Problems are
results we don't like. However, what causes the results? We obviously
can't "solve" a problem by running time back and changing the
circumstances that produced the undesirable result. This fact logically
implies that only can we change the effects of the problem, or we
wish to avoid a similar result from happening in the future. Either
way "solve the problem" means that we
act to modify the likely outcomes in the future. We become "managers."
Our solution rests on the kind of process that produced the undesirable
result.
"Problem solving" is a highly valued skill, and many
people are proficient in certain kinds of systems. Usually, they typically gain this reputation when the solution is
within a relatively simple subsystem of a larger complex system. Consider a familiar
scenario. We want some money from our checking account. This is a problem. We go to the
ATM, insert our card and PIN, punch the appropriate buttons and we get some cash. The
machine solved our problem. If the machine malfunctions and indicates that we are an
unknown account, we go to a human teller, and they perform some routine checks that the
ATM cannot perform, but this takes a bit more time before we get our cash. The teller can
solve more complex problems, but the effort requires a small amount of additional time. If the
teller finds we have insufficient funds, we borrow some money to get some cash. The teller
refers us to a loan officer who will perform more complex checks, present the request to a
loan committee which considers the request with respect to the intended use of the money
and our projected ability to repay it, then passes judgment whether we will be awarded
the loan, and, finally, whether we eventually will get the cash, or not. This is
more complex, and takes much more time. There is something like a geometrically
increasing amount of time and information required as the complexity increases incrementally.
Each banking subsystem becomes more complex, adding increasing
possibilities of significant delays before we get our "problem" solved. In the
meantime, our need for a solution may change. Transmitting this additional information
into the system, modifying the relationships in the complex system that has
the solution to our problem is likely
to slow the progress even further. Furthermore, we have certain time limits
within which the problem needs to be solved. A bureaucracy is not designed to cope with rapidly
changing needs. If the problem doesn't fit the decision channels
(responsibility and authority) and give
the correct responses at the checkpoints, a solution is progressively less likely to
emerge.
The banking system has been organized to perform certain functions well,
provided we are presenting to this system problems that it is designed to to
solve.
Deviations from this system result in a rejection by the system, unless an unusual
employee is willing to step outside and use personal judgment to act on our behalf. These
people address complexity by taking personal responsibility to decide with
unique criteria, rather than rely on "the
rules." Often we find individuals that function "strictly by the book."
They are unable or unwilling to function otherwise. It is "safe"
to hide behind the rules in the book, which keeps them from "making
mistakes" in the "game" defined by the rules. In such a
narrow context, their decisions produce dependable results, but not
necessarily solutions. If they are promoted by dependability, they will have
risen in the system, but eventually the criterion changes to decisions that
are "beneficial" in uncommon events. A bureaucracy values
dependability since it is usually designed to be predictable, rather than
innovative. Such people are promoted until there is a limit based on
inability to be creative, or adaptive, and create solutions for the
unexpected situation. They rise beyond their limit for
competent to be creative and produce appropriate, unusual action. They are examples of how "Peter's Principle" works
in bureaucracies. The bank represents a subsystem of our society, which is a subsystem of
our species, which is a subsystem of our ecosystem. Compared to managing natural
resources, banking involves problems in a more predictable system -- less
complex, more manageable by rules.
An ecosystem is better designed than bureaucracies for solving
complex problems. A "Peter's Principle" individual in ecosystems becomes
"dinner" and is consumed rather than becoming entrenched in a job beyond their
level of competency. In a bureaucracy, they are protected from accountability until
retirement or death from "natural causes." (Rarely do disgruntled customers or
clients of a bureaucracy insist on functional accountability.) In an ecosystem
the other organisms would
exercise the "natural" accountability option -- kill and eat the
bureaucrat.
Problems in natural resource management are often addressed as
if they were problems for a bureaucracy. As a society we seem to believe that solutions
require more technology, labor and expenditure of money, instead of
creativity in unusual situations. Typically the bureaucratic approach creates
more problems than are solved, disrupts the ecosystem's organization, and causes the loss
of many ecosystem services that we use without recognizing them.
For ecosystem management
-- natural resource management -- problems are best viewed as symptoms, and
the
solutions will come automatically when we understand the system conditions that underlie
their appearance and place them in some coordinated mutual
interrelationship. Effectiveness is measured as much by the nature of new problems that
arise from an action as by the reduction in the problem treated. The effective manager
uses less effort, but well directed "nudges" that allow the ecosystem functions
to respond as they are organized. Problematic symptoms may disappear more slowly, but new
problems are less intense and require only small managerial input to maintain a good
system. |