On tackling wicked problems

I recently stumbled across a fantastic publication, one that ought to be on the reading list for anyone working in the business of change.

It’s called Wicked Problems, A Public Policy Perspective.

It published by the Australian Public Service Commission and carries its authority. The author(s) are anonymous, but they have done a beautiful job of crisply summarising a literature and critically assessing its huge implications for government.

Firstly, what are “wicked problems”?

Wicked problems are complex multi-dimensional problems like indigenous  health, climate change, catchment management, and school bullying. In fact, practically every problem we deal with in environment or health is a wicked problem.

Wicked problems:

- are difficult to define (it depends on who is asked);

- are often unstable…(understandings evolve over time, presenting a moving target);

- have many interdependencies and causes;

- have no clear solution (solutions “are not verifiably right or wrong, but rather better or worse or good enough” (p4) and solutions often have unforseen consequences);

- are socially complex (“it is the social complexity of wicked problems, rather than their technical complexity, that overwhelms most current problem-solving and project management approaches p4”);

- hardly ever conveniently sit within the responsibilities of one organisation;

- involve changing peoples’ behaviours;

- are characterised by chronic policy failure.

Stumbling upon this publication was timely because I was just writing up recommendations for organisational change in the Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority. It handed me a really useful framework for assessing the organisation’s capacity as a change agency.

It’s this: An effective change agency should exhibit seven capacities:

1) Capacity for innovation;

2) Capacity for learning and adaptive management;

3) Capacity to work across silos, in multi-disciplinary teams;

4) Capacity to collaborate with multiple stakeholders and the public in understanding problems and devising and implementing solutions;

5) Capacity to influence the behaviours of stakeholders and the public;

6) Staff capacity in communication, big picture thinking, influencing others and the ability to work cooperatively.

7) Capacity to critically review accountability frameworks.

Of course, as soon as you think about these capacities, it’s obvious why of most government agencies and local councils are hopeless at tackling difficult problems. The authors say this so much more diplomatically:

“A traditional bureaucracy, divided into vertical silos, in which most of the authority for resolving problems rests at the top of the organisation, is not well-adapted to support the kinds of process necessary for addressing the complexity and ambiguity of wicked problems. Bureaucracies tend to be risk averse, and are intolerant of messy processes. They excel at managing issues with clear boundaries rather than ambiguous, complex issues that may require experimental and innovative approaches.” (p13)

In short, if you want to change the world you can’t afford be a traditional, hierarchically managed, value-free, service-delivery agency like a Department or local Council. You just can’t. You need to be small, nimble, passionate, and happy to “fail informatively”. CMAs are one promising model; PCPs (Primary Care Partnerships in Victoria) are another; Alliancing is another (used for large infrastructure projects); outsourcing to NGOs like Landcare groups and local Environmental Centres is another.

Here are some nice quotes from Tackling Wicked Problems:

“Because of social complexity, solving a wicked problem is fundamentally a social process. Having a few brilliant people or the latest project management technology is no longer sufficient.” (p28, quoting Conklin, L. 2006)

“It has been argued that the public sector needs to adopt more systematic approaches to social innovation as opposed to the current rather ad hoc approach: ‘How many departments or agencies have a board level director responsible for innovation..? How many have significant budgets for innovation..? How many can point to the flow of new models in their service that are being cultivated, developed, improved and tested.’” (p13, quoting Mulgan G. 2006)

“A concomitant condition to increasing adaptability is a broad acceptance and understanding, including from governments and Ministers, that there are no quick fixes and that levels of uncertainty around the solutions to wicked problems need to be tolerated.” (p15)

“Critically, tackling wicked problems also calls for high levels of systems thinking. This big picture thinking helps policy makers to make the connections between the multiple causes and interdependencies of wicked problems that are necessary in order to avoid a narrow approach and artificial taming of wicked problems…A multi-disciplinary team approach is one practical way to garner all the required skills and knowledge for tackling any particular wicked problem.” (p33)

“Collaborative strategies are the best approach to tackling wicked problems which require behavioural change as part of the solution.” (p10)

“The fact is that a true understanding of the problem generally requires the perspective of multiple organisations and stakeholders, and that any package of measures identified as a possible solution usually requires the involvement, commitment and coordination of multiple organisations and stakeholders to be delivered effectively.” (p11)

“Is the requirement to tightly specify programme outputs and outcomes useful in an environment where even defining the problem and solution is difficult?” (p23) 

“There is increasing evidence that some types of pre-set performance measures, especially lower-level indicators, may undermine the responsiveness of the delivery of complex services and could even distort or constrict the services by making the indicator (or the target) rather than the service the focus of provision. In the case of devolved services both service providers and service users can find themselves playing second fiddle to programme reporting regimes.” (p24)

----------------------

Australian Public Service Commission (2007) Tackling Wicked Problems – A Public Policy Perspective, downloadable from www.apsc.gov.au/publications07/wickedproblems.htm

The problem with Social Marketing - why you can't sell change like soap

If you work in health promotion or sustainability, you’ll have heard of “Social Marketing” and “Community-based Social Marketing”.

Lately I’ve noticed how these communication methodologies are being treated with almost magical reverence, as if they are the long-awaited silver bullets for the complex social, health and environmental problems we all struggle with.

I believe many of the expectations being placed on Social Marketing and Community-based Social Marketing are seriously overblown and it’s time social change practitioners reassessed their attitude to these practices.

Here’s why:

Of course you can market brands. But behaviour change is not like buying a different brand of beer, it’s about getting people to DO THINGS THEY ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH, DON’T WANT TO DO OR CAN’T DO, or they would already be doing them. Like parents letting their kids walk to school, or smokers quitting, or drivers switching to public transport.

These kinds of social, health and environmental behaviours are intractable because they are part of complex, “wicked” or messy social problems. That’s why they are still with us. They are intractable for very good reasons: they are fixed firmly in place by a powerful matrix of institutional, technological and social factors. To be effective change programs must therefore do more than just communicate persuasive messages, they must aim to modify those factors.

Paul Stern of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the UK’s National Research Council explains that many behaviours are simply not amenable to voluntary change: [i]

“This pattern of [contextual] influences implies that effective laws and regulations, strong financial incentives or penalties, irresistible technology, powerful social norms, and the like can leave little room for personal factors to affect behavior…”

In other words, when people have very little choice how they act, structural changes (like regulation, pricing, infrastructure, service provision, governance reform, social innovation, and technological innovation) should be the preferred approaches.

He goes on to say that: “[however] when contextual influences are weak, personal factors…are likely to be the strongest influence on behavior.” However, if we are realistic, there are very few situations where contextual factors are weak. Every personal decision is thoroughly embedded on its context. Even a simple voluntary behaviour like “turning off the lights” is determined by technology and pricing.

The fact is, every effective social change effort has been predominantly structural. Improving the anti-social behaviour of drinkers, for instance, has required collaboration between police, community leaders and licensing authorities; physical re-design of venues; modified management practices; training for staff; advocacy; political leadership; and legislative change. Marketing has been the least important factor in the mix. Most solutions to “wicked” problems are like this. They involve multi-faceted strategies, and are very much about building relationships and re-designing practices, places and institutions, with marketing taking an important supportive role.

Of course there’s nothing wrong with good marketing. It’s a vital part of the mix. It spreads knowledge, creates interest, helps get people buzzing, and helps spark political action so that politicians get busy with the work of changing institutions and supporting technological innovation. It is an important handmaiden of change, but not the driver....

The rest of this paper is at www.enablingchange.com.au   It looks at the shape of successful interventions into "wicked problems", details weaknesses in the Social Marketing approach, and suggests an alternative approach.

---

[i] Paul C. Stern (2005) Individuals’ Environmentally Significant Behaviour, Environmental Law Reporter News and Analysis 35 10785

How to bust silos

An article by Graham Winter, an Australian organisational psychologist, with some nicely expressed ideas about minimising organisational silos.


When initiatives failed
Our studies showed that when business initiatives failed, the 'players' were likely to be:

1. pursuing their own agenda: there was no shared bigger picture between units and little understanding or empathy for others, and leaders allowed conflicting agendas to prevail
2. avoiding and denying: employees avoided reality checks, there was a limited use of data in feedback and decision-making and the company had poor problem-solving practices
3. stifling communication: there was an absence of listening, e-mail was used as the main means of communication, there was a prevalence of hoarded information and alternative views were often dismissed
4. protecting their own turf: employees prioritised and planned in isolation, used their status to influence decisions and fostered inconsistency in processes and systems
5. playing 'I win, you lose': employees were blamed as soon as things went wrong, and success was rewarded inside the silos rather than across the company.

When initiatives succeeded
When business initiatives succeeded, the 'players' were likely to be:

1. sharing the big picture: companies created and shared one big picture, found common goals and synergies and focused on what was best for the organisation
2. sharing the reality: employees were focused on real performance, made fact-based decisions and had the tough conversation rather than avoiding reality
3. sharing the air: companies invited ideas from employees in every area of the business, and employees expressed opinions clearly and succinctly and listened to others
4. sharing the load: employees prioritised and planned together, were clear about roles and expectations and looked for common ground
5. sharing the wins and losses: companies paid close attention to joint results, learned and adapted together and rewarded true performance.

Why multi-disciplinary teams might save the world

What works best: involuntary or voluntary change? Like all dichotomies, a little of each is the correct answer.

Even though I’m a ‘behaviour change’ guy and I think ALL change is behavioural, I’ve come to believe that 90% of behaviour is in turn driven by physical, social and technological settings. But communication, participation and marketing are nevertheless integral because a) public participation drives political change; and b) it’s no good having great technologies if no one uses them.

This 2007 statement by 28 concerned social scientists neatly summarises a case against dismissing voluntary behaviour change in favour of an exclusive focus on policy and technology:

In part, they wrote:

“Dismissing the importance of small personal behavior choices in favor of a sole focus on policy change is a big mistake:

• Small behaviors are important not only for the direct environmental impact they have, but because they often lead to more and more pro-environmental behaviors over time.

• Numerous psychological studies have shown that people are more likely to agree to take a big action if they've previously agreed to smaller, similar actions.

• People reject scary messages like the danger of global warming if they don't think there is anything feasible they can do to fix it.

• Restrictive policies engender resentment and actions to restore threatened freedoms, such as ditching the policies themselves or creative disobedience. Witness efforts to dismantle the Endangered Species Act, and the creative efforts to skirt its requirements.

“The history of racial policy and WWII demonstrate the importance of both policy and voluntary actions. Much public debate and many small individual actions transpired to make racial discrimination less and less socially acceptable in the century and a half before LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. Try telling descendents of those rescued by the underground railroad that it didn't matter. Even in the more urgent crisis of WWII, in addition to the mandatory policies, mass persuasion campaigns encouraged voluntary actions. Politicians realized they needed public support for the war effort, and for legislation.

“Remember the "We can do it!" poster encouraging women to join the labor force? The victory gardens? Voluntary actions provided direct physical support, strengthened the norm of supporting the war effort, and boosted morale. Both voluntary action and policy changes were crucial to winning the war.”

One reason we have this pathological separation between policy and the social sciences is that policy-bods and communications-bods hardly ever work together. I’ve said it lots of times, I’ll say it again: “scratch a supposedly insoluble real world problem and you’ll find an institutional failure.” Multi-disciplinary teams aren’t just fun, they might just save the world.