LIVING THE TAME LIFE IN WICKED TIMES - ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORLD
By
Patricia Ann McKay

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies – Master of Science
2013

ABSTRACT

LIVING THE TAME LIFE IN WICKED TIMES - ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORLD
By
Patricia Ann McKay
Improved environmental and natural resource (ENR) outcomes rely upon the integration
of natural, social and economic systems. This research attempts to close gaps in the
literature from both an academic and applied research approach - filling what appears to
be one of the largest questions left in the literature: How to transform to a more
sustainable paradigm that can better tackle wicked problems for more durable ENR
outcomes? This research develops and tests a comprehensive best practice
governance model for improved outcomes where practitioners operate in a highly
technical arena that is quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial in executing public laws and
programs. The governance model was adapted and derived from an integration of
business, governmental and non-governmental models (i.e., the Natural Resource
Based View, Hart, Milstein and Caggiano, 2003; United Nations (2011) governance
criteria; the National Research Council (1996) participatory decision deliberation
process). These models recognize the importance of both scientific analysis and
personal value systems in advancing solutions for wicked problems. This research
used a complex governmental program to compare current perceptions and preferences
for capacities to improve ENR outcomes from internal and external governmental
perspectives.

DEDICATION

This research is dedicated to the future of humanity and Dr. James H. McKay.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am forever grateful to my advisor Dr. Christine Vogt and committee members Dr.
Patricia Norris and Dr. Laurie Thorp. Each of these committee members helped me
navigate my lifelong learning and academic pursuits at Michigan State University after
spending decades as an environmental practitioner. Each committee member brought
diverse perspectives that helped implement this exploratory study that is both
quantitative and applied. Dr. Sandra Batie, a scholar of wicked problems and applied
knowledge of state ENR programs, and Dr. Vogt were instrumental in assisting me
define the scope of this study.
I am also grateful for the support of my former colleagues, the research partners at
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, survey respondents, my dear
supportive friends, and my family. Without their support, this study could not have been
conducted.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... x

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ xi

CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 3
1.2. Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 6
1.3. Significance of the Study ............................................................................................... 7
1.4. Delimitations .................................................................................................................10
1.5. Limitations ....................................................................................................................11
1.6. Assumptions .................................................................................................................13
1.7. Hypotheses ..................................................................................................................15
1.8. Definitions of Terms ......................................................................................................18
1.9. Summary ......................................................................................................................26

CHAPTER 2 ..............................................................................................................................27
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE......................................................................................27
2.1 Governance Models and Contemporary Governance Theory ........................................27
2.2 Analysis of Wicked ENR Problems and Improved Outcomes.........................................30
2.3 Components of an Integrated ENR Governance Model for Improved Outcomes ...........31
2.4 Specific Factors, Capacities and Competencies for Improved ENR Outcomes ..............35
2.4.1 Individual Performance ...............................................................................................36
2.4.2 Organizational Culture and Structure ..........................................................................38
2.4.3 Decision Management ................................................................................................40
2.4.4 Improved ENR Outcomes ...........................................................................................45
2.5 Literature Review Summary and Scale Development References .................................45

v

CHAPTER 3 ..............................................................................................................................54
METHODS ................................................................................................................................54
3.1 Arrangements for Conducting the Study ........................................................................54
3.2 Test Instrument..............................................................................................................54
3.3 Selection of Subjects .....................................................................................................55
3.4 Administration of the Survey Instrument ........................................................................56
3.5 Development of Measurement Tools .............................................................................60
3.6 Treatment of the Data ....................................................................................................64
3.7 Summary .......................................................................................................................67

CHAPTER 4 ..............................................................................................................................69
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS............................................................................................69
4.1 Survey Populations ........................................................................................................70
4.2 Hypotheses Testing .......................................................................................................74
4.3 Capacity Factor Correlation ...........................................................................................92
4.4 Additional Survey Questions ..........................................................................................95
4.5 Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................102

CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................107
CONCLUDING SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................107
5.1 Purpose of this Research ............................................................................................107
5.2 Study Limitations and Delimitations .............................................................................109
5.2 Conclusions .................................................................................................................111
5.3 Recommendations .......................................................................................................118
5.4 Summary .....................................................................................................................120

APPENDICES .........................................................................................................................122
APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................................123
SURVEY INSTRUMENT .....................................................................................................123
APPENDIX B .......................................................................................................................136
SURVEY CORRESPONDENCE .........................................................................................136
APPENDIX C......................................................................................................................141
RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS ...........................................................................................141
vi

Internal Practitioner Responses ...........................................................................................143
External Practitioner Responses..........................................................................................160

BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................................................................................................168

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Sample Diagram of the Research Variables and the Populations…………17
Table 2. Three General Governing Structures………………………………………….27
Table 3. Selected Governance Factors………………………………………………….36
Table 4. Governance Capacity Factors, Sub-factors and Associated Competency
Measures…………………………………………………………………………………….46
Table 5. Individual Performance Measures Identified in the Literature………………47
Table 6. Organizational Culture and Structure Measures Identified in the
Literature………………………………………………………………………………….....48
Table 7. Decision Management Measures Identified in the Literature……………….51
Table 8. Improved ENR Outcome Measures Identified in the Literature…………….53
Table 9. Survey Dates and Population…………………………………………………..57
Table10. Survey Respondents…………………………………………………………...58
Table 11. Comparison of Completed and Partial Completed Surveys……………….59
Table 12. Likert Scaling……………………………………………………………………64
Table 13. Cronbach’s Alpha Values by Capacity Factors and Sub-factors Across
Current and Preferred Contexts…………………………………………………………...66
Table 14. Summary of Total Response Rates………………………………………….72
Table 15. Summary of Respondent’s Professional Experience………………………73
Table 16. Summary of Respondent’s Education Level and Gender…………………74
Table 17. Summary of Factor Means by Current and Preferred Capacity for Internal
and External Populations…………………………………………………………………..76
Table 18. Summary of Sub-factor Means by Current and Preferred Capacity for Internal
and External Populations…………………………………………………………………..77

viii

Table 19. Summary of Item Means by Population and Capacity - Individual
Performance………………………………………………………………………………...82
Table 20. Summary of Item Means by Population and Capacity - Organization Culture
and Structure……………………………………………………………………………..…84
Table 21. Summary of Item Means by Population and Capacity - Decision
Management………………………………………………………………………………...88
Table 22. Summary of Item Means by Population and Capacity - Improved
Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………91
Table 23. Pearson’s Correlation for Current Factor Capacities……………………….92
Table 24. Pearson’s Correlation for Current Sub-Factor Capacities…………………94
Table 25. Comparison of PWC 2012 and 2013 Results for the Remediation
Division………………………………………………………………………………………96
Table 26. Internal Responses to Question 1………………………………………….143
Table 27. Internal Responses to Question 2………………………………………….147
Table 28. Internal Responses to Question 3………………………………………….153
Table 29. Internal Responses to Question 4………………………………………….156
Table 30. External Responses to Question 1…………………………………………160
Table 31. External Responses to Question 2…………………………………………162
Table 32. External Responses to Question 3…………………………………………165
Table 33. External Responses to Question 4…………………………………………166

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Wicked ENR Problem Management Capacity Factors for Improved Outcomes
........................................................................................................................................ 5
Figure 2. Capacity Scaffolding Associated with Improving ENR Outcomes ................... 6
Figure 3. Diagram of the Role of Participants in the Natural Resource Based View
(NRBV) Governance Model........................................................................................... 34
Figure 4. Analogic Depiction of Reliability and Validity ................................................. 61
Figure 5. Current Capacity Factor Response Rates ..................................................... 71
Figure 6. Preferred Capacity Factor Response Rates .................................................. 72
Figure 7. Beliefs about Biases in Science .................................................................... 97
Figure 8. Resource Allocations .................................................................................... 99

x

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS
CSI - Collaborative Stakeholder Initiative
ENR - Environmental and Natural Resource
IRB - Institutional Research Board
MDEQ - Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
NRBV - Natural Resource Based View
RBT - Resource Based Theory
RRD - Remediation and Redevelopment Division
SES - Social-Ecological Systems
TAPs - Technical Assistance Team

xi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The context of environmental and natural resource (ENR) issues, policies and programs
continue to evolve given the dynamic challenges and resource limitations of today, while
safeguarding the environmental health and quality of life for current and future
generations. With improved communication and transportation, the nation evolved from
a subsistence and agrarian culture to hierarchical structures and segmented and
technology driven industrialized markets (Tedlow, 1990). The market externalities (e.g.,
degradation of air and water quality) rose to the level of public concern. As the nation
evolved, rigorous ENR protection standards and statutes were passed in the late 1970’s
and 1980’s (Menon and Menon, 1997). Historically handled as contentious but a
relatively separate and distinct domain (i.e., not integrated with other domains), ENR
problems have since evolved into complex matters that are tied to socio-economic
domains. Environmental advocacy and business interests became contentious at times
with some viewing traditional environmental regulations as having questionable success
rates (Menon and Menon, 1997).
Addressing complex and evolving matters exceed the forecasting and management
capacity of any one sector or jurisdiction. ENR management is no longer able to hide
behind the cloak of pure science; ENR management has been pushed into the realm of
socio-economic policy. Unlike easy problems, these problems may not be solved. The
cross domain-cutting problems call for new theories, management approaches and skill
sets to tackle complex risk-based issues. Trade-offs and negative consequences are

1

likely inevitable (Keeney, 2002). Rittel and Webber (1973) call these complex issues
wicked problems.
To illustrate these phenomena a brief history of the studied program is provided. In
response to the state of Michigan’s growing number of sites of uncontrolled
contamination (approximately 10,000 known sites in 2010), hundreds of millions of
dollars were spent on studies associated with the contamination. At the same time, few
legacy sites reached the stage where risks to human health, safety, welfare and the
environment were being reduced. The regulatory focus was on getting the site specific
diagnosis right through the science or technology, with little priority during the
investigation phase on reducing overall relative risks. The focus on understanding the
full nature and extent of the contamination allowed contamination to remain unabated in
the environment. The state’s approach to contaminated site management cost the
program necessary support and allowed contamination to spread during the
investigation stage, prolonging human and environmental exposure and increasing
cleanup costs.
Much like other parts of the nation, many businesses were beginning to address their
operational externalities. There was also increasing pressure on Michigan’s
government by stakeholders and its Governor to deliver improved and integrated ENR
outcomes given increased demands on Michigan's limited resources. Numerous
stakeholder processes were undertaken in the state since the mid 1990’s that identified
similar problems, but with little ENR improvement. Michigan’s governor called for the
re-invention of government in a 2011 ten-point initiative. Part of that initiative was an
employee survey that identified the largest portion of ENR employees (48%) as being
2

critical of the agency and difficult to lead, while having the greatest opportunity to
convert to motivated program champions (PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2012).
However, many program leaders lamented that they did not know how to transform their
employees or the programs to improve staff morale or ENR outcomes. Michigan, as
with other states and nations, entered into ‘uncharted waters’ as cultures evolved from
the industrialized era to one which is more interconnected and globalized with new
challenges.
This thesis developed a best practice governance model for improved ENR outcomes.
Current and desirable ENR program capacities were researched using this model and
associated capacities. This study and contributes to the emerging bodies of research
on individual capacities and organizational governance for improved ENR outcomes.
The assessment of individual ENR practitioner skills sets and organizational
governance will assist in the application of integrative and collaborative governance
concepts. This research will assist the studied ENR program, and possibly others, in
strengthening ENR program governance understanding. This study identified areas for
employee and organizational governance development, and opportunities to increase
awareness and knowledge of approaches and investments that lead to improved ENR
outcomes in 'wicked situations and times.’
1.1. Statement of the Problem
What seemed to be lacking was a rubric for assessing capacities that support and
nurture improved ENR outcomes. This research attempted to close the gap in the
literature from both an academic and applied research approach – filling what appears
to be one of the largest questions left in the literature: How to transform to a more

3

sustainable paradigm that can better tackle wicked problems for more durable ENR
outcomes?
This study developed an improved ENR governance model and identified factors, subfactors and specific competencies that should lead to improved ENR outcomes. This
study aimed to understand current and preferred wicked ENR management capacities
in an attempt to close the gaps between existing capacities and preferences for
improved ENR outcomes. The development of this governance model for improved
ENR was done through both literature and the author’s experience. This research then
tested the exploratory model and associated competencies through a study of current
and preferred capacities of the previously referenced state of Michigan ENR clean up
and redevelopment program. This program was identified by the state and stakeholder
review process as being ripe for building capacities to address wicked ENR problems.
This research assessed the status of this program’s evolution and development of
contemporary skills - from solving tame problems to managing wicked problems. Three
capacity factors were hypothesized to influence improved wicked problem outcomes: 1)
individual performance; 2) organizational cultures and structures; and 3) the decisionmaking and decision-implementation processes (e.g., decision management). The four
variables (the three independent variables or factors and the dependent variable improved outcomes) included selected sub-factors and items (e.g. specific and
measurable competencies.)
Figure 1 depicts the theoretical relationship among the three factors and the ability to
improve ENR outcomes. When individual performance, organizational culture and
4

structure and decision processes align with wicked ENR management capacities, ENR
outcomes should improve.

Figure 1. Wicked ENR Problem Management Capacity Factors for Improved
Outcomes
The selected factors embrace and draw upon numerous emerging interdisciplinary
bodies of literature to identify, define and assess best practices for individual decisions
and collective action toward improved ENR governance. Theories regarding
organizational management, human behavior and performance, and governance, as
well as grounded research and case studies were studied and investigated to garner an
understanding of best management practices associated with wicked problems. The
related elements of the capacities that make up the factors are referred to as subfactors and competencies. Competencies are the actual level of measurement that

5

constitutes the governance model. Figure 2 depicts the capacity scaffolding in support
of the factors.

Factors
(4)
Sub-factors
(9)
Competencies
(measurement items)
(70)

Figure 2. Capacity Scaffolding Associated with Improving ENR Outcomes

1.2. Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to develop and test a governance model that may
contribute to the evolution of ENR management for improved outcomes given wicked
problems. Today's ENR problems reflect critically important, but often competing,
social, economic and environmental values and objectives. Contemporary ENR
management systems must be able to differentiate between simple and complex
problems and successfully apply appropriate skill sets. Tackling wicked problems with
enduring management approaches requires a large diversity in knowledge and an
awareness of system dynamics - a set of related parts performing as a dynamic whole
(Brown et al., 2010; Hart and Dowell, 2011; Rittel and Webber, 1973). Wicked
problems can be contrasted with tame problems, which are typically solved by single
disciplines using standard analytical approaches and linear solutions (Batie, 2008; Rittel
6

and Webber, 1973). Wicked problems derive most of their complexity in their breadth
and nexus with human values (Matso et al., 2008; Patterson, 2006).
This research contributes to the emerging bodies of research regarding governance for
improved ENR outcomes through:


Exploring and defining attributes of wicked ENR problems.



Researching and identifying qualities (i.e., capacities) of effective ENR wicked
problem management.



Identifying components of and providing an integrated ENR governance
model that focuses on improved ENR outcomes.



Identifying specific factors, sub-factors and competencies within the
governance model necessary to manage wicked problems.



Identifying and assessing individual practitioner skills sets and organizational
governance applying integrative and collaborative governance concepts.

This research and the data associated with Michigan's ENR program can be used as
baseline data and assist in the identification and prioritization of areas of individual
employee and organizational development and barriers to improved ENR outcomes.
1.3. Significance of the Study
Governance models that link the management of wicked problems from both the
structural and individual stand point to the interaction of natural, social, and economic
domains are lacking (MSG and GESI, 2009). Wicked problems present new,
complicated, moral, and ethically challenging issues that defy easy resolution
(Lubchenco, 1998). Many contemporary problems do not fit into the classical structures
or norms of progress and prosperity (Bruntland, 1987). Government's capacity to
forecast, adjust and respond is being exceeded (Arvai et al., 2006; Batie, 2008). A
great demand remains for understanding how organizations can affect desirable
7

change, while remaining relevant and competitive with the challenges that confront
them (Sharma et al., 2007; Wustenhagen et al., 2008). Given the dynamic and complex
social-ecological systems (SES) associated with ENR wicked problems, there remains a
chasm between academic theory and operating realities (Fink, 2012; Goldsmith and
Kettl, 2009; Williams, 2009). The practice of wicked problem management is moving
faster than theory or models can be developed (Dunphy et al., 2007; Holliday, 2010;
Schwandt and Marquandt, 2000). This highlights the complexities of delivering
enhanced ENR management tools and understanding from the academy.
Additionally, numerous ENR stakeholder processes have been conducted since the
mid-1990s to develop opportunities to enhance Michigan's ENR management. A
number of strategies emerged from these efforts (Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality and Michigan State University Extension, 2012):


Assess the means to improve ENR management transactions to meet the current
and future public interest given the changes in Michigan's economy and resource
limitations.



Maximize return on investment by focusing on those things that matter and
reduce or eliminate management elements that provide little corresponding
improvement.



Encourage active and positive interactions and partnerships with the public and
those affected by ENR management.



Focus on outcomes and the measurement of progress and success.

These strategies articulate stakeholder interests and demonstrate a continuing demand
for improved ENR management from an 'applied' approach.
Both academic and applied research is necessary to improve ENR outcomes. Evidence
of factors that improve ENR outcomes are mainly anecdotal or based on specific and
8

often limited elements or studies (e.g., a narrow context or application or elements of a
specific case study). New and different means to increase understanding and improve
conflict resolution mechanisms are needed to address the increasingly tenuous and
often contentious relationships among ENR management policies, capital accumulation,
and conservation or environmental protection (Davidson and Frickel, 2004; European
Environmental Agency (EEA), 2010; Metzenbaum, 2002).
While this investigation focuses on ENR management issues, it builds upon business
and social science research that has studied ways of addressing wicked problems.
These disciplines are further ahead of ENR management approaches and utilize
integrated governance theories and approaches to address wicked matters. The
interdisciplinary theory includes work by Arvai et al. (2002); Brown et al. (2010);
Goldsmith and Kettl (2009); Hart and Dowell (2011); Hart et al. (2003); Kjaer (2010);
Kotter (1995); MSG and GESI (2009); Rittel and Webber (1973); as well as work by
numerous other scholars and the author's own governmental and policy development
experience.
Taking an interdisciplinary approach, this study developed a more comprehensive ENR
governance model with key competencies selected to estimate capacity indices (i.e.,
factors and sub-factors). This model forms a relatively comprehensive institutional
governance model that assessed capacities (current and preferred) for improved ENR
outcomes associated with contemporary wicked problems. This study tested this
exploratory model on one governmental program using internal and external
practitioners’ current perceptions and preferences for the future.

9

1.4. Delimitations
The probabilistic governance model was delimited to key capacities and competencies
for improved ENR outcomes; it was not designed to capture all capacities and
competencies referenced in the literature. This governance model focused on
practitioners operating in a highly technical arena that is quasi-legislative and quasijudicial in executing public laws and programs; it was not focused on what may be
referred to as the general public participation model for non-practitioners (Bingham et
al., 2005).
To maintain context, this research was delimited to one complex program area within
the State of Michigan's ENR program: the state's cleanup and redevelopment program.
This program is charged by the executive and legislative branches with the authority to
manage, regulate and fund the cleanup and redevelopment of polluted areas that are
not otherwise regulated by other regulatory programs. Simply, this program is charged
with addressing sites of contamination where regulations were not sufficient or where
the contamination is not regulated by other more specific programs (i.e., such as a
program that regulates the quality of air, soil or water, or the safe disposal of waste).
This program has been undergoing an active and visible transformation as part of the
new reinvented organization (per the Governor’s ten-point plan). Keeping the focus
within this population will support a sufficient and meaningful data set without expanding
the study scope to programs that may be in different stages of transition or
transformation.

10

The survey scope was delimited to the identified capacity indices; it was not expanded
to budgetary, or governance factors influenced by other branches of government (e.g.,
legislative or judicial). Nor did it include other local, state, or federal ENR programs.
The study population included presently active internal (program stewards) and external
(stakeholder) professional practitioners (i.e., two sectors) of one complex State of
Michigan ENR program to improve the richness and legitimacy of the data and bring
internal and external views to the process, consistent with contemporary ENR
governance theory. To provide a contemporary snapshot, the population did not include
ENR professional practitioners who were not currently active in the complex issues
associated with the program.
1.5. Limitations
This research was limited by the following factors. The studied population was not
randomly selected and is likely to reflect a population undergoing transition - where a
subset of the population has received more exposure to governance concepts and
approaches (e.g. intervention). Therefore, there will be variability and stratification
within this population complicating the generalization of the results to other populations.
The survey data reflect stewards' and stakeholders' perceptions and preferences.
Perceptions and preferences are subject to framing effects, heuristics and biases and
therefore do not represent absolute truths or facts (Arvai et al., 2004; Tversky and
Kahneman, 1981 and 1992).

11

The contexts of wicked problems are typically unique (i.e., to program and culture);
therefore, findings regarding capacities for improved ENR outcomes may be informative
but not generalizable.
The exploratory capacities are determined by selected causation-based competencies
and are based on criterion-related validity obtained through literature review (Babbie,
1989). The three independent capacity variables and the dependent capacity variables
have not been tested in this manner and context before; therefore, potential
unanticipated exceptions to the posited relationship proposed in the probabilistic model
may occur. Being factors of an integrative governance system, the indices and selected
capacities are likely to overlap and may not be separate and distinct (Graham et al.,
2003). This model may need additional measurement development which is outside the
scope of this proposed study.
Numerous stakeholder processes recommended modifications to the studied
organization's governance processes. The population may have felt over-studied with
little improvement to ENR outcomes. This factor, coupled with the questionnaire
mechanism (electronic survey), may have resulted in a high level of avoidance and nonresponse, especially if the population or subsets of the population felt that their efforts
were not meaningful or useful. Those who choose not to respond to the survey may
have a different set of perceptions or preferences that would affect their survey
responses and the resulting data.
The researcher has worked in this program as a state-employed environmental
manager; and, as an external consultant for collaborative stakeholder processes and for

12

non-governmental clients. This knowledge and experience may present biases in the
research, including its methodology and conclusions.
Based on recent surveys of the studied organization, the majority of employees are
dissatisfied or disengaged and rather difficult to lead (PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,
2012). This attitude may also result in non-participation or less support and
acknowledgement of transitions and contemporary governance components.
Further, given the often political nature of state government, contemporary politics may
influence test subjects’ responses, especially since the research is associated with the
Governor’s initiatives to reinvent state government and the test population can be
affected by frequent legislative and executive actions.
1.6. Assumptions
It was assumed that the program is undergoing transition from one that has tended
toward an insular hierarchical structure to one that is more integrated, socially engaged
and responsively structured to reflect network-based governance systems.
The observations leading to those assumptions include:
1) National organizational trends and the rise of non-state actors in ENR management
(Chandler, 1977; Eccles et. al., 2011; EEA, 2010; Hart and Dowell, 2011);
2) Published employee surveys, regulatory review and stakeholder participation
processes undertaken by the state program (MDEQ and MSUE, 2012; Michigan Office
of Regulatory Reinvention, 2011; PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2012); and
3) The author's understanding of the program's evolution.

13

Likewise, and consistent with hierarchical structures and the evolution of ENR
management, the ENR program may be more adept at solving tame problems than
managing wicked problems (Kjaer, 2010; Rhodes, 1999; Roberts et al., 1994).
Assumptions embedded in this research are drawn from attributes of a hierarchical
structure and the assessment of the problems as if tame rather than wicked.
Assumptions are based on the literature, reported stakeholder processes, published
State of Michigan reports, and the author's recent participation in a collaborative
stakeholder initiative (MDEQ and MSUE, 2012; Michigan Office of Regulatory
Reinvention, 2011; Selin et al., 2007). These are referred to as associated assumptions
and include the following:
















A heavy reliance on science at the staff level for decision-making.
Lack of understanding that science can be biased and fallible.
Underdeveloped use of collaboration skill sets.
Underdeveloped use of integrative and critical thinking skills.
Underdeveloped appreciation of the benefits of collective problem solving as a
means to ensure the durability of ENR outcomes.
Underdeveloped capacity to identify and manage wicked problems with enduring
results.
Underdeveloped capacity-building skill sets for improved wicked problem
management.
Underdeveloped systems of accountability.
Tenuous organizational trust.
Underdeveloped legitimacy both internal and external to the organization.
Over reliance on centralized decision-making created unbalanced power
constructs, reducing the reliance on knowledge and knowledge capacity building.
Underdeveloped capacity to improve program outcomes.
Transition and decision-making is hard at the individual level as individuals rely
upon framing, heuristics and biases which may short circuit more enduring and
sustainable approaches to wicked ENR problem management.
Implementation and effective adaptive management strategies are likely not
meeting expected improved ENR outcomes.
14

The underdevelopment of skill sets is not intended as a personal critique but rather a
reflection of the overall organizational governance structure and culture (e.g., an
employee may have a certain tested capacity, but not the opportunity to use it).
1.7. Hypotheses
This study was designed to test the following hypotheses (H) across the four capacity
factors:
H1. There will be a significant difference in current and preferred capacities between
the steward and stakeholder populations.
H1a. Preferred capacities held by the steward population will be significantly
higher than current capacities.
H1b. Preferred capacities held by the stakeholder population will be significantly
higher than current capacities.
H2. The stakeholder population will have higher expectations for government’s
alignment with wicked problems compared to the steward population.
H2a. Current capacity expectations will be rated lower by the stakeholder
population compared to the steward population.
H2b. Preferred capacity expectations will be rated higher by the stakeholder
population compared to the steward population.
H3. The studied ENR program is currently more adept at solving tame problems than
managing wicked problems.

Table 1 provides a sample diagram of the research variables (i.e., factors), and the
population. Also included in the table are competency categories (i.e., capacity subfactors) selected for this study.
Each of the four factor categories includes selected specific and desirable sub-factors
that further identify and define desirable ENR problem management capacity indices.

15

These sub-factors are comprised of specific items that reflect competencies derived
from the literature review and the studied program’s goals. The assessment was coded
such that data could be gathered regarding both current and preferred capacities. The
survey indices of the survey were scaled to reflect the capacity to tackle tame problems
to wicked problems (i.e., 1-5 with capacities closer to 1 being associated with tame
problems and capacities closer to 5 being associated with the capacity to manage
wicked problems). Consistent with the goal of collaboration, both internal and external
ENR practitioners assessed (e.g., selected a value for) the current and preferred
competencies across all four capacity indices.

16

Table 1. Sample Diagram of the Research Variables and the Populations
Capacity
IV-independent variable
DV-dependent variable
Scale of 1 reflects a tame problem
capacity
Scale of 5 reflects a wicked problem
capacity
Individual Performance (IV)
(13 specific test competencies, scaled
on a 1-5 Likert scale)
Competency groupings:
 Networked based governance
 Capacity building
Organizational Culture and Structure (IV)
(25 specific test competencies scaled on
a 1-5 Likert scale)
Competency groupings:
 Leadership
 Legitimacy
 Governance
Decision and Implementation Process
(IV)
(27 specific test competencies scaled on
a 1-5 Likert scale)
Competency groupings:
 Scoping
 Participants
 Deliberation
Improved ENR Outcomes (DV)
(5 specific test competencies, scaled on
a 1-5 Likert scale)
Competency group:
 Improved ENR indices

Stewards
Stakeholders
(internal to
(external to
organization)
organization)
Independent sample T tests (current; preferred)
Paired sample T tests
Paired sample T tests
Current
Preferred
Current
Preferred
(tame)
(wicked)
(tame)
(wicked)

Population Population
Mean
Mean

Population Population
Mean
Mean

Population Population
Mean
Mean

Population Population
Mean
Mean

Population Population
Mean
Mean

Population Population
Mean
Mean

Population Population
Mean
Mean

Population Population
Mean
Mean

The table reflects population means that imply that all members of the population
provide a response that is scored using a Likert scale. In actuality, sample means were
calculated based on those respondents who provided responses. Means were
calculated by adding up the one to five values for each respondent and dividing by the

17

number of responses. General trends were noted based on the Likert scale (i.e.,
moving from tame problems solving capacities to wicked problem management
capacities). Demographic trends and other qualitative data obtained through the
surveys (i.e., comment sections) are also summarized.
1.8. Definitions of Terms
The following terms are defined to clarify their use in this research with some providing
insight into desirable capacities to improve ENR outcomes:
Adaptation
Adaptation is the ability to adjust responses to the changing internal and external drivers
to maintain stability (Folke et al., 2010).
Adaptive Management
Adaptive management is a patient and systematic accumulation and assessment of
data and deliberate management of stakeholder values to build consensus (Allan and
Curtis, 2003; Miller, 1999). Used appropriately, active adaptive management provides
the flexibility to move policy alternatives forward in the face of uncertainty, while
constantly reevaluating advances in knowledge and experience during implementation
at pre-determined intervals (e.g., institutionalized monitoring) (Arvai et al., 2006;
Simpson and Weamert, 2007). The precise policy goal and means by which it can be
achieved can be assessed and modified as experience is gained and new knowledge is
created (Arvai et al., 2006).
Agency
Agency is used to indicate where business is done or decisions are made, taking into
account more than a 'firm' but where or with whom the action, standing, influence,
18

power and access exists (e.g., who is empowered to pursue the goals, Norris and
Urban-Lurain, 2011). Cohen and Levithal (1990) proffer that acquisition and
assimilation of knowledge by an organization is influenced by the "structure of
communication between the external environment and the organization, as well as
among the subunits of the organization, and also on the character and distribution of
expertise within the organization (p. 132).” Interface functions can be centralized with
personnel acting as gate keepers; or diffuse with a broad array of exposure and
receptors of new knowledge. The ideal capacity for growth in innovation and problem
solving is to have diffuse learning throughout an organization with some overlap; but not
too much redundancy in expertise (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; National Research
Council, 1996). Broad access and diversity is preferred (Arvai et al., 2002; Cohen and
Levinthal, 1990; Hart and Dowell, 2011; Ostrom, 1999; Parissi, 2010; Rittel and Weber,
1973; United Nations, 2011).
Capacity
Capacity is a context-based competency of desirable attributes associated with
managing wicked ENR problems. Capacity means the ability to hold, receive or absorb
available knowledge (Cohen and Levinthal, 1989; Criscoulo and Narula, 2008). The
literature refers to this concept as adsorptive capacity. An organization's absorptive
capacity is largely a function of its level of prior knowledge and the organization's ability
to exploit it for creative problem solving (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Cohen and
Levinthal (1990) proffer that knowledge diversity facilitates the innovation process by
enabling the individual to make novel associations and linkages. Organizational
problem-solving (e.g., effective wicked problem management) is tied to an individual's

19

continuous incremental learning, the organization's overall diversity in learning and the
ability to make associations and linkages that have never been considered before
(Bradshaw, Langley, and Simon, 1983; Cohen and Levinthal, 1990).
Current
Current as used as in this research means belonging to the present time (Morris, 2001).
In the context of this study it means what the respondents observed.
Effective Management
Effective management can be defined by good governance. Good governance (in a
social context) has eight major characteristics. "It is participatory, consensus oriented,
accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and
follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities
are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in
decision-making. It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society
(United Nations, 2011; p.1)." The goal of good governance is collective decisionmaking that is informed as much as possible by both relevant data and understanding
of, and respect for, what’s at stake for those close to the issue (National Research
Council, 1996). At the state level good ENR governance includes safeguarding the
public, environmental health and quality of life for current and future generations (e.g.,
inter-generational equity) (State of Michigan, 2011). Inherent in a good governance
model are the concepts of sustainability, resilience and adaptive management.
Governance frameworks can be sustainable, dependent on the overall effectiveness of
the governance system, and the inclusion of interrelationships among, social,
environmental and economic factors (Thompson, 2007).
20

External
External means a stakeholder who is an environmental practitioner whose main
employment is outside of the organization being studied (Morris, 2001). External
practitioners are one of two sectors studied.
Governance
Governing and governance is a process of decision-making and decisionimplementation, including no action, which involves actors and takes place through
different mechanisms (Brown et al., 2010; Kjaer, 2010; United Nations, 2011). In this
study governance includes government (and the elements that make up the government
e.g., its staff) and its interaction with other practitioners.
Government
Government is a form of governance that gives structure and order to society (Mehan,
2011). Government in our nation and state has evolved from civil societal governance
to formal political institutions at federal, state and local levels (Mehan, 2011).
Government is the agent of collective power in society - a hierarchy of power and
control (Brown et al., 2010). Government is often the selected response to failed
markets or social problems and presents its own sets of limits for individual actors and
at a collective level (Lipsky, 2010; Weimer and Vining, 2010).
When government fails, non-governmental entities can respond to failed markets or
social problems (e.g., the Red Cross). Since the public continues to demand relevance
and value from governmental ENR management, there is a growing desire to
reinvigorate civil society to push for change. However the frameworks and networks

21

that might have existed in the past are dormant (Brown et al., 2010; MDEQ and MSUE,
2012; Norris and Urban-Lurain, 2011; Parissi, 2010; Putnam, 2000).
Internal
Internal means a steward who is an environmental practitioner whose main employment
is within the organization being studied (Morris, 2001). Internal practitioners are one of
two sectors included in this study. For the purpose of this study, the organization is
synonymous with the program division (i.e., the Remediation and Redevelopment
Division of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality) unless referring to the
state department as a whole.
Organization
Organization means a business or government (e.g., a government bureau) or a group
organized for a specific purpose (Morris, 2001). The terms organization, enterprise, firm
and institution are synonyms. Organizations often reflect associated social rules and
power constructs (e.g., agency as defined above).
Practitioner
Practitioner means a person who practices ENR governance, for example, a
government worker, an environmental consultant, environmental lawyer, or a non-profit,
or for-profit environmental specialist (Morris, 2001).
Preferred
Preferred as used as in the survey means to chosen as more desirable (Morris, 2001).
In the context of this study it means the respondents preferences or preferred
observations.

22

Resilience
Resilience is the capacity to avoid inadvertent or unmanaged transformation (Folke et
al., 2010; Walker and Salt, 2006). Resilience thinking is seeing systems, linkages,
thresholds, trends and cycles that influence processes and decisions (Walker and Salt,
2006).
Stakeholder
A stakeholder is a person with a stake in a public health or environmental problem:
parties who will share in assuming the risks, costs, and benefits of a decision and its
outcomes as well as those who wield influence over the process (Arvai et al., 2002;
Roberts et al., 1994). This research differentiates an external practitioner or
stakeholder from an internal steward.
Steward
Steward is a person who manages another’s property such as a governmental
employee managing the state's resources. In this context it refers to an ENR
practitioner internal to the studied organization (Morris, 2001).
Sustainability
Sustainability used in this research means serving current demands without eroding the
potential to meet future needs so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are
maintained and the total quality of life, now and in the future, is improved (Brown et al.,
2010; Bruntland, 1987). Coupled with sustainability are the concepts of resilience and
adaptation.
Sustainability advocates proffer the need to reconnect space and time and re-embed
social relations and engage more adroitly in the reflexive reordering of knowledge
23

(Brown et al., 2010; Griffith 2002). Sustainability policy requires a reconciliation of
development goals, social needs and ecological resources toward a just, healthy and
sustainable future (Brown et al., 2010).
Tame and Wicked Environmental and Natural Resource Problems
There are two categories of ENR problems: tame and wicked (Rittel and Webber,
1973).
Tame Problems
Tame problems share the following characteristics: 1) the scope of choice is discrete
and bounded; 2) no ambiguity exists regarding relationships between alternative
actions, choices or desired outcomes; and 3) improving information on which decisions
are based promises insight into understanding the various choices, relationships of
alternative courses of action, and desired outcome (Pielke, 2007). The complexities
can be solved by one sector, jurisdiction or domain using standard analytical
approaches of their disciplines and solutions tend to be linear (Batie, 2008). The basis
for decisions is scientific information (e.g., a single discipline), which is evaluated and
from which alternatives are compared (Pielke, 2007). Tame problems have solutions
and end-points (Rittel and Webber, 1973).
Wicked Problems
Rittel and Webber (1973) began to label problems as wicked in the late 1960s and early
1970's. A professional's job was "once seen as solving an assortment of problems that
appeared to be definable, understandable and consensual (p.156)." Now the relatively
easy problems have been dealt with and scholars understand the interdisciplinary
nature of many of our current problems (Arvai et al, 2006; John, 1997; Rittel and
24

Webber, 1973). The 1960's were an inaugural era that questioned the nation's
trajectory and sought purpose (Rittel and Webber, 1973). "Plurality of objectives held
by pluralities of politics makes it impossible to pursue unitary aims....The difficulties
attached to rationality are tenacious, and we have so far been unable to get untangled
from their web. This is partly because the classical paradigm of science and
engineering....is not applicable to the problems of open societal systems (Rittel and
Webber, 1973; p. 12)." Simply stated, today’s problems lack certainty in ‘facts’ and
resolution of one factor may have untenable consequences.
Wicked problems are intractable issues found in many disciplines (Batie, 2008). Wicked
problems require the ability to forecast for which our intelligence is insufficient to the
task and involve nearly all public policy issues (Rittel and Webber, 1973). Wicked
problems are: 1) complex and interdisciplinary in scope with high uncertainty; 2) value
laden; and 3) evolving and dynamic. Wicked problems require policy decisions, as
opposed to science based decisions, that reconcile values for collective and cohesive
goals to be developed and implemented - achieving the desired outcome (Brown et al.,
2010; Ebbin, 2003). Conversations become more critical as values become more
diverse and problems become more complicated (Brown et al., 2010; Vogt et al., 2003).
Challenges posed by wicked problems include deviation from normal scientific research
and the problem-solving characteristics of human behavior. Normal scientific research
builds on established theory, rarely challenging or testing its underlying assumptions
(Kuhn, 1996). Likewise and further complicating this dilemma is general human
behavior whereby human choice is typically limited by factors that are not necessarily

25

rational - tending toward familiarity, heuristics and biases (Schwartz, 2005; Tversky and
Kahneman, 1981, 1992).
Wicked problem solving requires transcending normal behavior and culturally
embedded barriers through cross-cultural learning and an acceptance of broader citizen
standing (e.g. truer democracy) (Brown et al., 2010; Dryzek and Stevenson, 2011).
Wicked problem solving is a dynamic and interactive process with no definitive endpoint. Interim solutions are achieved by consensus and the implementation of
management measures.
1.9. Summary
Chapter 1 provides the general problem statement, the purpose of the study and the
scope of the research. Chapter 2 provides the elements, from review of the literature, of
the best practice governance model based on contemporary governance theory for
improved ENR outcomes. Specific assessment factors, sub-factors and competencies
associated with the best practice governance model are also identified.

26

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
A best practice wicked problem ENR governance model with associated capacities was
sought to assess program capacities (current and preferred) for improved outcomes.
According to several authors, practice is leading theory in the development of wicked
problem management (Bingham et al., 2005; Dunphy et al., 2007; Holliday, 2010;
Schwandt and Marquandt, 2000). Further, there are few, if any, models that: 1) link the
management of wicked problems from both the individual and structural stand points;
and 2) link the interaction of natural, social, and economic domains (MSG and GESI,
2009). This research uses an interdisciplinary approach to build a wicked problem (e.g.,
more contemporary) governance model for improved ENR outcomes. This literature
review builds on the descriptions and definitions provided in Chapter 1. This literature
review:


Identifies basic governance models and contemporary governance theory
evolution;



Identifies components of and provides an integrated governance model that
focuses on improved outcomes;



Identifies specific factors/capacities, capacity indices and competencies within
the governance model necessary to manage wicked problems; and,



Identifies and assesses individual practitioner skills sets and organizational
governance applying integrative and collaborative governance concepts.

2.1 Governance Models and Contemporary Governance Theory
Governance and its associated outcomes are affected by the culture, structures, and
capacities of individuals within the social construct. Social culture influences
27

organizational structures. Organizational structures and cultures affect modes of
communication, values and messages, knowledge capture, worldviews and social roles
(Criscuolo and Narula, 2008; Jurin, Roush and Danter, 2010). Understanding the
culture’s worldview is essential for successful analyses of an organization (Jurin et al.,
2010).
There are numerous governance models. For the sake of this research there are three
generally accepted governing structures: markets, hierarchies and networks (Kjaer
2010; Rhodes, 1999). Many variations of these governance structures could
simultaneously exist within any organization. Table 2 depicts governance attributes
including the basis of relationships, degree of dependence, medium of exchange,
means of conflict resolution, and culture. These structures determine social rules,
associated power constructs, and information asymmetries. Each of these structures
provides the organizational framework by which matters may arise and are governed
(i.e., decisions are made and implemented).
Table 2. Three General Governing Structures
Markets
Basis of
relationships
Degree of
dependence
Medium of
exchange
Means of
conflict
resolution
Culture

Hierarchies

Networks

Contracts and
property rights

Employment
relationship

Resource
exchange

Independent

Dependent

Interdependent

Prices

Authority

Trust

Haggling and the
courts

Rules and
commands

Diplomacy

Competition

Subordination

Reciprocity

Source: Kjaer (2010) and Rhodes (1999).
28

Different phases of development require different strategies to survive (i.e., be
sustainable) (John, 1997). Certain governance structures are better suited for certain
circumstances – affecting overall governance and outcomes (Kjaer, 2010). Based on
literature and stakeholder processes, a more collaborative governance structure is the
desirable model (i.e., network-based, recognizing the government context in which it
must operate). Industrialized societies are transitioning or are in need of transition to
manage contemporary problems and address contemporary factors (Brundtland, 1987;
Jurin et al., 2010). Pro-environmental paradigms are increasing, but not without internal
and social conflict associated with historic consumerist lifestyles (Corraliza and
Berenguer, 2000; Dunlap et al., 2000; Jurin et al., 2010). Evolution is also underway in
the business sector.
Refinement of strategy requires more inward research and development, while
paradigm shifts and innovation are based on joint ventures and strategic external
alliances (Criscuolo and Narula, 2008; Hart et al., 2003; Kotler, 1982). External
alliances build new individual and organizational knowledge and capacities (Criscuolo
and Narula, 2008). As the ENR governance system evolves, traditional elements (e.g.,
markets, hierarchies) including competition, efficiency, or shifts in the control or a
rebalancing of private and public control could be evident or reconsidered (Weimer and
Vining, 2010).
Most existing governance models tend to address technology production and tame
problem management, assuming decision errors can be tolerated and the cost of the
errors are not as great as the value of the information gained through experiential
learning (Roberts et al., 1994). The majority of these governance models only partially
29

analyze the full range of options or concerns and fail to comprehend, consider or
include trade-offs and social policy implications (Gregory et al., 2006; Jurin et al., 2010;
Kellon, 2011; Lindblom, 1959; Weimer and Vining, 2011). Segmented strategies can
have catastrophic impact and are not sufficient for good governance and improved ENR
outcomes in wicked times (Hart and Dowell, 2003). Given the dynamic and complex
social - ecological systems (SES) associated with ENR wicked problems, there remains
a chasm between academic theory and operating realities (Fink, 2012; Goldsmith and
Kettl, 2009; Williams, 2009). This research attempts to close the identified gaps in
literature from both an academic and applied research approach, filling what appeared
to be one of the largest questions left in the literature: How are wicked problems
addressed for effective/more durable ENR outcomes? This research contributes to the
theory and methods on ENR governance and its application for wicked problem
management.
2.2 Analysis of Wicked ENR Problems and Improved Outcomes
ENR outcomes are dependent upon the capacity of the organization, including the
leaders and practitioners, to practice good governance. The practitioners and their
leadership must tackle the problem at the appropriate level of understanding and
engagement, handling it as a tame or wicked problem as the true scope of the problem
dictates (e.g., a systems approach to wicked problems) (Brown et al., 2010; EEA, 2010;
Hart and Dowell, 2011; Rittel and Webber, 1973). Additionally, ENR management is
facing a broad range of resource limitations (human, financial, resource supply,
knowledge asymmetries, and external and often global forces) (Hart et al., 2003).
Increasing modes of communication, technologic advances and the rise of
environmental awareness and corporate social responsibility have been accelerating in
30

recent years (Eccles et al., 2011; EEA, 2011). These phenomena provide a growing
imbalance in information held by both governmental and non-governmental sectors, and
evolving concepts of governance (EEA, 2011). Effective and durable management will
help sustain limited and dwindling resources. Emerging research demonstrates that
capacity building and sustainability practices are beneficial to an organization in the long
run (Ceres, 2010; Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Criscuolo and Narula, 2008; Dryzek and
Stevenson, 2011; Eccles et al., 2011; Hart and Dowell, 2011; Metzenbaum, 2002). Not
pursuing durability (based on theories and practices associated with capacity building
and sustainability) is based somewhat on information poverty and can be overcome with
strategies and practices that build value by moving toward more sustainable
governance models that include knowledge sharing and a more structured process of
‘decision deliberation’ (Criscuolo and Narula, 2008; Hart et al., 2003; Kjaer, 2002;
National Research Council, 1996; Renn et al., 1993).
2.3 Components of an Integrated ENR Governance Model for Improved
Outcomes
Contemporary governance models are complex and involve many elements of network
governance. The literature indicates that models that link the management of wicked
problems from both the structural and individual stand point, as well as link the
interaction of natural, social, cultural and economic domains are necessary components
of a systems approach, however few, if any, actually exist (MSG and GESI, 2009).
Much of the governance theory associated with wicked problems has arisen in the
context of planning and business domains prior to arising in the context of ENR
management.

31

One such model can be derived from the Natural Resource Based View (NRBV)
framework. NRBV is the business world evolutionary approach from addressing tame
to wicked problems. The tame business approach was based on Resource Based
Theory (RBT), which emerged initially as a means to study a firm's internal capacity to
maintain market advantage. RBT has been an antecedent of firm growth (Hart and
Dowell, 2011; Penrose, 1959). The resources in RBT include the physical and financial
assets, employee skills, and organizational capabilities, which stem from resources and
routines upon which a firm can draw (Hart and Dowell, 2011; Karim and Mitchell, 2000;
Winter, 2000). In 1995, Hart proffered that RBT had a major omission - the external
component including interaction between the firm's and the external environment. While
an internal view of a business might have been acceptable in earlier times, by 1995, to
have a competitive advantage, a firm's strategy needed to be rooted in capabilities that
facilitate environmentally sustainable economic activity (Hart and Dowell, 2011). NRBV
emerged as a complimentary component of RBT, including the assessment of the
reduction in market externalities (e.g., pollution) and the link between pollution
prevention and firm profitability (Hart and Dowell, 2011). After fifteen years of research
in the arena of dynamic capabilities, NRBV theories remain relevant and can inform
research and assist in our understanding as resources and SES evolve (Hart and
Dowell, 2011).
Elkington (1997) states that enterprises can contribute to sustainable development by
delivering simultaneously economic, social, and environmental benefit - the so called
triple bottom line (Hart et al., 2003). Governance models and strategies can bring

32

wealth that drives capacity and sustainability, lowering overall costs and risks and
increasing fiscal security (Eccles, Ioannou and Serafeim, 2011; Hart et al., 2003).
Figure 2 provides a diagram of the role of participants (e.g., stewards, stakeholders) in
the NRBV governance model. The diagram contains four quadrants that overlay a
shaded base square. The base square depicts the temporal component (e.g., evolution
over time) facilitated by the interactions of the internal stewards and external
stakeholders. The four quadrants describe the key elements of the model, beginning in
the top right corner and proceeding clockwise.
Quadrant I - using internal and external resources, a shared roadmap is developed to
meet unmet needs. The result is an improved future ENR outcome.
Quadrant II - integrating external and internal views builds capacity through knowledge
sharing, removing the information asymmetry between an organization and society building transparency, trust and connectivity.
Quadrant III - reducing waste and externalities while improving resource efficiencies
today for future cost and risk reduction.
Quadrant IV – developing capacities through innovation and increasing sustainable
competencies and positioning for the future.
The NRBV model aligns with the ten good governance criteria identified by the United
Nations, and by Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom's research (Eagles et al., 2012; Ostrom,
1999; United Nations, 2011; United Nation Development Program, 1997).

33

Tomorrow

Strategy - Develop shared
understanding
Outcome - Improved ENR
trajectory

Strategy - Develop capacity
Outcome - Transformation
for repositioning

Internal

Stewards and Stakeholders

Strategy - Minimize waste
and pollution
Outcome - Improved ENR
risk management

External

Strategy - Stewardship
Outcome - Improved
organizational reputation
and legitimacy

Today
Figure 3. Diagram of the Role of Participants in the Natural Resource Based View
(NRBV) Governance Model
Source: Adapted from Hart, Milstein and Caggiano, 2003
This figure contains slight color and shading to depict components of the integrated
NRBV governance model. For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the
reader is referred to the electronic version of this thesis.
The principles of good governance are not separate and distinct and therefore overlap
or require modification based on the unique complexities and social context (Graham et
al., 2003). All exercise the effectiveness of power in governance.
The United Nations criteria include: 1) public participation, 2) consensus orientation, 3)
accountability, 4) transparency, 5) responsiveness, 6) effectiveness, 7) efficiency, 8)
equity, 9) rules of law, and 10) strategic vision (Eagles et.al., 2012). These best
practice governance criteria derive from open democratic, network-based governance.
34

They include good communication to establish legitimate boundaries for an increased
level of adaptation and cooperation with joint/mutually beneficial outcomes. Failing et
al. (2004) states there is utility in combining expert judgment processes and stakeholder
values with adaptive management (AM) to improve the likelihood that proposed
experimental approaches deliver net value to society.
By acknowledging and validating the collective decision making capacity of the
community (e.g., network based governance), one validates the truth that lies outside
the power bastions of an organization, helping to guide more objective and sustainable
decision-making and decision-implementation (Parissi, 2010). Understanding these
governance components help inform how and where decisions are made, an element in
the transition from tame to wicked problem governance.
2.4 Specific Factors, Capacities and Competencies for Improved ENR Outcomes
This section identifies specific factors/capacities, capacity indices and competencies
within the network based governance model necessary to manage wicked problems.
The contemporary governance model for tackling wicked ENR problems is participatory
(e.g., network based decision-making and implementation) and relies upon collective
action and multiple disciplines to harness resources and human capabilities for change
and management of complex SES problems (Hart et al., 2003; Kjaer, 2002; Matso et al.,
2008; Renn et al., 1993; Rittel and Webber, 1973). Transformation to a more
sustainable paradigm can only be achieved through social change with increased focus
on, investment in, and participation of human capital and a participatory decision
deliberation process that recognizes the importance of both scientific analysis and
personal value systems in advancing solutions for public problems (Middendorf and
35

Busch, 1997; National Research Council, 1996). The integrative and collaborative best
practice governance model is iterative and continues to build competencies for
increased awareness and knowledge for improved management capacities and
improved outcomes.
Synthesizing ENR governance and contemporary interdisciplinary literature review
resulted in the selection of the following governance capacity indices: 1) individual
performance; 2) organizational culture and structure, 3) decision management; and 4)
improved outcomes. Other elements support these capacity factors (i.e., sub-factors
and competencies) for a broad and integrative governance system.
When individuals, organizations and related processes align with appropriate wicked
management capacities (e.g., a best practice governance model), ENR outcomes
should improve. Table 3 identifies the selected best practice governance factors.
Table 3. Selected Governance Factors
Individual
Performance

Best Practice Governance Factors
Organization culture
Decision
and structure
management

Improved ENR
outcomes

2.4.1 Individual Performance
Individuals are key players in organizational decision-making and implementation.
Individuals hold their own culture, concepts of reality, values, attitudes, behaviors and
practices (Jurin et al., 2010). Individual characteristics can stifle transformation or
reform activities (Lipsky, 2010). Knowing that wicked problems defy simple answers
and require collaboration, innovation and adaptive management is especially
challenging. Tversky and Kahneman (1981) demonstrate that human decision-making
36

is not necessarily based on rational choice and is tied to how the problem is framed.
Schultz II and Holbrook (1999) believe that some people may choose to respond
cooperatively based on altruistic behavior and place collective welfare above selfinterest. However, understanding environmental behavior is dauntingly complex (Stern,
2000). Schultz II and Holbrook (1999) recommend that problems should be framed in
ways that: 1) make effective wicked ENR problem management relevant; and 2) urge
actors to embrace the realities of social interdependence, rather than egocentric
independence. As the SES and associated decisions become more complex, reliance
on rote menus or imitation of less appropriate decision models becomes less effective.
Therefore, development of a work force that learns through alliances and a more
deliberative and collaborative decision process becomes a more efficient option
(Criscuolo and Narula, 2008).
One of the fundamental tenets of network governance is to build new knowledge and
skill sets through a more participatory and integrative approach to governance.
Collaboration with new and a broader set of participants can increase collective
understanding and bring new ways of thinking and technologies to the process which in
turn can change historical worldviews (EEA, 2011, Fischer, Ury and Patton, 1991;
Peterson, 2013; Metzenbaum, 2002, 2006; Renn, 1993).
Focusing on new world views and innovation rather than a historic conflict or forced
compromise changes the interaction of the group and moves it from a focus of conflict
and diversity to one of a shared goal. Work that comes from these efforts and is more
likely to be supported by stewards and stakeholders is more likely to succeed through

37

implementation. These efforts and decisions are likely to be more durable and improve
the ENR trajectory (Petersen, 2013).
2.4.2 Organizational Culture and Structure
Individual and organizational leadership and associated culture and values influence the
recognition of new information, and how or if information is assimilated and applied.
This determines the scope of information in play and how decisions are made and
implemented - affecting the success of the decision (e.g., effectiveness of wicked
problem management) (Arvai et al., 2006; Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Gregory et al.,
2006; Kjaer, 2010; Roberts et al., 1994). Organizational leadership and its culture,
including the individuals and their values, steer the organization's governance system
and its ability to marshal social capital. These same factors determine which
participants (e.g., actors and their world views) have access to the decision-making and
implementation structures and processes (EEA, 2011; Norris and Urban-Lurain, 2011;
Senecah, 2004; Shriberg, 2002; Williams, 2009).
Likewise, organizational leadership is critical to marshaling social capital and
transitioning an organization to a more strategic and sustainable form of governance.
Leadership influences foundational understandings and the degree to which wicked
problems are addressed. This in turn affects the durability of decisions and
implementation regarding wicked problems. Effective governance in this realm stems
from structures that facilitate both flexibility and reliable decision-making (Roberts et al.,
1994).
Leadership needs to create a clear vision that can provide a reliable target for the
flexible, but structured, decision processes, as well as hold individuals and
38

organizations accountable (Goldsmith and Kettl, 2009; Kotter, 1995; Metzenbaum,
2002). This leadership is important where practitioners operate in a highly technical
arena that is quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial in executing public laws and programs.
Lack of leadership is one of the largest barriers in moving toward improved ENR
governance (Williams, 2009).
Leadership gains traction or establishes necessary credibility through legitimacy. In the
context of governance, legitimacy is an over-arching element that combines a number
of specific factors (e.g., behavioral, process) that impact the credibility and durability of
decisions. Legitimacy includes individual and organizational attributes such as trust,
fairness, objectivity, transparency and accountability to all who share in the decision
(Bertels, 2006; Brown et al., 2010; Ceres, 2010; Daub, 2010; O'Boyle, 2010; Parissi,
2010). According to Kjaer (2010), legitimacy is generated through both those who are
asked to comply with the governance process and the effectiveness of the process to
produce tangible results (e.g., improved ENR outcomes).
Legitimacy derives from an acceptable balance between democracy (e.g., active citizen
endorsement) and efficiency (e.g., balance effort with importance and complexity of the
ENR problems with supported policy outcomes) (Kjaer, 2010). Interpersonal trust is
built by the perceived legitimacy and fairness of the negotiation process - more so than
any historic track record of producing mutual agreeable policy (Leach and Sabatier,
2005).
A higher level of stakeholder support is observed when the decision process is
participatory and perceived as procedurally just, even if the outcome has adverse

39

effects (Arvai et al., 2002). Regardless of technical issue resolution, for governance
systems to be successful, trust needs to be developed among the decision-makers,
those who implement the decisions and civil society (Leach and Sabatier, 2005).
Legitimacy and trust must be built at the individual and the organizational levels.
2.4.3 Decision Management
Performance manifests itself under all factors (i.e., individual performance,
organizational culture and structures, decision management and improved ENR
outcomes. For the purpose of this specific discussion, and to differentiate between
performances within the individual or organizational factor, this section focuses on a
structured participatory decision model adapted from the National Research Council
(1996).
Structured, participatory decision processes can support the legitimacy (e.g., trust) of
policy decisions, resulting in increased positive externalities (Arvai et al., 2002).
Research demonstrates that a structured decision making approach leads to a more
thoughtful and better informed decision (Arvai et al., 2002). These structured
participatory and informational sharing frameworks can help analyze, evaluate and
provide prescriptions for evolutionary change and overcome inherent human heuristics
and biases (Arvai, 2004; Dryzek and Stevenson, 2011). Clear guidance on
implementing such an approach is lacking (Arvai et al., 2002).
A structured, participatory decision process framework is dialogue-based and
recognizes the importance of both scientific analysis and personal value systems in
advancing solutions for public problems. Stakeholders in a public health or
environmental problem gather in small groups to analyze scientific information and
40

weigh the benefits and trade-offs of various approaches to improving the problem. The
goal is collective decision-making that is informed as much as possible by both relevant
data and understanding of, and respect for, what’s at stake for those close to the issue
(National Research Council, 1996). Given the complexity of the systems, a culture of
inclusivity is essential to provide specialized knowledge, along with individual and
organizational knowledge, for a systems approach to create legitimate (e.g., supported)
transition and successful governance systems (Bertels, 2006; Brown et al., 2010;
Henricks, 2010; Kellon, 2010). Research suggests that when individuals and groups
are recognized as active participants, they are more likely to identify with a project and
take on more responsibility for the project's success (Ostrom, 1999; Parissi, 2010).
Likewise, external positive attention has been found to be motivating and can illuminate
and inform a broader audience - building mutual understanding, experiential learning
and a stronger foundation and trust within the community (Arvai et al., 2002; Dryzek and
Stevenson, 2011; Metzenbaum, 2002). A systems approach allows for a variety of
disciplines to establish innovative connections for creative problem management and
facilitates participation and process democratization. The breadth of democratization
improves the extent of human capacity (Davidson and Frickel, 2004; Weidner, 2002).
Well-structured decision frameworks tend to bring participants into the process at early
stages and afford an iterative/flexible process.
One of first steps in this decision framework is the identification of the wicked ENR
problem. The wicked ENR problem should be of large importance or magnitude; and
participants and decision makers should be cognizant of mega trends (e.g., future
relevance, context) (Gregory et al., 2006; MSG and GESI, 2009). In a deliberate
41

democracy, public opinion may only drive change when its effects are large, visible, and
immediate (Dryzek and Stevenson, 2011).
A next step in this decision process is framing the wicked ENR problem within the
decision-making context (Allan and Curtis, 2003; Dewulf et al., 2007). This includes the
development of a rudimentary understanding of the issue or problem in the context of
the desired outcome (Allan and Curtis, 2003; MSG and GESI, 2009). The desired
outcome often has to be measured against an overall objective or organizational goal
(Avai et al., 2002; Kotter, 1995). The problems must be relevant and have decision
maker buy-in to a stakeholder process (MSG and GESI, 2009). If the problem
complexities are too great for the process, consideration should be given to parse the
problem into more manageable parts (Gregory et al., 2006).
Concurrent with problem framing is the selection of participants with a stake in the
decision or the process – including the decision maker(s). Selection should include all
relevant stewards and stakeholders whose expertise and values or concerns matter in
the context of an impending decision, allowing for an appropriate level of reflection on
the problem to reach a more durable solution (Allan and Curtis, 2003). Conflicting
values should be integrated, putting environmental and economic values in a positive
sum relationship (Mol et al., 2009).
Wicked problems are intractable issues that are interdisciplinary in scope with high
uncertainty, value laden, evolving, and dynamic. Managing the risks and uncertainties
requires the development of contingencies with known probabilities (risk management)
and contingencies with unknown probabilities (uncertainties) (Weimer and Vining,

42

2011). Managing wicked problems for improved and durable outcomes given the
complexities should involve ‘strategic inquiry’ (Vogt, Brown and Isaacs, 2003). This
approach raises awareness and builds skills, knowledge and capacity for change, as
well as the ability to implement the change (Allan and Curtis, 2003). By clarifying the
steward’s and stakeholder’s values and objectives, the problem and alternatives can be
refined and collective understanding can be increased (Fischer, Ury and Patton, 1991).
The structured participatory decision-making process allows for innovation and an
expansion of alternatives, consistent with the interest-based negotiation processes
touted in the book Getting to Yes (Fischer et al., 1991). The participatory decision
process should employ the best available technical information to characterize the risks,
uncertainty and consequences of the alternatives (i.e., including the status quo or no
action alternative) (Fischer et al., 1991; Weimer and Vining, 2010).
The alternatives and the consequences should be weighed, deciding upon the best
approach (or providing an array of possible approaches) (Arvai et al., 2002; Kettl, 2002;
Thomas-Larner, 2007). "Decision analyses, cost-benefit analyses, multiple-objective
programming, or any analysis of a multiple-objective decision must include value tradeoffs. To determine useful value trade-offs for a decision, there are two requirements.
First, focus your efforts on the substance of the value trade-off issues of that decision.
Second, avoid errors and biases in the assessments of the value judgments necessary
to quantify the value trade-offs. In short, first do the right thing and second, do it right"
(Keeney, 2002, p. 935).
The decision-making should incorporate effective and efficient implementation including
reflective accountability with a meaningful monitoring and assessment process (Bunnell
43

and Dunsworth, 2004; Kjaer, 2010; Metzenbaum, 2002). Accountability is achieved by
defining who is accountable to whom and defining the mechanism of accountability
including monitoring (Kjaer, 2010). The ability to carry through with decisions and
expectations is another key component. This is accomplished with realistic decisions
and implementation plans that can align with the governance and government systems
(e.g., individual and organizational capacity) (Gregory et al., 2006; Hart 2003). The
ability to carry the action forward requires adequate planning, motivation and
leadership, making the best use of participant’s time and building social capital (Kjaer,
2010).
If action doesn't follow the planning, motivation is lost and desired outcomes are not
achieved (Kjaer, 2010; Mehan, 2012; Metzenbaum, 2002). Finally to build social capital
and support, unforeseen program failures should be embraced and not be penalized,
promoting risk management approaches without penalty (Allan and Curtis, 2003).
This structured participatory governance process is outside the scope of most people's
normal heuristics. However, knowledge emerges in response to the questions posed,
knowledge shared and alternatives developed (Vogt et al., 2003). A structured decision
approach works to provide insight, or 'decision aiding’, for participatory decision
processes to capture important stakeholder objectives for the creation and selection of
SES policy alternatives (Arvai et al., 2002). Providing insight to decision makers about
the values, beliefs, perspectives, and preferred tradeoffs of stakeholder groups
democratizes decisions and legitimizes ENR policy.

44

2.4.4 Improved ENR Outcomes
The items selected for improved outcomes reflect capacities identified in the literature
and stated program goals that parallel sustainability goals. Additionally, major capacity
elements that lend to the legitimacy of the process emerged as topics of interest.
According to Kjaer (2010), individual and organizational legitimacy are generated
through those that are asked to comply with the governance process and the
effectiveness of the process in producing tangible results (e.g., improved ENR
outcomes).
The selected capacity indicators for improved outcomes are the capacity to adjust given
patient and systematic accumulation and assessment of data and deliberate
management of stakeholder values to build consensus (Allan and Curtis, 2003; Miller,
1999). Having the metrics to measure and assess outcomes and ENR trajectories is
another key element as is balancing competing socio-economic demands with ENR
management given limited resources. The final capacities of improved outcomes are
measured by the demonstration of sustainable intergenerational equity and
improvement to the overall quality of life (Arvai et al., 2008; MDEQ, 2013, United
Nations, 2011.)
2.5 Literature Review Summary and Scale Development References
A synthesis of emerging ENR governance and contemporary interdisciplinary literature
informed the development of a 'best practice' governance model and the selection of
capacities that should improve ENR outcomes associated with wicked problems. The
selected capacity factors are: 1) individual performance; 2) organizational culture and
structure; 3) decision-making and decision-implementation processes (i.e., decision
management); and 4) improved outcomes. Each of these four factors includes selected
45

specific and desirable competencies that further identify and define desirable ENR
problem management capacities. These competencies were categorized into subfactors. These competency items provide the base measurement scales for this study.
Table 4 illustrates the measurement connection between the capacity factors, subfactors and the competencies.
Table 4. Governance Capacity Factors, Sub-factors and Associated Competency
Measures
Capacity Factor
Individual Performance
Organizational Culture
and Structure
Decision Management
Improved ENR Outcomes

Capacity Sub-Factor
Networked based governance
Capacity Building
Leadership
Legitimacy
Governance
Process Scoping
Participation
Deliberation
Indicators of Improved ENR Outcomes

Measurement
8 competencies
5 competencies
7 competencies
8 competencies
10 competencies
12 competencies
6 competencies
9 competencies
5 competencies

Reference summaries for the factors, sub-factors and competency items complied
under this exploratory study, are provided in Tables 5-8. These tables provide more
insight into the specific measurement, organized by factor and sub-factor. These
components (factors, sub-factors and competencies) are not distinct; they overlap and
build upon each other (Graham et al., 2003). Each influences how wicked problems are
manifested, identified and managed. According to the literature, if effectively applied,
each of these elements can contribute to building more durable/sustainable ENR
outcomes. These tables reflect the wording of the specific tested items, however some
of the wording has been modified to allow for the tables to comply with formatting
requirements.

46

Table 5. Individual Performance Measures Identified in the Literature
Individual Performance
Networked based governance
Arvai et al.,2002; Bradshaw et al., 1983;
Cohen and Levinthal, 1989 and 1990;
Criscuolo and Narula 2008; Davidson and
Frickel, 2004; Goldsmith and Kettl, 2009.
Arvai et al., 2002; Goldsmith and Kettl, 2009;
Kotter 1995; Metzenbaum 2006.
Arvai et al., 2002; Bertels 2006; Goldsmith
and Kettl, 2009; Hendricks, 2010; Kellon,
2010; Kotter, 1995; Mol et al., 2009.
Goldsmith and Kettl, 2009; Kotter, 1995;
National Research Council, 1996; Weimer
and Vining, 2011.
Arvai et al., 2002; Dryzek and Stephenson,
2011; Goldsmith and Kettl, 2009; Kotter,
1995; Leach and Sabatier, 2005;
Metzenbaum, 2002 and 2006.

Embrace self-empowerment.
Understand organizational objectives.
Embrace conflicts and address in a
constructive manner.
Take calculated risks to improve ENR
outcomes.
Receive support and respect within the
organization including when values differ.
Receive support and respect outside the
organization including when values differ.

Arvai et al., 2002; Goldsmith and Kettl, 2009;
Kotter, 1995; Leach and Sabatier, 2005.

Have the ability to mediate differing interests to
reach broad consensus on what is in the best
interest of the group (stewards and
stakeholders and within legal and delegated
authority).
Assist in producing environmental results that
take into account competing business, citizen,
scientific and community views.

47

Arvai et al.,2002; Criscuolo and Narula 2008;
Goldsmith and Kettl, 2009; Mol et al., 2009,
Schultz II and Holbrook, 1999.
Arvai et al., 2004; Goldsmith and Kettl, 2009.

Table 5 (cont’d)
Capacity building (Individual Performance
cont’d)
Expand perceptions and understanding when
exposed to divergent perspectives.
Seek and develop new insights, technologies
and knowledge in socio-economic trends
through work and extracurricular activities,
experiential learning and education.
Assess the nature of a problem, and its causes
and elicit a collaborative analysis and
recommendation.
Seek feedback and are reflective about
activities and interactions.
Create an environment that encourages creative
thinking and innovation, and design and
implement new or cutting edge program
elements and processes.

Allan and Curtis, 2003; Arvai et al., 2004; Cohen
and Levinthal, 1990; Criscuolo and Narula 2008;
Hart et al., 2003; Kotler, 1982.
Allan and Curtis, 2003; Arvai et al., 2004; Cohen
and Levinthal, 1990; Criscuolo and Narula 2008;
Hart et al., 2003; Kotler, 1982.
Arvai et al., 2004; Bertels 2006; Hendricks,
2010; Kellon, 2010.
Allan and Curtis, 2003; Bunnell and Dunsworth,
2004; Kjaer, 2010; Metzenbaum 2002.
Allan and Curtis, 2003; Cohen and Levinthal,
1990; Criscuolo and Narula 2008; Hart et al.,
2003; Keeney, 1994; Kotler, 1982.

Table 6. Organizational Culture and Structure Measures Identified in the
Literature
Organizational Culture and Structure
Leadership
Has a clear mission.
Has a mission statement that is understood by
most staff (internal to the organization).
Has a mission statement that is understood by
stakeholders (external to the organization) who
engage with the organization.
Is responsive and its decision-making and
implementation is consistent with its mission.
Moves constructively forward - considering the
scientific, cultural and social complexities of its
decisions.
Works constructively to handle complaints and
criticism.
Minimizes waste, expense and effort.

Arvai et al., 2004 Goldsmith and Kettl, 2009;
Kotter, 1995; Metzenbaum 2002, 2006.
Arvai et al., 2004 Goldsmith and Kettle, 2009;
Kotter, 1995; Metzenbaum 2002, 2006.
Arvai et al., 2004 Goldsmith and Kettl, 2009;
Kotter, 1995; Metzenbaum 2002, 2006.
Arvai et al, 2004; Goldsmith and Kettl, 2009;
Kotter, 1995; Metzenbaum 2002, 2006.
Arvai et al., 2004; Kotter, 1995; Jurin et al.,
2010.
Kjaer, 2010; Mehan, 2012; Metzenbaum 2012.
Eccles et al, 2011; Hart et al., 2003.

48

Table 6 (cont’d)
Legitimacy (Organization cont'd)
Takes responsibility for its actions.

Operates in an equitable and fair manner.
Is inclusive in its outreach and engagement
including those with a stake in the matter.
Is transparent in its operations.

Builds trust.

Builds understanding.

Is accountable.

Operates lawfully.

Bertels, 2006; Brown et al., 2010; Ceres 2010;
Daub 2010; Eagles, et al., 2012; O'Boyle, 2010;
United Nations 2011: United Nations
Development Program, 1997.
Eagles, et al., 2012; Ostrom, 1999; United
Nations 2011: United Nations Development
Program, 1997.
Parissi, 2010; United Nations 2011: United
Nations Development Program, 1997.
Bertels, 2006; Brown et al., 2010; Ceres 2010;
Daub 2010; Eagles, et al., 2012; O'Boyle, 2010;
Parissi, 2010; United Nations 2011; United
Nations Development Program, 1997.
Bertels, 2006; Brown et al., 2010; Ceres 2010;
Daub 2010; Eagles, et al., 2012; O'Boyle, 2010;
Parissi, 2010; United Nations 2011; United
Nations Development Program, 1997.
Allan and Curtis, 2003; Bertels, 2006; Brown et
al., 2010; Ceres 2010; Daub 2010; Eagles, et
al., 2012; O'Boyle, 2010; Ostrom, 1999;
Parissi, 2010; Renn, 2012; United Nations
2011; United Nations Development Program,
1997.
Bertels, 2006; Brown etal., 2010; Ceres 2010;
Daub 2010; Eagles, et al., 2012; Kjaer, 2010;
O'Boyle, 2010; Parissi, 2010; United Nations
2011; United Nations Development Program,
1997.
Ostrom, 1999; United Nations 2011; United
Nations Development Program, 1997.

49

Table 6 (cont’d)
Governance (Organization cont’d)
Embraces decentralized decision-making,
allowing staff closest to the issues, who hold
the applicable expertise, collaborating to reach
a decision.
Focuses on the most important problems to
safeguard the public, environmental health,
and quality of life for current generations.
Focuses on the most important problems to
safeguard the public, environmental health,
and quality of life for future generations.
Embraces flexibility and adaptability in
approaches to gather new information while
achieving the organization's mission.
Encourages the integration of individual ideas,
values and perspectives in achieving the
organization's mission.
Supports and rewards beneficial innovation.
Supports and rewards calculated risk-taking by
staff.
Promotes training which relies upon strategies
to integrate divergent information to achieve a
goal rather than a set of menu (prescriptive)
driven tasks (e.g., promotes critical thinking).
Encourages staff to develop support networks
to improve staff's and the organization's
knowledge base.
Uses technology to improve communication,
increasing collective knowledge and
awareness.

Kjaer, 2010; United Nations 2011; United
Nations Development Program, 1997.
Arvai et al., 2004; Brundtland, 1987; Gregory et
al., 2006; Jurin et al., 2010.
Arvai et al., 2004; Brundtland, 1987; Dryzek and
Stephenson, 2011; Gregory et al., 2006; Jurin et
al., 2010.
Goldsmith and Kettl, 2009; Jennings, 1994;
Kotter, 1995; Metzenbaum, 2002.
Arvai et al., 2002; Keeney, 2002.
Allan and Curtis, 2003; Kotter, 1995.
Allan and Curtis, 2003; Kotter, 1995.
Arvai et al., 2002.

Kjaer, 2010; Parissi, 2010.
European Environmental Agency, 2011.

50

Table 7. Decision Management Measures Identified in the Literature
Decision Management
Process Scoping
Timely identifies problems and prioritizes them
in relation to the magnitude of the problems’
relative impact.
Manages problems according to the problems’
impact.
Is responsive to participants’ competing
values, priorities and time frames.
Sufficiently frames (e.g., describes) problems
for management according to an overall
programmatic goal/mission statement.
Provides sufficient guidance with flexibility to
allow for new concerns or information to inform
decision-making.
Embraces new information to improve the
basis for decisions.
Provides sufficient flexibility to allow for new
concerns or information to improve
implementation processes.
Interest and momentum are maintained in
policy discussions and decisions.
Appropriate participation is maintained
throughout the duration of decision-making
processes.
Appropriate participation is maintained
throughout decision implementation.
Appropriate assessment tools are developed
and implemented.
Decision-making and implementation
processes are scaled appropriately given the
relevance and urgency of the situation and
decision.

Arvai et al., 2004.
Arvai et al., 2004; Kotter, 1995.
Arvai et al., 2004.
Arvai et al., 2004; Trversky and Kahneman 1981,
1992.
Arvai et al., 2004; Goldsmith and Kettl, 2009;
Jennings, 1994; Kotter, 1995; Metzenbaum,
2002.
Arvai et al., 2004
Arvai et al., 2004; Roberts et al., 1994.
Kjaer, 2010; Kotter, 1995.
Metzenbaum, 2002.
Metzenbaum, 2002.
Gregory et al., 2006.
Dryzek and Stephenson, 2011; Gregory, et al.,
2006; Kotter 1995; MSG and GESI, 2009.

51

Table 7 (cont’d)
Participation (Decision Mngt. Cont’d)
Decision-makers

Kotter 1995; MSG and GESI, 2009.
Curtis and Allan, 2003; Kotter, 1995;
Ostrom 1999; Parissi, 2010
Curtis and Allan, 2003,

Decision implementers.
Persons who may share in the risk.
Persons with the necessary scientific,
economic/financial, and social perspective and
expertise.
Persons with unique knowledge.

Hart et al., 2003; Kotter 1995;.MSG and
GESI, 2009.
Brown et al., 2010.
Brown et al., 2010; Hart et al., 2003; Parissi,
2010.

Persons with diverse knowledge.
Deliberation
An appropriate number of relevant alternative
recommendations are explored and developed.
Alternative approaches are utilized and assessed
that document and use verifiable data or
documented reason.
Alternative approaches are assessed and utilized
that build consensus prior to reaching a decision
among those who share in the risks and benefit from
the decision.
Alternative approaches that are accompanied by an
alternatives array which address risks, uncertainties
and trade-offs are assessed and utilized.
Alternative approaches that manage uncertainties
through contingency plans are assessed and
utilized.
Alternative approaches that can be documented and
articulated in an understandable manner, and
implemented within the capacity of available
resources are assessed and utilized.
Alternative approaches that are based on processes
that follow a structured and participatory process
that is perceived as fair and relevant to the issue at
hand are utilized.
Alternative approaches that align with the
organization’s strategic mission statement are
utilized.
Monitoring and assessment processes are designed
and established to compare predicted effects with
observed outcomes.

52

Arvai et al., 2002 and 2004; Fischer, Ury
and Patton, 1991.
Arvai et al., 2002, 2004; National Research
Council, 1996.
Arvai et al., 2002, 2004; National Research
Council, 1996.
Arvai et al., 2002, 2004; Keeney, 2002;
National Research Council, 1996.
Arvai et al., 2002, 2004; Keeney, 2002;
National Research Council, 1996.
Arvai et al., 2002, 2004; National Research
Council, 1996.
Arvai et al., 2002, 2004; National Research
Council, 1996.
Arvai et al., 2002, 2004; Kotter 1995;
National Research Council, 1996.
Kjaer, 2010; Kotter 1995; Metzenbaum,
2002.

Table 8. Improved ENR Outcome Measures Identified in the Literature
Improved ENR Outcomes
Improved ENR indicators
Adaptive management concepts are
practiced to improve ENR outcomes.
Metrics indicate overall durability (e.g.,
improved ENR longevity) in ENR in the
state.
Competing socio-economic and ENR
demands are well balanced for an improved
ENR outcome.
Socio-economic demands and ENR
problems are being managed without
eroding the potential to meet future
demands.
ENR management outcomes are improving
the quality of life in the state.

Arvai et al., 2006; Folke et al, 2010; Hart et al.,
2003; Kotter 1995.
Gregory et al.,, 2006; Kjaer, 2010;
Metzenbaum, 2002.
Arvai et al., 2004, Brundtland, 1987; Eccles et
al., 2011; Elkington 1997; Hart et al., 2003;
Stated state goal; Eccles et al., 2011; Elkington,
1997; Hart et al., 2003.
Stated and state goal; Eagles et al., 2012; Hart
et al., 2003; Ostrom 1999; Jurin et al., 2010;
United Nations 2011; United Nations
Development Program, 1997.

The selected factors, sub-factors and capacity items support the exploratory best
practice governance model for improved ENR outcomes. Combined, they form the
measurement elements by which reliability testing and face validity of the exploratory
best practice governance model are assessed. They also form the measurements for
the hypothesis testing. The identified capacities assess one state program’s capacity to
manage wicked problems for improved outcomes. Chapter 3 discusses the analytical
methods utilized in this study and the test population.

53

CHAPTER 3
METHODS

This chapter provides the procedural steps for conducting the research. The procedural
steps include: 1) arrangements for conducting the study; 2) test instrument; 3) selection
of subjects; 4) administration of the survey instrument; 5) development of measurement
tools 6) treatment of the data; and 7) a summary.
3.1 Arrangements for Conducting the Study
The study was initiated upon receipt of an exempt status under Michigan State
University Institutional Review Board (IRB) Human Research Protection Program
pursuant to 45 CFR 46.101(b). In compliance with the IRB approval, participant
consent was obtained through the introduction to the survey instrument (see Survey
Instrument, Appendix A).
Once the IRB approval was received and the thesis proposal was approved by the
advising committee, the proposal was vetted with state program managers (e.g.,
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, January 2013). The test instrument
was discussed and revised for the purpose of: 1) transferring respective local
knowledge; 2) improving reliability and usability of the research data for improved ENR
outcomes; and 3) facilitating the respective agency partners’ (State of Michigan and
Michigan State University) support for the study.
3.2 Test Instrument
An electronic questionnaire/survey was developed based on the literature review and
distributed using Qualtrics software. Qualtrics collects responses in a way that supports

54

data management (e.g., using Microsoft Excel, SPSS). The survey instrument provided
an overview of the study and the context in which the respondents were to view the
survey questions. The survey was the mechanism for participant consent. The test
instrument was structured for both statistical and non-statistical analysis. The statistical
(quantitative) portion of the survey was organized into the four capacity indices:
individual performance, organizational culture and structure, decision management, and
improved ENR outcomes. These capacity indices (factors) were further subdivided into
sub-factors. Seventy test questions were developed from the literature review to assess
current and preferred capacities for factors and sub-factors.
Additional questions gathered: 1) demographic information which provided insight
regarding the respondents; and 2) individuals’ preferences and program information
through open-ended questions. These data were also summarized.
3.3 Selection of Subjects
The studied populations included both internal (state government program stewards)
and external (private, public or non-profit stakeholders) practitioners of a State ENR
division that manages wicked problems. The studied program is the state's cleanup and
redevelopment program. Study participants were further defined as currently active
practitioners with technical, scientific, legal, financial, or management experience within
the context of the studied program. Currently active respondents were defined as
having worked in or with the program within the two years prior to the survey. This
period was chosen to coincide with the new governance initiatives at the state level.
Both sectors of practitioners were included to: 1) reflect the best practice governance
model (i.e., include both internal stewards and external stakeholders); and 2) improve
55

the richness and legitimacy of the data. The names and email addresses for the
populations were obtained from the state ENR agency through the program director and
the program's Freedom of Information Act coordinator.
3.4 Administration of the Survey Instrument
The formal survey was introduced to the respondents through both a joint letter of
invitation and a survey launch letter from the State of Michigan division head and
Michigan State University’s primary investigator. These letters were sent one week
apart in February 2013. These letters helped explain the purpose and benefits of the
survey in short communications prior to survey engagement. Two follow-up reminders
were sent with a link to the survey for completion within two weeks of the survey
transmittal. A third reminder was sent with a short extension (e.g., three days). Copies
of these correspondences can be found in Appendix B Survey Correspondence.
The survey invitation and the survey launch notification were forwarded by some of the
recipients to other practitioners not in the survey population data base. This resulted in
one new external email address and thirteen additional external volunteer respondents
being added to the survey population per public requests. The volunteers helped add to
the external survey population perspectives. A copy of the letter used to add the survey
volunteers is provided in Appendix B Survey Correspondence.
Due to the low number of survey respondents identifying themselves as external
stewards, on March 11, 2013, the state program leadership encouraged 10 external
respondents (three new and seven existing potential survey respondents) to participate
in the survey. This late addition resulted in the survey response period being extended

56

three days from its original response period. The study population, survey invitations
and survey dates are summarized in Table 9.
Table 9. Survey Dates and Population
Volunteersª

Internal
Survey invitation
February 20, 2013
Survey launch
February 26, 2013
Volunteers added, one
email addition
February 27, 2013
State invites new
respondents
March 11, 2013
Total Population

External

177

123

177

123

10

310

1

3

4

300

3
177

127

Total

3
13

317

ª All survey volunteers (including the three additional invitations) were from the external population
increasing the total external survey population.

Table 10 provides a summary by sector (internal and external practitioner) of the

persons invited to participate in the survey and those who responded to the survey.
Internal respondents are those persons assigned to work in the program division for the
State of Michigan (as opposed to staff who may work in the studied program but are
assigned to another state department or division).
As shown in Table 10, 317 survey invitations were sent. One hundred and two (317215) surveys expired (e.g., were not acknowledged, received or opened by the
recipients). Two hundred and fifteen (215) surveys were collected via the electronic
survey instrument. These collected surveys represent an overall response rate of 68%
(215/317). These 215 surveys were in varying stages of completion at the close of the
survey. One hundred and seven surveys (107) were submitted as complete (i.e.,
57

finalized) through the survey software. Table 10 depicts the response rates for both
populations for partial and completed surveys. Overall, internal populations had a
higher response rate than the external population. The survey initiation and completion
data indicate some survey fatigue or a reduction in response rates. The highest survey
response rate was early in the survey (n=135). This indicates that approximately 80
surveys (215-135) may have been opened but not necessarily taken by the respondent.
The data indicates an approximate 20% drop to n=107 at the end of the survey scaled
items.
Table 10. Survey Respondents
Invitations
Responded
Completed
Partial completion
Expired

Internala
177 (100%)
131 (74%)
70 (40%)
61 (34%)
46 (26%)

Externala
140 (100%)
84 (60%)
37 (26%)
47 (34%)
56 (40%)

Totala
317 (100%)
215 (68%)
107 (34%)
108 (34%)
102 (32%)

a Data are provided by survey response category, with the survey population number followed by the

percentage in parentheses.

Response rates for internal practitioners were 74% with 40% completing the survey.
Response rates for the external population were 60% with 26% submitting the survey as
complete. Partial completion means that these surveys were not submitted by the
respondent as a fully completed survey (meaning the responses could no longer be
modified). These incomplete (or not finished) surveys where combined with the fully
completed surveys to obtain the benefit of the data. Expired surveys include those
where no data were collected by Qualtrics (i.e., the survey instrument was never
opened by the recipient).
58

Table 11 provides a comparison of completed with partially completed surveys. While
the response rates were too low for a statistically valid sample relative to the number of
responses provided with partially completed surveys, an independent T test was
conducted to compare the two samples. No significant differences were evident
between these samples. The data from both samples were included in this research
and hypotheses testing.
Table 11. Comparison of Completed and Partial Completed Surveys
Capacity
Preference
Categoryb

Capacity
Factora

Individual
Performance
Organizational
Culture and
Structure
Decision
Management
Improved
Outcomes

Current Capacity
(n=104/28)
Preferred Capacity
(n=104/28)
Current Capacity
(n=104/18)
Preferred Capacity
(n=104/18)
Current Capacity
(n=104/5)
Preferred Capacity
(n=102/5)
Current Capacity
(n=104/3)
Preferred Capacity
(n=101/2)

Completed
Mean (SD)

Partial
Completion
Mean (SD)

Independent T
Test
Complete vs.
Partial
Completionc

3.0 (.63)

3.1 (.63)

.305

130

4.4 (.40)

4.3 (43)

.377

130

3.0 (.65)

3.1 (.60)

.705

120

4.4 (.43)

4.3 (.34)

.413

120

3.0 (.62)

3.1 (.81)

.627

107

4.4 (.42)

4.2 (.49)

.453

105

2.7 (.72)

2.3 (1.22)

.371

105

4.1 (.51)

4.4 (.83)

.454

101

ª Five-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
b n=fully completed surveys over partially completed survey data.
c *** p<.001, ** p<.01, *p< .05; one-tailed mean comparisons.

59

df

3.5 Development of Measurement Tools
Capacity factors, sub-factors and competencies were selected through the literature
review. These capacities are presented in Section 2.5 along with source references.
The survey instrument is comprised of four main capacity factors. These factors are
composed of sub-factors with associated competencies. The structure of the factor,
sub-factor and competency framework were kept intact as an a priori framework for
analysis and hypotheses testing. This research was intended to develop a reliable
governance model with face validity. It was not the intent of this researcher to test the
construct validity of the exploratory measures. While not a scientifically valid measure,
respondent feedback is often used to assess ‘face validity’ (Babbie, 1989) . Face
validity, or logic validity, means that the items appear on their face to indicate
reasonable measures of the intended component with general consistency in
perceptions within the populations (Babbie, 1989) ascertains whether the measure
appears to be assessing the intended construct of the study. A discussion of the
survey’s face validity is discussed in Chapter 4.
Figure 4 provides a pictorial analogy of validity and reliability. “Reliability refers to the
likelihood that a given measurement procedure will yield the same description of a given
phenomenon if that measurement is repeated.…Validity refers to the extent to which a
specific measurement provides data that relate to commonly accepted meaning of a
particular concept (Babbie, 1989, p.127). The first target depicts findings that are
reliable but not valid; the second target depicts findings that are valid but not reliable;
and the third target depicts valid and reliable findings. High accuracy in validity and
reliability (i.e., target 3, below) in the measurement tool (i.e., the survey and its scales)

60

is an indicator of precision or the exactness of the attribute observations measured in
the study.

1) Reliable but not Valid; 2) Valid but not Reliable; 3) Valid and Reliable
Figure 4. Analogic Depiction of Reliability and Validity
Source: Adapted from Babbie, 1989, p.126

The internal consistency of the constructed factors and sub-factors of this research
were tested with Cronbach’s Alpha. Reliability refers to the likelihood that a person
would provide the same responses if they completed the survey at two different times
(e.g. test-retest reliability) (Babbie, 1989; Field, 2009). In this research, reliability testing
was used to assess whether the factor and sub-factor items were sufficiently similar to
support the capacity groups. Cronbach’s Alpha is the most common measure of scale
reliability.
To reduce the complexity and size of the survey instrument, the sub-factors were
allocated based on a logical distribution while minimizing duplication. Care was taken to
differentiate the type and means by which capacity was being built or decisions being
made among these three capacity factors. While there is overlap in this index structure,
redundancies were removed without losing the overall scope of the exploratory

61

governance model being tested (broad in scope as opposed to detailed in limited
elements).
The survey scope was reduced by request of the advisory committee. The survey
instrument was then reviewed with the study partner, further modified, and then pretested. The pre-test population represented both experiential understanding of
government operations as well as more remote knowledge of governmental operations.
Persons invited to participate in the survey pretest were excluded from the survey
invitation. The pre-test participants were provided by the state department and the
author.
Forty-one respondents were requested to participate in the pre-test. Twenty-two
respondents provided data that were used to improve the test instrument. The pre-test
respondents represented eight who claimed to be stewards, five who selected the
question that stated that they were stakeholders, with the remainder not selecting a
response to this question. Pre-test subjects were asked to complete a preliminary
version of the survey and provide suggestions within a short (e.g., seven day) time
period. The pre-test population provided input regarding the layout, comprehensibility
and the time necessary to complete the survey. Through reassessment, the format and
flow of the survey were revised. The pre-test was used to test the reliability of the
survey items. The reliability of the sub-factors in the pre-test was not as definitive as
the main test case. The pre-test reliability of a few sub-factor groups, specifically those
related to social and behavior sciences (e.g., networking and leadership) did not exceed
the 0.7 Cronbach’s Alpha. This is likely a reflection of the pre-test population. The pretest population represented a variety of environmental and natural resource
62

backgrounds – but was not necessarily representative of the test population (i.e., not as
familiar with the current program and governance issues as was reflected in the thesis
study population). A higher percentage of respondents in the pre-test population
commented on the length and complexity of the survey than those respondents in the
main test population. The majority of the test population respondents reflect interested
and engaged practitioners willing to provide meaningful feedback for the benefit of the
program. This can be observed through the survey reliability testing and the quantity of
responses and themes presented by the open-ended questions.
The final main study survey instrument was composed of 70 Likert scale capacity
questions (each measured the two studied contexts: current perceptions and
preferences). Potential survey scales were researched, but lacking earlier similar
studies, this survey does not imitate other tested survey instruments. This survey is
based on a priori knowledge of indicators to achieve and transform from solving tame
problems to managing wicked problems for improved ENR outcomes.
Respondents were instructed to complete the survey evaluating a state program and its
associated factor capacities from the view point of a specific wicked problem. The
specific problem was the state’s publicized program reinvention, requiring the balancing
of environmental matters with social and economic matters for improved ENR
outcomes.
The index specific competencies were structured according to a Likert scale. The Likert
scaled competencies reflect the capacity to tackle tame problems to wicked problems
(i.e., a five point scale with capacities closer to 1 being associated with tame problem

63

approaches and capacities closer to 5 being associated with the capacity to manage
wicked problems). An example of this approach can be illustrated by the relative rating
given to performing predefined tasks (tame problem solving, value of 1) to leading
strategic, collaborative and decisive negotiations (wicked problem management, value
of 5).
The questionnaire was designed using two different standardized intensity structures to
support unambiguous scaling (Babbie, 1989). Table 12 depicts the study’s Likert
scaling.
Table12. Likert Scaling
Questionnaire Capacity Intensity Scales
Capacity
category
Value
Relative
scale
Balanced
scale

Tame

Less tame

Neutral

Less wicked

Wicked

1

2

3

4

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Strongly
disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

5
Almost
always
Strongly
agree

Additional questions were added to the survey instrument that focused on: 1)
demographics to secure information regarding the backgrounds of the survey
respondents; and 2) individuals’ perceptions of the survey and program information
through open-ended questions.
3.6 Treatment of the Data
This is an original exploratory survey based on factors and sub-factors developed from
the literature. The survey values selected by the internal stewards and external
stakeholders and the values for current capacity and preferred capacity were held
64

separate and distinct for evaluation. The values selected by the respondents were
managed by respondent (anonymously) and measurement item (i.e., each
competency), sub-factor and factor. SPSS was used to transform the respondent item
values into sub-factor values. The sub-factor values were transformed into factor
values. Cronbach’s Alpha test for reliability was used to test the survey’s factor and
sub-factor groupings for internal consistency. A Cronbach Alpha value of 0.7 to 0.8 is
an acceptable value (Field, 2009). A value of less than 0.7 can be expected when the
items being measured are diverse in content (Field, 2009). Although the pre-test
populations revealed less strong reliability, all factor and sub-factor groupings in this
study exceeded 0.7. Due to the number of items in the independent factor groupings
(e.g., individual performance, organizational culture and structure, and decision
management), the total factor Cronbach’s Alpha are not included. Increasing the
number of items included in reliability testing typically increases the Cronbach’s Alpha
(Field, 2009). Table 13 provides the Cronbach’s Alpha for the sub-factors by factor
groupings. Data were analyzed separately for the two study populations (e.g., internal
and external) across two contexts (e.g., current and preferred capacities). This table
reveals that the sub-factor scales pass the Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test (i.e., all
values >0.7), meaning the structure of the survey was found to be reliable.

65

Table 13. Cronbach's Alpha Values by Capacity Factors and Sub-factors Across
Current and Preferred Contexts

Factors and Sub-factors
Individual Performance

Number
of
survey
items
13 total

Current Capacity

Preferred Capacity

Internal

External

Internal

External

Network based
governance capacities

8

.814
n=78

.890
n=42

.827
n=79

.791
n=42

Capacity building

5

.861
n=81

.881
n=44

.839
n=78

.867
n=44

.818
n=77
.925
n=75
.864
n=73

.785
n=41
.886
n=41
.888
n=40

.917
n=75
.917
n=72
.912
n=69

.824
n=39
.904
n=39
.903
n=39

.926
n=61
.867
n=63
.955
n=62

.926
n=32
.867
n=33
.932
n=34

.945
n=62
.904
n=65
.942
n=58

.916
n=34
.795
n=33
.931
n=34

.834
n=69

.823
n=34

.768
n=61

.845
n=34

Organizational Culture
and Structure

25 total

Leadership

7

Legitimacy

8

Governance

10

Decision Management

27 total

Process scoping

12

Participation

6

Process deliberation

9

Improved Outcomes

5 total

Improved Outcomes

5

Descriptive statistics were used to examine the sample data (e.g., mean, standard
deviation for each item (competency), each capacity sub-factor, and each capacity
factor. Since all analysis was performed on populations larger than 30, this study relies
upon the Central Limit Theorem – sampling should be normal when sample sizes or
populations studied exceed 30 (Fields, 2009).
Data were statistically analyzed to assess the correlation (i.e., Pearson’s Correlation)
between the independent variables (e.g., individual performance, organizational culture
66

and structure, and decision management) and the dependent variable (i.e., improved
outcomes).
Independent sample T tests and paired sample T tests were utilized to test the
hypotheses. When conducting independent T tests SPSS two populations are being
compared. SPSS tests to see if the two populations are homogeneous by using
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances (Field, 2009). In cases where the assumption of
homogeneity for the two populations has been broken, (i.e., identified by a ‘Sig.’ value of
<.05 in the SPSS data set), alternate values used that take into account the break in
population homogeneity. In this research, this condition has been identified by a
superscript ‘^’ and a footnote that reads: ‘^ Equal variance not assumed.’ One-tailed T
testing (α < .05, .01 and .001) was used to test the hypotheses (i.e., differences
between current and preferred contexts and internal and external populations). Onetailed T testing increases the power of the statistical significance by considering a more
precise test (i.e., greater than, rather than greater or less than). The paired sample T
test was used when comparing current to preferred within the specific population (e.g.,
steward or stakeholders). The independent T test was used when comparing the two
specific populations over the context of current or preferred capacities. Data tables in
this study use degrees of freedom (df) to reflect study population numbers. Paired
sample T test degrees of freedom where df=n-1. Independent sample T Test degrees
of freedom where df=(n1-1) + (n2-1).
3.7 Summary
This research uses a new exploratory model to assess ENR governance capacities in a
complex ENR state program. The methods tested the reliability of the best practice
67

model, and analyzed the survey data including the hypotheses. The methods
discussed in Chapter 3 provide the ground work for Data Analysis and Findings in
Chapter 4.

68

CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
This research aimed to study capacities for improved wicked problem outcomes. A best
practice model was developed based on the literature. This best practice model utilized
individual performance, organizational culture and structure, and decision management
factors as capacity indicators for improved wicked ENR problem outcomes. The focus
of this research was designed to assess current and preferred perceptions of two
populations (i.e., internal stewards and external stakeholders of one complex ENR
program). Specifically, this study was designed to test: 1) whether the studied ENR
program was currently more adept at managing and solving tame problems than wicked
problems; 2) significant differences in current and preferred capacities; and 3)
differences in the studied populations (internal and external) perceptions and
preferences. It was not the intent of this researcher to test the validity of the best
practice model; however, capacity factor and sub-factor correlation testing was
conducted. Strengths and opportunities for improved ENR governance are identified as
are commonalities or disparities among the respondent sectors.
The capacity item scales reflect skills and decision processes associated with solving
tame problems to managing wicked problems per contemporary literature reviews. The
analyses of the data are presented according to the following topics: 1) survey
populations; 2) hypotheses testing: 3) correlation testing; 4) population demographics
and findings obtained through open-ended questions; and 5) a summary of the findings.

69

4.1 Survey Populations
In total, 215 surveys were collected with varying degrees of completeness. The total
response rate was 68%. Table 10 of Section 3.4, provides a summary of the survey
response rates. Overall, internal populations had a higher response rate than the
external population. Two hundred and fifteen (215) surveys were collected with 107
surveys fully completed by the respondents. Figures 4 and 5 provide graphic depictions
of the number of current and preferred responses by population sector (i.e., internal and
external). These tables use the quantity of responses for the first item by factor as
shown in Tables 19-22 which summarize the means and the number of test populations
that responded.
The highest total (i.e., internal and external combined) survey response rate for an
individual item was the first item related to current capacities (n=135; 87 internal and 48
external respondents). The highest number of respondents answering questions
associated with improved ENR outcomes were n=107 (71 internal and 36 external
respondents). Preferred capacity item response rates for these same survey items
were slightly lower. The beginning survey response rates were n=132 (85 internal and
47 external respondents). The end of survey response rates were n=101 (66 internal
respondents and 35 external respondents). The scaled items indicate approximately a
20% reduction in current test item response rates and a 23% reduction in the preferred
test item response rates.
The combined total response rates (internal and external) from Tables 4 and 5 are
provided in Table 6. These totals reveal a little more than a 10% reduction in total
response rates at the beginning of the question associated with the third capacity,
70

Decision Management. The total population responding to current capacities was
n=121, and n=101 for preferred capacities. The response rates fell to n=108 and n=106
respectively at the beginning of the subsequent survey block associated with decision
management. The last survey question of the final survey block related to current ENR
outcomes remained at n=107 for current capacities and 101 for preferred capacities.
The factor reporting reveals that there was an increase in the difference between
current and preferred response numbers as the survey progressed. The highest
differences per item occurred in the last portions of the survey, Improved Outcomes.
The second highest was for Decision Management. A simple analysis suggests some
survey fatigue or reduced interest in completing the survey. Further analysis of the data
included in Figures 4 and 5, and Table 14 indicates that respondents skipped questions,
with the avoidance of current or preferred capacity questions not being a recognizable
pattern though out the survey.

Internal and External Responses by Current Factorsa
100

87

78

80
60

48

40

71

70
43

38

36

20

Internal
External

0
Individual
Performance

Organization
Culture and
Structure

Decision
Management

Improved
Outcomes

Figure 5. Current Capacity Factor Response Rates
a The number of respondents was taken from the number of responses at the beginning (first capacity

assessed) of the first three factors and the last item response rate for the fourth factor (the end of the
itemized portion of the survey.
71

Internal and External Response Rates by Preferred Factora
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

85

77
47

68
43

66
38

35

Internal
External

Individual
Performance

Organization
Culture and
Structure

Decision
Management

Improved
Outcomes

Figure 6. Preferred Capacity Factor Response Rates
a The number of respondents was taken from the number of responses at the beginning (first capacity

assessed) of the first three factors and the last item response rate for the fourth factor (the end of the
itemized portion of the survey.

Table 14. Summary of Total Response Rates
Capacity Factor
Individual Performance
Organizational Culture and
Structure
Decision Management
Improved ENR Outcomes

Current Response Ratesa
135

Preferred Response Ratesa
132

121

120

108
107

106
101

a The number of respondents was taken from the number of internal and external respondents at the

beginning (first capacity item assessed) for the first three factors and the last capacity item for the fourth
factor.

Tables 15 and 16 provide a portrait of the survey population by experience associated
with the program, education level and gender. Forty-two percent of the internal
practitioners do not have professional work experience external to the studied program.
Eighty percent of the external practitioners have not worked within (internal) the studied
72

program. The majority of respondents had more than fifteen years of experience
working in the studied program: 77% of the internal practitioners and 53% of the
external practitioners.
Table 15. Summary of Respondent’s Professional Experience
Professional Experience
Work sector
No experience in work sector
Zero to two years
More than two years, but less than 5 years
Five years or more, but less than 10 years
Ten years or more, but less than 15 years
Fifteen years or more
Total

Internal
n=84
Internal
External
Not
42%
Applicable
6%
12%
3
16
3
8
11
9
77
13
100%
100%

External
n=35
Internal
External
Not
80%
Applicable
6%
7%
0
4
6
21
0
15
8
53
100%
100%

Practitioners from both the internal and external population were well educated with all
holding a minimum of a university degree. Generally, the internal practitioners’ highest
degree achievement was at the master level (31%) with one doctorate degree. Twentynine percent of the external employees held master degrees, 20% held professional
degrees, and 3 held doctorate degrees. In summary, 32% of internal respondents held
more than a 4 year degree were; 52% of external respondents held more than a 4 year
degree. The majority of the respondent population was male (64% of internal
practitioners and 62% of external practitioners).

73

Table 16. Summary of Respondent’s Education Level and Gender
Education and Gender
Highest level of education
Less than 4 years of college
Four year college degree
Some post graduate work
Master degree
Doctoral degree
Professional degree
Total
Gender
Female
Male
Total

Internal
n=70
0%
42
26
31
1
0
100%
n=70
36%
64
100%

External
n=35
0%
40
8
29
3
20
100%
n=34
38%
62
100%

4.2 Hypotheses Testing
Hypotheses were tested with the survey data to test the following hypotheses (H)
across the four capacity factors to determine if the following relationships were evident:
H1. There will be a significant difference in current and preferred capacities between
the steward and stakeholder populations.
H1a. Preferred capacities held by the steward population will be significantly
higher than current capacities.
H1b. Preferred capacities held by the stakeholder population will be significantly
higher than current capacities.
H2. The stakeholder population will have higher expectations for government’s
alignment with wicked problems compared to the steward population.
H2a. Current capacity expectations will be rated lower by the stakeholder
population compared to the steward population.
H2b. Preferred capacity expectations will be rated higher by the stakeholder
population compared to the steward population.
H3. The studied ENR program is currently more adept at solving tame problems than
managing wicked problems.

74

The following discusses each stated hypotheses.
H1. There will be a significant difference in current and preferred capacities between
the steward and stakeholder populations.
H1a. Preferred capacities held by the steward population will be significantly
higher than current capacities.
H1b. Preferred capacities held by the stakeholder population will be significantly
higher than current capacities.
One-tailed, paired sample T tests were estimated to compare each capacity item, subfactor and factor according to 1) all preferred capacities versus current capacities for the
internal population; and 2) all preferred external capacities versus current capacities for
the external population. The summaries of paired sample T tests are in Table 17 for the
capacity factors and Table 18 for the sub-factors. These tables summarize the means,
T values, degrees of freedom, and significance of the means testing. Data on the left
side provides a comparison of current and preferred capacities by each population.
There was significant difference (p<.001) between the current and preferred capacities
for the factors and sub-factors among both populations (internal and external
practitioners). Therefore H1 is supported for both the factor and the sub-factor capacity
levels for internal (H1a) and external (H1b) populations.

75

Table 17. Summary of Factor Means by Current and Preferred Capacity for Internal and External Populations
Current
Capacity

Preferred
Capacity

Current
Capacity

Preferred
Capacity

Paired T
Test t

Internal (I)
Mean (SD)

Internal (I)
Mean (SD)

External
(E) Mean
(SD)

External
(E) Mean
(SD)

Preferred
vs. Current

Individual
Performance

3.15 (.59)

4.36 (.42)

Organizational
Culture and
Structure

3.14 (.64)

Decision
Management

3.13 (.61)

Capacity
Factorª

Improved
Outcomes

Context

Independent
T Test t

df

Internal vs.
External

(I) 18.14***

2.84 (.58)

4.36 (.37)

4.41 (.43)
2.81 (.60)

4.29 (.40)

4.11 (.53)
2.77 (.70)

4.15 (.48)

3.18***

130

(E) 15.10***

46

Preferred

.48

130

78

Current

2.61**^

120

(E) 15.74***

42

Preferred

.55

120

68

Current

2.35*^

107

(E) 11.92***

37

Preferred

1.47

105

(I) 12.45***

4.40 (.44)

Current

(I) 15.29***

4.33 (.36)

84

(I) 15.74***

2.80 (.64)

2.70 (.74)

df

68

Current

-.59

105

(E) 9.47***

33

Preferred

-.40

101

ª Five-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
^ Equal variance not assumed; *** p<.001, ** p<.01, *p< .05; one-tailed Independent sample T Test mean comparisons.

76

Table 18. Summary of Sub-factor Means by Current and Preferred Capacity for Internal and External Populations

Individual
Performance

Subfactorsª

Preferred
Capacity
Internal (I)
Mean
(SD)

Networking

3.15 (.61)

4.36 (.54)

Capacity
Building
Leadership

Capacity
Factor

Current
Capacity
Internal (I)
Mean
(SD)

3.22 (.73)

4.36 (47)

3.08 (.66)

4.39 (.49)

Legitimacy

3.40 (.82)

Current
Capacity
External
(E)
Mean (SD)

Preferred
Capacity
External
(E)
Mean
(SD)

4.50 (.44)

Decision
Management

2.78 (.69)

4.44 (.39)
4.29 (.45)
4.31 (.37)
4.34 (.46)

2.67 (.65)

4.18 (.51)

2.77 (.70)

4.15 (.48)

4.35 (.47)
4.40 (.44)

Participants 3.29 (.59)

Improved
Outcomes

4.33 (.40)

2.75 (.67)

3.06 (.65)

2.76 (.62)

2.73 (.66)

2.95 (.67)

4.33 (.44)

3.03 (.65)
Governanc
e
Scoping

4.37 (.39)

3.06 (.70)

Organization
al Culture
and
Structure

2.85 (.59)

4.46 (.48)

Deliberatio
n
Outcomes

3.02 (.79)

4.38 (.49)

2.70 (.74)

4.11 (.53)

Paired T
Test t
Preferred
vs. Current

df

(I) 13.56***
(E) 15.49***
(I) 15.84***
(E) 13.62***
(I) 15.02***
(E) 14.45***
(I) 11.40***
(E) 13.84***
(I) 16.52***
(E) 12.60***
(I) 15.15***
(E) 12.14***
(I) 14.31***
(E) 9.57***
(I) 12.76***
(E) 9.62***
(I) 12.45***
(E) 9.47***

86
46
84
45
78
41
77
42
77
40
68
37
68
36
66
34
68
33

Context

Independent df
T Test t
Internal vs.
External

Current
Preferred
Current
Preferred
Current
Preferred
Current
Preferred
Current
Preferred
Current
Preferred
Current
Preferred
Current
Preferred
Current
Preferred

2.64**
-.091
3.29***
.309
2.56**
.77
2.53**
.66
1.70**
.69
2.24^*
.93
1.54
1.20
2.09*
1.68*
-.59
-.40

ª Five-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
^ Equal variance not assumed; *** p<.001, ** p<.01, *p< .05; one-tailed Independent sample T Test mean comparisons.

77

133
132
129
129
119
119
120
119
118
117
107
105
105
103
104
100
105
101

H2. The stakeholder population will have higher expectations for government’s
alignment with wicked problems compared to the steward population.
H2a. Current capacity expectations will be rated lower by the stakeholder
population compared to the steward population.
H2b. Preferred capacity expectations will be rated higher by the stakeholder
population compared to the steward population.
Independent T tests were conducted to compare the differences between internal and
external respondents by factor, sub-factor and item for current and preferred capacities.
Tables 17, 18 and Tables 19 through 22 summarize the means, T values, degrees of
freedom, and significance of the means testing respectively by factor, sub-factor and
item. The right side of Tables 17 and 18 compare internal and external perceptions and
preferences of current and preferred capacities. Tables 19 through 22 provide a
summary of item means by population and capacity.
The hypothesis H2a is supported for 3 of the four current capacity factors (e.g., partial
acceptance). All current capacities except for those associated with improved
outcomes are statistically significant (p< .05). Differences between current capacities
for individual performance were more significant (p< .001), decision management less
significant (p< .05), and organizational culture and structures fell in between these
factors (p< .01). Consistent with the hypothesis of external stakeholders having higher
expectations, the external population tended to rank current capacities of the studied
program much lower than that of the internal stewards. This is consistent with
hypothesis H2a.
The hypothesis H2a is supported for seven of the nine current sub-factors (all subfactors except Participation and Improved Outcomes). Again, the external population
tended to rank current capacities of the studied program much lower than that of the
78

internal stewards. The most significant differences (p< .001) were with current Capacity
Building (a sub-factor of Individual Performance). Current Scoping and Deliberation
capacities (associated with the factor of Decision Management) were less significant (p<
.05). Current Networking (associated with Individual Performance); and Leadership,
Legitimacy and Governance (associated with Organizational Culture and Structure) fell
in between (p< .01) those with most and least statistical significance.
The two study populations have more commonality with the preferred capacities (H2b)
than with current capacities (H2a). Hypothesis H2b is found to not be supported by the
data for all preferred capacity factors and sub-factors except the sub-factor of
Deliberations (p< .05). This data indicates that the programs preferred capacity to
address wicked problems has more commonality among the studied populations than
hypothesized.
H3. The studied ENR program is currently more adept at solving tame problems than
managing wicked problems.

A factor, sub-factor and item ranking was conducted. The Likert scaled competencies
reflected the capacity to tackle tame problems to wicked problems (e.g., a five point
scale with capacities closer to 1 being associated with tame problem approaches and
capacities closer to 5 being associated with the capacity to manage wicked problems).
A ranking of 3 is neutral – associated with a capacity of being neither tame nor wicked.
Current capacity mean scores (i.e., the 70 surveyed competencies) for internal stewards
averaged 3.03, while the mean scores for the stakeholders averaged 2.81. These
scores represent capacities being closer to tame (external perceptions) or neutral

79

(internal perceptions). Therefore the hypothesis H3 is found to be supported by the
data for current capacities.
Preferred capacities for the internal stewards averaged 4.37 while the mean score for
the external stakeholders was 4.30. This commonality may equate to shared goals and
preferences regarding individual performance, organizational culture and structure,
decision management and ENR outcomes. The increased ranking from current
capacity perceptions to preferred capacity preferences reflects the studied populations’
interest in moving toward those capacities aligned with skills associated with the ability
to tackle wicked problems.
The hypotheses tests revealed that both populations share, across the spectrum of the
survey, significant differences between current perceptions for individual staff,
organizational culture and structure, decision management and improved ENR
outcomes. Internal stewards’ highest rated currently observed sub-factor capacities
were Legitimacy (mean = 3.40), Participants (mean =3.29), and Capacity Building
(mean=3.22). External stakeholders highest rated currently observed capacities were
Participants (mean=3.06), Legitimacy (mean= 3.03), and Networking (mean=2.85).
Internal stewards’ lowest rated current capacities were Improved Outcomes
(mean=2.70), Governance (mean=2.95), and Deliberation (mean=3.02). External
stakeholders lowest rated current capacities were Deliberation (mean=2.67),
Governance (mean=2.73) and Scoping (mean=2.75). External perceptions of Improved
Outcomes fell next lowest (mean=2.77). As indicated above, both sectors statistically
align with both current perceptions of and preferences for Improved Outcomes.

80

Preferences between the populations based on factor data averaged 4.32 (internal,
standard deviation 0.14) and 4.28 (external, standard deviation 0.09) revealing strength
in the preferences across the factor scales. Review of the sub-factor ranking by
population reveals internal preferences range from a lowest rank associated with
Improved Outcomes (mean=4.11) to a highest ranking associated with Legitimacy
(mean=4.50). External preferences lowest and highest rankings were similar (Improved
Outcomes, mean=4.15; Legitimacy mean=4.44).
Table 19 (Summary of Item Means by Population and Capacity - Individual
Performance), Table 20 (Summary of Item Means by Population and Capacity Organization Culture and Structure), Table 21 (Summary of Item Means by Population
and Capacity - Decision Management), and Table 22 (Summary of Item Means by
Population and Capacity - Improved Outcomes) provide the actual items that
respondents were asked to rate. The items are presented, generally, according to the
order found in the survey, with minor adjustments to the survey question wording to
support document formatting.
Tables 19 through 22 provide the comparison of the populations (internal and external)
by capacity item (e.g., competencies) ratings across the two contexts – current and
preferred. Tables 19 through 22 are organized by factor and sub-factor - providing
detail and lending insight into the factor and sub-factor analysis. This comparison was
statistically tested using a one-tailed independent sample T test. Hypotheses analysis
in this research was not conducted at the item level. However, a discussion of the items
is included in Chapter 5 when the author discussed observations outside of the
statistical testing context.
81

Table 19. Summary of Item Means by Population and Capacity – Individual Performance
Individual Performance (staff)a
Networked based governance

Current Capacity

Preferred Capacity

Independent
T Test t

Internal

External

Embrace conflicts and address in a
constructive manner.
Take calculated risks to improve ENR
outcomes.
Receive support and respect within the
organization including when values differ.

3.65
n=87
3.36
n=86
3.34
n=86
2.84
n=81
3.11
n=83

2.90
n=48
3.36
n=47
2.93
n=46
2.31
n=48
3.13
n=47

2.63^**

Receive support and respect outside the
organization including when values differ.

2.56
n=84

2.75
n=48

2.93
n=83

3.31
n=81

Embraces self-empowerment.
Understand organizational objectives.

Have the ability to mediate differing
interests to reach broad consensus on what
is in the best interest of the group (stewards
and stakeholders and within legal and
delegated authority).
Assist in producing environmental results
that take into account competing business,
citizen, scientific and community views.

Independent
T Test t

Internal

External

4.22
n=85
4.64
n=85
4.47
n=85
4.06
n=83
4.63
n=84

4.06
n=47
4.74
n=47
4.54
n=48
4.04
n=47
4.36
n=47

-1.19

4.39
n=84

4.38
n=48

.05

2.59
n=46

1.76*

4.30
n=83

4.30
n=46

-.12

2.85
n=47

2.24*

4.44
n=82

4.49
n=47

-.60

82

5.13***
.14^

3.39***
-.39

1.12
-.95
-.75
.13^
2.47*

Table 19 (cont’d)
Individual Performance cont’d
Capacity building
Expand perceptions and understanding
when exposed to divergent perspectives.
Seek and develop new insights,
technologies and knowledge in socioeconomic trends through work and
extracurricular activities, experiential
learning and education.
Assess the nature of a problem, and its
causes and elicit a collaborative analysis
and recommendation.
Seek feedback and are reflective about
activities and interactions.
Create an environment that encourages
creative thinking and innovation, and
design and implement new or cutting edge
program elements and processes.

Current Capacity
Independent
Internal
External
T Test t
3.25
2.80
3.01**
n=83
n=46

Preferred Capacity
Independent
Internal
External
T Test t
4.33
4.37
-.50
n=83
n=46

3.11
n=82

2.93
n=44

.90

4.24
n=80

4.20
n=46

.31

3.45
n=84

2.99
n=46

2.85^**

4.43
n=84

4.47
n=45

-.50

3.31
n=84

2.71
n=46

3.34***

4.38
n=84

4.32
n=47

.44

3.01
n=84

2.43
n=46

3.05**

4.42
n=83

4.30
n=47

1.02

ª Five-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
^ Equal variance not assumed; *** p<.001, ** p<.01, *p< .05; one-tailed Independent sample T Test mean comparisons

83

Table 20. Summary of Item Means by Population and Capacity – Organizational Culture and Structure
Organizational Culture and Structurea

Current Capacity

Preferred Capacity

Internal

External

Independent
T Test t

Internal

External

Independent
T Test t

Has a clear mission.

3.15
n=78

3.26
n=43

-.77

4.49
n=77

4.40
n=43

.78

Has a mission statement that is understood
by most staff (internal to the organization).

3.30
n=78

2.88
n=42

2.43**

4.44
n=78

4.24
n=42

1.65*

2.83
n=78

2.76
n=41

.28

4.33
n=78

4.22
n=41

.87

3.03
n=78

2.52
n=42

2.91**

4.33
n=78

4.31
n=42

.11

3.01
n=78

2.50
n=42

2.89**

4.33
n=78

4.36
n=42

.13

3.40
n=78
2.83
n=77

2.81
n=42
2.40
n=43

4.38
n=78
4.42
n=76

4.37
n=41
4.38
n=42

Leadership

Has a mission statement that is understood
by stakeholders (external to the
organization) who engage with the
organization.
Is responsive and its decision-making and
implementation is consistent with its stated
mission.
Moves constructively forward - considering
the scientific, cultural and social
complexities of its decisions.
Works constructively to handle complaints
and criticism.
Minimizes waste, expense and effort.

84

3.2***
2.52*

.04
.21

Table 20 (cont’d)
Organizational Culture and Structure
cont’d
Legitimacy
Takes responsibility for its actions.
Operates in an equitable and fair manner.
Is inclusive in its outreach and engagement
including those with a stake in the matter.
Is transparent in its operations.
Builds trust.
Builds understanding.
Is accountable.
Operates lawfully.

Current Capacity
Internal

External

3.57
n=79
3.29
n=79

3.00
n=43
3.15
n=41

3.30
n=78

3.32
n=32

3.29
n=77
3.16
n=77
3.22
n=77
3.46
n=76
3.95
n=77

2.81
n=42
2.74
n=43
2.81
n=43
2.70
n=43
3.86
n=42

85

Preferred Capacity

Independent
T Test t
3.41***
.788
.02^
-2.2*
2.27*
2.21*
4.03***
.53

Internal

External

4.56
n=75
4.53
n=76

4.37
n=43
4.43
n=42

4.42
n=77

4.40
n=40

4.40
n=75
4.47
n=77
4.49
n=76
4.47
n=77
4.66
n=77

4.31
n=42
4.44
n=43
4.45
n=42
4.40
n=42
4.56
n=43

Independent
T Test t
1.80*
.78
.36
.67
.09
.17
.46
.83

Table 20 (cont’d)
Organizational Culture and Structure cont’d
Governance
Embraces decentralized decision-making, allowing
staff closest to the issues, who hold the applicable
expertise, collaborating to reach a decision.
Focuses on the most important problems to
safeguard the public, environmental health, and
quality of life for current generations.
Focuses on the most important problems to
safeguard the public, environmental health, and
quality of life for future generations.
Embraces flexibility and adaptability in approaches
to gather new information while achieving the
organization's mission.
Encourages the integration of individual ideas,
values and perspectives in achieving the
organization's mission.
Supports and rewards beneficial innovation.
Supports and rewards calculated risk-taking by
staff.
Promotes training which relies upon strategies to
integrate divergent information to achieve a goal
rather than a set of menu (prescriptive) driven
tasks (e.g., promotes critical thinking).

Current Capacity
Independent
Internal External
T Test t

Preferred Capacity
Independent
Internal External
T Test t

3.19
n=78

2.62
n=42

2.43**

4.31
n=77

4.24
n=42

.42

3.10
n=78

2.81
n=42

1.37

4.49
n=76

4.33
n=42

1.19

2.72
n=77

2.81
n=42

-.79^

4.55
n=75

4.33
n=42

1.78*

3.17
n=77

2.55
n=42

3.35***

4.37
n=75

4.40
n=42

-.43

3.00
n=77

2.67
n=42

1.74*

4.32
n=75

4.19
n=41

.93

2.90
n=78
2.55
n=77

2.54
n=41
2.10
n=41

4.29
n=76
4.11
n=74

4.20
n=40
4.20
n=40

2.84
n=76

2.78
n=41

4.38
n=74

4.15
n=40

86

1.91*
2.42**
.16

.63
-.67
2.0*

Table 20 (cont’d)
Organizational Culture and Structure cont’d
Governance cont’d
Encourages staff to develop support networks to
improve staff's and the organization's knowledge
base.
Uses technology to improve communication,
increasing collective knowledge and awareness.

Current Capacity
Independent
Internal External
T Test t

Preferred Capacity
Independent
Internal External
T Test t

3.12
n=78

3.15
n=40

-.47^

4.34
n=76

4.25
n=40

.75

3.09
n=78

3.05
n=41

.21

4.38
n=76

4.34
n=41

.27

ª Five-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
^ Equal variance not assumed; *** p<.001, ** p<.01, *p< .05; one-tailed Independent sample T Test mean comparisons

87

Table 21. Summary of Item Means by Population and Capacity – Decision Management
Decision Managementa
Process Scopingb
Timely identifies problems and prioritizes them
according to the magnitude of the problem.
Manages problems according to the problems’
impact.
Is responsive to participants’ competing values,
priorities and time frames.
Sufficiently frames problems for management
according to an overall programmatic statement.

Current Capacity
Internal External Ind. T Test t
2.93
2.61
1.69*
n=70
n=38
2.96
n=70
3.44
n=68
3.23
n=70

2.45
n=38
2.59
n=37
2.76
n=38

3.89***

Provides sufficient guidance with flexibility to allow
for new concerns or information

2.94
n=70

Embraces new information to improve the basis for
decisions.
Provides sufficient flexibility to allow for new
concerns or information to improve processes.
Interest and momentum are maintained in policy
discussions and decisions.
Appropriate participation is maintained throughout
the duration of decision-making processes.
Appropriate participation is maintained throughout
decision implementation.
Appropriate assessment tools are developed and
implemented.
Decision-making and implementation processes
are scaled

Preferred Capacity
Ind. T test T
Internal External
4.43
4.29
1.15
n=68
n=38
4.32
n=38
4.32
n=38
4.18
n=38

-.50

2.71**

4.41
n=68
4.27
n=67
4.30
n=67

2.73
n=37

1.09

4.32
n=68

4.35
n=37

-.37

3.31
n=68

2.76
n=37

2.41**

4.42
n=67

4.38
n=37

.19

3.25
n=69
3.00
n=67
2.94
n=68
2.94
n=67
2.82
n=66
2.91
n=67

2.61
n=36
2.88
n=34
2.89
n=35
2.91
n=35
2.76
n=34
2.85
n=34

2.88**

4.33
n=67

4.41
n=37
4.23
n=35
4.28
n=36
4.31
n=36
4.29
n=35
4.40
n=35

88

2.78**

.47
.10
.19
.11
.10

4.37
n=67
4.48
n=67
4.45
n=66
4.40
n=67
4.39
n=67

.76

.87

-.79
1.15
1.63*
1.21^
.85
-.26

Table 21 (cont’d)
Decision Management cont’d
Participation
Decision-makers
Decision implementers.
Persons who may share in the risk.
Persons with the necessary scientific,
economic/financial, and social perspective and
expertise.
Persons with unique knowledge.
Persons with diverse knowledge.

Current Capacity
Independent
Internal External
T Test t
3.81
3.35
2.78^*
n=70
n=37
3.56
3.30
1.45
n=70
n=37
2.93
2.92
.06
n=68
n=37
3.10
n=68

2.91
n=35

3.13
n=69
3.11
n=66

2.97
n=34
2.71
n=34

89

.82
.69
2.35*

Internal
4.50
n=68
4.57
n=68
4.51
n=67

Preferred Capacity
Independent
External
T Test t
4.38
.91
n=37
4.35
1.80*
n=37
4.39
.77
n=36

4.44
n=66

4.49
n=35

4.38
n=68
4.40
n=67

4.17
n=35
4.17
n=35

-.52
1.54
1.60*

Table 21 (cont’d)
Decision Processes cont’d
Deliberationb
An appropriate number of relevant alternative recommendations
are explored and developed.
Alternative approaches are utilized and assessed that document
and use verifiable data or reason.
Alternative approaches are assessed and utilized that build
consensus prior to reaching a decision among those who share in
the risks and benefits.
Alternative approaches that are accompanied by an alternatives
array which address risks, uncertainties and trade-offs are
assessed and utilized.
Alternative approaches that manage uncertainties through
contingency plans are assessed and utilized.
Alternative approaches that can be documented and articulated in
an understandable manner, and implemented within the capacity
of available resources are assessed and utilized.
Alternative approaches are based on processes that follow a
structured and participatory process, and perceived as fair and
relevant to the issue at hand.
Alternative approaches are used that align with the organization’s
strategic mission statement.
Monitoring and assessment processes are designed and
established to compare predicted effects with observed outcomes.

Current Capacity
Internal External Ind. T Test t
3.16
2.64
2.93**
n=67
n=36
3.22
2.80
2.31*
n=67
n=35

Preferred Capacity
Internal External Ind. T Test t
4.44
4.29
1.16
n=63
n=35
4.44
4.20
1.85*
n=63
n=35

2.82
n=68

2.66
n=35

.95

4.38
n=64

4.20
n=35

1.29

3.03
n=65

2.43
n=35

3.32***

4.43
n=63

4.14
n=35

2.18*

3.06
n=67

2.56
n=36

2.29*

4.29
n=63

4.06
n=35

1.69*

3.09
n=68

2.72
n=36

2.02*

4.37
n=65

4.23
n=35

1.07

2.93
n=67

2.71
n=35

1.28

4.35
n=65

4.17
n=35

1.39

3.03
n=66
2.74
n=68

2.83
n=35
2.65
n=34

4.35
n=63
4.36
n=66

4.18
n=29
4.15
n=34

1.19
.28

ª Five-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
b Some of the questions have been shortened to allow for a concise table. The survey contains the actual questions.

^ Equal variance not assumed; *** p<.001, ** p<.01, *p< .05; one-tailed Independent sample T Test mean comparisons

90

1.21
1.53

Table 22. Summary of Item Means by Population and Capacity – Improved Outcomes
Improved Outcomes
Improved Outcome Capacities

Current Capacity
Independent
Internal External
T Test t

Preferred Capacity
Independe
Internal External
nt T Test t

Adaptive management concepts are practiced to
improve ENR outcomes.

3.06
n=69

2.83
n=36

.96

4.12
n=66

4.14
n=35

-.19

Metrics indicate overall durability (e.g., improved ENR
longevity) in ENR in the state.

2.57
n=70

2.73
n=34

-.78^

3.90
n=67

4.03
n=34

-.84

Competing socio-economic and ENR demands are well
balanced for an improved ENR outcome.

2.41
n=70

2.50
n=36

-.61

4.07
n=67

4.09
n=34

-.13

Socio-economic demands and ENR problems are being
managed without eroding the potential to meet future
demands.

2.41
n=70

2.56
n=36

-1.04

4.05
n=64

4.11
n=35

-.51

ENR management outcomes are improving the quality of
life in the state.

3.01
n=71

3.03
n=36

-.46

4.39
n=66

4.37
n=35

-.07

ª Five-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
^ Equal variance not assumed; *** p<.001, ** p<.01, *p< .05; one-tailed Independent sample T Test mean comparisons

91

4.3 Capacity Factor Correlation
Capacity factor correlation was conducted to test and assess the best practice
governance model developed for this research. The capacity factors and sub-factors
were analyzed using Pearson’s correlation testing in SPSS to assess the strength of the
relationship between the independent variables (i.e., capacities) with the dependent
variable (Improved Outcomes) (see Tables 23 and 24). The correlation analysis
revealed a moderately strong and significant association amongst the variables. All
correlations were .48 < r < .61, p (one-tailed) < .01. Correlation values (r) of less than .3
are weak; values between .3 and .7 are moderate; and values .7 to 1 are considered
strong. The strongest correlations were found between Improved Outcomes were with
the factors of Organization Cultures and Structures, and Decision Management. The
weakest association was between Individual Performance and Improved Outcomes
(r=.48. p< .01).
Table 23. Pearson’s Correlation for Current Factor Capacities
Capacity Factorc

Individual
Organizational Decision
Improved
Performance Culture and
Management Outcomes
(IV)a
Structure (IV)a (IV)a
(DV)b

Individual Performance (IV)a

1

.830**

.779**

.481**

Organizational Culture and
Structure (IV)a

.830**

1

.766**

.602**

Decision Management (IV)a

.779**

.766**

1

.544**

Improved Outcomes (DV)b

.481**

.602**

.544**

1

a

b
c
IV means independent variable: DV means dependent variable. Listwise assumptions
where n=106. This analysis used the listwise SPSS option which excludes all data that has
relevant missing values. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

92

Table 24 presents sub-factor level correlation values. There is less strength in the
associations between the independent variables and the dependent variable of
Improved Outcomes as revealed though the factor correlation. An exception is
associated with the sub-factor of Governance where r = .64, p (one-tailed) < .01; and
the sub-factor of Scoping where r =.56, p (one-tailed) < .01. All other sub-factors were
lower than the factor correlations. The Individual Performance factor correlation (r =48)
is higher than its sub-factors (Network r=.40; Capacity Building r=.37). Organizational
Culture and Structure factor correlation (r=.60) is higher than two of its sub-factors
(Leadership r=.49; Legitimacy r=.53). Decision Management factor correlation (r=.54) is
higher than two of its sub-factors (Participation r=.48; and Deliberation (r=.47).

93

Table 24. Pearson’s Correlation for Current Sub-Factor Capacities
Capacity
Sub-factorsc
Network
(Net.)
Capacity
Build (Cap.)
Leadership
(Lead.)
Legitimacy
(Legit.)
Governance
(Gov.)
Scoping
(Scope)
Participation
(Part.)
Deliberation
(Delib.)
Improved
Outcomes

Individual
Performance
IV)a
Net.
Cap.

Organizational Culture
and Structure (IV)a
Lead.

Legit.

Gov.

Decision
Management
(IV)a
Scope Part.

Improved
Outcomes
( DV)b
Delib. Outcomes

1

.620**

.628**

.466**

.570**

.692**

.607**

.527**

.398**

.620**

1

.486**

.478**

.527**

.587**

.515**

.616**

.368**

.628**

.486**

1

.723**

.765**

.734**

.573**

.595**

.486**

.466**

.478**

.723**

1

.735**

.688**

.533**

.603**

.529**

.570**

.527**

.765**

.735**

1

.748**

.590**

.610**

.638**

.692**

.587**

.734**

.688**

.748**

1

.800**

.738**

.561**

.607**

.515**

.573**

.533**

.590**

.800**

1

.665**

.476**

.527**

.616**

.595**

.603**

.610**

.738**

.665**

1

.471**

.398**

.368**

.486**

.529**

.638**

.561**

.476**

.471**

1

a IV means independent variable: b DV means dependent variable; c Listwise n=103; **

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). This analysis used the listwise SPSS
option which excludes all data that has relevant missing values.

94

4.4 Additional Survey Questions
Three additional scaled and four open-ended questions were included in this study to
better understand the survey population and assist in interpreting the results of the
hypotheses tests. Three topic areas selected for the additional questions were: 1)
resurveying questions asked of internal staff in 2012 through the
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP survey to assess progress or change; 2) assessing the
status of the population’s perceptions about science (as an indicator of openness to
divergent values and understanding); and 3) evaluating the level of resources dedicated
to the program.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PWC) LLP 2012 Internal Staff Questions.
The research partners requested that this survey (launched February, 2013) repeat nine
questions that were studied in 2012. These nine questions reflected areas where
agreement scores fell below expected benchmarks. This 2012 survey was conducted
by PWC on behalf of the State of Michigan to assess overall organizational/workforce
health. It focused on three survey indicators: overall agreement, employee
engagement, and intent to stay employed with the State of Michigan. Questions were
scaled on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree and
Strongly Agree). Table 25 provides a summary of the 2012 agreement scores and the
new 2013 agreement scores. Agreement scores are a measurement of the percent of
responses in the Agree and Strongly Agree portions of the Likert scale. The State
sponsored survey included a wider population than this ENR capacity survey. The
overall response rate for the State sponsored survey for the entire ENR department
(more than this study population) was 81% (n=927). The studied division’s population in

95

this engagement survey was n=223. The internal population responding in this specific
set of survey questions reflects a 53% response rate (n=69; 69/131).
Table 25. Comparison of PWC 2012 and 2013 Results for the Remediation
Division
Agreement Scoresa

Statements
I believe I have the opportunity for growth in my current job.
Managers in my department make decisions in a timely fashion.
The State of Michigan empowers employees to make appropriate decisions
that are in the best interest of the State.
I am confident department leadership is leading us in the right direction for
success.
Leadership is creating a culture of continuous improvement.
I believe that government reinvention is not about eliminating people.
Department leadership is interested in the well-being of employees.
Department leadership gives employees a clear picture of the direction my
department is headed.
Department leadership is trustworthy.

2012b
n= 223
32%

2013c
n=69
32%

33%

46%

30%

26%

29%

29%

35%
39%
35%

35%
48%
42%

39%

35%

39%

41%

a Percentages of those selecting Agree and Strongly Agree;
b PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC Survey, 2012; RRD n=223;
c MSU Study, internal RRD practitioners only (e.g. as subset of the 2012 survey population) n=69.

Statements that reveal increases over the last survey include:





Managers in my department make decisions in a timely fashion (33%, 2012;
46%, 2013).
I believe that government reinvention is not about eliminating people (39%, 2012;
48%, 2013).
Department leadership is interested in the well-being of employees (35%, 2012;
42%, 2013).
Department leadership is trustworthy (39%, 2012; 41%, 2013).

Statements that reveal decreases over the last survey include:

96




The State of Michigan empowers employees to make appropriate decisions that
are in the best interest of the State (30%, 2012; 26%, 2013).
Department leadership gives employees a clear picture of the direction [their]
department is headed (39%, 2012; 35%, 2013).

Conclusions drawn from this data should recognize that the survey populations are
different between the 2012 and 2013 surveys (e.g., all staff versus a distinct
subpopulation). Additionally, the scope of the questions is broader than this capacity
survey (questions refer to the state and department versus the specific program within a
division).
Perceptions of Science-based Management.
To study the role of science in complex decision making, respondents were asked
whether science can be biased. This question was used as a broad indicator of the
population’s understanding of the role of science in complex decision-making. Figure 6
shows the largest segment (48%) of internal stewards believe that science can be
biased, whereas the majority (51%) of external stakeholders selected ‘sometimes’
science can be biased. Twelve percent of the internal population and 9% of the
external population did not perceive science as being biased.
60 %
50
40
30
20
10
0

Do you believe that science can be biased?
51
48
40
40
Internal
12

Yes

External

9

No

Sometimes

Figure 7. Beliefs about Biases in Science
97

Preferences related to Program Resources.
To assess the adequacy of resources that are focused on the program the respondents
were asked if the program’s dedicated resources are commensurate with societal risks
posed by contaminated property. Both populations indicated that the program’s
dedicated resources are not commensurate with societal risks. Figure 7 indicates that
there is support from both sectors for more resources. Eighty-one percent of the
internal practitioners and fifty-seven percent of the external respondents feel more
resources are necessary. Five percent of the internal and 29% of the external
populations indicated that resources were commensurate with societal risks posed by
the contaminated property. Seven percent of the internal population indicated that
fewer resources are needed, with the same percentage being undecided. Three
percent of the external population indicated fewer resources are needed. Eleven
percent of the external population was undecided.

98

Are the resources dedicated to the program commensurate with the societal
risk posed by the contaminated property?

90 %

81

80
70
57

60
50

Internal
External

40
29

30
20

11

10

7

5

7
3

0
Yes

No, more are needed No, less are needed

Undecided

Figure 8. Resource Allocations
Open-ended Questions.
Open-ended questions were asked to augment the scaled items. In this discussion, the
questions are followed by the number of responses, the main themes of the
respondents’ comments, and the category which received the majority of the comments
segmented by study population. Where applicable the responses are categorized by
this study’s capacity factors and sub-factors. Other categories were developed if a
number of comments warranted a new category (e.g., Program Costs and Funding).
Other comments were placed under Uncategorized Statements. The summaries of the
open ended questions segmented by sector are provided in Appendix C. Exact
99

comments have been provided with minor editing to help with readability. Some
indication of the commenters’ program experience has been provided while protecting
the respondents’ identity. No additional qualitative coding or analysis has been done
since this was not the primary focus of this thesis.

Question1. Effective governance is defined as being “participatory, consensus oriented,
accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable, inclusive; follows
law and is responsive to the present and future needs of society (United Nations, 2011;
United Nations Development Program, 1997). What one question or issue did you feel
was missing from this survey that would help identify the means to improve
environmental and natural resource outcomes? (n=68)
Response themes:


Internal practitioner themes include ENR Outcomes, Organizational Culture and
Structure, Decision Management and Uncategorized Statements.



External practitioner themes include ENR Outcomes, Organizational Culture and
Leadership, and Uncategorized Statements.

Majority response category: Decision Management (internal stewards); Organization
Culture and Structure (external stakeholders).

Questions 2. What types of factors, capacities or activities have the biggest impact on
effective ENR management and improved outcomes? Your responses can include
external and internal pressures or influences that are outside the scope of this survey?
(n=77)
response themes:

100



Internal practitioner themes include ENR Outcomes, Decision-makers and
Influencers, Organizational Culture and Structure, Program Costs and Funding,
and Uncategorized Statements.



External practitioner themes include ENR Outcomes, Organizational Culture and
Structure, and Uncategorized Statements.

Majority response category: Organizational Culture and Structure (internal stewards
and external stakeholders).

Question 3. Of the activities you mentioned, please identify the one which has the
biggest impact? (n=63)
Response themes:


Internal practitioner themes include Stakeholders and Politicians, Program Costs
and Funding, Organizational Cultures and Structures and Uncategorized
Statements.



External practitioner themes include ENR Outcomes, and Organizational Culture
and Structure, and Uncategorized Statements.

Majority response category: Stakeholders and Politicians (internal stewards and
external stakeholders).

Question 4. Is there anything else you would like to add before submitting this survey?
(n=58)
Response themes:


Internal practitioner themes include ENR Outcomes, and Organizational Cultures
and Structures, and Uncategorized Statements.



External practitioner themes include ENR Outcomes, and Organizational
Cultures and Structures, and Uncategorized Statements.

101

Majority response category: Organization Culture and Structure (internal stewards and
external stakeholders).

4.5 Summary of Findings
This research identified capacities that the literature suggested contribute to improving
ENR outcomes given wicked problems. An exploratory best practice governance model
was developed to test selected capacities (factors and sub-factors) in an applied setting.
This study tested the model through internal and external practitioner perceptions and
preferences of current and preferred capacities to manage wicked problems. The
study’s survey instrument was scaled to assess capacity to manage wicked ENR
problems. The scales ranged from the capacity to tackle tame problems to wicked
problems (e.g., a five point scale with capacities closer to 1 being associated with tame
problem approaches and capacities closer to 5 being associated with the capacity to
manage wicked problems). A ranking of 3 is neutral, associated with a capacity of
neither tame nor wicked.
The best practice wicked ENR problem governance model shows promise on three
fronts: 1) the reliability testing was moderately strong, 2) correlation testing showed
moderately positive relationships between the three independent variables (as factors)
and the improved outcomes (i.e., dependent variable), and 3) the general consistency in
perceptions and preferences within the study populations, even though the external
population tended to rank current capacities lower than the internal population.
Reliability indicates the degree to which an assessment tool produces stable and
consistent results; it does not indicate that the test instrument is measuring the intended
construct. This research was not designed to test the validity of the test instrument or
102

its application. While not a rigorous measure, respondent feedback is often used to
assess ‘face validity.’ Face validity ascertains that the measure appears to be
assessing the intended construct under study. The similarity in responses and the
general feedback provided in the open-ended questions provides a level of ‘face
validity.’
Correlation tests revealed medium to medium high correlation values (range of .77 < r <
.83, p (one-tailed) < .01) for the independent variables of individual performance,
organizational culture and structures, and decision making capacities. The correlation
among these independent variables and the dependent variable of outcomes was less
strong. The strongest correlation with dependent variable of improved outcomes was
with organizational culture and structure and decision management. The correlation
between individual performance and outcomes was positive and significant but less
strong (r=.48). Sub-factor correlation testing revealed a wider range of r values (range
of .36 < r < .77, p (one-tailed) < .01).
Three hypotheses were tested:
H1. There will be a significant difference in current and preferred capacities between
the steward and stakeholder populations.
H2. The stakeholder population will have higher expectations for government’s
alignment with wicked problems compared to the steward population.
H3. The studied ENR program is currently more adept at solving tame problems than
managing wicked problems.
This study found significant differences between current capacities and preferred
capacities among both study populations. Current factor capacity mean scores for
internal stewards averaged 3.03, while the mean scores for the stakeholders were

103

significantly lower for all factors except Improved Outcomes, averaging 2.81. All current
sub-factor capacity ratings were significant (p<.05) except Participants and Improved
Outcomes. The average ratings for current factors and sub-factors represent capacities
being closer to tame (external perceptions) or neutral (internal perceptions).
Preferred factor capacities for the internal stewards averaged 4.37 while the mean
score for the external stakeholders was 4.30. The difference in the factor scoring was
not significant. Preferred capacity sub-factor analysis showed a slight significant
difference in the sub-factor of Deliberation under the factor of Decision Management.
The commonality in preferred capacities and high level of agreement within the test
population suggests recognition of the need to manage wicked problems consistent with
the scales developed for this test instrument.
Review of sub-factors and associated competencies indicates some significant
differences. Using the sub-factors and individual capacity items provides specificity to
the various strengths and opportunities to improve ENR outcomes. For instance,
internal practitioners favored Capacity Building (mean=3.22) and external practitioners
favored Networking (mean=2.85) as their top rated sub-factor under Individual
Performance. Additionally, Participants (i.e., inclusion in Decision Management), and
Legitimacy (Organizational Culture and Structures) were the highest scored sub-factors
across both populations. Governance (Organizational Culture and Structure), and
deliberation (Decision Management) were on the low end for both populations. External
practitioners also rated Scoping (Decision Management) on the low end.

104

The means scores for the current factors and sub-factors were in the range of neutral
(scale value of 3). External respondents rated the current program capacity at an
overall mean=2.81; internal respondents rated mean=3.03. This indicates that the
program‘s current capacity is perceived as less than ideal for tackling wicked problems.
In summary, this study indicates: 1) statistical reliability of items supporting factors and
sub-factors derived from the literature and a compilation of best practice capacities; 2)
high correlation among the capacities, with moderate positive correlation between the
independent variables and the dependent variable (e.g., improved outcomes); 3)
commonality within the test sample in preferences for working toward improved
outcomes; 4) statistically significant evidence that current capacities within the studied
program were significantly below preferred capacities, with significant differences
between the test populations with externals rating current capacity ratings lower than
internals in all factor capacities except for improved outcomes; and 5) the majority of
both populations (87% internal; 51% external) indicated that the program’s dedicated
resources are not commensurate with societal risks posed by contaminated property
and that more resources are needed.
There are observable changes since the State of Michigan 2012 Employee
Engagement Survey conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. While the State of
Michigan engagement survey included all state program staff, it did not include the
perspectives of external stakeholders. This study only includes a subset of staff who
work in the studied program. The findings presented by this study are mixed (e.g.
increases, decreases and no change in tested engagement elements).

105

Numerous responses (266 in total) were received for the open ended questions. These
responses provide insight into the perceptions and preferences of the respondents and
questions that could be considered for further research.

106

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUDING SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter summarizes the purpose of the research and associated limitations and
delimitations, provides conclusions of the study based on research findings, provides
recommendations for both future research and ENR management application, and
provides a concluding summary.
5.1 Purpose of this Research
This research contributes to the emerging bodies of research regarding governance for
improved ENR outcomes. The focus of this research was to develop a best practice
governance model and test the model with one complex ENR program’s capacity to
improve wicked problem outcomes through identified capacities.
The interdisciplinary theory that framed this research and the development of the best
practice governance model included work by Arvai, McDaniels and Gregory (2002);
Brown et al., (2010); Goldsmith and Kettl (2009); Hart and Dowell (2011); Hart, Milstein
and Caggiano (2003); Kjaer (2010); Kotter (1995); Michigan Sea Grant and Graham
Environmental Sustainability Institute (2009); and Rittel and Webber (1973), as well as
the author's own governmental and policy development experience.
Current and preferred capacities of three capacity factors were hypothesized to improve
wicked problem outcomes: 1) individual performance: 2) organizational culture and
structure; and 3) decision management. These three independent variables and the
dependent variable, improved outcomes, were supported by sub-factors and
competencies (survey items) which were developed based on literature.

107

The best practice wicked ENR problem governance model showed promise on three
fronts: 1) the reliability testing was moderately strong, 2) the correlation testing
showed moderately positive relationships between the three independent variables (as
factors) and the outcomes or dependent variable, and 3) face validity with general
consistency in perceptions within the study populations, even though the external
population tended to rank current capacities lower than the internal population. These
findings contribute to the field of ENR governance research.
This research tested the exploratory model though the current perceptions and
preferences of internal and external practitioners with current experience in a complex
ENR program. They were instructed to assess the internal progam aspects only.
Generally, this study was designed to test: 1) whether the studied ENR program was
currently more adept at solving tame problems than managing wicked problems; 2)
significant differences in current and preferred capacities (context); and 3) differences in
the studied populations (internal and external) perceptions of the program.
This research was conducted in the spring of 2013 using an electronic survey
instrument. The survey included seventy Likert scaled questions focused on specific
current and preferred capacities of the studied program. The Likert scale consisted of a
five point scale with capacities closer to 1 being associated with tame problem
approaches and capacities closer to 5 being associated with the capacity to manage
wicked problems. Additional questions gathered demographic information regarding the
study population and their individual perceptions and preferences. Survey data were
analyzed with reliability and correlation testing, descriptive statistics, and T test of
means.
108

Numerous stakeholder processes were conducted to identify ways to improve the
studied program with little improvement to program and ENR outcomes. During
discussions regarding the PricewaterhouseCoppers LLC 2012 survey, program
managers of this state program lamented that while problems were identified, they were
not certain how to make improvements. This is similar to the findings in this study and
literature review that reveal a great demand for understanding how organizations can
affect desirable change, while remaining relevant and competitive with the challenges
that confront them (Sharma et al., 2007; Wustenhagen et al., 2008). Since this study
provides scaffolded capacities (items that support and inform sub-factors that in turn
support and inform factors), managers can look to the results of the specific factors,
sub-factor and specific item levels to prioritize capacity building for improved ENR
outcomes.
5.2 Study Limitations and Delimitations
The survey response rates were acceptable, with some survey fatigue or reduction in
survey completion. There was no significant difference in Likert scaled response
selections between the population that completed the survey and those who initiated but
did not complete the survey. This finding was based a comparison of means
(Independent T Test) for the questions that were completed by both populations. While
there is no data for an analysis of the non-responders (those who never opened the
survey), an extrapolation of the data, leads to an inference that those not completing the
survey rated the current independent variables slightly higher than those completing the
survey, and the dependent variable slightly lower. The preferred capacities were rated
slightly lower for the independent variables and slightly higher for the dependent
variable. The length and topics covered in the survey may have inadvertently created a
109

select survey population, meaning that the respondents represent a more engaged
population, especially those completing the survey and providing the written responses
to the open ended questions.
This study relied upon respondent perceptions and preferences that are subject to
heuristics, framing and biases and did not imitate other surveys. Therefore, while the
results are reliable they may not be accurate (except in relation to the respondent’s
perceptions, which are also important). The survey was found to have face validity.
This research was delimited to one ENR program where practitioners operate in a
highly technical arena that is quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial in executing public laws
and programs. ENR programs may have commonality, but they are each culturally,
structurally and context specific. While this research may be informative, it may not be
generalizable to other programs. The nature of the survey and the limited study
population may not reflect wider program perceptions and preferences. The
delimitations on the study population were designed to focus on the applicability of a
best practice model using practitioners who were exposed to the studied program and
its on-going transformation. The studied program is in an evolutionary stage, shifting
from a hierarchical structure to one that is more participatory and collaborative (e.g.,
having the elements of network based governance). Capacities associated with
network based governance include an open and interdependent exchange of resources
using trust, diplomacy and reciprocity rather than authority, rules and commands,
hierarchical employment relationships and subordination (Kjaer, 2010; Rhodes, 1999).

110

5.2 Conclusions
The research indicated that both internal and external practitioners are currently
observing each factor, sub-factor and item at less than their preferred level. The
studied program is perceived to be using capacities that are closer to neutral or tame
problem management than being aligned with the capacity to tackle wicked problems.
Both sectors share similar desires to move toward capacities through competencies
aligned with tackling wicked problems.
The paired sample T test indicated that the comparisons of current and preferred means
for all competency items for both populations were highly significant (p<.001). The
analysis of the survey results indicates significant differences between the internal and
external population perceptions for three of the four current capacity factors (e.g.,
individual performance, organizational culture and structure, and decision
management). There was more commonality between the two populations with the
capacity factor of Improved Outcomes. Review of the sub-factors indicated one more
area of commonality – Participants (inclusiveness in decision making). All remaining
current sub-factor differences were significant (p< .05). The areas of difference
included the sub-factors of Networking, Capacity Building, Leadership, Legitimacy,
Governance, Scoping (e.g., problem framing and scoping), and Deliberations.
Both sectors rated preferred capacities similarly indicating commonality in desired
program capacities. There was no significant difference between the internal and
external populations’ preferred factor capacities. This indicates that both sectors desire
much the same in the program given this exploratory best practice model. Only the
sub-factor associated with decision Deliberation was significant (p< .05). This relative
111

commonality may equate to shared goals and preferences regarding individual
performance, organizational culture and structure, decision management and ENR
outcomes. The increased ranking from current capacity perceptions to preferred
capacities reflect the studied populations’ interest in moving toward those capacities
associated with the ability to tackle wicked problems. This study and its findings give
the program information on which it can build consensus and partnerships.
The hypotheses testing were conducted at the factor and sub-factor level. Hypotheses
analysis in this research was not intended at the item level. However, the specific test
item data can lend insight into the various competencies associated with the studied
program. The following observations are made by reviewing the overall current capacity
data (factors, sub-factors and item/competencies) and comparing them to the overall
mean scores (i.e., internal mean of 3.03 and external mean of 2.81) as well as the
authors understanding of the program’s evolving culture and structure.
Based on knowledge of the program’s history and the data obtained through this study,
it appears that the studied program has made progress toward addressing the
stakeholders’ and governor’s concerns. The program is moving toward networked
based governance but could make improvements in the areas the organization’s
structure and culture, and decision management. To provide structure to this brief
discussion, the items identified in Section 1.3 as stakeholder concerns are used as the
framework. The data that is highlighted likely supports more than one bullet point. For
the sake of brevity, not all the item data is summarized nor repeated.

112

1. Assess the means to improve ENR transactions to meet the current and future
public interest given changes in Michigan’s economy and resource limitations.
•

Areas that received the highest response values (e.g., more likely to align
with wicked problems solving capacities) included those competencies
associated with the program’s Legitimacy, Networking and Participation.
From an external stakeholder perspective the program is inclusive, and
operates in a lawful and equitable manner. Both internal and external
stakeholders indicate that the level of participation is rated higher than
average for decision makers, decision implementers, and persons with the
necessary scientific, economic and social perspective. Internal
respondents indicated that those that share the risk may not be included.
External respondent’s scoring indicates that persons with diverse
knowledge may not be included.

•

Internal participants indicate that they felt empowered and understand the
organizations objectives. However the scoring for the organization in
support of these capacities does not appear as high.

•

The steward and stakeholder reported values indicate less than desirable
capacity for individual risk taking, ability to receive support and respect
outside the agency, and ability to mediate differences. Stakeholder values
indicate that capacities associated with individual reflection and feedback,
organizational trust, and accountability are relatively low.

113

2. Maximize return on investment by focusing on those things that matter and
reduce or eliminate management elements that provide little corresponding
improvement.
•

The stewards indicate that at the individual level, they are assisting in
producing environmental results that take into account competing
business, citizen, scientific and community views. External respondents
rated the program capacity for individual performance slightly above their
average score. However similar factors under organizational culture and
structure and ENR outcomes are not rated as high.

•

Internal and external respondents rated high the observed individual
performance factor of assessing the nature of a problem, and its causes
and elicit a collaborative analysis and recommendation. This capacity was
rated lower by both sectors when referring to the organizations capacity to
do the same.

•

There was unanimity among the respondents that the program’s mission
statement is not understood by stakeholders. Both internal and external
respondents indicated lower values for current leadership capacities
(organizational factor) for moving constructively forward and minimizing
waste, expense and effort.

•

External respondent values were relatively low for items associated with
individual use of creativity and observed expansion of perspectives when
confronted with divergent perspectives. The organization’s governance
scored low in a similar competency - focusing on the most important

114

problems, and encouragement of integration of individual ideas, values
and perspectives in achieving improved outcomes.
•

External respondents indicated that the organization does not embrace
decentralized decision-making nor flexibility and adaptability. There was
unanimity between the sectors for the organizations focusing on the most
important problems to safeguard the public, environmental health and the
quality of life for current generations. However, the stewards (with
stakeholders providing a value close to their mean) tend to perceive that
the organization is not taking into account future generations. Similarly
the sectors tended to score lower the organizations observed capacities to
encourage the integration of individual ideas, values and perspectives in
achieving the organizations mission, capacity to support and reward
beneficial innovation and calculated risk taking as well as the promotion of
training which relies upon strategies to integrate divergent information to
achieve a goal rather than a set of prescriptive task (i.e., promote critical
thinking). This is contrasted with stewards feeling empowered at the
individual level.

3. Encourage active and positive interactions and partnerships with the public and
those affected by ENR management.
•

Networking and Participation were scored higher than the averages as
were the organizations encouragement of staff to develop support
networks to improve knowledge and the use of technology to increase
collective awareness. Leadership scores and governance scores indicate

115

lower values for the organization being responsive and managing
decisions consistent with its stated mission.
•

The subsequent problem scoping and decision management scores were
lower for both populations.

4. Focus on outcomes and the measurement of progress and success.
•

Outcome scoring was one of the lowest factors for both sectors. With the
balancing of socio-economic issues and metrics being the lowest
competencies. Adaptation and improving the quality of life scored higher
(but close to neutral).

5. Researcher observations.
Returning to the governance model, this research hypothesized that three factors
contribute to improved ENR outcomes: Individual performance, organizational
culture and structure, and decision management. As the agency evolves, the
capacities of the individuals and the organization must evolve to support the
capacities derived from the literature to support the decision management
associated with wicked ENR problems. It appears that the Individual Performance
has some relative alignment with identified sub-factor capacities (Capacity Building
from an internal perspective and Networking from an external perspective). It also
appears that the organization is beginning to align with the sub-factors of Legitimacy.
Additionally, the individuals and the organization are aligning with capacities for
Participation. What would then follow, given the model are competencies associated
with Decision Management and the organizational sub-factor of Governance. The
competencies associated with these factors appear to be an area where movement
may be needed to improve ENR outcomes.
116

Both sectors rated organizational governance, decision scoping, decision
deliberations and outcomes low. External respondents also rated the program’s
scoping sub-factor (e.g., problem framing, process and assessment tools) lower than
the average. Based on the survey data, it appears that the program has yet to
provide sufficient training and the tools to embrace decentralized decision
management. Both sectors’ scoring indicates that the organization does not move
constructively forward- considering the scientific, cultural and social complexities of
its decisions. Observations regarding the additional scaled and open ended
questions would also suggest that the program is still in need of focusing on
organizational management and training to support both the staff and decision
management for improved ENR outcomes. Both sectors rated the program ability to
address competing socio-economic and ENR demands low as well as program
metrics that indicate overall durability of improving ENR in the state. The sectors
gave higher scores for program adaptability and ENR outcomes improving the
quality of life in the state.
Similar observations can be drawn from data associated with the programs ability to
be flexible and responsive to competing values, priorities and time frames.
Individual Performance capacities were rated higher than the organizations capacity
to support similar competencies. Perhaps these capacities are more evident
internally and individually and will eventually become more evident externally as the
program continues to broaden its participation and worldview, moving from a relative
insular and hierarchical structure to one more aligned with network based
governance. Growth in innovation, flexibility, creativity, critical thinking, taking
117

calculated risks, and furthering the understanding and skills to mediating divergent
perspectives and values will help further decision management capacities. This in
turn should foster a narrowing of the gap that exist between internal and external
current perceptions. It can also move them both toward their shared preferences
that align with tackling wicked problems. These in turn may improve ENR outcomes.
In summary, the program seems to have increased its engagement with the public.
It now needs to focus on complimentary capacities to improve ENR outcomes. The
respondent preferences are aligned. With agreement on competencies to improve
the ENR outcomes, the program could be making headway and is moving from
being more in line with addressing tame problems to one more aligned with
managing wicked problems.
5.3 Recommendations
This exploratory research provides insight and opportunities for future research and
ENR program assessment. Following are recommendations grouped according to the
two aspects of this study 1) research (e.g., development of the best practice model and
the survey scales, and 2) ENR program practice (e.g., testing and application of the
model).
1) Research Methods and Theory
a. Share and utilize the results of this research to increase awareness of
knowledge, approaches and investments that can: i) assist others in the
identification of areas for employee and organizational governance
development; and ii) improve ENR outcome capacity building in 'wicked
situations and times.’
118

b. Conduct one or more longitudinal studies or apply and assess the application
of treatments to this program, observing changes to current and preferred
capacities and outcomes between internal and external practitioners.
c. Further study the relationship between the independent capacities and the
dependent capacity (e.g., improved ENR outcomes) using more sophisticated
multivariate statistics.
d. Test this model and survey instrument in another context to assess its
broader applicability. Use in another context could provide a basis for
comparison relative to internal and external practitioners’ perceptions and
preferences of wicked problem management capacities for improved
outcomes.
e. Review the modifications suggested by the respondents in the open-ended
questions and incorporate them as deemed necessary prior to any
subsequent use of this test instrument.
f. Further test the survey scales used in this study using a more complete set of
validity tests.
g. Assess the use of shorter but multiple surveys to study current and preferred
ENR capacities.
h. Assess the impact of other matters not part of this governance model such as
budgetary, or the legal or judicial matters that my also impact ENR
governance.
2) ENR Program Applied Practice

119

a. Share the survey results with the survey participants and the studied
program for the benefit of providing more insight into the program
management of practitioner current perceptions and preferences.
b. Use these research results as baseline data and assist in the identification
and prioritization of areas of individual employee and organizational
development and barriers to improved ENR outcomes. Consideration should
be given to building on commonalities and further growth toward shared goals
for improved ENR outcomes as well as employee training which relies upon
strategies to integrate divergent information to achieve a goal rather than a
set of prescriptive task (i.e., promote critical thinking).
5.4 Summary
This thesis contributes to the emerging bodies of research on individual capacities and
organizational governance for improved ENR outcomes. Further, this research
attempted to close gaps in the literature from both an academic and applied research
approach - filling what appears to be one of the largest questions left in the literature:
How can a program transform to a more sustainable paradigm that can better tackle
wicked problems for more durable ENR outcomes where practitioners operate in a
highly technical arena that is quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial in executing public laws
and programs? This research contributes to the theory and methods on ENR
governance and its application for wicked problem management. This research
provides a picture of the studied program that can be used to further understanding of
areas for employee and organizational governance development, and identify
opportunities to increase awareness and knowledge of approaches and investments
120

that lead to improved ENR outcomes in 'wicked situations and times.’ In summary, this
study contributes to the body of literature regarding ENR governance and improving
outcomes by which future ENR governance and research can benefit.

121

APPENDICES

122

APPENDIX A
SURVEY INSTRUMENT

123

THIS VERSION OF THE SURVEY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM THE ACTUAL
QUALTRICS SURVEY. THE QUALTRIC SURVEY WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY
COMPATIBLE WITH MICROSOFT WORD TO MAINTAIN LEGIBILITY
Governance Survey

THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN TACKLING COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTAL
AND NATURAL RESOURCE (ENR) PROBLEMS FOR IMPROVED OUTCOMES FOR
MICHIGAN.

This survey may take approximately twenty-five minutes to complete. When taking this
survey you may save your work and return to this survey so long as you return on the
same computer that allows for cookies to be enabled during the open survey
period. Access will be denied if you try to access it from another computer. This survey
closes at 6 PM on March 12, 2013.

INTRODUCTION
This survey is being conducted as a partnership between Michigan State University's
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies and Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). This survey contains questions about
environmental and natural resource management associated with the integration and
reinvention of the State’s cleanup and redevelopment program. Your participation is
voluntary. You may withdraw at any time, or you may refuse to answer any particular
question.

If you choose to participate in this survey, your responses will be kept confidential and
your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. By completing
this survey, you indicate your voluntary consent to participate in this research. Research
results will be used in a thesis for completion of a Master of Science degree under the
direction of Dr. Christine Vogt. The survey results will inform efforts to strengthen ENR
program governance understanding in academic research, education, and practice. If
you have any questions about the survey, please contact Ms. Patricia McKay at 517775-0852, e-mail – mckaypa1@msu.edu or Dr. Christine Vogt at 517- 432-0318; e-mail
– vogtc@msu.edu.
124

THE SURVEY
ENR problems are becoming more complex, entering the realm of socio-economic
issues and exceeding the forecasting and management capacity of any one sector or
jurisdiction. These complex matters are considered wicked problems. Wicked
problems are 1) interdisciplinary in scope with high uncertainty; 2) value laden; and 3)
evolving and dynamic. Wicked problems require sensitivity to differing values and
science for collective and cohesive adaptive management plans to be developed and
implemented - approaching or achieving the desired outcome.
State of Michigan government, including the ENR programs, has been challenged to
reinvent itself - balancing environmental matters with social and economic issues for
improved outcomes.
The Governor's ten-point plan for Michigan includes:
1) creating more and better jobs; 2) leveraging our new tax system; 3) reinventing
government; 4) keeping our youth-our future here; 5) restoring our cities; 6) enhancing
our national and international image; 7) protecting our environment; 8) revitalizing our
education system; 9) reinventing our health care system; and, 10) winning Michigan
through relentless positive action.

Balancing these environmental and socio-economic issues with the cleanup and
redevelopment program’s more complex problems is a difficult and wicked task. This
ten-point plan can be used as an example of tackling wicked problems when
participating in this survey.

With the Governor's ten-point plan and the realities of the state's cleanup and
redevelopment program in mind, please answer the questions which follow a few brief
definitions of terms and acronyms used in this survey.
DEFINITIONS
Capacity: Capacity is the ability to hold, receive or absorb available knowledge and the
ability to exploit existing knowledge for creative problem solving.
Current: Current as used as in the survey means belonging to the present time.
(Current capacities should be observed/actually present as opposed to a perceived
potential.)
125

DEQ: Department of Environmental Quality, a State of Michigan department.
ENR: Environmental and natural resource.
Preferred: A preferred capacity is one that is more desirable. (A preferred capacity
should be viewed as a perceived desirable and achievable potential.)
RRD: Remediation and Redevelopment Division within the DEQ.
This survey may seem long. Complex issues do not lend themselves to simple surveys.
Your thoughtful participation will improve MSU's and DEQ's understanding of ENR
governance perceptions regarding improved ENR outcomes for Michigan.
Section 1. There are five sections of questions. These questions ask about your
current general observations and what you would prefer to observe when the cleanup
and redevelopment program is tackling wicked problems. When more than one factor is
listed within one question (e.g., a compound question), please answer based on the
totality of all listed factors.
The first block of questions relate to the general and collective individual capacity of
staff. Later you will be asked similar questions regarding the organizational culture and
structure. One way to differentiate between an organizational culture and its staff
capacities might be to think about the individual performance of staff (as a collective
whole) versus the governmental organization. A third set of question ask about
decision-making and implementation processes. These three factors (individual
performance, organizational culture and structures, and decision
management/governance) affect outcomes.
[Note to thesis readers: The first 70 measurement items consisted of Likert scaled
items with current and preferred categories of measurement per each listed item.]
Q 1.1. Please answer the following questions as you currently assess DEQ RRD staff
capacities as a whole AND how you would prefer to observe the same capacities when
tackling wicked problems.





Staff embraces self-empowerment.
Staff understands organizational objectives.
Staff embraces conflicts and addresses them in a constructive manner.
Staff takes calculated risks to improve ENR outcomes.

126







Staff receives support and respect within the organization including when values
differ.
Staff receives support and respect outside the organization including when
values differ.
Staff has the ability to mediate differing interests to reach broad consensus on
what is in the best interest of the group (stewards and stakeholders and within
legal and delegated authority).
Staff assists in producing environmental results that take into account competing
business, citizen, scientific and community views.

Q 1.2. Please answer the following questions as you currently assess DEQ RRD staff
capacities (as a whole) AND how you would prefer to observe the same capacities
when tackling wicked problems.







Staff expands its perceptions and understanding when exposed to divergent
perspectives.
Staff seeks and develops new insights, technologies and knowledge in socioeconomic trends through work and extracurricular activities, experiential learning
and education.
Staff assesses the nature of a problem, and its causes and elicits a collaborative
analysis and recommendation.
Staff seeks feedback and is reflective about activities and interactions.
Staff creates an environment that encourages creative thinking and innovation,
and designs and implements new or cutting edge program elements and
processes.

Section 2. The following questions allow you to tell us about your current experiences
and your preferences regarding the DEQ RRD organization - its culture and structure.
When one or more factors are listed within one statement (e.g., a compound statement),
answer based on the totality of all listed factors.
Q 2.1. Please answer the following questions as you currently assess DEQ RRD
organizational capacities as a whole AND how you would prefer to observe the same
capacities when tackling wicked problems. The organization:




Has a clear mission.
Has a mission statement that is understood by most staff (internal to the
organization).
Has a mission statement that is understood by stakeholders (external to the
organization) who engage with the organization.
127






Is responsive and its decision-making and implementation is consistent with its
stated mission.
Moves constructively forward - considering the scientific, cultural and social
complexities of its decisions.
Works constructively to handle complaints and criticism.
Minimizes waste, expense and effort.

Q 2.3. Please answer the following questions as you currently assess DEQ RRD
organizational capacities as a whole AND how you would prefer to observe the same
capacities when tackling wicked problems. The organization:









Takes responsibility for its actions.
Operates in an equitable and fair manner.
Is inclusive in its outreach and engagement including those with a stake in the
matter.
Is transparent in its operations.
Builds trust.
Builds understanding.
Is accountable.
Operates lawfully.

Q 2.4. Please answer the following questions as you currently assess DEQ RRD
organizational capacities as a whole AND how you would prefer to observe the same
capacities when tackling wicked problems. The organization:








Embraces decentralized decision-making, allowing staff closest to the issues,
who hold the applicable expertise, to collaborate to reach a decision.
Focuses on the most important problems to safeguard the public, environmental
health, and quality of life for current generations.
Focuses on the most important problems to safeguard the public, environmental
health, and quality of life for future generations.
Embraces flexibility and adaptability in approaches to gather new information
while achieving the organization's mission.
Encourages the integration of individual ideas, values and perspectives in
achieving the organization's mission.
Supports and rewards beneficial innovation.
Supports and rewards calculated risk-taking by staff.

128






Promotes training which relies upon strategies to integrate divergent information
to achieve a goal rather than a set of menu (prescriptive) driven tasks (e.g.,
promotes critical thinking).
Encourages staff to develop support networks to improve staff's and the
organization's knowledge base.
Uses technology to improve communication, increasing collective knowledge and
awareness.

Section 3. The following questions will allow you to tell us about current experiences
and your preferences regarding the DEQ RRD's organizational decision management.
Again, when one or more factors are listed within one statement - answer based on the
totality of all listed factors. The definition of wicked problems and the Governor's tenpoint plan are provided below if you wish to refresh yourself regarding the survey
introduction.
Wicked problems are 1) interdisciplinary in scope with high uncertainty; 2) value laden;
and 3) evolving and dynamic. Wicked problems require sensitivity to differing values
and science for collective and cohesive adaptive management plans to be developed
and implemented - approaching or achieving the desired outcome.
The Governor's ten-point plan includes:
1) creating more and better jobs; 2) leveraging our new tax system; 3) reinventing
government; 4) keeping our youth-our future here; 5) restoring our cities; 6) enhancing
our national and international image; 7) protecting our environment; 8) revitalizing our
education system; 9) reinventing our health care system; and 10) winning Michigan
through relentless positive action.
Q 3.1. When tackling wicked problems I believe that the DEQ RRD cleanup and
redevelopment organization:







Timely identifies problems and prioritizes them in relation to the magnitude of the
problems’ relative impact.
Manages problems according to the magnitude of the problems’ impact.
Is responsive to participants' (stewards and stakeholders) competing values,
priorities and time frames.
Sufficiently frames (e.g., describes) problems for management according to an
overall programmatic goal/mission statement.
Provides sufficient guidance with flexibility to allow for new concerns or
information to inform decision-making.
Embraces new information to improve the basis for decisions.
129



Provides sufficient flexibility to allow for new concerns or information to improve
implementation processes.

Q 3.2. Please answer the following questions regarding the inclusion of participants
(current and preferred) by the DEQ RRD when tackling wicked problems.







Decision-makers.
Decision implementers.
Persons who may share in the risk.
Persons with the necessary scientific, economic/financial, and social perspective
and expertise.
Those with unique knowledge.
Those with diverse knowledge.

Q 3.3. The following questions relate to DEQ RRD governance (decision-making and
implementation). Please provide your current and preferred perceptions of these
governance capacities when the DEQ RRD tackles wicked problems.



Interest and momentum are maintained in policy discussions and decisions.
Appropriate participation is maintained throughout the duration of decisionmaking processes.
 Appropriate participation is maintained throughout decision implementation.
 Appropriate assessment tools are developed and implemented.
 Decision-making and implementation processes are scaled appropriately given
the relevance and urgency of the situation and decision.
Q 3.4. Please provide your current and preferred perceptions of these governance
capacities when the DEQ RRD tackles wicked problems.







An appropriate number of relevant alternative recommendations are explored
and developed by RRD.
Alternative approaches that document and use verifiable data or documented
reason are assessed and utilized by RRD.
Alternative approaches that build consensus prior to reaching a decision among
those who share in the risks and benefits from the decision are assessed and
utilized by RRD.
Alternative approaches that are accompanied by an alternatives array which
address risks, uncertainties and trade-offs are assessed and utilized by RRD.
Alternative approaches that manage uncertainties through contingency plans are
assessed and utilized by RRD.
130








Alternative approaches that can be documented and articulated in an
understandable manner, and implemented within the capacity of available
resources are assessed and utilized by RRD.
Alternative approaches that are based on processes that follow a structured and
participatory process that is perceived as fair and relevant to the issue at hand
are utilized by RRD.
Alternative approaches that align with the organization's strategic mission
statement are utilized by RRD.
Monitoring and assessment processes are designed and established by RRD to
compare predicted effects with observed outcomes.

Q 4.1. The following questions relate to DEQ RRD program outcomes relative to the
Governor's ten-point plan and vision for Michigan.
(Note - when one or more factors are listed within one statement - answer based on the
totality of all listed factors.)






DEQ RRD practices adaptive management concepts to improve ENR outcomes.
Metrics indicate overall durability (e.g., improved ENR longevity) in ENR in the
state.
Competing socio-economic and ENR demands are well balanced for improved
ENR outcomes.
Socio-economic demands and ENR problems are being managed without
eroding the potential to meet future demands.
DEQ RRD ENR management outcomes are improving the quality of life in
Michigan.

Section 5. Thank you for your patience. You are almost done. The following questions
will allow us to manage the survey data. For instance, without this information we will
not be able to: 1) distinguish between response received from within the DEQ with
those provided by the external stakeholders; or, 2) understand if other influences are
driving the responses that may be external to the scope of this survey. Other
demographic information is being obtained to understand the survey population.
[End of Likert scaled questions]
Q 5.1. What is your gender? (Given the option to select female or male.)

131

Q 5.2. Many people have work experience both internal and external to the DEQ.
Please answer this question based on your current (internal or external) representation.




A state of Michigan employee (internal steward) working in (or with) the DEQ
cleanup and redevelopment program.
A position external (stakeholder) to the State of Michigan.
Neither.

6.1. The following nine questions are included to revisit areas identified in the internal
employee engagement survey as needing improvement. Only state staff is being asked
this set of questions. Similarly worded questions were asked to obtain perceptions
internal and external to the DEQ.










I believe I have the opportunity for growth in my current job.
Managers in my department make decisions in a timely fashion.
The State of Michigan empowers employees to make appropriate decisions that
are in the best interest of the State.
I am confident department leadership is leading us in the right direction for
success.
Leadership is creating a culture of continuous improvement.
I believe that government reinvention is not about eliminating people.
Department leadership is interested in the well-being of employees.
Department leadership gives employees a clear picture of the direction my
department is headed.
Department leadership is trustworthy.

Q 5.3. What is the highest level of education you have completed?









High school
Some college
2-year college degree
4-year college degree
Some graduate degree course work
Master Degree
Doctoral Degree
Professional Degree (JD, MD)

Q 5.4. How many years have you worked as a state steward, internal to the DEQ
cleanup and redevelopment program?
132








None
0-2 years
More than two years, but less than five years
5 years or more
10 years or more, but less than 15 years
15 years or more

Q 5.5. How many years have you worked as a stakeholder, external to the DEQ
cleanup and redevelopment program?







None
0-2 years
More than two years, but less than five years
5 years or more
10 years or more, but less than 15 years
15 years or more

Q 5.6. Do you believe that science can be biased?




Yes
No
Sometimes

Q 5.7. Are the resources dedicated to the cleanup and redevelopment program in
Michigan commensurate with the societal risk posed by contaminated property?





Yes
No, more resources are needed
No, less resources are needed
Undecided

Q 5.8. This question relates to your participation in the recent remediation and
redevelopment program reinvention initiatives.


Where you a participant in the DEQ,RRD Collaborative Stakeholder Initiative?
o Yes
o No

133

[Note to thesis readers: Respondents were then asked to select from the
following list the response that best reflected their participation: Groundwater
Surface Water Interface, Vapor Intrusion, Free Product, Rules, Cleanup Criteria,
Due Care, Brownfield, none of these.]


Have you been a participant in the DEQ, RRD Technical Assistance Team?
o Yes
o No
[Respondents were then asked to select from the following list the response that
best reflected their participation: Groundwater Surface Water Interface, Vapor
Intrusion, Free Product, Rules, Cleanup Criteria, Due Care, Brownfield, none of
these.]

Q 5.9. Effective governance is defined as being "participatory, consensus oriented,
accountable, transparent, responsive effective and efficient, equitable, inclusive; follows
law and is responsive to the present and future needs of society (United Nations, 2011;
United Nations Development Program, 1997)."
What one question or issue did you feel was missing from this survey that would help
identify the means to improve environmental and natural resource outcomes? (The
research associated with this survey utilizes the concept that effective ENR governance
should equate to improved ENR outcomes).
Q 5.10. What types of factors, capacities or activities have the biggest impact on
effective ENR management/improved outcomes? Your response can include external
and internal pressures or influences that are outside the scope of this survey.
Q 5.11. Of the activities you mentioned, please identify the one which has the biggest
impact?
Q 5.12. Is there anything else you would like to add before submitting this survey?

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE TIME YOU HAVE TAKEN TO COMPLETE THIS
SURVEY. YOUR INPUT IS INVALUABLE.
WHEN YOU HIT THE FORWARD BUTTON YOUR SURVEY WILL BE SUBMITTED
AND YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE CHANGES.
Please make any necessary changes prior to submitting your survey.

134

References:
United Nations. (2011). What Is Good Governance. United Nations Economic and
Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. United Nations. <http://www.unescap.org>.
11 Oct. 2011. Web.
United Nations Development Program. (1997). Governance for Sustainable Human
Development. <http://mirror. undp.org/magnet/policy>. 18 Feb. 2013. Web.
We thank you for your time spent taking this survey.
Your response has been recorded.

135

APPENDIX B
SURVEY CORRESPONDENCE

136

THESE VERSIONS OF THE SURVEY INVITATION AND SURVEY LAUNCH LETTERS
HAVE BEEN MODIFIED FROM THE ACTUAL LETTERS. THE LETTERS AND THEIR
FORMATING, INCLUDING THE ENTITIES RESPECTIVE LOGOS, WERE NOT
SUFFICIENTLY COMPATIBLE WITH THESIS FORMATING REQUIREMENTS.

137

SURVEY INVITATION LETTER
February 20, 2012
Dear Environmental Practitioner,
Michigan State University (MSU) and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) invite you to participate in an important new survey designed to assess the
perceptions of persons working in and with the State of Michigan’s (State) cleanup and
redevelopment program. The cleanup and redevelopment program, along with other
State programs, is intended to: 1) provide environmental stewardship, safeguarding
public health and quality of life; 2) be a full partner in Michigan’s economic recovery;
and, 3) provide unmatched customer service.
The survey is a collaborative effort between MSU and MDEQ and is being conducted to
help understand current and preferred capacities associated with improving
environmental and natural resource (ENR) outcomes consistent with program and State
goals for government re-invention. While ENR management and its associated
evolution is a complex matter, this survey focuses on three tightly associated and
overlapping capacity components: 1) staff performance as a collective whole; 2)
organizational culture and management structures; and, 3) decision making and
implementation. The survey also asks questions to understand the population of
respondents and their perceptions of important ENR governance matters including
factors that were not included in the main survey.
The results of this study will provide a picture of MDEQ’s cleanup and redevelopment
program allowing management adjustments to improve ENR outcomes consistent with
the program’s authorities, capacities, and further understanding of ENR governance
given the management complexities and resource limitations.
You will be hearing more about this survey shortly. Your individual response will be
confidential. Responses will be reported in the aggregate. Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Dr. Christine Vogt
Community, Agriculture, Recreation
and Resource Studies
Michigan State University

Mr. Robert Wagner, Chief
Remediation and Redevelopment Division
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

138

SURVEY LAUNCH LETTER

February 26, 2013

Dear Survey Recipient,
Recently you received an e-mail from us describing a survey. This survey is being
conducted to strengthen the understanding of internal and external practitioner
perceptions of environmental and natural resource (ENR) governance capacities in the
State of Michigan’s (State) cleanup and redevelopment program.
Michigan’s environment and natural resources contribute to the health and quality of life
of Michigan’s residents and the State’s economic well-being. To capture the most
accurate perceptions of the State’s cleanup and redevelopment program, this survey
builds upon recent internal surveys, but focuses on internal and external program
practitioners who are in the position to implement the regulatory aspects of the program.
The survey will build a portrait of current and desired program capacities in the area of
program staffing, program organization (structure and culture), and decision making and
implementation processes followed when addressing complex and integrated problems.
The individual results of the survey will be confidential and aggregated to provide how
the three factors (staffing, organization, and associated governance) play a role in the
ENR program outcomes. The results will inform efforts to strengthen ENR program
governance understanding in academic research, education, and practice.
Your thoughtful input is essential in obtaining meaningful input. Thank you in advance
for being part of this ENR survey and research.

Sincerely,

Dr. Christine Vogt

Mr. Robert Wagner, Chief

Community, Agriculture, Recreation
and Resource Studies
Michigan State University

Remediation and Redevelopment Division
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

139

RESPONSE TO REQUESTS TO BE ADDED TO THE SURVEY

Thank you for your interest in the DEQ RRD Survey Invitation. We are delighted to add
you to this survey population.
The study population criteria was developed by MSU to secure current and preferred
environmental management perceptions associated with improving
environmental and natural resource outcomes consistent with the cleanup and
redevelopment program and State goals for government reinvention. DEQ
provided the email addresses that best met the survey population criteria
based on existing compiled lists of environmental practitioners who have
contemporary experience addressing complex issues in the program. While
many environmental practitioners work with the cleanup program, DEQ did not
compile a new list of environmental practitioners solely for this survey.
The list of survey invitees reflects those that work within the program
(DEQ staff) and those external to the program. The external participants
are: 1) part of the Freedom of Information database for the State's cleanup
and redevelopment program; or 2) part of a stakeholder process within the
last two years. A few persons were included in a survey pretest. Persons
who were invited to participate in the survey pretest are excluded from
this survey invitation.
The survey is scheduled to be launched next week. A copy of the invitation letter is
attached.

140

APPENDIX C
RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS
(Internal and External Sectors)

141

RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS
All written responses are included in this section, including those that indicated no
response (e.g., no or none). All responses are included to provide greater disclosure,
while providing anonymity to the responders.
The following provides a compilation of the four open ended questions provided by the
respondents. They have been separated into internal and external sectors for the
responses. Additionally, where the responses were numerous and had similar themes,
they have been grouped together under a common heading. There is no order to the
comments within the themed groups. Comments placed under Organizational Culture
and Structure may include comments that touch on items queried under Individual
Performance in this study. Given the overlap in the various capacities being assessed,
and the breadth of some of the responses, comments incorporate numerous themes.
Therefore, the following categorization is not precise. It is solely an attempt to help
organize responses for ease in review and assessment. In a few instances, the author
split comments between themes, if they could be separated without losing context.

142

Internal Practitioner Responses
Question 1. Effective governance is defined as being “participatory, consensus
oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable,
inclusive; follows law and is responsive to the present and future needs of society
(United Nations, 2011; United Nations Development Program, 1997). What one
question or issue did you feel was missing from this survey that would help identify the
means to improve environmental and natural resource outcomes?

ENR Outcomes

Table 26. Internal Responses to Question 1
Are the long-term costs associated with not improving ENR outcomes or specifically, eroding
environmental protection, in order to improve socio-economic conditions truly being weighed in
this analysis? (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI
or TAPs.)
Do you believe government reinvention is about improving ENR outcomes? (Respondent: Over
15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Will risk management by leaving contamination in the ground result in future EXPENSIVE
cleanups? (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)
How effective is the RRD's program compliance program (ie. enforcement)? (Respondent: Over
15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Why is the government and stakeholders so keen on leaving contamination in the air, soil, water,
and fauna that could cause more cancer outbreaks and other medical issues to our communities.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Do the leadership of the DEQ, the governor's office and the legislature have any idea of the true
human costs that are occurring in our state because of contamination of our food sources, air and
to resources by new complex chemicals that are unregulated? Are they looking at human health
data that clearly shows that we and our future generations are truly in trouble? (Respondent:
Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
How will the current risks be managed and monitored for the future? (Respondent: Between 10
and 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
A question related to sustainability practices in the cleanup and redevelopment program (i.e. to
evaluate how effectively RRD incorporates or encourages use of sustainability practices in the
program). (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Do you believe that 2012 amendments to Part 201 and Part 213 of 1994 P.A. 451, as amended,
were helpful in protecting ENR? (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the
program.)

143

Decision management

Organizational Culture and Structure

Table 26 (cont’d)
Questions about the department mission and upper management were useful, but there could
have been some questions regarding effectiveness of mid-management. In my opinion, midmanagers spend way too much time developing and interpreting policy and not enough time
managing staff. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of
CSI or TAPs.)
Local vs. Lansing Management; big difference between the reactions and actions taken by the
different layers of management. (Respondent: Between 5 to 10 years working internal to the
program.)
How do we commit available resources to environmental causes on the basis of objective,
commensurate factors? (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Questions that would distinguish between District Offices and RRD as a whole. Working as both
in RRD and as a consultant, it seems that there is inconsistency in decision making between RRD
districts. (Respondent: Two years or less working internal to the program.)
Full integration of the data quality objective process and systematic planning into the program.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Is there a disconnect between the views of upper management, middle management and the
"workers"?
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Do you feel resources used to manage risks are greater than resources required to eliminate
risks? (Respondent: Between 10 and 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Effective education of Michigan's legislature, to appreciate & experience what their
disembowelment of Michigan's environmental laws are doing, and the impacts those actions have
had and will have for future Michiganders. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to
the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Should it be RRD's responsibility to regulate the remediation of properties where other DEQ
divisions have allowed discharges under permits, or in violation of permits, that have resulted in
the creation of a facility? (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
To ensure the success of any regulatory agency, the agency must be provided similar tools,
quality of staff, and level of pay provided to the regulated community. I'm convinced the quality,
or lack thereof, of our department resides within a resource gap between the State of Michigan
and the regulated community. Why isn't this issue being discussed?
(Respondent: Two
years or less experience internal to the program.)
Is the general public well informed about how decisions are currently made concerning ENR?
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
A question about the degree to which political pressures have affected governance?
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Totally devoid of political influences governing decisions that affect department ENR governance.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Governance (laws) starts with the legislature. You're missing that input. (Respondent: Over 15
years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Why are we disassociating the Department from the needs of the lowest socioeconomic
stakeholders with decisions and outcomes that benefit only those with a higher stature?
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)

144

Decision Management cont’d

Table 26 (cont’d)
The survey gave no recognition that DEQ, and RRD in particular, is not the master of its ship.
Regardless of current management's attempts AND intent, we are pawns to the current political
climate. Surveys such as this, that attempt to claw in rewards for the attempt, when we know how
loudly we are being ignored and not 'succeeding', are frustrating at best. (Respondent: Between
10 and 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Do you think external stakeholders provide more influence on the direction of the department than
they should? (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
We should not be following UN definitions - each state has unique characteristics that must be
taken into account and a generalized "we do things this way" should not be used. (Respondent:
Between 2 to 5 years working internal to the program.)
The issue of the private sector rewriting our rules & ignoring our input during the CSI process.
Now we have poorly written rules that are not very protective of our environment, & staff is
spending inordinate amounts of time attempting to interpret these rules for the department &
stakeholders. Our time would be best spent on doing our actual jobs, especially since we are
working with less staff. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program;
member of CSI or TAPs.)
Do you let your personal philosophy interfere with the DEQ goals when different? Or do your
promote the DEQ's and Governor's goals even when you do not personally support those goals?
Or, more simply, do you support the DEQ's and Governor's goals in most cases or rarely?
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Moral issues.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
I have two: 1) Whether we feel that we have the ability to properly characterize a problem so that
a wise decision can be made. You can't make proper decisions or evaluate environmental
outcomes if you don't fully understand the problem. 2) Whether central or de-centralized decision
making was preferred and whether staff/organization was better equipped for one over the other.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Certain changes by the Legislature in how GSI issues are handled, conflicts with the Federal
Rules & Program oversight as implemented by our State for discharges to the waters of the State.
It puts MS4 communities in legal jeopardy to stay within Federal law to keep their MS4 status
(plus degrades the waters of our State). Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the
program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
I'm not sure. Some employees and stakeholders are set in their ways, that may be good in some
cases, but how do we get them to be more engaged and responsive? (Respondent: Over 15
years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
The CSI process was too politically driven with short sighted goals, which may ultimately limit the
successful implementation of any resulting legislative and policy changes. The question/issue
that was missed was the influence on effective governance due to politics /lobbyist/special
interest groups representing the regulated community. (Respondent: Between 10 and 15
years of experience internal to the program.)
Whether staff of the RRD feel that building consensus with respect to anything the Division does
is worthy of our effort. Consensus can rarely be achieved for any issue and there are times when
the RRD just needs to be the decision maker based on the current set of facts in order to move
the situation along. The public trust component that is consistently missing from the discussion.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
145

Uncategorized Statements

Table 26 (cont’d)
Perhaps providing specific examples of barriers to addressing wicked problems. (Respondent:
Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
I feel that "resources" could be better defined as to questions relating to adequacy (i.e. financial,
staff or both). (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
The introduction to your survey includes definitions. You need to look up the definition for
"wicked". Webster defines it as morally bad or wrong or done with evil intent. I did not answer
any of your survey questions which used this word because I cannot imagine an environmental
issue that is "wicked”. As a result, the first half of your survey in my opinion is seriously flawed.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.
[Author’s note: comment noted for future reference. The description of a wicked problem was in
the introduction to the survey – just not under the definitions. ]
Survey complete from a general perspective. (Respondent: Between 10 and 15 years of
experience internal to the program.)
Good survey, well done. Thank you. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the
program.)
Can't think of anything -- nicely done! (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the
program.)
No comment.
(Respondent: Two years or less working internal to the program.)
None. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)
None. (Respondent: Two years or less working internal to the program.)
None. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)

146

Question 2. What types of factors, capacities or activities have the biggest impact on
effective ENR management and improved outcomes? Your responses can include
external and internal pressures or influences that are outside the scope of this survey.
Table 27. Internal Responses to Question 2

ENR Outcomes

RRD has no meaningful way to measure ENR outcomes. We are not a permitting agency but I
don't think the measures in general take into account the environment. They are measures of
how many requests were fulfilled. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the
program.)
Is doing more with less getting anything accomplished? Is the public trust being violated?
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Unable to cleanup our environment for the future and out kids. This is due to politics.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Politics. Individual ENR outcomes are often not in the public interest due to the politics of the
situation. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)
External pressures have the biggest impact on ENR outcomes, and not improved
outcomes.(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)
Development of meaningful metrics to evaluate outcomes. (Respondent: Over 15 years of
experience internal to the program.)
It appears that the direction of state government is being driven by legislators and their vocal
backers with very specific agendas and short attention spans. This is not beneficial for long term
resource protection or future generations of Michigan citizens. We need long term thinking and
there may be some short term inconvenience or even cost, if we are to get it right. (Respondent:
Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)

147

Decision-makers and Influencers

Table 27 (cont’d)
Anti-regulatory factions; funding for the ENR programs; lack of understanding by governing
authorities outside the agencies of what value the program provides and has provided for many
years. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)
Managing for the 1%, listening too closely to the squeaky wheel, lack of enforcement for clear
infractions. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Certain & specific legislators blaming the DEQ for economic problems the State is experiencing,
resulting in program cuts and encouraging lax enforcement of proven resource-protection laws,
followed then by blaming the regulators for ultimate and eventual environmental degradation.
Claiming that environmental protection interferes with job-creation is not just cowardly, it is proof
of the Michigan legislature's dereliction of duty to effectively safeguard and promote Michigan's
environmental health, & protect its citizenry (and resources) from ongoing & future contaminant
impact. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Politics. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Term limited legislators that do not have nor take the time to really understand issues and build
consensus with respect to ENR issues. Lobbyists who have more face time with legislators than
the public who want to see DEQ/RRD as protectors of their interests when in reality what is left of
Part 201 and 213 are results of what lobbyists and the regulated industry actually want in our
programs - which is limited to no culpability. (Respondent: Two years or less working internal to
the program.)
Special interest and the legislators/governor. The current legislation is designed to benefit
business and impede cleanup of the environment. A major concern is the amount of
disinformation that is spewed and not questioned as it pertains to information the general public
gets. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
How do politically, legally or financially motivated remedial decisions mesh with public
expectations of environmental cleanup versus risk reduction? (Respondent: Over 15 years of
experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Legislators and the Chambers of Commerce pushing their preferences on the Department that do
not promote good site cleanups and long-term sustainability of our resources. We are moving
back to the scenario of doing what is good for business without considering how the decisions
affect the environment. We are stepping backwards when this is not necessary. I see knee-jerk
reactions where few are justified. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the
program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
The main factor is the government’s focus on election cycles, and the political hay that can be
made from a particular environmental project, rather than on long term program support.
(Respondent: Between 5 to 10 years working internal to the program.)

148

Decision-makers and Influencers cont’d

Table 27 (cont’d)
Those external factions that have the ear of our elected officials. Many times those groups have
money or political ties that can/often sway policy decisions in their favor. (Respondent: Over 15
years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
We are being driven by a select group of stakeholders focused on the economy & their own
economic self-interests (& legislative representatives thereof), so we put all of our attention
toward activities with economic benefits & do not truly acknowledge the future threat posed by
allowing soil & groundwater contamination to remain, especially to the environment relative to
people. As the laws are changed to reflect the preferences of stakeholders who are focused on
economics, they seem to get more complicated & difficult to implement, taking staff away from the
actual work that needs to be done. (Respondent: Between 10 and 15 years of experience internal
to the program.)
Politics (internal and external). (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the
program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Politics plays too major a role in ENR decisions. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience
internal to the program.)
Including our stakeholders in our decision process more and more, so folks feel as good about
the work DEQ does for them as they do with DNR. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience
internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
External support and more voices sought - try to reach out to communities impacted not just the
corporate stakeholders. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program;
member of CSI or TAPs.)
Political and economic culture in which programs are developed/changed and implemented.
(Respondent: Between 10 and 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
I feel that regardless of how we are managed, most of the policies that affect our work are made
by the legislature with undue weight given by the legislature to certain lobbying groups. This has
been one of the main problems of term limits. (Respondent: Between 10 and 15 years of
experience internal to the program.
The factor that has the biggest impact is external political influence and from lobbyist/special
interest groups representing the regulated community. (Respondent: Over 15 years of
experience internal to the program.)
Political pressure from special interest groups that do not take into account Michigan's unique
geology and relationships with the Great Lakes. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience
internal to the program.)
The legislature and governor are changing laws to help businesses, not the environment.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
External political pressures. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program;
member of CSI or TAPs.)

149

Organizational Culture and Structure

Table 27 (cont’d)
The organization first and ultimately needs to clearly identify exactly what it is trying to
accomplish. It needs to develop a strategy to get that done. It needs to allocate its resources
with those things DIRECTLY in mind. It needs to train and then TRUST staff. It needs to fend off
the extraneous. It needs leaders with complete integrity. (Respondent: Two years or less
working internal to the program.)
Political pressures play a big role in how ENR issues get resolved. Sometimes we (DEQ) are our
own worst enemy by not clearly providing a path forward for the regulated community. As a result
they contact their representatives who then either try to "fix" the problem or intervene on their
behalf. Providing streamlined cleanup policy/procedure and taking the time (customer service) to
work with individuals who need to interact with the DEQ will help resolve this problem.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Adequate staff time, program knowledge, legal guidance and managerial clarity with which to
meet with stakeholders to develop an appropriate cleanup strategy and schedule. Is the public
trust being violated? (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member
of CSI or TAPs.)
Metrics. The implementation of "sensible" metrics tools could enable management the ability to
track the progress of each district office and individual staff. With this said, the type and difficulty
of issues vary greatly from office to office (e.g. - SE MI office probably faces different challenges
than the Kalamazoo office). Metrics need to account for the challenges presented within each
district office; yet provide meaningful results for ALL staff. How would management recognize an
office or individual staff person for high performance? Low performance? (Respondent: Over 15
years of experience internal to the program.)
Understanding goals and providing a vision for outcomes. (Respondent: Over 15 years of
experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Political leadership at the division level, not sufficient technical ability to lead the division.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Making employees feel that they are making a difference (contributing) in the work they do in the
DEQ and the environment and are recognized (a simple at-a-boy works). (Respondent: Over 15
years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Workload distraction due to management of multiple high priority tasks and resources spread too
thin. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Keeping liable parties at the table talking often has an outcome of over-compromise....the
consensus model. (Respondent: Between 10 and 15 years of experience internal to the
program.)
Understanding the ultimate outcome to provide good regulation and manage risks to the
environment. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Poor outcomes result when RRD needs to deal with a facility created as a result of permitted
activities and the DEQ permitting divisions have not retained historical operating and compliance
documentation due to short file retention schedules. Inadequately documented observations or
actions on the part of DEQ staff. DEQ staff who believe that it's all a game. Little to non-existent
policy and procedures for the many differing programs staff are supposed to implement.
Management expecting staff to believe that direction is coming - but it never comes.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)

150

Organizational Culture and Structure cont’d

Table 27 (cont’d)
In order to effectively manage ENR, we need to develop a common understanding and consistent
application of a site prioritization system based on risk posed to human health and environment.
It has been frustrating over the years to witness the wide array of opinions among RRD staff on
what constitutes an unacceptable risk. Contaminated sites vary tremendously on the overall risk
they pose and this needs to be considered in the decision making process. We still have a
tendency to treat all sites and situations the same. Staff and managers need regular training.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
The ability to negotiate. Too many go by the book and do not apply common sense; they take the
most conservative interpretation of a law or rule. The one chosen will be the one that denies
closure and results in additional work even if not a real issue. The old ideas held by some are
difficult to overcome. Maybe in a generation of employees things will improve. In management
there is a real fear that it is better to deny something rather than take a risk and approve it and
possibly make a wrong decision. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the
program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Need training for regulated community. Owner/operators days. (Respondent: Over 15 years of
experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Clear and concise statutory construction and implementation goals. (Respondent: Between 2 to 5
years working internal to the program.)
The ability (and time) to see the big picture, communicate the problem, and implement solutions
with authority. Once we see the big picture, appropriate goals can be set and achieved.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Factors include demographics, justice, and the power/authority to control available resources that
impact the quality of our environment. (Respondent: Between 10 and 15 years of experience
internal to the program.)
Poor planning, staff inability to identify and secure quality data for decision making. Quality being
defined as representative and reproducible data. Lack of consistent application of applicable law
and rules. Poor training of staff, no accountability. Weak leadership by direct supervisors.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
[Led by funding comment: Funding, funding, funding.] We have been playing Twister for at least 5
years with the legislators, both entities jockeying for the best position aside from what may be a
legitimate need for the environment. In an attempt to compromise, our management has let go of
many long-standing truths staff here were led to believe were important. Regardless of the
pretzel-twisting and giving away RRD has done, still, an external Champion to our cause has yet
to be revealed. We've already given too much and have NOTHING to show for it. It's now
embarrassing how emasculated this great agency has become. (Respondent: Over 15 years of
experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Ethics. Honesty, humility and openness are lacking in the current political climate and DEQ does
not have the courage, insight and leadership to challenge these most fundamental problems that
we face. If we were honest and humble as a state, we could look at our problems and fix them.
But political expediency and agendas and arrogance are leading us to poison our environment
and our children, then our "leaders" trash and ignore those who stand up for the weak and
innocent. Just look at the decision on criteria development. (Respondent: Over 15 years of
experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)

151

Uncategorized Statements

Program Costs and Funding

Organizational Culture and Structure cont’d

Table 27 (cont’d)
Other than pressures exerted by business and the legislature? Organization is deficient in
technically competent staff (advanced degrees in specialty areas). There are too many
generalists among rank and file (BS in soft sciences). Division and Project Managers come from
generalist pool and don't understand technical issues but still make technical decisions regarding
site remedial actions. Division (all levels) and Project Managers need management training. Too
many sit in their cubes and don't interact (one on one, or in small groups) on a regular basis with
project managers and staff. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program;
member of CSI or TAPs.)
The legislature: stop changing the rules every two months, and stop using state employees as
whipping boys/girls for re-election leverage. (A few of the) regulated community: nobody likes to
be regulated, but we all have to accept some degree of regulation to function as a society. (Some
of the) private consultants: read and learn the statutes/rules as they change daily just like we
have to - stop expecting us to train your staff. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal
to the program.)
Positive contact with the general public, field work resources, strong legislature to give us the right
tools. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)
Stakeholder communication, trust and understanding, local empowerment within the DEQ,
internal trust within the DEQ, public understanding of the DEQ's goals and actions. (Respondent:
Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Funding, funding, funding. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program;
member of CSI or TAPs.)
More than one factors/capacities/activities have very large impacts - lack of state funds for orphan
sites (213 & 201), lack of funds for enough staff to handle current or future workloads, uncertain
201 program future with very little staff funding past 1 year from now, political pressure from
legislature (business special interests) trumping good science-based or established legal
management for ENR. (Respondent: Two years or less working internal to the program.)
Overall cost of cleanup and how that affects business.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of
experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Financial. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Economics will determine what can be done and what needs to be done, time constraints dictate
methods. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
ENR not a factor. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of
CSI or TAPs.)
It seems like politics trump science, and data. DEQ seems like a tree in the wind swaying in
whatever direction the wind blows. Currently economic factors are valued more than anything
else. Politicians seem governed by special interests rather than looking out for the public. Why
would our children want to stay here, when we don’t protect or value the environment when they
could move to CO [Colorado] and ride their bikes from the city into the mountains?
(Respondents: Between 5 to 10 years working internal to the program.)
No comment. (Respondent: Two years or less working internal to the program.)

152

Question 3. Of the activities you mentioned, please identify the one which has the
biggest impact?

Stakeholders and Politicians

Table 28. Internal Responses to Question 3
A lack of "true" understanding by elected officials that control agency/division budgets of what it is
we do and what value our programs provide to the people and businesses of the state and to the
environment. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI
or TAPs.)
I would say they are equal in nature, but if I have to choose one, I would say including our
stakeholders in our decision process. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the
program.)
Politics determining what DEQ does instead of science and PHSWE [public health, safety, welfare
and the environment]. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Unwarranted political interest and interest from lobbyist/special interest groups representing the
regulated community. This results in a lack of compliance and enforcement, and where
compliance assistance is utilize some PRPs [potentially responsible parties] with bigger problems
to deal with quickly figure out they can drag things out by performing small measures rather than
doing what is really needed to address the true problem. (Respondent: Between 10 and 15
years of experience internal to the program.)
Legislator/governor. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member
of CSI or TAPs.)
Term limited legislature. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program;
member of CSI or TAPs.)
Strong legislature to give us the right tools. Respondent: Two years or less working internal to
the program.
POLITICS. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Politics. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)
Politics. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)
Political culture. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
The legislature. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of
CSI or TAPs.)
Clearly stakeholders have recently had a significant influence on legislation directly administered
by the DEQ. That legislation will impact the State's ENR management, even in unpredictable
ways. For example the MS4 communities are now engaged in dealing with illicit discharges,
which is positive and will have a big impact on industry (to the good I hope), so Stakeholder
empowerment it is. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member
of CSI or TAPs.)
Squeaky wheel. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of
CSI or TAPs.)

153

Organizational Culture and Structure

Program Costs and Funding

Table 28 (cont’d)
Funding - viability of this program to even exist into the future. (Respondent: Between 10 and 15
years of experience internal to the program.)
Cost to business. (Respondent: Between 10 and 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Lack of commitment from Legislature to fund RRD 201 programs for the future and sufficient staff
to effectively implement the 201 & 213 programs; this will negatively impact the State's
environmental & natural resources and the perceived image of our State. (Respondent: Over 15
years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Focus on economics over environment, not seeking input from the public, which first requires that
the public be informed, which could be done through use of social media, etc. (Respondent: Over
15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Source removal lack of funding; then on the hook for long-term funding. (Respondent: Between
10 and 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Economic. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Lack of public support or understanding of our programs will be our end. (Respondent: Over 15
years of experience internal to the program.)
Effective education of not only legislators, but Michigan citizenry as a whole, re: every citizens'
everyday impacts on Michigan's natural resources and environmental health. Consistently being
criticized for attempting to enforce proven resource-protection statutes, & then being blamed
when ultimate down-gradient impacts are realized, is literally driving away excellent/potential DEQ
candidates. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)
The amendment of our statutes that do not require the immediate cleanup of hazardous
compounds in the subsurface, but rather, let those compounds be simply "restricted" in access.
The contaminant mass as a whole is increasing statewide. (Respondent: Between 10 and 15
years of experience internal to the program.)
Priorities need to be developed and incorporated into the decision making process. (Respondent:
Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Need all policy and procedures on website so there is no question what the most up to date policy
is on any subject. MDOT needs to complete their permit for contamination remaining under their
roads. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
The amendments to Part 213 and 201. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to
the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Changing our rules (201 and 213) and our policies (GSI issues). Very little needed to be
changed, but instead of having discussions about potential issues and educating each other, the
legislature and private stakeholders took over and dictated to the Dept. what was going to
happen. This is not collaborative at all. Many staff indicated that while working on the CSI Team,
they were blown off. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member
of CSI or TAPs.)
I have two: 1) Properly characterizing a problem so that an informed decision can be made. 2)
Having technically knowledgeable staff and managers who can look at a problem characterization
and make technically sound decisions. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the
program; member of CSI or TAPs.)

154

Uncategorized
Statements

Organizational Culture and Structure (cont’d)

Table 28 (cont’d)
Clear and concise statutory construction and implementation goals. Recent amendment to Part
213 of the NREPA (May 1, 2012) specifically forbade DEQ from creating rules and obstructed the
RRD's audit authority of one of its most critical reports the Initial Assessment Report. That
draconian mandate clearly indicates the legislature’s ideals relating to public health, safety,
welfare and environment. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Power & authority to control available resources that impact environmental quality. (Respondent:
Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Understanding goals. (Respondent: Between 10 and 15 years of experience internal to the
program.
Understanding the environmental risks and how to evaluate these risks; making sure RRD and
the stakeholder are communicating on these factors. (Respondent: Two years or less working
internal to the program.)
Workload distraction. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Time and the skills to see the big picture. (Respondent: Between 5 to 10 years working internal
to the program.)
Little to non-existent policy and procedures for the many differing programs staff are expected to
implement, including extralegal activities that have always been done but the process is
unwritten, and the expectation that our actions will be consistent and predictable. (Respondent:
Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Providing quality customer service. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the
program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Clear plan - faithful execution. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the
program.)
Poor leadership of immediate supervisors. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to
the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Fear to say approved. (Respondent: Between 5 to 10 years working internal to the program.)
Pray. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Moral. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
NA. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
No comment. (Respondent: Two years or less working internal to the program.)
5.1 [Author’s note – Question 5.1 in this survey was “What is your gender?”]. (Respondent: Over
15 years of experience internal to the program.)

155

Question 4. Is there anything else you would like to add before submitting this survey?

ENR Outcomes

Table 29. Internal Responses to Question 4
I think there are a great many people working in RRD that recognize that achieving improved
ENR outcomes going forward absolutely must be done within the paradigm that includes
balancing those outcomes with the socio-economic well-being of the state. I just hope that all the
other stakeholders recognize the same is true of achieving improved socio-economic well-being
with respect to ENR outcomes. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the
program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
I love my state and hate to see it ruined by politics and leave it in such a way that my generation
cries like the Indian in the commercial over the pollution. I want a place for the younger
generations to enjoy and truly live indoors as well as outdoors and not worry that they could
become sick or die from cancer or other factors from exposure from the chemicals we leave
behind. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
The government reinvention may not be about eliminating state employees but it is about he who
pays gets the services. My preferred was mostly left blank; good governance is lost in politics
and politics is lost in money. I have come to the point that I don't really care about the department
management, I do what I can to improve the environment and hope it makes an improvement.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Clear regulations regarding environmental cleanup is being replaced with political expediency.
"Risk-based" cleanups and other half-measures to address environmental damage will drive up
the numbers used to calculate "metrics" and potentially satisfy politicians and those who pay for
them (stakeholders); but the end-result is inadequate cleanups that may not be protective of
future generations. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Most changes have improved RRD's reviews on complex problems to manage risk to public
health & environment, & preserve jobs effectively. Problems occur when some businesses with
political clout & finances, want RRD/DEQ upper management to 'override' reviews to favor
business's position. This often conflicts with our mission to protect public health & environment
for all. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)
External stakeholders have far outweighed science and the Department in changing
environmental laws and in affecting policy at DEQ, to the detriment of our State. (Respondent:
Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Significant improvements have been made in the last year, and I am hopefully for the future of the
213 program. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Too many tree huggers within the department don't recognize economic realities. Many in the
department are adverse to any level of risk. Problems are not looked at in a holistic manner.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
As much as I'm a fan of Civil Service and a pro Union person, I now know that my own motivation
and success hinges upon empowerment along with clear and achievable goals. Improving the
DEQ cannot be accomplished without providing staff with the goals and the rewards for achieving
those. We need to value and respect Civil Servants internally (at least). (Respondent: Over 15
years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)

156

Organization Culture and Structure

Table 29 (cont’d)
You can't make people in leadership humble or honest or informed if they don't want to be. I see
absolute fools that have a huge amount of influence in our state over environmental and human
health issues directing things, while the intelligent, hardworking honest people are marginalized.
Our leaders talk a good game but seem to accomplish nothing progressive. (Respondent: Over
15 years of experience internal to the program.)
I know my answers have been critical of the department. That criticism is related to how well we
plan and execute. The PEOPLE in the organization are smart, hard-working, good folks. I don't
think the leaders understand the importance or clear planning and faithful execution - or perhaps I
don't understand the value of vague planning and constant deviation. I know they would say I
don't understand. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
I am not in favor of making staff feel they should be empowered to make high stakes decisions on
their own. Surveys such as this engender frustration when staff know they don't have that
freedom and flexibility. Knowledge of mission and consistency in implementing that mission are
NOT achieved by an organization that allows staff to act independently. Fostering this belief =
dis-satisfaction. (Respondents: Between 10 and 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
There is a defensive-minded culture that exists in this division. Staff feels they are being second
guessed. That encourages a lack of open discussion between staff, specialist, and management.
There is also the Lansing vs the District mentality that envelopes the division. Lansing doesn't
fully understand conditions/difficulties in the trenches and District staffs don't see the big picture.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
I believe that DEQ RRD staff is staunchly dedicated to improving Michigan's environment while
managing its business and economic development. I feel however that they are often caught
between ultra-extreme business ideals and statutory requirements which create moral dilemmas.
The feeling that any decision made will be the wrong one is a strong motivator not to make any
decision. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Over my long career and working for 7 other organizations, this is the most dysfunctional place I
have worked. (Respondent: Between 5 to 10 years working internal to the program.
Should government put more emphasis on the protection of ENR or the wants and desires of
business? (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)
It is unfortunately clear that outside stakeholders are guiding policy, rather than sound science.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
The governor and legislators generally do not appreciate the importance of the work that we do or
the value in protecting the environment from the legacies of our past. Our management answers
to them and they are focused on their economic priorities. (Respondent: Over 15 years of
experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Managing risks may not be as effective, often costs more in the long-term, and the public
perception is that we aren't doing our job. (Respondent: Between 10 and 15 years of experience
internal to the program.)

157

Uncategorized Statements

Organization Culture and Structure (cont’d)

Table 29 (cont’d)
Some of the State's sites with the highest environmental risk should be managed with less
consideration for economic impacts and interests from politics/lobbyist/special interest groups
representing the regulated community. The environment and impact on the community and
citizens living in those communities should be the priority in the decision making on these sites,
which isn't always the case. (Respondent: Between 10 and 15 years of experience internal to the
program.)
Unless & until the fresh water-spoiled populace & legislators of this State are educated enough to
appreciate & protect Michigan's fresh water, including empowering DEQ to actually do their job
w/o interference from un-educated, agenda-driven lawmakers, nothing will change, except morerapid & increasingly-obvious impacts to those water resources. Then, it'll be time once again to
blame the DEQ! (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of
CSI or TAPs.)
It is believed that Efficient Managers are those that do their work through others; therefore, the
prime focus of managers should be to train and empower those through whom they (managers)
do their work. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
RRD has implemented significant positive action to accelerate decision making through
empowerment of field personnel and delegation of decision making to field personnel that work
directly with stakeholders. Relentless positive action. Well done! (Respondent: Over 15 years of
experience internal to the program.)
Thanks for doing this! It was pretty long (but I think that was necessary) and so it probably won't
be completed by a bunch of people. I didn't really care for the "Neutral" category -- because in a
lot of cases we are progressing (a "Sometimes" category would have been preferred). Overall, I
think DEQ/RRD management is progressing well in most aspects of this survey. Your 0% to
100% seems off. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
Several questions should have had the options for Neutral, or Do Not Know, because many of us
staff are not involved in a number of these decisions. For example, questions 3.3, 3.4 [structured
participatory decision management] and 4.1 [outcomes] are in this category. A few questions I
left blank because I had no idea of how to answer the questions. (Respondent: Over 15 years of
experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
While taking the survey my perspective kept changing between my specific role and job
experiences (what it is like from my specific vantage point), and a general big picture view of the
Division as a whole (my perceptions of how RRD operates). (Respondent: Between 10 and 15
years of experience internal to the program.
I missed your definition of the term "wicked" you used throughout this survey. Also, Q3.1, please
define [magnitude of problem’s…] "relative impact". Do you mean environmental, economic,
human health, or political? (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)

158

Uncategorized Statements (c0nt’d)

Table 29 (cont’d)
I am really having a hard time understanding the use of the word "wicked" to describe ENR
issues. Please see my comments in Q 5.9 [first open ended question]. (Respondent: Over 15
years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
The survey would have been more productive if it had been written in plain English. Don't
assume everyone knows what the "mumbo jumbo" of your selected field of study is or that they
attended enough management meetings to be fluent in that upper hierarchy's lingo. "Governance
capacity”! I couldn't find one person in this office who knew what that meant. (Respondent: Over
15 years of experience internal to the program.)
No. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
No. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program.)
No. (Respondent: Between 2 to 5 years working internal to the program.)
No. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
No comment. (Respondent: Two years or less working internal to the program.)
No. (Respondent: Two years or less working internal to the program.)
No. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Thanks. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience internal to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)

159

External Practitioner Responses
Question 1. Effective governance is defined as being “participatory, consensus
oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable,
inclusive; follows law and is responsive to the present and future needs of society
(United Nations, 2011; United Nations Development Program, 1997). What one
question or issue did you feel was missing from this survey that would help identify the
means to improve environmental and natural resource outcomes?

Organizational Culture and Leadership

ENR Outcomes

Table 30. External Responses to Question 1
Do staff and management understand the implication for how their decisions are viewed and used
and ultimately affect the outcome of activities. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience
external to the program.)
I think sometimes MDEQ is too conservative in their decision making and using protection of
future EMR outcomes as their rationale for being overly conservative. It would be curious to
understand how the Department's ENR goals are viewed - are they too protective, just right, or
too loose? (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program.)
Whether the stakeholders are being required to invest too many resources to minimize very
speculative future risk? (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program;
member of CSI or TAPs.)
Once change is determined in DEQ leadership, it is left to everyone in the Districts to come up
with their own interpretation. The question regarding De-Centralization should be reworked as
most successful programs across the country are centralized and focused. (Respondent: Over 15
years of experience external to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Questions that examine the role of the legislature in determining policy as opposed to trained
staff. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program.)
Something around stakeholder expectations - - often they are too biased and expect the DEQ to
bend too much. Somehow stakeholders need to check their accountability and role in process.
It’s hard to expect the department to be fully transparent and collaborative if the other participants
are not. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)
Leadership and trust in leadership. Understanding the need for prioritized allocation of resources
that achieves the greatest reduction in public risk /exposure to environmental contaminants.
(Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)

160

Uncategorized Statements

Organizational Culture and Leadership cont’d

Table 30 (cont’d)
Variances between districts/staff and which one/ones are most effective in communication,
cooperation, responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of
experience external to the program.)
Is staff aligned and do they fulfill their roles consistent with department management's goals,
objectives, instructions and initiatives. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the
program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Despite the Freedom of Information Act, much of the data that the DEQ RRD gathers or is given
to review is not as readily available to the general public in this state as it is in other states I have
worked in. In these other states an entire historic set of file information regarding a particular site
is often easily found and available online, regardless of computer file size. (Respondent: Less
than 15 years of experience external to the program.)
Does staff embrace theories of liability and remediation approaches in conflict with state law?
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Are the appropriate concerns of stakeholders being addressed in an appropriate and timely
manner by the DEQ? (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program;
member of CSI or TAPs.)
Survey focus is on current and preferred view. There has been a significant change in the RRD
culture in dealing with external stakeholders. RRD is more proactive in dealing with issues and
reaching consensus quickly. RRD is willing look at how to solve problems when historically it was
more about finding ways to say NO. Survey should have included some questions about past
behavior. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)
I wish that some questions asked if we had seen a recent improvement. Otherwise I was forced
to consider a longer history of contact with MDEQ. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience
external to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Financial resources (un-)available. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to
the program.)
For question 5.7, I would have asked if survey participants thought that the amount of resources
were adequate but not focused or deployed optimally. I would have clicked that circle!
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Comprehensive survey. No additional questions come to mind. (Respondent: Over 15 years of
experience external to the program.)
(1) Environmental Justice & Citizen Participation approach. Redevelopment of brownfields may
help or could create environmental injustice? (2) Green Building approach, the 21st century cities
may be sustainable in two senses: as desirable place to live & as communities that use fewer
non-renewable resources. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program.)
None. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)
None. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)
None. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)
NA. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)

161

Question 2. What types of factors, capacities or activities have the biggest impact on
effective ENR management and improved outcomes? Your responses can include
external and internal pressures or influences that are outside the scope of this survey.

Organizational Culture and Structure

ENR Outcomes

Table 31. External Responses to Question 2
Failure to base decisions on sound science and the reluctance to stand on sound science to
defend decisions and to explain it to interested community stakeholders. This is NOT an across
the board problem, but we can improve on this. There are some RRD staff who cling to very
unrealistic risk evaluations and appear to fail to understand that devoting too many resources to
chase a very small risk can translate into very real negative consequences for people (such as
higher infant mortality and other problems when there are job losses and economic stress).
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
I think the thing that impacts ENR outcomes the most is the compliance and responsibility shown
by individual property owners and businesses to meet their obligations. DEQ's role includes both
enforcement (stick) and incentive (carrot) approaches to help parties meet these goals. The
Department is starting to understand that even incremental improvements that can be undertaken
by responsible parties is a good thing. It is not always necessary or practical to expect full
cleanup or compliance. When necessary, the DEQ needs to not be afraid of enforcement where
no PRP activity is ongoing. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program.)
Early discussions with the regulated community. Would prefer if MDEQ was known to be open to
early discussions. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of
CSI or TAPs.)
Recognizing the power of integrating diverse perspectives and recognizing the broader impact of
decisions to the citizens of Michigan. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to
the program.)
It may be changing, but my feeling is that with respect to decision making, the potential risk
aversion (i.e., making the wrong decision) is so strong it often gets in the way of creative
solutions. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)
District and enforcement level staff DO NOT implement the management themes and priorities
articulated by senior DEQ management. Instead, they do their best to implement their own
prerogatives and they can only be altered by engagement with senior level staff. (Respondent:
Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Staff levels greatly affect their ability to timely and efficiently handle work, in addition to being able
to obtain and maintain effective knowledge and practices that are beneficial to desired outcomes.
Resources availability (funding, technology, and training) is also key for staff to have the support
and tools needed. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)
Staff with the appropriate knowledge were and are kept from participating in program changes.
(Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)

162

Organizational Culture and Structure cont’d

Table 31 (cont’d)
Bureaucratic paralysis eliminates decision-making. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of
experience external to the program.)
I felt like we developed some clear paths to move projects in Michigan forward during the CSI,
and look forward to seeing how change has improved. However, I have not seen a clear push to
move Part 213 sites forward as a whole as I have in other states when sweeping changes are
enacted. MDEQ seem to have their own unique belief structure within the districts which
significantly retards the efforts of Lansing and the desire to move projects forward. Once
decisions are made, there is a lot of questioning that lingers among the Districts for years.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Individual staff members independently deciding what is "best" regardless of departmental
philosophy, mandate, and sometimes even law and regulation. (Respondent: Over 15 years of
experience external to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Being able to efficiently close a site and put it to productive reuse. Private money often is spent
for many years with no end in sight while the property sits fallow and there is no return on the
investment. This is a significant drain on resources that might be better used in different areas.
Economic redevelopment must take into account reasonable risk and being too conservative does
not help the process. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program;
member of CSI or TAPs.)
DED staff often does not have the proper training, education and experience to make the
scientific policy decisions being made by the DEQ. Decisions are being made on important
issues, such as vapor intrusion, without a clear understanding by the regulated community of the
efficacy of the information being used as a basis for the decisions nor an ability to solve problems
that are being created by the decisions (e.g., lack of appropriate exit ramps). (Respondent: Over
15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Prompt and professional responses to requests or document submission from State staff.
Improved use of technology for things like FOIA requests, availability of online documents, etc.
Willingness of State staff to address questions/concerns in a timely and competent manner.
(Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)
True risk-based approach to problem solving and application of best practices and professional
judgment. Former program was more or less regulated to the lowest common denominator and
Industry and their consultants can't be trusted. There are some bad apples out there, but they are
the exception not the norm. Separately, the RRD needs additional resources (labor and
technology) to solve problems more effectively. Factors include: Availability of Appropriate
Resources, Risk-based approach, Collaborative approach, good science approach.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Clean-up should be risk-based. The structure of the cleanup program does not reward RRD staff
for making risk-based decisions so there is either more time/resources/sampling that would be
needed or worse yet, paralysis. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the
program; member of CSI or TAPs.)

163

Uncategorized
Statements

Organizational Culture and Structure cont’d

Table 31 (cont’d)
Collaborative decision making / responsible adaptability/flexibility in decision-making /
decentralized decision-making/staff empowerment / responsiveness / accountability.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program.)
Disconnect with the Attorney General Office - MDEQ attorney is rarely fully capable of
representing state interests when compared to attorneys representing industry. MDEQ is very
passive, understaffed, and unable to make important data available to locals that could support
the agency mission. Locals could greatly assist in site monitoring and aiding in cleanup with
Brownfields if data were available. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the
program.)
Training/getting up to date with changes in technology so that staff are on the same page, so that
district to district, or PM to PM results/responses are similar. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of
experience external to the program.)
Time management.
(Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)
The difference of opinions encountered throughout the organization. Different MDEQ-RRD PMs
require different things, contrary to current promulgated law. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of
experience external to the program.)
Money!! Available funds not only affect how many projects can be undertaken they affect how
quickly, effectively and thoroughly the work can be completed. Whether it is more DEQ field or
technical staff or grants or loans available to private or public stakeholders for
cleanup/remediation/assessment it's very much about the $$$. (Respondent: Less than 15 years
of experience external to the program.)
Not Applicable. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)

164

Question 3. Of the activities you mentioned, please identify the one which has the
biggest impact?

Uncategorized
Statements

Organization Culture and Structure

ENR
Outcomes

Table 32. External Responses to Question 3
The broad impact of decisions to actual quality of life. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of
experience external to the program.)
The ability to get to the end of the closure process. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience
external to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Lack of central leadership and accountability to produce results. Defining the results.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Staff behavior. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of
CSI or TAPs.)
Staff seem to be wary of their leadership given the changes that have been made to the laws; the
process is driven by politics and stakeholder interests, not clean-ups. (Respondent: Less than 15
years of experience external to the program.)
Early in the process meeting with the Company representatives. (Respondent: Over 15 years of
experience external to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Weak data disclosure requirements for responsible parties.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of
experience external to the program.)
Use of technology, availability of online documents. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of
experience external to the program.)
Collaboration. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program.)
No reward for staff for making risk-based decisions. This is a tough one since new knowledge
can appear after a decision is made but that is not a reason not to make decisions! (Respondent:
Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Vapor intrusion pathway decisions are not being made with expert oversight or peer review.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Time management.
(Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the
program.)
Resource availability. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)
Listed above. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI
or TAPs.)
$$$. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)
Not Applicable. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)
NA. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)

165

Question 4. Is there anything else you would like to add before submitting this survey?

Organization Culture and Structure

ENR Outcomes

Table 33. External Responses to Question 4
There has been a significant improvement in tone and openness to exploring options. This
promotes early discussions, which means faster resolutions and better outcomes. This also
results in higher levels of compliance. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the
program; member of CSI or TAPs.)
Need to recognize that we need to "compete" together, not against one another to win - win back
the stature of Michigan. Thank you for the opportunity to serve. (Respondent: Less than 15
years of experience external to the program.)
I have been working in Michigan for more than 25 years. There is some great talent in the RRD
and the current approach of "unleashing the talent" and empowering staff is a huge shift in the
right direction. Working collectively with internal and external stakeholders to find balanced
solutions that protect ENR is the right solution to long term trust and the best outcomes for all
stakeholders. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI
or TAPs.)
I have observed very significant improvements in RRD in terms of moving the cleanup program
toward using sound science and becoming more realistic about risks posed by environmental
conditions. There is a slow but perceptible movement towards recognizing factors beyond
"cookbook" programmatic factors and looking more at the big picture, but we need to improve on
that. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI or
TAPs.)
Appreciate current efforts to be responsive, timely and inclusive in improving DEQ. (Respondent:
Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)
The CSI process was an extremely welcome approach, particularly as it undertook significant
outreach within and outside of the DEQ and allowed for a frank exchange of perspectives. This
process should be repeated. Allowing staff to seek innovative approaches to site closure would
be very helpful. Staff has been much more willing to meet and discuss site options in recent
years; more collegial. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program;
member of CSI or TAPs.)
The reinvention effort has been a positive experience that holds promise. The key is to continue
to inform and involve stakeholders continuously throughout the implementation phase and to
recalibrate the effort regularly, rather than to "go internal" and lose sight of the concerns and
recommendations of the stakeholders. A small miscue can materially alter the outcome; this must
be avoided. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI
or TAPs.)
I believe that DEQ management are working very hard to change a culture of zero risk tolerance
within DEQ staff. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of
CSI or TAPs.)
As an external consultant, we have had some very positive experiences working with the DEQ,
with them as part of the project team. This includes regular updates and "keeping the MDEQ PM"
in the loop. This makes it easier for MDEQ to review material (nothings a surprise) and
discussions are more productive. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the
program.)

166

Uncategorized Statements

Organization Culture and Structure cont’d

Table 33 (cont’d)
If you truly want change you must remove some mid to senior level enforcement and program
staff. They may say that they believe in implementing the governor's and director's objectives but
they do their best to prevent progressive change to the organization by implementing their own
policies and prerogatives rather than those set forth by senior management. You must change
this culture. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program; member of CSI
or TAPs.)
Part213 sites, MDEQ (Lansing) should put together a checklist tool based on the current regs;
require all RPs to evaluate their sites to see why their site should remain ACTIVE. Many sites
pose no risk, and have been ready for closure for years. If sites meet the criteria, they should be
administratively closed. This has been done in TX and CA with amazing success. This will allow
MI to focus on problems. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program;
member of CSI or TAPs.)
The Grand Rapids district office has the best system for providing requested documents. It is
prompt, very cost effective and staff has always been polite and professional. There is also some
specific staff across the State who do outstanding work with addressing concerns, providing
feedback and working collaboratively with stakeholders, consultants, property owners, etc.
(Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)
Much is said about being more responsive to businesses or individuals to improve the economic
status but often the data are lacking when it comes to monitoring or follow up. Individual projects
can be held more accountable and transparent the same as the DEQ staff.
(Respondent:
Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)
The majority of our work with the DEQ is FOIAs; the process seems to be improving, however,
procedures can often change for no reason. For example, we will show up to make copies of files
and are told we can take the copies with us until the invoice has been paid and then those copies
will be mailed. When in the past it never worked this way and we weren't informed of the changes
until we showed. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)
The correct methods used to obtain copies of records (FOIA Requests) are outdated, slow and
impractical. I would urge you to consider updating the system and bring Michigan up to par with
other states. One example to look at is the Oculus system available through Florida’s DEP, where
interested parties can download available files without delay. (Respondent: Between 5 to 10
years of experience external to the program.)
Aligning brownfield redevelopment standards as EPA's, RBCA/HUD's and the State of Michigan.
(Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program.)
NA. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)
NA. (Respondent: Less than 15 years of experience external to the program.)
No. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program.)
Nothing more. Well done. I'm interested in the results and whether it fosters continued change
for the better. (Respondent: Over 15 years of experience external to the program.)

167

BIBLIOGRAPHY

168

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allan, Catherine, and Allan Curtis. (2003). Regional Scale Adaptive Management:
Lessons From the North East Salinity Strategy (NESS). Australian Journal of
Environmental Management 10: 76-84. Print.
Arvai, Joseph, Gavin Bridge, Nives Dolsak, Robert Franzese, Tomas Koontz, April
Luginbuhl, Paul Robbins, Kenneth Richards, Katrina Smith Korfmacher, Brent
Sohngen, James Tansey, and Alexander Thompson. (2006). Adaptive
Management of the Global Climate Problem: Bridging the Gap Between Climate
Research and Climate Policy. Springer Climatic Change 78: 217–225. Web.
Arvai, Joseph L., Victoria E.A. Campbell, Anne Baird, and Louie Rivers.(2004).
"Teaching Students to Make Better Decisions About the Environment: Lessons
From the Decision Sciences Bulletin of the British Ecological Society 41:48-56."
The Journal of Environmental Education 36.1: 33-44. Web. Dec. 2011.
Arvai, Joseph L., Tim McDaniels, and Robin Gregory. (2002). Exploring a Structured
Decision Approach as a Means of Fostering Participatory Space Policy Making at
NASA. Www.elsevier.com/locate/spacepol. Dec. 2011. Web.
Babbie, Earl R. (1989). Chapter 15 Indexes, Scales, and Typologies. The Practice of
Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Print.
Batie, Sandra S. (2008). Wicked Problems and Applied Economics. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 5: 1176-191. Print.
Bertels, Stephanie Petra. (2006). Understanding Domain-Based Interorganizational
Collaboration: Governance, Process and Capacity. Diss. The University of
Calgary. Ann Arbor: ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (PQDT). Print.
Bingham, Lisa B., Tina Nabatchi, and Rosemary O'Leary. (2005). The New
Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation
in the Work of Government. Public Administration Review 65.5: 547-58. Print.
Bradshaw, Gary L., Langley, Patrick W., & Simon, Herbert A. (1983). Studying Scientific
Discovery by Computer Simulation. Science, 222(4627), 971-975.
Doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.222.4627.971. Web.
Brown, Valerie A. John A. Harris, and Jacqueline Y. Russell. (2010).Tackling Wicked
Problems: Through the Transdisciplinary Imagination. London: Earthscan. Print.
Brundtland, Gro Harlem. (1987). Eighth Proceeding on the World Commission on
Environment and Development, Japan, Tokyo. Web.
Bunnell, Fred L., and Glenn B. Dunsworth. (2004). Making Adaptive Management for
Biodiversity Work - The Example of Weyerhaeuser in Coastal British Columbia.
The Forestry Chronicle 80.1: 37-43. Print.
169

CERES. (2010). The 21st Century Corporation: The CERES Roadmap for
Sustainability. Creative Commons. 10 Nov. 2011. Web.
<http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/ceres-roadmap-to-sustainability-2010>.
Chandler, Alfred D. (1977). The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American
Business. Cambridge, MA: Belknap. Print.
Cohen, Wesley M., and David A. Levinthal. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New
Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1),
128-152.
Http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/63064325?
accountid=12598. Web.
Cohen, Wesley M., and David A. Levinthal. (1989). Innovation and Learning: The Two
Faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99, 569–596. Print.
Corraliza, J. A.., and J. Berenguer. "Environmental Values, Beliefs, and Actions: A
Situational Approach." Environment and Behavior 32.6 (2000): 832-48. Web.
Criscuolo, Paola, and Rajneesh Narula. (2008). A Novel Approach to National
Technological Accumulation and Absorptive Capacity: Aggregating Cohen and
Levinthal. The European Journal of Development Research 20.1: 56. 8 Dec.
2012. Web.
Davidson, Debra J., and Scott Frickel. (2004). Understanding Environmental
Governance: A Critical Review. Organization and Environment, 17.4: 471-92.
Sage Publications, Inc. 17 Oct. 2011. Web.
Dewulf, Art, Greet Francois, Claudia Pahl-Worstl, and Tharsi Taillieu. (2007). A Framing
Approach to Cross-disciplinary Research Collaboration: Experiences from a
Large-scale Research Project on Adaptive Water Management. Ecology and
Society, 12(2):14. Http://www.ecology and Society.org/vol12/iss2/art14/. Web.
Dryzek, John S., and Hayley Stevenson. (2011). Global Democracy and Earth Sytems
Governance. Ecological Economics, 70.11: 1865-874. Print.
Dunlap, R., K. Van Liere, A. Mertig, and R. Jones. "New Trends in Measuring
Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsements of the New Ecological
Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale." Journal of Social Issues 56.3 (2000): 425-42.
Print.
Dunphy, Dexter C., Andrew Griffiths, and Suzanne Benn. (2007). Organizational
Change for Corporate Sustainability: A Guide for Leaders and Change Agents of
the Future. London: Routledge. Print.
Eagles, Paul F.J. Windekind C. Buteau-Duitschaevera, Jasveen Rattana, Mark E.
Havitza, Troy D. Glovera, Francesc Romagosab & Bonnie McCutcheona Pages
269-287. "Non-government Organization Members' Perceptions of Governance:

170

A Comparison between Ontario and British Columbia Provincial Parks
Management Models." Leisure/Loisir Volume 36, Issue 3-4, 2012 (n.d.): Print.
Ebbin, Syma. A. (2003). Swimming Upstream: Institutional Dimensions of Asymmetrical
Problems in Two Salmon Management Regimes. Marine Policy 27.5: 441-8.
ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts. 12 Oct. 2012. Web.
Eccles, Robert G., and Ioannis Ioannou, and George Serafeim. (2011). The Impact of
the Corporate Culture of Sustainability on Corporate Behavior and Performance.
Harvard Business School Working Paper 12.035. Print.
Elkington, John. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century
Business. Gabbriola Island: New Society. Print.
European Environmental Agency (EEA). (2010) The European Environment - State and
Outlook 2010: Assessment of Global Megatrends. Copenhagen: European
Environmental Agency. Print.
Failing, Lee, Graham Horn, and Paul Higgins. (2004). Using Expert Judgment and
Stakeholder Values to Evaluate Adaptive Management Options. Ecology and
Society. http://www.ecologyand Society/iss1/art13 13th ser. 9.1. Web.
Fink, Jonathan. (2012). Harvesting the Hype: Building Pan-University Sustainability
Initiatives. Sustainability Studies Seminar Series. Erickson Kiva, East Lansing. 23
Mar. 2012. Lecture.
Field, Andy P. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: (and Sex and Drugs and Rock 'n'
Roll). Los Angeles [i.e. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2009. Print.
Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating
Agreement without Giving In. New York, NY: Penguin. Print.
Folke, Carl, J., Stephen R. Carpenter, Brian Walker, Marten Scheffer, Terry Chapin, and
Johan Rockström. (2010). Ecology and Society: Resilience Thinking: Integrating
Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecology and Society 20th Ser.
15.4. <http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/>. 30 July 2012. Web.
Goldsmith, Stephen, and Donald F. Kettl. (2009). Unlocking the Power of Networks:
Keys to High-performance Government. Ash Institute for Democratic Governance
and Innovation. Cambridege, MA. Print.
Graham, John, Bruce Amos, and Tim Plumptre. Principles for Good Governance in the
21st Century. Publication. Vol. 15. Ottawa: Institute On Governance, 2003. Print.
Gregory, Robin., Dan Ohlson, and Joseph L. Arvai. (2006). Deconstructing Adaptive
Management: Criteria for Applications to Environmental Management. Ecological
Applications 16.6: 2411-1425. Print.

171

Griffith, Rod. (2002). How Shall We Live? The Sustainable Agenda and Institutional
Change in Local Governance in Australia. Diss., University of Western Sydney,
Sydney. Print.
Hart, Stuart L., Mark B. Milstein, and Joseph Caggiano. (2003). Creating Sustainable
Value. The Academy of Management Executive 17.2: 56-69. Print.
Hart, Stuart, L., and Glen Dowell. (2011). A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm:
Fifteen Years After. Journal of Management 37.5: 1464-79. Web.
Hendriks, Carolyn M. (2010). Inclusive Governance for Sustainability in Tackling Wicked
Problems: Through the Transdisciplinary Imagination. Valerie A. Brown, et al.,.
London: EARTHSCAN,151-60. Print.
Holliday, Scot. (2011). A Case Study of How DuPont Reduced Its Environmental
Footprint: The Role of Organizational Change in Sustainability. Diss. The George
Washington University, 2010. Ann Arbor: ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
(PQDT).Print.
Jennings, Daniel F., and Samuel L. Seaman. "High and Low Levels of Organizational
Adaptation: An Empirical Analysis of Strategy, Structure, and Performance."
Strategic Management Journal 15.6 (1994): 459-75. Web. 5 June 2012.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/2486761>.
John, Richard R. (1997). Elaborations, Revisions, Dissents: Alfred D. Chandler, Jr.'s,
The Visible Hand after Twenty Years. The Business History Review 71.2: 151200. Print.
Jurin, R. R., Roush, D., & Danter, D. (2010). Communicating across cultures, PP.189203 Chapter 12 in R.R. Jurin, D. Rousch, & D. Danter. (Eds.) Environmental
communication: Skills and principles for natural resource managers, scientists,
and engineers. London: Springer Science + Business Media.
Karim, Samina., and Will Mitchell. (2000). Path-dependent and Path-breaking Change:
Reconfiguring Business Resources following Acquisitions in the US Medical
Sector, 1978-1995. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1061-1081. Web.
Keeney, Ralph L. (2002). Common Mistakes in Making Value Trade-offs. Operations
Research 50.6: 935-45. Print.
Kellon, Delanie S. (2011). Resource Management in a Developing Country Context:
Improving Decisions by Confronting Difficult Tradeoffs in Costa Rica. Diss.
Michigan State University, 2011. Ann Arbor: ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
(PQDT). Print.
Kettle, Donald F. (2002) Environmental Governance: A Report on the Next Generation
of Environmental Policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. Print.
Kjær, Anne Mette. (2010). Governance. Malden, MA: Polity. Print.
172

Kotler, Philip. "Chapter 3." Marketing for Non-profit Organizations. New Jersey: N.J.
Prentice-Hall, 1982. 75-111. Print.
Kotter, John P. (1995). Leading Change - Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard
Business Review 73: 59-67. Print.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, Univ. of
Chicago, IL. Print.
Leach, William D. and Paul A. Sabatier. (2005). To Trust an Adversary: Integrating
Rational and Psychological Models of Collaborative Policymaking. The American
Political Science Review, Vol. 99, No. 4: 491-503 Published By: American
Political Science Association. Http://www.jstor.org/stable/30038960]. Web.
Lindblom, Charles. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration
Review 19.2: 79-88. Print.
Lipsky, Michael. 2010. Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public
Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Print.
Lubchenco, Jane. (1998). Entering the Century of the Environment: A New Social
Contract for Science. Www.sciencemag.org. Science Vol. 279, 23. Web.
Matso, Kallie E., Molly O'Donovan Dix, Benjamin Chicoski, Debra L. Hernandez, and
Jerry R. Schubel. (2008). Establishing a Minimum Standard for Collaborative
Research in Federal Environmental Agencies. Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Management 4.3: 362-68. Web.
Mehan, Tracy (2011) in Norris, Patricia E., and Jan Urban-Lurain (eds). Critical
Conversations about Environmental and Natural Resource Governance. Rep.
East Lansing: Michigan State University, 2011. Print.
Menon, Ajay, and Anil Menon. "Enviropreneurial Marketing Strategy: Emergence of
Corporate Environmentalism." Journal of Marketing 61 (n.d.): 51-67. Web. Jan.
1997.
Metzenbaum, Shelley. (2002). Measurement That Matters: Cleaning up the Charles
River in Kettle, Donald F., Environmental Governance: A Report on the Next
Generation of Environmental Policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Print.
Metzenbaum, Shelley H. (2006). Performance Accountability: The Five Building Blocks
and Six Essential Practices. Rep. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for The
Business of Government. Print.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (2013). Mission Statement.
www.michigan.gov/deq. Web.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and Michigan State University Extension
(MDEQ and MSUE) (2012). Michigan's Collaborative Stakeholder Initiative,
173

Reinventing the State's Cleanup and Redevelopment Program Final Report and
Recommendations. Lansing: MDEQ. Print.
Michigan Office of Regulatory Reinvention. (2011). Recommendations of the
Environmental Advisory Rules Committee to the Office of Regulatory
Reinvention. State of Michigan; Lansing. Print.
Michigan Sea Grant and Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute (MSG and
GESI)(2009). Tackling Wicked Problems Through Integrated Assessment.
[MICHU-09-506] University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. :
Www.miseagrant.umich.edu/downloads/research/tackling-wickedproblems.pdf.
13 July 2012. Web.
Middendorf, Gerard, and Lawrence Busch. (1997). Inquiry for the Public Good:
Democratic Participation in Agricultural Research. Agriculture and Human Values
14: 45-57. Print.
Miller, Alan. (1999). Environmental Problem Solving: Psychosocial Barriers to Adaptive
Change. Springer Series on Environmental Management. Springer-Verlag, New
York. Web.
Mol, Arthur P.J., David Sonnenfield, and Burt Spargaren. (2011). The Ecological
Modernisation Reader: Environmental Reform in Theory and Practice.
International Sociology 26.5: 685-9. International Bibliography of the Social
Sciences (IBSS). 6 Aug. 2012. Web.
Morris, William, comp. (2001). The American Heritage College Dictionary. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin. Print.
National Research Council. (1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a
Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Print.
Norris, Patricia E., and Jan Urban-Lurain. (2011). Critical Conversations about
Environmental and Natural Resource Governance. Rep. East Lansing: Michigan
State University. Print.
Ostrom, Elinor. (1999). An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development
Framework Institutional Rational Choice: Theories of the Policy Process.
Westview Press: 35-71. Print.
Parissi, Cesidio. (2010) Truth, Knowledge and Data: A Study of Truth-Building in
Organizational Change in Tackling Wicked Problems through the
Transdisciplinary Imagination. Valerie A. Brown, John A. Harris, and Jacqueline
Y. Russell. London: Earthscan. 204-13. Print.
Patterson, Michelle. (2006). Towards Ecosystem-based Management in Canada's
Northeast Pacific Ocean: Research Support for and Emerging Collaborative
Science Initiative [MS Thesis]. Victoria (BC): Environment and Management
Program, Royal Roads University. Rep. Print.
174

Pielke, Roger A. (2007). The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and
Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Print.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (2012) Employee Engagement Survey. State of
Michigan, Environmental Quality. Rep. <www.pwc.com/saratoga>. Web.
Putnam, Robert D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Print.
Renn, Ortwin and Webler, Thomas and Rakel, Horst and Dienel, Peter and Johnson,
Branden. (1993). "Public Participation in Decision Making: A Three-Step
Procedure." Policy Sciences 26.3: 189-214. JSTOR. 14 May 2012. Web. Policy
Sciences 26.3 (1993): 189-214. JSTOR. Web. 14 May 2012.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/4532287>.
Renn, Ortwin. (2012). Inclusive Governance: Public Participation in Risk Decision
Making. Michigan State University Environmental Science and Policy Program
Distinguished Lecture Series. Michigan State University, 23 Feb. 2012.
<http://www.espp.msu.edu/news/seminars/ortwin_renn.pdf>. 16 Oct. 2012. Web.
Rhodes, Rod A. W. (1999) 'Forward' (xviii), in Gerry Stoker (ed.),. The New
Management of British Local Level Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave
MacMillan. Print.
Rittel, Horst W., and Melvin M. Webber. (1973). Dilemnas in a General Theory of
Planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155-69. JSTOR. 6 June 2012. Web.
Roberts, Karlene H., Suzanne K. Stout, and Jennifer J. Halpern. (1994). Decision
Dynamics in Two High Reliability Military Organizations. Management Science
40.5: 614-24. Web.
Schultz II, Clifford J., and Morris B. Holbrook. (1999). Marketing and the Tragedy of the
Commons: A Synthesis, Commentary, and Analysis for Action. Journal of Public
Policy and Marketing 18.2: 218-29. Print.
Schwandt, David R., and Michael J. Marquardt. (2000). Organizational Learning: From
World-class Theories to Global Best Practices. Boca Raton: St. Lucie Press.
Print.
Schwartz, Barry. The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. New York: HarperCollins,
2005. Print.
Selin, Steve, Chad Pierskalka, David Smaldone and Karen Robinson. (2007). Social
Learning and Building Trust through a Participatory Design for Natural Resource
Planning. Journal of Forestry. Society of American Foresters JF-07-21.
Senecah, Susan L. (2004). The Trinity of Voice: The Role of Practical Theory in
Planning and Evaluating the Effectiveness of Environmental Participatory
Processes. Chapter 1 in S.P. Depoe, J.W. Delicath and M.F.A. Elsenbeer (eds.)
(1992), Communication and Public Participation in Environmental Decision
175

Making. Albany: State University of New York Press. Sewell, W.H., Jr. (2000). A
Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency and Transformation. American Journal of
Sociology 98(1):1-29. Stanfield, R.B. (ed.). 2000. The Art of Focused
Conversation. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society
Publishers, in Environmental Decision Making. Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Sharma, Sanjay, Maark Starik and Bryan Husted. (2007). Organizations and the
Sustainability Mosaic. Northampton: Edward Elgar. Print.
Shriberg, Michael P. (2002). Sustainability in U.S. Higher Education: Organizational
Factors Influencing Campus Performance and Environmental Leadership. Diss.
University of Michigan, 2002. Ann Arbor: ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
(PQDT). Print.
Simpson, Thomas W., and Sarah Weammert. (2007). The Chesapeake Bay
Experience: Learning about Adaptive Management the Hard Way. Managing
Agricultural Landscapes for Environmental Quality: Strengthening the Science
Base. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society. Print.
State of Michigan. (2011). DEQ - Department of Environmental Quality. SOM - State of
Michigan. Web. 17 Mar. 2011. Http://www.michigan.gov/deq. Web.
Stern, Paul C. (2000). Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social
Issues 56.Number 3: 407-24. Print.
Tedlow, Richard S. "Introduction, Chapter 1." New and Improved: The Story of Mass
Marketing in America. New York: Basic, 1990. N. pag. Print.
Thomas-Larner, Jennifer, ed. (2007). A Practical Guide to Collaborative Governance.
Publication. Portland: Policy Consensus Initiative. Print.
Thompson, Paul. (2007). Agricultural Sustainability:What It Is and What It Is Not.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 5.1: 5-16. Print.
Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. (1981) "The Framing of Decisions and the
Psychology of Choice.” Science 211. (4481): 453-58. Print.
Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. (1992). Advances in Prospect Theory:
Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5.4:
297-323. Print.
United Nations. (1997). Governance for Sustainable Human Development. United
Nations Development Program. 18 Feb. 2013. Web.
http://mirror.undp.org/magnet/policy>
United Nations. (2011). What Is Good Governance. United Nations Economic and
Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. United Nations.
<http://www.unescap.org>. 11 Oct. 2011. Web.
176

Vogt, Eric E., Juanita Brown, and David Isaacs. (2003). The Art of Powerful Questions.
Whole Systems Associates. Print.
Walker, Brian H., and David Salt. (2006). Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems
and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Island. Print.
Weidner, Helmut. (2002). Capacity Building for Ecological Modernization: Lessons from
Cross-national Research. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(9), 1340-1368. Web.
Williams, Peter G. (2009). Institutionalizing Sustainability in Community Colleges: The
Role of the College President. Diss. Oregon State University, 2009. Ann Arbor:
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (PQDT). Print.
Winter, Sidney G. (2000). The Satisficing Principle in Capability Learning. Strategic
Management Journal, 21: 981-996. Web.
stenhagen, Rolf. (2008). Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar. Print.

177