Genesis of TLAM Coaches Workshop…

…and the road getting from there to Arizona!

General ExperienceGeneral Experience  Decades of working with managers to develop studies—how

to start?◦ What decision do you need to make?

◦ What do you need to know about the human dimensions of a management system?

Comments heard around the country—“we had the study done, got the report, but we don’t know how to use it.”

Uncounted meetings where people assume everyone is working off the same assumptions, but in reality they are not, leading to confusion and inefficiency.

Program Models in CCE—needed to have program articulated before an evaluation could be designed

Observations and Comments from Observations and Comments from “Insiders”“Insiders”NYS DEC—35 years of interactionsColorado sabbatical—1991-92NPS study leave and sabbatical 2003 & 2007FWC study leave—2006 Interactions with colleagues (Carpenter—CDOW &

WMI, Organ—USFWS, Riley—Montana FW & Parks)

BeliefsBeliefs Professionalism requires a manager to be explicit, analytic,

and articulate.

Professionalism calls for critique, which requires a management situation to be presented in a coherent fashion. 

Professional wildlife managers typically not encouraged to improve the rigor of management systems thinking.

Managers often are acculturated into an atmosphere where “action” is emphasized.

Working with professionals to design one study at a time was not achieving HD integration quickly enough.  Need a better way to build capacity within organizations.

5

Common Barriers Common Barriers Oversimplification of management problem

◦ Treating “wicked” problems as merely complex Action bias

◦ Moving straight to action without first defining clear objectives

◦ Exclusive focus on actions to affect biological or ecological dimensions

Scale confusion—not explicitly defining:◦ The scales of problem components (both ecological and

human dimensions)◦ The operational scale of management response

Stakeholder neglect◦ Emphasis on SH’s who are concerned with means vs. those

affected by ends

6

Oversimplification: Treating “Wicked” Problems as Simply Complex

Complex Problems

◦ Well-defined problems in systems that always respond in the same way

“Wicked” or “Messy” Problems

◦ High level of complexity and scientific uncertainty

◦ Social conflicts over goals and appropriate forms of resolution

◦ Interdependence among problem elements

Action bias Moving straight to action without first defining clear objectives

Exclusive focus on actions to affect biological or ecological dimensions—missing opportunities for affecting HD components of the system

Action can only be considered after problem elements are identified (i.e., after the problem has been framed)

Taking action may generate collateral impacts; that is, impacts related to the action itself—potential to be blindsided by other interrelated elements if not considered a priori

Collateral impacts may activate a second set of stakeholders

Further actions may be needed to mitigate collateral impacts

8

Two sets of stakeholders (SH’s) are affected by management:

2: SH’s affected by management actions

Type 2: SH’s concerned with means; collateral impacts created by the management intervention

A management paradox

Type 1: SH’s concerned with ends; intended effects of management concern

1: SH’s affected by resource

These two groups may overlap, but some SH’s may be concerned only with ends OR means, not both.

9

WMA

Local

Regional

National

Management Environment(Spheres of Effect)

2: SH’s affected by management actions

Scale confusion:

Clarity of expectations for scale at which effects of management action will be felt (physically and psychologically)

1: SH’s affected by resource

Stakeholder neglect:

Action bias emphasizes Type 2 stakeholders, which can lead to conflict between Type 1 SH, Type 2 SH, and managers

Specific ExperienceSpecific Experience Peer Legitimization: Essence and AIM papers Outreach:

◦ TLAM book◦ MM Pilot and Development Efforts:

NPS Disease mgt system (HDW) Florida Black Bear program Acadia NP deer mgt

◦ FWC requests broader assistance ◦ Design & pilot TLAM coaches workshop for FWC (2007) revised

& held 2nd workshop for FWC (2008) 3rd planned for January 2010.

◦ Two efforts in NY: BB mgmt and deer hunting mgt◦ Trainings for WAFWA (at CSU 2008 and Estes Park 2009)leads

to AGFD Nongame Program workshop today!

11

Concluding ObservationsConcluding Observations Ecological and human considerations interact in all parts of

the manager’s model

Oversimplification of problem framing affects potential solutions◦ Action bias, scale confusion, and stakeholder neglect can

impact problem framing

Efforts to understand human dimensions are a fundamental part of effective management

Manager’s Model—Where does it fit?Manager’s Model—Where does it fit?

Questions, observations or Questions, observations or comments?comments?