Youth as Leaders of Today--Not Just Tomorrow | By Dr. Tara Gregory

“Youth are the leaders of tomorrow!”  How many times have we heard--or possibly said--this as adults who are interested in promoting civic engagement and public responsibility in those who are younger?

Photo courtesy of KCYV

I understand that it’s typically meant as encouragement and is said with great hopefulness. But I always bristle when I hear this because my many years of experience working with young people (high school students, primarily) assures me that seeing youth only as leaders of the future sells them egregiously short. They’re doing incredible things today and every day that reflect exceptional passion, skill and commitment. From groups such as the Kansas Consortium for Youth Voice in Lawrence to the Mayor’s Youth Council in Wichita, there are a huge number of youth-led groups who understand that leadership isn’t a position but something that anyone can do at anytime. And there are many individual youth who stand up and do what they think is right to make life better for others. They organize charitable activities for those in need, write books about their own challenging experiences, and do many other acts of leadership and selflessness. 

I want to make a clear distinction between youth involvement as volunteers and youth-led civic engagement. There are a lot of opportunities and encouragement for youth to get involved in projects that are designed to better the community. But these opportunities are frequently created and supervised by adults with little youth input or involvement in defining the issue or determining the response. There’s nothing wrong with opportunities for youth to be involved as volunteers just as it’s an important option for adults to give back to their communities. But true growth and engagement comes from the autonomy to define and determine the focus and direction of civic engagement. Truly youth-led projects, in which adults take a back seat and typically provide support but very little supervision or authority, are relatively rare – primarily because we adults have trouble getting out of the way and trusting youth to do good things. But I’ve seen time and time again, even when I’ve had my own secret doubts, that youth will come through and do stunningly selfless and effective acts of leadership when given the space. I’ve never been disappointed when I’ve let go of my hard-earned “right” as an adult to talk constantly, have all the answers, do the “important” tasks, and generally be in charge. 

One specific experience I had was when I provided support to a group of high school students who decided to put on a day-long workshop for middle school students. The high school youth determined the focus (training the middle schoolers on how to take action to prevent substance abuse within their own schools), designed and presented all of the sessions, and worked individually with teams from each middle school to help them develop an action plan to enhance their school. On the day of the workshop, I overslept. I was panicked at what was probably happening because I wasn’t there to provide assistance where necessary. When I got to the workshop location about 30 minutes before the start of the event, everything was ready to go and, in addition to teasing me mercilessly about being late, the high school youth jabbed me a bit about not trusting them to have things under control. It was a lesson to me about the “adultist” attitudes I still held, even though I loved and trusted this group of youth tremendously. It was also a reminder about how much more meaningful the accomplishment was to the youth when they did it all themselves. I’ve never forgotten this day because it was a great example of what I still needed to learn and also because of how incredibly proud I was to have the honor to be associated with these exceptional young people. These youth are now adults with kids of their own. I hope they remember this day and the pride they felt as vividly as I do.

Photo courtesy of KCYV

I’ve also recently had the opportunity to use the Kansas Leadership Center concepts and principles with the Kansas Consortium for Youth Voice, a youth-led group whose mission is to empower youth voice to generate action and positive change in their communities. While I know from my own experience that these concepts are frequently challenging for adults to integrate, it seemed that the youth immediately got it. They worked through faction mapping, identifying values, and a number of other exercises that challenged them to diagnose the situation (i.e., adult resistance to youth voice), manage themselves, energize others, and intervene skillfully. There was no question of them being too young or inexperienced to understand or utilize these tools. And I know they’ve taken this information and immense skill forward in their work. Again, I hope they recognize the value and uniqueness of what they’re contributing to their community.

Youth are people who have a stake in our communities and who have valuable knowledge and skills to contribute right now. We sell youth short when we think of them as biding time until they’re old enough to be community leaders – and consequently we cheat our communities out of valuable expertise, passion and energy. Just as all adults have various experience and areas of expertise, so do youth. Just because their experiences and areas of expertise are different from ours, doesn’t mean they aren’t as valuable and interested in creating better communities if we’re willing to treat them as partners. I encourage all adults to avoid the “leaders of the future” comment. If we as adults make space for youth to contribute to civic leadership, we are all equals in creating a better Kansas.

Photos courtesy of Kansas Consortium for Youth Voice, from the leadership/service learning workshop they held for Iraqi and Central European youth through the International Visitors Council of Greater Kansas City.

How do we make a collective impact? | By Amy Delamaide

For our staff meeting next week, CCSR personnel are reading an article from the Stanford Social Innovation Review by John Kania and Mark Kramer on “Collective Impact” (PDF, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2011). We hope to have a productive discussion about what it means related to our philosophy and strategies for our work with organizations and coalitions.

Kania and Kramer define collective impact as “the commitment of a group of important actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem” (p. 36). These actors include funders, government officials, representatives from key agencies, individuals, and others. While the regular gathering of such a mix of people could be referred to as a coalition or collaboration, collective impact initiatives go beyond this by including “a centralized infrastructure, a dedicated staff, and a structured process that leads to a common agenda, shared measurement, continuous communication, and mutually reinforcing activities among all participants” (p. 38). What the authors argue is that, for some issues--including what the Kansas Leadership Center refers to as deep, daunting challenges--it’s not enough for one nonprofit organization to try to intervene for the better. Some issues require the engagement of nonprofits, governments, businesses, and the public to create real and lasting change.

Five-level social ecological model

Scott Wituk, our Director, often refers to the social ecological model, where four embedded circles indicate the scope of potential intervention from the individual in the center to the relationship to the community to the society at large. This comes out of the Centers for Disease Control’s work to prevent intimate partner violence, which is work Scott has partnered with the CDC on.
When CCSR considers this model, we see that our work in leadership development and certified peer counselor training impacts individuals. Our work with organizations affects the institutional level of the five circle version of the model. Often when we work with coalitions or collaborative efforts we engage with many different agencies within a sector, hoping to impact society at large.

What Kania and Kramer suggest is that there is a role for an organization—perhaps one like ours? or like yours?—to become a “Backbone Support Organization.” This would be an organization that consists of at least a project manager, data manager, and a facilitator. The people in these roles manage the overall change effort.

Some questions related to this article for CCSR--and your organization!--to consider:

• What is our past experience? Have any of the big projects we’ve been a part of met the key features of a collective impact initiative?
• What are the issue areas we want to see progress on? For which issues are we willing to be significantly involved in managing a collective impact initiative?
• How could we increase our impact at the society level of the social ecological model?

Has your organization discussed these questions? What conclusions did you come to? Let us know in the comments below.

Our organization plans to discuss this article more next week. Look for a follow up blog post with some details on our conversation.

Social Media for Nonprofits and Coalitions | By Amy Delamaide

CCSR presented a Compassion Kansas workshop yesterday for nonprofits and coalitions interested in learning more about optimizing their organizations' use of social media.

We had one handout detailing our assumptions going into the workshop:

Our Assumptions

1. We like social media and think it is useful.
2. We believe that it is no longer on the cutting edge, but that it is mainstream.
3. We believe that social media is most useful for nonprofits when it is used with targeted purpose, rather than as a diffuse, shotgun approach. Nonprofits rarely have the time or resources for anything other than acting with purpose.
4. We believe that when it comes to social media, participating and consuming information is just as important as broadcasting information.
5. We are users of social media, not experts.
6. We can’t teach you everything about every social media website.
7. For a nonprofit organization, your online presence must be consistent with your stated charitable purpose. We assume you will use social media as one method for carrying out your mission and strategies.

We had three presenters from local nonprofits using social media well. They described their roles and responsibilities for social media in their organizations, what they do well in social media, and some of the decisions their organizations have made about why and how to use social media.

• Thomas Stanley, Kansas Leadership Center
• Chandra Stauffer, KMUW 89.1
• Olivia Fletcher, Numana, Inc.

Then we presented a case study from a national nonprofit: "The Case of the Rogue Tweet." Sources for that case study included:

• American Red Cross
• CNN Money
• Tactical Philanthropy
• The Chronicle of Philanthropy
• Dogfish Head Brewery

It was great to have about 30 people thinking about social media and how to use it as one method for carrying an organization's mission and strategies.

Authority, leadership and the Little Napoleon | By Seth Bate

John McGraw and Christy Mathewson, New York Giants, 1911 World Series

, 

Photo courtesy of Boston Public Library 

John McGraw was the umpire-shredding manager of the New York Giants from 1902 to 1932. I recently read a biography of him; to my surprise, he has been on my mind as I have taught, discussed and tried to practice leadership in the last few weeks.

At the WSU Center for Community Support & Research and the Kansas Leadership Center, we define leadership as the activity of mobilizing people to do difficult work on complex issues. We think of authority as a position—such as manager of a baseball team—and we believe that people who hold authority are expected to provide protection, order and direction. Authority is sometimes useful in exercising leadership, but it is not the same as leadership.

John McGraw had and used authority. The press dubbed him (somewhat redundantly, as his biographer Charles Alexander points out) the Little Napoleon for his strategic prowess and bellicose manner on the field.  He often called every pitch and play in a game. One of McGraw’s innovations was to teach players sign language so when they missed a conventional sign from him, he had a second way to give instructions.

In a spring training interview, McGraw once explained that he told his players to execute what he told them, and if something went wrong, he would take the heat. It seems to me that this is what many of us look to in our authorities; tell us what to do, and shoulder the risk for us.

In baseball, relying solely on authority can be enormously effective. It worked for McGraw. He is second on the all-time list of wins for major league managers. There is some evidence, however, that there was an issue McGraw cared about for which authority was insufficient to make progress.

In the Ken Burns documentary Baseball, it’s said that when McGraw died, a list of African-American players he wanted to recruit into the segregated major leagues was found in his papers. I’m speculating, of course, but one interpretation is that McGraw couldn’t do more than make a wish list because he only knew how to use authority. To tackle a daunting civic issue like integrating baseball he would have needed to use leadership competencies.

The Little Napoleon’s baseball record makes me think he had some capacity to intervene. He demonstrated some elements of the KLC Competencies for Civic Leadership

• Hold relentlessly to purpose. McGraw doggedly pursued winning. On the field, every close play at the plate was worth a profane argument with an ump. Off the field, every political maneuver at the league level was suspect and could result in a blistering letter. What if he had recognized that the pool of black players could serve his purpose of winning and pursued that as fiercely?

• Give the work back. It might seem uncharacteristic, but McGraw had a soft spot for players who had washed out of the majors because of their drinking or womanizing habits. In a few instances, McGraw gave second and even third chances. Still, he didn’t take on responsibility for the player’s rehabilitation; he provided the space to play, but the work of getting back into playing form was the player’s. What if he took the same approach to a few pioneering minority players and created a level playing field on which they could succeed or fail?

• Act experimentally. McGraw was one of the innovators of “scientific baseball,” a style based on smart baserunning and small tactical advantages. He disparaged the new offensive style of baseball that came into vogue in the 1920s with Babe Ruth. In his final years, though, he risked ridicule and began actively recruiting sluggers, even landing the great Rogers Hornsby for a short time. If McGraw didn’t completely abandon his position, he at least experimented with another approach. What if McGraw had risked even wider ridicule and recruited African-American players?

Cardinals manager Tony LaRussa—who has a bit of Little Napoleon in him—is on pace to pass McGraw on the all-time wins list in 2012. When that happens, I hope McGraw gets his due. He was a fascinating character and a brilliant manager — and his story might still have something to teach us about the authority and leadership. 

This article was also posted on the Kansas Leadership Center blog, a great resource for reflections on leadership and information about KLC programs.

Parallel Universe | By Joyce Webb

Courtesy of familymwr

Carol is a hard-working woman. She’s accomplished, passionate, has strong values, and desires to live out a deeply held sense of purpose in her life. We started our coaching relationship when she attended a week-long intensive class at the Kansas Leadership Center. I don’t think either of us knew what we were in for.

The idea of living with an experimental mindset seemed to resonate well with her, so she immediately, perhaps too zealously, dove into the deep, murky waters of uncertainty that comes with practicing new acts of leadership. Within three sessions, she was barely coming up for air. She was in violation of a key competency of survival—one must manage oneself in order to be effective.

It was a critical moment, as a coach, to recognize that I, too, was now dog-paddling with her. The more anxious she felt about her possible failures in experimentation and about the reactions others were offering, the more anxious I felt. The more she questioned if the pain of change was really worth it, the more I doubted my own fidelity to the teachings. It’s a precarious line that is easy to cross; when the client’s work drifts over into my space and I lose my ability to hold steady.

One of the fundamental aspects that dictates the success of the coaching relationship is personal boundaries.  When my boundaries are strong, it welcomes a sense of safety for the client. With safety comes a space to explore and grow. Clients not only need that space, they deserve it. That space is sacred and without it, effective coaching cannot happen. Perhaps I just wanted to believe that I really cared about Carol’s success and growth. What I learned is that I have to manage myself well and hold to a purpose I deeply believe in—that some of the greatest growth happens through some of the greatest discomfort and experimentation. What a privilege to hold that space steady for my clients.

Joyce Webb, Ph.D., is a leadership development coach at the Kansas Leadership Center and WSU CCSR.

The Cave of Evil: How Star Wars is like Case-in-Point | By Seth Bate

Increasingly, the CCSR Leadership Initiatives team and the Kansas Leadership Center faculty team use a teaching approach called “Case-in-Point.” It was developed by Ron Heifetz and Marty Linsky but I’m guessing it doesn’t always resemble exactly what they had in mind.

As Chris Green, project director of case studies describes it, Case-in-Point rests on a simple yet provocative idea: “Leadership, although difficult to teach, can be learned in a dynamic classroom setting when participants experience, in the moment, some of the very conditions that make exercising leadership so challenging and dangerous in the public sphere.” Chris wrote a brief guide for participants; I’d like to explore what Case-in-Point requires from the front of the room.

Preparing to walk in front of a roomful of people for a Case-in-Point conversation reminds me of the scene in the movie, The Empire Strikes Back in which Jedi Master Yoda instructs his trainee, Luke Skywalker, that it is time for Luke to enter a dark and scary place. True Star Wars geeks know that, in later books, this spot earned the name, “The Cave of Evil.”

Luke asks, “What’s in there?” “Only what you take with you,” Yoda replies.

On my best days, the Case-in-Point discussions I introduce create space for many ideas, observations and interpretations to enter the room. Some of them I start; many I hear and challenge; and others I just listen to. I follow Yoda’s advice to “keep your concentration here and now where it belongs.” I fulfill my role, which calls for me to be curious, unrattled and sometimes challenging, even in long moments of silent ambiguity.

If you know Empire, however, you know that Luke’s trip into the Cave of Evil was a terrifying failure. He grabs a blaster and a light saber. “Your weapons, you will not need them,” Yoda warns. Luke ignores him. He ends up blindly striking at the ominous figure he finds inside, using the weapons he has come to rely on.

Some days I give in to the ambiguity. I take the group’s discomfort personally. My selfish need to fulfill expectations gets in the way of my role.

Those days, my Case-in-Point relies on a utility belt full of gimmicks. I look for moments when I can soundly make a point, perhaps earning some respect for my expertise or reassuring the group that they are getting something out of our interaction. I rely on my weapons instead of trusting in the participants, the approach and the process.

Leadership development and Jedi training require more effectively managing self. This includes distinguishing your role from your self. Doing this may prove most difficult when fulfilling your role may scare you and the people around you.

“Decide you must,” Yoda said, “how to serve them best.”

One resource for learning more about Case-in-Point teaching and other approaches to leadership development is Leadership Can Be Taught by Sharon Daloz Parks.


This article was also posted today on the Kansas Leadership Center blog.