Why do humans find silos so attractive when they’re so claustrophobic?

She told me there was a meeting about collaboration. Looks like everyone else missed the memo

How many times have we read an article like this? Agriculture needs to break down silos, work with other industries, listen to different perspectives and collaborate to solve problems. I’ve been hearing it for decades.

I have enormous respect for the person behind this work, and I hope their research helps bring about meaningful change. Systems thinking has been around for close to a century, and we have learnt a great deal about the value of collaboration. The challenge is putting that knowledge into practice.

Agriculture has plenty of company. Governments, universities, businesses, charities and community organisations have been having the same conversations for years. We hold conferences, commission research and develop strategies. Then everybody goes home to their own organisation, their own budget and their own priorities.

What is it about human beings that makes us so good at identifying what needs to change and so reluctant to change how we behave?

We have built systems that reward individual and organisational success. We encourage people to become experts, compete for funding, protect their intellectual property and demonstrate why their organisation deserves support. Then we ask them to share knowledge, resources and decision-making with the very people they have been competing against.

After years of working with farming organisations, attending meetings, participating in workshops and watching the same conversations go round and round, I decided to put my energy into working with young people. I wanted to give them the skills, confidence and opportunities to be the change they wanted to see in the world.

I’ve watched students surprise themselves with what they can achieve when they have a problem worth solving, the freedom to ask questions and the opportunity to work with people who see things differently.

Change starts in our schools, where young people learn to listen, question, collaborate and solve problems together, before they inherit the habits that make change so difficult for the rest of us.

Much of our education system still revolves around individual achievement, subject boundaries and getting the right answer. We send those young people into workplaces where their success increasingly depends on their ability to work with people from different backgrounds, disciplines and organisations.

The Australian Farm Institute and AgriFutures are investing in systems thinking. The real test will come after the research is published and the workshops are finished. Who changes the way they work? Who shares a budget? Who invites somebody with a completely different perspective to help define the problem? Who is prepared to hand over responsibility when somebody else has a better idea?

What would happen if funding bodies measured collaboration by what organisations actually achieved together, rather than how many partnerships they listed in their applications?

And what would change if curiosity, communication and collaboration were given the same attention in schools as academic achievement?

I’ve learnt a great deal about changing my own behaviour over the years, including how I communicate and how much explanation people need. Old habits are remarkably persistent.

I hope this research gives people the confidence and encouragement to start doing some of these things differently.

I’ve found one. In Cowra, a neighbourhood centre that started in 1984 with $500 and volunteers in a church rectory now turns over around $5 million a year. Family support, youth work, disability programs, home maintenance, food relief and a volunteer group making burial clothing for stillborn babies all share one roof, one set of accounts and one leadership team. Council donates back the rent. Supermarkets donate food every day. Every program spends more of its money on people. I’ve written it up as a case study here.

I’m now working with a small group of people to see whether we can do the same in Kiama. We have a long way to go. Cowra shows us where to start.

If you’ve got a success story, I’d love to hear it.

 

If you’ve got a success story, I’d love to hear it.

What we need is a milk war – me and the cows strongly 💪disagree

In February 1985, Professor A. G. Lloyd contributed an article to the Sydney Morning Herald with the splendid headline, “What we need is a milk war”. I found it among the papers of the Nowra Dairy Co-operative. By then, the Australian dairy industry had been fighting itself for the best part of a century. Apparently, nobody thought it had quite finished the job.

Every farming family knows something about a long-running dispute. The cousin who borrowed the trailer in 1974 and never brought it back. The father whose succession plan left the farm to the son who gambled it away. The siblings who haven’t spoken for twenty years and can no longer remember what they were fighting about. The dairy industry had all of these characteristics, plus several thousand cows, a collection of governments and an astonishing capacity to hold a grudge.

Our story begins in 1908, when Sydney milk buyers cut the price paid to farmers from 10 pence a gallon to six, in the middle of a drought. Farmers went on strike. The young Dairy Farmers Co-operative offered seven and a half pence, helped Jamberoo clear its debts and financed a new factory. Everyone shook hands, or something approximating it. Peace lasted 23 years.

In 1931, with the Depression biting, a Sydney distributor offered Jamberoo a better price for its milk. Jamberoo had recently opened a new brick factory and owed £17,000. Dairy Farmers considered this a betrayal. It expelled 100 members, many of them Jamberoo farmers, and cancelled their shares. Jamberoo remembered. In the dairy industry, a grudge had an exceptionally long shelf life.

The NSW Government created a Milk Board to restore order. Unfortunately, the Board could declare prices but couldn’t enforce them. Historian Jan Todd called it a “toothless tiger”. Farmers received less than half the declared price. The government tried again, gave the new Board some teeth, and regulated the fresh milk industry for the next half century. Everyone complained about regulation, but at least they had something in common.

Then came 1984. George Orwell had warned us about surveillance, propaganda and perpetual war. He had overlooked the NSW milk industry.

On 9 April, supermarket owner Jim Fleming put Victorian milk on the shelves of his Jewel stores in Sydney. It came in two-litre plastic bottles and cost nine cents less. The Victorian milk represented about one per cent of the NSW market. Bill Crothers of Midland Milk described it as “only a hatful of milk”. NSW reacted as though Victoria had crossed the Murray with tanks.

Milk vendors blocked Macquarie Street with their trucks. Premier Neville Wran came out to negotiate. More than 800 farmers launched Operation Padlock, picketing Jewel supermarkets and standing outside the Midland Milk factory in Shepparton. Ten days later, Fleming conceded defeat. “We are pretty good, but not that good,” he said.

By February 1985, Professor Lloyd was calling for another milk war, arguing that competition could expose inefficiencies and help Sydney consumers paying high milk prices. The farmers, processors, retailers and vendors had rather different ideas about who was inefficient and who should pay.

Federal Primary Industry Minister John Kerin tried to bring the states together under a national plan. In March 1986, he spent an entire day locked in a room with three farmer leaders. They emerged with the comfort clause, an arrangement allowing a state to withdraw from the national scheme if another state’s milk undercut its market. NSW used it twice within a year. I suppose we should be grateful they agreed on anything.

Back on the South Coast, two cousins who had grown up together in Jamberoo were taking a much less complicated approach. Russell Fredericks managed Nowra’s dairy factory. Geoff Boxsell managed Jamberoo. During a drive to Sydney in late 1982, they joked about putting “the cat among the pigeons” by proposing a merger. They eventually brought the two co-operatives together.

Dairy Farmers tried to persuade Nowra to join it instead. Nowra’s farmers rejected the offer. It had been more than fifty years since the Depression-era expulsions. Apparently that was too soon. Six years later, Shoalhaven, the co-operative formed by Jamberoo and Nowra, joined Dairy Farmers anyway.

Then came the Italians. In 1999, Parmalat offered Dairy Farmers members $4.02 a share for part of their holdings, under a proposal that would give the Italian company control. Farmers gathered at the Burrawang Hotel, passed motions of no confidence and eventually took the dispute to the Supreme Court.

Dairy Farmers responded with advertisements declaring, “Beautiful one day, foreign-owned the next.” Geoff Boxsell wrote a song to the tune of “I Am Australian”. He called it “We Ain’t Italian”.

The court found that material distributed by the board was misleading and deceptive, although the judge made no finding of dishonesty or bad faith. The directors were ordered to pay legal costs personally. In April 2000, around 3,000 farmers voted at a special meeting. The three directors facing removal retained their seats with overwhelming support. Managing director Alan Tooth offered a memorable observation. “Any jackass can knock down a barn but it takes a team of skilled carpenters to build one.”

While everyone was fighting, Victoria decided it no longer wanted the regulated system. As the country’s largest milk-producing state, its decision left the others with little room to move. On 1 July 2000, the regulated fresh milk markets disappeared.

Within a year, average NSW dairy farm income had fallen from $82,000 to an estimated $37,000. Around 200 NSW dairy farms closed in the first six months. There were winners, there were losers, and there were families whose futures changed forever.

I’ve been looking back over these events while also reflecting on something I discovered preparing for a World Peace Day presentation to school students in Cowra. In studying the history of war, I was confronted by how persistently organised violence has appeared across human generations.

Of course, a milk war is a very different proposition from an armed conflict. Nobody should confuse a blockade of supermarket milk deliveries with the devastation of military warfare. But the language interests me. For a century, the dairy industry talked about wars, battles, invasions, threats, surrender and enemies.

Farmers fought processors. Farmers fought retailers. Processors fought retailers. States fought states. Co-operatives fought other co-operatives. Farmers fought farmer. Farmers fought their own co-operatives.

Governments regulated everybody, then deregulated everybody. And all of them believed they had something important to defend. Often they did.

A farmer fighting for a price that covers the cost of production has a legitimate grievance. So does a consumer struggling to afford food. A milk vendor protecting a family business and a processor trying to keep a factory operating both have reasons to be concerned about their future. Their interests sometimes conflict. Finding an arrangement that allows them to live alongside one another is the challenge.

Looking back, the most interesting moments in the dairy industry’s history may be the occasions when people stopped fighting long enough to negotiate. Kerin and the farmer leaders in that locked room. Russell Fredericks and Geoff Boxsell talking during their drive to Sydney. Farmers, vendors and processors sitting around George Davey’s pricing committee, part of the negotiations associated with the group the industry nicknamed the “milk mafia”.

Those conversations didn’t solve every problem. Some produced compromises that quickly unravelled. Others helped organisations and communities survive. I wonder how much of our energy, in agriculture and beyond, goes into proving that the other side is wrong. And how much we invest in understanding what they are trying to protect.

We teach children about the great wars of history, the victories, the defeats, the treaties and the terrible human cost. Perhaps we could spend a little more time teaching them how to negotiate before a disagreement becomes a conflict, and how to recognise when compromise is possible without abandoning what is fair.

As for the dairy industry, through every strike, blockade, court case, merger, price war and family grudge, the cows remained magnificently indifferent. Morning and afternoon, they turned up to be milked. They had no interest in who won.

And perhaps, after more than a century of dairy industry warfare, the question is whether the rest of us can learn to live with an outcome in which nobody has to lose.

Dear reader  FYI Dairy Farmers, with a capital D and F, refers to the Dairy Farmers Co-operative and the company that followed. Little bit of history – Dairy Farmers Milk Cooperative was formed on 15 January 1900. Sixty five stakeholders from the New South Wales Illawarra region, came together and agreed to run the organisation on true co-operative lines.

Dairy farmers, with a little d and f, are the people milking the cows. They were not always on the same side.

What happens after the applause?

This post has been sitting in my drafts for four years. I knew there was something I wanted to say, but every time I returned to it, it sounded like a grievance. So back into drafts it went.

Now I know what I was trying to say.

When Bob Hawke died in 2019, the four of us who had received the Bob Hawke Landcare Award wanted to do something small and heartfelt. We wanted to make a joint statement about what the award had meant to us. Each of us had a story to tell about meeting Bob, the contribution that led to the award and what came afterwards.

Landcare Australia, which managed the award, chose another approach to its public tribute. I was disappointed. At the time, I saw it largely through the lens of that disappointment.

Four years of sitting in drafts, and some completely unrelated conversations, have helped me see the much bigger question.

What happens after we give people awards?

I was the inaugural recipient of the Bob Hawke Landcare Award in 2012. At that time it was an individual award carrying a $50,000 prize. The award has changed considerably since then. It is now worth $30,000 and can be awarded to an individual, community-led group or eligible not-for-profit organisation.

But something in the criteria remains fascinating to me.

Recipients are recognised for qualities that include inspiring others, mentoring people, encouraging action, sharing knowledge and supporting communities.

In other words, the award seeks people who build capacity in other people. But who creates the opportunities for them to build that capacity together?

Australia has hundreds of awards recognising people for their contribution, knowledge, leadership and experience. We find them. We assess them. We celebrate them. We put them on stages, take photographs and tell their stories. Then, quite often, we send them home. The following year, we may come back and ask them to promote the next round of awards.

This is a lost opportunity.

The Bob Hawke Landcare Award records its alumni, with recipients going back to the inaugural award in 2012. That recognition has value, but an alumni list is not an alumni network. If an active network exists that brings Bob Hawke Landcare Award recipients together to learn from each other, I have never been invited to be part of it.

Belltrees Public School showed me what is possible. The small rural school, with around 20 students, organised a regenerative agriculture day that brought former Bob Hawke Landcare Award recipients together. We heard from each other, asked questions and exchanged ideas. I attended, and it was brilliant. A little school had recognised the value of connecting people with different knowledge and experience and created the opportunity for us to learn from each other.

The Banksia Foundation also experimented with this idea. Award recipients were brought together to visit the businesses and organisations of category winners, see what they were doing and learn directly from them. I attended one of those visits and it was brilliant too.

Both experiences showed me the difference between recognising knowledge and connecting knowledge. You can put someone’s name on an alumni page, or you can create opportunities for people with different knowledge and experience to learn from each other.

For years I worked alongside people in agriculture who gave organisations their time, credibility, relationships, lived experience and knowledge. They spoke at events, sat on panels, joined committees, opened their farms, told their stories and helped organisations demonstrate what was possible.

Many of them gave enormously.

Too often, I watched the infrastructure around them benefit from all that human capacity without creating the same opportunities for those people to benefit from one another.

We are very good at identifying individual achievement. We are less good at asking what becomes possible when we connect the knowledge and experience of the people we have recognised.

Interestingly, this was part of what I was talking about when I received the Bob Hawke Landcare Award in 2012. I wanted to “find innovators, early adopters and people doing extraordinary things and help connect and amplify what they knew.”

Two years later, a Landcare publication described me as “a connector” and quoted me saying I was “obsessed with finding and nurturing talent, and supporting it”.

So apparently I have been banging on about this for quite some time.

What I did not have then was the question I have now.

Is the community serving the infrastructure around it, or is the infrastructure serving the community?

Over the past few months I have been conducting a completely different piece of research, interviewing people who have made significant commitments to their communities. Those conversations finally gave me the language for this four-year-old draft.

People bring enormous assets into organisations, programs, campaigns and movements. They bring knowledge, relationships, credibility, experience, energy and trust. Organisations are often very good at mobilising those assets.

The more interesting question is what they build around the people who provided them.

Do those people leave with stronger relationships? Do they have access to the knowledge of others who have travelled similar paths? Can they learn from each other? Are they introduced to people who could extend what they are already doing? Does the organisation ask them what would make the relationship valuable to them? Does the collective capacity become greater because those people were brought together?

That brings me back to awards.

Imagine if part of running an award program was asking recipients a year later: What would be valuable to you now?

Perhaps they want nothing further from it. That’s fine. But perhaps they would value meeting other recipients. Perhaps somebody who won ten years ago has knowledge that could transform what a new recipient is trying to achieve. Perhaps an experienced recipient could mentor somebody emerging in the same field. Perhaps two people working on opposite sides of the country are tackling versions of the same problem.

Perhaps the most valuable thing the organisation could provide is simply the introduction.

This does not require another glossy program. It requires seeing the award differently.

The award ceremony recognises what somebody has already contributed. The alumni community asks what might become possible next.

There is another question here too. We invest considerable resources in finding, judging and celebrating award recipients. Awards can involve substantial events, sponsors, communications, judging processes and hundreds of guests.

What proportion of that investment goes into connecting recipients after the event?

I do not know the economics of the Landcare Awards, and I am not suggesting what that answer should be. But it is a question worth asking across the awards sector, particularly when some of the most valuable connections may require little more than bringing people together.

Belltrees Public School managed it with around 20 students.

And I now understand why my original experience with the Bob Hawke Landcare Award bothered me enough for this post to sit unfinished for four years. It was never simply about a statement after Bob Hawke died. It was about the difference between recognising human capacity and building it.

Landcare itself grew from people connecting knowledge, experience and effort. Farmers, conservationists, neighbours and volunteers discovered they could achieve more together than they could separately.

It moved people from “I to We”.

An award bearing Bob Hawke’s name has an opportunity to continue that tradition. So do thousands of other awards.

We spend considerable time and resources identifying people whose experience and contribution we believe are worth recognising.

Perhaps the next question should be: What are we going to do with all that human capacity now that we have found it?

 

Agriculture wanted better storytellers. Then we blew up the model that made them

 

I am about to spend World Peace Day talking to a group of 10 to 15 year olds about curiosity, critical thinking, communication and collaboration. Which is slightly confronting when you start looking around at how adults behave.

Before the workshop, the students will answer a short survey. They will answer the same questions afterwards. I am interested to see what changes, and I am also realistic enough to know they are unlikely to walk out several hours later transformed into world-class collaborators who calmly interrogate every assumption before breakfast.

That is because people do not change overnight. Oddly, we seem to forget this every time we organise a workshop.

How many times have you spent a day learning some marvellous new way of doing things, walked out thinking, “This is excellent” put the folder somewhere safe and carried on exactly as before? I have.

We have somehow developed a culture where learning is treated as an event. Book the facilitator, find the room, provide lunch, learn collaboration, home by four. Job done.

I learnt the limitations of that model the long way around.

When I came back into agriculture, people decided I did not look like the stereotype of someone they expected to see representing the industry. Apparently that was useful, so I was pushed out the front and into the media.

This was all very new to me, and I was not remotely comfortable with it, so I demanded training. Then more training. Then more training.

It took me about 15 years to feel comfortable.

The other day I gave a presentation and a number of people told me it was the best presentation they had ever seen.

They should have been at my first one.

It had 127 slides.

I wish I were exaggerating.

That experience changed the way I thought about developing other people. When I started the Young Farming Champions program, I wanted people to have what I had eventually learned I needed, time, repetition, feedback and somewhere safe to keep practising.

The Young Farming Champions model was built around ongoing development. Once you joined, you could remain part of the network for as long as you wanted, continuing to build your skills over time. During COVID, we ran workshops every month, so people could say, “I want to feel more comfortable doing this,” and we could focus on exactly that. We brought in outstanding Australian and international experts, then gave people repeated opportunities to practise, get feedback and keep improving.

That is how confidence grows.

Then agricultural bodies looked at what we were doing and decided they wanted something similar. The young people were already there. The Action4Agriculture team was already training them. What changed was the desire to have the program sit inside their own organisation.

This is where I became increasingly frustrated with the way institutions behave. We talk endlessly about collaboration, but the system often rewards the person who can point to something and say, “That was my idea. I built that. That was my result.”

Once that becomes the prize, curiosity becomes inconvenient.

Nobody asks, “Why is this working?” or “What could we add to what is already here?” The question becomes, “How do we create our own version?”

And that is how duplication starts to look like achievement.

The result can be beautifully efficient.

Train them on Saturday.

Face of the industry by Monday.

It is a wonderfully efficient system, provided human beings work like software updates.

Recently I have been spending time with collaboration specialist Stuart Waters, and he has been subtly  dismantling several things I thought I knew. One of them is my GPS model.

I have used it for years. Goal. Problem. Solution. Where are we trying to go? What is getting in the way? What is the solution? Perfectly sensible.

Except Stuart pointed out something rather inconvenient.

If we knew the solution, we probably would not have the problem.

With complex problems, the solution is rarely sitting there politely waiting for someone clever enough to notice it. Stuart talks instead about steps, experiments, things we can try, learn from and adjust.

So perhaps GPS survives. Goal. Problem. Steps.

I rather like that. It removes the requirement to stride into every complicated situation carrying The Answer.

It also exposes another habit we have. We are often in an extraordinary hurry to solve the problem before we have worked out what the problem actually is. Something goes wrong and we deal with the bit we can see.

People are not collaborating. Students are dropping rubbish. A community is not engaging. A candidate loses an election.

Right. Fix that.

Except those things may be symptoms. The interesting questions sit underneath. Why is this happening? What assumptions are we making? Who knows something we don’t? Who sees the situation differently?

And the question I am finding increasingly important in some other work I am doing is this.

Have we actually spoken to the people most affected?

It is astonishing how often the answer appears to be no. Reports get written, programs get designed, conclusions get reached and entire narratives develop. Meanwhile, somebody sitting right in the middle of the experience is thinking, “You could have asked me.”

And then I am preparing to stand in front of children and put this on a screen.

Stay curious. Ask before you assume. Understand the problem before you solve it. Listen to learn. Share the thinking. Try something small. Learn what happens. Keep going.

The children are not the only people who could use the reminder.

I am also going to ask them something I have found unexpectedly difficult myself.

Who do you know who does this? Who stays curious when everyone else has already decided? Who asks another question? Who listens because they genuinely want to know the answer? Who can say, “I don’t know”? Who can discover something new and change their mind without behaving as though they have suffered a humiliating defeat?

I can think of a few people. Stuart is one.

What I notice when I talk to him is that having expertise has not made him less curious. Quite the opposite. He keeps asking questions. What is the actual dilemma? Who else sees this differently? What could we try? What might we learn?

Perhaps that is what expertise should look like.

Knowing enough to know that you probably don’t know everything.

There is another uncomfortable question sitting underneath my student workshop. We spend a great deal of time telling young people they will need curiosity, critical thinking, creativity, communication and collaboration to navigate the future.

Who are they watching do it now?

Because one workshop will not do it. Not for them. Not for us.

A workshop might introduce an idea. It might give us language for something we had never noticed before. It might even make us uncomfortable enough to rethink something.

Then comes Monday.

That is when the learning starts.

Assessment of Agricultural Industry’s Engagement with Schools

 

The State of Agricultural Engagement with Schools

Initial Report Summary

Enhancing Agriculture’s Approach to Workforce Development and Industry Engagement

Executive Summary:

This report synthesises insights gathered from extensive research, including best practices from the mining industry and other sectors, as well as the challenges facing the agricultural industry in Australia. After spending a weekend reviewing research papers and combining these insights with over 20 years of experience in the agricultural sector, this report identifies the core issues, proposes strategic solutions, and emphasises the need for a professional, external facilitator to lead the collaboration efforts necessary for real, transformative change.

1. Introduction

1.1. Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is to provide a clear strategy for the Australian agricultural industry to emulate the best practices identified in other sectors, particularly mining, in its approach to workforce development and industry engagement.

1.2. Background

Agriculture has long recognised the mining industry as a benchmark for best practice in workforce engagement. Despite this recognition, the will to emulate these practices within agriculture has been slow to materialise. This report explores the barriers within the agricultural sector that have impeded progress and offers a roadmap for overcoming these challenges.

2. Industry Comparisons: Agriculture vs. Mining

Aspect Agriculture Mining
Industry Engagement with Schools Ad hoc, lacks coordination, varies by region and organisation. Limited resources and fragmented initiatives. Coordinated, well-funded, centralised efforts. National programmes, partnerships with schools, and career days.
Centralised Resources Lacking a unified, accessible platform for educational and career resources. Dedicated portals and extensive online resources for students and educators.
Public Perception and Marketing Limited, often negative perceptions. Sporadic marketing efforts that do not reach urban audiences effectively. Proactive, positive public relations campaigns. Engages urban students and educators with clear career paths.
Collaboration Across Sectors Collaboration is recognised as important but is often hampered by self-interest and siloed thinking. Strong collaboration between industry, government, and educational institutions. Focused on common goals.
Investment in Education Insufficient, with few scholarships and limited engagement with educational institutions. Significant investment in scholarships, training programmes, and continuous education initiatives.

3. Problem Statement

The agricultural industry has recognised the importance of adopting best practices from other sectors, particularly mining, yet significant barriers remain. These include a lack of coordinated efforts, insufficient resources, and a tendency to view collaboration through a narrow lens. The industry must adopt a new approach to effectively engage the next generation of workers.

4. Strategic Goals and Objectives

Goal: To establish a unified and strategic approach to workforce development in agriculture by leveraging best practices from other industries and fostering genuine collaboration.

Objectives:

  1. Develop a Centralised Resource Hub: Create an accessible platform for educational materials, career resources, and industry information. See how the MCA do it here 
  2. Enhance Collaboration: Define what effective collaboration looks like, establish a community of practice, and bring together key stakeholders, including industry leaders, educators, and government representatives.
  3. Professional Facilitation: Engage a skilled, external facilitator to guide the collaborative process, ensuring that all voices are heard and that the strategy is cohesive and actionable.
  4. Invest in Education: Increase investment in scholarships, vocational training, and partnerships with educational institutions to build a stronger talent pipeline.

5. Solutions and Action Plan

5.1. Centralised Resource Hub

Action: Develop a comprehensive online platform, similar to what the mining industry offers, to provide a centralised location for all educational and career-related resources.

5.2. Collaborative Framework

Action: Define clear collaborative goals, establish a community of practice, and bring together key stakeholders, including industry leaders, educators, and government representatives.

5.3. Professional Facilitation

Action: Hire a professional facilitator to manage the collaborative process, ensuring that all stakeholders are aligned and that the strategy is implemented effectively.

5.4. Investment in Education

Action: Allocate more funds towards scholarships, training programmes, and partnerships with schools to attract and retain talent in the agricultural sector.

6. Key Recommendations

  • Prioritise Collaboration: Move beyond recognising the need for collaboration and take concrete steps to establish a structured, strategic partnership model.
  • Emulate Best Practices: Actively adopt and adapt the successful strategies used by the mining industry to engage students and build a strong workforce pipeline.
  • Invest in the Future: Commit to long-term investments in education and training to ensure the sustainability of the agricultural workforce.

7. Conclusion

The challenges facing the agricultural sector in workforce development are significant, but they are not insurmountable. By learning from other industries, particularly mining, and by committing to genuine collaboration, the agricultural industry can develop a robust strategy that not only meets the needs of today but also secures the future of agriculture in Australia.

References – See page 4

 

How Do We Select Team Players and Identify True Collaborators for Leadership Opportunities

Selecting the right individuals for leadership roles, scholarships, and other significant opportunities is a challenging yet crucial task. Over my 15 years on various selection panels, I’ve encountered a recurring challenge: differentiating between applicants seeking personal career enhancement and those genuinely driven by a desire to be part of a team that makes a difference. Here are some insights and tips on identifying true team players:

Understanding the Importance of Teamwork

Individual commitment to a group effort—that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.” — Vince Lombardi

Teamwork is not just a buzzword; it’s a fundamental aspect of achieving collective success. As Helen Keller famously said, “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” This quote encapsulates the essence of teamwork and the incredible potential that lies in collaborative efforts.

Key Qualities to Look For

  1. Demonstrated History of Collaboration: Look for candidates who have a proven track record of working well in teams. This can be evidenced through their involvement in group projects, team sports, community service, or collaborative academic work.
  2. Communication Skills: Effective team players are also excellent communicators. They listen actively, articulate their ideas clearly, and provide constructive feedback. During interviews, pay attention to how candidates interact with you and others.
  3. Empathy and Respect: True collaborators respect diverse perspectives and show empathy towards their peers. They understand that every team member brings unique strengths and viewpoints, which can enhance the overall performance of the group.
  4. Willingness to Share Credit: A strong indicator of a team player is their willingness to share credit for successes. Look for candidates who use “we” instead of “I” when discussing their achievements, indicating their recognition of collective efforts.
  5. Problem-Solving Orientation: Team players are often solution-oriented and willing to go the extra mile to help their team succeed. They approach challenges with a collaborative mindset, seeking input from others and working together to find the best solutions.

“None of us is as smart as all of us.” — Ken Blanchard

Identifying Genuine Team Players

To identify candidates who genuinely want to be part of a team that makes a difference, consider the following strategies:

  1. Behavioral Interviews: Ask candidates about past experiences where they worked in a team. Questions like, “Can you describe a time when you had to collaborate with others to achieve a goal?” can reveal much about their teamwork abilities.
  2. Scenario-Based Questions: Present hypothetical scenarios that require teamwork to resolve. Observe how candidates propose to handle these situations and how they incorporate others’ input into their solutions.
  3. References and Recommendations: Seek feedback from previous supervisors, mentors, or team members who can provide insights into the candidate’s ability to work collaboratively.
  4. Group Activities: If possible, include group activities or projects as part of the selection process. This allows you to observe candidates in action and see how they interact with others in real-time.

Selecting individuals who are true team players requires a keen eye and thoughtful consideration. By focusing on their past behaviours, communication skills, empathy, and problem-solving abilities, you can identify candidates who are not only looking to advance their careers but are also committed to making a meaningful impact as part of a team. Remember, together, we can achieve so much more.

#Teamwork #Collaboration #Leadership #TeamPlayer #GroupEffort #Empathy #CommunicationSkills #ProblemSolving #TogetherWeAchieveMore #CommunityImpact #LeadershipOpportunities #SelectionProcess #TeamSuccess #BritishEnglish #MakingADifference #CollectiveEffort #WorkingTogether

 The Logic of Community and why Communities of Practice Matter

In this blog post the SynergyScape Solutions team explore the importance of Communities of Practice and the cultural, systemic, and intrinsic/extrinsic value conflicts that challenge their adoption, while posing critical questions and offering solutions for fostering a collaborative mindset. It concludes with an invitation for readers to share their experiences with successful CoPs.

 In a world that often feels increasingly fragmented, the concept of Communities of Practice (CoPs) offers a guiding light. At their core, CoPs are about people coming together, united by a shared passion or interest, to learn, innovate, and drive change. The logic here is simple: when we collaborate, we achieve better outcomes for the greater good. Yet, despite the clear benefits, we struggle to adopt this “we” mindset. Why is that?

One might argue that our struggle with communal thinking stems from cultural roots. Australian society, like many others influenced by Western ideologies, has long championed individualism. From the iconic “Aussie battler” to the self-made entrepreneur, our narratives glorify the lone hero. This cultural backdrop can make the shift to collective thinking challenging, even when we intellectually understand its advantages.

Capitalism, with its intrinsic competitive drive, further complicates this transition. The market-driven mentality promotes personal gain over collective welfare, often framing collaboration as a strategic move rather than a fundamental value. In such an environment, intrinsic values—like altruism, empathy, and community spirit—can be overshadowed by extrinsic values such as wealth, status, and power. This dichotomy creates tension, as those driven by intrinsic motivations seek to foster collaboration, while those guided by extrinsic values may view such efforts with scepticism.

Then there’s the zeitgeist—the spirit of our times. We live in an era of rapid change and unprecedented connectivity, yet we are paradoxically more isolated. The digital age, while offering tools for connection, also perpetuates superficial interactions over meaningful engagements. The fast-paced, transactional nature of online communications can undermine the deep, sustained efforts required to build and maintain CoPs.

However, it’s not all doom and gloom. There are shining examples of CoPs thriving across various sectors, proving that with the right mindset and structures, collective efforts can flourish. Consider the technology sector, where open-source communities bring together developers from around the world to create, refine, and innovate software solutions. Or look at the healthcare industry, where professionals collaborate through CoPs to share best practices and improve patient care. These examples underscore that when we embrace a “we” mindset, we can overcome the cultural and systemic barriers that hinder collaboration.

But how do we cultivate this mindset more broadly? It starts with recognising and valuing the power of collaboration.

We need to shift our narratives to celebrate collective achievements and the unsung heroes who drive them. Education systems can play a crucial role by fostering critical and creative thinking, teaching young people the importance of empathy, and encouraging them to work together to solve problems.

Moreover, we must address the systemic issues that prioritise individual success over collective welfare. This might mean rethinking policies and incentives to reward collaboration and shared achievements. It also involves creating environments—both physical and digital—that facilitate sustained, meaningful interactions.

Ultimately, the success of Communities of Practice hinges on our ability to align our intrinsic values with our actions. It’s about recognising that true success is not measured by personal gain but by the positive impact we have on those around us. By fostering a culture that values collaboration, we can build resilient, innovative communities capable of tackling the complex challenges of our time.

So, as we ponder the question of why we struggle with communal thinking, let’s also consider how we can change this narrative. Let’s challenge the cultural and systemic norms that divide us and embrace the logic of community. After all, when we come together with a “we” mindset, we unlock our collective potential and create a better future for all.

If you are part of a successful Community of Practice or know of one, I would love to hear from you. Your insights and experiences are invaluable as we work to understand and spread the “secret sauce” of effective collaboration.

Please contact me at E: lynnestrong@synergyscape.com.au

#CommunitiesOfPractice #Collaboration #CommunityBuilding #SocialChange #Innovation #CollectiveAction #IntrinsicValues #CommunityEngagement #CultureShift #SharedSuccess

 

Beyond Success by Embracing the Role of Healers, Peacemakers, and Storytellers

In today’s world, the definition of success often revolves around wealth, status, and power. Yet, as the message on this wall poignantly states, what our planet desperately needs are more peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers, and lovers of all kinds.

Source 

As I reflect on my journey and the work I’ve been privileged to be part of, it becomes increasingly clear that our true impact lies not in the titles we hold but in the difference we make in the lives of others. Through my efforts to support communities and schools, I have seen firsthand the transformative power of young people navigating the world with confidence, appreciating different perspectives, and taking meaningful action on issues that matter to them.

In a world rife with conflict and division, the role of a peacemaker is more crucial than ever. It’s about fostering dialogue, understanding, and mutual respect. Through initiatives that bring people together and encourage open communication, we can build a more harmonious society. This involves creating spaces where diverse voices can be heard and valued, promoting a culture of empathy and collaboration.

Our society needs healers – not just in the medical sense but in every facet of life. This includes emotional, psychological, and social healing. By supporting young people in schools to build their emotional intelligence and resilience, we lay the foundation for a more compassionate future. Initiatives that promote mental well-being and provide support for those in distress are essential in creating a caring and inclusive community.

Stories are powerful. They shape our understanding of the world, inspire action, and connect us to our shared humanity. Through writing opinion pieces for the local paper and blog posts on social justice issues, I aim to highlight the stories that matter, especially those that often go unheard. It’s about changing the narrative and reinforcing positive perceptions, particularly in sectors like agriculture. By sharing the successes and challenges of our community efforts, we can inspire others to join in and make a difference.

A shining example of this approach is the Young Environmental Champions program, which recently won the Banksia Award for Impact and Communication. This program has been instrumental in raising young people’s confidence in their ability to drive real change in their communities. By empowering them with the knowledge and skills to tackle environmental issues, we have seen these young champions take bold steps in advocacy, project implementation, and community engagement. Their success is a testament to the power of nurturing young leaders who are passionate about making a difference.

Finally, the idea of being lovers of all kinds – lovers of people, of nature, of truth – speaks to a profound truth. It’s a call to infuse our actions with empathy, compassion, and a deep commitment to justice. Supporting communities to work together, based on the success of my work with schools, underscores the importance of collective action and solidarity. By empowering young people to take action on issues that matter to them, we foster a culture of active citizenship and positive change.

Redefining success to include the roles of healers, peacemakers, restorers, and storytellers is not just idealistic – it’s essential. As we continue our journey, let us commit to these roles with vigour and dedication, knowing that the true measure of our success lies in the lives we touch and the positive change we bring about.

#CommunityEngagement #Peacemakers #Healers #Storytellers #YouthEmpowerment #EnvironmentalChampions #Collaboration #PositiveChange #SocialJustice #Empathy #Compassion #ConfidentCommunication #CommunitySupport #Advocacy #CollectiveAction #ImpactfulWork #InspiringChange #FutureLeaders #BuildingCommunity #Empowerment

The Power of Positivity in Agriculture

In a world often fraught with challenges and negativity, the power of positivity stands as a beacon of hope and transformation. This image spotted on Facebook highlights a profound truth: our emotions and attitudes can significantly impact our lives. When read left to right, the statements depict how negative emotions and traits can destroy vital aspects of our existence. However, when read right to left, a new perspective emerges, showcasing the empowering force of positive attributes.

In agriculture, it is especially important to focus on the positives without prefacing them with negatives. Too often, conversations about agriculture start with a negative statement followed by a “but,” which inadvertently reinforces the negative. For example:

  • Negative Reinforced: “People think agriculture is all mud and flies, but it’s also full of innovation.”
  • Positive Reframed: “Agriculture is full of innovation, advanced technology, and sustainable practices.”

Additionally, agriculture too often plays the sympathy card, emphasising its challenges in a way that overlooks the fact that other sectors also face similar difficulties. It’s important for our language to be inclusive and recognise the shared struggles and triumphs across different industries. By doing so, we can foster a sense of solidarity and mutual respect.

Examples of Inclusive Language:

  1. Negative Sympathy: “Agriculture faces unique challenges that others don’t understand.” Inclusive Positive: “Like many sectors, agriculture faces challenges, but it also leads the way in innovative solutions and sustainable practices.”
  2. Negative Sympathy: “Farmers have it harder than anyone else.” Inclusive Positive: “Farmers, like professionals in many other fields, work tirelessly to overcome obstacles and ensure a thriving future.”
  3. Negative Sympathy: “Only in agriculture do we see such hard conditions.” Inclusive Positive: “Agriculture, alongside other industries, continuously adapts to tough conditions, showcasing resilience and innovation.”

People remember the negative, so it’s crucial not to reinforce it.

Instead, let’s emphasise the positives and showcase the industry’s true value and potential. Highlight the sustainable practices being implemented, the technological advancements improving efficiency, the passion of our farmers, and the essential role agriculture plays in feeding the world. By focusing on these positives without reverting to the negatives, we can change the narrative around agriculture and help others see it for what it truly is: a cornerstone of society that deserves recognition and respect.

The power of positivity lies in its ability to transform our mindset and, consequently, our lives. By focusing on positive traits and emotions, we can overcome the negative forces that hold us back and pave the way for a brighter, more fulfilling future. Embracing positivity empowers us to be the best versions of ourselves, fostering growth, peace, and success in all aspects of our lives, including the vital and often underappreciated world of agriculture.

It is essential to break the cycle of negative reinforcement and instead, build a narrative that celebrates the contributions and advancements of agriculture while recognising the shared experiences across all sectors.

Using inclusive language offers an opportunity to build alliances with other sectors that share similar issues, enabling us to work together to drive change and create a more resilient and sustainable future.

For more great advice on language to use in the agriculture sector visit here  and here.

#Positivity #Agriculture #Innovation #Sustainability #Farmers #Community #Resilience #Growth #Technology #Collaboration

 

Embracing Community of Practice: A New Chapter in Charitable Work

After a two decades of dedication to a charity aimed at empowering young people, I’ve experienced a journey filled with highs and lows. While we achieved remarkable success in schools, our efforts in the agricultural sector didn’t yield the expected results. This mixed outcome has led me to a new chapter: joining a Community of Practice (CoP) aligned with our vision.

In schools, our project flourished, witnessing enthusiastic participation and significant impact. However, the agricultural sector presented unique challenges, teaching us that approaches successful in one area might not necessarily translate to another. This experience, though disheartening, provided invaluable lessons.

Seeking growth and alignment, I’ve decided to join a CoP, a platform where individuals with shared passions collaborate and learn.

Here are some principles of CoPs that resonate with our journey:

  1. Shared Domain of Interest: Our CoP is united by a common goal of empowering young people and enhancing community engagement.
  2. Community Engagement: Active participation and collaboration within the CoP will be crucial for shared learning and growth.
  3. Collective Learning: Leveraging diverse experiences and insights within the CoP, we aim to enhance our knowledge and practices collectively.
  4. Practice Development: Through activities like problem-solving and knowledge mapping, we will refine our approaches to better suit different sectors.
  5. Value Creation: The CoP focuses on creating tangible value for its members, including knowledge enhancement and skill development.
  6. Open Dialogues: Encouraging honest conversations about both successes and challenges will be key to our learning and development.
  7. Respect for Diverse Perspectives: Embracing the varied experiences each member brings, enriching our collective understanding.
  8. Evolutionary Growth: Being open to the CoP’s evolution as needs and interests change over time.
  9. Facilitation and Leadership: Benefiting from both formal and emergent leadership within the CoP to guide our efforts.
  10. Sustainability and Impact Measurement: Aiming for sustainable practices and measuring the impact of our collaborative efforts.

Joining the CoP will allow the charities involved to have a united voice, which is crucial in advocating for our shared goals and vision. This unity will enable us to amplify our message and have a greater impact on policy and practice.

The CoP will serve as a resource hub, providing a one-stop-shop for schools to access diverse resources. This consolidation of resources ensures that schools have easy and efficient access to the tools and information they need, enhancing the effectiveness of their initiatives. Additionally, by sharing resources, the charities involved in the CoP can share administrative costs. This shared approach will lead to more time, energy, and funding being available for the actual delivery of services, enhancing the efficiency and impact of our work.

Joining this CoP marks a new beginning in my journey. It’s an opportunity to build on past experiences, both the successes and challenges, and to move forward with a community that shares a similar vision. This collaborative and dynamic environment promises growth, learning, and the potential to make a more significant impact in the areas we serve.

This step represents not just a continuation of my commitment but also an evolution, adapting and learning in ways that a singular approach could not offer. Here’s to new beginnings, shared learning, and making a difference together.

#CommunityOfPractice #EmpoweringYouth #CharitableWork #Collaboration #SharedLearning #NonprofitGrowth #SocialImpact #EducationInitiatives #AgriculturalChallenges #ResourceSharing #NonprofitEfficiency #CommunityEngagement #SustainablePractices #LeadershipInCharity #VisionaryChange #PositiveImpact #LearningTogether #AdvocacyInAction #EmpowermentThroughEducation #CollaborativeLearning