Subscribe to our blog!

Your email:

20th Annual Pegasus Conference

Pegasus Conference

Leverage Points Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

“A Bit of Radical Transparency”: Using Feedback to Spur Change

 

By Janice Molloy

"I suspect that all it would take would be some well-placed user-friendly feedback to change the world." --Donella Meadows

Think about the last time you undertook a change initiative, whether in your work or personal life. How did you measure progress toward your goal? How did you know when to make adjustments?

The answer in most cases is through feedback. When a company launches a new product, they monitor sales data and customer comments; this information, in turn, influences their marketing efforts and guides them in tweaking the product to better meet people's needs. Without data about the results of our efforts, it's impossible to evaluate performance, fine-tune improvement efforts, and gauge the success of different actions.

In one of my favorite columns by pioneering systems educator Donella Meadows, she recounted learning to drive more efficiently based on the feedback provided by the instrument panel of her gas-electric hybrid car (in "To Make Better Decisions, We Need Better Information," The Systems Thinker, V11N7, September 2000). By watching the indicator lights, she discovered that jackrabbit starts and stops ate away at her miles-per-gallon average; driving at the speed limit had the opposite effect. Meadows concluded, "Three weeks of information I never had before have changed 40 years of ingrained driving habits. I didn't have to be coerced or rewarded; I didn't have to change my values. I just had to see how my actions did and did not conform to my values."

Feedback also plays a vital role in change efforts that take place on a larger scale. In his latest book, Ecological Intelligence (Broadway Books, 2009), Daniel Goleman dedicates a chapter to "The Virtuous Cycle." He recounts how trans fats came to permeate the Western diet throughout the 20th century--and became an unknown contributor to heart disease. But once researchers discovered the dangers of hydrogenated oils, within the span of a decade, trans fats virtually vanished.

What caused this food revolution? According to Goleman, "The federal government never banned hydrogenated oils. No one told food companies they had to stop using trans fat. The crucial shift was in the information available to consumers." Once purchasers understood the dangers of trans fat and were able to use nutritional information on food labels to avoid it, they shifted their buying habits. Food manufacturers quickly responded by removing trans fat from their products and broadly advertising that fact. Consumers spoke, and the food industry listened.

These lessons about feedback continue to resonate today, especially as we head into the negotiations at the Copenhagen climate summit. Our friends at Climate Interactive have created the "Climate Scoreboard," a widget to help monitor the long-term consequences of policy proposals. It shows, in a simple visual form, the expected temperatures in 2100 if curreClimate Scorecardnt proposals in the global climate negotiations were fully implemented and indicates how close those proposals bring us to achieving climate goals. When negotiating positions change, a team in Copenhagen will immediately update the analysis.

As in the case of driving more efficiently, this kind of dashboard allows us to see the results of our actions--and then modify them to achieve our goals. And as in the case of eliminating trans fats, the Climate Scoreboard gives us a tool for pressuring others--our elected officials, world leaders, the media, and so on--to ensure that any agreements they make are adequate to the challenges we face. As Daniel Goleman says,  "All it takes is a bit of radical transparency."


Janice Molloy

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. 



Comments

There is no doubt about the power of feedback if it is accurate (factual) and timely. 
 
 
 
Systems thinkers would do well to remember that there are no facts about the future - ONLY predictions. 
 
 
 
They would also do well in developing models to be aware that when things happen at the same time, the one did not necessarily cause the other. 
 
 
 
Fnally, they should never forget that all models are based on assumptions that must be verified before confidence can be placed in the model. 
 
 
 
And really finally, complex systems that contain dynamic complexity (sort of like the earth's climate)CANNOT be modelled with any degree of confidence. 
 
 
 
The Climate Scoreboard might make people feel good but there is no way it can ever be accurate. To use to make critical decisions seems very foolish to me. 
 
 
 
Systems thinkers should know better!
Posted @ Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:20 PM by Don Koestler
Janice, 
 
Thank you for highlighting the importance of feedback. The example from Donella Meadows is not only clear, but everyone can resonate with this type of self direction. 
 
Whether or not the climate model is accurate, the importance of feedback cannot be overstated. It would be great if we could find a way to develop methods to gauge our personal effectiveness. Then, measure and self correct. We need this badly as we seem to find feedback from others (whether solicited or not) very difficult to use wisely. We are often offended when we should welcome this feedback. 
 
Sounds like the next great book for someone. 
 
Thanks again for the article. 
 
Jon
Posted @ Tuesday, December 08, 2009 4:10 PM by Jon Bergstrom
Don - 
 
What would you propose as an alternative way to make critical decisions? 
 
The global system involves delays of decades to centuries, imposed by large stocks of carbon, heat, and carbon-emitting capital. Systems thinkers who appreciate the implications of delays will realize that decisions must anticipate those delays. That means we can't wait until all uncertainties are resolved; we have to make choices now. (Notice also that the blue shading around the 3.8C line indicates a distribution of possible outcomes.) 
 
Systems thinkers who appreciate decision making under uncertainty will realize that we need robust policies. We can't diversify away climate risk to other planets. "Wait and see" is not robust. Nor is doing R&D and hoping technology will save us in a few decades. 
 
Confusion of causation and correlation is always a threat, but climate science is not founded merely on the coincidence of emissions and temperature. Models embody physical principles, behave appropriately in extreme conditions, and conform to much data beyond time series, including spatial and seasonal patterns. 
 
Other proposed explanations for observed warming, on the other hand, fail to fit all available data. Solar effects don't explain the cooling stratosphere. 0.5C climate sensitivity makes it hard to explain natural variability. etc. 
 
Certainly there are limitations to modeling complex systems. However, it's not true in general that dynamics preclude useful models. For example, even in a chaotic system where it's impossible in principle to predict specific trajectories for long, it may be practical to predict the aggregate statistics of the system's behavior over time. 
 
Let's not use systems thinking as an excuse for responding only to proximate, immediate, and certain feedback. We need more to thrive in a complex world.
Posted @ Tuesday, December 08, 2009 4:40 PM by Tom Fiddaman
Thank you, Don, Jon, and Tom, for your thought-provoking comments. Regarding the climate change issue, in his December 8 column, Thomas Friedman states, "It's all a game of odds." You can see the complete article by going to http://bit.ly/63pO9A.
Posted @ Wednesday, December 09, 2009 10:17 AM by Janice Molloy
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics