Years ago, I took a social science "game theory" class where we learned that it turns out a city doesn't have to pay for a cop to spend 100% of the time writing tickets for people that run a stop sign. Instead, there's a certain balance where if the cop spends, say, one hour out of the day writing tickets at the stop sign, it seems to work as well as spending the whole day. Why? Of course, word gets out that you MIGHT get a ticket at that stop sign, and so the whole community gets more law abiding.
On the flip side, there's the famous "broken window" social theory. If a city wants to reduce vandalism, it should fix windows broken by vandals quickly. Similarly, when the community sweeps up small amounts of trash on a street quickly, people tend to litter less. (If you've been to Disneyland here in Southern California, that's how they're successful at keeping the park clean.)
Who knows which theory works best in a particular circumstance? But it seems to me a servant leader would be best at the latter approach--- fixing small problems to encourage wider, good behavior.
Thank you, Tom, I always like reading your selected Greenleaf quote. It always gets me thinking.
Chris,
I like your analogies. The issue I am trying to delve into here though is about compliance not because we are being watched or might get in trouble, but compliance because we know its the right thing to do. Coming to the knowing is the challenge. For example with the cop, there are people that might go out and get radar detectors, and continue to speed or break the law even if there might be a cop out and about.
With environmental compliance, I don't think the problem is that the "cops" need to be out to keep people honest, people need to be honest or treat the environment with respect because we understand that what we do to the environment is what we do to ourselves. Anyway, it's tough to do, and difficult to find ways to accomplish it. Compliance via the threat of punishment is I believe related to coercion, something I have written about in earlier posts that I don't think is what servant leadership is about. It also does not result in long term compliance.
It's a tough sell, but I think in the long run much more effective and definately more interesting. Also forces one to delve in to the roots of our "evils".
Tom
How tough a "sell" it is may have to do with the community leaders involved. There are virtuous leaders who probably need very little encouragement, except to be sold that it is positive for the community. But...there definitely are civic officials who set project list priorities based on the likelihood and severity of punishment.
It has surprised me though (maybe I get too cynical) how much the "green" movement has caught on. I've talked to local politicians and they tell me residents in this area are willing to support reasonable "green" initiatives, even if there is some sacrifice involved. There's seemingly a "Gore-philosophical" new millenium community ethical standard. Even politicians running in conservative ("government should be small enough that we can drown it in the bathtub"-types) communities around this area seem to promote their support for "green" initiatives.
I bet you will have some successes with your initiative, Tom.
Truely Green things do make sense. There are a lot of non-green things that have just been painted green to sell more stuff. The community ethical standard is the thing that gets folks to "buy" into the green and other things that are good for the community or the common good.
Commenting by HaloScan
