Still, I dare to say this concept has been “promising” (the kiss of death for novelists and artists) for decades. As editor of Crosslands Bulletin, I have been attentive, I think, to the idea for a long time and even wrote up your Ohio initiative in the newsletter. But comparatively speaking, it has not made much of a contribution. Why is that? Does by-product synergy depend too much on too many institutions, corporations, and public agencies working together in too perfect a harmony? Or is my perception of this entirely wrong (heck, I admit, that’s possible).

Thanks. You are right. Books like these are a tough read in that they don’t leave much room for hope given the current trajectory of our consumerism and resource consumption. America’s history of plentiful resources and westward expansion makes it difficult for us to view the situation as a zero sum set of choices.

David:

Well reasoned and well stated, as always. Thanks. Of course, the problem with your choice number two is that, where global warming is concerned, waiting until we reach the crisis point will result in severe environmental and economic consequences. I’m still hopeful that the general approach that resulted in The Montreal Protocol will serve as a basic model for global action. Time will tell.

“‘Wicked problem’ is a phrase used in social planning to describe a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize. Moreover, because of complex interdependencies, the effort to solve one aspect of a wicked problem may reveal or create other problems.”

Given that it seems highly unlikely that this is a “have your cake and eat it too” situation. It also seems highly unlikely it can be successfully addressed through incrementalism. The fundamentals of what is leading us to this global problem are so flawed that small changes probably won’t save the day.

That leaves 2 choices: 1)nations make bold and difficult decisions now to make meaningful change; or 2) the situation reaches a crisis point where urgent action is required. Human nature tends to go with Choice #2 since in the first choice there is always the chance or hope that things will get better without taking drastic action.

Another book we reviewed recently in Crosslands Bulletin, The Myth of Resource Efficiency, is less dogmatic but more commanding. It is tough reading even for academic economists. The authors evaluate the Jevons paradox: increase in efficiency in using a resource leads to an increase in the consumption of that resource rather than to a reduction.

The authors draw a conclusion I find pertinent to your question. They say, ““Humans have to accept losing something in order to be able to retain something else.”

–Vision/direction – clearly laying out “this is where we are headed and why”

–Priorities – clearly laying out “these are the most important things we need to do and by when”

–Roles/Responsibilities – clearly communicating “here is where you fit into the organization, how you can contribute and how you will help us meet our priorities and move toward the vision”

–Commitment to help – clearly communicating “I (as the manager) am here to help all of you, what can I do to help you?”

The redundant use of “clearly” is not a mistake -clarity is a key ingredient. If you do this, then the “right” people who are there will stay, the people with the capacity to be “right” will emerge and the others who can’t or don’t want to become “right” will be evident.

Norm provided this insightful comment above: “The right people know what their ‘job’ is–to provide resources to make your job easier.” I would like to add something – the “right” people don’t view the definition of their “job” as a static thing – they are always looking for new ways to deliver value, reduce or stop doing things that don’t add value and don’t recognize any pre-conceived boundaries to what their job is supposed to be.