Distributed Leadership, Adaptive Management, and Effective Communication… · 2010-02-06 ·...

Distributed Leadership, Adaptive Management, and Effective Communication:A new science delivery and adoption paradigm that we can build together

Interagency l d h

Scientific l d h

JFSP proposal concept:

Creating a paradigm stressing: leadership

Field leadership

leadership Distributed leadership (by researchers, decisionmakers,

and practitioners), Adaptive management

Other consortium services (evolving)

p

Selected consortium projects

Adaptive management (through regional coordin-ation and systematic

feedback), and Eff ti i ti

Virtual consortium (web)and traditional science delivery

Effective communication (through web and other

means).

All other projects

Periodic formal feedback

Workshop goal:

Seek field concurrence and assistance in redesigningassistance in redesigning

science delivery and adoption.


Distributed Leadership

Leadership concepts (social science literature*):

Current research suggests that our admired leaders today are honest, gg yinspiring, self-confident, and adaptive—but traits do not always predict leadership effectiveness.

Repeatedly the lack of leadership appears to be a cause of failedRepeatedly, the lack of leadership appears to be a cause of failed policy and implementation.

Our culture has been glorifying the charismatic while preachingOur culture has been glorifying the charismatic while preaching participation (sometimes ingeniously).

*Ancona 2009 (MIT Leadership school)


The distributed-leadership concept:


LEADERSHIP IS DISTRIBUTED. * That is, leadership is not solely the purview of the CEO, but can and should permeate all levels of the firm.

LEADERSHIP IS PERSONAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL. There is no singleway to lead. The best way to create change is to work with the particular capabilities that you have, while constantly working to improve and expand those capabilities.

LEADERSHIP IS A PROCESS TO CREATE CHANGE. Leadership is aboutmaking things happen contingent on a context Leaders may create changemaking things happen, contingent on a context. Leaders may create change by playing a central role in the actual change process, or by creating an environment in which others are empowered to act.

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPS OVER TIME. It is through practice, reflection, following role models, feedback, and theory that we learn leadership.

*Senge 1996, Ancona 2009 (MIT Leadership school)


Science leadership needs:

More practical & empirical


Respecting interagency & field leadership, e.g., site specificity & field knowledge

Interagency leadership

Scientific leadership p y g

Evaluating practices directly

Communicating in person Field leadership

Greater focus on uncertaintiesSynthesizing & com-

with practitionersOther consortium services (evolving)


Increasing decision space ( t l t f i )

Synthesizing & communicating uncertaintiesVirtual consortium (web)

and traditional science delivery

(at least for comparisons)All other projects

Periodic formal feedback Fill in the blank


Interagency leadership needs:Distributed Leadership

Respecting space for field and science leadership


Scientific leadership

and science leadership

Including site specificity and field knowledge

Deciding on regional priority questions

Supporting a regional Field leadership

Suppo t g a eg o ainteragency adaptive-management framework



Fill in the blankVirtual consortium (web)


Fill in the blank

All other projects



Field leadership needs:Distributed Leadership

Respecting regional and scientific leadership


Scientific leadership

Communicating their information needs

scientific leadership

Sharing local knowledge and its consistency with regional knowledgeField leadership

Increasing personal capabilities



Monitoring comparisons

Virtual consortium (web)and traditional science delivery

Incentives to

Fill in the blank

All other projects


Incentives to make these happen?


Adaptive management framework for the Northwest Plan

Adaptive Management

Also legal rulings

--- Northwest Forest Plan Implementation history ---

The adaptive-management cycle—concept versus reality

p y

FEMATThe Summit

Plan

SEIS

ROD

The Summit

The Dwyer injunction ROD

ActEvaluate

Monitor



PlanFEMAT

The Summit

p y

SEIS

ROD

The Summit

The Dwyer injunction

ActEvaluate

ROD

Watershed analyses

Survey and manageLSR assessments

y gAMA plans

Timber salesLawsuits

Monitor



PlanFEMAT

The Summit

p y

SEIS

ROD

The Summit


ActEvaluate

ROD

AM projectsWatershed analyses


Regional monitoring program

Research

y gAMA plans

Timber salesLawsuits

Monitor



PlanFEMAT

The Summit

p y

SEIS

ROD

The Summit


New LSRActEvaluate

ROD

Watershed analyses


New LSR decisions

AM projects Survey and manageAMA plans

Thinning sales in LSRs


Research

Monitor



PlanFEMAT

p y

10-year interpretive report

Plan conference

SEIS

ROD

ActEvaluateNew LSR

ROD

Watershed analyses


New LSR directions

AM projects Survey and manageAMA plans

Thinning salesResearch


Monitor



FEMATPlan

p y


New regional discussion SEIS

RODPlan conference

ROD

ActEvaluateNew LSR

AM FrameworkPriority questions

New LSR directions

AM projects

Thinning sales

Landscape-scale management studies

Research


Monitor

The adaptive-management cycle—the 10 to 20-yr view

New regionalNew BLM plans

Plan


New regional directions

New Forest plans

20 year interpretive report

New fieldActEvaluate


Priority questions

New local

New field directions


Research

New local directions

Other t

Landscape-scale management studies

Monitor management

The new target? Multi-scale adaptive management with mini-loops lead by the field


Regional adaptive-management frameworkAdopted by Regional Interagency Executive Committee 2007

Corporate (priority)questions

Activities database

Management studies

Regional monitoring

Independent research

Annual & multi-year interpretive steps

Decisions including changes in questions

Decision in 2007: 1) How to manage after wildfire;2) How to reduce wildfire hazards and meet other needs


Regional adaptive-management frameworkAdopted by Regional Interagency Executive Committee 2007

Corporate (priority)questions

Activities database

Management studies

Regional monitoring

Independent research

Annual & multi-year interpretive steps

Decisions including changes in questions

Where the consortium canWhere the consortium can assist the regional adaptive management program Fill in the blank


Example management studies as part of field projects—some examples

Five Rivers watershed landscape management project

Biscuit fire landscape management project

Postfire regional landscape management study template (GTR 777)

ap

CorvallisNewport

Example 1:

al m

a

Alsea

Management study—The Five Rivers watershed

landscape management Waldport

gion

a Alsea

C OC

EAN

P i

Experimental Treatments

landscape management project

I l t d i 2000

Reg

PACI

FIC

Expanded in next slide

PassivePulsedContinuous

Implemented in 2000

EugeneN

Compares 3 ways to

Example 1 Management study—Five Rivers implemented in 2000

Expanded in next slideCompares 3 ways to speed development of late-successional and aquatic habitat by

ContinuousPulsed

Passive Private land

Paved county

Passivemanaging existing plantations:

Passive Decommission

Continuous

Contin

Paved county roadForest Service travel-corridor road

Passive. Decommission roads and allow unaided development;

Continuous

Contin-uous

1 mi2

Continuous. Enter to thin and maintain roads & streams regularly;

Pulsed

PassivePulsed

regularly;

Pulsed. Thin to wide spacing then close

d f 15Passive Pulsed

roads for 15 years.

Example 1 Management study—Five Rivers implemented in 2000

Road closures

Close-up of 3 experimental units showing some individual practices

Road closures distributed across 1300-acre landscapes

1 mile1 mile

Passive pathway

Pulsed pathwayApproaches compared:

Existing plantations:

Unthinned

Thinned

Example 2:Regional management study—

The Biscuit Fire landscape management project.Implemented 2005.

Priority question:

How do alternative approaches toHow do alternative approaches to managing after wildfire compare?

Three management strategies are being compared:

B. Aided natural recovery

Three management strategies are being compared:

A. Salvage and replant

B. Aided natural recovery

C. Salvage with underburning focus

B2

A2C2

Block 2;High habitat

potential

Example 2 management study:

The Biscuit Fire landscape A2C2B3

A3 C3

The Biscuit Fire landscape management project

Block 1;low habitat

potential

A1 B1 Block 3;Medium habitat potential + mostly BLM

Randomized block design comparing 3 approaches to

i ft j

Wilderness

C1

Biscuit Fire perimeter

managing after major wildfire

C4

Wilderness boundary

A: Salvage and replant

Block 4;Low habitat

B4and replantB: Natural recoveryC U d00

0-ac

at

men

ts

potential

A4

C: Under-burning focus

3tr

e


Effective Communication

The type of communication—equal status among science multiagency,

A meaningful discussion in the field:

F d ti i t t t d i i k fi ld

and field leaders as part of an integrated approach

Focused on questions important to decisionmakers, field practitioners, and researchers;By bringing the right people together; andBy not spreading efforts too thinly.

Better communication of what was learned in the field to the field (web)

Better communication among practitioners (CoP)

y p g y

Periodic synthesis for interagency decisionmakers

Better communication among practitioners (CoP)

P i di th i f i t d i i kPeriodic synthesis for interagency decisionmakers

Fill in the blank

Incentivizing interlinked roles of researchers and practitioners in management studies

Local

Local decsionmakers & field practitioners

Researchers and tech transfer specialists

management study

& field practitioners transfer specialists

provide getget provide

Work out what can be provided, and what can be given

Operational management arra s

Ideas, innovations, interpreted results, help on NEPA and

Data from experiments they can

what can be given in return

arrays pmodels

ypublish on

Effectivenessmonitoring


Interagency leadership:Adaptive‐management framework,

Priority questions, Policies

Scientific leadership:Balancing knowns and unknowns Priority questions, Policies

Field leadership

and unknowns

Selected consortium projects Other consortium services (evolving)

NEPA review

Field management studies (long‐term)

Field technical aid (short‐term)

Lessons learned

Links to knowledge

Formal training

Virtual consortium (web)

( g ) ( ) g g


Periodic interpretive reports All other p p(formal feedback step)projects

Quick review of full model

Extra slidesExtra slides

Yet to be implemented pmanagement studies

Presented only if time permits or by demand

Cultus LakeFuel red. only

Burnout corridor

900-ac circleComm thin & Fuel red.

NRF

Past fire

Strategy A: manage owl-gy gcircle-centric landscapes as passively as possible


Burnout corridor


NRF

Past firePast fire

Strategy B: manage owlStrategy B: manage owl-circle-centric landscapes with some entry into circles


Burnout corridor


NRF

Regen. harvest

Past fire

Strategy C: manage owl-circle-centric landscapes as aggressively as possible

Southeast Alaska mockup (2009)

Forest question: Can we manage forest landscapes (with a history of past management) in ways that provide ( y p g ) y pmore local and regional jobs, and at the same time reduces dependence on fossil fuels, deals with climate change and restores fish and wildlife resources?

Alternative landscape strategies that could be

change, and restores fish and wildlife resources?

compared in a management study:

a) Natural recovery with a cautious, assistance-based restoration;restoration;

b) Bundled, value-added, jobs-based restoration; and

) C b t ti j b b dc) Carbon-sequestration, green-jobs based restoration.

Distributed Leadership, Adaptive Management, and Effective Communication… · 2010-02-06 ·...

Documents

Transcript of Distributed Leadership, Adaptive Management, and Effective Communication… · 2010-02-06 ·...