ROUND THREE: What CP Parents Are For (Part B)

Maybe you've already associated this post's title with Wendell Berry's "What Are People For?" 

I got around to reading his (old?) 1990 essay about a month ago. It'd been on my radar for years and, well, Mr. Berry didn't disappoint. But he also didn't exactly answer his own question like I had hoped and having read the piece hasn't made answering mine -- "What are CP parents for?" -- any easier. 

No biggie, I suppose. I've read enough of his other writings to know that a major part of his answer would revolve around...

WORK. 

More specifically: I know he believes that people are for doing "the inescapably necessary work" of caring for their communities. They're (we're) for doing the kind of work that requires, among other things, a deep appreciation of context and much giving of intelligence, affection, and skill. 

Not coincidentally, I believe that good work -- think TLC, and lots of it -- is just what our CP community needs. 

What kinds of work? 

Brain work. Knowledge work. In 57 varieties.

I'm talking about specialized work that requires the specific expertise of people who probably already think of themselves as knowledge workers, and also about generalized work; work that could be performed by most people, many of whom probably wouldn't consider themselves knowledge workers. I think of regular old parents, for example, whose greatest hidden value may lie in the things we learn in the daily context of raising kids with CP.

Two things we CP parents have going for us are that (1) there are lots and lots of us, and (2) we have what matters most: passion, the desire to help -- in many cases without expectation of extrinsic rewards. 

Surely those aren't being used to their fullest. 

If we CP parents are for doing good work, it follows that leaders of CP-facing organizations have an opportunity -- maybe even an obligation -- to put us to work. According to many leading thinkers, that's management's JOB ONE anyhow. It's no longer, they say, about being the big brain of the organization and cascading your brilliance down and out to less-informed, less-wise others. That no longer flies.

What does fly has a lot more to do with capturing the participation of passionate people. (Here I'm talking broadly about tapping into the expertise, creativity, energy that lies outside of your organization, but the same idea applies to the people within it.) This is part of the new formula for success, the new way to solve new problems as well as find new solutions to old problems. It's a way to make your organization more indispensable and to amplify its impact.

There could be other more subtle benefits to putting CP parents to work, as well.

When you give people opportunities to chip in, you empower them. You give them chances to develop their talents. You increase the likelihood that good ideas will emerge. You build and inspire a sense of community. You bestow dignity. (Wendell Berry: "Our greatest dignity is in employment.") At a time in which many CP parents are financially tapped out and unable to contribute cash to the cause, and where opportunities to make a difference via the political process are limited, those sorts of things may mean even more. 

SO: 

To the leaders of CP-related organizations of all stripes, in all sectors, the opportunity to tap into what CP parents have to offer is yours. If you choose to ignore it, I wish you the best. I would also hope -- and I would bet -- that others will eventually see and seize it. 

As NiloferMerchant, the Jane Bond of Innovation, observed: "Doing work these days no longer requires a badge and permit. Anyone -- without preapproval or vetting or criteria -- will create and contribute." CP parents will take matters in their own hands with or without you. More and more of us are realizing that it's not just the smart people over there who can bring about progress. Reaching for theStars and Children's Neurobiolgical Solutions didn't to my knowledge ask United Cerebral Palsy (UCP) for permission before starting their own organizations. They saw unmet needs and just did it. 

That's the wave of the present. It's what the Mercers, the Deloittes, the McKinseys, the Gartners, and others in the management consultancy world have been preaching for some time. Their messages are readily available for consideration.

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, 8.5

Practically speaking, will it matter much if UCP and Red Treehouse don’t get a handle on social media? If they never master community collaboration? If they decide not to take all the steps Gartner would have ‘em take to reach the FUSING – or even the FORGING – stage? That takes a lot of work…

Why not just take a pass? 

To Ronald McDonald House of Cleveland: Red Treehouse is just one of your several initiatives and you only have a small staff to support it. Even still, I'd venture to guess you’ve had success growing your network of families, professionals, and organizations this calendar year. Social media's played no role. Why bother even dipping a toe in at this point ? 

UCP: You’re one of the larger health nonprofits, but you’re not some Fortune 500 giant in some crazy-competitive industry. Your reputation's secure. I’m sure donations are steady. Besides, your top priority is your network of affiliates: their work is mostly hands-on, face-to-face, and local. 

   

Either or both of you could opt out gracefully. You could “blame the tools, conclude that social media lacks business value, or assume your organizations simply aren’t ready.” In UCP's case it’d be simple as pie to say that it’s given Twitter (and the like) the old college try but decided to pull back the reins.

Maybe the wizzes at Gartner don’t know what they’re talking about. 
Maybe social media isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. 

In fact... 

*  *  *  *  *

JOHN KOTTER -- Professor of Leadership, Emeritus at Harvard Business School, author of 18 books, co-founder of Kotter International – THE GREAT JOHN KOTTER DOESN'T SAY A SINGLE WORD ABOUT SOCIAL MEDIA in his piece about staying competitive “amid constant turbulence and disruption” in last month's Harvard Business Review. 

What he does say, instead, is that the organizational structures we’ve used in the past “are no longer up to the task of identifying hazards and opportunities soon enough, formulating creative strategic initiatives nimbly enough, and implementing them fast enough.” And, organizations need to come up with better ways of continually assessing their operating environments and reacting “with greater agility, speed, and creativity.”

His general solution, or antidote? Involve “more people than ever before in the strategic change game.” Do it in a way that’s economically realistic, i.e., that gives you the biggest bang for your buck. 

Specifically, Mr. Kotter introduces in the article his concept of the DUAL OPERATING SYSTEM: two separate operating systems running in concert, with the second one – a.k.a. the network – employing an agile structure "and a very different set of processes to design and implement strategy.” The job of the network...is to use volunteers (employees and others) to “liberate information from its silos and hierarchical layers and enable it to flow with far greater freedom and accelerated speed.”

Although he doesn't explicitly say it, I take it as a given that he’d be OK with using social media as a means to those ends. Social-media-enabled collaboration is inferred.

*  *  *  *  *

I find the similarities between Kotter’s dual operating system and Gartner’s COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITIES (“a communal structure within the enterprise”) to be remarkable. Both start with the proposition that organizations are being forced to “evolve toward a fundamentally new form.” Both stress the importance of getting smarter faster…

Even their pitches and promises are alike. Namely: Those organizations that get their acts together now (i.e., the ones that take the consultants' advice) will see immediate and long-term success. They’ll be more profitable. They’ll produce better goods and services. They’ll be more competitive. 

They'll win. 

Hmm. 

I wonder how those sorts of messages /promises would be received by the respective management teams at UCP and Red Treehouse. Would they resonate? Inspire? Excite? Would they compel either or both org. to keep exploring social media? To keep learning through trial and error?

I could see where they might miss the mark. Where they might be too removed, too abstract, and too much in the P&L language of business as we've known it --

It's partly because of that that I now want to move away from Gartner (and Kotter) and head in the direction of a trio of thought leaders who make similar and complementary recommendations, who offer their own unique twists, and who in many ways, IMHO, do a better job of getting to the simple essence of things.
 

The guys I have in mind -- John Seely Brown, John Hagel III, and Lang Davison -- are big-time business consultants in their own rights. Surprisingly, though, they talk less in terms of "beating back threats" and "outracing the competition" and more in terms of using social media to: DO more. HELP more. ACCOMPLISH more. Success, to them, boils down to the choices and passions of each and every individual with a stake in a given organization.

*  *  *  *  *

It's a personal thing.

Our "new digital infrastructure," as they say, gives us unprecedented opportunities to live up to our potential. Individually and institutionally. If we passionately want to improve and get better faster at what we’re doing, i.e., if we care, we’ll explore and master the new tools and techniques. We’ll move outside our comfort zones. We’ll connect and join forces with talented others who have similar interests.

What advice would they give UCP and Red Treehouse? Being all you can be does depend on your getting a handle on social media. It does matter. Lip service isn’t enough. Dipping one toe in isn’t the answer. Real human commitment is. 

To me it's even more personal. MY DAUGHTER AND OTHER KIDS LIKE HER ARE COUNTING ON YOU to make the smartest possible uses of the resources (you're privileged to have) at your disposal. That's what this social media thrust is about. 

I'd like for you both -- I think it'd behoove management at UCP and Red Treehouse -- to hang in there and learn what the authors of The Power of Pull have to teach: how small moves, smartly made, can set really big things in motion.

*  *  *  *  *

Go fail. And then fail again. Non-profit failure is too rare, which means that non-profit innovation is too rare as well. Innovators understand that their job is to fail, repeatedly, until they don't.*

*from seth godin's BLOG, dateline November 30, 2012: "Non-profits have a charter to be innovators"

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 8.4.B

My understanding is that the My Child Without Limits forum is actually managed by Inspire, an outfit that builds online health and wellness communities and offers them free to advocacy organizations like UCP. It’s responsible for moderation, technical support, back-end communications, and other day-to-day obligations.

‘Z’at mean that UCP doesn’t know its collaborative stuff?

Nope. It means that UCP chose to outsource in this case. The only thing that counts, anyhow, is the value people do or don't derive. The forum at My Child seems active. Participants seem to like it...

What I can't tell by browsing is if and how UCP benefits. Or if its managers have the know-how and know-what to pull off something like it on their own. And, can they use social media to collaborate communally for other purposes? The foundation for becoming a social organization is in place. But what about the other stuff that sits on top?

To attempt an answer, we still have two wholly home-grown community collaboration efforts we can look at: Life Labs and (one I left out of the discussion in part A) Brave Kids.

*  *  *  *  *

Like My Child, Brave Kids is an issue-specific campaign with its own site: www.bravekids.org. Brave Kids' mission is to serve “children and youth with disabilities and chronic /life-threatening illnesses by providing a support community, information and resources on numerous medical conditions like genetic diseases, autism, cancer, cerebral palsy, ADD, etc.” 

One of the primary goals at Brave Kids is to help kids build connections with other kids based on their similar experiences. Looking to its online community for signs, however -- that hoped-for connection building isn't happening. Participation is anemic. (the flip-side o' what you see at My Child) To date there have been “3 Posts in 2 Topics by 2 Members,” the most recent coming over six months ago.

I could make more or less the same observation with regard to the participation levels at Life Labs. (re: its Google Group and wiki, for examples)

SOCIAL MEDIA, PURPOSE, and COMMUNITY are the three indispensables of community collaboration. I don't see participants in these cases being mobilized to contribute. I don't see collaboration being generated on a meaningful scale, i.e., there's no tapping into the full knowledge, talent, innovation, and energy of large groups of people. The COMMUNITY component is MIA.

One might argue that both sites, both communities, are still relatively young -- to which Gartner would counter: “Social media environments do not grow slowly over time.” 

The harsh reality is that most social media initiatives either fail to attract interest or deliver real value to the organization. Participation doesn’t usually just happen. Keep in mind a key Gartner insight: Community collaboration isn’t primarily a technology implementation. It’s a management challenge. “Let us be clear: if IT alone leads the effort," the authors of The Social Organization say, "you have already stepped off the path to success. Business leadership is crucial." 

Life Labs’ Director is UCP’s IT Director…

*  *  *  *  *

If it is the case that both would-be communities are struggling, what would Gartner do? How would it go about trying to help? Methodically -- it'd start with a complete medical history, so to speak. Performed on macroscopic and microscopic levels:

MACROSCOPIC 

At the level of the WHOLE ORGANIZATION, Gartner would want to look at all the visioning and strategizing activities that lead to okaying the two projects in the first place. It would help UCP assess whether or not community collaboration was an appropriate choice, and help establish (on closer inspection) that both projects were worth pursuing. This'd entail: 

• Making sure the purposes were well formed, and that they clearly articulated the benefits to community members and the value to the organization;

• Doing "grow" assessments to systematically determine if and how the community collaboration efforts should have moved forward;

• Looking at the projects as parts of a coherent portfolio of purposeful communities -- and making decisions about them accordingly.

MICROSCOPIC

At the INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY level, Gartner would want to focus on all the following steps required to cultivate -- prepare and launch -- a successful community: 

Prepare. A green light (indicating "Yes, we think we're going to want to invest in Life Labs and /or Brave Kids") at the macroscopic level still requires more focused and vigorous efforts to decide if and how to proceed. For each proposed purpose and community, those efforts should have resulted in:

• a purpose roadmap; a malleable plan for its evolution (how the community can evolve to deliver sustained value over time);

• a more formal business justification, one that describes the concrete sources of expected value.

"This combination provides solid footing to progress to the launch phase, where a desired community becomes a reality.”

Launch. A successful launch entails: 

• Exploring and defining the participant experience;

• Creating the right environment (addressing structure, ease of use, choosing the right social media technologies, and more);

• Engaging the community, i.e., grabbing and holding participants’ attention (setting critical mass targets and rapidly driving participation).

*  *  *  *  *

Gartner's overriding objective would be to help UCP build the capabilities to achieve meaningful, repeatable, and significant organizational value with social media technologies -- 

To help UCP hoist itself, in other words, securely onto the FORGING rung.

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 8.4.A

An organization that makes it to the FORGING rung (step five of six on Gartner’s analogical ladder) is in rarefied air. UCP shows signs of being close. As I hinted at earlier, though, I doubt that it’s actually there – in no small part because the deck's been stacked against it from the start. 

What do I mean?

Becoming a social organization isn’t easy. The authors of The Social Organization warn us of that in the Intro, and then re-warn readers in Chapter 3 that putting mass collaboration to work requires “a high degree of corporate skill that most companies will struggle to develop for many years to come.” It only stands to reason that UCP is probably struggling, too. 

Those same authors also researched community collaboration adoption across many fields. When it came time to rank the more active adopters, nonprofits didn’t make the cut. “The highest adoption tier comprises retail, government, media, IT, and consumer products.” Except maybe for the elite of the elite, I wouldn’t expect health nonprofits to be up to the same speed (as organizations in those other industries).*

Still...

In significant ways UCP looks to be bucking any low-to-moderate expectations and becoming a social organization:

• It has a history of having experimented with online communities over the years. (to which I’ve alluded before) 

• UCP has professed its belief in the strategic importance of community collaboration. From its most recent annual report: “UCP recognizes the power of social media to amplify the voices of people with disabilities and all who care about their civil rights struggle. UCP invests heavily in updating and refocusing its social media presence during fiscal years 2010 and 2011.” This tells me the requisite mindset is in place, i.e., the people pulling the strings there don’t think entirely in terms of hierarchy and traditional management. 

• As a parent of a child with CP, I’m thankful that there are multiple ways for me to communicate and collaborate – not only with UCP’s staff, but with its whole network of friends, beneficiaries, partners, and so on. UCP has advanced past the “broadcasting at people” to the “engaging with people” stage. 

To the last point, you could say UCP now manages its own portfolio of platforms. (something social organizations do) Some of them are limited-time-only. Others are ongoing. Next thing I want to do is arrange the ones I know about accordingly.

A ONE-SHOT DEAL?

In conjunction with World CP Day, UCP is one of several global sponsors of the Change my world in 1 minute initiative. How it works: “Throughout August and September [2012], people with cerebral palsy were given the opportunity to express what they needed to make their lives more independent or rewarding. Those ideas were posted…and participants were asked to vote for the ideas they liked the best.” Now in its second phase, this is a great example of a collaborative community charged with performing a variety of disparate tasks, including generating innovative ideas and locating experts (crowd sourcing) in a large community.  

CONTINUOUS

• “Why build your own social community if you can achieve your purpose on someone else’s?” UCP has joined some existing general social web communities (Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube) and maintains multiple accounts.** 

• The My Child Without Limits Support Community connects families, friends and caregivers for support and inspiration. It’s a powerful platform that enables people to connect and collaborate with others in a variety of ways, most notably via a discussion forum. Rather than build this community from scratch, UCP opted to join an existing specific social web community. More about this in part B.

• Life Labs is a home-grown UCP social community. (It’s “only” five clicks away from UCP's homepage if you know what you’re looking for! That’ll be my only jab. I personally think all of these communities are a little hard to get to.) One of the key objectives of the Life Without Limits initiative as it’s currently construed is to help improve the lives “of people with disabilities by harnessing the latest innovations in technology to increase their access to the wider world and marketplace.” Life Labs is dedicated to developing technology-based solutions for people with disabilities and partnering with others who are similarly interested in accessible and inclusive technology. Among other things, its site employs social technologies out the wazoo. There’s: a blog; an option to join Life Labs on Google Groups; a Twitter account; a wiki…

My Child and Life Labs are collaborative communities. It's through these, in particular, that UCP demonstrates that the foundation is there, the basics are in place, for becoming a social organization. 

The platforms show me that UCP knows [1.] what collaborative communities are, [2.] what the defining characteristics are, and [3.] how organizations are using mass collaboration to achieve bigger, faster and better results: 

1. Remember the three indispensable components for mass collaboration?  Life Labs has what I think is a compelling PURPOSE. There’s a very active COMMUNITY at My Child. Both sites use SOCIAL MEDIA extensively. UCP obviously does.
2. Both communities are run in accordance with Gartner's “fundamental principles or defining characteristics of mass collaboration.” Without going into detail, the six (6) principles are : participation, collective, transparency, independence, persistence, and emergence.
3. In both instances UCP's using social media in support of “collective intelligence”: the pooling of small and incremental contributions into a coherent and useful body of knowledge. (Via Life Labs, for example, people are generating innovative ideas, solving difficult challenges, and engineering products. At My Child, people are posting content, augmenting it, categorizing it, and so on.) This is a proven -- legit', if you will -- way of using mass collaboration advantageously. 

To repeat: the foundation is there. 

Now...

How far can UCP go? How are the communities built on that foundation actually doing? How much real value are they delivering? And, how well is UCP doing all the other things it needs to do to build collaboration competence up and down the organization? Well enough to garner a great Gartner grade?

My best guess in part B.

*especially in the absence of fierce and direct competition
**It has at least three different Facebook accounts, for example.