Download to read offline
Uploaded byScott Hutcheson, Ph.D.
Effective Strategy for Addressing Public Issues
The document presents insights from research on effective strategies for addressing community-based public issues, emphasizing the importance of collaboration and understanding various phases of partnerships. It examines the evolution of public issues, identifies the factors contributing to effective strategy development, and provides empirical findings from qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys. Key recommendations are offered for creating successful strategies, including network organization structures, asset-based frameworks, and iterative planning processes.
More Related Content
Similar to Effective Strategy for Addressing Public Issues
Effective Strategy for Addressing Public Issues
- 1. Copyright 2014 –Scott Hutcheson This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License. Effective Strategy for Addressing Public Issues Scott Hutcheson, Ph.D. IEEA Spring Conference Nashville, IN – April 29, 2014
- 2. What to ExpectFrom This Session • Present insights from research on the effective development and implementation of strategies to address community-based public issues • Explore how to incorporate findings into Extension community-based public issues work
- 3. Better understand henature of collaboration Identify what stage your collaborations are in Consider 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
- 4. White River Ferryat Norfork, Arkansas, circa 1900
- 6. Better understand henature of collaboration Identify what stage your collaborations are in Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level Norfork, Arkansas (pop. 550)
- 7. Our communities, bigand small, are dealing with complex PUBLIC ISSUES
- 8. Our communities, bigand small, are dealing with complex PUBLIC ISSUES ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
- 9. Better understand henature of collaboration Identify what stage your collaborations are in Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level Research Question Why are some strategies for addressing public issues successful and others…not so much?
- 10. Answering the Question Agrounded 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. 1. Literature review 2. Interviews 3. Surveys
- 11. Better understand henature of collaboration Identify what stage your collaborations are in Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level Problem Statement • Literature gap regarding factors contributing to effective strategy in the context of public issues like economic development (Kwon, Berry, & Feiock, 2009). • Civic leaders face daunting tasks of developing and implementing strategies to address these public issues (Markey, 2010). • Very little research-based information to guide decisions about effective strategy-development processes.
- 12. • Evolution ofpublic issues • Institutionalization • Locus of control • Increasing complexity • Tools for managing public issues • Early tools • Evolving tools • Emerging tools • Contributing theories • Strategy formation • Collaborative governance • Social 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).
- 13. Better understand henature of collaboration Identify what stage your collaborations are in Consider 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).
- 14. Hierarchy of ComplexSystems •Social Organizations – economics, education, politics •Individual Human – language capacity, knowledge accumulation, design and use of tools •Animal – mobility, information processing •Plants – viability •Open Systems – matter, energy •Cybernetics – computers •Clockworks – engines •Frameworks – buildings, cells 14 Complexity Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3): 197-208.
- 15. The Extension EconomistVs. The Rocket Scientist 15
- 16. Hierarchy of ComplexSystems •Social Organizations – economics, education, politics •Individual Human – language capacity, knowledge accumulation, design and use of tools •Animal – mobility, information processing •Plants – viability •Open Systems – matter, energy •Cybernetics – computers •Clockworks – engines •Frameworks – buildings, cells 16 Complexity Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3): 197-208.
- 17. Hierarchy of ComplexSystems •Social Organizations – economics, education, politics •Individual Human – language capacity, knowledge accumulation, design and use of tools •Animal – mobility, information processing •Plants – 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.
- 18. Hierarchy of ComplexSystems •Social Organizations – economics, education, politics •Individual Human – language capacity, knowledge accumulation, design and use of tools •Animal – mobility, information processing •Plants – 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.
- 19. Dealing with theComplexity 19 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 Strategic Planning (McNamara, 2010, Open Source Economic Development (Merkel, 2010), Strategic Doing (Hutcheson, 2008;
- 20. Better understand henature of collaboration Identify what stage your collaborations are in Consider ways to move a collaborations to the next level Complexity = Messes Public issues are complex Institutions emerged to deal with the complexity There are lots of institutions No single institution is “in charge” of most public issues Complex environment
- 21. Contributing Theories •Social Innovation •StrategyFormation •Collaborative Governance 21
- 22. Social Innovation Social innovations… •are best designed and implemented in networks • emerge from heterogeneousness (diversity) • are framed using existing assets • are products of co-creation • are the result of collective action • should have decentralized implementation • ,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)
- 23. Strategy Formation Strategies… • areformed intuitively • are iterative • must be designed to account for unanticipated variables • must take into account contextual values, assumptions, beliefs, and expectations • must be flexible • should be designed collaboratively • and 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
- 24. Collaborative Governance Collaborative governance… •takes advantage of network structures • connects existing assets • focuses first on small wins • Requires decision making to be made by consensus • works when there is trust among participants • is efficient • involves 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
- 25. Better understand henature of collaboration Identify what stage your collaborations are in Consider 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)
- 26. Insights from thePanel of Experts The Qualitative Data • Population 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
- 27. Findings from theInterviews 27 1. Network organization structures 2. Asset-based Frameworks 3. Iterative planning/implementation process 4. Inclusion of shorter-term goals 5. Decentralized implementation 6. Metrics to learn what is working 7. High levels of trust among participants 8. Readiness for change in community
- 28. Variables 28 1. Network organizationstructures 2. Asset-based Frameworks 3. Iterative planning/implementation process 4. Inclusion of shorter-term goals 5. Decentralized implementation 6. Metrics to learn what is working 7. High levels of trust among participants 8. Readiness for change in community Independent Variables Dependent Variable = Effectiveness
- 29. Effectiveness For the effectivestrategy initiative you have in mind, how would you describe its level of effectiveness: • Completely effective • Significantly effective • Somewhat effective Ineffectiveness For 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
- 30. Insights from Participants TheQuantitative Data • Population of individuals who have participated in community-based strategy initiatives to address public issues (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
- 31. Findings from theSurveys 31 Source: Scott Hutcheson, Distributed under a Creative Commons 3.0 License. Effective & Ineffective Strategy Initiatives – Mean Responses
- 32. Completely Effective Completely Ineffective Significantly Effective Somewhat Effective Somewhat Ineffective Significantly Ineffective Findings from theSurvey Effectiveness Continuum DependentVariables Correlation
- 33. Findings from theSurveys 33 Source: Scott Hutcheson, Distributed under a Creative Commons 3.0 License. Correlation Between Strategy Initiative Effectiveness and the Eight Independent Variables
- 34. Recipe for EFFECTIVEStrategies • Have a network organizational structure • Frame 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
- 35. Recipe for INEFFECTIVEStrategies • Have a hierarchical organizational structure • Frame 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
- 36.
- 37. • Think aboutpublic issues differently • Accelerate the collaborations needed to address them • Develop and implement agile, asset-based strategies to meet a progressive series of clearly defined strategic objectives Addressing Public Issues
- 38.
- 39. Exercise One: ReframingPublic Issues 39 Choose one of the following problem-centered statements about public issues and reframe it as an opportunity-centered question. 1. Somebody needs to do something about the graffiti on our downtown buildings 2. We can’t keep our smartest kids here. We’re suffering from “brain drain.” 3. In the good old days we had great manufacturing jobs that paid a great wage. 4. People are not eating enough fruits and vegetables. 5. Our kids are not getting the math and science skills they need.
- 40. The Collaboration Continuum Turf Trust TIME Sharing Resources Sharing Information Mutual Awareness Co-Execution Co-Creation AcknowledgmentExploration Cooperation Collaboration Innovation Adapted from Collaboration Continuum from ACT for Youth
- 41. Exercise Two: Accelerating Collaboration 1. Considera collaboration that is important to your work 2. Ask yourself what stage on the continuum is that collaboration in now? 3. Think of specific steps you could take to move the collaboration to the next level
- 42. Scott Hutcheson, Ph.D. 765-479-7704 hutcheson@purdue.edu www.linkedin.com/in/scotthutcheson/ www.twitter.com/jshutch64 www.facebook.com/scott.hutcheson ThankYou Copyright 2014 – Scott Hutcheson This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.