But Mousie, thou art no thy-lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!
From the poem, ‘To a Mouse,’ by Robert Burns[i]
In 1785, Scottish poet and lyricist Robert Burns[ii] wrote the poem, “To a Mouse,” that captured one of the great paradoxes of life, which simply says, “even the best-laid plans sometimes go wrong.”
Most everyone has experienced the unfortunate and occasionally uncomfortable and even unsettling reality of life, which is no matter how much we plan and prepare, we cannot control everything to our desire. This is why the insurance industry exists, to manage the risk of the plan (the known) and uncertainty of life (the unknown). It’s also why we desperately try to predict and forecast the future – whether its weather, stock performance, national elections, sporting events, or a friendly wager to determine if our niece will be having a boy or a girl. Humans desperately try to forecast our future so that we can protect and prosper. Knowing this contradiction of human consciousness, we try to hedge our futures by collecting and analyzing data, a lot of it. We then try to make sense of the data and build AI models to help us predict the future so that we may be more apt to be proactive and pivot, if necessary. Underlying all our daily attempts to digitize and evaluate life, are the mental models that support our beliefs, values, and behaviors.
For humans to be adaptive and sustainable, however, we must question the very construct of the mental models, our thinking, and behaviors that uphold our beliefs and which got humanity to its current state of being. Essentially, we must ask and reconcile, did (and do) we have the right plan to begin with? Is the plan incomplete, flawed, or outdated? Might our mental models be limited, biased, incomplete, or flawed? Although we may have tried to have an inclusive, logical, and realistic plan, perhaps we’ve inadvertently left something critical out? Have we evolved, or remained entrenched and stagnant in our posture toward living peacefully with each other and the planet? For example, no matter how much we integrate active sensors into our cyber-physical world to further digitize and interconnect nature and humanity, or how much data we collect and analyze through sophisticated algorithms, the data and its output will only help us make better decisions insofar as we have principled leadership that establishes the right foundation for strategic planning and pragmatic decision-making in place.
Now let’s consider the foundation for sustainability which includes a long-term and holistic thinking, multidimensional and interdisciplinary collaboration. At their core, sustainability practitioners love to plan! Short-term, mid-term, long-term – strategic and action-oriented planning gets to the heart of how sustainability professionals think, collaborate, learn, grow, and lead. In doing so, they love to put into place the continual improvement plan-do-check-act (PDCA)[iii] process as well. Much of a sustainability practitioner’s focus and responsibility is placed on establishing a baseline, performance targets, and collecting data to measure and report-out against the baseline and enterprise goals. For example, a company might put the following over-simplified stepped plan into place as one of their sustainability performance pathways:
First, Plan – Establish a greenhouse gas emission inventory based upon a specific baseline year. Then define a performance target such as a 25% reduction by a specific future date.
Second, Do – Put into place an action plan including the resources and strategies necessary to reduce emissions.
Third, Check – Conduct an annual accounting of the greenhouse gas emissions, measuring them against the baseline year, the prior year of measurement and performance, and the future target to assess the enterprise’s progress toward its action plan.
Fourth, Act – Evaluate whether the enterprise’s capital resource allocation and action plan has achieved the desired result, and then adjust the plan and resource requirements accordingly.
While simplistic, PDCA can effectively aid individuals, teams, and organizations to systematically think through all the necessary requirements for any given problem. Like any framework, there are limitations to PDCA, particularly in measuring the outputs, outcomes, and impact of the acted upon decisions.
Throughout my career I’ve always been keen on Impact Models[iv] and the Theory of Change[v] model. Simply defined, the Theory of Change framework looks at how we can affect change through the overarching formal relationships that are presumed to exist which impact a defined population. A logic model on the other hand is a tool that is used to explore what we do and how we do it.
According to the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), Theory of Change refers to, “a method that explains how a given intervention, or set of interventions, are expected to lead to a specific development change, drawing on a causal analysis based on available evidence.” Further, the Center for Theory of Change states that Theory of Change[vi] “is essentially a comprehensive description and illustration of how and why a desired change is expected to happen in a particular context. It is focused on mapping out or “filling in” what has been described as the “missing middle” between what a program or change initiative does (its activities or interventions) and how these lead to desired goals being achieved. It does this by first identifying the desired long-term goals and then works back from these to identify all the conditions (outcomes) that must be in place (and how these related to one another causally) for the goals to occur. These are all mapped out in an Outcomes Framework.”
Theory of Change and Logic Models are great methods to deploy especially when diverse groups and project stakeholders seek a logical process to define the causal ties and relationships between the inputs and resources needed to plan, execute, and derive specific impacts across a defined time horizon, usually a longer-term one. Essentially, these methods help stakeholders engage on the “what and how” of putting resources into action to achieve a shared result. I was exposed to these methods very early in my career when I worked as an energy analyst on the program evaluation team for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA).
Residing within NYSERDA’s Energy Analysis group at the time, the program evaluation team was charged with the independent evaluation of NYSERDA’s public benefit program that included energy efficiency, renewable energy, energy research and development, and other programs and initiatives that leveraged New York State electric-and-gas utility ratepayer funding toward the design and implementation of energy-related public benefit programs. Our program evaluation team used Theory of Change and Logic Model methods to support strategic program planning and evaluation, helping to ensure that the ratepayer funding was deployed responsibly and equitably, and with its intended efficacy. Working with external experts and an amazing team of professionals, I quickly learned the value of these methods for stakeholder engagement, program design and management, strategic planning, and organizational change management. This early career exposure to program evaluation sparked a skillset and a desire for ‘applied strategy,’ utilizing the Theory of Change and Logic Model methods to define and measure organizational performance metrics not only as a scorecard, but also as a mechanism to ask deeper and more informed questions and a means to engage stakeholders thoughtfully and intentionally so that all parties could derive better programs and results.
My NYSERDA experience was the beginning of a career spent going deeper on the underlying values, purpose, and “who and why” of organizations and people. It’s led me to understand that humans absolutely love collecting data, formulating, and operationalizing processes, and measuring the performance of people, business systems and operations. These are all critical components of operating any enterprise effectively. Knowing what data to collect and how to analyze and synthesize it into meaningful indicators of performance is essential to enterprise success. However, throughout my career I have witnessed time and again that humans love data, processes, and performance measurement so much that for some, these become the walls and canopies which give them cover.
I’ve also learned that any individual and organization is prone to having bias and blind spots when evaluating data; even when best-in-class evaluation frameworks, tools, software, and team-structures are deployed. Whether intentional or not, people (and organizations) tend to hide behind data, processes, and the mechanism of reporting out on their activities. Let’s face it, in business this gives people something to measure, say, talk about and improve upon. It can be easy and convenient to “own a process,” “manage the data,” and “hold others accountable to their performance.”
Interestingly, the Logic Model and the Theory of Change methods get at two of the three elements of what author and speaker Simon Sinek calls the “Golden Circle,” as referenced in his 2009 book, “Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action.” The Logic Model and the Theory of Change methods get to the how and the what, but they don’t sufficiently get to the underlying why, that is, the true purpose behind the enterprise, is culture and motivation for being. If the underlying foundation and basic principles for why the enterprise does these things is not tethered to strong ethics, values, morals and conviction, well then that is the recipe for the status-quo kind of culture and environment that doesn’t see the iceberg ahead in the fog lights, let alone have the level of leadership (the who) that has the gumption and accountability to let the crew know to steer clear.
A plan alone is not enough, and too often, even our best laid plans go awry. As such, we must remain open to anything that may positively improve upon the design and implementation of the strategic plan. For example, being able to ‘scan the horizon’ and monitor trends or drivers that influence a business enterprise (or one’s own life), is a great skill to develop. Forecasting the future with precision that brings a great deal of certainty is challenging. The best financial market, weather, sports, political, and consumer trends forecasting modeling software and analysts have a margin of error.
Forecasting for a general sense of the “market condition” or to assess “which way the wind is blowing” can prove to be a useful tool to an organization seeking to define their roadmap for X (with X being innovation, growth, sustainability, profitability, and so on). Forecasting very granular impacts across financial, people, operational, or innovation performance is never precise. Therefore, the best organizations evaluate a range of scenarios, margins of error, and assumptions so that a range of possible outcomes and impacts are evaluated. This approach prepares and conditions the organization and its leadership to be open to change, remain adaptive, and to preposition its mindset and resources for any scenario.
In this way, “applied adaptive strategy,” is an approach that provides clarity on direction and resources and flexibility on allocation and focus. Although this may seem to be a contradiction, it provides the underlying requirements for how organizations compete in a dynamic, uncertain, and risk-based economy. There are several ways to adopt an applied adaptive strategy to an enterprise. Whether your objective is enterprise growth and innovation, strategic planning, risk management, sustainable impact, or other priorities, the tools and frameworks already mentioned offer a great starting point for planning, implementation, and performance measurement.
There are also many other strategic management framework tools including the well-known SWOT and sSWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats; and “s” Sustainability SWOT), the Business Model Canvas (BMC), the World Resources Institute’s (WRI) Connection Matrix, PESTEL Analysis (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental), and the Value Chain Analysis conceived by Harvard Business School Professor, Michael Porter.
Each framework tool has a specific purpose. Organizations that proactively manage risk and change integrated multiple framework tools together, to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the known and unknown factors that are or that may, influence the business direction, resources, and performance. I’m a huge fan and believer in applied adaptive strategy that integrates multiple strategic management framework tools into a pragmatic roadmap for the enterprise. Simply defined, a roadmap provides the necessity for having a plan of action, that is disciplined yet adaptive, and incorporates the dimensions of change, time, resilience, and human ingenuity. In doing so, the roadmap inherently builds in internal and external inputs, capturing insights from the business and its diverse mosaic of stakeholders.
Incorporate the Meta-Dimensions of Sustainability into Your Adaptive Strategy Process
A couple of years ago I gave a talk at Wells College in Upstate New York titled, “Discovering Your Future in the Meta Dimensions of Sustainability[vii].”
My purpose for this talk was to provide dynamic discussion on, “current affairs, the state of sustainability in society and business, the role of individuals-citizens-consumers, and the nexus between corporations, government, and society on truly manifesting a sustainable future. Many have a contextual sense of sustainability, but sometimes they don't fully see or understand the complexity of systems or the nuance of different points of view and sectors. The sense of urgency on climate action is rapidly intensifying. This can leave many feeling either invigorated or helpless, frustrated, and even apathetic to the state of affairs and fate of their future in the face of climate and sustainability risks. Having perspective on the role one can serve and having a vision for one's future given the need to change and adapt, can be empowering and uplifting and enable the individual to have resolve in how they engage within the multi dimensions of sustainability.”
Wow, that is a mouthful! Looking back, I had a great time preparing for this talk. A colleague, Marian Brown, who was the Director of the Center for Sustainability and the Environment at Wells College, had invited me to their ‘Sustainable Business Series’ as a speaker. I was delighted and had a great time preparing for the Wells College presentation.
As I prepared, as I had done hundreds of times before for academic classes, public meetings, or business events, I wanted to elevate and illuminate a sample of the most pressing converging drivers impacting business and society for discussion. For fun, and using alliteration of the letter “D,” I devised “seven meta-dimensions” of sustainability as the central theme for the talk and discussion.
From my experience over the past twenty years, and certainly as amplified in the past five years, the following seven drivers have added more depth and meaning to the evolution of sustainability in popular culture, government, business, and civil society. Each dimension stands on its own as a mega force for sustainability, but each of these also are interlocked, contributing to network effects. The more that people interact with these drivers, individually and collectively, the greater the awareness and likelihood of sustainability’s advance in business and society.
Examining the Seven "Meta-Dimensions" of Sustainability
Dimension | Description |
Demographic | The world’s population is shifting before our eyes. The United Nation predicts that by 2050 greater than 50% of the world’s population will live in urban areas[viii]. Population in developing countries skews younger than developed countries. Populations in less developed countries are expected to double between 2022 and 2050, whereas the population in many developed countries is projected to remain flat or decline. Demographic shifts toward greater urban density and higher population growth rates in less developed countries will place new demands on resource consumption for basic needs and economic growth. Demand for energy, clean water and sanitation, food commodities, healthcare, safety and security are projected to rise for urban areas and within developing countries. |
Democratized | Democratization has been a force that has been evolving steadily in recent years. Even amid the ugliness and backdrop of demagogue politics, there has been a persistence counter movement focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), environmental and social justice, and the opportunity for citizens and consumers to have greater choice and say in what shapes their quality of life and futures. Inherent within democratization are diplomatic strategies and solutions. The art of stakeholder engagement requires the ability to convene and foster dialog across a diversity of people and their viewpoints. Facilitation requires active listening skills and an ability to remain independent, objective, and diplomatic. In recent years as demagogue politicians have fueled the fire of polarized viewpoints, diplomacy seems to have waned. A push for pragmatic, commonsense, diplomatic discourse is underway however, countering the less civil tone that has provided entertainment value, but not much more. |
Decentralized | Continued advances in technology are partially stimulated by the decentralization of formerly centralized systems. Examples include finance and investing (i.e., decentralized finance, or DeFi, including cryptocurrency), energy and infrastructure (i.e., renewables, microgrids), transportation (i.e., autonomy, EVs), education, healthcare, government services, and cybersecurity. Our data driven world, reinforced by new technology that promotes transparency, accessibility, and inclusivity; is placing more power and control in the hands of citizens and users, and is driving a fundamental paradigm shift toward decentralized business models. |
Decarbonized | The accounting, management, reduction, and elimination of excess carbon emissions is arguably the most popular and pressing concern for global politicians, corporations, and governments. Decarbonization is like the Taylor Swift of sustainability objectives. Decarbonization is iconic and classic. It’s edgy but not so much that the “old dogs” won’t join in for some fun. Carbon (accounting and management) has been on tour for a long, long time, like the Rolling Stones. It’s still incredibly relevant and gets the old-time companies “off their feet,” while still attracting some new fans. Carbon (old) and decarbonization (new) take center stage at most global sustainability conferences. It’s like Mick Jagger strutting, and Taylor Swift gracefully gliding onto stage to wow fans – that’s Carbon and Decarbonization in action. It’s an awesome sight, and you know it’s going to rock. If we tallied the value of investment that has already and will continue to flow into decarbonization technologies and pathways between now and 2030, it certainly would take top billing compared to other sustainability goals. Like ‘The Stones, and Swifties’ fanbases, pathways for decarbonization have proliferated, offering yet another paradigm shift in how humanity thinks about its relationship with fossil-based fuels and their emissions, namely carbon dioxide. |
Digitized | Mathematician Clive Humby[ix] has been credited with the phrase, “data is the new oil.” Although his connotation was directed toward creating value from data, just as oil is only valuable insofar as the molecules are refined into useful fuel, chemical, lubricant, or plastic, the quote speaks volumes on our current reliance on digitizing everything into data. As a societal driver, however, digitization is having an enormous impact. On one hand, our data-driven digital society has given exponential rise to power hungry datacenters, the networked servers and super computers that transact all the data that is collected, analyzed, and used to manage our digital society. |
Dignified | Take a review the United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals[x] (SDGs) and you’ll see that more than half of the SDGs are squarely aligned to social impact and the people side of sustainability. For example, SDG1: No Poverty, SDG2: Zero Hunger, SDG3: Good Health and Well-Being, SDG4: Quality Education, SDG 5: Gener Equality, SDG8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, SDG10: Reduced Inequalities, and SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. The UN’s SDGs are but one example of a global sustainability framework that is working toward aligning the dignity of all living things. Ensuring the dignity of all peoples and cultures has become a common refrain, taking on a more central priority for government, industry, and civil society in recent years. |
De-Risked | Although de-risking anything may be construed as a logical objective (i.e., derisking business, the economy, your healthcare options, the purchase of your next home, etc.), the sustainability space is exploring derisking from multiple pathways: (1) derisking the investment into sustainable technologies including clean energy, (2) derisking the implementation of the ‘sustainable solution,’ (3) derisking business and societal impact on the environment, (4) derisking future climate risks through climate adaptation and mitigation strategies, and more. Risk management has always been a key component of environmental management; however, it is now also fully intertwined within the broader sustainability agenda. The including of risk management into social and governance aspects of (ESG), for example, supports the intention for more holistic systems-level solutions for business, government, and society. Derisking sustainability is a necessity. There is a need for humanity to be preventive, predictive, and proactive in our posture toward our relationship with each other and the planet so that we can alleviate the prolongation of existing or proliferation of new, unintended consequences of our actions. We now have the knowledge, technology, and capacity to live in greater harmony with nature and each other. With a principled foundation in place and the will to serve and act, humanity can derisk our future and that of next generations of peoples from undue harm. |
Wait!, The “Seven-Ds” are Incomplete
In November 2022 I had the privilege to attend the Railroad Environmental Conference (RREC) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and facilitate a panel of Class 1 railroad sustainability leaders. The panel was made up of representatives from the Association of American Railroads, BNSF Railway, Canadian National Railway, CSX, Canadian Pacific, Kansas City Southern Railway, Norfolk Southern, and Union Pacific Railroad. Our discussion centered on, “Sustainability and Resilience: Driving ESG Impact through Supplier Engagement.” In support of how the panel members would segue into their remarks and the discussion, I referenced the “seven meta dimensions” of sustainability in my opening remarks to establish a foundation. The strategy worked, and a great conversation ensued.
At the end of our session, we fielded some questions from the audience. One of the participants approached the microphone and praised the panel. He also provided feedback on the seven meta dimensions suggesting that there was one missing, an eighth dimension he called, “decisiveness and decision-ready doers.” The participant noted that another significant driver in the sustainability domain is in making the informed DECISION to act. He pointed out that sustainability practitioners ultimately have a responsibility to take all the drivers, assess their opportunities and threats, and eventually prioritize their goals, strategies, and resources into a decisive action. I welcomed and loved the point this gentleman made and decided to add an eighth “D” to the meta dimensions to account for the uptick in more sustainability-focused decisions, leading toward impact.
Although the alliteration of the letter “D” is fun and memorable, there likely are many other “D’s” that were left out of the equation. This is the larger point in my view, however. Just as the audience member suggested something new to advance a loosely held together framework of industry drivers, the sustainability movement, skillset, and opportunity for creating an impact is everchanging and evolving. The point of the seven, now “eight-D’s” is to continually be present and aware of the world around us. Take in and assess the internal and external signals that point toward a systems change, and then envelop the right data, tools, and principles to guide smart and practical decisions for the enterprise.
Foretelling the Future Takes Discipline
The building blocks for strategic planning and adaptive roadmaps are drawn from many internal and external resources. Linking existing trends (i.e., exploring those elements currently shaping the economy and enterprise landscape) with future casting (i.e., leveraging market, business, technology, and customer intelligence to foretell a range of future based scenarios across specific criteria for estimating probability and likelihood of change) provides a reasonable sense of future direction.
*Special note: in my experience the use of strategic management framework tools, applied adaptive strategy, and roadmaps should be valued as an evergreen process. This can drive some organizations mad, however. Business leaders like certainty and prefer to have clear targets and well-defined intervals for business planning and resource allocation. Business leaders want a level of predictability for performance measures and certainty of outcomes. The reality, however, is that business operates in a dynamic and ever-changing global environment.
Strategic plans should not be so rigid that they are inflexible and become a liability to the enterprise. Change is inevitable, it happens. Business cycles tend to operate in quarters, and too often, enterprise processes mirror this cadence. Milestone reporting periods are just that, slices of time where aggregated performance is measured against a benchmark. Those timestamp reporting periods provide useful measures of business performance against the strategy; but it is the adjustment of strategy, thoughtfully and continuously throughout the cycle, that ultimately determines how calibrated the business will be. From another perspective, business strategy is never a “one and done” effort; it is an everyday immersion into the assessment and evaluation of the forces which shape the business’s decisions.
An applied adaptive strategy can produce useful products, like a roadmap or report that lays out the direction for the business. The real value however, is in it's ability to provide the business culture, leadership, and teams with the necessary insight to be resolute in their adaptation of the plan at any given moment.
Getting the most out of an applied adaptive strategy requires ongoing, clear, and inclusive communications across the enterprise. Applied adaptive strategy is not (exclusively) about the roadmap, but ultimately about who is taking responsibility to ensure the organization is always alert and ready to adapt, learn, relate, and respond to change. Deployment of an applied adaptive strategy that includes the meta-dimensions of sustainability as a means for continuous monitoring and feedback to leadership teams throughout the business cycle can lead to greater stakeholder awareness (and engagement), and a more robust analysis of scenarios for growth.
Your Feedback and Participation to Leadership is Essential for Enterprise Success
Too often business strategy is thought of as a "black box," where few people know what's inside or how the inner workings produce useful outputs and insights. When executed well, an applied adaptive strategy provides a means to engage stakeholders within and across the enterprise, with use of structured frameworks and open-ended inquiry, that supports a more diverse and inclusive participation. The net result is a broader, deeper, and more holistic view of business drivers, risks, and opportunities, enabling the enterprise to establish adaptive scenarios that factor in the meta-dimensions of sustainability and change.
What additional “meta-dimensions” (i.e., macro-level drivers of change and influence upon the enterprise, markets, and the economy) do you see actively shaping the current and future state of sustainable enterprise and sustainability within society? How is your organization taking stock of these meta-dimensions and incorporating them into your short-to-long-term strategic planning? Who within your organization is charged with assessing your organizational strengths and weaknesses against these drivers and influences that pose both opportunity and threat to the enterprise? How are stakeholders including employees, vendors and suppliers, customers, government regulators, market allies, investors and shareholders, and members of the board interfacing with these meta-dimensions of change? How is the organization remaining agile, adaptive, and inventive in its posture to interpret and act on these and other market-shaping meta-dimensions?
References
[i] Source, Burns, Robert. “To a Mouse.” Poetry Foundation. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43816/to-a-mouse-56d222ab36e33; see also, Wikipedia “To a Mouse.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_a_Mouse
[ii] Source, Wikipedia. “Robert Burns.” Accessed April 15, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Burns
[iii] Source, Wikipedia. “PDCA.” Accessed April 15, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA
[iv] Source, “Logic Model Readings.” Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society. Stanford University. Accessed April 15, 2024. https://pacscenter.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Logic-Model-Readings.pdf; see also, “An expanded simple logic model.” University of Wisconsin-Madison. Accessed April 15, 2024. https://logicmodel.extension.wisc.edu/introduction-overview/section-1-what-is-a-logic-model/1-7-an-expanded-simple-logic-model/
[v][v] Source, United Nations Development Group, “Theory of Change.” Accessed April 15, 2024. https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/UNDG-UNDAF-Companion-Pieces-7-Theory-of-Change.pdf
[vi] Source: Center for Theory of Change. “What is Theory of Change.” Accessed April 15, 2024. https://www.theoryofchange.org/what-is-theory-of-change/
[vii] Source: Wells College Center for Sustainability and the Environment. Accesses April 16, 2024. https://www.wells.edu/wp-content/uploads/center_sustainability/Sustainable_Business_flyer_-_Mark_Coleman_October_4_2022.pdf See also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lmYlVhNRsk&feature=youtu.be
[viii] Source: Our World in Data. “Urbanization.” Accessed April 17, 2024. https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization#:~:text=By%202050%2C%20close%20to%207,the%20UN's%20medium%20fertility%20scenario.
[ix] Source: Wikipedia. Clive Humby. Accessed July 29, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Humby
[x] Source: United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), https://sdgs.un.org/goals
Comentarios