO.

Rose misquoted the IEA projections on CO2 budgets to avoid 2C. Roughly 80% 0f the budget is committed in existing plant and forward projections for infrastructure – they said that beyond 2017 new commitments would cut into the excess of the budget.

Rebecca Huntly has some wise words on survey and how the debate is being manipulated.

Rose just pwned Palmer on his “care” for the poor and destitute.

Clark describes CSIRO and Bureau state of the climate reports that will come out every two years. These reports are getting better and better.

Minchin has misquoted Phil Jones in saying that warming is stable since 1998, Minchin says the CO2 rises have not been matched by temperature rises. Matt England from the audience says that is not reflected by the scientific evidence.

Huntly gives a good nuanced answer on science communication and getting the point across. When people have a hard time understanding scientific nuance they fall back on their values for understanding.

Clive Palmer doesn’t credit that CO2 contributes to climate change and confuses flux with burden.

A question about the carbon price and Australia’s tax burden on families. Australia pays one of the lower rates of tax in the OECD and there is a compensation package. Huntly says this is not well understood.

Rose almost gets the last word. She doesn’t always get the science as risk stuff right, but she is a very articulate speaker. Minchin was surprisingly nuanced later on in the doco but reverted to politics in Q&A. Clive Palmer was populist and applauded for it.

What’s the wrap? I think this doco showed how important people’s values and prior assumptions are in influencing the way we view evidence. I don’t think Q&A achieved all that much but I was glad Matt England was there to clarify a few things.

Thanks for following the debate here.

As I posted late last year with the release of the SPM, the great benefit of this special report is the coming together of the climate change and disaster management expert communities. A marriage, which I’m told, got a bit rocky at times. The report emphasises the need to address both biophysical and social-economic aspects of changing climate extremes and the systems exposed to those changes.

The interactions between changing hazards and system exposure are often difficult to sort out and remain a source of debate. Extremes are often infrequent, so the places they effect often change between events. This makes it very difficult to attribute impacts to the hazards themselves, modifications to the environment or to the number of people and value of development  exposed to those hazards.

One reasons for this is that the underlying statistical analysis assumes that the anthropogenic influence on changing climate hazards is linear with respect to the atmospheric forcing. This makes it very difficult to distinguish a climate signal from the noise of variability.

Increasing exposure of people and economic assets has been the major cause of the long-term increases in economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters (high confidence). Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded (medium evidence, high agreement). These conclusions are subject to a number of limitations in studies to date. Vulnerability is a key factor in disaster losses, yet it is not well accounted for. Other limitations are: (i) data availability, as most data are available for standard economic sectors in developed countries; and (ii) type of hazards studied, as most studies focus on cyclones, where confidence in observed trends and attribution of changes to human influence is low. The second conclusion is subject to additional limitations: (iii) the processes used to adjust loss data over time, and (iv) record length.

This doesn’t satisfy those who demand ‘proof’ of climate-related disasters before they will endorse expert warnings that disasters may occur.  This, of course, is stupid. The proof demand is to counter advocacy for climate change mitigation policy based on evidence of changing extremes. It is part of saying it isn’t happening and it won’t happen.

One way to view the potential for current and future extreme events is to think about where the energy from greenhouse gas forcing is going. Most heat is going into the ocean, delaying atmospheric warming. So observed warming is only part of what we will experience over the long term. There is a heap of evidence for this process from past climate change, in addition to models (backed by theory) and observations. The atmospheric warming process is therefore largely driven by energy from the ocean in the form of both sensible and latent heat. The latter is transferred from ocean to land through evaporation of seawater and rainfall on land.

This transfer is non-linear. Warming occurs in bursts than can be measured statistically as step changes. The linear statistics used for attribution tend to average these out, losing the non-linear component of the warming signal in the process. There is some evidence that rainfall may do this too, but the statistics are much more difficult to attribute. While some of the signals for extreme events such as tropical cyclones may take a long time to emerge in any case, non-linear behaviour in temperature and possibly rainfall (including drought) will be easier to identify and attribute. We are close to being able to do this for SE Australia. If non-linear changes in sea surface temperatures can be linked to storm strength, then tropical cyclones with fall into line as well. My prediction is that by 2020, most extremes on land will be routinely attributed to climate change and variability with moderate to high confidence.

The problem we are starting to accept is that people don’t know in advance what will work and what won’t.  This reality is true for stock investments as well as for starting a business.  This reality is true despite having a number of experts trying to appear as if somehow they do.  We read in the press about all of the successful people who seem to have created a business from some grand plan in their head and executed it just right.  What we don’t read about are the thousands of people who did the same thing and failed.

If you have an idea for a business and just go for it you might succeed.  Then again you might not.  Just because we were successful this time doesn’t mean we will be successful next time.  Just because we failed doesn’t mean we will fail next time.  There are few successful serial entrepreneurs and many people who have followed multiple failures with a success.  By jumping in feet first we are throwing ourselves on the mercy of randomness.

We can’t do anything about the uncertainty that surrounds the start up and growth of a new venture.  But, we can manage this uncertainty and prevent alot of waste.  We can also discover our missteps in time to make corrections.  By using a process of continual learning we are building the product as we learn what the customer wants and doesn’t want.  An example of a process is the lean start up approach that starts with a minimal product and tests each new feature as it is built, letting the market drive the product configuration.

There is a similar train of thought described best as an option approach.  Build just enough to give us the option to take the next step.  The idea is to put enough into the product or service to see if there is acceptance before a lot of money is spent on a more permanent solution.  A cable company launched its movie on demand process by taking orders over the internet and then having people manually load the movie for the customer.  From the customer’s perspective they were getting an automated service.  The company wanted to make sure there enough demand before they spent money building this automated system.  In this process the product is executed as a series of options.

Regardless of which approach you take make sure that you have some process to manage the uncertainty that exists.  The swashbuckling entrepreneur that throws caution to the wind, takes huge risks and launches directly into a successful business is a myth.  Most of these types end up at the bottom of the ocean never to be heard from again.

Tips on securing your future

In the light of budget cuts or in order to make services as efficient as possible, you might hear that your communication team is to be reviewed. This may have already happened to you.

But if you haven’t, rather than waiting for this to happen, you could anticipate it by carrying out a review yourselves. You are more likely to be able to influence the outcome if you do so.

And that is the argument in favour of doing something that you (and your team) might want to avoid. But even though you will (potentially) be driving events, reviews unsettle people. They cause stress and anxiety. And that in turn can cause us to perform less well. They can create resentment. Those who emerge unscathed can experience guilt. Those who don’t survive often feel anger.

So, if you decide to carry out your own review, at all times, be sensitive to people’s needs and feelings.

Here is an approach you might find helpful.

The way to secure your future is to make your renewed function better than any of your stakeholders might have hoped possible.

Talk to your boss

Your boss may be the chief executive in which case it might be easier to put your review in place. If not, your director may have to make the case on your behalf. Always it’s about selling the benefits measured initially in terms of what your boss would want. There would be no point in changing the function if doing so made things worse for him or her.

If your boss has to go and sell the idea to others, he or she will need to take something with them. These days, anything that shows you can cut costs or increase outcomes is good currency. Your initial discussions will enable you to determine what the total spend is likely to be – whether it will be less than now and by how much.

Getting the idea of cashable savings on the table will potentially give you leverage if you want your review to be wider than your own team. It may be that the offer you eventually produce is able to deliver services for other councils, in which case the savings may be taken from elsewhere.

Oddly, by addressing such uncertain subjects you will give your team more certainty since you will be more likely to influence the future than by waiting to see what happens.

Get permission and buy in

Take a paper to your leadership team setting out your proposal. You will need to demonstrate the business benefits of carrying out a review since it will take away focus from mainstream business and eat up time and money.

It’s likely that directors will want to know what the outcomes are likely to be, and savings. This is not necessarily a threat to jobs since there are many ways of cutting costs without losing posts. Indeed an improved communications function might deliver cashable benefits across the organisation by improving the way that you work with service departments – and the way that they deliver.

It may also be the case that there are additional communications posts or activities scattered here and there across the organisation. Taking the lead will enable you to re-shape the communications function.

But top table ownership is vital. It will give you leverage should you have to implement difficult decisions. Avoid, if you can, any off-line discussions that may force you to compromise and make “special cases”. Some may push for this. Go for a lesser consensus, if necessary, rather than a patchwork mandate for change. Ensure that the minute reflects what you want, if at all possible.

Find out what people want and what the problem is or may be

Now go and talk to all of the key stakeholders and find out ideally what they would want from a high performing communications team. Give each interviewee plenty of warning and ask that they show you examples of excellence that they have admired from elsewhere. One client I worked with said, “We want campaigns that have the same impact as Benetton”.

Take the interview beyond the immediate – I want bad news to go away – and get to the core of their “business needs”. Find out what they’re trying to achieve in the coming years, what problems they foresee and what keeps them awake at night.

Be open to honest and frank comment. You will want each interviewee to tell you what they think is not working at present. This may be uncomfortable. But in reality, there’s hardly a human activity that couldn’t be improved by bringing a fresh perspective. It may also transpire that they see you as the problem. Be ready for this – it can happen.

Ideally, you will have learned something about the gap between expectations and delivery by this stage. If so, start to develop your implementation plan early so that when you do deliver a renewed communications function it’s giving people what they want.

Reach a view about what’s needed

The interviews should give you a sense of what is really needed. There are merits in looking at what the best in class functions are doing. Westminster Council is very well regarded so have a conversation with staff there – or go and visit. You might also look at what’s working well in health, the police, the university and the FE sector.

Talk to policy people and read around. Look at what challenges are coming up. Making cuts in services will require excellent external communications as well as brilliant stakeholder relationship management. It will also mean close working with HR and organisational development.

Keep your eye on the shape of things to come. It’s likely to mean even more of doing more for less. You may need to influence different groups of people in much more subtle ways using, say, social media or advocacy.

You will be looking, in the end, for the optimum arrangement – what your costs, mandate, skills and ability to manage this process will stand. Whatever emerges could always be improved – that’s the nature of life.

Talk to HR

The earlier you get HR involved, the better. They will advise you on process, assist you with job descriptions should you need help, and offer you the benefit of their experience and expertise. I have always found HR people to be sensible, thoughtful and wise. They’ve seen it all.

If your review is likely to result in redundancies, they’re best placed to help. If you set up a project team to manage the process, ask HR to join.

Bring out the blank sheet of paper

In the end, even the most radical re-thinks will mean that most of the people who are working with you at the moment will still be doing so.

Unless you are setting up a team from scratch, you will never have a blank sheet of paper. But you should start with one anyway.

You could set up a workshop for your team or for all communications people in the organisation. Set out what you think leaders have said they want and ask for ideas on how it can be delivered. Add what you’ve learned from elsewhere into the mix. And, if you give participants plenty of notice, you can encourage them to bring their own examples of excellence to the table.

In the end, even the most radical re-thinks will mean that most of the people who are working with you at the moment will still be doing so. Their goodwill and involvement is vital. But stress that you need to challenge preconceptions. You might, for example, invite a speaker from elsewhere to inject challenge into the sessions (or even sessions).

Don’t allow yourself to be constrained, in the first place, with too many givens. You might consider yourself to be a given but you might not be (it’s possible that you don’t have the skills that leaders say they want so part of the implementation plan might involve upskilling).

When it starts to take shape, go and talk to some of the key people and take soundings. Find out whether your ideas are heading in the right direction. Stress that your thoughts are at an early stage. Ideally, you will not want things to leak out in advance and create a backlash that may get in the way of implementation.

You could do this several times and as your thoughts become more firm, you will find this helpful in terms of building a consensus.

When you are clear, pre-sell your ideas to the key decision-makers. A single presentation may not be the best approach. There are merits in reshaping your pitch to stress the particular benefits to each individual. You will want to take account of the particular challenges each faces.

Do a skills stock take

Individuals may be tempted to inflate reports of their capacity but doing so could open both those people and the process up to challenge, particularly if jobs are to be lost.

In essence, know your starting point.

In principle, this is a very easy thing to do because we should know what skills we have in our teams. In practice, it can be a minefield. The minute you start to ask questions about skill sets you will create nervousness, particularly if people start to see a gap between what is wanted and what you’ve got. The good news is that skills can be acquired and are more likely to be developed by those who have a background in the subject. The not so good news is that these things take time.

The more honest that you and your team can be, the better. Individuals may be tempted to inflate reports of their capacity but doing so could open both those people and the process up to challenge, particularly if jobs are to be lost. Being able to provide evidence is crucial. For example, a communications officer may say that she is a great feature writer and has copy and clippings to prove it. Assertions can turn into thin claims without supporting material.

Develop an options paper with an implementation plan

It’s not quite the final hurdle but you’re well on the way when you take a paper back to the leadership team. Until now, many of your discussions may have been conceptual – now it’s time for practice. It’s all about delivery. If you get the green light, they will expect results. If you haven’t written such a paper before, either ask for a copy of someone else’s or talk to HR (who will most certainly have many on file).

Test your paper with people who have carried reviews in your organisations. There may be local vagaries about who is consulted and in what order. Trades unions will have a view, rightly, if there are to be significant changes to employment. You will want to consult on job descriptions and roles. Keep talking. Ownership is all. If you can’t make it work after it has been agreed, your future with the organisation may be shorter than anticipated.

Implement

This part might be quite uncomfortable. It may involve people applying for new jobs. Some people, and here HR will help, will be slotted into new roles where there is a degree (depending on your policy) of overlap. Where there are fewer places than people, you may need competitive interviews. You may even have to apply for your post. If the outcome of the review demanded a more strategic approach (a common form of words in these discussions), you may have to compete against outsiders.

Conduct yourself well

If you have led the review from the outset, you will be under the microscope. Staff will look for signs of partiality. Be wary of giving any sense of favouring one person over another. The risk here is that you will poison the culture of the new team and deliver a poorer service overall.

Win the peace

Reviews can feel a bit like battles. You will have stirred people from one way of working and through a period of uncertainty. Now you will want people to work in new ways. Some people may leave. It’s important that anyone who departs, does so on the best of terms. People who are handled roughly may have less of a stake in your success than otherwise. If you are directly involved, do what you can to ensure that they have the best possible chance of thriving in their next role. Bear in mind, though, that if you started the review, you may now be viewed quite negatively.

Bring together the new team and set out the new agreed vision. Get people involved in making it real. Give out responsibility to those who are either tasked with new roles or to those who want to play a part in making the new function work. Talk to everyone individually (or ask new line managers to do this) so that you are able to take account of the emotional impact of the change over.

Deliver big

It’s easy to breathe out a sigh of relief and forget to sell your service. If you want leaders to believe that they’ve made the right decision in reviewing the function, deliver early wins. Ideally, these should be talked about things that get others interested both in what you do and what you can do for them.

The way to secure your future is to make your renewed function better than any of your stakeholders might have hoped possible.

And it was a complicated poster, let me say, though there were simple bits in it. When you want to overturn a paradigm, a simple “it ain’t so because it ain’t” doesn’t cut it. The main thesis is that the signal-to-noise model, which assumes a smooth anthropogenic change signal within a background of noisy natural variability, is wrong. Instead the climate follows a deterministic non-periodic pathway, to coin Ed Lorenz of butterfly complexity, where the forcing produced by increasing greenhouse gases does not gradually change climate, but comes in steps. The bulk of the energy is stored in the ocean, with climate showing little warming, only to be released in periodic bursts influenced by the processes associated with climate variability.

This is important, because it suggests that all the work going into calculating probabilities of mean change using climate model ensembles, has limited utility. If the climate shifts in a series of step changes, then this is more important than calculating a probability density for a series of curves for a given date.

So I was standing next to the poster waiting to ambush the unwary, met Jess of LP commenting fame, when along hopped Eli the Bunny. After checking overhead to see that Ethon wouldn’t eat my liver if I ambushed the bunny, I blew his cover. Happily, Eli was intrigued enough by my bravado in challenging the accepted wisdom of how climate is changing, he agreed to do a post when the paper setting the groundwork became available. Which it did, the week before Christmas (another job I got done while at the conference).

He’s called the steps jerks. Which is an eye-catching headline and gets people looking for insults. The jerks are happening because the system is buffered as long as the upper ocean absorbs the energy from climate forcing. Until it has to do some work and the energy can go in two directions: into the atmosphere or into the deep ocean. I don’t have the exact mechanism figured out yet, but am working on it.

You can join the discussion at Rabett Run, comment here, have a look at the poster and the paper, which covers the basic methodology and how it has affected the climate in south-eastern Australia. I’ll add some of the more straightforward stuff from the poster in the next few days.

One thing I didn’t mention was that there was a second story in The Australian tagged November 19 12:00 am that quoted Benny Peiser, directors of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a UK climate change foggery set up by Lord Nigel Lawson. (It was reposted on the GWPF site). He said:

“there was not a strong empirical link between anthropogenic climate change and weather events”.

“It is unlikely there will be one for 20 to 30 years,” he said.

He said any suggestion that recent weather events could be directly linked to climate change went directly against the general scientific consensus.

Ummm, extreme temperatures? Right now?

As summarised the IPCC in the SREX SPM, the attribution of some extremes is known with much more confidence than others. Some statistics may take even longer then 20-30 years to show a clear signal. However, I predict that new methods will knock over much of this problem in the next decade as we learn more about how climate changes. Not linearly, so the current method of using linear statistics using a signal-to-noise model is not a good measure. Non-linear methods taking in climate dynamics will shorten the time to attribution substantially.

The GWPF is based in the UK and is all about openness in science. In May 2011, Peiser had this to say about the conclusions of the Russell Enquiry into the original Climategate “scandal”.

The university had already broken its promise by turning down a FoI request made in the last few weeks.

He added: ‘The big problem is that the UEA is still reluctant to provide independent researchers with information and datasets.

‘It would appear that the expectation of transparency and openness is not really being applied.

‘Until they can be open and transparent, there will remain the questions of reliability and trust.

‘Checks and balances are at the very centre of scientific enterprise. Given the huge importance of what they are asking us to do, and the financial burdens, it is paramount that their conclusions can be checked.’

But on November 22, the Guardian said that the GWPF and Peiser had itself knocked back several attempts to obtain information through FOI. Apparently their efforts to delay any action on climate change and to not manage the attendant risks need no scrutiny at all.

The Guardian also said that a recent Oxford University study on the reporting of climate scepticism identified Lawson and GWPF director Benny Peiser as “by far” the most quoted climate sceptics in the UK media. Now Benny Peiser has become the go-to man for The Australian.

Now that a further 5,000 emails from CRU have been released by the hackers or people linked with them, we can expect Peiser to throw open the records of the GWPF’s funding and release their emails to the public. Go Benny!.

The SPM is complex and has already been given a number of interpretations in the press. The ABC news says extreme weather to worsen with climate change. The Australian focuses on the uncertainty Climate change effects unknown: IPCC report. A quick survey of Google news suggests that most outlets are focusing on extremes to worsen, or the qualified some extremes to worsen.

The Australian is different. Its header says:

GREAT uncertainty remains about how much of an impact climate change will have on future extreme weather events, the world’s leading climate scientists have found.

While there has been an increase in warm days and a decrease in cold nights, the likely impact on future weather events would not be evident for decades because of natural variability, the scientists say in a key review prepared for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

This completely ignores the thrust of the report, which is to address the risks of extreme climate-related events and disasters and manage changing risk through adaptation. The great value of the report is not so much in its headline findings, which are complex but are in bringing the climate, adaptation and disaster communities together. These two communities had a hard time of it in the writing of the report bringing together different language, concepts, views of risk and methods of assessing vulnerability and adaptation.

That they have completed the report and had it approved by the IPCC members says a lot for the efforts of the authors to create a comprehensive report put together by two different research communities.  Most climate impacts are felt through extremes, so these ties are extremely valuable and continue to build into the future. That is the key message from this report.

The report did not address the question of attribution to human causes at all save to report what was in the literature.  Their definition of climate change included all causes (sensibly) and they were much more concerned about how climate extremes, exposure and vulnerability combined to results in harm being caused to places and communities.

For example:

Economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters have increased, but with large spatial and interannual variability (high confidence, based on high agreement, medium evidence).

Increasing exposure of people and economic assets has been the major cause of the long term increases in economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters (high confidence). Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded (medium evidence, high agreement).

Trends in exposure and vulnerability are major drivers of changes in disaster risk (high confidence).

Development practice, policy, and outcomes are critical to shaping disaster risk, which may be increased by shortcomings in development (high confidence).

Data on disasters and disaster risk reduction are lacking at the local level, which can constrain improvements in local vulnerability reduction (high agreement, medium evidence).

Inequalities influence local coping and adaptive capacity, and pose disaster risk management and adaptation challenges from the local to national levels (high agreement, robust evidence).

Post-disaster recovery and reconstruction provide an opportunity for reducing weather and climate-related disaster risk and for improving adaptive capacity (high agreement, robust evidence).

These are the important findings. Media and blogs who emphasise future uncertainties while ignoring these robust and important findings can go stick their heads where the sun don’t shine.

More tomorrow.

1. ”THE claim ‘the science is settled’ is plainly false due to the many problems with the AGW [anthropogenic global warming] hypothesis (e.g. global temperatures have not risen since 1998 despite rising CO2 levels; alarmism is based on flawed models that do not reflect empirical measurements.)” 
   STEPHEN HARPER
2. ”Why is the Australian public asked to swallow the ‘carbon dioxide is a dangerous climate-changing pollution’ crap when science shows no observed relationship between global climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide? There is no physical evidence showing a relationship between temperature and CO2, only computer models which give different answers according to whatever assumption data you put in. But there is a very close relationship between temperature and solar activity … Why, when thousands of respected scientists signed a petition saying they don’t agree there is a problem, are we being forced to give up billions in tax dollars to waste on trying to stop carbon dioxide emissions?” 
   HARRY HOSTAN
   

Michael Bachelard sums up the evidence with a couple of quotes from me. Although it is a long article for a newspaper, a bit more detail won’t hurt. These questions are two perennials that never die, no matter how often they are answered.

The claim “the science is settled” is a phrase that originated with the Merchants of Doubt. They created a straw man that can be beaten up on cue to shout out “but the science isn’t settled – it’s never settled! Galileo!” I describe its history in this post, and William Connelley has more on its origins and use here.

Global temperatures have not risen since 1998 despite rising CO2 levels

BEST decadal land temperature record comparison

Bachelard links to the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project (BEST). This project began by questioning current methods of averaging temperature, only to discover what climatologists have known for decades: quality control and many records produce a reliable average over space and time.

On the right is decadal land surface temperature from BEST and three other records. All use different methods of averaging. The BEST project also uses a separate set of stations, rather than the reference stations relied on by the other groups. No conspiracy there – move along folks.

Bachelard refers to my take on recent warming:

Jones’s theory is that temperatures in 1998 represented a ”step change” in global warming, rather than part of a smooth trend, and that we are now operating in a new, warmer paradigm.

Instead of analysing mean global temperature as a smooth trend I use step and trend analysis. The complex energy interactions in the climate system do not produce a smooth increase in atmospheric warming with superimposed natural climate variability. Variability in the ocean affects the transport of energy from the shallow ocean to the deep ocean, and from the shallow ocean into the atmosphere. Because this transport is nonlinear, we should not expect gradual warming under climate change. The following two charts show step and trend for global warming (land plus ocean) for the GISS and HadCRU data sets.

Step and trend analysis for mean atmospheric global warming anomalies for the GISS (top) and HadCRU (bottom) time series. Note different scales. The thin black line denotes annual anomalies, the dotted line is a quadratic (non-linear) least squares fit, the step changes are measured using the Maronna & Yohai bivariate test and Rodionov STARS test and the dashed lines are intervening linear trends. Significance and non-significance (NS) for the linear trends are given. The step change increases in red are calculated by both tests as the shift in mean between the before and after period - they do not measure the actual shift in that year.

These charts are pretty busy, but show the annual time series, a simple quadratic curve and segmented trends separated by steps. Both time series show the same timing of significant shifts using two tests. Shifts occur in 1930, 1997-1980 and 1997, with each measured change being within 0.03°C of the other for both tests. Pre and post 1997 temperature increases by 0.3°C, a change that occurred in most regions of the world. Without making any claims about the significance of the linear trends (though they are shown), these charts show positive trends both before and after 1997.

By concentrating on temperature since 1998, so-called skeptics conveniently ignore the largest single warming event for decades. In 1997-98 global temperature spiked during the “El Niño of the century”, then never settled all the way back. Using a relatively brief slowdown in warming to disprove AGW is like claiming that the global financial crisis proves that economic growth doesn’t exist.

Two key pieces of research from this year show that brief trends mean little for the CO2 temperature relationship. Santer et al. in Geophysical Research Letters show that at least 17 years worth of record is required to establish a trend. Meehl et al. in Nature Climate Change show that over the past decade most of the energy increase in the earth system was probably going into the deep ocean, and that such periods of hiatus in atmospheric warming are relatively common in climate models.

Alarmism is based on flawed models that do not reflect empirical measurements

The print version of the article contains a chart based on Hansen et al. (2006). The original is shown below right.

Global surface temperature computed for scenarios A, B, and C, compared with two analyses of observational data. The 0.5°C and 1°C temperature levels, relative to 1951–1980, were estimated to be maximum global temperatures in the Holocene and the prior interglacial period, respectively.

Climate models reproduce emission scenarios that change mean global temperature in a realistic manner. They contain most of the major climate features though do not always reproduce them particularly well.

The empirical good/models bad trope is an example of the naturalistic fallacy: no matter what definition of good is proposed, one can always ask “But is that a good definition of what is good?”

The models-are-bad line of reasoning falls over because:

• Scientific models are tools. Rejecting models as less reliable than observations overlooks the fact that all observations are interpreted using theoretical models of what those observations represent. That is, scientific models and empirical data are both interpreted via “theory”. Rejecting one for the other is the naturalistic fallacy.
• The preface paradox says that some of the propositions in this book will be fallible. And so with models. The question is whether a model is useful and what it can be used for.
• This raises the question of model reliability. Model reliability needs to be assessed within a theoretical framework – as science, rather than comparing like with like, which is inductive thinking.

Model success is also measured through explanatory power. A model is successful if it produces results that it was not designed for. If a climate model has the right physical relationships, we should see similar shifts in global temperature to those in the observations. To test that, I’ve chosen a single warming sequence at random from over 75 runs in a directory without looking for a “good” or “likely” result. The MPI Echam model running the A2 emission scenario with observed forcing to 2000 is the one selected. I have not analysed this previously.

Step and trend analysis for the MPI Echam4 A2 Emission scenario Run3 simulation mean global warming anomalies. The black line is annual temperature, and the dashed lines linear trends separated by statistically significant step changes.

The result on the right shows that although the model has less climate variability than in the real world, it produces a series of step changes in warming from 1990, before making the transition into step-and-trend from mid century. Note the slight cooling trend from 2016-2032!

Ok, you clever people reading this recognise that this finding is inductive. It can’t be confirmed until the physical causes of these shifts are understood (I’ve got some ideas). However, the models do produce physically realistic step changes in warming that have not been fully assessed by the modelling community. Part of the problem lies in the analysis and communication of climate output as smooth curves. Smooth curves are useful for asking “How much will climate change?” but it’s not the same as asking “How will the climate change?”

Having used up quite a bit of space on addressing the first question, I won’t grace the second- the science shows no relationship between CO2 and climate – with a response, save to say you can read Michael Bachelard’s answers in The Age. The assertion that models results are based on input assumptions is false. Climate models do not operate on input assumptions beyond the forcing scenarios they use. Their performance depends on how well the physical system is represented.

Many objections to the science based on the temperature record originate because warming is not a smooth upward curve. However, if warming has been represented as a smooth curve, but behaves more like a staircase, then the risks of climate change are being understated rather than overstated.

Edited for clarity, November 7, 16:30

Ron Ashkenas’ blog post on Harvard Business Review

Author’s Note: My colleague Holly Newman contributed ideas and research for this post.

Have you ever worked on a project that produced unexpected results? Unintended consequences are common in business. For example, sometimes when a senior manager makes a request, it causes a cascade of activity that is far beyond what she intended. The classic story (which may be an urban legend) involves a former Chairman of General Motors who casually commented to a staff member that he didn’t like the color of the buildings on campus — and inadvertently triggered an expensive (and totally unnecessary) repainting program.

Anyone who flies regularly experiences this phenomenon firsthand. In order to increase profitability, airlines now … Download PDF

I can take credit for planting the seed of this issue in the minds of the new editors, Michael Oppenheimer and Gary Yohe. Abstract and special issue announcement over the fold. Links to open source papers so far posted and to the guidance documents, past and present, can also be found.

Abstract

The latest iteration of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uncertainty guidance is simpler and easier to use than the previous version. However, its primary focus remains assessing “what is at risk” under climate change, thus is most suitable for dealing with the scientific uncertainties in Working Group I and part of Working Group II findings. I distinguish between tame and complex risks, arguing that the guidance is most suited to assessing tame risks. Climate change is a complex risk, and as such as can be divided into idealized, calculated and perceived risks. While science has claims to objectivity, risk has a specific value component: when measuring gain and loss, calculated risks compete with risky options to manage those risks. The IPCC is charged with calculating risk (IPCC 2007, p22) but the communication of key findings takes place in an environment of competing perceived risks. Recommendations for managing this complex environment include separating scientific and risk-based findings, treating uncertainties for each separately; strengthening the philosophical basis of uncertainty management; application of a methodical scientific research program; clearly communicating competing findings, especially in the social sciences; and application of multiple frames to policy-relevant findings as reflected in the literature.

Announcing the publication of a Special Issue on Guidance for Characterizing and Communicating Uncertainty and Confidence in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Climatic Change  

August 2011

Since its inception in 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has worked with the growing recognition that uncertainty is pervasive in our understanding of the climate system: what drives climate change, what will determine its future course, and what influence it will have on important social and ecological aspects of our world.  It is not news that the IPCC has struggled, with varying degrees of success, in its efforts to describe these uncertainties and to judge the confidence with which it can offer its major conclusions.

Stephen Schneider and Richard Moss took the lead in IPCC’s first attempt to provide some guidance for authors during the preparation of the Third Assessment Report.  A second guidance document was created by an author team headed by Martin Manning and Rob Swart to support the Fourth Assessment Report.  Yet another version was produced last year as chapter authors assembled to begin their work on the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)  This most recent attempt, informed by the history of previous assessments, is the point of departure for the papers in this special issue of Climatic Change.

This Special Issue on Guidance for Characterizing and Communicating Uncertainty and Confidence in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was designed to provoke a wide-ranging discussion of IPCC’s past and possible future approaches to the evaluation, characterization, and communication of uncertainty.  Authors who were invited to contribute to this collection of papers approached their assignments from a variety of perspectives.  Some, like Richard Moss, Michael Mastrandrea, and Katharine Mach, were intimately involved in producing the guidance documents; their contributions describe the objectives of these documents and offer some introspective considerations of past experience.  Others, like Kristie Ebi, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Ottmar Edenhofer, Thomas F. Stocker, Christopher B. Field, and Patrick R. Matschoss, are playing key roles as working group co-chairs or members of associated technical support units in the AR5 process; their contributions describe their aspirations and concerns as the AR5 authors set to work.  Still others, like Granger Morgan and Baruch Fischoff, articulate weaknesses and strengths in IPCC guidance efforts from an extraordinarily experienced and informed vantage point: that of research into uncertainty judgment and communication.   Meanwhile, Marcus King and Sherri Goodman use their experience with the defense and national security communities to describe an approach to communicating and coping with profound and unique types of risk and uncertainty.  Roger Pielke, Jr. and Rachel Jonassen offer an empirical evaluation of uncertainty language in the Fourth Assessment while James Risbey and Judith Curry suggest “ignorance” as another category of confidence – not one that brings the process to a complete standstill, but one that best describes the state of affairs in some circumstances.  Humility, they would all argue, would be a virtue.  Brenda Ekwurzel, Peter Frumhoff and James McCarthy (former IPCC Working Group co-chair) have worked from IPCC documents to try to communicate with broader audiences in language that is more accessible than the dense prose that IPCC prefers; their paper describes some of the challenges and opportunities that they have faced or enjoyed, respectively.  John Sterman and Robert Socolow represent users of that information from within the broader research community; they express some frustration in interpreting summary statements from previous assessments and offer suggestions for reducing that burden.  Finally, Richard Tol,  has thought seriously about the structure and efficiency in the entire enterprise to produce an analogy between a standard natural monopoly in economic theory and the IPCC in practice vis a vis providing climate information to the international community.  It allows him to offer some stark but constructive hypotheses and some novel but intriguing remedies.

The hardcopy collection will appear in October of 2011.

Last week the book arrived and I was surprised that such a small book could have such a big impact. It was a half hour read and yet more than 24 million copies have been sold.

Here is a summary of this simple but powerful story: two mice named Sniff and Scurry and two “little people” named Hem and Haw live in a maze with long corridors and hidden stations containing cheese. Sniff and Scurry jog around the maze to look for cheese and stop to eat when they find some. They adapt to change as the cheese is depleted in one station and run on to find new cheese. The two “little people” however have a more human style of behaviour when they find the cheese. They hang up their jogging shoes and settle down close to the cheese station. When they find that the cheese station has become empty over time they are upset that there is no more cheese. They feel entitled to the cheese they had and have come to depend on it. They are
scared of the idea of having to go out into the maze again to look for new cheese. After some time, Haw decides to brave his fears and go out to look for cheese, while Hem refuses to go, preferring to stay in the empty cheese station feeling hungry. After a long search and having a lot of emotional ups and downs, Haw finally finds a new cheese station. For the reader there are lessons to be learnt along the way by following the actions of Haw.

Since I read it, the story has been rattling around in my head and I am continuing to find applications from it in my daily life. My
biggest a-ha moment so far has been that the fear a person may have of losing their settled comfortable situation in life is often directly related to that person’s resistance to change.

The cheese to me is an analogy for financial security and a settled comfortable life.  In these difficult economic times, many jobs have been lost and unemployment figures have soared. Companies have faced bankruptcy and most of us have felt the necessity to reduce our spending and become stricter with ourselves on deciding which goods and services are truly needed and which ones are just desires. Personally, I know that when my financial security is at risk, I tend to have strong emotional reactions and this is probably true for most people. Feelings of fear, unfairness, self-doubt, lack of control tend to creep up. Thoughts like: What would happen if I lose my job? Would anyone ever want to hire me again? How could we cope with less money?

A normal reaction is to try to ignore the problem, hold on tight to things as they are and try to resist change as much as possible.

Interestingly, as the book Who Moved my Cheese points out; this is precisely the moment when embracing change is the most important.  Realising that the “cheese” is dwindling and acting quickly to find new “cheese” is the best method for navigating these
difficult financial waters. Checking out the job market and sending job applications, doing freelance work next to normal employment, developing new skills, networking online, reducing the household budget, having meat-less days, selling an
expensive to run car, moving to a smaller house, giving up the expensive mobile phone subscription are all examples of how one could create a positive change.  Just like Haw from the Who Moved My Cheese story you can also run back into the maze to look for new cheese.

If you are in need of inspiration, I recommend getting the book and sharing it with others.  Happy cheese hunting!

Please note: I have no financial interest in recommending this book.

That old life is history for most of us.  No aspect of our lives, career, social, relationship, etc., appears to be stable for longer than a few years now.  The increasing rate of change and diversity in our lives poses a challenge to our minds which have been conditioned to run in a mechanistic, linear and predictable conception of life and the world.

We lose precious time, energy and sanity holding a tight grip to a false notion of security and an even falser notion of a static, predictable and controllable outside reality. We must understand today’s reality is a complex system accelerating in change, and engage with it as surfers engage scary big ocean waves. Riding the chaos of change will allow us to capitalize on the emergent pattern.

Every time the wave of change shakes our balance with an unexpected pull or pull, we must realize it is a new opportunity to grow. First we test our adaptability and resilience going with the wave as opposed to our innate futile attitude of resisting the wave in fear and stubbornness. We let go of our grip preventing the risk of the wave hurting us by breaking our stiff attachment to whatever we believe gives us security, predictability, control and ultimately our perceived sense of self-realization.

Second we learn from each new experience brought by the wave by accessing a new set of skills and awareness. The accumulation of experiences from embracing and working with the myriad of changes we are exposed to will eventually lead us to recognize the resulting emergent pattern from our personal life experience. I do believe such pattern has the code to the meaning of our personal existence allowing us to find our life’s mission and personal path.

It is obvious this process defies our prediction and control. It does however offer the opportunity to live the full creative potential of our existence. We can choose to life the rat race society has prepared for us or the freedom of engaging the forces of reality. We can choose a 9-5 relatively stable but limiting job and career and a relationship we can predict, know and trust but nonetheless we suspect we will grow tired of.

We can however pass on the expected and jump with thrill into life’s unknown opportunities. We can let life’s various experiences take us on a less predictable journey of adventure such as taking a job opportunity coming our way in an area outside our expertise in a foreign place. This experience will lead us to appreciate new experiences, activities, work, places and cultures. What we learn and who we become from such job experience will reinvent us in unexpected ways that will eventually lead us to discover new opportunities that will further expand our range of possibilities about our lifestyle, our career, personal and spiritual life. That can go on for as long as we possibly want.

But there may come the time when our place on this Earth, the passion of our life and our real priorities will be revealed. That moment is bound to arrive when we least expect it and only when we do not expect it. Predicting is futile. It will come when we each have been exposed to enough changing diverse experiences to a strong enough pattern to emerge and propel through the world in a specific direction of satisfaction, success and ultimately self-realization.

As much as we may believe what we are supposed to do and who we are supposed to be in life, the fact is that we have no evidence of it other than the circumstantial evidence of our life experience and the story of us society has made along the way.

The only reality out there is a pattern of change hidden under confusing often demoralizing chaos. It is up to us to find the pattern of reality sent to us and make meaning and purpose from it all.

For me that is. Maybe you too?

You’re a leader.

And you’re standing warily in front of an amusement park entrance, your spouse and two children in tow.

Or you could be at work, standing there with your direct reports, collaborative teams, departments, divisions or entire executive management team in tow.

Or you could be standing there with your entire company in tow.

What to do? The park is deceiving because you think it’s something you know well, something that’s unchanging, stable. You’ve been coming here since you were a child. But the fact is, the park changes every year: new rides are launched, old ones dismantled, shows come and go, food courts evolve, the park expands, the parking area moves, etc.

When most people go to the park, they cut to the right, the dominant direction of travel. They’ll make their way around the park with everyone else, bumping elbows, getting cut off by rogue children and teenagers, and sweating it out in the lines with screaming children and change-resistant spouses. Or screaming employees and change-resistant colleagues.

Regardless, it all starts with yourself, the personal leadership of You, Inc. and your emotional intelligence, and your ability to manage and thrive in ambiguity.

That’s the world we live in today – one of constant change and uncertainty. Of course the amusement park is only a metaphor, albeit a useful one: you either jump in line to ride the crazy rides or you don’t. Have you ever cut to the left?

In an issue of Chief Learning Officer a few months ago there was an article titled Ambiguity Leadership: It’s OK to Be Uncertain, which I highly recommend. The article outlines Three Tenets of Mastering the Unknown.

Mastering uncertainty is learned over time, and the skills to do it should be included in the curriculum of leadership development initiatives. Here are three simple coaching suggestions.

1. Learn to make a decision with incomplete information. Take a decision you would normally agonize over and, instead, make this decision based only on what you know now. Write it down and seal it in an envelope. Then, go through the normal cycle time of decision-making. After the normal decision-making process is complete, get out the sealed decision and compare and contrast. Would you have made the same decision? Could you have made the decision yourself at the earlier stage and saved energy, time and money?
2. Read up. Train your mind to be fluid and attuned to faint signals of impending change. Uncertainty is the ocean on which we sail. Studying up is a way of understanding that ocean and coming to terms with the inevitability of ambiguity.
3. Examine five ideas or trends that you know nothing about, but that will affect the business in three to five years. Consider how they may or may not affect your products, services and jobs. Discuss how you can prepare for them.

I still get excited when I go to an amusement park. Do you? Prior to going I read up on the latest rides and attractions, and I’m as giddy as a schoolboy, ready to run ragged into the unknown and help guide family and firm along the way.

Learn to manage uncertainty; be giddy and cut to the left.

No Future

WORK EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIETY CONFERENCE 2010

British Sociological Association

Work, Employment and Society Conference 2010

Tuesday 7th – Thursday 9th September 2010

Brighton Dome and the University of Brighton

The early booking deadline for the BSA Work, Employment and Society Conference is approaching. Bookings received after 1st August incurs a £50 late fee.

Conference Theme: Managing Uncertainty: A New Deal?

Plenary speakers:

- Eileen Appelbaum (Rutgers, USA)

- Claus Offe (Berlin)

- Jennifer Klein (Yale, USA)

- Chris Tilly (UCLA, USA)

- Michel Lallement (Paris)

- David Lane (Cambridge)

- Pun Ngai (Hong Kong)

- Jill Rubery (Manchester)

- Premilla D’Cruz and Ernesto Noronha (Ahmedabad)

- Enrique de la Garza Toledo (Mexico)

- Analias Torres (Lisbon)

- Endre Sik (Budapest)

- Colette Fagan (Manchester)

For more information and to book online  please visit www.britsoc.co.uk/events/WES or email any enquiries to conference@britsoc.org.uk

Book now! We hope to see you at the conference in Brighton in September!

Posted here by Glenn Rikowski

The Flow of Ideas: http://www.flowideas.co.uk

MySpace Profile: http://www.myspace.com/glennrikowski

Cold Hands & Quarter Moon at MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/coldhandsmusic

Cold Hands & Quarter Moon Profile: http://rikowski.wordpress.com/cold-hands-quarter-moon/

The Ockress: http://www.theockress.com

Wavering on Ether: http://blog.myspace.com/glennrikowski

I’m convinced that — with new skills tuned to external future forces — leaders can make better organizations, better communities, and a better world.

Our last big economic driver was engineering and the first stage of the digital age. At Institute for the Future, in our annual ten-year forecast program, we see an underlying shift to biology as a driver, and what I’m starting to think of as the “global well-being economy.” If biology and the global well-being economy will drive the future, what does that suggest for leaders? How can leaders grow their own empathy with nature and the global well-being economy?

Self-interest and competition will not be enough. Business leaders will still need to drive revenue, increase efficiency, and resolve conflicts, but financial mandates (I win/you lose) won’t be enough. Leaders must expand their view of self and embrace the shared assets and opportunities around them — not just the individual takeaways that will reward them alone. Leaders must learn to give ideas away, trusting that they will get even more back in return.

Fortunately, new web-based tools and the emergence of cloud computing are making new leadership styles possible right at the time when they are becoming urgently necessary. The more connected we are, the safer, freer, and more powerful we are. But there are downsides: the more connected we are, the more dangerous it can become. Leaders will need to make the links and organize people for action — yet also protect against dangerous or dysfunctional connectivity. Based on my thirty five years as a ten-year forecaster, here’s how I expect the context for leaders in the future:

Volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity will get worse in the future (a model developed at the Army War College ). Solvable problems will still abound, but top leaders will more often have to make decisions and try to win when it comes to dilemmas with no solution. If you are not confused by current events, you are not paying attention.

The future can help leaders make sense of the present, but only if they learn to listen for the future. You cannot listen for the future if you are stuck in the present. I reminded myself of that when I was stuck in London under a cloud of volcanic dust. It is easier to write about the a volatile (and more) world than it is to experience it.

Leaders will face both opportunity and danger. Some of those in authority positions today have understandably turned cranky or nasty out of frustration, but leaders need not allow themselves to be overwhelmed, depressed, or immobilized. It is usually possible — even if very difficult — to be positive change agents in the midst of chaos. Some things can get better, even as other things get worse.

Leaders must learn new skills, in order to make the future. More specifically, I have suggested ten new leadership skills for the future, skills you can learn to become more ready for the future: the maker instinct, clarity, dilemma flipping, immersive learning ability, bio-empathy, constructive depolarization, quiet transparency, smart mob organizing, and commons creating.

Leaders must strike a delicate balance — make decisions quickly, but not too quickly. They must embrace the space between judging too soon (the classic mistake of the problem-solver) and deciding too late (the classic space of the academic).

All these new skills will be amplified by connectivity and the cloud. I’m hoping that these new skills will contribute to a conversation about leadership in the future — for organizations and for leaders. What future leadership skills do you suggest?

(Via HBR)

For every pair of GreenSoul shoes sold, a pair will be given to a shoeless child.

I love this story

 which was featured on NPR‘s Morning Edition earlier today.

The story explored how former Wall Street employees have shown up, post layoff, and discovered there IS life after Wall Street. One company that was featured is GreenSoul Shoes. Last year one partner worked at Bear Stearns and the other at JPMorgan Chase … that is … until last fall “happened.”

Other entrepreneurs were featured however this incredible group of entrepreneurs exceeded the concept of making lemonade from lemons. Very inspirational! See what you think. Who knows there could be a small business that can change the world in your future.

Cheers!

Yours truly, on the notable occasion of receiving Frisky my first and only real Easter bunny.

Did you know that there are an estimated 90,000,000 (yeah, that’s million!) chocolate Easter bunnies produced each year? People, that’s a whole lotta choc-o-late!!! 76% of Americans think you should eat the ears on chocolate bunnies first. Five percent said bunnies should be eaten feet first, while 4% favored eating the tail first. Me? I’ve always been partial to eating their ears first and I don’t give a hoot about eating peeps — stale or fresh. Milk chocolate bunnies rock, and I’ve never heard anyone claim that eating a stiff or squishy marshmellow boosts your mood!

I love this Easter ”Kodak” moment for a couple of reasons.

I think I just look “little gurl” h-a-p-p-y. I absolutely loooooved to dye Easter eggs. The  earliest signs of my fascination with packaging, and a future career in design, perhaps? And, back then, major holidays were the only time for the big score > a pile of chocolate. And, then, there’s the most sentimental reason of all: this was the Easter I got my first pet, a fluffy white bunny named Frisky. He was purchased at country store for right around $5. That bunny rabbit lived his share of a cat’s nine lives for close to a decade in my grandparent’s backyard. Talk about a real simple memory that brings a smile. Let’s see a Wii with that kind of ROI!!!

Okay, I’m taking a break this week. Officially, in some circles, it’s called SPRING BREAK.

I hope you make time get out doors to view the wonderful work of Mother Nature as it unfolds right before our very eyes and get a healthy dose of Vitamin D. Spring’s the one season that seems to pass too quickly. Celebrate the joy of rebirth and renewal in your own unique way.

xoxoe