Effective Strategy for
Community Change
Scott Hutcheson, Ph.D.
National Association of Community Development Extension Professionals
Annual Conference
Grand Rapids, MI – June 24, 2014
Copyright 2014 – Scott Hutcheson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.
The Great and the Near
Great in the White River
Country
by Z. M. Horton
The Baxter Bulletin
Better understand he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are in
Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level
Dec 31, 1915
S. J. Hutcheson, a well known farmer and stockman of
Norfork, roping a calf
White River Ferry at Norfork, Arkansas, circa 1900
Rich DeVos & Jay Van Andel, Co-Founders of Amway
Norfork,
Arkansas
(pop. 550)
Better understand he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are in
Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level
Our communities, big and small, are dealing with complex PUBLIC ISSUES
✔
✔
✔
✔
Our communities, big and small, are dealing with complex PUBLIC ISSUES
Research
Question
Why are some strategies
for community
change
Better understand
he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are in
and to the next level
Considersuccessful
ways to move a collaborations
others…not so much?
1. Literature review
2. Interviews
3. Surveys
A grounded theory exploration
using a sequential mixed method
approach beginning with a
qualitative phase in which semistructured 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.
Answering the Question
Problem
Statement
• Literature gap regarding factors
contributing to effective strategy in the
context of community change issues
like economic development (Kwon,
Berry, & Feiock, 2009).
Better
understand
he nature
of collaboration
• Civic
leaders
face
daunting tasks of
Identify what stage your collaborations are in
developing and implementing
Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level
community change strategies (Markey,
2010).
• Very little research-based information
to guide decisions about effective
strategy-development processes.
• 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
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).
• Strategy formation
• Collaborative governance
• Social innovation
Insights from the Literature
Institutionalization
Evolution of
How We
Deal with
Public Issues
• Pre-institutional (Pre- WW2)
• Institutional (1950-1990)
• Multi-Institutional (1990 to today)
Better understand he nature of collaboration
Locus of Control
Identify what stage your collaborations are in
• Control
theahands
of the to
“elite”
(Perrucci
Consider
ways to in
move
collaborations
the next
level &
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).
Complexity
Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3): 197-208.
•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
Hierarchy of Complex Systems
15
The Extension Economist vs. The Rocket Scientist
16
Complexity
Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3): 197-208.
• 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
Hierarchy of Complex Systems
17
Complexity
Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3): 197-208.
• 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
Hierarchy of Complex Systems
18
Complexity
Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3): 197-208.
• 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
Hierarchy of Complex Systems
19
Dealing with the Complexity
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
20
Development (Merkel, 2010), Strategic Doing (Hutcheson, 2008;
Community
change issues
are complex
Complexity
Complex
environment
Institutions
emerged to
deal with the
complexity
Better understand he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are in
Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level
No single
institution is “in
charge” of most
community
issues
There are lots
of institutions
Contributing Theories
• Social Innovation
• Strategy Formation
• Collaborative Governance
23
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)
Social Innovation
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
Strategy Formation
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
Collaborative Governance
These Things
Matter
• Organizational Structure (hierarchy,
network, etc.)
• Framework (asset-based, deficitbased)
• Processes (planning and
Implementation
and distinct,
Better
understand he natureseparate
of collaboration
planning
and
Identify
what stage
yourimplementation
collaborations are in integrated
Consider
to move aetc.)
collaborations to the next level
andways
iterative,
• Timeframe (focused on longer-term
goals, focused on shorter-term goals,
etc.)
• Implementation (tasks centralized with
one organization, tasked disseminated
among multiple organizations)
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
Insights from the Panel of Experts
Findings from the Interviews
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Network organization structures
Asset-based Frameworks
Iterative planning/implementation process
Inclusion of shorter-term goals
Decentralized implementation
Metrics to learn what is working
High levels of trust among participants
Readiness for change in community
29
Variables
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Network organization structures
Asset-based Frameworks
Iterative planning/implementation process
Inclusion of shorter-term goals
Decentralized implementation
Metrics to learn what is working
High levels of trust among participants
Readiness for change in community
Dependent Variable = Effectiveness
Independent
Variables
30
Effectiveness
For the effective strategy initiative you have in mind, how
would you describe its level of effectiveness:
• Completely effective
• Significantly effective
• Somewhat effective
Measuring
the Variables
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.
Hierarchical, with a clear top
and bottom
Network, with a hub and
spokes
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
Insights from Participants
Findings from the Surveys
Effective & Ineffective Strategy Initiatives – Mean Responses
33
Source: Scott Hutcheson, Distributed under a Creative Commons 3.0 License.
Dependent Variables
Correlation
Effectiveness Continuum
Completely
Effective
Significantly
Effective
Somewhat
Effective
Significantly
Ineffective
Somewhat
Ineffective
Findings from the Survey
Completely
Ineffective
Findings from the Surveys
Correlation Between Strategy Initiative Effectiveness and the Eight Independent Variables
35
Source: Scott Hutcheson, Distributed under a Creative Commons 3.0 License.
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
• 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
Recipe for EFFECTIVE Strategies
Strategic Doing enables people to form actionoriented collaborations quickly, move them
toward measurable outcomes, and make
adjustments along the way.
Improving Our Practice
Strategy
Answers Two
Basic Questions
Strategic Doing Divides the Two Basic Questions into
Four Appreciative Questions
40
Strategic Doing Moves from the
Linear to the Agile
Strategic Doing Is Iterative & Ongoing
http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/accelerating_civic_innovation_through_strategic_doing
We finally broke our “grant addiction.”
Flint Community Resident
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
http://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/public-sector-options-forcreating-jobs/transforming-regions-through-strategic-doing
Recent &
Forthcoming
Scholarship
• 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)
Practicing Strategic Doing
47
Practicing
Strategic Doing
• 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
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)
Teaching Strategic Doing
Teaching Strategic Doing
To know what you
you’re going to draw,
you have to begin
drawing.
- Pablo Picasso
For More Information & to Connect
Slides available
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/
Copyright 2014 – Scott Hutcheson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.