Change – What’s the Big Deal?

I have often heard it said that people do not like change. If that is the case, it is probably more to do with how ‘those people’ have experienced change before, and the people who did it to them.

I am not a regular flyer, but when I do, I pull up the Air NZ magazine and look for the advertisement by 3 Wise Men Shirtmaker.

Whoever writes their adverts are clever. There is usually an introduction such as this in the March issue: “Change means to be different, to transform, to try something new. Sometimes change is scary, like when your voice dropped at Intermediate and you changed from a soprano to an alto between morning tea and lunch. Sometimes change is hard, like promising to do something about your Christmas belly, and now it’s March already. But every now and then when you embrace change, good things happen.”

What a refreshing take on change. I worry we have created an industry to scare the bejeebers out of everyone contemplating the prospect of some change.

Having policies and procedures is no doubt helpful for people who are in charge and have no empathy with those they seek to change, or are being done to. The problem with these policies and procedures is that they become automated and mechanical, with the major concern being to have ticked procedural boxes. In short the procedure becomes the focus not the people.

I have often heard it said that people do not like change. If that is the case, it is probably more to do with how ‘those people’ have experienced change before, and those who did it too them.

Henri Bergsen was a significant French philosopher, influential especially in the first half of the 20^th Century. He convinced many thinkers that immediate experience and intuition are more significant than rationalism and science for understanding reality. He said, “To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly.”

We are pretty good at change as the shirtmakers pointed out. We have had lots of it and adjusted to it. In my case I was born. I didn’t have a chance to plan or have a say in that. I just had to go with it. That’s a pretty big change! For a while I was the complete and entire focus of my parents life. Pretty cool really. Then they had my brother. What was that all about? All of a sudden I am second fiddle. That’s a pretty big change.

Apart from a couple of minor incidents and with careful management by my parents, I adjusted to the change then damn it, they delivered another brother. Now I was third fiddle. Not only that, I was expected to take on big brother care and guidance responsibilities. What the…! All that and I was still getting the hang of this school thing. That was a bunch of change.

And so it goes on. Any one of us can tell similar stories of lives packed with change. Change is everywhere and by the time we get to work we are pretty experienced. So why is change so suddenly different because we are at work?

It becomes a problem at work when we are subjected to the insecurity of the manager who finds solace in the prevailing command and control model of management.  We don’t like change being done to us really so let’s just hold that simple thought and work from there.

Of course the greater issue is the sector of our community that is disadvantaged for one reason or another and those youngsters who do not get to use new technology and understand the exciting prospects in change from an early age.

There are those who can ensure their children get a quality education. There are a large portion of the population who have to rely on the public education factory system, and it’s a miracle they learn anything.

In my opinion, to ensure the quality of our ability to live and work in life where change is not an operational variable but a constant, we should start by dumping command and control managers whose first reaction to any issue is to restructure, but more significantly, ensure all of our kids get a quality education.

The Urban Pots calling the Dairying Kettle Black

An article under the heading “Kiwis dirty on dairying” appeared in our local paper claiming the results of the survey commissioned by the Fish & Game Council would shock many in the agriculture sector where “... the long held presumption has been that farming enjoys popular support of the wider public.”

That comment could only be described as naïve and stupid.

The Fish & Game Council have been running a campaign against dairying for some time so the latest attack would come as no surprise to the industry. And their campaign has obviously been successful with a sustained main stream media campaign described in Straight Furrow as ‘Farmers victims of overheated media’.

This particular survey and news piece is political in that it is driven by a political party to provide a focus on their agenda, and also by an environmental organisation whose favourite pastime is criticising the major economic provider in this country. There is nothing quite like creating an ‘enemy’ image to draw people to your safe political haven.

Don’t get me wrong, the significance of agriculture and the growth of dairying have presented challenges which are being addressed to meet all the various sensitivities we have become aware of through scientific development. Just as we have to face the negative impacts of intensive urbanisation and residential development on productive land. There can be no argument with those respondents who want to know political party policies on economic growth and the subsequent impact on the environment.

It was interesting that 73% or the respondents wanted diary companies to take responsibility for all of the organisations they deal with. What we weren’t told was what responsibility those respondents were taking for their environment. How many of them went out to clean up the rubbish in their street? How many recycle their grey water instead of using high quality drinking water to water their garden, wash their car and flush their toilet? Did any of them collect water from their roof?

How much recycling do they do? Are they putting out less rubbish bags? And do they only buy items in their supermarket that are packaged in recyclable material? How often do they drive when there are public transport options available? How many of them are subject to similar standards and penalties on water management and emissions as are demanded of farmers?

If you don’t grow all your own food and meet all of the same standards and requirements, there is the risk that your negative view of farming is hypocritical.

The Primary sector is predicted to increase exports by $5billion this year. That’s a 16% increase for the benefit of the entire country. Putting that increase into perspective, that is more money than the Government will generate from its entire asset sales programme. As one agricultural commentator has noted, “Farmers have achieved that largely on their own and after a severe drought. Along the way farmers have fenced waterways, done their best in tight financial times to maintain and improve soil fertility, increased the breeding efficiencies of their animals and put up with a tonne of media angst.”

The questions of the survey were clearly pointed towards a preferred answer, and also we do not know whether the respondents were urban dwellers or not, or what knowledge base respondents were drawing their answers from.

The perception of the respondents of the environmentalist’s survey of dairy farming in particular and agriculture in general is probably determined by what is largely a negative media focus on farming. 

How many read about Nuffield Scholar Natasha King’s goal to run Fonterra’s tanker fleet on fuel created from dairy cow effluent using algae technology? Her research found that algae driven bio-fuel production could be the most promising long-term solution to the problem of diary effluent. That technology would also help to make New Zealand more self-sufficient in fuel. The fact is you didn’t read or hear about it in mainstream media.

How many read about Shayne and Charmaine O’Shea who won the LIC Dairy Farm Award, the Northland Council Water Quality Enhancement Award and were the Supreme Award winners for the Balance Farm Environment Awards in 2013? Judges said that all aspects of their business were sustainable and profitable and there is an obvious balance of the financial, environmental and social aspects of their farming model. The fact is you didn’t read or hear about it in mainstream media.

Recently, in the NZ Farmers Weekly, Neal Shaw highlighted the disparity between how farmers and others are dealt with in pollution matters. He noted that Queenstown, the poster town for New Zealand’s 100% Pure campaign, has been responsible for repeated sewage spills into pristine lake Wakatipu. Apparently in the past 12 months there have been spills on average once every 6 weeks and twice in January of this year.

Because the spills were deemed to be caused by a third party – Joe public – Queenstown District Council has dodged a fine. “Any farmer smarting from an effluent fine could rightly expect the council to be hunting down the culprits blocking town sewers with fatty waste, just as offending farmers are quickly identified  when polluted waterways are detected,” wrote Shaw. However it appears it was simply too difficult for the council to deal with.

And how many heard about the ferry operator in Auckland who was emptying ferry sewage tanks in the harbour excusing it because they were busy over the summer. They dodged prosecution and claimed ignorance about the law. What makes matters worse, the operator had failed to use a $400,000 rate-payer funded pumping station to handle their sewage. Did you read or hear about it in mainstream media?

Subsequently there have been articles in the local paper by John Allen which provide a much more sensible and considered approach to sustainable dairying. He notes that the label ‘dirty dairying’ has more to do with unsustainable regulations around managing dairy effluent than it has to do with dairy farmers compliance with those regulations. Yes there are issues with water quality and the intensification of dairying. The challenge, he says, is to find solutions that are workable and to do it reasonably fast.

In my opinion we have to acknowledge the significant economic contribution of Agriculture in general and dairying in particular, get solution focused and stop the pointless name calling.