A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 11.1

A hypothetical: 

You’re newly responsible for the overall well being of United Cerebral Palsy, UCP, one of the US’s largest health-related charities. I’d like to know: How do you intend to piece everything (the dozens--thousands--millions of moving parts) together? What’ll be your particular way of doing things? The landscape looks chaotic: How will you put it into context? 

You won't just wing it, will you?

If it were I in such a position, I think I’d be inclined to at least experiment with the comprehensive management approach David K. Hurst introduces in The New Ecology of Leadership. (Columbia Business School Publishing, 2012)

Mr. Hurst’s approach uses an understanding of natural systems to shed light on the ways in which organizations work, and how they may be managed. Central to it is an ecological mental model that:

• serves as “dynamic filing system and a management toolbox that allows you [managers] to store and retrieve organizational experiences and to employ them in taking effective action” 

• shows how to use Passion, Reason, and Power to keep an organization on course (destination: a sustainable future) and away from perilous traps 

-- which is as clear as mud, I'm sure.

Rather than try to elaborate, I think it’d be better to go straight to trying to apply said model. That’s the only way to learn, ultimately, whether or not it could help UCP become an even better organization than it already is.

Mr. Hurst doesn’t offer one-size-fits-all answers. He tries, instead, to get to the heart of the complex and unique issues that organizations face: "If you can name the pain," he says, "you’re well on the way to resolving them.” Improving the system itself is usually the solution. That all starts with asking questions...

Next. 

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 1.2

One thing that LIVESTRONG has that Red Treehouse and UCP don’t is its own manifesto. A manifesto is a public declaration. It makes me think, “bold" -- to the point of “in your face.” I also think, “change.” Manifestos are connected with efforts to change the status quo. They're part and parcel of movements of all sorts. 

LIVESTRONG is a movement that was founded on passion, emotional energy, and trust (a blend of hope, faith, and confidence).* It exists to help cancer patients and their families live their days to the fullest, and to help them tackle intensely personal things -- HEADON.

Just an observation: 

In my very limited experience – I've had no exposure, for example, to any of UCP’s affiliates – I can’t say that I feel like UCP and Red Treehouse are trying to build those same sorts of personal and emotional ties between me-and-my-daughter and them. "Life Without Limits" doesn't feel like a movement to me. 

For better or worse, neither of the two organizations is conveying anything so rousing as...

LIVESTRONG Manifesto

We believe in life. 
Your life. 
We believe in living every minute of it with every ounce of your being. 
And that you must not let cancer take control of it. 
We believe in energy: channeled and fierce. 
We believe in focus: getting smart and living strong.
Unity is strength. Knowledge is power. Attitude is everything. 
This is LIVESTRONG. 

We kick in the moment you're diagnosed. 
We help you accept tears. Acknowledge the rage. 
We believe in your right to live without pain. 
We believe in information. Not pity. 
And in straight, open talk about cancer. 
With husbands, wives and partners. With kids, 
friends and neighbors. And the people you live with, work with, cry and laugh with. 
This is no time to pull punches. 
You're in the fight of your life. 

We're about the hard stuff.
Like finding the nerve to ask for a second opinion. 
And a third, or a fourth, if that's what it takes. 
We're about preventing cancer. Finding it early. Getting smart about clinical trials.
And if it comes to it, being in control of how your life ends. 
It's your life. You will have it your way. 

We're about the practical stuff. 
Planning for surviving.  Banking your sperm. Preserving your fertility. Organizing your finances. Dealing with hospitals, specialists, insurance companies and employers. 
It's knowing your rights. 
It's your life. 
Take no prisoners. 

We're about the fight. 
We're your champion on Capitol Hill. Your advocate with the healthcare system. Your sponsor in research labs. 
And we know the fight never ends. 
Cancer may leave your body, but it never leaves your life. 
This is LIVESTRONG. 
Founded and inspired by Lance Armstrong, one of the toughest cancer survivors on the planet. 

*with a nod to David K. Hurst

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 9.3.1

UCP has developed a comprehensive, one-stop shop of resources for every U.S. state and territory. Never scour the Web again for bits and pieces of disability information and resources from disparate sources!

That second sentence jumps out at me – it prompts me – every time I see it. Invariably it causes me to think of knowledge stocks and knowledge flows, and the central roles the two play in the meditations of John Seely Brown, et. al. 

One of that bunch's biggest ideas goes like this: 

It used to be that organizations could win by: (1) knowing valuable stuff, and (2) extracting value from -- while simultaneously restricting access to -- what they knew. Nowadays, however, that approach isn’t cutting it. Why not? Mostly because “in a world changing at an increasingly rapid pace, the half-life of these stocks of knowledge is depleting at an equally rapid pace.”

The new way to make it as an organization is to shift the primary focus to flows of new knowledge. 

“It’s no longer about what you know,” they say, “but rather, what relationships you have and what you can learn from these relationships.” 

UCP was founded in 1949, when the older ways had just begun to hold sway. Obviously, the organization has evolved over the years. (Witness its ongoing efforts to keep up with changes in information technologies.) Are its mindsets and practices, however, all the way up to today’s speed? That’s the sort of thing I want to delve into in this sub-section. 

Additionally, I’d like to know: 

• In what ways is UCP organized around the notion that value comes from protecting and capitalizing on existing stocks of knowledge? 

• How and where is it participating in flows of new knowledge? 

• How might it stand to gain by implementing JSB’s ideas? 

• Is there a systematic way to go about doing that?

You may have noticed that I haven’t been mentioning Red Treehouse. Reason being? At some point herein I want to zero in specifically on UCP’s Public Education & Outreach (PE&O) offerings. In my opinion, those are similar enough to (all of) Red Treehouse’s offerings that, if anything useful comes of the zeroing in, both organizations will be served.

*what we know at any particular time

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 11.0

If Red Treehouse and UCP are puzzles, then my main interest really is in how all the pieces – new information technologies and their uses included – come together. 

For the past few years I’ve been learning about various comprehensive management approaches. The holy grail, as far as these things go? A foolproof set of steps even a fool like me could follow to steer an organization to success. A reliable road map. A “framework for frameworks” capable of subsuming any of the myriad of mental-models modern-managers use to address challenges and opportunities.* 

There’s a relatively new approach that has my attention now. I think it has a lot going for it, i.e., it makes sense to me. Even though it’s not prescriptive in a “do these specific things and you’ll win” way, its recommendations are right in line with those expressed in The Power or Pull (section 9) and Too Big To Know (section 10). So it also makes at least some sense to transition to it at this point. 

What I want to do is take it for a spin. Apply it as best I can to UCP and Red Treehouse. Not just for kicks, though. I want to help make both organizations better. Maybe this approach could be beneficial. Becoming a hope machine implies having a formula, after all. Maybe this is the one? 

Let’s explore.

*Gartner’s formula for becoming a social organization, for example, would fit within.

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 9.0

The Power of Pull, initially published in 2010, just now out in paperback, is one of my favorite books of the last few years. In this section, I'd first like to overview it broadly-shallowly-quickly and then relate two of its big ideas narrowly-deeply-deliberately to Red Treehouse and UCP. 

Here’s how I see things unfolding:

9.1: OVERVIEW /KEY CONCEPTS

Thesis. “To get better faster at whatever it is you do, you’ve got to be supported by a broad array of complementary people and resources from which you can pull what you need to raise your rate of performance improvement.” 

Three levels of pull. Pulling is about accessing (searching), attracting (making serendipitous connections), and achieving (collaborating). The last set of practices entails participating in what the authors call creation spaces -- which are akin to Gartner’s collaborative communities. 

Success formula. Use pull techniques to: (1) define compelling trajectories for change, (2) provide leverage to the passionate individuals who are attracted to these trajectories, and (3) amplify the impact of these individuals. 

9.2: SHAPING STRATEGIES

"By grasping how pull works we can build institutions that can act as platforms to catapult change, and maybe even transform the world in necessary and far-reaching ways." 

Should UCP pursue a shaping strategy, i.e., should it attempt to reshape the CP arena on a global scale? Based on the BIG SKY PROJECT vision of the future for people with disabilitiles, is UCP already moving in this direction?  

Inquiring minds want to know. 

9.3: KNOWLEDGE STOCKS AND FLOWS

The authors contend that the sources of economic value are moving from "stocks" of knowledge to "flows" of new knowledge, and that we must "accelerate a shift to a very different mindset and to practices that treat knowledge flows as the central opportunity and knowledge stocks as a useful by-product and key enabler." 

What are the implications for UCP and Red Treehouse?

I can say already that the implications are huge. Our new ways of knowing impact everything these organizations do. In posts 9.3+, I'd like to look closely at UCP's Public Education & Outreach (PEO) efforts -- and then use that as a springboard for exploring David Weinberger's new book about "networked knowledge" (Too Big To Know) in section ten.