Effective Strategy for Community Change

384 views

Published on

Slides used in June 24, 2014 presentation to the NACDEP Annual Conference in Grand Rapids, MI

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
384
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Effective Strategy for Community Change

  1. 1. Copyright 2014 – Scott Hutcheson This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License. Effective Strategy for Community Change Scott Hutcheson, Ph.D. National Association of Community Development Extension Professionals Annual Conference Grand Rapids, MI – June 24, 2014
  2. 2. Better understand he nature of collaboration Identify what stage your collaborations are in Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level The Great and the Near Great in the White River Country by Z. M. Horton The Baxter Bulletin Dec 31, 1915 S. J. Hutcheson, a well known farmer and stockman of Norfork, roping a calf
  3. 3. White River Ferry at Norfork, Arkansas, circa 1900
  4. 4. Rich DeVos & Jay Van Andel, Co-Founders of Amway
  5. 5. Better understand he nature of collaboration Identify what stage your collaborations are in Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level Norfork, Arkansas (pop. 550)
  6. 6. Our communities, big and small, are dealing with complex PUBLIC ISSUES
  7. 7. Our communities, big and small, are dealing with complex PUBLIC ISSUES ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
  8. 8. Better understand he nature of collaboration Identify what stage your collaborations are in Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level Research Question Why are some strategies for community change successful and others…not so much?
  9. 9. Answering the Question A grounded theory exploration using a sequential mixed method approach beginning with a qualitative phase in which semi- structured interviews resulting were conducted with a purposively sampled panel of experts resulting in data that was open coded using the data spiral analysis method followed by a quasi-experimental quantitative phase in which two contrasted groups of purposefully sampled, randomly assigned participants were surveyed, resulting in data that was analyzed using Spearman’s rho to determine correlation coefficients. 1. Literature review 2. Interviews 3. Surveys
  10. 10. Better understand he nature of collaboration Identify what stage your collaborations are in Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level Problem Statement • Literature gap regarding factors contributing to effective strategy in the context of community change issues like economic development (Kwon, Berry, & Feiock, 2009). • Civic leaders face daunting tasks of developing and implementing community change strategies (Markey, 2010). • Very little research-based information to guide decisions about effective strategy-development processes.
  11. 11. • Evolution of dealing with community change • Institutionalization • Locus of control • Increasing complexity • Tools for managing community change • Early tools • Evolving tools • Emerging tools • Contributing theories • Strategy formation • Collaborative governance • Social innovation Insights from the Literature Conducted as part of the grounded theory data collection process (McGhee, Marland, and Atkinson, 2007). Conducted to provide contextualization (Dunne, 2011) and orientation to the phenomenon (Pozzebon, Petrini, de Mellow, and Garreau, 2011).
  12. 12. Better understand he nature of collaboration Identify what stage your collaborations are in Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level Evolution of How We Deal with Public Issues Institutionalization • Pre-institutional (Pre- WW2) • Institutional (1950-1990) • Multi-Institutional (1990 to today) Locus of Control • Control in the hands of the “elite” (Perrucci & Pilisuk, 1970). • Most economic & community development issues are “Type 3 Public Problems” and control is shared by a group of “nonexperts” (Heifitz and Sinder, 1988).
  13. 13. Hierarchy of Complex Systems •Social Organizations – economics, education, politics •Individual Human – language capacity, knowledge accumulation, design and use of tools •Animal – mobility, information processing •Plants – viability •Open Systems – matter, energy •Cybernetics – computers •Clockworks – engines •Frameworks – buildings, cells 15 Complexity Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3): 197-208.
  14. 14. The Extension Economist vs. The Rocket Scientist 16
  15. 15. Hierarchy of Complex Systems •Social Organizations – economics, education, politics •Individual Human – language capacity, knowledge accumulation, design and use of tools •Animal – mobility, information processing •Plants – viability •Open Systems – matter, energy •Cybernetics – computers •Clockworks – engines •Frameworks – buildings, cells 17 Complexity Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3): 197-208.
  16. 16. Hierarchy of Complex Systems •Social Organizations – economics, education, politics •Individual Human – language capacity, knowledge accumulation, design and use of tools •Animal – mobility, information processing •Plants – viability •Open Systems – matter, energy •Cybernetics – computers •Clockworks – engines •Frameworks – buildings, cells 18 Complexity Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3): 197-208.
  17. 17. Hierarchy of Complex Systems •Social Organizations – economics, education, politics •Individual Human – language capacity, knowledge accumulation, design and use of tools •Animal – mobility, information processing •Plants – viability •Open Systems – matter, energy •Cybernetics – computers •Clockworks – engines •Frameworks – buildings, cells 19 Complexity Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3): 197-208.
  18. 18. Dealing with the Complexity 20 Early Models • 1960s in universities, schools, municipalities (Hamilton, 2007) • Late 1980s/Early 1990s first economic development strategic plans (Blackerby & Blackerby, 1995) • Borrowed from industry models (Blair,2004) Evolving Models • Recognition that corporate models are less effective (Bryson and Roering, 1987). • U.S. Economic Development Administration’s CEDS; Cooperative Extension Service’s Take Charge (Hein, Cole, & Ayres, 1990); Asset-Based Community Development, (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1996; Community Capitals, Flora, 1992) Emerging Models • Effectiveness of strategic planning in business questioned (Mintzberg, 1994). • Effectiveness of strategic planning in economic & community development questioned ( Blair, 2004; Robichau, 2010; Morrison, 2012) • Organic Strategic Planning (McNamara, 2010, Open Source Economic Development (Merkel, 2010), Strategic Doing (Hutcheson, 2008;
  19. 19. Better understand he nature of collaboration Identify what stage your collaborations are in Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level Complexity Community change issues are complex Institutions emerged to deal with the complexity There are lots of institutions No single institution is “in charge” of most community issues Complex environment
  20. 20. Contributing Theories •Social Innovation •Strategy Formation •Collaborative Governance 23
  21. 21. Social Innovation Social innovations… • are best designed and implemented in networks • emerge from heterogeneousness (diversity) • are framed using existing assets • are products of co-creation • are the result of collective action • should have decentralized implementation • ,when implemented should focus on tangible results Bland, Bruk, Kim, and Lee (2010); Bouchard (2012); Mulgan, Ali, Tucker and Sanders (2007); Neumeier (2012); Oliveira and Breda-Vazquez (2012)
  22. 22. Strategy Formation Strategies… • are formed intuitively • are iterative • must be designed to account for unanticipated variables • must take into account contextual values, assumptions, beliefs, and expectations • must be flexible • should be designed collaboratively • and best developed as an intra-organizational activity Feser, 2012; Johanson, 2009; Lindblom, 1959; Mintzberg, 1978; Parnell, 2008; Rindova, Dalpiaz, and Ravasi, 2011; Sminia, 2012; Tapinos, Dyson, and Meadows, 2011
  23. 23. Collaborative Governance Collaborative governance… • takes advantage of network structures • connects existing assets • focuses first on small wins • Requires decision making to be made by consensus • works when there is trust among participants • is efficient • involves successful management of both internal and external stakeholders Ansell and Gash, 2008; Chiclana et al., 2013; Clarke, Huxley, Mountford, 2010; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh, 2012; Gibson, 2011; Johnston, Hicks, Nan, and Auer, 2011; Kwon, Berry, and Feiock, 2009; Merkle , 2010; Olberding, 2009; Ospina and Saz-Carranza, 2010; Pammer, 1998; Poister, 2010
  24. 24. Better understand he nature of collaboration Identify what stage your collaborations are in Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level These Things Matter • Organizational Structure (hierarchy, network, etc.) • Framework (asset-based, deficit- based) • Processes (planning and Implementation separate and distinct, planning and implementation integrated and iterative, etc.) • Timeframe (focused on longer-term goals, focused on shorter-term goals, etc.) • Implementation (tasks centralized with one organization, tasked disseminated among multiple organizations)
  25. 25. Insights from the Panel of Experts The Qualitative Data • Population of scholars and practitioners who design curricula, teach, and/or practice strategy development for addressing public issues (economic development, community development, community health, etc.) • Sample: N=12 • Semi-structured interviews (IRB-approved, anonymity) • Verbatim transcripts, data spiral analysis with three levels of coding: open, axial, selective using qualitative analysis software • 56 single-spaced pages/over 31,000 words of data
  26. 26. Findings from the Interviews 29 1. Network organization structures 2. Asset-based Frameworks 3. Iterative planning/implementation process 4. Inclusion of shorter-term goals 5. Decentralized implementation 6. Metrics to learn what is working 7. High levels of trust among participants 8. Readiness for change in community
  27. 27. Variables 30 1. Network organization structures 2. Asset-based Frameworks 3. Iterative planning/implementation process 4. Inclusion of shorter-term goals 5. Decentralized implementation 6. Metrics to learn what is working 7. High levels of trust among participants 8. Readiness for change in community Independent Variables Dependent Variable = Effectiveness
  28. 28. Effectiveness For the effective strategy initiative you have in mind, how would you describe its level of effectiveness: • Completely effective • Significantly effective • Somewhat effective Ineffectiveness For the ineffective strategy initiative you have in mind, how would you describe its level of ineffectiveness: • Somewhat ineffective • Significantly ineffective • Completely ineffective Organizational Structure, etc. Measuring the Variables Hierarchical, with a clear top and bottom Network, with a hub and spokes
  29. 29. Insights from Participants The Quantitative Data • Population of individuals who have participated in community-based strategy initiatives to address community change (economic development, community development, community health, etc.) • Sample of 300 (plus those reached by use of snowball sample) participants were randomly selected from PCRD contact database (N=209). Assured that Indiana was not over represented • IRB-approved survey constructed using the factors identified in phase 1, participants randomly assigned to two contrasting groups
  30. 30. Findings from the Surveys 33 Source: Scott Hutcheson, Distributed under a Creative Commons 3.0 License. Effective & Ineffective Strategy Initiatives – Mean Responses
  31. 31. Completely Effective Completely Ineffective Significantly Effective Somewhat Effective Somewhat Ineffective Significantly Ineffective Findings from the Survey Effectiveness Continuum DependentVariables Correlation
  32. 32. Findings from the Surveys 35 Source: Scott Hutcheson, Distributed under a Creative Commons 3.0 License. Correlation Between Strategy Initiative Effectiveness and the Eight Independent Variables
  33. 33. Recipe for INEFFECTIVE Strategies • Have a hierarchical organizational structure • Frame strategies primarily around addressing problems or deficits • Have a planning and implementation process that is linear and sequential • Include only long-term, transformational goals • Centralized responsibilities for implementation with one organization • Uses metrics primarily for accountability • Proceed even though there are low levels of trust among participants • Proceed although participants are not ready for change
  34. 34. Recipe for EFFECTIVE Strategies • Have a network organizational structure • Frame strategies primarily around building on existing assets • Have a planning and implementation processes that is iterative • Include short-term, easy-win goals • Decentralize responsibilities for implementation among multiple organization • Use metrics to learn what is working and to make adjustments along the way • Build high levels of trust among participants • Assure that participants are ready to change
  35. 35. Improving Our Practice Strategic Doing enables people to form action- oriented collaborations quickly, move them toward measurable outcomes, and make adjustments along the way.
  36. 36. Strategy Answers Two Basic Questions
  37. 37. Strategic Doing Divides the Two Basic Questions into Four Appreciative Questions 40
  38. 38. Strategic Doing Moves from the Linear to the Agile
  39. 39. Strategic Doing Is Iterative & Ongoing
  40. 40. http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/accelerating_civic_innovation_through_strategic_doing
  41. 41. In neighborhoods besieged by complex, wicked problems, Strategic Doing creates hope through the power of taking action with the assets or gifts that we already possess. In that moment when we combine assets, we begin to tell a new story of opportunity and possibility, and it gives us the power to change our lives, our neighborhoods, and our communities. Bob Brown, Associate Director of University-Community Partnerships Michigan State University We finally broke our “grant addiction.” Flint Community Resident
  42. 42. http://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/public-sector-options-for- creating-jobs/transforming-regions-through-strategic-doing
  43. 43. • Proceedings of the 2014 International Research & Development Conference, Stuttgart, Germany (published) • Community Development Journal (accepted) • Economic Development Journal (accepted) • Long Range Planning Journal (invited) • Harvard Business Review (proposed) Recent & Forthcoming Scholarship
  44. 44. Practicing Strategic Doing 47
  45. 45. • Local & Regional Economic Development Strategy • Community Development Strategy • Cluster Development • Local/Regional Food Systems • Community Health • Innovation Platform Development • Strategic Alliances • Inter-unit collaboration within a single organization • National Associations Practicing Strategic Doing
  46. 46. Teaching Strategic Doing Existing & Emerging University Partnerships Michigan State University University of Alaska University of Missouri New Jersey Institute of Technology University of Central Florida Stanford University Southhampton Solent University (United Kingdom) University of the Sunshine Coast (Austrailia)
  47. 47. Teaching Strategic Doing
  48. 48. To know what you you’re going to draw, you have to begin drawing. - Pablo Picasso
  49. 49. Scott Hutcheson, Ph.D. 765-479-7704 hutcheson@purdue.edu www.linkedin.com/in/scotthutcheson/ www.twitter.com/jshutch64 www.facebook.com/scott.hutcheson http://www.slideshare.net/jshutch/ For More Information & to Connect Copyright 2014 – Scott Hutcheson This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License. Slides available

×