By Michelle Holliday
Here in Quebec, we are fortunate to have thousands of lakes. The tradition is to spend summer vacation splashing in the water at a 
lakeside cottage. Tragically, this tradition has been threatened in the past several years. Household use of phosphate-based lawn fertilizers and cleaning products has stimulated massive growth of blue-green algae in the lakes, which has choked out all other forms of aquatic life and turned the water toxic. It's poisonous enough to kill a dog.
It struck me one day how closely this situation mirrors the state of our financial system. We've over-stimulated growth to the point that all other forms of life are being choked out, and our biosphere has become toxic to us.
This isn't simply to say that we need to aim for zero-growth, as many in the sustainability movement propose. Physicist and author Fritjof Capra points out that, “Growth, of course, is characteristic of all life.” But he goes on to offer an important qualification: “[I]n the living world, it has not only a quantitative but also a qualitative meaning. For a human being, for example, to grow means to develop to maturity, not only by getting bigger, but also qualitatively through inner growth. The same is true for all living systems.”
How, then, do we develop an economic model that includes an appropriate level—and type—of growth?
Part of the solution may be found in a model called the Adaptive Cycle. Developed by Buzz Hollinger and elaborated by Frances Westley, the model shows that natural systems exhibit a continuous four-part process (typically depicted as a figure eight) of:
- Germination followed by
- Growth followed by
- Consolidation followed by
- Death and renewal, returning to germination, and so on.
In our economies, we have plenty of germination, growth, and consolidation. What our system generally lacks is sufficient death and renewal, with resources returned fully into the germination stage. The solution, then, may not be the total absence of growth—it may instead be a proportionate increase in economic death and renewal.
Getting more comfortable with the concept of death and renewal may not be as bad as it sounds. Some options might include:
- Producing only those goods that can be returned into the system fully and relatively quickly as germination (cradle-to-cradle manufacturing); making such “good” products cheap and “bad” products very expensive.
- Increasing the proportion of economic value generated by intangibles, which can germinate, grow, and consolidate without taxing the living system. This trend is already underway, both with the expansion of the technological and service sectors of the economy and with the individual shift toward meaning, experience, and connection.
- Reducing the pressure on companies to grow rapidly and incessantly (removing their legal obligation to do so, encouraging new forms of governance, such as cooperatives, and revising the general understanding of the purpose of organizations).
- Allowing failing companies to die so that the diversity of the economy is preserved—and so that society is not obligated to prop up companies that are “too big to fail.”
- Fundamentally reforming the financial industry (the debt and speculative markets, in particular) so that: (a) it no longer overstimulates growth unnaturally and faster than that growth can be processed through to renewal, and (b) it no longer jeopardizes an economy's resilience with excessive debt-to-GDP. See www.slowmoney.org for one example of how we might make this shift.
With changes of this sort, economic value could continue to grow without limit, but material production would ideally net out to zero growth, in what some economists refer to as “dynamic equilibrium” or a “steady-state economy.”
This vision raises the challenge of determining just how much growth would bring us to an equilibrium state. And it may be that the Earth will give us the answer. As it stands, when consumer spending falls, it triggers the US Federal Reserve Bank to lower interest rates in order to stimulate more spending. Instead, perhaps we'll need a system in which any reduction in the health of the biosphere would trigger a tightening of financial stimulus to growth.
Michelle Holliday has 20 years of experience in brand strategy, with particular expertise in authentic marketing. She founded Cambium Consulting after observing that the predominant organizational concepts and ways of working are neither optimal nor sustainable. And she is driven by the desire to help usher in an expanded set of beliefs and practices based on a view of organizations as living systems.
lake photo: Ian Britton
Back in the fall, I had the privilege of participating in part of the annual alumni gathering of the Donella Meadows Leadership Fellows Program. You can read my report on this event here and see one of the visioning activities they used here.
On the first afternoon, Vermont artist Jay Mead led the group in an activity designed to "help participants experience systems in nature, observe patterns, and work from a creative influence to balance the intellectual."
Mead called the three-hour experience the "Leadership Earth Art Project," or LEAP! As a catalyst for the activity, he introduced the group to the work of British artist Andrew Goldsworthy. Goldsworthy uses natural material, including snow, ice, leaves, bark, rock, clay, stones, feathers, petals, and twigs, to create outdoor sculptures. Some of these are ephemeral, like a glittery star formed from icicles secured in the center by the artist's saliva, while others are designed to be more enduring, such as a continuous crack in the courtyard pavers at the M.H. de Young Museum in San Francisco.
Jay encouraged participants to follow Goldsworthy's lead and learn from the natural landscape by creating their own in situ pieces. Through this "playful meditation," the alumni discovered patterns in nature that revealed the larger systems they are a part of and suggested metaphors for their own life experience, current work, and vision.
Videographer Colleen Bozuwa captured this activity in a lovely video. Watch it and share your thoughts in the comments section. What other ways might the arts support the development of systems understanding? How else can nature serve as a teacher in this realm?
Janice Molloy is content director of Pegasus Communications, managing editor of The Systems Thinker newsletter, and program director of the annual Systems Thinking in Action conference.
By Janice Molloy
The Nobel Prize committees had a number of surprises up their sleeves this year, beyond their bombshell awarding of the Peace Prize to President Obama. According to The Wall Street Journal, the economics award went to two people who "have highlighted areas where standard approaches of economics are inadequate at explaining what actually occurs." Of particular interest from a 
systems thinking perspective is Elinor Ostrom and her work on the "Tragedy of the Commons" dynamic. Her research challenges the assumption that, when people share a finite resource, they will inevitably destroy it unless it is regulated or privatized.
As a graduate student, Ostrom studied a group that spontaneously formed in Los Angeles during the 1940s to develop strategies for protecting the local water supply. She has since explored how voluntary, collective associations around the world have evolved efficient and equitable rules for the use of common resources. According to economist Alex Tabarrok, "For Ostrom it's not the tragedy of the commons but the opportunity of the commons. Not only can a commons be well-governed but the rules which help to provide efficiency in resource use are also those that foster community and engagement."
Ostrom, who defines herself as a political economist, cautions that there's unlikely to be a set of guidelines that applies in all cases. But she's optimistic about people's abilities to self-organize and self-govern in the face of a shared need. In a profile by the National Academy of Sciences, Ostrom is quoted as saying, "Most individuals are nuanced beings [who] can have real preferences about the welfare of others. If presented a situation where they can evolve trust and reciprocity, they will do so." In her classic book, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, 1990), Ostrom highlights the importance of fostering mutual commitment among a group's members: "I will commit myself to follow the set of rules we have devised in all instances except dire emergencies if the rest of those affected make a similar commitment and act accordingly."
Ostrom's findings contradict the idea that people are, by nature, driven mainly by self-interest. Given the large, complex challenges we face, from revamping our financial system to combating climate change, it's heartening to know that models exist for effective, collective action. Three cheers to the Nobel committee for bringing this important, timely work to the public eye.
Janice Molloy is content director of Pegasus Communications, managing editor of The Systems Thinker newsletter, and program director of the annual Systems Thinking in Action conference.
The award shown above is a registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation.
By Janice Molloy
"When I dare to be powerful, to use my strength in the service of my vision, then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid." --Audre Lorde
In his recent blog post, "Setting the Foundations for Leadership," my colleague Mark Alpert talked about the importance of articulating a vision. Unless we know what we really want to create, it's difficult to design a path to get there. But s
ometimes the gap between our current reality and vision can seem more like a yawning chasm than a hairline crack in the pavement. That's when it can be useful to outline the incremental steps we can take in service of our overarching goal.
Edie Farwell, Program Director of the Sustainability Institute's Donella Meadows Leadership Fellows New Initiatives, has designed a visioning activity that can help bridge the gap between short-term initiatives and long-term aspirations. At the start of the program's recent alumni workshop, Edie had participants identify their:
- Big "V" Vision: Your dreams, what you want, how you want to be, how you want to orient yourself for the next three to five years
- Middle "V" Vision: What you want to experiment with in the next few months in service of your big "V" vision
- Little "v" Vision: Something you will do next week to support your big "V" vision
Each participant then shared his or her nested visions with a partner. One Fellow wants to finance and build a 40-megawatt industrial wind farm in Michigan (Big V). In the next several months, he plans to leverage his past work to form relationships with key partners in finance (Middle V). Within the next week, he will approach a specific construction company and get them to help sponsor the project (Little v). Another Fellow envisions sustainable agriculture in her region (Big V). To contribute to this process, she will establish a training program at her farm for young farmers (Middle V). In the short term, she will start taking in more young farmers now (Little v).
Building Momentum in Your Setting
If you want to do this exercise on your own, find a quiet setting where you won't be interrupted by emails and phone calls for at least 30 minutes. Bring a journal with you to record your thoughts. You may also want to arrange to share the outcomes with a learning partner, to build shared accountability. To keep momentum going, revisit your Little "v" Vision weekly, your Middle "V" Vision quarterly, and your Big "V" Vision annually.
In using this activity with a group, schedule about an hour. Edie introduces the process and then has people relax with their eyes closed as they evoke a detailed picture in their minds of each of the three visions. Participants then journal for 15 minutes. At the alumni workshop, people discussed their visions with partners over lunch. Some of them chose to report back to the group as a whole.
What can we create if, in the words of Audre Lorde, we all "dare to be powerful"? Try this exercise, and let's find out!
Janice Molloy is content director of Pegasus Communications, managing editor of The Systems Thinker newsletter, and program director of the annual Systems Thinking in Action conference.
Photo of Grand Canyon: Mike Quinn/National Park Service
By Janice Molloy
Driving through the rolling hills of western Connecticut in early fall, it's impossible not to feel a strong connection to nature's rhythms. The leaves bear just a tint of autumn color, a harbinger of the blast of reds, yellows, oranges, and browns to come. Overgrown cornstalks sprawl along the side of the road, sp
ent but not yet ready to relinquish their hold on the sun. The setting and season recently provided an apt backdrop for a gathering of environmental leaders from around the world, whose training in systems thinking tools has given them new ways to understand, work with, and shift the patterns at play in the systems they care about.
The Donella Meadows Leadership Fellows Program was launched in 2002 to honor and build on the work of Dr. Donella Meadows. The winner of a MacArthur Foundation "genius" award, Meadows is best known as lead author of the influential book The Limits to Growth. The program's mission "is to accelerate the shift to global sustainability by increasing the effectiveness of well-positioned sustainability leaders. Fellows learn to address social, economic, and environmental issues at their root causes while benefiting from a national and international network of talented and supportive colleagues." The Fellows convene for a series of four four-day workshops, with ongoing homework and personal coaching between sessions. The fourth cohort of 20 Fellows will complete the program in 2010, joining 54 current alumni.
Last week at the Trinity Conference Center, nestled along the banks of the Housatonic River in West Cornwall, Connecticut, 15 former Fellows gathered for an annual alumni workshop. They came from seven countries and represented organizations from government, civil society, business, and philanthropy. Their work ranges from battling deforestation in Indonesia to facilitating green building design for one of the major U.S. architecture firms. All share a profound commitment to advancing the sustainability revolution from a place of spirit, compassion, truth telling, love, and integrity.
Over the course of three and a half days, workshop participants presented an overview of their current work, heard from speakers on leading-edge initiatives, and set the stage for collaborative projects. As during the Fellows Program, the three-legged stool of systems thinking, reflective conversation, and visioning served as the core foundation for learning. For this group, nature is not just the object of their life's work; it's also a teacher, model, and guide. One afternoon, artist Jay Mead led alums in creating art installations using materials found in the woods and along the riverbank of a local state park. The activity was designed to help participants experience systems in nature, observe patterns, and connect with their creativity.
Over the next several months, I'll be sharing stories and practices from this accomplished and inspiring group of leaders. Thanks to Edie Farwell and Dominic Stucker from Sustainability Institute for inviting me to help document this important work. I am also most grateful to the alumni who warmly welcomed me into their community.
Janice Molloy is content director of Pegasus Communications and managing editor of The Systems Thinker.
By Nalani Linder
How can we live well within the means of nature?
How can systems thinking support the kinds of teaching and dialogue necessary to inspire shifts away from unsustainable behavior?
These were two of the compelling questions I considered with a group of educators during the Sustainability Education Summer Institute (SESI) held a few weeks ago on Bainbridge Island, near Seattle.
About 175 people gathered for this inaugural event, which was based on a similar East-coast institute held earlier through the SoL Education Partnership. K-12 sustainability educators, pri
marily from the Pacific Northwest, came together to learn from each other and discuss how they've been implementing curricula and programs in their schools. It was a diverse group; the common bond was their passion for integrating sustainability in their classrooms.
I was there neither as a teacher nor as an expert in sustainability matters. I was there to present on systems thinking "basics," based on the workshop my colleagues and I present as "New Habits of Mind for New Solutions."
Because I'm used to having to "sell" the value of systems thinking to others, it was a treat to scan the agenda and see systems thinking and system dynamics offered side-by-side with resources for sustainability education. Event coordinator Gilda Wheeler shared the reasoning for the design: "We think that people don't need to understand all there is about sustainability issues to be a systems thinker, but it helps to understand basic ideas of systems thinking to really understand issues of sustainability." I knew this wasn't a new connection--after all, the original Limits to Growth was published nearly 40 years ago, and climate change simulations have been around for years. But it was still exciting to be a part of the SESI group, most of whom were learning about ST and SD for the first time.
One highlight for me was the first keynote, by Jaimie Cloud of The Cloud Institute for Sustainability Education. She talked about people's experience of her Fishing Game, an adaptation of Dennis Meadows's Fish Banks. Over many rounds of play, players try to catch fish to support their family while others are doing the same. A classic "Tragedy of the Commons" ensues, with everyone fishing more and more until the lake runs out of fish. Sure enough, Jaimie reported that whenever she facilitates the simulation, people regularly run out of fish before the game ends.
What I found particularly interesting is that, instead of focusing on the archetype as the learning, Jaimie used the story to highlight a subtle but powerful message: Don't confuse the mental model of scarcity with the idea of system limits. That is, notice the difference between the conventional thinking that there's not enough resources for everyone, and the thinking when we understand that there's a finite supply of resources and that supply depends on many variables, including some we can control.
The simple fishing example with its profound lesson about worldview and system dynamics seemed to hit home with this group of sustainability educators, and set the stage for further thinking about systems during the rest of the Institute.
Learnings for Systems Thinkers
Considering that I was not the target audience for the SESI, I walked away with several great learnings that I'd like to share with the Pegasus community.
As an individual, I learned more about the depth of what "sustainability" can mean and about the common myths about the sustainability movement that still exist. (Others interested in this idea of myths about sustainability can read the March 2009 article from Scientific American, Top 10 Myths About Sustainability.)
As a parent and community member, I learned about the challenges schools face in incorporating "sustainability thinking" into the curriculum and programming within limitations of budget, time, and staff bandwidth. At the same time, I was encouraged by stories of creative teachers and administrators who have found points of leverage and are implementing inspiring changes.
As a relatively new systems thinking trainer/advocate, I learned that people who are passionate about sustainability are an easy audience for introducing the language, principles, and tools of systems thinking. They seem to have an intuitive understanding of the concepts of limits and circular causality, interconnectedness, and change over time. The systems thinking material that they were presented seemed to give a framework for what they already know to be true about living systems.
This event was the first of its kind in Washington State, and there's already talk about next year's conference. I'm heartened by the ever-developing connection between sustainability education and systems thinking, and how the growing work in the former will boost visibility of the latter. When I was leaving the Institute, one of the participants told me he thought that understanding systems thinking was a "critically important part" of the ongoing work of sustainability education. Now that's a promising piece of feedback, indeed.
Nalani Linder studied systems thinking in her Master's program, Organization Systems Renewal (now at Seattle University). She is active in a community of practice for ST trainers at The Boeing Company, and is co-leading the teams program at this year's Pegasus Conference. Nalani is also working on a research project about MBTI typologies and systems thinking aptitude.
photo of fern: Nancy Daugherty
by Vicky Schubert
Anyone who has visited New England is aware of how important seafood is to the culture here. From clam bakes to lobster rolls to the so-called Sacred Cod hanging from the dome of the Massachusetts House of Representatives chamber, Atlantic bounty has both delighted our palettes and driven our economy for centuries.
But, in a classic illustration of the Tragedy of the Commons systems archetype, the fisheries here have been woefully mismanaged. As Robert Johnson and Jon Sutinen point out in their recent report, "One Last Chance: The Economic Case for a New Approach to Fisheries Management in New England," "Species that provided a historical foundation for economic growth in New England--Atlantic halibut, cod, flounder, and others--have been fished to decline, biological collapse or commercial extinction."
At the heart of the matter is the always difficult challenge of looking beyond our individual incentives--feeding ourselves and our families; turning a healthy profit--to stewardship of the collective interest. So, it's heartening to see signs that the region is starting to get a grip on adopting shared goals for protecting and sustaining this invaluable community resource from the individual to the industry level.
One case in point is the New England Aquarium's Sustainable Seafood Programs, which promotes intelligent fisheries management by, among other things, helping individuals "choose seafood that is good for you and good for the environment," and offering recipes that require "ocean-friendly" seafood choices.
More important, at the industry level, the New England Fishery Management Council just last month adopted promising new rules for regulating threatened regional fish stocks, as recommended in the Johnson and Sutinen report. The new rules will over time shift accountability for responsible harvesting from individual fishermen to cooperative groups of fishermen--known as sectors--coordinating their activities to balance profit with environmental impact.
The sector approach replaces aggregate species limits and limits on individual fishermen's "days-at-sea," both regulation methods that have proven tragically ineffective. The new system offers fishermen flexibility around when and where to fish. By sharing, trading, or consolidating catch privileges among sector members, fishermen can reduce their costs and eliminate the practice of throwing back waste fish that they've overcaught.
The new rules may not be perfect; some are concerned about fairness, and enforcement mechanisms will have to be carefully monitored. But these first steps toward a cooperative, community-based management structure seem to offer evidence that New England fishermen are ready to moderate the collective impact of their individual efforts in the interest of sustaining this cherished resource for everyone.
Vicky Schubert is marketing director of Pegasus Communications.
Cod Illustration: Altered and prepared plate from the NOAA Photo Library