5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 1
THE
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
JOURNAL
OF KANSAS CIVIC LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
VOLUME 1 - ISSUE 1 - SPRING 2009
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 2
AN INVITATION
Welcome to The Journal. The work of building healthy communities and nurturing civic leadership in Kansas belongs to everyone. But it is daunting work. If you are reading this, civic leadership in Kansas is probably a high priority for you, whether you are a teacher, trainer, consultant, politician, clergy, volunteer, community activist or in some other role. From wherever you sit, the civic work we do will be enhanced if we share information and learn from each other. That’s what The Journal is all about. Our aspiration is that The Journal will be a vehicle for an exchange of experiences, insights, research findings, and reflections of people like you who care deeply about closing the gap between the current reality and our aspirations for the way tough civic issues are addressed in Kansas, and perhaps beyond. The Journal is also intended to challenge your thoughts and spur healthy discussions. In addition, we view The Journal as a means to help you be more aware of the purpose, approach and activities of the Kansas Leadership Center. The pages of The Journal are available to you as a consumer but also as a contributor. Let us hear from you. The deadline for the next issue is September 1, 2009. In an increasingly flat world, our interdependence is clear. The younger generation has shown us the power of social networking. Let’s take a cue from them. Together, we can make The Journal an invaluable resource for a growing constituency committed to civic transformation, and itself a vehicle for making progress. Join us. Suggest an article you would like to write. I look forward to hearing from you. Most sincerely,
Ed O’Malley President and CEO Kansas Leadership Center
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 3
THE
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
JOURNAL
OF KANSAS CIVIC LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
FEATURES
VOLUME 1 - ISSUE 1 - SPRING 2009
CONTENTS
4.
Letter to the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
KLC THEORY OF CIVIC LEADERSHIP
The Power of Language in Civic Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
An overview of the background, purpose and approach of the KLC
BY KEVIN BOMHOFF
How simple language can affect leadership development
7. THE COMPETENCIES FOR CIVIC LEADERSHIP
Help Wanted: Bridge Builders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 BY TIM STEFFENSMEIER
BY ED O’MALLEY
Why people with the disposition and skill-set to cross barriers and engage in collaborative projects are essential to civic leadership
An introduction to the core curricular underpinning of the KLC
23. ASSESSING SOCIAL CAPITAL IN KANSAS: FINDINGS FROM QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE STUDIES BY DOUG EASTERLING, CAPRI FOY, KATE FOTHERGILL, LORI LEONARD AND DAVID HOLTGRAVE
Connecting Social Capital and Community Health . . . . . . . . . . .21 BY SHARON HOMAN
Predicting the Future: Why Citizen Engagement No Longer Is Optional . . . . . . . . . . . .40 BY JOHN NALBANDIAN
36. TRANSFORMING THE CIVIC CULTURE: THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP PROGRAMS IN KANSAS
New Lenses for Leadership Development . . . . . . . . .43 BY CARLOTA PONDS
BY DAVID CHRISLIP
The inspiring future of community leadership programs Community Leadership Program Lessons of Experience Community Leadership Program Benchmark Assessment
Leadership Coaching – Twin Competencies, Powerful Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 BY JULIA FABRIS MCBRIDE
55.
Networking Leadership Development in Kansas . . . . . . . . . . .49
THE ARTIFACT
BY RON WILSON AND MATT JORDAN
Voices of Kansans and how they guide the KLC
70.
What’s next for the state’s association of leadership developers? The KLC – From Conception to Launch . . . . . .51 A history of the Kansas Leadership Center
WHAT’S RIGHT WITH KANSAS? THE VIEW FROM OUTSIDE BY MARTY LINSKY AND KRISTIN VON DONOP
Our Layers – Reflections on Managing Self . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 BY SHEERSTY RHODES 1.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 4
THE
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
JOURNAL
The Journal is published periodically by the Kansas Leadership Center, which is funded through an initial 10-year, $30 million investment from the Kansas Health Foundation. With a mission to foster civic leadership for healthier Kansas communities, KLC is unique in the field of leadership development due to its focus on civic leadership, statewide scope and robust funding source. KLC strives to deliver world-class leadership development experiences for Kansans by Kansans. Its initiatives are designed to inspire, educate and connect people from all areas of civic life, including business, government and nonprofit organizations. KLC MISSION
To foster civic leadership for healthier Kansas communities KLC VISION
To be the center of excellence for civic leadership development
KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PERMISSIONS
Abstracting is permitted with credit to the source. For other reprint, copying or reproduction permission, contact Carlota Ponds at cponds@kansasleadershipcenter.org.
Karen Humphreys, Chair Ed O’Malley, President/CEO Greg Musil Consuelo Sandoval David Lindstrom Bill Snyder Laura Kelly Carolyn Kennett Reggie Robinson
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Annual subscription is free. Sign up to receive The Journal at www.kansasleadershipcenter.org. KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER
300 North Main, Suite 100 Wichita, Kansas 67202 316.712.4950 www.kansasleadershipcenter.org info@kansasleadershipcenter.org
KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER STAFF
Ed O’Malley, President/CEO Matt Jordan, Director of Programs Patty Clark, Director of Operations David Chrislip, Senior Fellow Carlota Ponds, Program Associate Shaun Rojas, Program Associate Darla Crowell, Executive Coordinator Kathleen Straight, Business Manager Thomas Stanley, Intern
PHOTOGRAPHY
Landscape photographs in this issue were taken by Daniel W. Coburn, who is represented by many of the finest national and regional galleries. For further information on availability of prints and points of purchase contact Dan at dan@danielwcoburn.com or 785.221.0761.
KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER FACULTY
Marty Linsky David Chrislip Kristin von Donop Peter Cohen Lynette Lacy Paulette Goines Kevin Bomhoff Ron Alexander Ed O’Malley
©2009 Kansas Leadership Center
2.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 5
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
LETTER TO THE EDITOR Josie McLean
shift – and in this way develop new ways of living together that are more sustainable in the broadest sense. We will also need to find ways of supporting and developing each other on a personal level as we engage in this work. We will need empathy to really listen to each other and explore ideas we have not entertained before; openness To give up some of the ideas and things that we have held so dear for so long; courage to try an experiment without knowing if it will fail or succeed; trust in our own creativity and ability to innovate ‘on the go’; and wisdom to do what is right – for the whole, not just ourselves.
As this, your first edition rolls off the presses, I wish to acknowledge the achievements of the Kansas Leadership Center to date and encourage you into the future. You are involved in a very impressive undertaking to develop civic leadership on a broad scale. To then discover that the key driver of this endeavor is to generate a healthier society is as astounding as it is inspirational. I live many miles away from you on the other side of the world in Australia – and I am watching your experiment with great interest. I am also sharing it with local government folk here, too. We face these same problems, manifesting in subtly different ways. This is not a surprise to me, as I have a hypothesis that the familiarity of the symptoms is a result of a common root cause – a modern western culture that is founded upon some unconscious assumptions or mental models that are being challenged more and more keenly each day.
I look forward to reading your journal and also the opportunity to participate - sharing our learning. Thank you for the opportunity to engage on this level. And best wishes to you all for the future – your enterprise is significant and inspiring.
JOSIE MCLEAN
We need experiments such as yours at KLC to experiment with how we might create a paradigm
Leadership Coach and Founder – The Tactical Partnership South Australia
SUBMISSIONS KLC’s aspiration is for more and more of the content in The Journal to be generated by non-KLC faculty and staff. Contact Carlota Ponds at cponds@kansasleadershipcenter.org if you would like something considered for future editions. Ideal submissions will be focused on civic leadership development or civic life in general. Possible submissions could include: • an executive summary of a larger piece of your research • a column expressing your thoughts or theory about civic leadership • an overview of leadership teaching techniques you have found particularly effective • a piece highlighting an innovative part of your leadership development program • reflections on civic leadership development efforts in Kansas
3.
LETTERS INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: The Editor Kansas Leadership Center 300 N. Main, Suite 100 Wichita, Kansas 67202 OR EMAILED TO: info@kansasleadershipcenter.org. Please include your city, state, email address and phone number. All letters are subject to editing.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 6
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
KLC THEORY OF CIVIC LEADERSHIP An Overview of the Background, Purpose and Approach of the Kansas Leadership Center
4.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 7
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
of Kansans helps assure the relevance of KLC’s initiatives to the Kansas context. Additional vetting by leadership scholars and experts helped refine the leadership model and hypothesis.
BACKGROUND The Kansas Health Foundation’s (KHF) decision to create the Kansas Leadership Center came after years of experience investing in improving the health of Kansans. Health, as KHF defined it, included health promotion and disease prevention. In order to address the root causes of health problems, the foundation’s three-pronged strategy focused on health policy, public health with a primary emphasis on children, and leadership.
WHAT WE HEARD
Four significant observations stand out from the listening process about the civic challenges and the civic culture in Kansas. First, Kansans widely agree that there is inadequate progress on the issues they care about such as health and health care, education, economic development, immigration, crime and the environment.
Reflecting on its experience in these three areas, KHF concluded that civic leadership – broadly defined – affects social determinants of health. To demonstrate its (KHF’s) commitment to transforming civic leadership to improve the health of Kansas, KHF created the Kansas Leadership Center (KLC) in 2007 with a sustained investment of $30 million dollars over 10 years. KLC aspires to provide evidence that enhanced civic leadership will lead to demonstrable and sustainable improvement in the health of Kansans. Exactly what enhanced civic leadership means and how KLC will develop it remains an open question.
Second, these issues share some common characteristics that make progress difficult. For example, they are complex, interconnected and ever changing. They affect many people with a wide range of views about how they should be addressed and little shared understanding. Different interests and ideologies divide and polarize constituents. The issues cannot be solved unilaterally by any group or sector or by government alone. Short-term, symptomatic and technical responses prevail without getting at root causes. Put another way, the challenges require adaptive not technical work.
LISTENING TO KANSANS
In order to succeed, KLC would need to develop a much more precise definition of civic leadership. This definition would provide the focus for its programmatic initiatives. Rather than adopt an existing model of leadership that might not be relevant to the Kansas context, KLC chose to develop its own theory and description of civic leadership based on a thorough understanding of the civic challenges facing Kansans and the civic culture—the norms and processes used to address civic challenges— of its towns, cities and regions. To do this, KLC conducted an extensive listening process using focus groups and interviews with Kansans from all walks of life. KLC then used the results of this process to define the leadership capacities Kansans would need to respond to these challenges and to develop a theory or hypothesis about how enhanced civic leadership would eventually improve the health of Kansans. “Grounding” this theory in the experiences
Third, the more vocal “usual” voices, those with some vestige of authority or power, tend to dominate public debate. They see the process of addressing civic challenges primarily as a zero-sum, win or lose game pitting “us” against “them.” The vast majority of Kansans, however, do not participate or share responsibility for addressing the challenges either out of apathy, anger or frustration with the ineffective and polarizing norms of civic engagement. This debilitating civic culture erodes social capital— the sense of trust, tolerance and reciprocity. Fourth, this default civic culture is a mismatch with challenges requiring adaptive work. When engagement, mutual learning and systemic responses are necessary, the current civic culture impedes rather than facilitates progress.
5.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 8
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
INTERPRETING THE DATA
These observations imply the need for a profoundly different kind of civic leadership and civic culture in the state’s towns, cities and regions. Making progress on civic challenges requires working together—courageous collaboration. Civic leadership needs to engage both “usual” and “unusual” voices by convening and catalyzing civic work across boundaries, facilitating learning among stakeholders and creating a sense of shared purpose. The capacity to exercise leadership must come much more from personal credibility and skill rather than from positions of authority. Conscious choices need to be made to intervene in a different, more inclusive and constructive way instead of settling for the inadequacies of the default civic culture. This kind of leadership focuses much more on the process of engagement rather than the content of the issue. Specifically, exercising civic leadership requires four competencies (described in the following pages): diagnose situation, manage self, facilitate intervention and energize others. These four competencies encourage courageous collaboration by framing issues in open-ended ways, including usual and unusual voices, creating constructive processes and sustaining the work through decision and action. DESIGNING AN INTERVENTION
KLC’s programs and initiatives develop this kind of civic leadership through powerful experiences that provide conceptual frameworks, skills, tools, and ways of being that support the four competencies. By 2010, KLC expects to engage more than 1,000 Kansans a year in leadership development experiences. A combination of place-based community leadership programs
and high-leverage role-based and open enrollment programs offers a range of opportunities for participants reflecting the diversity of the state’s population to enhance their capacity to exercise civic leadership. These “networks of responsibility” for civic work provide the energizing force for making progress on civic challenges and transforming the civic culture of the state. REALIZING THE VISION
The creation of KLC is itself an act of civic leadership carried out by KHF. In keeping with the working premise that leadership is an experimental and improvisatory art, establishing KLC offers a means of providing evidence that “civic leadership affects social determinants of health”. The KLC Theory of Leadership provides a framework for the organization’s programmatic initiatives that connects its purpose to the end envisioned by KHF. Some years from now, the fruits of this investment should be apparent in at least three dimensions. First, enhanced civic leadership in Kansas because of KLC’s efforts should lead to demonstrable progress on civic challenges such as health, education, economic development, environment and governance. Second, the amount of a particular kind of social capital, bridging social capital (the capacity of people to work together across boundaries), should grow significantly in the state. Third, the civic culture of Kansas towns, cities and regions should be transformed in ways that support adaptive work through collaborative civic engagement. Substantially achieving these outcomes will be the full measure and test of KLC’s Theory of Leadership.
6.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 9
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
THE COMPETENCIES FOR CIVIC LEADERSHIP An Introduction To The Core Curricular Underpinning of the KLC by Ed O’Malley President and CEO of the Kansas Leadership Center
The KLC Competencies offer a framework, born out of listening to Kansans, for effective civic leadership. Think about any failed effort at making change happen in civic life, and chances are one or more of The KLC Competencies was absent. Conversely, successful civic leadership efforts tend to embody these simple, yet profound competencies. The KLC Competencies represent the type of leadership needed to truly create healthier communities.
7.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 10
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
Most everyone intimately involved with the Kansas Leadership Center (board, staff, faculty and advisors) has significant experience in civic life. I mention this, not to pat ourselves on the back (there is a difference between being involved and being effective after all – more on that later), but instead as a way of conveying our empathy with those active in civic life. Our experience tells us exercising civic leadership is hard. If it were easy, everyone would be doing it! We also believe developing civic leadership capacity in others – which is our charge – is a deep and daunting task that requires more know-how than we collectively possessed when we began the KLC effort. This led us to design and implement a process of engagement with Kansans about the nature of our state’s civic challenges and the type of leadership necessary to make progress on those challenges. Our experience, as well as the feedback from listening to Kansans, tells us there is something different about leadership in civic life versus business or organizational life. Of course, there are many similarities, with the main one being that leadership is never easy – anywhere. But we believe leadership is even more difficult in civic life, primarily because no one is in charge. Think about it. In civic life, even the governor has considerably less formal authority than the CEO of any company. To do anything significant, the governor must collaborate with at least the majority of the legislature. It’s no easy task to get a majority of people to do anything significant, but at least a CEO can hire, fire, promote, demote, give a bonus or raise, etc.
an introduction to those competencies, which have become known simply as The KLC Competencies. Our assertion is significantly greater progress would be made if more Kansans working toward creating healthier communities were competent in The KLC Competencies – diagnose situation, manage self, facilitate intervention and energize others. DIAGNOSE SITUATION
What does it mean to diagnose situations for the purpose of exercising effective leadership on difficult civic challenges? And why is it the first of The KLC Competencies? If you are trying to intervene to help your community make progress on a tough issue, it is critical that you understand what you are intervening into. And our experience and observation is that the biggest single mistake people make in trying to exercise leadership on civic challenges is in misdiagnosing the situation. Chuck Krider, a longtime godfather of Kansas economic policy, put it this way: “Problem identification is key. If you don't identify the right problems, then you are working on the wrong thing! What are you going to work on? What are you going to do? To set good objectives and goals, you have to understand the problem.” Why do people misdiagnose the situation? Two reasons stand out.
Leadership is especially hard in the civic sphere, and if we are going to make progress on creating healthier communities, KLC must help prepare people to exercise a different type of leadership especially in touch with civic life.
Don’t Just Stand There, Do Something. When a community is facing a difficult issue, there is almost always tremendous pressure, especially on those in authority, to act, to do something, making it difficult to spend the time necessary to do a deep diagnosis. In the complex economic meltdown in the fall of 2008, President George W. Bush and the Congress took unprecedented steps in a matter of days. Inaction would not have been easily tolerated by the public.
Rather than just sit around and wax philosophic about what type of leadership is necessary for civic life, we instead engaged over 100 Kansans to help us answer the question. All were asked the same questions, and their answers were recorded, transcribed and analyzed. As we explored their answers, four broad leadership competencies emerged. This article provides
Find a Pain-Free Fix, Please. Second, the actions that are preferred by the community are ones that address the manifestations of the crisis with as little cost or pain as possible. The hurry-up legislation enacted to deal with the economic crisis was designed to stem the hemorrhaging rather than address the underlying causes.
8.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 11
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
That approach to the economic crisis illustrates the single biggest diagnostic error people make in framing civic issues: treating adaptive challenges as if they were technical problems.
cost, cuts to other state programs, responsibility for government vs. individuals, etc. – and instead went for the technical fix and established what is now known as the Kansas Health Policy Authority (KHPA).
What is an adaptive challenge? And how is it different from a technical problem? Here’s a simple example. If the brakes on your car are failing, there is an easy fix. Take the car to a repair shop and hire an expert, a mechanic, who has skills and knowledge that are probably beyond your competence, certainly beyond ours. For you, the problem is beyond your capacity. For the mechanic, it is right in the wheelhouse and can be tackled with a high degree of certainty that the intervention will be successful. But let’s say that your 85-year-old father has recently moved in with you. He has been driving your car and, given his failing eyesight, prefers to keep his foot on the brake all the time just in case he needs to stop quickly. Getting new brakes will only provide a temporary fix.
And you know what happened? For a while, the pressure in the system waned. Legislators could point out that they established the KHPA and had asked the KHPA to develop recommendations for reform. Low and behold, a few years later the KHPA, as requested, delivered a set of health care reform measures to the legislature. The problem was those recommendations represented many of the same conflictual value choices legislators tried so hard to avoid a few years earlier. What do they value more health reform or a pledge not to raise taxes? Clean indoor air or the rights of local business owners? More Kansans covered by Medicaid or reducing the size of government? KHPA is a fine agency, staffed by talented and competent Kansans, and its mission goes beyond simply providing recommendations to the legislature. However, when it comes to health reform, KHPA must wrestle with the reality that it may have been the legislature’s attempt at solving an adaptive challenge with a technical solution.
Like most complex problems, your brake problem has elements that are technical – the brakes do not function properly – and aspects that are adaptive – your father has been driving a car for over 60 years and for him driving symbolizes his continuing to lead an independent life, an important part of his self-identity. For him to stop driving would rip part of his heart out.
Interpretation of the current reality is an essential first step in exercising leadership on civic challenges so that you can tailor your intervention to the situation. In our brake example, your intervention would be very different if you understood that the problem was about undermining your father’s sense of independence rather than getting new brakes. Similarly, the U.S. government’s intervention into the economic crisis might have been very different if the problem were diagnosed as having to reverse the country-wide norm of forgoing savings in favor of consumption – spending beyond our means – rather than preventing bank failures.
Technical problems live in people’s heads and logic systems. They are susceptible to facts and authoritative expertise. Adaptive challenges live in people’s hearts and stomachs. They are about values, loyalties and beliefs. Progress on them requires the people with the problem to do the work, and the work involves refashioning those deeply held beliefs. You can see why there is always pressure in the community or the system in which you are working to interpret challenges as technical problems.
How do you interpret reality well? How do you diagnose situations effectively? How do you distinguish technical problems from adaptive challenges when they are often enmeshed and when most everyone around you wants you to accept the technical interpretations?
Here is a Kansas example. A few years ago, the legislature, feeling increased pressure from businesses and individuals, felt it had to act on health care reform. The only problem was we avoided the deep, daunting adaptive challenges related to health care reform –
9.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 12
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
Here are four techniques you might find useful.
First, as your community struggles to deal with a difficult issue, it is a leadership act to help keep open interpretations that are adaptive, systemic and conflictual rather than technical, individual and benign. Here’s a current example. Kansas, like many states, is facing a severe budget shortfall. It would be tempting to diagnose the situation as simply having less money than anticipated to meet projected expenses. And that interpretation might well lead, as it often does in government budget crises, to across-the-board cuts. But a more uncomfortable and systemic interpretation might be that the problem is less about a revenue shortfall than about our unwillingness in more flush financial times to make hard decisions about priorities and to save enough money to get us through difficult times. That interpretation would lead to a different set of approaches than across-the-board budget cuts. It is important to push against our default interpretations, which are often ingrained deeply in us. When discussing how business men and women often diagnose civic life, one of our interviewees said, “… a lot of business folks have this fifth-grade civics book understanding of how the public sector works. They apply their model of how the universe works to the civic model they learned in fifth grade. It’s more complicated than that.” Another said, “We need skepticism. One of the things that has been a hindrance here is that if you hear it from the right source, if the superintendent says it for example, it must be true.” You must be able to push against your default thinking and test multiple interpretations. Second, interpretations are only a guess, ideally your best guess at the time. That means your best guess might not be right. So when you are engaged with others in trying to name and frame the issue, it is important to hold on to multiple interpretations rather than gravitating toward the first one that gains broad acceptance or meets the need to just do something. Test several interpretations simultaneously. Dr. Bob Moser, a family practice doctor in Tribune, Kansas, put the challenge of interpretation in civic life this way:
“What we need is what I call the family practice model, because we have to go through so many different specialty rotations in medical school. So, you may see five different ways (or interpretations) to repair a particular wound. As you learn more about it, with time, study and evaluation, you take a little of this one and a little of that one.” Third, adaptive challenges are often more about process than content. The merits of an issue are relevant but not controlling. Think more about how you are going to go about making progress than marshalling the facts and making the best argument for your preferred solution.
Ron Hammerschmidt, a former long time Kansas Department of Health and Environment employee, suggested to us people tend to get an “A” in commitment towards their cause, but a “D” or “F” in understanding what really needs to be done. What really needs to be done, at least for adaptive challenges, tends to be more about process than content. Finally, if you are trying to find the underlying, deeper, adaptive challenge, look for where there is conflict or pain, where the heat is in the system, where the disequilibrium is high. All of those indicia are signs of an adaptive issue at hand. Diagnosis is an art, not a science. But it is an essential skill in the effective exercise of leadership on difficult civil challenges where progress has been inconsequential or non-existent. MANAGE SELF
Exercising civic leadership effectively requires artfully deploying yourself. And artfully deploying yourself requires knowing yourself well enough to make conscious choices about whether you are well situated to intervene and, if so, how to intervene to maximize the chances of success. What is it that you need to know about yourself?
10.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 13
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
First, with a cool, clear, realistic eye, you need to be able to identify your own capabilities, vulnerabilities and triggers. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Everyone has hot buttons that others can press to take us out of our game. Everyone’s packaging is both a resource and a constraint. If you are a well-spoken male, there might be situations where a more plain-spoken female would be more effective. If you have a big unfilled need to be liked, then you may not be well-suited to delivering unwelcome news with clarity.
KLC FOUR COMPETENCIES
1.
DIAGNOSE SITUATION
• Test multiple stories/interpretations • Push against default interpretations, which tend to be technical and individual rather than adaptive and systemic. • Look for data regarding temperature in system and assess/diagnose the degree of disequilibrium (behavior of authority figure, routines, dysfunc tional behavior, technical fixes, level of distress, values in conflict, etc.) • Distinguish technical vs. adaptive work • Distinguish content from process
Brian Black, Corporate Public Affairs Manager for Spirit, said, “You get someone who is high super intelligent, who is just extremely bright, but their bedside manner is terrible, so they are ineffective. I know people with Ph.D.s who never had more than an adjunct faculty position, because they just don’t get it.”Regarding triggers, or the “hot buttons” that can set us off, Kay Johnson, Director of Environmental Services for the City of Wichita said, “We need to have a commitment to not give up, get mad, take our toys and go home!” Understanding what might trigger us to “take our toys and go home” is critical towards managing yourself for the difficult task of civic leadership.
2.
MANAGE SELF
• Identify your capabilities, vulnerabilities and triggers
• Distinguish self from role • Understand the role you play in the system
• Choose among competing values • Do what is needed, not what
Second, and closely related to the first, you need to understand the role you play in the system. How are you understood? What is your formal authority? What is your informal authority? Are you considered an expert on certain issues? What is your reputation? What is the folklore about your past performance and involvement? If you are new to the community, you have certain advantages and certain disadvantages. If you supported the winning candidate for mayor, you are in a different place than if you supported her unsuccessful challenger. If you are a business person, then your stepping out on an issue that is seen to be pro-business will be less effective than if you are a prominent environmentalist.
is comfortable
3.
FACILITATE INTERVENTION
• • • •
Capture attention Engage unusual voices Work across factions Raise or lower the heat; orchestrate conflict • Give the work back • Make conscious choices about intervention • Create conditions for collaboration
4.
ENERGIZE OTHERS
• • • • •
Pace the work Speak to loss Speak from the heart Orient to purpose Empowerment (Engage others in designing intervention) • Start where they are, not where you are
Third, you need to distinguish yourself from your role. When you are contemplating intervening to help make progress on a civic challenge that has been persistent in spite of previous attempts, people will come at you personally, with both praise and pushback. But you are neither saint nor sinner. It is not about you. Your initiative is a role you are playing
11.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 14
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
at a moment in time, helping your community address a tough problem, and that activity will generate all sorts of emotions, which may well be directed at you. Taking them personally, thinking they are about you and not about the role you are playing, will be a diversion. On this note, prominent Kansas historian Craig Minor said: “I have been very impressed by some politicians’ patience. Sometimes I’m not impressed by much else about them. Sometimes they are listening to things that are quite abusive and not losing their cool or demeanor or feeling that people do have a right to express their opinions.” Since you are likely to be part of any system you are trying to change, a member of the community which you are trying to move from the current reality to an aspired future, you are part of the problem and will need to change as well. This suggests two other elements of managing yourself. Fourth, identify and choose among your own competing values. What has held you back from intervening in the past and what risks have you not been willing to take? If you can figure out what your own competing values are, such as being liked versus being respected, then you can also begin to assess whether you are willing to take the loss potentially associated with choosing among them. Embedded within this fourth concept is the ability to have the courage to accept risk and tolerate dissent while elevating a value for the common good over your own advancement.
Exercising civic leadership often requires us to put at risk our personal stakes for the common good. Leadership is risky business and requires tremendous courage. Mary Birch, one of my longtime mentors and the former president of the Overland Park Chamber of Commerce, said, “Leadership requires head, heart, guts and courage. And courage is the one I find missing the most.” A core value for everyone, according to Joe Harkins the longtime civil servant and leadership scholar at the University of Kansas, is doing what feels right.
He said: “Every human being, according to Sigmund Freud, is hard-wired to seek pleasurable experiences and avoid unpleasant ones… But that very instinctive drive in human beings is the Achilles heel for leadership. So you have to find people who have the ability to recognize the instinctive response when they experience it and override it. Leadership requires acting in unnatural ways. You have to willingly, consciously take on unpleasant tasks because they probably got to be a problem because everyone else was avoiding them. And that requires an extraordinary degree of self-awareness.” Fifth, beware of the tendency to make a moral principle out of being reluctant to do something that is really uncomfortable for you to do. It is important to do what is needed, not what is comfortable. For example, most people do not like to ask difficult questions of their friends, colleagues, peers or authority figures. But sometimes, forcing people to deal with difficult questions is exactly what is necessary to make progress. If you refuse to ask difficult questions, it may be tempting to say, “It’s not right to put people on the defensive that way,” rather than, “I know that is the right thing to do here, but it just makes me feel bad.” Exercising leadership on tough civic challenges will undoubtedly require you to get outside of your own preferred behavior, your own comfort zone. You will have to do what is needed, not what is comfortable. Again, Harkins’ words are illustrative: “All of us have incredible ability to rationalize our behavior. We can sidestep and avoid unpleasant situations with grace and dignity and convince ourselves that it’s the right thing to do. We’re deceiving ourselves and avoiding leadership. We talk ourselves into avoiding it and go on with our business. So the ability to recognize and override the pleasure principle is a fundamental leadership characteristic.” To manage yourself well requires a lot of selfawareness, not only of who you are as a human being, but also of who you are in the particular situation into which you are planning to intervene. In a sense, you are being asked to understand yourself deeply both in human terms and in political
12.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 15
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
terms. This is no easy task. Often your view of yourself on either dimension is different than how you are perceived. For that reason, it is useful to reality check your own assessment with trusted others who can help keep you from making a misstep based on some assumptions that are part of your own self-identity but do not match how you are experienced by others.
Mayors, city council members, county commissioners, state legislators, non-profit executives and business CEOs are often referred to as “leaders.” Why? Because they have an authority title, and in most places in life, authority and leadership are synonymous. The authority figures in the state legislature – speaker of the House, Senate president, etc. – are called “legislative leadership.” When citizens complain about the leadership of their city, more often than not, they are referring to the city council members.
FACILITATE INTERVENTION
If you keep doing what you have always been doing, nothing is going to change. If Kansas civic culture keeps doing what it has always been doing – engaging in zero-sum, win/lose scenarios – nothing is going to change. Leadership is about change. And the catalyst for change is often an intentional, well designed intervention. The competency to “facilitate interventions” is the third of The KLC Competencies for civic leadership. Individuals and organizations “intervene” into the civic culture to attempt progress on things they care about. A church notices an increasing number of homeless families and intervenes by opening a shelter and providing job training. At a neighborhood homes association meeting, an individual realizes the meetings constantly revolve around technical issues such as dues and trash pickup and intervenes to focus part of the conversation on how the neighborhood can begin building neighborly bonds among residents.
It is important to think of interventions, or civic leadership in general, as able to come from anywhere in civic life, not just the positional authority figures. In fact, Kansas communities will be better off as soon as we quit thinking about civic leadership as positional and start thinking of it as an activity. Doing this allows us to analyze what behaviors and attributes make up the visible activity of leadership. We often refer to the “visible activity of leadership” as interventions.
These individuals are authority figures; whether they ever exercise leadership is a completely different question. Are they facilitating interventions in hopes of making real progress on the community’s most daunting challenges? Are their interventions leading to real change? Simply holding the authority role is not enough. Eric Sexton, longtime government relations director for Wichita State University and current WSU athletic director, put it this way: “Being able to stand up and make a speech is not leadership. It {leadership} is about how you engage people. I am talking about leadership that moves communities, states and neighborhoods… Just because someone is not viewed as an {authority figure} doesn’t mean they are not driving a system, a process or a decision.” The ability of more Kansans to facilitate interventions in the civic arena is critical. But understanding the concept of an intervention – or of leadership as an activity – is only part of the equation. We need to learn how to facilitate effective interventions. What makes interventions effective? Citizens who exercise civic leadership are intentional about when, why and how they intervene into a civic system or organization. They resist intervening in whatever way feels most natural to them (i.e. their “default” – see Manage Self) but instead make conscious choices about what type of intervention is needed to fit the situation. Dale Dennis is the deputy commissioner of education in Kansas. He has been
13.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 16
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
with the Department of Education since the ‘60s and has worked closely with the legislature all those years. He referred to the idea of conscious choices in describing members of the House of Representatives: “Some of them went to the microphone and talked all the time. Those that didn’t accepted the reality that leadership often includes making choices about when to speak!” They calculate how best to capture the attention of their desired audience (e.g. protest, steady engagement, etc.). These individuals understand and appreciate the role and necessity of conflict in making progress on daunting issues. Conflict is not seen as something always to be avoided, but rather something that may be a necessary part of the process. They have diagnosed the situation well enough to know whether their intervention should be designed to increase or decrease conflict. They also intervene in a manner that engages people across factions in a collaborative and inclusive way. Their activity in groups or civic life tends to bring disparate individuals together to address daunting issues facing the broader community. One interviewee described a barrier to civic leadership not being a lack of willingness to engage across factions, but a lack of knowing how to do it. He said, “It’s the ability to go from their own universe to the next.” Especially important to civic leadership, these individuals purposefully seek ways to engage an expansive and unusual group of citizens, rather than relying on the same iconic or exclusive, depending on your perspective, small group of individuals to develop and implement solutions. For example, rather than relying on the “city fathers” to devise a plan for the revitalization of downtown, an individual skilled in civic leadership would instead engage the “city fathers” and numerous other individuals or factions that have a stake in downtown revitalization. They realize diverse minds, reflective of the many factions in the broader community, devise stronger and more sustainable solutions than any one or two factions could on their own. Another interviewee said, “For progress, there need to be other ideas that come into the mix.”
This is the riskiest of the four KLC competencies. Once you begin an intervention you lose control of the outcome. Diagnosing the situation and managing self, the first two KLC competencies, are critical, but not inherently risk laden. At the heart of this competency are two beliefs. First, leadership is about activity (interventions) not position (authority) and, second, effective interventions are intentionally designed and delivered. ENERGIZE OTHERS
The fourth of the KLC competencies is energizing others. Leadership is not a solitary activity. The best idea or intervention goes nowhere without others taking up the cause. For example, someone passionate about helping low-income Kansans build assets doesn’t get very far if he can’t embolden dozens of additional champions for the cause. No one individual or entity can tackle a daunting civic challenge on their own. Leadership on these challenges must involve energizing more people to take up the difficult work of civic leadership. But, how is this done? Central to energizing others is figuring out where they are coming from. What do they care about and what do they need? People tend to get energized when they perceive you care about their situation and their issues. The old adage “it is better to be interested than interesting” applies here. To be effective at energizing others you need to start where they are, not where you are. The temptation of course is to have a firm understanding of where other like-minded people are coming from, but to make little effort at understanding where our opponents are coming from. Quite frankly, it is easier to vilify them than to seek to understand them. But energizing others is not about gaining a simple majority, but rather consensus, which by definition means engagement with all factions. Discovering “where they are” can best be done by intense engagement. But the purpose of the engagement is not to sell them on your idea,
14.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 17
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
but rather to empower them to help design the intervention. You have to be open to (and wanting) new possibilities that go beyond or in a different direction than your initial preferred solution. Don’t defend your idea, but instead let the group work on it, make it better or throw it out. In addition, people are energized when they see or can envision progress on what they care about, on their purpose. More importantly, discovering a collective purpose and consistently orienting to that purpose is critical to energizing others. It creates hope within organizations and communities. High-performing communities are high-hope communities. Orienting to purpose reminds coalitions, factions and individuals why they are engaged in the difficult work of civic leadership. On one hand, energizing others is about empowerment, engagement and collective purpose – all of which tend to have a positive orientation. On the other hand, overcoming difficult civic challenges will require significant change, and change usually means loss or at least perceived loss for some. Rather than sugarcoat the bad news or pretend it does not exist, it is actually energizing for others to hear someone speak to their loss. The losses need to be acknowledged, not suppressed. Because real or perceived loss is involved with any significant civic change effort, you must pace the work of the group or community. Communities need to be ripe for change. Nothing zaps the energy out of people faster than forcing too much change on them too quickly. Conversely, not asking enough out of people who are ready and willing is also a recipe for failure to energize others.
At its core, leadership on daunting civic challenges is about emotions more than cold hard facts. A few years ago the Kansas Legislature was debating a bill to require young children to sit on a booster seat in automobiles. In the eyes of advocates, the cold hard facts suggested the law should be passed. In fact several studies suggested implementation of the law would immediately begin to save lives in Kansas. To the disbelief of these advocates, the bill had lingered for years. Finally, in 2006 a state legislator, who had a young family, including a child with special physical needs, went to the well of the House to speak passionately on behalf of the bill. His speech contained no facts. Instead, he spoke with first-hand knowledge of raising a child with special needs. As he spoke from his heart the bill’s passage became more likely. Towards the end of his speech he implored, “It will be worth it if this bill helps just one child not face what my daughter has faced.” No facts. No figures. The bill passed later that day. Over the years dozens of legislators had spoken at the well in support of the bill. Many were fine orators, but none spoke from the depth of such great personal experience as this legislator. By speaking from his heart, he created the space for others to do the same through their words and votes. At the heart of energizing others is the belief you can’t change people’s values; they have to change them. Energizing others is about creating the conditions for people to begin changing their values in a lasting way.
ED O’MALLEY is President and CEO of the Kansas Leadership Center and is a former state legislator and gubernatorial aide.
15.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 18
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
THE POWER OF LANGUAGE IN CIVIC LEADERSHIP How simple language can affect leadership development by Kevin Bomhoff, Wichita State University Center for Community Support & Research
INTRODUCTION
WORK AVOIDANCE
Civic leaders have long used language to shape public discourse and provide a context for change. One might support a proposed “estate tax” since only rich people have estates while arguing against a “death tax” since it seems unfair to tax someone for dying. Of course, it’s the same legislation. Leaders and their spokespersons also attempt to put the best spin on their actions – using popular or acceptable language to explain unpopular or unacceptable action. Beyond brash marketing or behavior justification, civic leaders face the challenge of getting work done. This might include helping a group envision change and seek to collaborate while risking political and even personal losses for the greater good. This often involves understanding situations, ourselves, and others in new ways while facing challenges that require people, organizations, and systems to adapt in difficult ways. Faced with these challenges, civic leaders need to create a context or environment for change and offer a process or steps to facilitate change. To accomplish this, language becomes essential.
After introducing the concept of adaptive vs. technical work*, I have begun asking groups about “work avoidance” activities we are inclined to engage in as we address difficult challenges. Work avoidance amounts to all the nonproductive actions we take to diminish the disequilibrium we feel as we address difficult-to-define challenges – ones that lack ready, authoritative, answers. Insert this language into a group process and unexpected things happen. People become quite transparent about the things they do, and are somewhat committed to, all of which amount to avoiding the hard work of adapting and the personal discomfort of managing disequilibrium. One group said that they just did “more of the same” when an adaptive problem did not respond to technical solutions; another pointed out how they defer decisions to a committee that seemed dedicated to work avoidance; still another admitted that not addressing real issues (the elephant in the room) was their way of avoiding the hard work of adapting. They shared other favorite techniques including being nice during meetings and then taking their concerns to the parking lot, water cooler or blog. Following this discussion, each of these groups made alternative and more direct strategies to face challenges together.
FIELD NOTES
Early experiments with ideas garnered from the Kansas Leadership Center’s Art and Practice of Civic Leadership Development program have caused me to use language in new and intentional ways. Sharon Daloz Parks, in her book Leadership Can Be Taught, suggests that language can change the “mental architecture” of a group’s interactions. Following are field notes from my own “power of language” experiments.
Once the concept, supported by language, is in place, I can ask a group if we have engaged in (or are at risk of engaging in) work avoidance. I also find groups feel quite free to call out any time I introduce a process that even remotely resembles work avoidance. In this case, I have not only used language to introduce an important concept, but we also have decided upon a related principle (to limit work avoidance) and permitted a new level of group accountability.
16.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 19
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
KEVIN BOMHOFF serves as Organizational Development Coordinator at Wichita State University Center for Community Support & Research (www.ccsr.wichita.edu). Kevin was recently selected as a Kansas Leadership Center Faculty Fellow.
DEFAULTS
GETTING ON THE BALCONY
Identifying the fact that we all have “default” positions allows me to model transparency and raises the possibility that others will identify and begin to manage their own tendencies. One of my “defaults” is to move quickly to solutions without carefully listening to others and considering available data. I can admit that extended discussions often feel fuzzy and unproductive to me and that sometimes I prefer action, almost any action, over what seems like prolonged analysis. There is danger in my default. Moving quickly to action leaves out important stakeholders, results in a lack of ownership by others, and can result in repeating past mistakes. By exposing this information and indeed myself, I introduce the idea that each of us has defaults and I can challenge others to confront their own.
The concept of “getting on the balcony,” as introduced by Ron Heifetz and Marty Linsky in their book Leadership on the Line, suggests that leaders must develop the ability to alternate being “on the dance floor” or engaged in the process at hand and moving to the balcony where the “big picture” is available. A narrow perception of our work (from the dance floor only) results in missed opportunities to understand the dynamics of the larger system as well as the impact of our own and others’ motives and actions. While working with two organizations as they considered aligning efforts, an officer of one group expressed that she would no longer be eligible for membership (involvement) given the changes being discussed. I used this opportunity to stop the process for a moment to discuss personal losses associated with what was being considered. This led to a transparent discussion about the courage needed to put a cause before personal gain and we were able to recognize what was actually at stake for those in the room. Any resistance that may have persisted was now better understood and could be dealt with openly. In this case, the power of language was an internal process for me as I sought to facilitate progress. I was “on the floor” immersed in the discussion when I heard this leader’s statement. Immediately, the need to shift to the “balcony” occurred to me. Incorporating the language “getting on the balcony” triggered awareness that a new intervention was needed. (cont.)
I have asked others, “What’s your default and how does it impact the work we need to accomplish?” Far from being painful, these admissions often lead to humor. Do we honestly believe those we work with are unaware of our tendencies? It can be a relief to get these out into the open. Sheersty Rhodes, an undergraduate working at the WSU Center for Community Support & Research, points out that the introduction of “default” language can help us to better know ourselves which can lead us to counter old tendencies with new leadership behaviors. The opportunity here is not to stomp out our default behavior but rather to have a range of responses from which to consciously choose. Her point is this: Language creates the context for awareness and awareness sets the stage for managing self.
17.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 20
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
(cont.)
RENTING AN IDEA
I recently facilitated a coalition that had brainstormed possible strategies to address transportation problems experienced by ever-increasing numbers of people in their community who suffer from diabetes. Most require dialysis three times a week and local clinics are running night and day. Providing rides to local clinics allows them to continue living in the community rather than in institutional care. Our analysis of possible strategies indicated that most of the “low hanging fruit” solutions to this problem had already been harvested. I challenged the group to select ideas that they could “rent.” Rent, not buy. These would be relatively low risk ideas that could be experimented with or tried. The group became energized as members selected several strategies considered to be “worth trying.” One was to develop a transportation fund through a regional nonprofit. This would allow concerned citizens, organizations, and dialysis providers to offset gaps in funding for rides. It also addresses the challenge that providers face as they are (by law) not allowed to directly pay people to use their clinics or cover any related cost including transportation. Another rented idea was to consolidate the data we collected into “talking points” for use in approaching local and state officials about the need to maintain and expand transportation services. Neither of these ideas will correct the identified gap but both were low risk enough to
accomplish cooperation among a range of stakeholders while contributing an important piece of the solution to this critical community need. The simple use of language (renting an idea) energized the group and permitted them to suspend their belief that not much more can be done in these difficult economic times. LESSONS LEARNED
One can learn to use language as “mental architecture” to link people together, conceptualize new approaches, and build action steps. Understanding and using the power of language is an act of leadership. The civic arena needs language not to deceive others about our intentions or to put a spin on the truth, but rather as a tool to diagnose situations, manage self, facilitate interventions, and energize others. * For an explanation of adaptive vs. technical challenges see Chapter 5: Adaptive Work by Ronald Heifetz, The Adaptive State, Strategies for Personalizing the Public Realm, first published in 2003 by Demos; www.demos.co.uk, edited by Tom Bentley and James Wilsdon.
18.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 21
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
HELP WANTED: BRIDGE BUILDERS
by Tim Steffensmeier
The marketplace of ideas is flush with dismal reports concerning the barriers and boundaries that leave people isolated and problems unresolved. When the Kansas Leadership Center dreams of building capacity for people to work together, they attend to a fundamental question (maybe the fundamental question) confronting communities in a globalized society: how do seemingly diverse and fragmented people come together to address complex, wide-scope problems? Addressing this problem, in part, calls for bridge builders—people with a disposition and skill-set to cross barriers and engage in collaborative projects. At the outset, KLC’s civic leadership initiatives are building a public space whereby Kansans can learn together about what it might take to better work together. And these macro-level spaces, while rare, are vital for diffusing and sustaining processes. In this case, the process will enable Kansas to thrive in a global environment. So, KLC shoulders a heavy weight; its failure would signify that something truly is the matter with Kansas: we Kansas residents were unable or unwilling to handle 21st-century demands. High-stakes and system-wide challenges make it irresponsible to think KLC can do this alone. A diverse group of Kansans is necessary to cultivate a fertile supply of bridge builders. To access these would-be civic builders, complementary organizations are integral, particularly those at a more local communitylevel. Over the past 15 months, I have had the opportunity to research and practice with one such company, Kansas Communities, LLC.
Kansas Communities, LLC, founded by Terry Woodbury in 2004, is working to “build and rebuild the public square” in numerous communities across Kansas. Similar to KLC, this organization primarily teaches and diffuses a process aimed at creating healthy communities. The overlap to highlight here is that Kansas Communities, LLC builds a public square, in part, by locating and nurturing people who can talk and work across distinct parts of the community, the fundamental parts of the square being government, business, education and health/human services. Ultimately, the multi-year process is focused on nourishing bridge builders who can traverse rigid boundaries typically determined by job roles and long-standing patterns of community interaction. Often, the people who fulfill these roles are not community authority figures (e.g. elected officials, administrators, financial officers). At the core of this approach is a belief that framing, prioritizing and solving problems must originate with and involve all parts of the public square. These collaborative efforts are a shift from public policy that arises from experts working in a sole pillar of the square. After 15 months of working closely with Kansas Communities, LLC, I am most compelled to illustrate this process with the actions of bridge builders in Sheridan County, Kansas. Sheridan County has been working with Kansas Communities, LLC for the better part of a year. Through a process of interviews and community conversations, a steering committee named its community development process: “Working Together Sheridan County” (WTSC). The name reflects a desired collaborative relationship between communities (Hoxie and Selden) and residents (town and farm). (cont.)
19.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 22
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
(cont.)
In October 2008, the WTSC steering committee was brainstorming how to attract investors to fund year two of the community development process. An idea surfaced to auction off decorated Christmas trees in conjunction with a town lighting celebration that had struggled in recent years to generate enthusiastic participation. While the idea had promise, the project was met with skepticism because it revolved primarily around business, which is only one part of a healthy public square. Instead of dismissing the idea, the steering committee decided to create an event that would exemplify the ideals of “working together” as a community. They settled on hosting a countywide “WinterFest” celebration. I left the meeting in October unconvinced that such an event would be coordinated in seven weeks. Upon returning in November my reservations began to change. WinterFest not only was scheduled, it had grown exponentially. In addition to Santa Claus, carriage rides, town lighting, after-hours business shopping, raffled prizes, hayrack rides, live music, movies and many free refreshments, both Hoxie and Selden simultaneously were to have celebrations with transportation provided between towns. Despite the remarkable planning, these bridge builders were cautiously optimistic about community participation. If nothing else, this year’s event could be written off as a trial run. On a balmy Saturday following Thanksgiving, an estimated 500 people turned out on the streets of Hoxie and Selden (over 20 percent of the total population) for the WinterFest Celebration. Residents filled main street causing a near shortage of Santa candy, long lines for carriage and hayrack rides and a theater filled to capacity. While the quantitative data impresses, the qualitative feedback inspires. One resident describes that “the streets were full
of cars, the sidewalks were full of people... it seemed like Saturday night when I was growing up!" Another participant notes that the scene was like a Norman Rockwell painting. When the steering committee met in December the collaborative energy was palpable. The point here is not to wax nostalgia about an event that harkened back to days gone by; rather, it is to illustrate that a small group of community members were able to bring people together (in relatively short notice) from all corners of the public square. And while this effort did not confront serious problems facing the community, its impact cannot be overstated. Some three months later, dozens of investors have contributed to WTSC and five community-based action teams are working to address issues seemingly too complex or out of reach when this process started a year ago. These acts are possible only to the extent that bridges are being built that enable unusual suspects to work together. Sheridan County is but one example of a community ripe for KLC’s civic leadership initiatives. With the assistance of Kansas Communities, LLC and other like-minded organizations, an infrastructure for civic leadership is being built across Kansas. That infrastructure includes equipping people with the language and disposition necessary to build bridges, a much needed skill-set for a healthy Kansas. Tim Steffensmeier is an assistant professor of Communication Studies at Kansas State University. As an associate with the Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy (http://www.k-state.edu/icdd/), Tim conducts research on civic leadership.
20.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 23
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
CONNECTING SOCIAL CAPITAL AND COMMUNITY HEALTH
by Sharon Homan
improve community-level actions to promote health and reduce the ill effects of crime, poverty, poor environments and unhealthy behaviors?” There are different philosophies about the relationship of social capital and health. Informal networks are central to welfare of persons. Social capital enables individuals to gain access to resources (ideas, money, information, services, and favors) and have accurate expectations of others. Sxreter and Woolcock argue that we need to use bonding and bridging capital to promote population health, as well as improve and redistribute goods and public services by increasing linking social capital (i.e., trusting ties to formal institutions, e.g., bankers, health care providers, law enforcement).
Civic leaders have long used language to shape public discourse and provide a context for change. One might support a proposed “estate tax” since only rich people have estates while arguing against a “death tax” Social capital is a popular term used to describe the value of social connections among individuals and groups. Trusting relationships, shared values, and exchanges of information and resources Since the 1960’s, researchers have explored the premise that communities that have more social capital have stronger connections and trusting relationships (bonding capital), greater ability to create bridges among different groups (bridging capital), and more ties between community members and representatives of formal institutions such as law enforcement, businesses, health care, and the legislative bodies (linking capital).
Recognizing the beneficial value of social capital, local communities and states have explored ways to asses and strengthen social capital. The Kansas Health Foundation (KHF) commissioned the Kansas Health Institute (KHI) in 2006 “to establish a valid, methodologically rigorous, and visionary baseline measurement of social capital in Kansas." KHI partnered with the Saguaro Seminar at Harvard University, established by Robert Putnam, to conduct the Social Capital Community Survey, or SCCS. Saguaro conduct the survey in five Kansas communities (Abilene, Garden City, Junction City, Kansas City, and Wichita), selected to represent a diverse cross-section of towns and cities across the state. The executive summary of Assessing Social Capital in Kansas: Findings from Quantitative and Qualitative Studies is included in this Journal issue. (cont.)
There is growing interest among policy makers, community leaders, health and social service professionals in exploring whether social capital can improve health and well being. Greater attention is being given to multifaceted approaches to improving health, reducing harm, and addressing persistent social ills, such as homelessness, smoking, and gang violence. Multifaceted approaches rely on community-level actions well as individual behavioral change. For example, tobacco smoke exposure is most effectively reduced by not only changing smoking behavior through prevention and cessation programs, but by cigarette taxes, smoking ordinances, controlling tobacco sales, and restricting advertising. The thousand-dollar question is, “Can social capital
21.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 24
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
(cont.)
Each of the Kansas communities involved in the Social Capital Community Survey has unique assets and a diverse set of opportunities and challenges related to the dimensions of social capital (e.g., interracial trust, congregations, organized groups, and civic involvement, volunteering). Enhancing social capital in these communities and other Kansas communities can improve health and well being by strengthening the social connectedness. Social connectedness is the ‘electricity’ of human flourishing. Individuals and families flourish when they are treated with dignity and are able to benefit from, and contribute to, the common good of a community. In other words, health and well being are stimulated and supported by social connectedness, civic involvement, affiliation with religious and voluntary groups, and participation in the economy. As a private philanthropy, the Kansas Health Foundation (KHF) provides strategies and resources to make health improvements possible. Recognizing the value of generating sustainable community-wide health improvements, the KHF partners with grantees to mobilize and transform Kansas communities into better places to live, work and raise their families.
Success in engaging and mobilizing Kansas communities to become healthier places requires leadership, knowledge, and community collaboration. The KHF supports the Kansas Leadership Center (KLC) as a partner in leadership development and the Kansas Health Institute (KHI) as center for research, policy and communication of knowledge about practices and policies that can improve the health of Kansans. Leadership and knowledge, combined with community collaboration can generate sustainable community initiatives to improve health and well being.
SHARON HOMAN, PhD, is Vice President for Public Health, Kansas Health Institute. She has 20 years experience working with rural communities and urban neighborhoods developing and evaluating grassroots initiatives to promote health and community well being
22.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 25
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
ASSESSING SOCIAL CAPITAL IN KANSAS: Findings from Quantitative and Qualitative Studies
Doug Easterling, Ph.D. Capri G. Foy, Ph.D.
Kate Fothergill, Ph.D. Lori Leonard, Ph.D. David R. Holtgrave, Ph.D.
Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy Division of Public Health Sciences Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston-Salem, NC
Department of Health, Behavior, and Society Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Baltimore, MD
23.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 26
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
Background Over the past 20 years, the concept of social capital has become increasingly posed as a determinant of individual and population health (Coleman, 1990; Kawachi & Berkman, 2000; Kawachi et al, 1999; Kennedy et al, 1998; Lochner et al, 1999; Putnam, 1995). Social capital is an elusive construct that has been defined in different ways by different academics (Coleman, 1990; Putnam, 1993; Lappe and DuBois, 1997; Potapchuk, Crocker and Schechter, 1997; Lomas, 1998). However, all definitions include some notion of social connectedness and many include the concept of civic engagement. Table 1 presents a set of more specific concepts that have been included under the framework of social capital.
TABLE 1 . Components of Social Capital Social Connectedness • Social networks and support • Social interaction • Inter-personal trust • Bridging Social Capital Social Interaction across lines of difference Inter-racial trust Community Engagement • Involvement in community organizations Secular Faith-based • Participation in organized activities • Volunteering and giving • Leadership • Involvement in the political process
Researchers have focused attention on the topic of social capital not simply because it is an interesting concept, but also because communities with “stronger” connections (e.g., more trusting relationships, wider networks, denser networks, more bridging across lines of difference) are in a better position to promote the well-being of their members. Social capital has been associated with a variety of important outcomes, including health, economic development, crime, and child development (e.g., Berkman, 1995;
Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls, 1997; Kawachi, Kennedy, Lochner, and Prothrow-Smith, 1997; Lomas, 1998; Kim and Kawachi, 2006). Recognizing the beneficial value of social capital, an increasing number of local communities and states have become interested in increasing their “stock” of social capital as a means of improving the lives of local residents. This has been particularly true within the philanthropic sector. The Kansas Health Foundation (KHF) has had a longstanding interest in social capital, and even a longer term commitment to promoting health by affecting the social determinants of health. It has a broad-based mission that includes work in the areas of children’s health, public health, policy, and leadership. In 1995, KHF established the Kansas Health Institute (KHI) to be an information source for policy makers. In 2006, KHF commissioned KHI to carry out a study that would generate empirical measures of social capital for the state of Kansas. The stated goal of the study is “to establish a valid, methodologically rigorous, and visionary baseline measurement of social capital in Kansas." To carry out this assignment, KHI partnered with the Saguaro Seminar at Harvard University, a group established by Robert Putnam to educate the public about the importance of social capital and to promote efforts to build social capital. Saguaro coordinated the 2000 Social Capital Benchmark Survey (SCBS), a comprehensive telephone survey on a wide variety of behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions related to trust, relationships, socializing, and involvement with civic groups (Easterling, 2008). This survey was administered to 29,222 respondents throughout the country, including a nationally representative sample of 3,003 and separate samples in 40 communities where a foundation sponsored the survey. These communities varied in size from portions of a city (e.g., North Minneapolis) to entire states (e.g., Montana, Indiana, New Hampshire). The survey generated data that allowed each participating community to compare itself against other communities on various aspects of social capital.
24.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 27
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
TABLE 2. Demographic Profiles of the Five Study Communities (2000) Abilene
Garden City
Junction City
Kansas City
Wichita
Total Population (n)
6,543
28,451
18,886
146,866
344,284
Median Age (yrs)
39.8
28.6
30.4
32.3
33.4
% 65 yrs or older
20.0
8.1
11.1
11.6
11.9
% African-American
1.0
1.5
26.7
30.1
11.4
% Hispanic or Latino
2.7
43.9
8.3
16.8
9.6
Median Household income ($)
33,778
37,752
35,093
22,011
39,939
SOURCE: U.S.CENSUS
In 2006, Saguaro replicated the Benchmark survey with modest revisions. The new survey (referred to as the Social Capital Community Survey, or SCCS) was administered within a representative national sample, as well as in communities where a local foundation was willing to serve as a sponsor. KHF was one of ten foundations that chose to participate. In Kansas, the SCCS was conducted with a statewide sample (stratified into rural and urban Kansas) and within five Kansas communities (Abilene, Garden City, Junction City, Kansas City, and Wichita). The five target communities were selected by KHI and KHF to represent a diverse cross-section of towns and cities across the state. Table 2 shows the cross-community variation in size of the community, age, racial composition, and median household. The survey data were analyzed by a research team at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. This article summarizes the results of those analyses,
comparing the Kansas sample to the national sample on 11 different dimensions of social capital. We also show how the five Kansas communities vary from one another along these same dimensions. In addition to carrying out a telephone survey among random samples of Kansans, the Kansas Social Capital Study also incorporated a qualitative component. In particular, a research team from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University conducted field studies in each of the five target communities, relying on in-person interviews with a diverse set of key informants. This qualitative study was included by KHI in the study design as a means of checking the validity of the telephone survey findings. In addition, the qualitative study provided information that helped explain why the five communities differed in their observed levels of social capital.
25.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 28
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
Social Capital Community Survey METHOD
STATEWIDE RESULTS
The 2006 Social Capital Community Survey (SCCS) was carried out using a random-digit dialing (RDD) methodology by a large polling firm, TNS International, under the guidance of the Saguaro Seminar at Harvard University. Respondents in the survey included a sample of 2741 adults representative of the United States as a whole and another 2455 adults in Kansas. The Kansas sample was divided into seven sub-samples:
For most of these dimensions, the Kansas sample reported higher levels than did the national sample (see Table 3). The largest differences were observed on the following scales: ORGANIZED GROUP INTERACTION INVOLVEMENT WITH FORMAL GROUPS FAITH-BASED SOCIAL CAPITAL GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
ABILENE (DICKINSON COUNTY) (N=350) GARDEN CITY (FINNEY COUNTY) (N=350) JUNCTION CITY (GEARY COUNTY) (N=350) WICHITA (SEDGWICK COUNTY) (N=352) KANSAS CITY (WYANDOTTE COUNTY) (N=350) URBAN COUNTIES (N=352) RURAL COUNTIES (N=351)
In forming a representative statewide sample, the seven sub-samples were weighted according to the population of the respective county. In order to measure the level of social capital within any given sample (e.g., statewide, urban, rural, specific target communities), we relied primarily on multi-item scales. Building on the analytic work that the Saguaro Seminar performed with respect to the 2000 survey, we employed 11 scales that assess the following dimensions of social capital: SOCIAL SUPPORT INFORMAL SOCIAL INTERACTION SOCIAL TRUST DIVERSITY OF FRIENDSHIP SET INTER-RACIAL TRUST ORGANIZED GROUP INTERACTION INVOLVEMENT WITH FORMAL GROUPS FAITH-BASED SOCIAL CAPITAL GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING ELECTORAL POLITICS PROTEST POLITICS
Table 3. Differences between Kansas and U.S. Samples on Social Capital Scales
Social Capital Scale
Kansas (n=2455)
U.S. (n=2741)
Significance of difference (t-test)
Special Support
3.55 (0.725)
3.47 (0.77)
<0.001
Social Interaction (Informal)
-.003 (0.667)
-.027 (0.66)
0.077
Interpersonal Trust
.318 (0.483)
.241 (0.542)
<0.001
Diversity of Friendships
6.09 (2.268)
5.98 (2.47)
<0.001
Interracial Trust
2.12 (0.668)
2.07 (0.70)
<0.001
Involvement with Community Organizations - Secular
3.24 (2.765)
2.71 (2.59)
<0.001
Involvement with Community Organizations - Faith-Based
0.148 (0.833)
-.032 (0.78)
<0.001
Participation in Organized Activites
0.123 (1.041)
-.047 (0.658)
<0.001
Volunteering and Giving
1.62 (1.104)
1.45 (1.11)
<0.001
19.9%
17.6%
<0.01
2.81 (1.110)
2.89 (1.40)
n.s.
1.20 (1.480)
1.05 (1.33)
<0.001
Formal Leadership (percentage “yes”) Engagement in Conventional Politics Engagement in Activist Politics
Note: Cells show mean and (standard deviation).
26.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 29
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
Figure 1 provides additional insight as to how the level of social capital in Kansas compares to the rest of the country. To generate this figure, we normalized each of the 11 social capital scores to show how Kansas scored relative to the 40 communities that participated in the 2000 Social Capital Benchmark Survey. The normalized scores use a 0 to 1 metric, with a value of 0 indicating that Kansas scored the same as the lowest of the 40 communities, and a score of 1 indicating that Kansas scored the same as the highest-scoring community. Using these normalized scale values, we see further evidence that Kansas (taken as a whole) has very high levels for many aspects of social capital, especially social support, social trust, giving and volunteering, and involvement in groups and organized activities (including faith-based groups and activities). Lower scores appear for diversity of friends and formal leadership, although even here the levels are quite similar to the scores obtained in the nationally representative sample.
URBAN-RURAL DIFFERENCES
Table 3 and Figure 1 treat the state of Kansas as a single geographic unit, whereas in fact, there are many distinct communities with their own culture, history, and demographic profiles. As such, it is useful to explore how social capital varies within the state. The first set of analyses tested whether there are urban-rural differences on the 11 social capital scales. As shown in Figure 2, the urban sample has much higher scores on the Involvement with Groups, Participation in Organized Activities, and Activist Politics scales, with a less pronounced advantage in the Social Support scale. In fact, for the first two of these scales, the score for the urban sample was higher than observed among any of the 40 communities sampled in the initial 2000 survey.
FIGURE 1. Mean Values on Social Capital Scales for Kansas (Statewide sample) vs. Representative U.S. Sample (normalized to 0-1 scales based on minimum and maximum over all communities) 1.00 0.90 0.80
0.60 Kansas National
0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10
n O rg Fa Pa ith G rti rp -B cip s as at ed io n S in oc O Ca rg an p ize d G Ac iv tiv in g ite & s Vo lu nt ee Fo rin rm g al Le ad Co er nv sh en ip tio na lP ol iti cs Ac tiv is tP ol iti cs
In vo lv
em
en ti
of Fr ie nd s ac ia lT ru st
ty er si
iv
In te r-R
Tr us t al
ng izi al So ci
So ci D
In fo rm
al
al
Su pp or t
0.00
So ci
MEAN
0.70
27.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 30
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
FIGURE 2. Mean Values on Social Capital Scales for Urban and Rural Samples (normalized to 0-1 scales based on minimum and maximum over all communities) 1.40 1.20 1.00
MEAN
0.80 Kansas Urban Kansas Rural
0.60 0.40 0.20
In fo rm
So ci a
lS up po rt al So ci al izi ng So ci al D iv Tr er us si t ty of Fr ie nd In te s r-R In ac vo i lv al em Tr us en t ti n O rg Fa ith G rp -B s Pa as rti e d cip So at c io Ca n in p O rg . G Ac iv tiv in g ite & s Vo lu nt ee Fo rin rm g al Le ad Co er nv sh en ip tio na lP ol iti cs Ac tiv is tP ol iti cs
0.00
FIGURE 3. Mean Values on Social Capital Scales for Five Target Communities (normalized to 0-1 scales based on minimum and maximum over all communities)
1.00 0.90 0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.20
0.30
0.10
Pa rti cip at io n
in
So c
Ca p O rg .A G iv ct in ivi g te & s Vo lu nt e Fo er rm in g al Le a Co de rs nv hi en p tio na lP ol iti cs Ac tiv is tP ol iti cs
rp s G
se d
O rg
th -B a Fa i
In vo lv
em
en ti
n
of Fr ie nd s ac ia lT ru st In te r-R
Tr us t al
ty
iv er si D
izi
ng
So ci
al
al So ci
In fo rm
al
Su pp or t
0.00
So ci
MEAN
28.
Kansas Wichita Abilene Garden City Kansas City Junction
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 31
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE FIVE INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITIES
One of the most important (although perhaps unsurprising) findings to emerge from the study is that social capital varies considerably across communities within the Kansas. The survey showed that across a variety of indicators, Abilene and Wichita had higher levels of social capital than did Garden City, Junction City, and Kansas City. This pattern is apparent from Figure 3. Each community can point to some dimensions of social capital where it is strong and others where work is needed. For example, Abilene came out high on many of the items that one typically associates with a tight-knit, giving community (e.g., trust of neighbors, attendance at church, volunteering), but these same qualities exerted a downward effect on bridging social capital – possibly because the culture encourages residents to conform to the dominant norms and behaviors. At the other extreme, Kansas City had low scores on many dimensions (including the lowest score among the five Kansas communities on the “Giving and Volunteering” scale), but its score on “Involvement in Organized Groups” was higher than the other four Kansas communities, and in fact higher than any of the 40 communities surveyed in 2000.
SUMMARY
The variation in levels and types of social capital that we observed among the five target communities argues against reaching any firm conclusions about how much social capital exists in the state of Kansas. Although it is possible to assess social capital at a state level (e.g., through surveying a sample that is representative of the state population), social capital is inherently a characteristic of more micro-level communities. In aggregating to the state level, one can identify some larger (e.g., regional) forces and cultural characteristics, but a state-level assessment is essentially an average of what is occurring within many different communities within the state. Again, referring back to Figure 1, the social capital profile generated by the Kansas state sample is different than that of any of the five communities. It is probably closest to Wichita, but even here there are interesting distinctions (e.g., participation in organized activities).
Similarly, there are key differences between urban Kansas and rural Kansas, especially with regard to involvement in formal groups and participation in organized activities – each of which is significantly higher in urban communities.
Qualitative Study METHOD
The qualitative study of social capital involved in-person interviews with key informants in each of the five communities. The interviewees were selected through snowball sampling, whereby the first few people, who were identified through Internet searches or referred by KHI, suggested additional contacts, who in turn suggested even more people to interview. In our initial searches we attempted to find contact information for people holding key positions in each community and for people representing important sectors (e.g., education, law enforcement, health care, housing, etc.). After our initial round of interviews we also purposefully looked for individuals who could provide information about aspects of social capital that emerged as particularly important in that locality. We initially contacted potential interviewees by email, followed up with telephone calls. We asked all interviewees to designate a meeting place convenient to them for the interview. The field researcher made at least two separate trips to each of the communities and, in some cases, more. At the time the interviews were conducted, interviewees were asked to sign an informed consent form, which outlined the purpose of the study, the procedure, and the risks and benefits to the participants. The study was also discussed with them prior to these meetings (through our email exchanges and on the telephone). Interviews lasted approximately 60 to 90 minutes. They were tape recorded with the permission of the interviewee and transcribed later. We used an interview guide to structure the interviews. In general, we began the interviews by asking people to tell us about their community using maps that we had obtained from the Kansas Department of
29.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 32
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
Transportation. The maps, which were large and detailed, allowed the interviewees to talk about the spatial and physical features (e.g., public facilities, transportation routes, neighborhoods) of their communities that were important to various domains of social capital. The maps were also a way to ask people about changes to their communities over time, such as where new developments were being built and who was moving there. In the second part of the interview we showed interviewees some of the preliminary survey data, including national data, state level data, and data from their community for questions in each domain of social capital. We asked people how the survey findings reflected their experience of the community and whether they were ‘surprised’ by the findings or not. The findings that generated the most discussion were the ones that differentiated the community the most (e.g., low levels of electoral political participation in Garden City; high levels of involvement in neighborhood associations in Kansas City). We organized some of our later interviews around specific initiatives or elements of social capital that emerged as important. For instance, in Kansas City we conducted a series of interviews around the Livable Neighborhoods initiative which was the city’s attempt to organize a network of neighborhood associations. In Abilene, as mentioned earlier, we interviewed people about issues of diversity and integration, including people who had recently moved to the community and people who might be considered ‘different’ because they were gay or were a racial or ethnic minority. Throughout the interview process we gathered information about community assets and challenges. No specific questions were asked to generate this material; rather, the information emerged during the interviews.
COMMUNITY CHARACTERIZATIONS
Table 4 presents an integrated summary of the five target communities, taking into account what the survey indicated about the community’s standing on the different dimensions of social capital and what the qualitative study learned about the factors that contribute to or detract from social capital within the community. History, demographics, politics, economy, geographical location, infrastructure, and leadership were among the characteristics that shaped the development and maintenance of social capital. What affected social capital in one city was not always a factor in another city. For example, take social trust. The survey and field work both found social trust to be high in Abilene and Junction City. The “story” around this finding in Abilene was quite different than it was in Junction City. In Abilene, people explained that social trust is high because the town is small, safe, and stable, with many families living there for multiple generations. Residents take pride in their history and heritage, and the leaders are committed to meeting the needs of the residents. In Junction City, which is much more transient and racially diverse than Abilene, the high social trust, particularly among minorities, was related to the presence of the military, which generally embraces diversity and collaboration. Another example can be seen comparing the context around the low involvement in conventional politics found in Garden City and Kansas City. In Garden City, reasons for low involvement included the transient population, the structure of the economy (low-skilled, shift work, long hours), lack of information in Spanish, immigrants’ ineligibility to vote, and apathy. In Kansas City, lack of involvement in conventional politics was related to a history of neglect of certain populations and areas of town. In some neighborhoods, it was difficult to get information about upcoming elections or to meet candidates, and residents did not think their votes would make a difference.
30.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 33
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
Although most of the contextual characteristics were unique to each city, there were certain community factors that had a consistent influence on social capital across the different cities. For example, in Abilene, Garden City, and Wichita, residents mentioned that youth were less likely to volunteer or donate money and less likely to be involved in community organizations. In addition, in several communities, leadership was mentioned as critical for preparing for growth and increased immigration (Abilene, Garden City, Junction City), strengthening neighborhoods (Kansas City, Wichita), and improving coordination of government services (Kansas City, Wichita). Also fairly consistent regarding leadership was the identification of a need for recruitment and training of new and younger leaders. Transience, which emerged as a significant barrier to almost every component of social capital, was a major challenge in Garden City, where the structure of the economy relies on low-skilled workers, and in Junction City, where a large portion of residents are in the military. Further, the cities with significant numbers of immigrants noted that these residents are less likely to join organizations, engage in conventional or protest politics, or participate
in civic leadership for a variety of reasons, including language barriers, illegal status, and poor treatment by other ethnic groups. These barriers were considerably less for those who have been in the U.S. for a while compared to new arrivals. The issue of immigration is relevant to all five communities, as each is expecting periods of growth and increased immigration. Related to immigration is the issue of tolerance. Most communities revealed some degree of tensions related to minority populations. Whether these issues are deeply rooted in history or emerging with growth, intolerance was noted as a significant barrier to building social capital. Finally, two infrastructure characteristics were mentioned in multiple cities: transportation and translation. Public transportation affected both mobility and ability to interact with others. Translation and bilingual information were essential to engage immigrant populations.
31.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 34
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
TABLE 4. Level of Social Capital Dimensions and Related Contextual Factors in Five Target Cities in Kansas: Survey and Interview Findings
ABILENE
GARDEN CITY
LEVEL: High. FACTORS: Stability of population; small size, committed leadership; city invests in residents
LEVEL: Lower than KS. FACTORS: History of crime and gangs; immigrants taken advantage of.
LEVEL: Survey sample too small to determine. FACTORS: Diversity is increasing; concerns about growth get mixed with concerns about immigrants.
LEVEL: Low (high among whites; lowamong Hispanics). FACTORS: Language, immigrants taken advantage of; racial profiling.
LEVEL: High. FACTORS: Culture of citizen engagement; strong Republican base; some too busy and uninformed (mainly in poorer area in south).
LEVEL: Low. FACTORS: Transience; structure of economy (low-skilled workers w/ long hours); ltd. info in Spanish; ineligibility to vote; apathy.
ACTIVIST POLITICS
LEVEL: Low. FACTORS: Citizens have access to officials; protesting too “public.” Letters to editor preferred.
LEVEL: Low. FACTORS: People complain, but do not take action. Recent rallies on immigration, English as primary language; unionizing.
CIVIC LEADERSHIP
LEVEL: High. FACTORS: Small group of long-term leaders; heavy on prominent families; need to recruit young and new people.
LEVEL: Low. FACTORS: Transience; troubles getting minority leaders. City leaders lauded for preparing for growth and new immigrants.
ORGANIZATIONAL INVOLVEMENT
LEVEL: Low. FACTORS: Residents participate but are not “members.”; young people too busy; no neighborhood assocs; more arts and hobby groups; training for youth available.
LEVEL: Lower than KS. FACTORS: Transience; weekend exodus; young age of residents; nobody invests for “the long-term; many groups predominantly white—not easy for minorities.
LEVEL: High. FACTORS: Generous culture; focus on youth.
LEVEL: Lower than KS.FACTORS: Young residents; transience; weekend exodus. Note: Perception of high giving (divergence from survey).
LEVEL: Comparable to KS. FACTORS: Some activities (e.g., coaching) not called volunteering; younger people do not volunteer. Same small group does all work.
LEVEL: Low. FACTORS: transience, youth, and long work hours (shift work). Same small group of people volunteer.
LEVEL: High. FACTORS: Churches play prominent role; membership is important; numerous denominations
LEVEL: Lower than KS. FACTORS: Many attend but do not join; weekend travel limits participation.
LEVEL: Both comparable to KS. FACTORS: Extensive family ties; more difficult for young people without children (no venues) and newcomers (cliquish).
LEVEL: Both low. Transient; set up for business, not play. More socializing among Hispanics. Those who stay long-term have stronger ties.
Public spaces; transportation; stability; family friendliness
Open to innovation. Visionary leadership. Prepared for change.
Tolerance of diversity not clear; engagement of newcomers and residents difficult.
Transience; immigration tensions; no mid-level jobs.
SOCIAL TRUST
INTER-RACIAL TRUST
CONVENTIAL POLITICS
GIVING
VOLUNTEERING
FAITH-BASED ENGAGEMENT
INFORMAL SOCIALIZING AND DIVERSITY FRIENDSHIPS
ASSETS
CHALLENGES
32.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 35
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
JUNCTION CITY
KANSAS CITY
LEVEL: High (including among minorities). FACTORS: Diversity is accepted part of military life; culture of collaboration.
LEVEL: Low (especially among minorities). FACTORS: History of segregation, poverty, and crime; fears of undocumented immigrants.
LEVEL: High (lower among minorities) FACTORS: Decentralization of govt.; small size of city; Note: Crime and poverty hinder trust.
LEVEL: High. FACTORS: High diversity (racially and internationally); Military tolerance; interracial marriages.
LEVEL: Low. FACTORS: Long history of government neglect of poor; perceived discrimination; tension btw Blacks/Hispanics; segregated neighs.
LEVEL: Higher than KS. (higher for whites and Blacks than Hispanics). FACTORS: Racism; immigrants not assimilated; White flight.
LEVEL: Low. FACTORS: Transience; apathy. Interviewees said lower than survey. Increased involvement due to concerns about growth and diversity.
LEVEL: Low. FACTORS: Lack of information; candidates not speaking to certain populations; history of machine politics; no voice in some areas.
LEVEL: Lower than KS. FACTORS: Ineligible felons and immigrants; discomfort with church politics; transportation and other access issues; apathy; low youth inv.
LEVEL: Low. FACTORS: Quiet, relaxed town; protesting is not part of political strategy.
LEVEL: Low. FACTORS: Fear among immigrants; combative approaches not necessary. Note: Some activism through churches.
LEVEL: High. FACTORS: Several petitions in survey year; petitions more accessible than ballot box; active neighborhood assocs.
LEVEL: Lower than KS. FACTORS: Leaders commended for strong ties to Ft. Riley. Military is embraced.
LEVEL: Lower than KS. FACTORS: Small group of leaders; lack of young leaders. Note: Leaders commended for coordination of servcs; local leaders emerging through neigh assocs.
LEVEL: Lower than KS. FACTORS: Conservative town; leaders avoid contentious issues; competition between government leaders at all levels. Note: Efforts underway re leadership.
LEVEL: Lower than KS. FACTORS: No neigh. assoc. (more youth, school & veteran grps); youth not joiners. Note: Military families are highly involved; orgs trying to adapt schedules to busy lives.
LEVEL: High. FACTORS: High number of neighborhood assoc; barriers to joining: language, time, culture (joining is dangerous in some countries), fear of reprisals and deportation.
LEVEL: Comparable to KS. FACTORS: Sports teams, neighborhood groups; gardening clubs, youth organizations.
LEVEL: Lower than KS. FACTORS: Low-income, but generous people; many small donations; leadership key in obtaining donations; anonymous giving.
LEVEL: Low. FACTORS: Low income population.
LEVEL: High. FACTORS: Generous support for families & community; youth not so giving; corporate motivations are complex.
LEVEL: Lower than KS. FACTORS: People don’t come through; more talk than action (some said it was much lower than survey); others discussed impressive volunteer efforts.
LEVEL: Low. FACTORS: People are too busy; high level of poverty; initiatives are dying for lack of volunteers. Some divergence—perception of more volunteering.
LEVEL: Lower than KS. FACTORS: Time and scheduling. Note: community service is becoming part of education and community programs.
LEVEL: Lower than KS. FACTORS: No young members. Note: High Church diversity; tolerance all types of engagement.
LEVEL: Lower than KS. FACTORS: Church is less prominent than it was. Note: Church still plays role in community devt. and leadership training.
LEVEL: Higher than nation; lower than KS. FACTORS: Churches play key role. Young not involved. Politicization of churches is turnoff.
Informal soc: low Div. of friends: high FACTORS: Too few restaurants; venues (new sites under development.). High diversity of race, class, and religion in population.
LEVEL: Both low. FACTORS: Diverse population; segregated neighborhoods; closing of malls; lack of transportation; people socialize within their networks.
Informal soc: = KS. Div of friends: > KS. FACTORS: Not much to do; cost of events; safety of some venues; exodus to other cities; diversity of population.
Diversity; tolerance; growth; military.
Revitalization; strong neighborhoods; coordinated services, leadership.
Decentralized government; neighborhood associations; sports teams; welcoming city; “visioneering” effort underway.
Growth goes up and down; infrastructure and housing not ready for rapid growth of military return; cost of homes.
Segregated neighborhoods; history of neglect of certain populations; discrimination; wariness of newcomers;transportation.
Lack of things to do; retaining young people; perceived racism and classism; fear of diversity; White flight; poor transportation; apathy.
WICHITA
33.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 36
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
Convergence/Divergence Between the Quantitative and Qualitative Findings In addition to learning about the community context, the qualitative study also provided a means to validate (or refute) the data coming from the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey. The question of whether RDD telephone surveys generate valid conclusions about social capital was raised in many of the communities that participated in the 2000 SCBS. Critics of the survey cite the fact that even the best telephone surveys now have response rates below 50% and fail to reach individuals who only use cell phones. TNSI employs a rigorous algorithm to compensate for under-represented segments of the sampled population, but doubts have persisted as to whether the survey data are truly reflective of actual levels of trust, connectedness, engagement, volunteering, etc. The JHU team explicitly addressed this question by presenting community leaders with summary data from the survey and asking about the believability of the findings. For the most part, the case studies validated the survey findings, with interviewees providing extensive explanations that support the findings. There were only a few identified cases of divergence between the survey results and the perceptions of the community residents. For example, in Abilene, interviewees perceived the level of volunteering to be much higher than the survey indicated. One potential explanation offered by residents was that many people do activities for the community (e.g., coaching for their childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s team) but do not consider it volunteering; instead, they consider these activities as part of family life. The other examples of divergence are summarized in the full report. Overall, the points of divergence do not indicate the survey was not accurately measuring the dimensions of social capital. Instead, they provide insight into what is really happening with regard to the specific social capital component and provide helpful explanations and caveats for interpretation. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERVENTION
The findings from this study have implications with regard to how a statewide institution (e.g., government agencies, foundations, nonprofit
organizations) should frame its analysis of a community and how it should tailor programming to address community issues. The overriding conclusion from the case studies is that any efforts to address social capital need to examine communities individually. Social capital is a multifaceted construct; each community will have strengths and weaknesses. Even more importantly, each community has its own unique set of contextual influences. For both reasons, it would be imprudent for an outside actor to develop one approach to improving social capital and apply it across the board. Instead, the first step is to identify and understand those contextual factors. In this study, we found that leadership, politics, demographics, history, economy, infrastructure, community size, and geographical location were among the many factors influencing social capital. Identifying these contextual factors will guide the tailoring of interventions. For example, we found the poor public transportation system in Kansas City affects multiple aspects of social capital, including participation in community organizations, civic leadership, and conventional politics as well as informal socializing, diversity of friendships, and volunteering. This lack of participation, in turn, diminishes social trust and inter-racial trust. Improving the transportation system, therefore, will have extensive benefits for social capital. Both bonding and bridging social capital are important and should be considered separately. In many cities, bonds within neighborhoods or specific groups of residents were strong, but bridges between neighborhoods and between groups were weak. It is also possible that strong bonds among community residents could hinder bridging to other residents. This is particularly important given the growth and increase in immigration occurring in Kansas. Communities that have been historically strong in social capital may be challenged by the influx of newcomers and immigrants and need assistance with forging bridges between the different groups.
34.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 37
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
Social trust emerged as a particularly important component of social capital. In each of the cities social trust and interracial trust affected many of the other dimensions of social capital. For example, in Kansas City, low social trust, especially among minorities, can be connected to the lack of faith in the political system and leadership activities as well as the low level of diverse friendships and informal socializing. In Abilene, high social trust, which is rooted in the stability of social ties and the close knit fabric of the community, fosters high levels of engagement. However, those who are not part of this long-standing community do not
report as much trust or involvement. It is important to note that Abilene expects a continual increase in newcomers and immigrants, and this may have an effect on social trust. Leadership plays an important role in developing social capital. Each city underscored the role of leaders at the city and neighborhood levels in building and maintaining community ties and involvement. Leaders sensitive to the issues affecting social capital can address intermediary factors and develop a social context that fosters improved social capital.
REFERENCES Berkman, L. F. & Glass, T. (2000) Social integration, social networks, social support, and health. In, Berkman, L.F., Kawachi, I. (Eds.), Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press. Berkman, L. F. (1995). The role of social relations in health promotion. Psychosomatic Medicine, 57, 245-254. Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Easterling, D. (2008). The leadership role of community foundations in building social capital. National Civic Review, 97(4), 39-51, Kawachi, I. (2000). Income inequality and health. In, L.F. Berkman, I Kawachi (Eds.). Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press. Kawachi, I., & Berkman, L. (2000). Social cohesion, social capital and health. In, L.F. Berkman, & I. Kawachi (Eds.) Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press. (pp. 174-190). Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., & Glass, R. (1999). Social capital and self-related health: A contextual analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1187-1193. Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., Lochner, K., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (1997). Social capital, income inequality, and mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1491–1498. Kennedy, B.P., Kawachi, I., Prothrow-Stith, D., Lochner, K., & Gupta, V. (1998). Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent behavior. Social Science and Medicine, 47(1), 7-17. Kim, D. & Kawachi, I. (2006). A multilevel analysis of key forms of community- and individual-level social capital as predictors of self-rated health in the United States. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of New York Academy of Medicine, 83, 813-826.
Lappé, F.M. and P.M. Du Bois (1997), Building social capital without looking backward, National Civic Review, 86, 119-128. Lochner, K., Kawachi, I., & Kennedy, B.P. (1999). Social capital: A guide to its measurement. Health and Place, 5, 259-270. Lomas, J. (1998). Social capital and health: Implications for public health and epidemiology. Social Science Medicine, 47, 1181–1188. Potapchuk, W.R., J.P. Crocker, and W.H. Schechter (1997), “Building Community with Social Capital: Chits and Chums or Chats with Change,” National Civic Review, 86, 129-140. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling along: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Touchstone. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924. The analyses also take into account the fact that some respondents had a greater likelihood of being recruited using the RDD methodology. In particular, each respondent’s data are weighted as a function of the number of phone lines and adults in the household (i.e., “initial weights”) and the survey’s success in recruiting a sample that is representative of the population on factors such as gender, age, and race (i.e., “balancing weights”). Findings involving the individual survey items are presented in the main report submitted to KHI.
35.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 38
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
TRANSFORMING THE CIVIC CULTURE: The Role of Community Leadership Programs in Kansas • Effective Civic Leadership Development Programs: Lessons of Experience • Community Leadership Program Benchmark Assessment by David Chrislip Senior Fellow Kansas Leadership Center
“ We must develop networks of leaders who accept some measure of responsibility for the society's shared concerns. Call them networks of responsibility, leaders of disparate or conflicting interests who undertake to act together in behalf of the shared concerns of the community or nation.” John Gardner
36.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 39
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
What does it take to make progress on our shared concerns? How do we energize and inspire others to act? How do we encourage or develop the desire and capacity to exercise leadership in many people from all walks of life? These were the persistent questions that moved John Gardner, one of America’s great public philosophers. Gardner recognized many years ago that initiative and responsibility for action must be widely dispersed if we were to make progress on complex, large-scale systemic problems. Leadership was much more about engaging, mobilizing and energizing others to act than about technocratic responses. He knew, too, that this kind of leadership could be developed or learned. He concluded in 1990 that “that we have barely scratched the surface in our efforts toward leadership development.” His early and ongoing commitment to civic leadership development helped ensure the growth and evolution of community leadership programs across the country. In the fall of 2008, the Kansas Leadership Center (KLC) convened representatives of Kansas’ community leadership programs to assess the progress and impact of civic leadership development in their communities and regions. This assessment would serve as the basis for developing strategies to enhance the programs and to foster a partnership with KLC. Many of these programs, once characterized by social networking and issues understanding experiences among the elite, had evolved over the years into collaborative skill-building programs with more diverse participation. Graduates have not only an expanded network and an enhanced understanding of issues but, also, we hope, the skills to make a difference. To provide a clear-eyed look at these programs, the Kansas Community Leadership Initiative (KCLI) Advisory Group asked tough questions such as: What are the civic challenges facing Kansas communities? What is the civic context or culture of these communities and how does it help or hinder making progress on these challenges? To what extent do graduates of community leadership programs contribute to making progress? Is the purpose and role of these programs appropriate and responsive to the community’s challenges? Are the program objectives consistent with the purpose and role? Do the curricula of these programs prepare participants to exercise civic leadership effectively?
Guided by the lessons of experience from other civic leadership programs and a bench-marking tool for assessing these programs (see sidebar), the group acknowledged the strengths and confronted the limitations of their programs. This critical review led them to conclude that, while well intentioned and almost universally uplifting for participants, these programs do not adequately develop the leadership competencies to cope with the true complexity of the challenges (see KLC Theory of Civic Leadership). Graduates came away from the experience needing more tools for diagnosing the situation—especially, distinguishing technical and adaptive work—and facilitating interventions. Significantly, too few came away with the sense of responsibility and compelling inspiration to act John Gardner calls for to make a difference in their communities. To address these shortcomings, the advisory group challenged themselves and their programs to “raise the bar” by aspiring to transform the civic culture of their communities. Moving from an exclusive, often divisive and ineffective civic culture to a more inclusive and collaborative civic culture capable of doing adaptive work and ensuring accountability would help communities make progress on critical issues. Community leadership programs should be the catalyst and their alumni the proponents for this transformation. To succeed in this aspiration, community leadership development programs will have to provide powerful experiences that inspire participants to engage others in civic life, develop the leadership competencies to respond to adaptive challenges, provide a sense of hope and possibility and develop networks of trust and respect that serve the broader community. Moving programs to a higher level of aspiration and performance is itself an intervention requiring an act of leadership. To become more conscious, intentional and skillful about intervening, the advisory group will participate in KLC’s Context and Competencies civic leadership development program. The intent of the program is to prepare group members to provide leadership to continue transforming their local programs and to build a constituency for enhancing civic leadership development across the state.
37.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 40
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
Effective Civic Leadership Development Programs: Lessons of Experience PROGRAM PURPOSE AND FOCUS Effective civic leadership development programs have a clearly articulated purpose to enhance the capacity of the community or region to address civic concerns and challenges in an effective and constructive way. They are seen as long-term investments in building civic capacity rather than as quick fixes or resume builders.
These programs build on a well-grounded conceptual framework for leadership designed specifically to respond to the challenges facing the community or region. They include a working definition of leadership and focus more on developing the competencies and skills to meet these challenges rather than on understanding the local issues and players.
PROGRAM LENGTH
Good civic leadership development programs are of sufficient length to make a real, sustainable difference. Most of the better programs are multi-episodic and the length generally falls in the range of 7 to 15 days per year. PROGRAM DELIVERY
These programs use a combination of powerful means for developing civic leadership They include: • transforming learning experiences (vs., e.g., scripted training); • faculty with the skills to facilitate and integrate learning from experience (vs., e.g., didactic); • action learning and reflection; • opportunities for self-discovery and reflection. PARTICIPANTS
Participants in good civic leadership development programs reflect the diversity of the community or region (sector, race, gender, ethnicity, and so on). They learn together as peers.
PROGRAM STRUCTURE
These initiatives provide an integrated program focusing on 4 key elements with clearly stated outcomes: • developing leadership skills especially collaboration, critical thinking, systems thinking and cultural competence; • building awareness of the civic context and its challenges; • building relationships of trust and respect among diverse participants; • providing opportunities for self-reflection and personal development.
REFERENCES: Chrislip, David D. The Collaborative Leadership Fieldbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002. Chrislip, David D. and Larson, Carl. Collaborative Leadership: How Citizens and Civic Leaders Can Make a Difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
OTHER ASPECTS
Good civic leadership development programs include: • a means for evaluating the content and delivery of the program in order to keep the program relevant, up-to-date and engaging; • an effective means to evaluate the impacts of the program on individuals and on the community or region; • an advisory board with a primary focus on the sustainability of the program. This might include alumni activities, program evaluation, program development, fundraising, administration, and so on.
McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., and Morrison, A. M. The Lessons of Experience. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988. McCauley, Cynthia D., Moxley, Russ S., Van Felsor, Ellen, Eds. Handbook of Leadership Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
Daloz Parks, Sharon. Leadership Can be Taught. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press, 2005.
Parr, John and Walsh, Kimberly. Best Practices Scan: Regional Leadership Development Initiatives. Alliance for Regional Stewardship, 2002.
Mattessich, P. W. and Monsey, B. R. Community Building: What Makes It Work. St. Paul, MN: Wilder Foundation, 1997.
Zimmerman-Oster, K. and Burkhardt, John C. Leadership in the Making. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2000.
38.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 41
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
This assessment tool was developed by David D. Chrislip and the Kansas Leadership Center. It is intended to help coordinators and facilitators accurately evaluate how well they are meeting criteria considered essential for effective leadership development programs.
Community Leadership Program Benchmark Assessment 1. Does your program have a clearly articulated purpose to enhance the civic capacity of your community or region?
8. How effective is your program at using teaching techniques for developing civic leadership such as:
• powerful, transforming learning experiences (vs., e.g., scripted training);
2. To what extent is there congruence between your program’s stated purpose and its activities and curriculum?
• faculty with the skills to facilitate and integrate learning from experience (vs., e.g., lectures or didactic teaching);
3. Does your community see your program as a long-term investment in building civic capacity? 4. To what extent has your program’s participants and alumni contributed directly to making progress on challenging civic issues in your community by applying the concepts and skills learned in the program? 5. Does your program have a well-grounded conceptual framework for civic leadership that clearly responds to the specific challenges facing your community or region? 6. Does your program have a working definition of civic leadership? If yes, what is it? If yes, to what extent is the definition embedded in the activities and curriculum of the program? 7. To what extent does your program develop leadership competencies and skills to meet civic challenges with clearly stated outcomes such as:
• developing civic leadership skills including collaboration, critical thinking, systems thinking and cultural competence;
• building awareness of the civic context and its challenges;
• building relationships of trust and
• action learning experiences with time for reflection and learning;
• opportunities for self-discovery, personal reflection and self-development. 9. Is your program of sufficient program length to make a difference (7-15 days per year)? 10. To what extent do the participants in your program reflect the diversity of the community or region (sector, race, gender, ethnicity, and so on): 11. Does your program have a means for evaluating the content and delivery of the program in order to keep the program relevant, up-to-date and engaging? 12. Does your program have an effective means for evaluating the impacts of the program on individuals and on the community or region? 13. Does your program have an advisory board or similar structure with a primary focus on the sustainability of the program? This might include alumni activities, program evaluation, program development, fundraising, administration, and so on?
respect among diverse participants;
• providing opportunities for self-reflection and personal development.
39.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 42
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
PREDICTING THE FUTURE: Why Citizen Engagement No Longer Is Optional by John Nalbandian Reprinted with permission from the December 2008 issue of Public Management (PM) magazine, published by ICMA, Washington, D.C.
For years, we who are involved in local government have treated citizen engagement as an option to enhance policymaking and community building in local government. I would argue that now engagement no longer is an option; it is imperative. It is made mandatory by the challenging and often confusing context of contemporary local governance, increasingly characterized by the ad hoc presence of foundations, nongovernmental organizations, private firms, and other nongovernmental actors in processes and decisions that significantly affect community development and well-being.
of community importance, as a balance to the emotion that comes from the heart in spontaneous engagement.
If we are to anticipate effectively and plan for coherence in community building as an overarching goal of professionalism in local government, we must find a way to channel toward the collective good the diversity of actors, their energy, and their collaborative minds. One way to do this is through a significant commitment and more systematic approach to planned citizen engagement.
As another example, in Lewisham, one of the boroughs of London, a 1,000-member citizen panel has been created to provide feedback to the government on issues of importance and to provide answers needed from citizen surveys. From the panel, juries are drawn occasionally to hear testimony from experts and then to render a recommendation to the governing body on a pressing issue.1
To understand the role of engagement, first we must distinguish two types. The initial form is spontaneous. This is the expression of citizenship that local government professionals have grown to expect and often dismiss as emotion driven, self-interested, and influence yielding.
Community consultant David Chrislip writes, “Joint Venture Silicon Valley addressed a wide range of needs including education, transportation, work force development, environmental issues, and economic development. The long running initiative led to the creation of several new organizations and numerous partnerships to meet these needs.”2
Planned engagement, an alternative form, has taken time to reach a place of legitimacy in the administrative arsenal in part, I would maintain, because we lump all engagement under the same rubric—the one we would prefer to avoid! But we must realize that planned engagement is different. It leads to an expression of the rational community mind as it deals with issues
Planned engagement comes in many shapes and sizes but, generally speaking, it brings diverse groups together either as individuals or as representatives in semiformal, facilitated settings to plan and problem solve. A local government may use its authority, for example, to convene groups and individuals to discuss and make recommendations for revision to a comprehensive land use master plan or to join in a strategic planning effort for the community as a whole.
What is driving this need and the imperative response I am suggesting? To respond, I will sketch a broader perspective that establishes the contemporary context for the argument that planned engagement is a critical element in the public administrator’s toolbox.
40.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 43
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
TRENDS: MODERNITY AND IDENTITY Two overarching global trends affect local government policymaking.3 The first is administrative modernization, and the second is the search for identity —who we were, who we are, and what we aspire to become. Administrative modernization is driven by the combination of capitalism, technology, the importance of efficiency as a value, and the unbounded desire to acquire wealth. At the local level, this force expresses itself with examples like GIS and GPS applications, pavement condition indices (PCI), newer and still newer ways of electronically communicating within organizations and with citizens, and software that integrates human resource and financial systems. But we must realize that this force extends far beyond local government. We see it throughout our daily lives with credit cards that will purchase anything, phones that will do everything, airports distinguishable only by their architecture, and on and on. Modernization worldwide standardizes our lives in ways we find both compelling and disturbing. By embracing modernization, we experience efficiency, quality, consistency, and familiarity in products, services, and processes—at least those are the goals. But modernization’s wide and indiscriminate swath wipes out uniqueness, spontaneity, tradition, and identity. Decisions about which streets to pave no longer are politically determined by council—the PCI ensures that. Evidence-based decision making replaces hunches and experience in managing money, in gambling, in marketing, in sports, and in local government. The second trend that helps create the need for planned engagement is a reaction to modernization. None of us can live without tradition, spontaneity, and identity; and identity is the key. Why has McDonald’s, an exemplar of modernization, become a community space for regular customers who become familiar not only with each other but also with the employees? I was driving across Iowa, and I stopped at a McDonald’s in rural America. I asked the manager, “Do you have regulars?” She said, “Of course. We have become the break space for the company located across the street.” In my own McDonald’s (my own!), the employees refer to the regulars by name. We are trying to make unique and personal what is on its face heartless.
Identity is the victim of modernization; but we fight the battle, land use issue by land use issue! Spontaneous engagement is an emotional response to our everyday lives, which we often believe others control. Thus, we act as if we own our neighborhoods; it is our meager response to perceived loss of identity and control of our future. Politics today is as much about creating, maintaining, and preserving identity as it is about rational policymaking.
HOW TO CREATE POSSIBILITIES Now we come to the heart of the argument. The challenge that results from juxtaposing these two worlds is realizing not only that a growing gap exists between contemporary politics (the search for identity) and administration (modernization) but operationally that the gap represents the distance between what is politically acceptable (the search for identity) and administratively feasible (modernization). The greater this distance, the more difficult it is to enact policy that matters and can be implemented effectively. The greater challenge here is that the gap between what is politically acceptable and administratively feasible is growing because the modernization trend makes local government professionals—in contrast with elected officials—more capable than their predecessors at their work. Today’s professionals are more skilled than their predecessors owing in large part to the positive effects of modernization; one cannot say the same about elected officials. This is not meant to demean the skills of elected officials. It simply recognizes that the tools of administration are advancing at a more rapid rate than the tools of politics. The summary message here is that the gap is growing and must be bridged if effective policymaking is the goal, and this is the challenge that contemporary professionals face—worldwide. Because contemporary communities find themselves increasingly responding to issues of identity, and to entrants whose interests may be narrowly even if publicly motivated, we must find methods of bridging the gap in ways that are institutionally acceptable as well as effective in producing results legitimized by citizens. If we do not—if we continue to govern issue by issue, actor by actor—issues of identity will not be addressed even if individual policies and services are decided and delivered. (cont.)
41.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 44
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
(cont.)
Planned engagement holds promise in part because it can be initiated by the council—a governing institution using its power to convene—and enhanced and broadened with such tools of modernization as surveys, structured and facilitated meetings, and administrative expertise. Planned engagement can also provide a place for the energizing passion that infuses issues of identity. The Lewisham citizen panel is a case in point. As another example closer to home, Carol (my wife) and I with assistance from Doug Griffen facilitated a strategic planning retreat with a seven-member council. Doug brought a computer for each person, and each computer was tied to the central computer at Doug’s station. We posed questions of identity: “After 10 years of no contact with anyone in your city, you return and you say, ‘This is perfect; it is exactly how I wanted it to turn out.’ What have you seen or heard that leads you to your conclusion?” Responses were then sent from individual computers, collated and edited to avoid duplication, and posted on a screen for all to see. We developed themes among the disparate responses and, once this was done, we asked each councilmember to write a paragraph that captured the “heart of the matter.” We continued and developed goals and objectives, and at the end of the day, we got a product that took advantage of the tools of modernization but in the service of community building.
PLANNED ENGAGEMENT AND THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONALISM As we think about the future, the issue is not whether engagement in whatever form is going to occur. It already is present and powerful. Planned engagement may actually become a source of legitimacy for professionalism if one is unwilling to accept the uncoordinated and almost ad hoc nature of contemporary governance—that “place” where currently some decisions are directed by our legislative and administrative institutions, some are connected, and others are wholly separate. In the future, legitimacy for local government professionals likely will come from the ability to coordinate this “marketplace of governance” as they continue to develop the competencies that will help them bridge the increasingly complicated arenas of political acceptability and administrative feasibility. I believe that the anchor for that competence may well be found by committing to an enhanced role for citizen engagement in our communities. JOHN NALBANDIAN teaches in the public adminstration department at the University of Kansas. In addition to his faculty responsibilies, he served on the Lawrence, KS city commission for two terms including service as the city's mayor. John's additional work is available at www.goodlocalgovernment.org
42.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 45
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
NEW LENSES FOR LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT • •
Philanthropy as an Act of Civic Leadership Development Wichita Man – Leadership Development via Superheros
by Carlota Ponds
Get a class together. Check. Conduct a personality type assessment. Check. Go over some leadership curriculum. Check. Do a class project. Check. Formal leadership development can get a bit predictable at times. And, while formal leadership development can be powerful, many informal efforts to develop leadership in others exist throughout Kansas as well. KLC program associate Carlota Ponds uncovers two prime examples of informal or non-traditional leadership development in these two articles.
Philanthropy as an Act of Civic Leadership Development Here’s a question for you. In what activity do participants advance to higher rounds by successfully completing a complex set of tasks at a lower level, earn bonus bucks for exceeding agreed upon goals, and significantly multiply the funds available to do good works in their communities? Hint: it isn’t the latest reality-based game show on television. If you answered, “The Kansas Health Foundation’s GROW program,” you’re smarter than the average bear! Giving Resources to Our World (GROW) was first envisioned in 1999 as a way to build the capacity of community foundations in Kansas. By strengthening philanthropic leadership and resources at the local community level, KHF hoped to improve the health of Kansans over the long term. The payoff has far exceeded anyone’s expectations.
The initiative serves as an interesting example of a statewide entity engaging in civic leadership development at the local level in a unique way. The GROW initiative was launched in December of 2000 with an initial commitment of $30 million over 10 years. KHF identified the following three goals:
1. To increase philanthropy in Kansas 2. To improve the health of children in Kansas, and 3. To develop a network of local partners that can participate in future KHF initiatives. Sixteen community foundations were invited to participate in phase one of the initiative, the operations challenge. The chosen foundations serve communities that were already involved in KHF’s Kansas Community Leadership Initiative (KCLI). Strengthening those pre-existing community partnerships went a long way toward meeting the goal #3 on the previous list. The “challenge” was to use the incentive of matching funds to generate a larger-than-usual contribution to the operating budgets of participant foundations. Foundations were eligible to receive up to $300,000 in 1:1 matching funds if they met the fundraising goal they set for themselves, any amount from $50,000 to $300,000. All community foundations successfully completed phase one, and received a $10,000 bonus to re-grant within their community, and advanced to phase two, the endowment challenge, which operated along similar lines. The cycle of goal-setting, challenge, matching funds and regranting has been repeated through successive rounds of the initiative. Twelve of the original sixteen foundations remain “active” as the initiative enters phase six, the school endowment challenge. (cont.)
43.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 46
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
(cont.)
In each challenge phase, the participating community foundations set a goal and earned matching dollars from KHF based on the percentage of goal reached by the cutoff date. Since the majority of GROW participants were budding foundations, KHF rewarded successful foundations with $10,000 in additional funds to re-grant within their communities. The re-granted funds served two purposes: to help the foundations gain experience with grantmaking, and to illustrate the benefits of having a community foundation to members of the community at large. The re-granted funds were specifically earmarked to benefit children’s health and well-being, which further served to satisfy goal #2. Goal #1, increasing philanthropic giving throughout the state, was met as well. Prior to the GROW initiative, the participating foundations had assets of just over $19 million. At the end of 2007, the 12 community foundations still participating had assets of over $77.5 million. “Okay,” you say, “the numbers look good, but what does it really mean? What difference does this initiative make for the man at the grocery store, the woman at the post office or the child on the playground in these communities?” Well, I’m glad you asked. Involvement in participant communities opened the door for KHF to host listening tours on the topic of nutrition and physical activity as components of community health. These listening sessions became a way for the local foundations to exercise leadership around a topic with local interest and benefit. Community health coalitions are springing up throughout the state, many of which were launched as a follow-up to the listening sessions. Residents can receive information about making healthier lifestyle and eating choices, fitness activities are more readily available and there is generally more dialogue at the community level centered around topics of wellness, rather than simply access to health care, as the driving force in community health. A specific example of GROW’s success can be gleaned from the South Central Kansas Community Foundation, which serves a region comprised of Barber, Comanche, Kingman, Kiowa, Pratt, Rice
and Stafford counties. According to its director, Denise Unruh, the community foundation has been instrumental in sponsoring Rachel’s Challenge in all seven counties served. Named for the first victim of the 1999 Columbine High School shootings in Colorado, Rachel Joy Scott, Rachel’s Challenge is a program focusing on the need to help all students feel welcome and valued in their school settings. The day-long program targets middle and high school students, but also provides communitywide assemblies to reach adults and other youth mentors with its message of compassion, kindness and inclusiveness of all young people. It took the Foundation two weeks to host the challenge throughout the region. One school implemented a program to welcome all new students by pairing them with a “buddy-a-day” for the first two weeks after their arrival. These “buddies” help new students learn their way around, get introduced to other students and eat lunch with them on those first tentative days. The school also has a policy of rearranging the tables in the lunch room periodically to break down the infamous lunchroom cliques that can form with a static table system. Rachel’s Challenge touched over 5,000 students in the 21 school districts in the service area, but over 10,000 people were affected overall. Denise says she didn’t fully understand the impact of the Rachel’s Challenge program until she was stopped on the street by a man who noticed her wearing her promotional t-shirt. When the man learned that her group had sponsored the events in his community, he shared an emotional story about how his grandson had been forever changed by the program and how he (the grandson) had helped others in his family become more compassionate toward outsiders as well.
GROW is not a typical leadership development story, but it is a powerful one living and “growing” in large, medium and small communities throughout Kansas. A second round of the GROW initiative is getting ready to launch. Does anyone feel up to the challenge?
44.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 47
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
Wichita Man Leadership Development Via Superheros Members of the KLC faculty development cohort, titled the Art and Practice of Civic Leadership Development (APCLD), are learning about KLC’s Theory of Civic Leadership and developing dynamic approaches for using KLC’s competencies - diagnose situation, manage self, facilitate intervention and energize others – in their leadership development work. Designing, implementing, and analyzing “low-risk” experiments are all part of the teaching/learning model. One member of the cohort, Reuben Eckels, has literally incorporated both art and practice in his most recent project: a comic book called Wichita Man which was released in February. The “art” manifests in the illustrations for the comic. The “practice” is reflected in the thorny issues tackled by the title character: HIV/AIDS, gang activity, and domestic violence.
This unique exercise in civic leadership development at the community level speaks to a non-traditional audience in a non-traditional way that may prove to be very effective in reaching that audience. This project was conceived over a year ago when Reuben noticed that the same faces were present at most of the community meetings he attended. This observation caused him to wonder why so much energy was being used “preaching to the choir” and seemingly no energy spent getting “the message” out to the masses. He needed a way to reach men ages 25-45 with information about these important issues affecting their lives. The answer came from an unlikely source, Reuben’s 11-year-old son, Samuel. After discovering some old comics in their garage, Samuel asked, “Why don’t you do a comic, dad?” Thus, Wichita Man was born.
The timing for this project was ideal on a number of fronts. The popularity of movies based on superheroes of bygone years (Spider-Man, Iron Man, Fantastic Four, The Incredible Hulk, etc.) opened a door for middle aged and older men to connect with their sons and grandsons through a shared interest. An unfortunate killing of a young African American male in Wichita put the spotlight locally on the need for community collaboration to stop the violence. Wichita Man successfully melds the national entertainment trend and the local crisis. But that doesn’t mean the road to publication was easy. Funding was the first and foremost need. Reuben was able to secure a grant from the Kansas Health Foundation to cover expenses for the initial design, development and first several months’ publication. He is looking into traditional and embedded advertising (businesses and products used as part of the story line), and subscriptions to provide the funding to sustain the project. A web site, www.wichitaman.com, has also been launched to increase the comic’s visibility (and possible revenues) beyond the local market. There were also challenges related to conveying his vision to illustrators and graphic designers who determined the layout of the publication. Reuben was surprised by the work involved to do seemingly simple things such as place a text box so it wouldn’t block the illustration, or balance the ratio of text to graphics on a page. He also had to bring in writers and consultants to help word the message for his younger audience. At one point, a musical reference that had great meaning for Reuben would have been totally unknown by the under-30 portion of his demographic. So now that the first issue is on the shelves, how would Reuben debrief his experiment? Two points pop to his mind. “I underestimated how long it would take to put the first one together. I should have planned to print more copies…I didn’t know there would be (cont.)
45.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 48
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
(cont.)
so much interest.” Reuben originally planned to print only 25 copies, planning to distribute them free of charge for on-site reading in barber and beauty shops, neighborhood businesses, the Urban League and branch locations of Youthville and the Boys and Girls Club. The initial run was increased to 300, and there is still more demand. In addition, some of the display copies “walked away” and had to be replaced. Evaluation will be ongoing as the community responds to the first issue. The final pages of the comic list contact information for local agencies where readers can go for help. The agencies will monitor changes in numbers of calls, walk-ins or referrals received. If numbers increase, and especially if they mention Wichita Man as their information source, the project will have achieved its goal of increasing awareness of these key community issues.
Ten more monthly installments of the comic have been written and are in various stages of production. Community feedback will influence creation of new characters and story lines. Wichita Man is adaptable and transformable to other communities, genders and ethnicities, Reuben says. “Every community has issues that affect this demographic. What we’re creating is a tool that can be used in many settings.” CARLOTA PONDS is a program associate with the Kansas Leadership Center. Her special interests are community collaboration and increasing the voice of underrepresented populations in the civic arena.
46.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 49
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
LEADERSHIP COACHING Twin Competencies, Powerful Results
by Julia Fabris McBride
FIGURE I
A new Kansas Leadership Center initiative is helping professional coaches integrate two complementary sets of competencies and apply them to the challenge of enhancing civic leadership in Kansas.
THE FOLLOWING ELEVEN CORE COACHING COMPETENCIES WERE DEVELOPED TO SUPPORT GREATER UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE SKILLS AND APPROACHES USED WITHIN TODAY'S COACHING PROFESSION AS DEFINED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COACH FEDERATION.
The International Coach Federation has identified 11 Core Coaching Competencies (see figure 1) that are the hallmarks of effective coaching. Paired with KLC’s Four Competency Framework these two sets of competencies provide an ideal structure for coaching civic leaders.
A. SETTING THE FOUNDATION
1. Meeting Ethical Guidelines and Professional Standards 2. Establishing the Coaching Agreement
Coaches who integrate the KLC Competencies (see figure 2) as touchstones in their work with civic leaders, find a rich new source for powerful coaching questions and a powerful framework for generating insight, awareness and opportunity for action.
B. CO-CREATING THE RELATIONSHIP
3. Establishing Trust and Intimacy with the Client 4. Coaching Presence
As an added benefit, working with a KLC-trained coach helps Kansans deepen their understanding of KLC theories and become more adept at providing much-needed leadership in communities.
C. COMMUNICATING EFFECTIVELY
IMAGINE THIS SCENARIO…
5. Active Listening 6. Powerful Questioning 7. Direct Communication
A nonprofit is dealing with a tumultuous transition in the wake of the unanticipated departure of its founder and longtime executive director.
D.
In an effort to get its arms around the organization’s finances, the board directs the acting executive director to take on all fiscal and administrative responsibilities – removing those duties from the portfolio of a senior staff member.
FACILITATING LEARNING AND RESULTS
8. Creating Awareness 9. Designing Actions 10. Planning and Goal Setting 11. Managing Progress and Accountability
When the staff member actively resists the change in job description, the acting ED comes to her KLC coach for help diagnosing the situation.
For more information, visit www.coachfederation.org.
47.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 50
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
(cont.)
As the acting ED ponders the technical problem of how to shift administrative responsibilities from one desk to another, her coach focuses attention toward the more difficult adaptive work at hand. Pushing against the client’s default interpretation (“This individual is creating problems, and leadership requires that I get him to see things my way”), the coach’s questions are designed to shift the ED’s perspective of the problem from “technical and individual” to “adaptive and systemic.”
As the coaching session comes to a close, the coach asks the ED to observe herself in action during the coming week, reflecting in writing about her own reactions to situations and events, and to note anything she observes about her capabilities, vulnerabilities, and triggers. With the ED’s acceptance of this request, the coach prepares her client for their next conversation, which, if the coach’s instincts are correct, will address another KLC Leadership Competency: Managing Self.
The ED begins to explore multiple interpretations of the situation as she responds to a series of powerful coaching questions:
FIGURE 2 KLC COMPETENCIES
•
What out-dated organizational values might the staff member’s behavior represent?
•
What new attitudes and behaviors can the ED model for her staff to help them navigate this difficult transition?
•
1. DIAGNOSE SITUATION
2.
In the aftermath of the founder’s departure, what other dysfunctional behavior is being displayed among the staff?
MANAGE SELF
3. FACILITATE INTERVENTION
The ED recognizes the great degree to which her organization has been knocked out of balance by the founder’s untimely exit. She acknowledges the high levels of distress and the conflicting values that have led to stonewalling by the senior staff member, and to less obvious signals of distress from other members of both staff and board. Realizing the systemic nature of the challenge she is facing, and acknowledging that the temperature in the system has become too hot for most people to handle, the leader begins to consider ways to turn down the heat just enough to allow people to see the situation clearly, take ownership of the inherent challenges (rather than push them back on the authority), and accept as their own the work that will be required for survival.
4. ENERGIZE OTHERS
JULIA FABRIS MCBRIDE is a leadership coach, speaker and trainer. Her twice-monthly newsletter, Connecting, is available at www.CoachJulia.net.
48.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 51
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
NETWORKING LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN KANSAS What’s next for the state’s association of leadership developers? by Ron Wilson and Matt Jordan
Salina, May 1991. A workshop on community leadership has just concluded. Before the people disperse, a group approaches one of the organizers and gives her a simple but powerful message: “We need this to continue.” The Kansas Leadership Forum (KLF) began as the response to that expressed need for an ongoing leadership development organization. KLF is the statewide association for Kansans who provide leadership development and education throughout our state. It is the common ground between university- and community-based leadership programs. The purpose of this article is three-fold: to chronicle the development of KLF; to reflect the current leadership development environment in Kansas; and to look to the future. CREATING A FORUM FOR LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT Terrie McCants, a founding member and the first president of KLF, says her interest in having an ongoing leadership organization stemmed from her experience in Leadership Kansas. “I felt that, once people graduated from Leadership Kansas, there was not a forum or venue to share ideas about leadership. We began to ask, once we go back into our roles in our communities, how can we stay connected?” At her urging, Leadership Kansas sponsored the aforementioned Salina workshop. The participants urged McCants, as the workshop organizer, to continue such a network beyond that first gathering. Leadership Kansas joined other leadership development groups in creating an independent organization which would become known as KLF. Dr. Curt Brungardt was another founder of KLF. In the early 1990s, Brungardt was charged with developing the Fort Hays State University’s leadership studies
program. While attending a national meeting of the Association of Leadership Educators in Orlando, Brungardt was seated across the table from Katey Walker, an extension specialist at K-State with an interest in leadership development. Brungardt said to her, “Why do I have to travel clear to Orlando to find someone working on leadership in my home state?” When they returned to Kansas, Walker and Brungardt worked together to research and inventory Kansas leadership programs. It was while doing this research that Brungardt met Terrie McCants and the founding alliance was formed. Highlights from KLF’s early years include publication of The Kansas Directory of Leadership Education by Fort Hays State University and the Kansas Rural Development Council in 1993. In May 1994, back in Salina, the first annual conference was conducted, with the theme of “The Kansas Leadership Forum’94: Building Leadership Capacity.” Subsequent annual conferences have been held in Manhattan, Hutchinson, Olathe, Wichita, Topeka, Great Bend, McPherson, Colby, Newton and Abilene. KLF received another boost in 1998, when the Kansas Health Foundation launched its Kansas Community Leadership Initiative (KCLI). This multi-year training program has served more than 40 community-based programs and nearly 130 facilitators to date. The traditional model of community leadership programs where participants focus on community awareness and networking is being significantly enhanced with a facilitative, skill-based model that teaches leadership to those with a desire to be more effective in their community engagement. For KLF, this initiative created new energy and membership involvement around community leadership. (cont.)
49.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 52
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
(cont.)
The benefits of KLF membership include idea-sharing with peers, access to a statewide membership directory of leadership development organizations, regular newsletters, sharing of best practices for leadership development and discounted registration rates for state and national meetings. For example, KLF is a member of the international Community Leadership Association, so all KLF members can receive the discounted member rate to attend the CLA conference. LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT TODAY In 2007, a new player entered the leadership arena in Kansas. The Kansas Leadership Center (KLC) was founded through an initial 10-year, $30 million investment from the Kansas Health Foundation to foster civic leadership for healthier Kansas communities. KLC staff and KLF officers immediately began brainstorming ways of collaborating to enhance each other’s effectiveness within the Kansas leadership community. In 2008, the groups partnered to provide scholarships for Kansans to attend the Community Leadership Association annual conference in Denver and worked jointly to sponsor KLF’s annual conference in Wichita. Today, the officers of the Kansas Leadership Forum are engaged in a strategic thinking process about the future of the organization. KLC is a big part of the consideration, as both groups ponder the changing context of leadership development. As Curt Brungardt stated, “There’s been an explosion of leadership education in this state. Now every college and every HR person is doing it in some form. How people define leadership education has gotten much broader since those early days.” The expanded scope of leadership training suggests a stronger need for connecting people, which creates opportunities for KLF to serve as a resource for practitioners across Kansas. As stated in the KLF constitution and bylaws, the mission of the association is to serve and assist those Kansas professionals and volunteers involved in providing youth and adult leadership education. By linking people working in the field of leadership, KLF serves as an organized network for the exchange of ideas, information
and knowledge about leadership development and education. This charge seems more important than ever. Due to the gift of the Kansas Health Foundation, our state enjoys the benefit of the Kansas Leadership Center, which is a powerful force for advancing the opportunity for civic leadership development. Because of their complementary missions, the idea of formally linking KLF and KLC offers tremendous opportunities to strengthen leadership development in our state. WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD? So the officers of KLF and staff of KLC are exploring several questions, such as: How can we advance the state of leadership education and development in Kansas to an even higher level? What might be possible from partnering with these new resources in Kansas? And how can KLF structure itself so that leadership development practitioners and the people of Kansas benefit in the greatest possible way? One way to advance to a higher level is renewing the role of KLF to be the learning community for leadership development educators, facilitators and researchers across our state. It is well known that the ability of the facilitator is a primary factor in the quality of the educational experience. How could KLF and KLC establish a robust learning community to support leadership development practitioners? The answers are still unknown, but the officers of KLF and KLC are actively seeking those answers in an open, collaborative way. As KLF transitions in new ways to meet the challenges of 2010 and beyond, our commitment to civic leadership still reflects the response from two decades ago: “We need this to continue.”
RON WILSON is Director of K-State’s Huck Boyd National Institute for Rural Development, which has served as the KLF administrative support office since 2002. MATT JORDAN is Director of Programs at the Kansas Leadership Center.
50.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 53
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
THE KLC FROM CONCEPTION TO LAUNCH A History of the Kansas Leadership Center
The Kansas Leadership Center: It’s so unique it can be overwhelming; it’s exciting but also a little daunting; it’s a new chapter in Kansas yet will require a lot of traditional wisdom.
President for Programs Mary Campuzano and consultant Don Stewart attended meetings in every region of the state to gather input on difficult questions regarding community public health.
The concept of a statewide leadership center was seeded by conversations with Kansans across the state. That concept was further developed by the Kansas Health Foundation.
These listening posts were advertised in local newspapers and attendance ranged between 20 and 100 people. Each session was facilitated by a respected local citizen, someone who could ask questions and retrieve answers from their fellow constituents. From Dighton to Atchison and Lawrence to Leoti, hundreds of sheets of flip chart paper and numerous packs of colored markers were used in an effort to uncover local health problems.
The Kansas Health Foundation, created from the sale of the Wesley Hospital in 1985, is the state’s largest philanthropic organization. Since its inception, the foundation has focused on preventative health issues, but early in its history a theory began brewing among its board and staff. The theory surmised that healthy Kansans would be a natural outgrowth from an investment in civic leadership training. The question of why a philanthropy dedicated to improving the health of all Kansans would decide to create a center to cultivate civic leadership is a natural one. More importantly, how did that foundation come to identify enhancing civic leadership as a mutual benefit to the state and to its mission and goals? The answers are woven into the history of the Kansas Leadership Center, which reflects two decades of work. TAKING TIME TO LISTEN Four statewide listening tours were hosted by the foundation in 1988, 1995, 1997 and 2004 to address core values and issues related to public health. Former Kansas Health Foundation President Marni Vliet, then Vice President for Administration Steve Coen, Vice
“If there was an interested city or community, we went to it,” Don Stewart said. “We listened to people from all economic levels and cultures to get the whole color of each community rather than just a handful of people.” In the evening following each meeting, the group of four would sit down together and review notes, eventually highlighting and sorting pertinent issues and recurring themes. Certain words, including civic leadership, kept popping up and were circled as key issues. Stewart said the effort was well organized and in each community, participants seemed appreciative of being asked difficult questions. The tours showed that constituents felt a growing shortage of civic leadership and requested help and training to address emerging health issues. This led to the foundation’s first leadership initiative in June 1992 called Leadership Institute. (cont.)
51.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 54
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
(cont.)
Based on listening tour input, it seemed Kansans were simply not aware of public health programs. Therefore, the inaugural Leadership Institute addressed the importance and improvement of public health systems in Kansas. Nearly 200 hospital administrators, public health professionals, non-profit executives, faith community leaders and extension service employees attended the event. The Institute became an annual event designed to bring people together to address issues relating to public health. Stewart said there was ultimately a bit of selfishness in the foundation’s plan to offer community-based leadership training. “The tours told us we just don’t have enough leaders to do all of the things we need to do in Kansas and the ones we do have are burned out and need to be revitalized,” he said. “It is difficult to move forward with foundation programs if we don’t have leaders. We want to help communities, help the state of Kansas and help the foundation at the same time.” On the 1997 listening tour, Marni, Steve, Mary and Don took a different approach by spending an entire week in a single community. Going door to door and visiting with local business owners, teachers and pastors and sitting down for coffee with city officials, newspaper staff and volunteer groups was an incredible experience, Stewart said. He spent a week in Abilene, which also happened to be his hometown. Stewart remembers visiting a child care facility where the owner said the amount she charged was not covering expenses and worried her doors would not be open another year. The very next day in the Abilene Reflector-Chronicle office, Stewart listened to a newspaper reporter adamantly discuss the lack of affordable child care in town. “Going into a community for a week allowed us to get down deep and dig into a community,” Stewart said. “You can see the different views and I often thought, ‘We need to get those two people or businesses together because they have mixed signals.’ If you dig deep enough in communities you can find answers.”
Steve Coen spent his week in Liberal visiting with the mayor, superintendent of schools and church groups to get a sense of public health issues. That year’s flip chart was covered with concerns including the lack of health providers, the declining number of doctors in rural areas, an unorganized public health system, financial difficulties in funding county public health programs and multiple day care issues. The positive side of each listening tour was that Kansans were always willing to take on those challenges. No matter what city the foundation visited, local people wanted to accomplish difficult work. “I admire people who can do that,” Stewart said. “It can be a vicious cycle and it was obvious the dedicated people who have lived in those areas for decades and generations won’t let that community die.” A NEED FOR CIVIC LEADERSHIP After four listening tours, the same common theme kept popping up. Kansans themselves were describing the lack of civic leadership as a major health issue. Coen said no one anticipated such a frustrated response about civic leadership from its listening tours but after hearing it consistently, the foundation board knew it should focus on the issue. After seven years of successful Leadership Institute events, the foundation created the Kansas Community Leadership Initiative (KCLI) in 1999. This marked a turning point for the foundation, paving the way and opening doors for the organization’s credibility and respect in communities across Kansas. KCLI enhanced the foundation’s effort to explore how civic leadership could impact health and health issues. “The community initiative program helped us move towards a leadership center,” Coen said. “It took leadership training to a different level in Kansas. When we realized how many people we were touching, the potential became so obvious we realized the need for an entire Center.”
52.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 55
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER Timeline
April 2004 KHF leadership advisory team recommend creation of leadership center
1992 First KHF Leadership Institute held in June
1988 Kansas Health Foundation (KHF) holds statewide listening tour
January 2007 KLC President and CEO Ed Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Malley begins position
1999 First Kansas Community Leadership Initiative begins 1995 KHF staff spent a week in Kansas communities as part of second listening tour
2005 Fourth KHF listening tour
1997 Third KHF listening tour
August 22, 2007 KLC opens doors in Occidental Building, 300 N. Main, Wichita
2010
2005
2000
1995
1990
In April 2004, the foundation continued to move forward by bringing together local and national experts to form a leadership advisory team. This advisory team helped craft the case statement and provided a thorough needs-based rationale for a statewide center dedicated to enhanced civic leadership. After three meetings, the advisory team outlined the creation of an organization that would institutionalize leadership development for future generations.
June 2007 Inaugural KLC board of directors organized
Numerous office meetings, water-cooler discussions and car trips later, the staff was ready to bring the concept of a leadership center to the foundation board. At the July 2005 foundation board meeting, Vliet and Coen formally presented the Kansas Leadership Center. Coen said it was an easy sell. (cont.)
53.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 56
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
(cont.)
“The foundation has been involved in successful civic leadership programs for many years, and we knew there would be community support for our work in this area,” he said. “The board always thought creating a center for leadership was natural, and at this point it felt necessary.” Stewart said board members realized first-hand the need for community leadership programs as a way to develop and maintain healthy, vibrant communities. The board approved the Kansas Leadership center by a unanimous vote and wanted Kansans to understand the significance of the center so they also allocated $30 million over ten years to fund the concept. “When the board approved $30 million, there was very little discussion,” Stewart said. “It was the final piece of puzzle we were trying put together and the combination of a lot of work. Thirty million was supposed to say, ‘We’re serious, and this is not a short-term effort.’ It’s a long-term effort for the state and is ongoing.” A RUNNING START Immediately, foundation staff prepared for the public announcement.
“There was a big buzz in the air,” Coen said. “It was very exiting with the press conference, reception and program that afternoon.” When the Kansas Leadership Center was ultimately created, the foundation’s $30 million gift had but one stipulation, to cultivate civic leadership in Kansas. In January 2007, the center’s first president and CEO Ed O’Malley, a former state legislator and gubernatorial aide, came on board ready to find answers on how exactly to accomplish the tasks ahead. With a goal this lofty, resources this big and a statewide focus, O’Malley was cognizant this financial grant did not necessarily come from the Kansas Health Foundation but rather from generations of Kansans who created what became known as Wesley Medical Center.
“We view the $30 million grant as a gift, not to the Kansas Leadership Center but to the people of Kansas,” O’Malley said. “Our job is to deliver and be stewards of that gift.”
On November 4, 2005, 150 Kansans, including local media arrived at the Hotel at Old Town in Wichita for a press conference. Their postcard invitation teased about an announcement that would contribute to the Kansas Health Foundation’s goal to improve the health of all Kansans.
54.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 57
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
THE ARTIFACT Voices of Kansans and How They Guide the KLC
55.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 58
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
Introduction The Kansas Leadership Center was launched with a $30 million grant from the Kansas Health Foundation, with the ambitious but exhilarating charge of cultivating civic leadership across Kansas. To the foundation, the connection between vibrant civic health and more traditional notions of sound physical and mental health is a strong one: If civic leadership is enhanced, the foundation believes Kansas communities naturally will become healthier places. This notion has evolved over a decade within the Kansas Health Foundation. The idea that healthy, thriving communities are buoyed by social, economic, and structural “determinants of health” has been an undercurrent in health-related fields for decades. As Michael Marmot, a pioneer in noticing and defining social determinants of health, puts it, “Health is a manifestation of the way we organize society … and by asking about health in society, we’re asking about society itself.” At the Kansas Leadership Center, we pose questions about health in Kansas society, and thus about Kansas society itself, through the lens of civic leadership. What are the effects of civic leadership on the health of Kansas communities? What are its uniquely Kansan roots, and how do these roots influence its modern and evolving forms? And how, specifically, can intentional, widespread civic leadership be cultivated to make Kansas communities healthier places for current and future generations of Kansans? Because the Kansas Health Foundation grew out of the philanthropic arm of the Wesley Medical Center over 20 years ago, the Kansas Leadership Center’s funding ties together generations of Kansans. To the staff of the Kansas Leadership Center, the foundation’s funding represents a gift – not to the Center itself, but rather from Kansans of the past to Kansans of the future.
As stewards of this gift, one of our first and most important tasks was to understand the civic landscape of Kansas and how our work might strengthen it. We did this by listening to many thoughtful people across the state. This document presents what we heard from them and explains how it shaped our thinking about the Kansas Leadership Center’s initiatives and contributions in the years to come. As a record of our earliest thinking and direction, it also represents the first deposit in our bank of intellectual capital – one that we hope to expand continuously over the years. The document is divided into two main parts: a description of our framework and process and an account of what we learned. Although what we heard and learned profoundly influenced us, we also began this process with some core philosophies that were reinforced by what we heard. First, we started out viewing leadership as an activity, not a particular role or position. This means that all kinds of people can learn to exercise leadership and to do so more effectively – and that all Kansans can choose to exercise leadership in different times and areas of their lives, whether or not they (or others) label themselves “leaders.” We also strove to learn where we could make a unique difference in civic leadership – by partnering with others, without duplicating existing or planned efforts. Finally, we envisioned from the start that we would create sustainable, ongoing initiatives, rather than short-term programs. We want our efforts, like civic leadership itself, to take root, adapt to the unique contours and needs of Kansas, and flourish in the state’s rich prairie soil.
56.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 59
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
Listening to Kansans: Our Framework, Process and Methods What influences the civic life of Kansans, and how it is perceived? In individual and group interviews, we asked Kansans about three major components that interact in powerful ways to affect views of civic life. The first deals with how we frame and perceive major challenges or concerns – and what common characteristics these challenges share. The second covers driving forces – forces inside and outside the state over which we have relatively little control, but that affect our daily lives and our futures in profound ways. Finally, we asked about the different ways our civic culture in Kansas helps or hinders us as we move forward to address these challenges and forces. We explored each of these major components through interviews with 20 subject matter experts in fields as diverse as economics and economic development, health, the environment, education (both higher education and K-12), politics, government, religion, demography, agriculture, rural and urban life, and history. The subject matter experts were chosen because of wisdom they had accumulated – often over a lifetime – studying the fields listed above, especially as they have unfolded in Kansas. We also sought out people known not only for their expertise, but also their objectivity. We also convened seven separate focus groups that in total included 90 Kansans from across the state: rural Kansans, urban Kansans, AfricanAmericans, Latinos, members of faith communities, first-generation immigrants, and young professionals. We held these focus groups with two specific goals in mind: amplifying voices not traditionally heard and gaining perspectives that subject matter experts were unable to address.
The subject matter experts and focus group participants responded to a set of open-ended questions about challenges, driving forces, and civic culture. (See the box on the adjacent page for a list of specific questions and their wording.) The interviews were recorded and transcribed, with the results rigorously and thoroughly analyzed. The results of the individual and focus group interviews represent findings from qualitative research. Although the data collection and analysis followed a consistent, systematic process and yielded insights that will be tremendously useful to the Kansas Leadership Center, the findings do not compare with quantitative research results (like large-scale surveys or polls) that yield more definitive findings from a statistically representative sample (for example, “30% of Kansans are concerned about X or Y”). Together, the subject matter experts and focus group participants identified 750 separate content points that helped us paint a compelling portrait of civic life in Kansas, described in greater detail below. A content point simply puts some fences or parameters around a different topic so we can list it individually and analyze it accordingly. For example, a respondent might say that inadequate funding for higher education represents a major concern and that in the current political environment, it would be difficult for anyone to significantly increase education funding. For analysis purposes, these are two separate content points: one about inadequate education funding, and another about the political or budgetary environment that limits responses to inadequate education funding. This becomes important when we look at the frequency with which different concerns, challenges, driving forces, and civic features of life in Kansas were mentioned.
57.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 60
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
We classified responses into the various categories – challenges/concerns, driving forces, and features of civic life – even if the content points were offered in response to a different question. For example, someone might have mentioned a concern about the economic forces of globalization in response to an early general question about concerns and challenges. Then, in a subsequent question about driving forces, the topic of globalization surfaced again – this time, as an example of a concern or challenge over which the respondent believes we have relatively
little control. In this instance, it would be listed as a content point under driving forces, not just challenges or concerns. Placing content points into categories makes the analysis and interpretation more manageable, but does not fundamentally change the underlying content itself – nor the insights it yielded, as described on pages 61 and 63. By carefully cataloguing each content point, we tried to remain as faithful as possible to what we heard, and to absorb what we heard in its entirety, before jumping to conclusions, programmatic ideas, and responses prematurely.
58.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 61
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
Results: What We Heard COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR CHALLENGES
Subject matter experts and focus group participants had no trouble identifying challenges and concerns. The challenges they identified â&#x20AC;&#x201C; immigration, the economy, health and health care, education, the environment, crime, and housing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; are important to our work because of the characteristics they share. (A more detailed list of the challenges and the reasons people gave for listing them in interviews and focus groups can be found in Appendix A.)
These common characteristics of challenges resonate for us, because they give us clues about why these challenges are so difficult to address. By the same token, they offer the tantalizing hope that by addressing the underlying characteristics of these challenges, we may make some lasting, constructive headway in addressing them.
59.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 62
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
60.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 63
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
In figure A, we recognize that if we repeat this exercise a decade from now, the list of challenges and the sizes of the circles might change, just as they would have been different a decade or two in the past. It is the common characteristics of these challenges that make them relevant to civic leadership in Kansas, rather than the specific topics themselves. So what common characteristics define these challenges? The challenges we heard about from Kansans are formidable because they are complex and interconnected, affecting entire systems. Many of these challenges appear to be in a constant state of flux, changing rapidly and giving them the appearance of moving (and thus even more challenging) targets. Even though these characteristics affect many people (including the broad middle of the population), they do not tend to promote a shared understanding of the issue at hand. Instead, they tend to be polarizing and to reflect the increasing – and, to many, increasingly threatening – economic, cultural and ethnic diversity that Kansas (along with other states) is experiencing. Because of these characteristics, major challenges are tough to address and may appear insurmountable. Lasting, constructive solutions to these challenges require hard choices about competing values, with compromises and common ground elusive. Priorities and resources have to be balanced among the competing, polarized factions that harden their positions over
time (and that each have a strong allegiance to their own solution, to the exclusion of other ideas). Few of these challenges can be solved unilaterally by government (or, in fact, by any single player) and most require a daunting and extended commitment of time and energy (which is particularly unsuited to election cycles). The new ways of thinking and adaptive work in which solutions may be imbedded are threatening – especially to those who already think they have the answer. The temptation to apply quick fixes or “Band-Aids” to the symptoms of these challenges (rather than their root causes) is very alluring.
Driving Forces What forces are on the minds of Kansans? We sorted what we heard in two ways: by the relative number of responses from the subject matter experts and focus group participants, and by the degree to which people felt Kansans have the capacity to influence or control these forces. Figure B shows how the driving forces array along these two dimensions. Although the number of responses illustrates how prevalent and close to the surface some concerns may be, the fact that a topic was cited less frequently does not make it is less important or relevant to our understanding of civic life in Kansas.
61.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 64
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
62.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 65
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
In sheer number of responses, economic globalization tops the list, with its specter of increased international competition for Kansas, traditionally strong industries (including aviation). Some respondents sensed that many Kansans feel buffeted by the forces of globalization. Increasingly intense competition from other states for economic development resources (both human and financial) ranked as another notable concern. Respondents also frequently cited demographic changes as a concern, including the aging of the population (a particularly acute trend in Kansas), the migration of people (especially young people) out of the state and the “brain drain” this represents, and different aspects of immigration (discussed in greater detail in Appendix A). Subject matter experts and focus group participants also frequently noted the effects of outsiders’ perceptions of Kansas – for better or worse. Respondents noted the different and sometimes opposing gravitational pulls in the civic culture of Kansas (discussed in greater detail below) as a driving force in and of itself. On the one hand, this history includes reactionary or destructive instincts, while on the other it reflects a constructive pragmatism for which Kansas also is known. Related to this were different views of prevailing public attitudes about addressing problems and embracing or considering changes from the ways of the past or business as usual. Again, respondents saw two contrasting trends: confidence, hope, and optimism that could lead to creative solutions but that at times is dampened by a blend of complacency, hopelessness, and apathy. The way Kansas responds to technological change and innovation also showed up frequently on the list of driving forces – again, with a contrast between elements of our civic culture that resist technology change and fail to support it, and a more creative, proactive, or supportive stance. Similar views held for Kansans’ responses to globalization – a contrast between those who see a state in denial versus those who are seeking creative and adaptive responses. In the middle tier of frequently cited driving forces were the strength and stability of the national economy as well as the regionalization of the Kansas economy. This latter category included many concerns about forces that have built up for decades, such as the disparities between geographic regions (west and east, rural and urban/suburban) yielding pockets
of prosperity across the state, interspersed with the decline of rural towns – and widening the gap between haves and have-nots. Kansans also feel relatively little influence or control over the directions that federal policy takes (and often dictates to states) in health care, education, transportation, and immigration. Closer to home, respondents sometimes cited the intersection of religion and civic life as a divisive and polarizing factor, and other times as a uniting and helpful one. Two driving forces cited less frequently than others are the impact of global warming on agriculture and water supplies, as well as the cost and availability of energy.
Civic Culture and Engagement: What Helps and What Hinders Us? THE USUAL AND THE UNUSUAL VOICES: A CIVIC DIVIDE
From both subject matter experts and focus group participants, we heard about a split in civic culture between the “usual” voices – elected, business, and nonprofit officials; philanthropy specialists; and interest groups – and the far less vocal “unusual” voices – the silent and broad middle, as well as members of minority groups. Because they hold positions of authority and power, the “usual” voices tend to dominate debate, but they also tend to see the civic realm as a win-or-lose, zero-sum game, pitting “us” versus “them” in a combative and divisive battle. This familiar default strategy for leadership can prove very effective in securing resources, but it often comes at a cost. Concerns quickly become parochial, positions become entrenched and unyielding, the usual voices become proxies for (and thus crowd out) the unusual, and considerable “spin” clouds the issues. The “unusual” voices, on the other hand, tend to be unengaged, complacent, and apathetic – unwilling or unable to enter the polarizing fray already filled with the often-strident voices of some of the “usual” voices described above. The behavior of some in positions of power erodes trust and respect for elected officials and experts, fueling a general disillusionment with
63.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 66
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
the public sphere and the processes it requires for participation. Members of minority groups and the broad middle remain silent not only because they feel disillusioned, but also because they often lack the skills and confidence to engage in the public arena and may see few roles or possibilities for participation, even if they were so inclined.
Both the usual and the unusual voices – the entire civic culture, in fact – suffers from this divide. Social capital – a sense of trust and reciprocity – erodes. Groups lose the ability to generate a shared vision and common ground, and with it the ability to set priorities and to address large, complex issues like the major challenges outlined in the appendix.
64.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 67
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
QUALITIES OF THE KANSAS CHARACTER THAT HELP OR HINDER CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
What qualities define the state’s civic engagement landscape? On the hindrance side of the ledger, according to respondents, lies a Kansan variant of denial: aversion to conflict, scapegoating, and waiting until a crisis before taking action. “Kansans rise to the occasion,” said one interviewee, “but they tend to wait until there’s a crisis to do that.” Some see in Kansans a lack of aspiration – what one interviewee described as an attitude of “We’re average – and proud of it!” Another commented, “Kansas’s highest aspiration is to be in the 75th percentile; we’re satisfied if we’re in the 50th. We’re suspicious of anything that would take us to the top – that’s way too risky. We will only do it if it’s been done before, and that’s both a blessing and a curse.” As this respondent noted, Kansans also demonstrate a fear of and a resistance to change, making them reluctant to try something new or risky. “But we’ve always done it this way” often serves as a way to prematurely (and convincingly) end a discussion about a different course of action. Among minority and poor Kansans, respondents (including some representing these groups) see a debilitating learned helplessness that also stands in the way of civic engagement and innovation. Many of these hindrances, though, have a more positive flip side. The aversion to conflict, while a hindrance in many situations, also carries a silver lining: an even-handed and respectful tone that permeates public life, for the most part. The resistance to change represents a practical, tempered conservatism – an attitude that protects people and communities from risky and potentially wasteful schemes.
In general, Kansas has a long history of civic leadership and a rich populist heritage with substantial selfsufficient and egalitarian streaks. The harsh prairie conditions and farm heritage created a strong and widely shared work ethic, along with a willingness to help a neighbor in need. As the Iowa-born historian Carl L. Becker noted in his admiring 1910 essay about Kansas and Kansans, the state’s residents have a proud history of distilling American individualism and idealism into a uniquely Kansan form. “That liberty and equality are compatible terms is, at all events, an unquestioned faith in Kansas,” he wrote. “The belief in equality, however, is not so much the belief that all men are equal as the conviction that it is the business of society to establish conditions that will make them so. And this notion, so far from being inconsistent with the pronounced individualism that prevails there, is the natural result of it.” QUALITIES OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT ITSELF
Respondents noted that some of the characteristics that hinder civic engagement reflect aspects of modern society. These include the rights of individuals overshadowing collective responsibilities, busy lives that leave little time for civic activities, and few logistical supports (such as child care and transportation) that might encourage greater participation. Even those willing to make the time and effort to participate in civic life may lack access to credible information and the skills to deploy it. Within Kansas, people who are interested in leadership development may find opportunities concentrated in just a few parts of the state and not as widely accessible as they could be. Focus group participants observed that recent immigrants face language barriers and a lack of leadership within immigrant groups; which makes assimilation into communities difficult.
65.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 68
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
The characteristics that promote civic engagement, on the other hand, do have a Kansas flavor. Graduates of leadership programs such as the Kansas Health Foundation’s Kansas Community Leadership Institute, Kansas Health Foundation Fellows and Leadership Kansas foster continuing ties among alumni. The growth of community foundations across the state has brought the leadership and civic engagement of community members to the fore, as has general community-building and other types of collaboration. The leadership programs that exist across the state may not be as geographically widespread as some would prefer, but many are strong programs nonetheless. Finally, a great deal of untapped leadership potential could be harnessed among a broader age span that actively includes seniors and youth.
Conclusion The portrait of civic leadership in Kansas that this document represents is really more of a background sketch, or even an impressionist painting – with many of the colors, lines and definition still to come. It captures the insights of a cross-section of Kansans at this particular moment in time, balancing deep concern about fundamental challenges with optimism that there are better ways to address them. The Kansas Leadership Center’s civic leadership initiatives are shaped by what we heard – and will be influenced by what we hear in the future as we continue our ongoing conversation with Kansans. Through these initiatives, we hope to contribute – and make it possible for other Kansans to contribute – to the creation of an aspiration of making Kansas the best possible place to live.
Appendix A: Specific Challenges This appendix provides additional detail about the reasons subject matter experts and focus group participants gave for listing the major challenges discussed earlier. The challenges posed by immigration illustrate the common characteristics described on page 60. Immigration is a deeply polarizing issue across the country, with little consensus on possible solutions. The work ethic and relatively low cost of immigrant labor makes immigrants indispensable to many Kansas businesses and industries, yet immigrants encounter difficulty assimilating because of cultural misunderstandings and language barriers. Many recent immigrants lack the skills to navigate existing support systems, and others feel that these systems do not provide as much accessibility in terms of bilingual/bicultural and other features as they could. Negative attitudes and resentment coexist with compassion and reliance on this growing labor force, fueling both punitive and proactive responses. Yet some respondents expressed a vision of opportunity within this difficult and divisive issue. Those respondents saw benefits of embracing a growing immigrant population from an economic development and population growth perspective.
66.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 69
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
Another concern is the system’s focus on treatment rather than prevention. In rural areas, the lack of services for seniors does not reflect their proportion of the population; throughout the state, racial disparities in health persist and grow, as they do nationally. Still, despite these formidable challenges, some respondents see a window of opportunity in the prospects for reform of the health care financing and delivery systems.
Respondents view economic trends – national, regional and state – as major challenges as well. These overlap considerably with the driving forces described in greater detail on page 63, especially in the sense that Kansans feel buffeted by economicforces over which they perceive little control or influence, making the problems and trade-offs seem insurmountable. Economic forces include the shift in economic prosperity from rural, agriculture-based economies to more suburban settings, and the vulnerability of key state industries (agriculture, aviation) to the dual threats of globalization and rising energy costs. Imbedded in these challenges is the common need to balance competing priorities – for example, between agriculture and industry, or between economic development and concern for the environment. Another economic vulnerability is the projected Kansas workforce. Respondents foresee workforce shortages in many industries, with a mismatch between the skills that workers have and those that industry requires – and lost opportunities if the state fails to integrate immigrants. The lack of attractive jobs, in turn, feeds underemployment and some of the demographic issues cited on page 62 in the section on driving forces, such as young people leaving the state. Like immigration and the economy, the national issues of health and health care have strong regional and state impacts – and many of the common characteristics described earlier. Decades in the making, the challenges in health and health care include the rising costs of providing care and health insurance coverage, leaving many without access to basic care – let alone preventive care. In the language of common characteristics, health care is very much a system (albeit a broken one), with complex and interconnected pieces. Solutions will likely require some hard choices about either rationing health care itself so that more people will have access to it, or continuing to exclude large segments of the population from insurance coverage and access.
Education could be a factor in strengthening the workforce and attracting economic development, but many respondents worry that the education system currently fails to meet these challenges. Some respondents pointed to concerns regarding low teacher salaries on a national scale and pockets of low funding for education, as well as bureaucratic constraints (particularly federal No Child Left Behind requirements) hampering the state’s ability to field a first-rate education system. Some respondents worried about increased high school drop-out rates and racial disparities in university graduation rates. Higher education, some feel, grows increasingly distant from the needs of communities, perpetuating these disparities. The challenges posed by environmental change include the impending scarcity of water (one respondent predicted future wars over water, not oil), polluted air and water, resulting damage to the farm environment, and the lack of a “green” mentality to address these threats. Some respondents noted that Kansans (along with their counterparts in other states) are woefully unprepared for the implications of energy conservation – such as less driving, less air-conditioning, and a general decline in the amenities and creature comforts to which we have all become accustomed. Smaller numbers of people cited the challenges of increasing crime rates in urban areas and increasing rates of recidivism and incarceration, as well as a lack of affordable housing, putting the American dream of home ownership further and further out of reach.
67.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 70
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
OUR LAYERS Reflections on Managing Self by Sheersty Rhodes, Undergraduate Assistant, WSU Center for Community Support & Research
Once when I was younger, I wrote a poem about how people are like onions. The idea seems silly, yes, but it actually makes sense when you think about it. I wasn’t writing about how uniquely fragrant we are or about how good we are at making people cry, like onions. Rather, I was hinting at the complexities that lay hidden beneath our worldviews – the countless layers of thoughts, feelings, expectations, and convictions we each possess below the surface. Many layers in us we may not reveal by choice because they are very personal in nature, and we may not be proud to admit they belong to us. We may even deny these qualities exist because we naturally want to see ourselves in the best light. Some layers we may be unaware of altogether, although these traits may be obvious to those around us, turning up at times when we are under pressure. In truth, a few potent layers, deep down, may be hindering our work, crippling us from performing in groups and leading at our greatest potential.
These layers within us are powerful – both positively and negatively. Thus, we must know ourselves and be equipped to selfmanage and use the knowledge we gain to benefit us. This is crucial to leadership. Today, I want to deepen this childhood “onion-people” comparison of mine, encouraging us to reflect on the tremendous amount of self-discovery that we must undergo in order to effectively lead others. As one of the youngest program participants to have completed
a Kansas Leadership Center experience to date, I am continually being challenged by the intense and powerful concept of managing self. Because my professional experiences thus far are few, I have been able to focus more on the personal, experiential aspects of leadership, namely understanding myself in different contexts. Since October’s Context & Competencies experience, I am finding that KLC’s “Manage Self” competency is one that has no limits. This competency makes leadership true to each person, touching into the heart of who we are and what we believe, for real.
As Kansans experimenting with leadership, the starting place is us, where layers – when disclosed and understood – could open up infinite opportunities to better connect with the needs of our state. Managing self sounds easy enough. I’m just beginning, but I can tell you it’s not easy. It’s hard. It’s painfully slow. And, most of the time, it isn’t glamorous work. It takes incredible amounts of courage, discipline and intentionality to find and use the knowledge of who we are to make a difference in our spheres of influence. We must allow our inner characters to be refined – letting go of the unattainable expectations we have and the hidden agendas we are holding onto. We must reflect on our perceptions, our stereotypes, and work beyond them to embrace others who are different, becoming friends with them. We must humble ourselves and be willing to sail across stormy waters, along with the rest, to get to the other side. We must become unsatisfied with the defaults we so easily slip into.
68.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 71
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
SHEERSTY RHODES is a business student at Wichita State University, an undergraduate assistant at the WSU Center for Community Support & Research (www.ccsr.wichita.edu), and a past participant of KLC's Context & Competencies Program
And, perhaps most of all, we must be honest with ourselves, peeling back the layers of ideal nobility to reveal the true motivations within us. We may not like what we see, but we have to go there to experience transformation. Our beliefs and our values will be tested, but if we persevere, we will, ultimately, come out better equipped for whatever challenges might be just around the corner. This “Manage Self” competency, to me, is about a process of growing and improving, personally, then professionally. We who strive to lead must be constantly and consciously making efforts to learn about ourselves, to journal about our experiences, and to transform the ways we react in the midst of challenges. We simply cannot lead if we are unaware of the stereotypes, the assumptions and the expectations that are guiding our actions. Pushing forward with disregard to self-awareness and self-management can be detrimental, especially when, in leadership, the consequences of our dealings fall on others. Trust is broken and we are left feeling discouraged, confused or asking for justice. If we don’t take time to reflect and practice, we will hurt ourselves and others. For example, a particular battle I fight is one against the unrealistic expectations I have for myself. The battle rages in my relationships, in my church community and in the campus organizations where I seek to lead. When I lose the battle and expect perfection out of myself, I face discouragement that
threatens to disqualify me. When I win through perseverance and faithfulness, however, I learn and grow, and allow myself to be human (ie: not perfect). In this fight, two things I know for sure—first, I will never come near perfection (though I might try really hard), and second, I don’t need to in order to exercise leadership. What a relief! There’s grace! I’ve discovered that if I know my gifts and strengths and I intentionally use them, if I am aware of my unrealistic expectations and intentionally do my best to neutralize them, and if I am aware of my limits and intentionally set boundaries to stay within them, then I am intentionally practicing the competencies I need to lead. And, in turn, I will be successful, for every experience is an opportunity to learn, and failure does not exist unless I quit. I won’t quit. And, neither will you. Together, all of us, we will succeed to lead in this great state. In sum, I wholeheartedly believe that in order to lead, we must face ourselves. We must cut into the deepest, the ugliest, and the truest layers within us. There we will discover the incredible beauty and potential we have been given from God, finding the courage to lead with enduring commitment. So, like onions, we’ve got lots of layers within us. Now, my question is: What are we going to do with them? Thanks to KLC faculty, extended faculty, and staff for the experiences and insights that contributed to this essay, as well as to my Context & Competencies program friends.
69.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 72
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
WHAT’S RIGHT WITH KANSAS? The View From Outside by Marty Linsky and Kristin von Donop
Sometime late in 2007, Ed O’Malley asked our firm, Cambridge Leadership Associates, if we would help the new Kansas Leadership Center design and deliver its first two years of programming with the aspiration of nurturing civic leadership in Kansas. Except for Marty’s having driven Interstate 70 nonstop on a rite-of-passage cross-country trip 50 years ago, we had never been to Kansas. Yes, we smug northeasterners knew all about Alf Landon and Cessna airplanes, the Jayhawks-Wildcats rivalry and the Wizard of Oz and had been to the "other" Kansas City a couple of times. But driving though or watching ESPN does not generate much understanding. Our most formative view of the state came from reading Thomas Frank’s screed, What’s the Matter with Kansas?, which purported to explain how the misguided residents of the state had been manipulated into voting against their better interests. We were confused about why Frank was so demeaning to the people of Kansas who seemed to vote for their values not their pocketbooks, but saved none of his patronizing venom and faux empathy for his Hollywood friends who similarly chose values over economics in their voting preferences. And we were curious about the other side of the story. Since Ed’s call, we have spent almost enough time in Kansas to claim residence. From the wonders of the Flint Hills to the college town atmosphere
of Manhattan to the small city ambiance of Wichita to the more familiar (to us) urbanity of “your” Kansas City, we have been exposed to a wonderful range of topography in a state supposedly famous for its sameness. But beyond geography we have met and worked with real Kansans, over 200 of them, from all walks of life and almost every imaginable background, who share an interest in civic leadership in the state. These 200 may not be a representative sample of all Kansans, but they reflected some qualities of the civic culture that KLC found in its conversations with Kansans that resulted in the KLC Artifact: they are proud of Kansas, feel misunderstood by the rest of the world, and often have deeply held faith-based points of view. By engaging with KLC, they have expressed some dissatisfaction with the status quo and some willingness to take some responsibility for changing it. They are also extremely polite, respectful of others’ feelings, and would like important issues to be addressed without causing any conflict, distress or offense. None of these characteristics are to be disparaged. That’s the good news. But as our work intensified here, we began to understand that each of these qualities has aspects that hold back progress. Combined, they are a prescription for maintaining the status quo or at best making only incremental change when the challenges are deep and pervasive.
70.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 73
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
Marty Linsky and Kristin von Donop are principals at Cambridge Leadership Associates (www.cambridge-leadership.com , a global leadership development firm. Marty blogs on leadership at www.cambridgeleadership.blogspot.com.
We have begun to see more clearly why two “hit men” (one hit man and one hit woman, actually) from The Big Apple were brought to town, when the work of enhancing civic leadership in Kansas must be, as KLC says, “By Kansans, For Kansans”: In order for the Kansas community to make more progress on its most difficult challenges, elements of that highly-valued culture (“Kansas nice”) will have to be left behind. Good Kansas people, who have contributed so much to civic life, will have to change some of their practices and ways of being. They will have to expand their emotional toolkits. They will have to engage more deeply and listen to people, perspectives and interests – we would call them “factions” - that have been left out of mainstream conversations about the most important challenges to take on and how to best address them, which will result in new visions for what Kansas will become and losses for what will be left behind. As outsiders, our mission, our “distinctive competence,” has been to help the Kansans we work with stretch themselves outside of their comfort zones and preferred behavior. We have asked them to risk their own and others’ hurt feelings in order to engage in difficult discussions; to tolerate more conflict, ambiguity and disequilibrium; to step into their own incompetence; to experiment in their professional lives with uncomfortable
strategies; and to take up ideas that are foreign or even offensive to them. It has not always been a crowd-pleasing role.
While maybe right about the problems facing the state, Thomas Frank was very wrong about the people and resources available to deal with them. To its credit, KLC has put these issues on the table by starting from the premise that the present way of doing business in Topeka, and in every Kansas community, will not make real progress on the current issues and will not prepare the state to deal with future uncertainties. That message has resonated with people, especially in this unprecedented economic climate. We are proud to have been “present at the creation” and to have helped stir the pot. And the work has just begun.
71.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 74
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
Since its statehood more than 140 years ago, Kansas has been a place of action, a place where people could rally around a cause. Whether it was the abolition of slavery, settling the untamed prairie or recovery from natural disaster, Kansans mobilized around the cause and demonstrated great leadership abilities. At the heart of the Kansas Leadership Center concept is a belief that Kansans can be mobilized again, just like in our past, but this time around the cause of improved civic leadership that creates healthier communities. KLC is working to be a catalyst for just such a cause. Will you join us? "In a time of great uncertainty around the world, KLC is blazing new ground in connecting people and purpose in the interest of more effectively addressing the toughest public issues." MARTY LINSKY – Faculty member at KLC and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government
“KLC is the most significant current experiment in civic leadership in the United States.” DAVID CHRISLIP, KLC Senior Fellow and author of The Collaborative Leadership Fieldbook.
“KLC is filling an enormous void in our state. Never before has a Kansas-centric organization offered a holistic, all-encompassing approach to the enigmatic challenge of civic leadership.” MIKE MATSON, Kansas Farm Bureau
“KLC creates an environment that challenges our beliefs, our perceptions and our willingness to do things differently for the good of the whole.” SUE CASTILE, Diversity Kansas
"I've come away from every KLC encounter with new skills I can use immediately.” CAROL MEYER, Kansas Department of Commerce
70.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 75
THE JOURNAL KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER SPRING 2009
KANSAS LEADERSHIP CENTER Signature Programs KLC program participants explore and improve their leadership ability, gain a deep understanding of the context of civic life in Kansas and are coached in small and large group settings to better align their leadership activity with creating stronger, healthier Kansas communities.
Community Focused Programs
Custom Programs
Open Enrollment Programs
Faculty Development
KANSAS COMMUNITY
THE CIVIC LEADERSHIP LAB
KANSAS CIVIC
THE ART AND PRACTICE
LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE
A specially designed leadership development experience for people who share common roles and responsibilities in civic life.
LEADERSHIP – CONTEXT
OF CIVIC LEADERSHIP
AND COMPETENCIES
DEVELOPMENT
This weeklong open enrollment experience is designed for Kansans from all walks of life.
LEADERSHIP AND LEGACY
KANSAS HEALTH
Connecting Kansans who share an interest in teaching and consulting in the field of leadership development, this program creates a strong learning community for participants.
A variety of different programs and activities for facilitators, coordinators and participants of local community leadership programs. COMMUNITY
IN THE STATEHOUSE —
FOUNDATION FELLOWS
CONSULTING INSTITUTE
A NEW LEGISLATORS’
A flagship program of the Kansas Health Foundation, connecting accomplished Kansans and fostering deep personal and civic understanding and leadership.
A partnership with the University of Kansas, to expand the skills of experienced practitioners who design and facilitate community and regional collaborative efforts.
PROGRAM
Offered to new legislators, this experience provides tools for participants to maximize their first-term effectiveness in office and gain a wider perspective of their new roles. LEADERSHIP AND FAITH TRANSFORMING COMMUNITIES
A program designed to increase the civic leadership ability and community health focus of faith communities.
Visit www.kansasleadershipcenter.org or call 316.712.4950 for more information about participating in KLC programs.
KLC FACULTY FELLOW PROGRAM
An intense, year-long fellowship for select leadership faculty, coaches, trainers and/or consultants.
KLC.ForPDF.Final:Layout 1
5/5/09
1:10 PM
Page 76
THE
300 N. MAIN, SUITE 100 WICHITA, KANSAS 67202
JOURNAL