You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
It's a confusing time to be working to promote sustainability at Greenback U. We're proud of what we've done to date, but we don't seem to be progressing much further right at the moment. We've had good backing from the higher-ups for a couple of years, but now sponsorship and support at the "suit" level seems to have gone AWOL. And, while for years our discussions have focused on energy and emissions and costs and (when I can work it in) society, now all of a sudden we're talking about "optics".
Not the optics that you learned about in Physics 101. Nothing about the movement of light waves (or quanta, or whatever) through materials of varying density. Rather, "optics" in terms of how things look from outside the organization. Add a couple of letters, and "optics" becomes "politics". In this case, however, I'm wondering whether "politics" shouldn't be spelled "politic$".
In a sense, this isn't really much of a shock. Whenever anyone tries to reform organizational behavior, established interests who are benefiting from the unreformed behaviors are likely to push back. For instance, when our campus dietitian pushed for Meatless Mondays, she immediately got a call from the American Meat Institute. People tend to get touchy when it's their ox that's getting gored. (Or, in that case, threatening not to get gored.)
But I'm wondering whether there's something larger, more generalized, going on. I'm wondering whether at least some of our larger donors, either on their own or with a little outside help, are pushing Greenback's development staff to quash all this talk of sustainability. I mean, let's face it: the folks who are in a position to give major donations to their alma mater are probably folks whose ability to sustain themselves, now and for generations to come, is not under any threat. And if these folks are moderating their support because (at least in part) of the U's sustainability initiatives, then "optics" moves up on Greenback's priority list.
The challenge, of course, is that sustainability involves behavioral change. And behavioral change doesn't happen without constant reinforcement. And reinforcement requires regular communication. And, in a large organization relatively open to the public, internal communications are often visible to outside eyes. Thus, if concern with optics reigns supreme, internal behaviors become even harder to change. Which may well be someone's intent.
I hope I'm wrong on this one. And if I'm right, I hope its a situation specific to Greenback. But tough economic times is precisely when money speaks loudest. And non-profit institutions, private or public, often feel the need to listen.
