Does Deming’s “System of Profound Knowledge” Apply to Leaders of Biodiversity Conservation?

Abstract

The challenges of ecological and environmental change are significant and solutions remain largely under the influence of people and the decisions of governments, interest groups, national and local communities and individuals. Evidence suggests that despite 20 years of effort, conservation initiatives have failed to achieve the targets set for protecting biodiversity in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity 2010. A common factor influencing effectiveness of conservation work undertaken by the diverse mix of government, non-government and civil organisations is leadership. A command-and-control approach to leadership is commonly encountered in conservation and previous reviews suggest this as a major factor in ineffective conservation initiatives. This suggests that conservation leaders should consider a fundamentally different approach to leadership. We examine whether an alternative paradigm, Deming's System of Profound Knowledge, offers a suitable new basis for leadership in biodiversity conservation. This "Systems Thinking" approach should encompass (i) an understanding of natural systems, (ii) a sense of how human behaviour is influenced, (iii) an understanding of how knowledge should inform decision-making and problem solving, and (iv) an understanding of variation in natural systems. Current paradigms of conservation management fail to address these four fundamentals and therefore do not represent the most effective way to manage conservation. Conversely, challenges and opportunities encountered in biodiversity conservation are well-aligned to a Systems Thinking approach. Leadership approaches defined in Deming's "System of Profound Knowledge" offer significant positive impacts on biodiversity conservation achievement and provide lessons for leaders in other areas of human activity.

Interpersonal competencies define effective conservation leadership

“…Passion is not developed through training, but can be grown through both experiences with nature (Curtin & Kragh 2014) and positive team environments (Schwartz 2006). Previous literature has highlighted the value of knowledge in leadership (Black and Copsey 2014a;Sjölander-Lindqvist et al 2015). Engaging leaders through on-the-ground activities may reinvigorate their passion for conservation, promoting a sense of purpose for an initiative, rather than a personal agenda (Black & Copsey 2014b;Black 2015b).…”

“…All three qualities are counteractive to important leadership qualities previously identified within the conservation literature. Bei g the sole de isio ake ou te a ts e po e e t i elatio to de isio -makers (Cannon et al 1996;Sjölander-Lindqvist et al 2015), Mai tai a le el of dista e a d deta h e t f o the tea could be detrimental to building relationships, team culture and hands-on leadership (Dietz et al 2004;Black et al 2011;Bruyere 2015) and Be as focused on achieving their own personal goals as the goals of the project, organisation or greater co se atio a p e e t a leade f o ha i g a se se of the bigger picture (Black et al 2011;Black and Copsey 2014a). More research is required to identify and understand negative impacts to both leaders and followers as individuals, teams, organisations and initiatives, inclusive of the costs and benefits of leadership.…”

Burns, Senge, and the Study of Leadership

“…Interestingly, only one of the articles noted two of the disciplines of a learning organization: team learning and personal mastery (Ciporen, 2010) and its treatment of those and the other disciplines are very brief. Two others briefly mentioned personal mastery (Black & Copsey, 2014;Lahdenperä, Gustavsson, Lundgren, & Schantz Lundgren, 2016). It would seem that these two disciplines would be of greater interest to students of leadership in organizations than their treatments in these leadership journals.…”

“…The articles in this category made brief mention of learning organizations or their components a) The learning organization (Brookes, 2011;Kaufman, 2009;Kodish, 2006;Lane & Klenke, 2004;Song & Kolb, 2012). b) Systems thinking (one of the five disciplines) (Black & Copsey, 2014;Chermack, 2003;Dittmar, 2006;Lahdenperä, Gustavsson, Lundgren, & Schantz Lundgren, 2016;Larsson, Segerstéen, & Svensson, 2011;Lengnick-Hall & Inocencio-Gray, 2013;Lynham & Chermack, 2006;Middlebrooks, Miltenberger, Tweedy, Newman, & Follman, 2009;Peterson, 2008;Satterwhite, Sheridan, & McIntyre, 2016;Song & Kolb, 2012;Steinbauer, Rhew, & Chen, 2015).…”

System Behaviour Charts Inform an Understanding of Biodiversity Recovery

“…Conservation typically encounters uncertainty [2] and often a need to take quick action, but with little data. For example, critically endangered species may survive in tiny numbers, such as the Mauritius kestrel which persisted at its lowest ebb with just a single breeding pair [1,3], or a species may face a rapidly developing threat, such as the recent disease outbreak in Saiga antelope [4]. One difficulty is achieving controlled experiments and hypothesis testing in a way that is relevant to the needs of practical conservation.…”