This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 25 License Effective Strategy for Community Change Scott Hutcheson PhD National Association of Community Development Extension Professionals ID: 782149
Download The PPT/PDF document "Copyright 2014 – Scott Hutcheson" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Copyright 2014 – Scott Hutcheson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.
Effective Strategy for Community ChangeScott Hutcheson, Ph.D.
National Association of Community Development Extension Professionals Annual ConferenceGrand Rapids, MI – June 24, 2014
Slide2Better understand he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are inConsider 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
Slide3White River Ferry at
Norfork, Arkansas, circa 1900
Slide4Slide5Slide6Rich
DeVos & Jay Van Andel, Co-Founders of Amway
Slide7Better understand he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are inConsider ways to move a collaborations to the next level
Norfork, Arkansas
(pop. 550)
Slide8Our communities, big and small, are dealing with
complex PUBLIC ISSUES
Slide9Our communities, big and small, are dealing with
complex PUBLIC ISSUES
✔
✔
✔
✔
Slide10Better understand he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are inConsider ways to move a collaborations to the next level
Research Question
Why are some strategies for community change successful and others…not so much?
Slide11Answering 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.
Literature reviewInterviews
Surveys
Slide12Better understand he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are inConsider 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
.
Slide13Evolution of dealing with community change InstitutionalizationLocus of control
Increasing complexityTools for managing community change Early toolsEvolving toolsEmerging toolsContributing theoriesStrategy formationCollaborative governanceSocial 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).
Slide14Better understand he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are inConsider 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).
Slide15Hierarchy of Complex Systems
Social Organizations
– economics, education, politics
Individual Human – language capacity, knowledge accumulation, design and use of tools
Animal – mobility, information processingPlants
– 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.
Slide16The Extension Economist
vs. The Rocket Scientist
16
Slide17Hierarchy of Complex Systems
Social Organizations
– economics, education, politics
Individual Human – language capacity, knowledge accumulation, design and use of toolsAnimal
– mobility, information processingPlants
– 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.
Slide18Hierarchy of Complex Systems
Social Organizations
– economics, education, politics
Individual Human – language capacity, knowledge accumulation, design and use of toolsAnimal
– mobility, information processingPlants
– 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.
Slide19Hierarchy of Complex Systems
Social Organizations
– economics, education, politics
Individual Human – language capacity, knowledge accumulation, design and use of toolsAnimal
– mobility, information processingPlants
– 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.
Slide20Dealing 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
S
trategic
P
lanning (McNamara, 2010, Open Source Economic Development (Merkel, 2010), Strategic Doing (
Hutcheson, 2008; Hutcheson & Morrison, 2012;
Walzer
&
Cordes
,
2012)
Slide21Better understand he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are inConsider ways to move a collaborations to the next level
Complexity
Slide22Slide23Contributing Theories
Social Innovation
Strategy FormationCollaborative Governance
23
Slide24Social Innovation
Social innovations…
a
re best designed and implemented in networksemerge from heterogeneousness (diversity)
are framed using existing assetsare products of co-creation
are the result of collective action
s
hould have
d
ecentralized
i
mplementation
,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)
Slide25Strategy Formation
Strategies…
are formed intuitively
are iterativemust be designed to account for unanticipated variablesmust take into account
contextual values, assumptions, beliefs, and expectationsmust be flexible
s
hould be designed collaboratively
a
nd 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
Slide26Collaborative Governance
Collaborative governance…
takes advantage of network structures
connects existing assetsfocuses first on small winsRequires decision making to be made by consensusworks when there is trust among participants
is efficientinvolves 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
Slide27Better understand he nature of collaboration
Identify what stage your collaborations are inConsider 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)
Slide28Insights from the Panel of Experts
The Qualitative
DataPopulation 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
Slide29Findings from the Interviews
29
Network organization structures
Asset-based Frameworks
Iterative planning/implementation processInclusion
of
shorter-term goals
Decentralized implementation
Metrics to learn what is working
High levels of trust among participants
Readiness for change in community
Slide30Variables
30
Network organization structures
Asset-based Frameworks
Iterative planning/implementation processInclusion of shorter-term goals
Decentralized implementation
Metrics to learn what is working
High levels of trust among participants
Readiness for change in community
Independent
Variables
Dependent Variable
= Effectiveness
Slide31Effectiveness
For the effective strategy initiative you have in mind, how would you describe its level of
effectiveness:Completely effective
Significantly effectiveSomewhat effective
IneffectivenessFor 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
Slide32Insights from Participants
The Quantitative
DataPopulation 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
Slide33Findings from the Surveys
33
Source: Scott Hutcheson, Distributed under a Creative Commons 3.0 License.
Effective & Ineffective Strategy Initiatives – Mean Responses
Slide34Completely
Effective
Completely IneffectiveSignificantly Effective
Somewhat Effective
Somewhat Ineffective
Significantly
Ineffective
F
indings from the Survey
Effectiveness
Continuum
Dependent Variables
Correlation
Slide35Findings 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
Slide36R
ecipe for INEFFECTIVE Strategies
Have a hierarchical
organizational structureFrame 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
Slide37R
ecipe for EFFECTIVE Strategies Have a
network organizational structureFrame 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
Slide38Improving Our Practice
Strategic Doing enables
people to form action-oriented collaborations quickly, move them toward measurable outcomes, and make adjustments along the way.
Slide39Strategy Answers Two Basic Questions
Slide40Strategic Doing Divides the Two Basic Questions into Four
Appreciative Questions
40
Slide41Strategic Doing Moves from the
Linear to the Agile
Slide42Strategic Doing Is Iterative & Ongoing
Slide43http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/
accelerating_civic_innovation_through_strategic_doing
Slide44In
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 PartnershipsMichigan State University
We finally broke our “grant addiction.” Flint Community Resident
Slide45http://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/public-sector-options-for-creating-jobs/transforming-regions-through-strategic-
doing
Slide46Proceedings 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
Slide47Practicing Strategic Doing
47
Slide48Local & Regional Economic Development
StrategyCommunity Development Strategy
Cluster DevelopmentLocal/Regional Food Systems
Community HealthInnovation
Platform DevelopmentStrategic Alliances
Inter-unit collaboration within a single
organization
National Associations
Practicing
Strategic Doing
Slide49Teaching Strategic Doing
Existing & Emerging University PartnershipsMichigan State University
University of AlaskaUniversity of MissouriNew Jersey Institute of TechnologyUniversity of Central
FloridaStanford UniversitySouthhampton
Solent
University
(
United Kingdom)
University of the Sunshine Coast (
Austrailia
)
Slide50Teaching Strategic Doing
Slide51To know what you you’re going to draw, you have to begin drawing.- Pablo Picasso
Slide52Scott Hutcheson, Ph.D.
765-479-7704hutcheson@purdue.eduwww.linkedin.com/in/scotthutcheson/www.twitter.com/jshutch64www.facebook.com/scott.hutcheson
http://www.slideshare.net/jshutch/
For More Information & to Connect
Copyright 2014 – Scott HutchesonThis
work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial
2.5 License.
Slides available