Vague Goals

A vague goal allows specialists in different functions to collaborate across rigid silos.

This seems to fit the process of building a goal and a team for your next or first green project. Can you keep the goal vague enough, for instance, let's build out this space using a "green philosophy" instead of saying we are going to achieve LEED Gold? Do they both hit that mark of goal setting? Are they similar goals? Does it matter?

When you put a green team together to work on an interiors project you have so many opinions and expertise to consider. But like any healthy relationship, every one's opinions matter and every one's input is potentially useful assuming we all keep to our boundaries and fulfill our part of the puzzle. I noticed this happening in two meetings recently, both were incredible but the content of each was really different.

Meeting 1 - Interior Designer, LEED consultant ( part of GC firm), PM/CM, Furniture dealer, Client/User. Clearly this was a sub-team of the overall project scope but this meeting was truly amazing. The interior designer talked about wanting a specific design and aesthetic. She/he was not working in a vacuum but instead pointing out what the overall intention was to be and not truly obsessed over how to get there. There were points in the intent that were taking green into consideration like quality of goods specified, green rated products specified ( GreenGuard, Greenseal etc ) but there was no plan on how to get to the goal of a green interiors project. The LEED consultant was not really concerned with the design intent or aesthetic at all, but really wanted the execution of the design to hit the LEED points needed. So there was a discussion brewing already from one player to the next. The CM/PM was schedule and price concerned, as if that is a new idea. How the project was executed and how much the greening cost. The Furniture Dealer added in options to hit the needs of the aesthetics, the points, the schedule and the costs, and then the trade offs among these decisions. The client watched over the whole discussion and determined the ultimate wins for their company. A vague goal with many aspects being considered collaboratively.

Meeting 2 - CFO, VP of Operations, VP of Sales, CEO, VP of Strategy all discussing a company initiative. Each sitting around a table and the conversation moved from one to the next for their point of view. Succinctly, each presented their own opinion as it related to their discipline. Finance talked about the financial ramifications of the decision, no cross talk about someone else's piece of the pie, just their part. This continued around the table and when you accumulated the information, it was fascinating to see the facts all at the table to decide upon. I have been in countless meetings where people accuse one another, trump one another, distrust one another etc. When you really give a vague topic, it does allow for collaboration, assuming everyone is functioning and trusting of one another.

Green building of interiors requires honest communication and collaboration to fulfill every ones needs otherwise, something gets lost in the shuffle. The budget is blown or the LEED rating is thrown out the window and so on.

I have heard numerous people say that green building and paying attention to the environment is a pain. But what about this; An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered.

Is Money the Demotivator

There was an interesting article in the Washington Post this week about money and motivation.   Psychological experiments say that money is not the best instrument to use to motivate behavior and that it actually demotivated people because it devalued their "internal drive".  Hmm.  If you want to motivate behavior offer meaning, not money.  

We have spent years weighing the value of green building.  Is it more expensive?  Hundreds of studies proving one way or the other.  It is if you do this, it is not if you do this.  But if you look at the early adapting people that built green, they were all motivated by something other than money.   The collaborative process of green building demands conversation and healthy conflict to resolve monetary decisions and how they impact the building process and product.  Woven into this is the LEED process and the "buying of points" that can occur.  But the drive for green building originated out of meaning, not money.  Now it seems that money is becoming less of a barrier for green building and the delta between building green and non green has shrunk.

For me personally, I decided long ago that I have only one thing in my life and that is time.  If you boil it down to the least common denominator, that is what I have to give.  So, I work with that thought and make decisions based on trading my precious commodity, time.  I go to work every day knowing that I trade my hours that day for money and then in turn I trade that money for food, gas, housing, clothes, Reese's Pieces and Ruffles.  I think about who I am with and what I am doing with my time and make sure that I am making a good trade.  So, working in this context, I am pretty particular about how I trade.  

If you take this philosophy and apply it to building or whatever you want to apply it to, you will find it creates a puzzle that demands solving.  Going back to the study of motivation, Edward Deci, a psychologist, studied students who were solving puzzles for him.  He offered half of the group monetary rewards for solving puzzles and the others continued to solve puzzles for fun.   The group that was offered a financial reward were less interested in solving puzzles on their own time than the group that was doing it for fun.  The external rewards were actually demotivating a group.  I found this fascinating at first but then totally understandable.

Maybe that is the same trigger that comes into play when someone offers me a cheaper solution to a problem thinking that money is the driver in the decision?   I don't think that green can be the only driver in a decision either.  I think you have to think and weigh out the reasons for your decision.  However, having said that, decisions I see being made on green furniture are pretty simplistic.   Is it Green Guard or not.  Is it Cradle to Cradle or not.  Is it the same price or is one less expensive.

I watched several presentations recently by different manufacturers.  They were amazingly similar in that they all said the same buzz words.  Our product is cradle to cradle.  Our product is filled with recycled content and is recyclable.  Our product has been designed using green materials.  It appears that the price of admission has changed and it is no longer unique to have a green product.   So coming full circle, if you are trading dollars for furniture, what is the motivator?