Page 75 - The Green Building Bottom Line The Real Cost of Sustainable Building

54 CHAPTER 2

card meant all was OK, a yellow card indicated concerns that needed to be addressed,
and a red card signaled major resistance. While physical use of these cards has dimin-
ished over time, they are continuously deployed virtually in most every decision at the
company. The real estate task force, for instance, cannot make a recommendation to
develop a project if someone has “voiced” a red card. A recommendation with a yel-
low card indicates that a member of a task force feels caution needs to be exercised
before a particular decision is made. The senior leadership team at Melaver, Inc. (the
CEO, COO, and CFO) has agreed that no major decision will be made unless all three
flash the green OK. They have agreed to continue discussing an issue whenever one
of the three has flashed a yellow sign. A red vote by any of the three is tantamount to
a veto and means that a potential deal is dead.
Decision making, which is never an easy thing for any business, is particularly chal-
lenging for the values-centric company focused on a green bottom line. Even seem-
ingly mundane issues can unexpectedly raise subtle larger-scale issues that touch
powerfully felt beliefs. For instance, a debate on whether or not to develop in a sub-
urban or agricultural greenfield location (something Melaver, Inc. does not do) raises
the issue of providing jobs and a better quality of life for an otherwise impoverished
community. Individual values have the capacity to clash with one another from time
to time. Moreover, decision making by consensus can lead to confusion and uncer-
tainty. With multiple viewpoints all being aired in a marketplace of ideas, which per-
spective prevails and why?
Melaver, Inc. is constantly considering and reconsidering at what level of the com-
pany various decisions are made. You obviously don’t want to tie up every decision in
lengthy and unwieldy consensual debate. On the other hand, you want to make sure
that a decision made by a small task force has sufficiently considered the larger, value-
laden context perhaps embedded in the issue at hand. Leaders at Melaver were initially
stricken with analysis paralysis as they fought making decisions and watched their
team wander around looking for direction from the top. It took time for them to under-
stand that getting input and having a consensus does not mean every person in the
company must participate in every decision. They had to learn what decisions needed
input from others, what decisions had consequences for team members.
Facilitative leaders (as opposed to directive leaders) have to believe in communica-
tion processes. Facilitative leadership does not mean letting go entirely of the role or
the responsibility to lead. These processes involve inclusiveness and balance commu-
nications, problem solving, and decision making. Interdependence, subsidiarity, and
consensus, integrated with each other, facilitate productive entrepreneurial activity and
values-centric reflection. Using these three decision-making concepts certainly does
not guarantee smooth sailing. But that is the choice of the values-centric company
focused on a green bottom line: to have business-as-usual defer to business-unusual.

GOVERNANCE AND SHARED LEADERSHIP
Another aspect of governance embraced early on by Melaver, Inc. was that of shared
leadership. It fits with the aspects of governance discussed above: an organizational