Subject: Leadership -- Toward a Sustainable Future (part 2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments:
About two weeks ago I sent you a backdrop on Jeff Sirmon's philosophy
on leadership. Now we get a chance to read the text of his
discussion at the National Forest Centennial Futures conference in
Atlanta, Nov. 19-21. Sirmon's discussion of how times have changed
since the Gifford Pinchot era is worthwhile, as is his perception of
today's world, today's work, and especially today's leadership needs.
Four pages follow.. Dve..
-------========X========-------
A NEW IDEAL OF LEADERSHIP IN NATURAL RESOURCES
Jeff M. Sirmon
I have been asked to talk about a new ideal for leadership in natural
resources--some new ideas about leadership which fosters change--or facilitates
change--at a time when our traditional hierarchical leadership doesn't seem to
work. A time where society seems to be demanding leaders who can help find the
way, not rulers who think they know the way.
Let me digress a moment to reflect again on the fact that we are
participating in one of the final official events celebrating 100 years of
conservation--the beginning of the establishment of our rich legacy of National
Forests and what they stand for. The way we have recognized and celebrated
forestry in the United States is the envy of many nations--they would like to
have the vision, public support, and administrative and scientific capability
we enjoy in this country. They would like to have a Forest Service "just like
ours."
And so we are here at the 100-year milepost looking back for a brief
moment and celebrating those who 100 years ago performed on the "big stage" of
our young nation and brought forth a vision which forever changed the course
this nation was on--and branded into many of us a spark which has been handed
down for three generations--and has served us well.
And now as we turn to look into the future and try to find that beacon
which beckons us into the next 100 years, what do we see and what kind of spark
is needed to influence millions of individual actions toward doing the "right
things." The right things not just domestically, but the right things
globally--for we have suddenly realized--in the last 20 years--in a way never
before expressed--that we depend on the resources of the earth to meet our basic
and vital needs and if they are diminished or deteriorated, we risk that our
needs and those of our children will go unmet.
So what about leadership. We had a great journey in the Forest Service
through most of the century--through years of plenty as far as natural resources
were concerned. We were on our small stage--calling the shots--writing the
script--or changing the script. Multiple use and the utilitarian ethic, mixed
with conservation, drove us as we helped write the laws and perfect the science
which was the underpinning of our decisions. And, for those who didn't like our
decisions, or ran into conflicts with other users--we sent them to the other
side of the mountain which was untouched--or had more elbow room. The
leadership model was--take charge--move out--produce! We were a proud agency
with strong leaders who could be counted on to produce--often getting out ahead
of the legislative process and making rules (laws) where the Congress itself
feared to tread. A case in point was the implementation of the surface mining
regulations. There are others.
But change was coming fast and the agency was ill prepared for the new
demands brought on by those values which are represented by movements--the civil
rights movement, the environmental movement, and now the beginning of something
I call the one world movement.
The first two movements, which are still with us, challenged the model
of leadership which has been so successful for the agency--the hierarchical
authority figure leader. The authority figure model is a classic hierarchical
pyramid: an expert in charge dictates decisions to the masses, and generally
does not respond to new ideas. The Forest Service, with its reliance on
science, technology, and the law to support the "right" answer, exemplifies this
approach.
When decisions could not be contained in our court--or on our stage--a
leadership style of intermediation was applied in the arena of overt political
horse-trading. Though some leadership does occur, the result may resemble what
would have happened if Solomon had gone ahead and cut the baby in half. The
administrator who says "everyone is mad at me--I must be doing something right"
is a believer in this approach.
I have concluded that a leadership model for today--one suited for
natural resource management on the small stage--and maybe even the large
stage--is based on a community of interest or partnership model. The leadership
challenge for the future of natural resource management is to transform the
management environment from one based on authority figure model to one based on
the partnership model or community of interest model. We still have a major
problem incorporating the values expressed by the public or community into our
decisions. We must be sensitive to changing social values that may require new
approaches. The major debates facing natural resource managers today are
fundamentally social in nature and we can no longer rely on the science and law
to settle issues. Nor can we rely on a single authority figure or leader to
pull together the varying points of view or values into a coherent course of
action supported by all. There must be a better way.
I would like to talk about two leadership principles. First, a leader
articulates a vision. In Gifford's day, this was relatively straightforward--he
was able to describe a vision to a very receptive President who took historic
actions which have been upheld by the Congress and the public for 100 years.
Today, the dramatic growth of interest groups assigning different values to
natural resources has created a highly polarized environment in which leadership
built around a specific vision is difficult. Pinchot's vision has become
blurred as values change and as the Government's parameters for managing natural
resources have proliferated.
It is no longer enough to simply establish appropriate standards for
protection of resources while supporting and facilitating some level of
production of goals and services from the land. A new generation of leadership
must be built around a vision of sustainable resource management in which
productivity is coupled with maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem integrity.
The second principle is that leadership occurs when one causes work to
be done--that is, the objective for leadership is to cause those within the
community of interests to engage each other to find resolution to the issues.
Let me review some definitions which are central to my concept of this
community of interests model.
Leadership is needed in situations where disequilibrium is managed.
Disequilibrium is caused by change--new decisions, raising issues--anything that
disrupts the status quo.
An authority figure--one who is expected to restore order--is not to be
confused with a leader.
A leader--one who is expected to reestablish equilibrium.
Work--the facing, defining, and solving of problems in non-routine
situations. An analogy can be made to the physics definition of work; i.e., no
work occurs unless the potential energy is changed. No work occurs unless
progress is made toward resolving a problem.
Work avoidance--is not facing the problems.
Leadership occurs if one causes work to be done--i.e., progress toward
resolving the problem and reaching a new state of equilibrium.
So much for definitions. What is different in what I'm proposing and
what is going on today?
The main difference is in how we view the public and how we view the role
of the natural resources leader.
Leadership must emerge from within the various communities of interests
dealing with each other effectively. The key is to keep the focus on resolving
issues, not avoiding work. Active and effective intervention by the various
communities of interests is essential. A leader from every community of
interest must be given the opportunity to make his/her case and to be responded
to by others. The work to be done may require prolonged disequilibrium.
Leaders representing the various interests and values must engage each
other in a way that leads to an agreement--a new state of equilibrium. A
solution which is imposed or doesn't satisfy the community of interests isn't
a solution. It represents a distraction or work avoidance--a postponement of
the time when the issue must be faced.
Some Actions Underway
I think the time is ripe to move out on a couple of fronts concerning
leadership. First as stated earlier, I think the old model of leadership which
served the Forest Service so well for the first 60 plus years must be revisited
in light of the current environment and in light of some of the concepts of work
and community of interests. The result of this re-look would be a description
of the important elements of leadership in "our" world. The elements would not
only include attributes of leadership such as capacity to motivate, vision,
courage, patience, and steadiness, etc., but would describe approaches as to how
to set the stage for leadership to emerge and engage within the community of
interests and the Forest Service leaders' role. Also, a part of this would be
tactics for survival, avoiding assassination, effective intervention, how to
network, and how to survive long periods of instability.
Second, we should step up our efforts to train for leadership. Most of
what leaders have that enables them to lead is learned--not just a natural born
talent (John Gardner, On Leadership--Intro.). Defining what we want to teach
gives us a good yardstick to measure what is taking place--recognize when
leadership is occurring and reword or further train as necessary.
Our Plans
We have an agreement with the Gifford Pinchot Institute for Conservation
Studies which calls for:
1. Searching and analyzing literature to see what exists that is
pertinent to "our" world.
2. Providing a description of the environment within which public
land managers find themselves.
3. Describing a model for leadership which seems to best fit our
world and try out the model via a series of workshops using managers who are on
today's firing line.
4. Developing teaching modules.
Following the work of the Institute, the Service will then begin to
institutionalize our new approach to leadership.
In Conclusion
For the past 10 to 15 years, we have been so preoccupied with processes
and adjusting to change thrust upon us that we have given little attention to
defining and developing leadership. The changes that have occurred brought on
new challenges which the older model of leadership didn't fit well. There has
been a shift of power and a larger role for the public. Many more "handles"
have attached to our work whereby those who do not like what we are doing can
grab the handles and bring actions to a halt. Access by individuals to our
courts has been made easier and cheaper.
Many are saying "there must be a better way" and there is. I think more
attention to the requirement for leadership to lead in the kind of environment
we live in will pay great dividends. The requirement to share power and
exercise joint leadership is a must.
Our leadership must be viewed as Lao-Tzu, a Chinese philosopher, said,
"When the best leader's work is done, the people say 'we did it ourselves'"
(Land Stewardship in the Next Era of Conservation - V. Alaric Sample - Grey
Towers Press).
------------------------------------------
Presented by Jeff M. Sirmon, Deputy Chief for International Forestry, Forest
Service, USDA, Washington, D.C., at the National Forest Centennial Futures
Conference-Land Stewardship in the Next Era of Conservation, Atlanta, Georgia,
November 19-21, 1991.