Hey you! Yeah you, reading this blog post. How much do you
care about biodiversity? Do you know what biodiversity is? It’s a word worth
knowing, and a resource worth caring about, unless maybe you’re a robot.
If not, then you rely on plants and animals for the clothes
you wear, the food you eat, the water you drink, even the air you breathe. The
world we live in relies on a healthy diversity of life – we humans are not an
isolated system, no matter how much we like to think that we are.
If anything I’ve said so far has sounded even remotely relevant
to you, then this video is a must-watch. Even if nothing was relevant, my
friends and I worked very hard on it so please watch it anyway!
It’s time for all of us to realise how decisions we make on
a daily basis affect the world we live in, and each take responsibility for protecting
the natural environment. Not just for the animals’ sake, but for the sake of our
future selves, our children and grandchildren.
Joke of the post (enviro-themed of course):
Q: What's the difference between a tree and a rock?
Garcia, R.A., Cabeza,
M., Rahbek, C. & Araujo, M.B., 2014, Multiple Dimensions of Climate Change
and Their Implications for Biodiversity. Science, no. 344, pp. 486-+.
Gillson, L., Dawson,
T.P., Jack, S. & McGeoch, M.A., 2013, Accommodating climate change
contingencies in conservation strategy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,
no. 28, pp. 135-142.
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change 2014, The working group 2 contributions to the fifth
assessment report, online video, viewed 19 August 2015, http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/
My uncle Narrim was telling me about a speech he’d heard by
Peter Harris, chairman of the Productivity Commission (more info here). Harris was
lamenting the government’s failure to heed the Commission’s carefully
considered economic advice . According to Harris, Australia’s economic forecast
could be dramatically brightened by simply raising the pension age by 18 months
(that’s only a year and a half) It sounds almost too easy, and I was baffled as
to why the government hadn’t already implemented this stellar solution.
Narrim believed the
government wasn’t following through because the public’s reaction would be
outrage (the public’s default emotion when it comes to the government). Makes
sense, I thought to myself. People want their money sooner rather than later. But
can’t they see that the smarter decision is to wait? (Yes, I ask rhetorical
questions in my head. Deal with it.)
Suddenly the words of Paris Aristotle came to me (learn more
about the man behind this amazing name here) on the ‘wicked
challenge’ that is the asylum seeker issue. Paris served on the Prime Minister’s
Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, submitting a report which listed 22
recommendations for addressing this complex and controversial issue. The report
contained a vital condition: the recommendations came as a package; all 22 had
to be implemented for the package to
have any chance of success.
All 22 recommendations were ‘accepted’, but only a handful were
acted upon. Clearly the government wasn't
getting the Panel’s message. Or maybe they didn't want to ...
All asylum seekers are human beings. So why can’t the
government treat them as such?
Using Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky’s (2009) idea of
avoiding the default interpretation (politicians are dumb and too pretentious
to take advice, even from experts), Narrim and I considered whether politicians are too short-sighted( only thinking
as far ahead as the next election) and too scared to make unpopular decisions in case it lost them votes (and their seat and then they
wouldn’t be able to sit around for another three years worrying about unpopular
decisions).
So where do we go from here? Are we trapped in a cruel cycle
of citizens who want governments to act and governments frozen by fear of what
people will say if they do act?
Yes.
Kind of...
But there’s a way
out. Here’s my epiphany: What we need is
a government that can communicate its purpose.
That’s not as simple as it sounds. Some of us might think
the government’s purpose is to make its citizens happy. Others might believe
that a government should do what’s best for the ‘national interest’.
Politicians might feel that their job is to get re-elected. None of these
perspectives are clearly defined, and they will probably clash on many levels.
Adaptive change always requires some form of loss, but
tackling the sense of disequilibrium and discomfort this loss brings is the key
to ensuring that necessary change isn’t stymied by knee-jerk reactions of fear
and panic (Heifetz, R, Grashow, A &
Linsky, M 2009).
I don’t think politicians are morally superior to you or me.
So if they are making policy that has been recommended by experts, for the
benefit of all Australians, then shouldn’t all Australians be able to
understand that this is the right way to go?
The government should be “helping people to navigate through
a period of disturbance” (Heifetz, R,
Grashow, A & Linsky, M 2009) when big decisions mean that some of us
face real loss. I think the best way for politicians to help us is painfully
simple: they need to communicate their purpose more effectively.
Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky (2009) remind us that when
tough decisions loom and the answers aren’t obvious, defining a shared purpose
can restore motivation, direction and cooperation.
I’m sure you’d agree to the pension age increase if you
understood that it was the best way to ensure Australia’s economic viability for
years to come (good luck collecting your pension if the government’s broke). And
I think you’d probably realise that an upgraded quota of refugee visas, along
with 21 other improvements, is vital in making sure Australia is a good global
citizen and does its best to give everyone a fair go (after all, our national
anthem states “For those who've come across the seas, We’ve boundless plains to
share”).
It shouldn’t come as
much of a shock that the government and the citizens have a shared purpose, but
it is imperative that we all connect to this shared purpose in the hope of
driving positive change for our country, and for the world.
A glowing example of a politician making real change by
connecting to purpose, in this case protecting those on the lower rungs of the
ladder of society
(I know it's not super related, but I figured you've heard enough about adaptive leadership for today!)
References:
Heifetz, R, Grashow, A & Linsky, M
2009,The practice
of adaptive leadership. Tools and tactics for changing your organization and
the world, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston
