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.

 

 

Collaboration rather than Political Combat

As the politics begin in the lead up to the election we hear the Green Party talking about using the school as a hub for services and a base for community engagement. It is a great idea, however the Education Department is already onto that and could probably do with a bit more support.

We hope to develop such a model at the Pukekohe North School in Franklin, based on the Victory School model in Nelson. Already at the North School they have been doing great work on their community issues with the help of the education department and hope to get some health service resource back which was siphoned off from our people to go elsewhere.

That aside, it is unfortunate a political collaboration to give this policy life for communities will be sacrificed for the sake of political combat. The Greens, National and Labour have all announced what could be components of a great strategy but of course they have to criticise each other rather than work together - oh dear how sad for us. Score, Politics 1; The People 0.

It was amidst commentary by the investment guru Brian Gaynor the warning came for the dairy industry based on the experience of the forestry industry. This industry which has been reduced to a foreign owned non value added production under pressure to produce volume. That pressure, he argues, could be at the heart of the recurring deaths. It made interesting reading, but what was more startling was his warning that dairying may be headed the same way.

As we seem to be focusing on more mechanised high volume production Brian raises concerns that we would lose sight of the qualities we valued and like forestry just become a high pressure, little value added industry.

Whilst at the Brisbane Royal Agricultural Show (EKKA) late last year I was asked to present ribbons to the state winners of the Dairy Cattle young paraders class. I had noted that compared to a couple of years ago when I had last visited the show, entries in the dairy cattle classes seemed to have dropped significantly. 

With me were the bank sponsor representatives, and others such as farmers and agricultural industry suppliers. I mentioned my observation and they assumed grim faces and told the industry was disappearing in Queensland. Not only did they think there would be no diary section at the show within the next couple of years, that milk production was decreasing rapidly in the state as dairy farmers began converting their operations to crop growing. Queensland was not producing enough milk to meet its consumption requirements.

I asked why that was and was told, in unison, one word, Coles.

Let me digress for a moment to talk about the news that was widely reported recently about Australian supermarkets stocking only Australian produced consumer goods. The NZ Farmers weekly reported the Coles supermarket chain had marked Australia Day by replacing all of its house brand and Buy Smart frozen vegetables sold across the nation with 100% Aussie grown vegetables.

That would sound like great news for the 240 growers in Tasmania and New South Wales who will be signed up for a five year contract which also mean they will need to plant more crops. They should perhaps have a chat to the Queensland dairy farmers who found themselves initially supplying Cole’s new house brand milk product which was then on an aggressive path to dominate the market.

What happened when it achieved market domination – ask the diary farmers who have quit dairying in droves, so much so there will be no dairy industry to speak of in Queensland.

In my opinion, the NZ Dairy Farmers should ask what happened to NZ’s Forestry products industry. Perhaps the vegetable growers in Tasmania and NSW should ask what happened to the dairy industry in Queensland. And NZ consumers might ask, “Where is the dominant and a key player in the supermarket industry in NZ based?”

What does hand washing and courage have in common?

One of my New Year commitments is to get back to blogging more regularly. Whilst I was GM of the Franklin Locality Clinical Partnership I wrote a monthly column for the local paper and enjoyed the experience, although sometimes I was scrambling to hit the deadline.

Whilst working for the DHB I felt it was inappropriate to express personal views publically in any way so welcome the 'freedom' to express my opinion.

However my return to the DHB (I had worked there in a previous life as the GM responsible for Patient and Staff Health & Safety and Infection Control, among other things), saw me paying greater attention to hand cleaning. No, this is not a lesson on hygiene. Persevere and you will see the signficant leadership lesson.

There is no arguement now about the importance of hand cleaning, especially in a clinical setting. Attention was brought to this aspect of clinical hygiene back in 1847 by a Hungarian born Physician who made striking observations. Unfortunately when he presented his findings and recommended compulsory regimes of hand washing he faced considerable opposition. ln fact he ended up leaving the hospital in which he was working and it wasn't until later, and after a campaign with the support of his new employer did the requirements become compulsory.

In their book, 'It Starts with One: Changing Individuals Changes Organisations', authors J. Stewart Black and Hal B. Gregersen asked, "Why do we fail to see the need for change?" and noted, "Fundamentally, we fail to see because we are blinded by the light of what we already see."

In January, I was speaking at a conference on the Gatton Agricultural Campus of the Queensland University. My topic was 'Power and Conflict are Ubiquitous in Organisational Life.'

The audience were members of the Next Generation of the Federal Chamber of Agricultural Societies (FCAS) of Australia. This is the movement started by FCAS about four years ago to ensure engagement of younger people and future succession in their organisation. They, like our equivalent in New Zealand (The Royal Agricultural Society), have many people who have contributed significantly to these organisations. Unfortunately in the process new comers have felt they are unwelcome or they can not get a look in. The support of the Australiians for their nex generation is simply impressive.

These young people have a passion but what they do not have often are the street smarts experience often brings to deal with what they encounter. That is, the apparent resistance to new or different ideas and the dodgy tactics people use in debate and arguement. How do they deal with the 'This is the way we have always done it' and the 'We are different' statements?

They, like the Physician not only need to be prepared to question and challenge, they need the courage to carry on and not melt away at the first sign of resistance. The more we can support that courage the better. I argued that wherever there is confusion, conflict, turmoil  or disagreement, there exists the opportunity to create a new understanding and future.

In 1930, a Robert H. Thouless published 'Straight and Crooked Thinking', which describes the thirty eight dishonest tricks of arguement people employ in order to assert what in fact cannot be asserted on the basis of the available evidences alone. His work is as relevant today as it was way back then.

There are only two intellectually honest debate tactics; pointing out errors or ommissions in facts, and, pointing out errors or ommissions in logic. Given that often statements used by opponents to prove them wrong will be of the intellectually dishonest variety and that almost all arguements consist of one intellectually dishonest debate tactic after another, they will need not only courage but patient and considered perseverence. They will need to resist the seemly urgent need these days to take any arguement personally and get emotinally overwrought.

I finished off with John Schaar's words: "The future is not a place to which we are going; its a place which we are creating. The paths to the future are not found, but made. And the activity of making them changes both the maker and the destination."

One the way home, the RAS Youth representative our district sponsored to the conference wanted to know what they should do. I simply told him that in My Opinion, they should not wait to be told what to do next but own the opportunity to begin designing their view of the future. Then ask us oldies to help them build it.

   

 

Noting the sad passing of Dame Margaret Shields

I don't know why I can't manage a BLOG every month? The problem is there is so much to think about, so much media prompting thoughts. What has prompted me into print this time is the passing of Dame Margaret Shields.

This brings many memories flooding back from the 70's when I had left teaching and was working in retail. I had been asked by staff at Whitcombe and Tombs to be a union delegate. When I studied history at college we had to look back further than the actual history in NZ so learnt about agricultural labourers in Britian, the Tolpuddle Martyrs. I had no idea about the history of the NZ Trade Union movement.

Long story short, I became an exec member (treasurer) and found very quickly I had little in the way of assets to treasure! Our union pretty much existed in name only. I became the President and began what seems to me on reflection, a most significant period of my education as we set about rebuilding the union.

Graham Kelly  was recruited from the clerical workers union as the Secretary and among others Sonja Davies joined us from the PSA heading the field staff team. My life became enmeshed in a world of dynamic and amazing women, Margaret Shields was one of them.

At one stage, when I was working for McKenzies I was based at their combination store (Supermarket / Variety) at Paraparaumu. National was government and we were involved in a lot of public debate about the advent of Saturday trading. Barry Brill was shaping up as the national candidate for the Kapiti seat in the impending elections. As president of the Shop Employees union I was very publically involved in the arguement and spent quite a bit of media time trading blows with Barry.

I was approached by some representatives of the Parliamentary Labour Party to stand for Labour in Kapiti. Very flattering for someone who was but a boy! As you might imagine there were lots of discussion with friends, however two were most influential, Brian Bensley and Sonja Davies. Brian was the General Manager of McKenzies with whom I went on to work in 2 more companies. Sonja of course is a legend having created the first industrial childcare centre in NZ and with Margaret, WEL (Women's Electoral Lobby). Brian gave me sensible career advice and Sonja enlightened me, a political naive, on the political nuances.

Both offered me support should I make the decision to stand and felt I would probably pull it it off. I decided not to in favour of Margaret and although she didn't succeed that time round she did at the next election.

As the headlines have recorded she went on to become a champion for women in business and politics.

Hearing of her death was sad news. I deeply appreciated being around in those early days as Margaret and others set about creating a new world especially for women.