A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 9.3.5.B.1

I want to try to get at the reasoning behind some of UCP's recent innovations and determine if they represent innovating at the PRODUCT and SERVICE level (?) or at the INSTITUTIONAL level (?) and then use whatever I come up with as a basis for further questions and comments.

Because I've been reading about leadership development programs, let's first have a cursory look at the Emerging Leaders Academy. (which I classified as innovation-ish in a previous post)

*  *  *  *  *

The Emerging Leaders Academy is a new leadership training and mentorship program offered by UCP-National to selected mid-career affiliate staff members.  It's an excellent example, in my opinion, of how the folks on K Street are trying new things and taking the organization in new directions.

But, is it innovative? Is it  -- I like this definition from Scott Anthony, managing partner of the strategy and innovation consulting firm, Innosight -- “something different that has impact”? 

I'm gonna say "no," strictly speaking. Why? Because, although it may turn out to be a good idea, to qualify as an innovation it has to be more clearly linked to revenues, net income, or free cash flow*. It has to fill the coffers.

That said, however...

One of the keys to innovating at the institutional level -- besides tapping into flows of knowledge -- is leveraging talent, i.e., helping employees perform better faster. Emerging Leaders is clearly endeavoring to do that by facilitating leadership mentoring and creating new avenues for passionate employees to connect and learn from others across the UCP network.

As for how JSB et al. would JUDGE the program, qualitatively, I'd need to know more of the specifics to hazard a guess. I'm sure they'd bring up the fact that programs like these "mostly focus on transfer of existing explicit knowledge, rather than the creation of new knowledge or even on giving participants the necessary learning skills to tackle knowledge flows." Hence, they'd want to take a closer look at the specialized instruction, i.e., "master tracks" component... 

I'll hold off for now on further commenting.

*  *  *  *  *

Since I've been doing some reading ahead for section eleven, though, I *would* like to interject a few words -- a little more food for thought -- about the implications of David Hurst's ecological model for the development of people within an organization. 

If I had to pick one sentence that captures the essence of what he sees as a top manager-leader's JOB ONE, it would be this from the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead: 

The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order.

Accordingly, Mr. Hurst believes emerging leaders need -- above all -- a "deep appreciation of the contexts in which they are operating." Of UCP-National he'd ask (regarding this training program): How can you help your affiliate up-and-comers develop their contextual intelligence? How can you help them acquire this ability?

His answer /advice: 

Provide them with the right kinds of experience. Via the right kinds of experience, your people can develop their capacities to play their roles better. He adds, "The use of  live ammunition -- real issues -- is the essential ingredient of effective management development programs." (The best kinds of ammo? Uncomfortable circumstances. Severe personnel problems. Bottom line pressure. Unexpected turns in the road...)

The challenge for UCP-National in this case would be to create "career paths that expose young managers to new challenges every two to four years and prepare them to benefit from those assignments." This would require structuring meaningful experiences into a sequence of escalating challenges. Mr. Hurst's model carries within it a code for doing so. 

I don't see signs that this kind of thinking or, more specifically, this sort of structuring is currently a part of the Emerging Leaders program, but -- 'specially given the fact that there are in the neighborhood of 100 network affiliates -- it could be. 

May well be worth looking into. 

*from Wikipedia: "essentially the money that the company could return to shareholders if the company was to grow no further"

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 9.3.5.B

Got edges?

Conventional wisdom says an ailing organization should aggressively cut costs and /or develop new products and services to raise revenues. UCP's done both of these in recent years. To minimize operating costs, the former UPC of Central OH merged with another nonprofit (that also serves people with disabilities). On the revenue side, the national office has introduced at least three significant new service offerings...

Assuming for a minute it's done all the COST CUTTING it can do -- organizationwide, affiliate network included -- I want to focus this post on the GROWTH side of the UCP equation. 

"When organizations speak of pursuing growth, most are speaking of product- or service-level innovations produced in the core of their organization." 

The word "core" is key here. The authors of The Power of Pull contend that innovations derived from core operations are offering diminishing returns these days. Marginally improved, marginally differentiated products and services aren't moving the dial. As it relates to UCP, their concern would be that improvements of that ilk would likely not generate enough dough to make up for any losses the organization is experiencing due to reduced government support and /or increased competition.

(Do LIFE LABS, Mission Driven Consulting, and The World CP Challenge represent just marginally improved or differentiated services? If so, are they destined to provide  mediocre-at-best returns? If not, are there additional things UCP could do to ensure their sustained effectiveness? I hope to make those sorts of questions the subject matter of the next post.)

JSB et al. would counsel against pursuing marginal returns. It's not sensible, they write, "to keep pushing harder and harder on existing resources with minimal gains." 

If this is the organization's m.o., it should consider looking to the edge and learning to innovate at a more fundamental, institutional level -- for at least three reasons: (1) there's a good chance market opportunities are being missed (2) pursuing edge opportunities can be relatively less costly [because you're leveraging external resources] and (3) significantly, UCP would develop new institutional capabilities in the process.

If things are "difficult" for UCP, that's a sign that more changing and adapting need to be done. Changes in management mindsets are likely in order.* What the authors offer is a pragmatic pathway to making said changes and to improving, specifically, UCP's ability to learn.

In the next post I'll try to characterize and categorize some of UCP-National's innovations. Then, after that, I'll go into how UCP could inch itself closer to the edge.

*Question for UCP top managers to ponder: Do you consider it your purpose to be an orchestrator for your people to connect and learn from others, i.e., to improve their performance?