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, 11.2

Next we want to try to get some sort of a handle on UCP’s operating context, first by asking and attempting to answer a set of questions about where the organization is and how it got there — then by doing the same regarding where it wants to go and how it’s going to get there. 'N case you’re keeping score at home, posts related to what’s happened will begin with “11.3.A.” Posts related to what’s coming will begin with “11.3.B.”

The aim of this inquiry? In David Hurst’s words, to develop “a coarse-grained, moving picture of the past, present and potential futures of the organization -- the questions it has to answer and the choices it has to make.” 

The interest here is not in finding and addressing clear-cut, technical sorts of issues that a consultancy like Gartner, Inc. is better suited to address (e.g., how to complete this or that technology-enabled initiative). Instead, it's in having a go at some of the more complex, systemic, and messier questions – questions which may have more than one answer from which to choose. 

The asking I have in mind to do should, ideally, be a communal process (involving UCP stakeholders of all kinds) and be viewed as an opportunity for learning and growth. 

The best I can hope to do on my own, from a distance, is get the ball rolling. 

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.