It is rare nowadays to see, read or hear anything that doesn’t have a reference to ‘green’. The question of the relevance of ‘green’ to management action is both important and tricky. ‘Important’ because there are vast amounts of money involved as well as numerous vital environment issues; and ‘tricky’ because so much of what we read about things ‘green’ is, to put it very kindly, distorted.
Numerous environmental issues and related effort by many involved are making a better world. But because so many have got on the ‘green’ bandwagon to make money, gain power, or push some hidden agenda, it is extremely difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff.
If one relies on popular media, chances are you’ll be scared witless. Most media push the scary stuff because it attracts readers/viewers. The astute manager will check a range of views on any important matter, including things ‘green’, and form an objective view.
Fortunately there are some media that present factual and balanced views. Most importantly there are numerous websites that provide a vast range of information on ‘green’ subjects.
So there really is no excuse for any modern manager to not be informed on almost any aspect of ‘green’ as it may apply to their role. Which poses the question: why do so many managers put forward views and make decisions that are plainly at odds with evidence?
One factor is that some stakeholders in organisations have their own beliefs, agendas and incomplete information. Telling a stakeholder they are wrong, even if this can be proven, often does little more than annoy the person.
Another really tricky issue is that so much Government money – many billions of tax-payers money - is tied to demonstrating that man-made carbon dioxide is causing global warming. So should an individual or organisation that does not have sufficient genuine evidence say so? Or should they take Government money and present views that seem to support the contention? Ethics versus earning money? Is it that tricky? Well, yes it is, particularly if you have a family to support, or shareholders expecting a large dividend.
Every ‘green’ topic has pros and cons. No surprises there – we live in a controversial world. From a management point of view, it is useful to draw an analogy with quality control.
I recall my introduction to quality control. As a recent graduate I attended a course on ‘statistical quality control’. The basis was to use a set of statistical tools whereby samples would indicate levels of quality without checking every item.
Over the years I’ve learnt and applied numerous quality techniques. The main conclusions I’ve formed are that the fundamentals remain the same and that the latest technique is only a variation on the theme. A cynic might say a new technique is a great way to sell books and conferences.
A major advantage is most new techniques operate as a useful reminder to review and re-apply the fundamentals of quality control. The danger is that the new technique replaces the fundamentals by a process unsuited to a particular situation.
Hence the parallel with things ‘green’. But the dangers are greater and often more difficult to spot. Many aspects of ‘green’ are the result of Government policies and/or groups that use the ‘green’ connotation to promote a different agenda. So an apparently good and worthwhile ‘green’ promotion often has a different underlying theme. If it’s a Government, chances are it will be collecting more taxes; some green organisations have been taken over covertly by extremists bending the organisation towards more sinister strategies.
Without doubt many ‘green’ topics present management with wonderful opportunities as well as risks – nothing different there. The amazing ability to rapidly gain large amounts of information using Internet searches means no manager has a valid excuse for making uninformed decisions, or not having full discussions on the pros and cons with his/her stakeholders. I’m constantly surprised at how much knowledge staff have – if only someone asked them.
Another observation is that ‘green’ ideas and applications are changing fast (did you say, ‘what isn’t’?). Stating the obvious, it is therefore vital to continually reassess both strategies and processes to ensure your organisation is making the best decisions.
This gives rise to another danger: rigid application of the ancient wisdom: ‘structure follows strategy’. A danger? Surely heresy! The danger is that an organisation’s structure often reinforces existing strategies rather than challenging and reinventing them.
Conclusion 1: the pro. If you haven’t found a way in the last few months to improve your organisation’s performance in some way relating to recent positive ‘green’ thinking, you may well be missing out.
Conclusion 2: the con. Both meanings of the abbreviation, ‘con’, are relevant. Every few days some media (but mostly news websites/blogs) provide even more evidence of the gigantic fraud that underlies much of the so-called ‘climate change’ exaggeration. Massive fraud in the carbon credits regimes, manipulated statistics and fear tactics have been exposed to the huge discredit of those who created and perpetuate this confidence trick. The challenge for competent managers is to avoid any association with this diverse band of crooks and return ‘green’ to become the force for good that it used to be.