Thanks for your interest and support!

The Blog-Health-o-Meter™ reads This blog is on fire!.

Crunchy numbers

A Boeing 747-400 passenger jet can hold 416 passengers. This blog was viewed about 8,400 times in 2010. That’s about 20 full 747s.

In 2010, there were 57 new posts, growing the total archive of this blog to 117 posts. There were 40 pictures uploaded, taking up a total of 617kb. That’s about 3 pictures per month.

The busiest day of the year was May 25th with 267 views. The most popular post that day was ErbWire: Innovations in Education.

Where did they come from?

The top referring sites in 2010 were erb.umich.edu, linkedin.com, mail.yahoo.com, facebook.com, and alphainventions.com.

Some visitors came searching, mostly for offshore drilling economics, economics of offshore drilling, we are the weather makers chapter summaries, and success usually comes to those who are too busy to be looking for it.

Attractions in 2010

These are the posts and pages that got the most views in 2010.

ErbWire: Innovations in Education May 2010

Does “Green” Corporate Social Responsibility Benefit Society? January 2009
1 comment

The Simple Economics of Offshore Drilling October 2008
1 comment

The Simple Economics of Offshore Drilling April 2010
1 comment

The EcoValuation Working Group on location: Chicago February 2010

As part of the University of Michigan’s Global Entrepreneurship Week, the Emerging Markets Club was delighted to be asked to organize a book club to discuss The Blue Sweater, which brought together students from across the campus to discuss issues raised in the book with Jacqueline Novogratz.

The event, held on November 19^th, was marketed across campus to both graduate and undergraduate students as a unique opportunity to interact with Jacqueline in an intimate setting and take part in a substantive conversation with her about the book.  As such we limited the registration for the event to 30 people.

The event was structured in two parts. First, we held small group discussions for an hour in groups of 8-10 people during which each group formulated 3-4 questions that delved deeper into specific topics. Next, we had a30 minute discussion with Jacqueline based on the questions generated by the small groups.

If you want to plan a similar event, but don’t have the benefit of Jacqueline’s insights, I would suggest formulating the output of the groups into a short presentation (4-5 mins) given by one member of the group.  Depending on the size of the audience it may also be possible to discuss one or two key questions or discussion points raised by the groups.

Preparation

We appointed a facilitator to ensure that the group discussions were both effective and inclusive and that the groups focused on developing questions that were concise and that would make for an interesting discussion later on with Jacqueline and the wider group…questions that couldn’t necessarily be answered just by reading the book.

Since we had a relatively short period for the group discussions,  it was beneficial to have the facilitators be ready with a list of questions that would act as a starting point to prompt the discussion; however the facilitators didn’t feel compelled to use these if they weren’t needed.  For larger events, allocating specific themes to each group might also help avoid any overlap or repetition in the discussions.

Discussion Groups

The discussion groups chatted about the book for an hour and used flip charts to record their thoughts.  During the last 15 minutes, the facilitators focused on finalizing questions and assigned each question to a member of the group to ask.  Some of the questions addressed specific topics in the book while others developed from participants sharing their own experiences within the group. We found it particularly useful to have a single facilitator roam between the groups to get an understanding of the scope of the conversations and questions being developed.

Discussion with Jacqueline

Each group had written their questions on a flip chart and these were placed around the room for the discussion with Jacqueline.  This segment was run by the roaming facilitator who selected group members and questions based on the flow of the conversation, which loosely progressed from issues of Jacqueline’s individual motivation and experiences to questions about Acumen Fund and issues regarding the institutions it interacts with.

Alternatively, for groups that don’t have Jacqueline present to take part, the roaming facilitator would invite each group to present a summary of their discussions and, if appropriate, facilitate audience response on key questions or issues raised by the groups.  Given the time constraints, it wasn’t possible to do this as part of our event, however, it would have been very valuable to gain wider views on some of the issues discussed, especially given the diverse experiences and backgrounds represented in the audience.

We plan to use the success of this event to continue to engage students on campus in substantive conversations about topics in emerging markets, as feedback suggests that there are too few outlets for this type of interaction and that students appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues with their peers and to benefit from each other’s experience.

–

Colm Fay is a second year MBA student at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business and is Vice President of Academic and Educational Development for the school’s Emerging Markets Club.

See a list of attendees here:

http://bit.ly/ErbReturns2010attendees

For those of you who were there, we’ve prepared this as a reminder. Please remember to enter your feedback on this year’s event in the following survey that Dominique sent by Sunday, Dec 5th, 11:59p.

https://umichbus.qualtrics.com/WRQualtricsSurveyEngine/?Q_SS=cRSlQyyZZqtvEjO_2l8cxsnYukHLeGE&_=1

For those of you who weren’t able to make it, here’s a taste of what you missed:

After a warm introduction by Erb Returns chair Tony Gross ’08, the official program began with a Job Crafting Exercise, facilitated by Janet Max of the POS Group, designed to help people identify opportunities to make their jobs more engaging and fulfilling.  (Jane Dutton, Ross MO Professor, is one of its creators).  It begins by asserting that there are three ways to make your job better – by making changes in the tasks you do at work, by making changes in your work relationships, and by making changes in the way you think about your work.  It then provides a framework to identify how you actually spend your time at work and how you would like to spend your time at work, based on your strengths, motives, and passions.  The final exercise was to create a diagram of the work life you want to have, and identify actions necessary to move in that direction.  And the best part of the exercise?  Playing with stickers.  If you missed the seminar and want to check it out, it’s available for $15 on the Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship’s website: http://www.bus.umich.edu/Positive/CPOS/Teaching/job-crafting.html.

The Job Crafting Exercise was followed by an introduction (or re-introduction) to the Ross OCD staff – Marla McGraw, Leslie Lynn, and new mom Leslie Mulder (and baby!).  Bottom line:  whether job crafting or job searching, they’re still here if you need them.

Professor Gretchen Spreitzer, Chair of the Management and Organizations Department at Ross, followed with a presentation introducing some of the concepts employed by the Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship.  The center “seeks to study organizations typified by appreciation, collaboration, vitality, and fulfillment, where creating abundance and human well-being are key indicators of success.”  One of the techniques Gretchen shared was that of “appreciative inquiry,” which is a particular way of asking questions that fosters a positive and co-creative relationship between the inquirer and inquired.  Basically – treat people in a positive and respectful manner and you get great results.  Perhaps obvious to Erbers, but it’s nice to have some academic research backing it up.  You can find out more about POS at http://www.bus.umich.edu/Positive/

After a tasty lunch (provided by Mona Sotolongo of Cezanne Catering) that even featured a vegan delight (earning two thumbs-up from vegan Liz Abbett ‘10), we were treated to a refreshingly honest and inquisitive keynote by Chris Park, head of Deloitte’s sustainability practice.  He shared some insights from his experience working with clients on sustainability, but also wanted to get our opinions on the new positioning he is developing for the sustainability practice.  (Great free consulting from us – we need to start charging!)

What emerged was that at the big corporate level there is still a great deal of work to be done on the sustainability front.  While some of their clients are interested in moving sustainability efforts forward and looking for help with how to do so, many still need to see clear financial bottom-line gains, and some are not interested much at all.  It was a reminder of how important it is that we push sustainability agendas at companies we want to change from both within and without.

New Erb student Neesha Modi ’12 gave a quick talk on Erb “Resource Groups,” an initiative born in the last few years that seeks to put our collective knowledge of different sustainability areas on the web.  Erb alums can see what groups exist and sign up at https://sites.google.com/site/erbresourcegroups/.  Many kudos to students and staff for their work in making our collective knowledge more collectively available.

The next programs of the afternoon were topical breakout sessions:  “Change Theory into Practice” led by James Lloyd ’03, “Corporate Sustainability” led by Rob Frederick ’00, and “Climate Change & Carbon Markets: Copenhagen & Beyond,” led by Doug Glancy ’07.   In the Change Theory session, we role-played dealing with those folks at work who just don’t get it (sustainability, being a decent human being, etc.).  We discovered a lot of value in this type of role play, and as one-day-to-be organizational-change-guru Emily Plews ’10 put it, a role-play allows us to try out in ten minutes different approaches that might take ten weeks to try out in real life.  Who knows what happened in the other sessions, though sporadic cheering and shouts of “Chug! Chug! Chug!” indicated it was not all business.

The final session of the day was an update from Erb SAB co-presidents Nate Springer ’11 & Katie O’Hare ’11, and Institute jefe Rick Bunch on the state of the Institute.  Rick had a lot of positive things to say about the program and the alumni.  A main point was that it is US – the alumni – that keep Erb ahead of the other programs through the “cutting-edge stuff we are doing in [many different] fields.” He wants everyone to know that this is a watershed year – we have 100 students enrolled in the Erb program and 200 alumni.  He went on to say that Erb graduates should not shy away from any position centered around sustainability because we are without question the most qualified for it.  Very nice to know.

The next day, after folks staggered in following a night partying at the Cottage Inn with fellow alumni and current Erb students, we began with a second round of breakout sessions: “Renewable Energy” led by Ian Black ’08,  “Green Building & Development” led by Rich Bole ’06, and “Clean-tech Start-ups”, led by Jeff LeBrun ’09.

One thing that the breakout sessions made clear – we have an enormous breadth of knowledge and experience in the Erb network.  Take advantage of it!

The breakout sessions were followed by a great new idea – Erb TED talks!  Seven-minute stories about life, work, and sustainability.

We heard some great and inspiring stories from:

-Tony Baptista ‘05…on birding in Cape Cod & keeping your sustainability metrics simple and sustainable for your organization

-Ruth Scotti ‘05…on working at BP during the recent oil spill crisis and the silver lining of opportunities the spill created for biofuels

-Michael Hokenson ‘05…on why glossy slides with coffee farmers and artisan women won’t raise you millions in financing on Wall St. — but persistence will

-Laura Flanigan ’06…on how navigating a career in sustainability is like being an astronaut

-Meghan Chapple-Brown ‘02…on best practices in bringing novel media and innovation exercises to green government initiatives

-Tim Reed ‘00…on the reunion theme of constancy of change. What has and hasn’t changed over 10 years of CEMP/Erb graduates

Everyone did a great job in the inaugural (and hopefully be a continuing tradition of) ErbTED.

The day closed with well-earned thanks to Tony Gross ’08, Melissa Vernon ’02, Emily Plews ’10, Annie Barton ’10, Ian Black ’08, Christina Gilyutin ’08, Priyanka Bandyopadhyay ’09, Devon Douglas ’09, Doug Glancy ’07, Jess Lin-Powers ’07, Rick Bunch, Cyndy Cleveland, Dominique Abed, Henry Ladd, Karen Houghtaling and all the others who put in a lot of hard work to make it such a great event.  This was followed by a group discussion on how to continue to build on the experience in the future.

Again, PLEASE FILL OUT OUR ERB RETURNS FEEDBACK SURVEY BY Sunday., DEC.5th at 11:59pm.  We need your input to continue to improve Erb Returns!

If one theme emerged from Erb Returns it was this:  while life may bring constant change, one thing that does not seem to change is the quality of Erbers/CEMPers from past through present.  We’re an impressive group, with an amazing pool of knowledge, experience, empathy, and all-around good people.  Some great ideas were raised for how to keep that community vibe going when we’re not all in the same place – hopefully this will happen.  But sometimes you need to be in the same place.  So next time Erb Returns returns, give getting here the ol’ college try.

If you’d like to see the all the photos from this Erb Returns, please click on the link below (the Password is “erberite”):

http://erb-photo.smugmug.com/Community-Photos

If you are interested in being involved in planning alumni engagement activities and the next Erb Returns, please e-mail Tony Gross at apgross@umich.edu.

On a final note, Fred Erb has fallen ill and is currently in the hospital.  Please keep him and his family in your thoughts.

Happy Holidays and best wishes for a healthy and fulfilling 2011.

Warmly,

Dave Fribush ’10 and Jamie Lloyd ’03

Jamie Shea

by Jamie Shea, MBA/MS student at the Erb Institute, Class of 2012.

From October 28th – 30th 2600 students and professionals descended on the University of Michigan for the 18th Annual Net Impact Conference. It is the capstone event for the Net Impact organization, an international nonprofit organization with a mission to inspire, educate, and equip individuals to use the power of business to create a more socially and environmentally sustainable world. The theme of this year’s event was 2020: Vision for a Sustainable Decade, and focused on the tangible steps that could be taken over the next ten years to make both business and society more sustainable.

As always, the conference delivered diverse speakers that covered an expansive range of topics. Bill McDonough, author of Cradle to Cradle, and the CEO of Nestle Waters North America, Kim Jeffrey led off the day on Friday discussing the possibility of a nationwide recycling infrastructure funded by existing industry. Later that day as part of the Detroit Impact series, Ross students led a series of brainstorm sessions designed to help Detroit businesses and organizations overcome the critical challenges they are facing. Gary Hirshberg founder and CEO of Stonyfield Farms and David Blood, founder of Generation Investment, gave concurrent keynote speeches to open Saturday, and we closed out the conference by singing multiple versions of happy birthday to our final speaker, Majora Carter.

While all the speakers undoubtedly left an impression on conference participants, I believe that more than anything else this year’s conference will be remembered for the unique element that Michigan brought to the event. Due to its increasing popularity this was the last year that the conference was to be held on a university campus, and thus we wanted to make sure that we sent it off in style.

I was approached numerous times throughout the conference by Net Impact board members, conference veterans, and visitors from other schools saying how impressed they were with the facilities, the conference logistics and the quality of the breakout sessions put together by our students. But the one compliment that I heard most often and that was the most important to me was how welcomed everyone felt by all of the Michigan students and volunteers. Conference design team members, Ross Net Impact leadership, Ross staff members or “day-of” volunteers all took on the responsibility of being a host and made the event a success. However, over the ten months that we planned the event, their was no group that collectively contributed more to the conference than Erbers. The conference planning team asked a great deal of our fellow Erbers and each time, whether they were current students or alumni, they delivered.

Now that the conference is over I can go back to being a student again. In the last few days I have experienced a wide range of emotions: excitement, relief, exhaustion and a slight disbelief that it is all over. But the one feeling that has remained constant is a strong sense of pride. Watching everyone come together to put on an event that brought out the best in all the participants made me proud to be part of proud to be part of Ross Net Impact, proud to be an Erber, and proud to be a wolverine.

“Your job is not to create more NGOs.”
These are just a few of the words of wisdom Majora Carter shared with Net Impact members duringtheir conference’s closing keynote.
Majora went on to explain that those seeking to help communities in need too often rely on non-profitapproaches that require continuous contributions of capital. In lieu of this approach she argued weshould focus on creating for-profit project and business models which will sustain themselves and enrichthe community. It seems the old proverb still holds: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
Later in her speech, Majora also made a terrific observation regarding social and environmental justice.As she pointed out, the more marginalized people are economically, the easier it is to marginalize otheraspects of their lives. Not coincidentally, Majora and others now focus on improving local communityeconomies, or as Majora puts it “Home(town) Security” as a first step towards achieving social andenvironmental justice.

———————————————————————————————

What is the biggest challenge we’re facing today in terms of water sustainability? Judging from theconsensus of opinions at Net Impact’s conference last week, the question has a two-part answer.
First, as Cameron Brooks of IBM said, “The number one issue with water is people don’t think it’s anissue.” Although, water sustainability has recently received more media attention, it seems manypeople are still unaware of the potential effects of water scarcity.
The second part of the challenge we’re facing revolves around how to assess our water impact andanalyze the risks we face as a result of water scarcity. Although, the water footprint methodology, whichquantifies impact as the volume of water consumed in a given timeframe per person, or per unit ofproduction, has gained in popularity over the past few years, it has its weaknesses. Principally, it tendsto gloss over variances in local and regional environmental conditions. This, in turn, leads to inaccurateassessments of water impact and its associated risk.
Unfortunately, at this time there does not seem to be a widely accepted standard to replace thefootprint metric. Thankfully though, judging from the discussions at the Net Impact conference, manyindividuals, organizations, and corporations are now focusing on how to improve our understanding ofwater impact and risk. The question in many peoples’ minds is how to answer the question Peter Schulteof Pacific Institute recently posed: “How should we understand and interface with this watershed worldwe live in?”

Emily Plews

by Emily Plews, MBA/MS student at the Erb Institute, Class of 2010.

The Story

I had volunteered to obtain 20+ signatures necessary to close downtown streets and reserve a large city park for an inaugural city-wide Earth Day celebration in Columbus, Oh.  The task was as daunting and tedious as it sounds. I had to go to at least ten different municipal offices, in a certain sequence, to get officials to sign off on the complex details of road closures, fireways, and crowd control. If even one person refused to sign, the event was canceled.

I had slogged through the process of getting  every signature I needed,  except one. The last signature needed came from a local businessman. I walked past his assistants and into his giant, decorated office and knew the cards were stacked against me.

I showed the businessman the proposed layout of the Earth Day event and made my request. He immediately and firmly said, “No way.” I retorted with some reasonable arguments and questions to surface options and got no where.

Then he asked me if I believed in climate change.

This question began a series of crazy turns in a conversation that lasted for an hour and a half. The businessman had read many books that questioned the validity of climate change and challenged me with that information. I was not knowledgeable about his specific claims. I could tell my responses were weak.

At one point, the businessman said, “I bet you don’t like this politician, either.” It was true that I did not like that politician very much. The businessman then told a story of very personal, kind, human experiences his family had with the politician that I admitted to disliking.

I was moved by the personal story. That empathy mixed with a mess of confusion, anger, exhaustion, and anxiety already brewing in me. I started to sob. He handed me tissues and continued telling his story. I listened.

When the tears and embarrassment subsided, I felt empty but strangely strong. I waited for a long enough pause to acknowledge the kindness of the politician to his family and change topics slightly. I asked him if his family recycles. He took pride in telling me how his kids always recycle and how they changed all the lightbulbs in their house. I then wondered out loud,  ”Does it matter if you believe climate change?” One could argue that it matters, but in that moment it didn’t.

This question confused the businessman. As he pondered, I told him about the educational mission of the Earth Day event and how many of the ideas we had hoped attendees would “take home” appeared to be already under consideration by his family. I let him know that I cared deeply about encouraging others to take those steps too, and that is what the event was all about.  I started to leave in calm defeat, but he revisited my documents on his desk, made me promise to change a couple things, and signed on the line.  As I left, I told him that I hoped to see him and his family at the event.

Analysis

One of the striking lines in this story (and the one we will reflect on today–leaving others to later blog entries) is Emily’s question, “Does it matter if you believe in climate change?” Two observations make this question strinking:

Please do not misunderstand the point here. Does it matter whether or not we are destroying the planet we live on? Of course it does. But in many of our fractious and polarizing debates–the battles that are crippling rather than enhancing our ability to move forward collectively and productively (as in Emily’s conversation)–climate change is a red herring. It does not matter.

This observation is a great example of what Fisher and Ury [1] describe as the difference between positions and interests. In a negotiation, a position is a stance you take, a material outcome. For the businessman in Emily’s story, it appears that the material outcome he wanted was something along the lines of getting others–Emily in particular–to recognize that climate change arguments are not correct. Because he nwas aggressive about his argument, and because Emily does believe in climate change, she fell into a trap of taking the opposing position and arguing with the businessman–even though her expicit reason for entering the room was to get a signature approving the street closure for Earth Day.

An interest–in contrast with a position–is the reason why we take the specific positions we take in our negotiations (or conflicts) with others. We do not know why the businessman felt so strongly about refusing climate change. Perhaps it was because of the economic impact that legislation about climate change would have on his life or business, because he believes that the scientists who do climate change research are not honest, or because it conflicts with the political doctrine he subscribes to. What we do know is that, in the end, the position that there is no such thing as human-induced climate change had little to do with his opposition to Emily’s efforts to organize an Earth Day. He and Emily actually both care enough about conservation or polution or the planet they share that the climate change debate, in the end, was irrelevant. The businessman negotiated some changes in her proposal, but in the end found that he was largely on the same side as Emily.

In our experience, this is a common phenomenon in organizations. The issues that people get worked up about, and that create anger, contention, disruption in operations, and even significant financial problems are often red herrings. Sometimes the problem is that issues have been unnecessarily tied to other issues that they need not be tied to. Sometimes, people just need to know that they and their opinions are valued and then the “big” issues melt away. But whatever the reason, productive conversation and positive organizing often require us to ask what is behind the contentious issue and what we really want. When we do, the possibilities it opens up to us can often be astounding.

The How

Our goal in this blog entry has been to help us see how issues that seem real may not actually be the real issues at all. Because of the human propensity to focus on the negative [2] we often get caught up in unnecessary conflict and fail to recognize that we often have more in common than we think we do. Emily’s efforts to focus on what they did have in common opened up a unique opportunity for collaboration. In subsequent blogs, we will use ressearch to analyze some of the other conversational moves that made this exceptional outcome possible.

———————————————–

The following is a checklist to GREEN your event.

Food:

—Provide locally sourced and organic meals

—Purchase local organic produce at local farmers market for reception

—Offer vegetarian dining options or go vegan

—Offer local wines: local whites from Michigan and reds from U.S.

—Instead of throw-away favors, make fresh pumpkin donuts in wax paper bags

—Purchase local beeswax candles for party gifts

—Compost and/or donate leftovers after the reception

—Recycle all table scraps at a local pig farm

Read more…

Clothes:

—Wear organic, animal-free make up

—Consider wearing a used or an heirloom wedding dress

—Consider hemp clothes for the wedding party

—Purchase clothing that can be used often for everyone in the wedding

—Buy a diamond engagement ring that is certified to come from conflict free mines

—Make rings using conflict free stones and repurpose family heirloom jewelry

—Make rings from recycled gold and beryl stones

Location:

—Support local parks by choosing them as a venue

—Consider the location/time of year (are they heating or cooling an inefficient space – i.e. tent, etc)

—Hold the event at a venue featuring sustainable practices.  Incorporate an educational component about sustainability.  Include tours for guests to show the no-flush compost toilets, domestic water solar heater, solar panel arrays on the roof for electricity, a solar-powered heating system

—Have information for guests to read about interesting natural features they will pass on the way to the reception

—Consider having all energy come from a solar-powered generator

Travel:

—Stay at a hotel with environmental certification such as LEED or GreenSeal.

—Encourage carpooling to events

—Provide options to offset carbon emissions from travel

Guests:

—Choose green registries for gifts

—Organize group share accommodations for guests

—Use compostable bags for gift/treats

—Use reusable bags as welcome bags

—Request no wrapping paper on gifts from registry

—Toss lavender buds instead of rice

Entertainment:

—Live big-band with minimal amplification to reduce energy use

—Invite local musicians to play

Decorations:

—Look for local wildflowers from farmer’s market

—Reuse flowers bouquets for reception tables and BBQ tables

—Reuse table decorations from wedding coordinator’s stockpile

—To eliminate wasteful cut flowers, incorporate local, renewable resources for reception decorations (ie. pine cones, pine boughs, apples, etc)

—Borrow vases, baskets and reusable candle holders

—Donate reusable decorations to local thrift store after wedding

—Repurpose reception table decorations for morning-after brunch

—Use recycled napkins

—Use compostable dinnerware at the rehearsal dinner

—Consider minimal indoor lighting

—Look into the linen service (ie. how the linens are handled, cleaned, etc.)

—Reuse wrapping paper

Invitations:

—Send evites for save-the-dates

—Use online RSVP to eliminate extra envelopes and inserts in the invitation

—Send invitations and thank you notes made from recycled paper

—Have programs made of paper that is plantable

—Create table cards and name tags from sustainably harvested wood or wood from already fallen trees

—Donate packing peanuts and boxes from gifts to local shipping store

—Use reclaimed wood for a “Just Married” sign

Helpful Green Wedding Resources:
http://www.greatgreenwedding.com/
http://www.ecowedding.org/
http://www.3rliving.com/category_s/50.htm
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/go-green/weddings/
http://www.greenbrideguide.com/
http://sierraclub.typepad.com/greenlife/2007/03/10_steps_to_a_g.html
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/go-green/weddings/
http://www.greenweddingcalifornia.com/

Nick Fassler

by Nick Fassler, MBA/MS student at the Erb Institute, Class of 2012.

This article is cross-posted on Environmental Defense Fund Innovation Exchange Blog.

“Energy efficiency is not the end game.” These words from Peter Senge (senior lecturer at MIT, renown author and founding Chairman of the Society for Organizational Learning) literally and figuratively kicked off the Capturing the Energy Efficiency Opportunity conference (read Emily Reyna’s blog post) that focused on the results and learnings of the 2010 EDF Climate Corps program. In just one summer, 51 Climate Corps fellows found energy efficiency projects with savings of $350 million in net operating costs and 400,000 metric tons of annual greenhouse gas emissions. During my own fellowship with HCA Healthcare, I found alighting efficiency project that could be rolled out to most of HCA’s hospitals to save 52,000 metric tons of GHG emissions annually and $14.7 million in net operating costs over the life of the project. The success of EDF Climate Corps is no modest accomplishment for a program that has only been in existence for three years, yet throughout the conference I kept thinking about Professor Senge’s words and wondered how we could be addressing the deeper and more systemic issues of energy and sustainability.

I spoke with Professor Senge shortly after the conference to ask him about moving beyond energy efficiency, and what he thinks programs like EDF Climate Corps can do to be more transformative in their relationships with businesses.

The Problem with Energy Efficiency

While energy efficiency itself is not a problem, a problem arises when people focus purely on energy efficiency and neglect to see the big picture. In most businesses, efficiency improvements help cut costs and lead to additional growth — so while a company may be improving its efficiency, its absolute greenhouse gas emissions may stay flat or even increase. By only focusing on energy efficiency, there may be unintended side effects and fundamental solutions to the deeper problems will likely be missed. Professor Senge gave the automotive industry as a prime example: because internal combustion engines have become more and more efficient, we have seen rapid growth in the automotive industry leading to our current unsustainable, car-based transportation system. Clearly, efficiency is not the only key to sustainability.

Going from Energy Efficiency to Energy Intelligence

To move away from a short sighted focus on energy efficiency, Professor Senge suggested ways to use energy efficiency as a lens to better understand the deeper issues around energy. Companies must become more intelligent about their energy usage and ask themselves key questions to understand the assumptions about energy that their business is based on. These are some questions that every company must ask itself:

●       Where does the energy we use come from?

●       Where is the energy we consume going?

●       How would increasing energy prices impact our business?

●       How much energy does it take to use our products?

●       How much energy is used by our suppliers?

By asking these key questions, companies may realize there is a lot more complexity to how energy will affect their business. They may find that they have been operating as if energy prices will remain low, or find that the majority of energy used in their value chain is actually from the use of their products rather than in manufacturing them. Companies with this deeper understanding of their energy reality can become much more strategic about their energy use. They will be the first to identify both the risks and opportunities that come with an uncertain energy future, and will likely choose strategies beyond just energy efficiency.

Now, imagine if EDF Climate Corps fellows were also trained to ask these important questions at their host companies. We could continue helping companies identify millions of dollars in energy savings while also moving beyond energy efficiency goals, and looking towards a deeper understanding of energy and sustainability.

Emily Plews, MBA/MS 2010

by Emily Plews, MBA/MS student at the Erb Institute, Class of 2010.  This commentary is cross-posted on The LIFT Blog.

A good friend of mine recently emailed me his retelling of a story he heard elsewhere.  Here is what he wrote:

…The father was a decorated WWII Air Force veteran whose bomber went down. Everyone on the plane lived, however. The son asked his father “what were the men on the plane doing as it fell?” and the father responded, “bellyaching and crying.” The son said he could understand doing that, but then asked “What were you doing?” To which the father replied, “FIXING THE PROBLEM. Crying never fixed a goddamn thing.”

(Pardon the language.)

I read this story the first time, snickered a little, and hastily filed it somewhere in my brain with all of the other snicker-worthy quips from feisty curmudgeons. Somehow my brain revisited and realized that the father/veteran in this story was far more than snicker-worthy.  Behind the abrasive tone, there is content worth considering, deeply in fact.  What could I learn from him the veteran as an advocate for sustainability and student of positive organizational scholarship?

Read more.

Given that this is all I know of the story, please forgive (and hopefully enjoy) the assumptions, creative license, and inference I make about the context.

Opportunity

Imagine you are on a plane with your closest, trusted friends.   All of the sudden the plane goes haywire and you know your life and the life of all others around you is at stake.  Your competent friends are paralyzed by fear, at a loss for possible solutions, and resigned to what seems inevitable.  Is it possible, under these conditions, to see opportunity?

The answer to this question about one man, on one plane, in these circumstances is particularly relevant right now to humanity.   I’ll explain through an analogy.  If earth is the plane and humanity the passengers, then the myriad of social and environmental problems we face- wars, resource scarcity, poverty, etc- represent the complicated problems that could/ are triggering an untimely descent.  A host of people, myself included, are engaging with these problems in our personal and professional lives to make things better.

Two questions surface in light of the veteran’s story:

1. Are we bellyaching or fixing the problem?
2. How does one see past the barriers to fix the problem?

Bellyaching

Sometimes the loudest voices for addressing social problems fall into the trap of bellyaching.

For example, in a New York Times op-ed by Thomas Friedman, he reacts to the death of a carbon reducing energy bill by saying, “We’re going to be sorry.” The most exemplar line in the article is this, “But the truth is, the public, confused and stressed by the last two years, never got mobilized to press for this legislation. We will regret it.” It seems Mr. Friedman is convinced that this bill was a silver bullet solution and that “confusion” and “stress” of a population were the barriers to implementing that solution.

I must say, I was, paradoxically, both confused and stressed by the article.  Friedman is right about that not being a very durably productive state for folks to be in when there is work to do.   Was he saying humanity is up a creek?  Was I meant to feel awful and powerless?  Friedman must have felt how the “bellyachers” on the plane felt at the time.  Defeated.  They likely tried all of the things they knew had worked in the past to solve “similar” problems, at least in training, yet the problem persisted.

Fixing

Sometimes, however,  the loudest voices might help us fix the problem.

A few days later, Friedman got past the need to bellyache, and got back into fixing mode. He wrote an article entitled “Quiet heroism of masses more powerful than Superman.” The article is about a documentary sharing stories of folks who are changing educational systems and their own educational experience, one family at a time. The documentary director’s “… point is that the only way to fix our schools is not with a Superman or a super-theory. No, it’s with supermen and superwomen pushing super-hard to assemble what we know works: better-trained teachers working with the best methods under the best principals supported by more involved parents.” At one point Friedman even says, “you have to look at America from the bottom up, not from the top (Washington) down. And what you’ll see from down there is that there is a movement stirring in this country around education.” In light of their stories Friedman says, “it challenges all the adults who run our schools — teachers, union leaders, principals, parents, school boards, charter-founders, politicians — with one question: Are you putting kids and their education first?”

I don’t hold a single one of the titles on the list Friedman challenged but found myself thinking.  “Gosh.  Am I putting kids and education first?  I believe in that, what would it look like if I tried to help?” Note the difference in how I reacted to this story.  How did you react?

Seeing Opportunity

The education innovators, and Thomas Friedman, in this story have something in common with the WWII veteran.

When faced with life-threatening problem humans tend to rely heavily on retrospect to navigate. [1] Yet life often throws curveballs, i.e. planes misfire, bills fail, full educational systems dwindle, and what worked before to field similar curveballs might not work at all or work wholly.

But that is not how humans always react.  Ryan and Robert Quinn articulate a psychological state, called “lift,” in which people are purpose driven yet open to learning how to live to that purpose. In such a state one will better make sense of curveball situations, i.e. see past barriers and failures to make a positive influence.  Karl Weick’s work in sensemaking during tragedy articulates a helpful idea of what to mindfully do in the state of “Lift.” [1] Combining their ideas, this sentence comes to mind:  Be open to “dropping your tools,” wherein openness suggests a state of being and dropping your tools suggests a resignation of past experience of solving a problem as the only way to solve it in the future. (See this previous entry as well.)

“We have to be able to “change the inner condition from which we operate.”  If we pay attention to how we pay attention, we change it.  If we change how we observe, we change how we interact, and we become generative.  We contribute quality because it is a function of how we attend to the world.”

In the first story, the veteran had to change his attentive state from a frenetic, on-the-brink-of-despair state, like his colleagues, to a state conducive to seeing the problem and possible solutions anew.  From here, he could generate new ideas that would eventually save lives. In the education story, I imagine that the parents and teachers in the stories had to “see” the education problems in a certain way to enact a journey of change, one worthy of documenting and sharing.

To apply this thinking to the analogy involving social and environmental problems… there are problems to solve, innovation needs to happen, all in the face of threats that are real.  Instead of being stressed, confused, and disengaged- and bellyaching about inaction, we can invite those who align with his mission to open our minds, drop our tools, and see what we can accomplish and how we go about accomplishing it anew.

——————————

References

[1] Weick, K. (1996). Drop Your Tools: An Allegory for Organizational Studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1).