Policy and Practice February 2019

The Magazine of the American Public Human Services Association February 2019

Adaptive Leadership Championing Progress In Our Field

2019 EVENTS & MEMBER ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

AAICPC Business Meeting and Child Welfare Conference INDIANAPOLIS, IN APRIL 29 MAY 2

Remember to Mark Your Calendars!

INTERSTATE PLACEMENT

National Health and Human Services Summit ARLINGTON, VA MAY 19 22

Local Council Retreat (by invite) CHARLOTTE, NC APRIL 4 5

APHSA National Health and Human Services Summit

Local Council Retreat (by invite only)

NAPIPM Educational Conference MEMPHIS, TN AUGUST 5 8

INFLUENCE BUILD CONNECT

PROGRAM INTEGRITY

AASD/NASTA Educational Conference CHARLOTTE, NC AUGUST 25 28

ISM Annual Conference MILWAUKEE, WI SEPTEMBER 22 25

SNAP/TANF

TECHNOLOGY

Leadership Retreat and Harvard HHS Summit (by invite) CAMBRIDGE, MA OCTOBER 25 27

NSDTA Educational Conference LONG BEACH, CA OCTOBER 20 23

APHSA Leadership & Harvard HHS Summit (by invite only)

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

AAHHSA Educational Conference ARLINGTON, VA OCTOBER 27 30

LEGAL

www.APHSA.org

@APHSA1

TODAY’S EXPERTISE FORTOMORROW’S SOLUTIONS

contents www.aphsa.org

Vol. 77, No. 1 February 2019

features

departments

8

3 President’s Memo

Leadership for a Generative Future

5 From the Field

Rulemaking that Works: Consensus by the Community for the Community

6 Locally Speaking

Critical Intercepts: Breaking the Cycle Through Multisystem Collaboration

7 Client Corner

Valuing Customer Experience in Human Services

Creating a Cultural Onboarding Experience Government leaders must learn to be resilient for citizens and their employees

24 Legal Notes

Attorney Perspectives of Child Protective Services “Legal Kidnapping”

12

25 The 2020 Census: Concerns About

Undercounting and the Effects on Human Services

W 26 Technology Speaks It’s Time to Chat About Bots: Using Virtual Assistants to Deliver Real Value for Human Services 27 Association News APHSA: Our History 28 Julie Springwater Receives NSDTA Career Achievement Award 30 Staff Spotlight Raymond (Ray) Davidson, Chief Operating Officer Inside Back Cover: Our Do’ers Profile Nannette Bowler, Director of the Fairfax County (VA) Department of Family Services *Reprinted from the Winter 2015 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review

The Dawn of System Leadership* System leaders build relationships based on deep listening, creating networks of trust and collaboration

20

Adaptive Leadership Q&A with Phil Basso on the evolution of APHSA’s Organizational Effectiveness Practice

Cover illustration by Chris Campbell

1

February 2019 Policy&Practice

APHSA Executive Governing Board

Chair Kelly Harder, Director, Dakota County Community Services, West Saint Paul, MN Vice Chair Brenda Donald, Director, DC Child and Family Services Agency, Washington, DC Treasurer Reiko Osaki, President and Founder, Ikaso Consulting, Burlingame, CA Leadership Council Chair Roderick Bremby, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Social Services, Hartford, CT Local Council Chair Frank Alexander, Director, Boulder County Housing and Human Services, Boulder, CO

Affinity Group Chair Paul Fleissner, Director, Olmsted County Health, Housing and Human Services, Rochester, MN Elected Director Susan Dreyfus, President and CEO, Alliance for Strong Families and Communities, Milwaukee, WI Elected Director David Hansell, Commissioner, New York City Administration for Children’s Services, NewYork City, NY Elected Director Anne Mosle, Vice President, The Aspen Institute and Executive Director, Ascend at the Aspen Institute, Washington, DC Immediate Past President David Stillman, Assistant Secretary, Economic Services Administration, Washington Department of Social and Health Services, Olympia, WA

2

Policy&Practice February 2019

president‘s memo By Tracy Wareing Evans

Leadership for a Generative Future

A cross the country, executives are being appointed to lead state public agencies as many newly elected governors have been sworn into office. These CEOs and deputies come from all types of backgrounds—some steeped in knowledge of the traditional human services system, others from related systems such as health, education, and justice; some with years of experience in public service and others drawing on extensive corporate or nonprofit backgrounds. It’s against this backdrop that we enter 2019; at APHSA, we see significant opportunity to draw on the diverse and fresh perspectives of these incoming leaders to accelerate our Theory of Action and advance our members’ vision for thriving communi- ties built on human potential.

Undergirding our Theory of Action is the belief that to achieve an oppor- tunity ecosystem it must be fueled by the people who live there, along with multiple networks contributing value through distinct vantage points and collective impact efforts aimed at addressing systemic barriers. To get there, we need bold, highly agile lead- ership, willing to reshape traditional business and practice models by shifting our services “upstream,” creating generative partnerships designed to strengthen each other and ensuring a social determinants’ orientation to meeting the needs of families and com- munities, not simply delivering on a set of programs or services. The theme of this issue—adaptive leadership 1 —is intended to shine

a spotlight on what it takes to lead through such a “generative” lens. 2 At a time of great uncertainty and constant change and a nation too often defined by a polarized narrative instead of what binds us together, there has perhaps never been a more important time for this kind of leadership in our field— leaning into what’s possible and by co-creating solutions despite any unex- pected roadblocks appear before us. The prolonged government shutdown is a prime example, calling on all of our adaptive skills. Adaptive leaders set the course for what’s possible, even in the face of strong headwinds like the federal gov- ernment shutdown or the economic

See President’s Memo on page 29

Image via Shutterstock

3

February 2019 Policy&Practice

Vol. 77, No. 1

www.aphsa.org

Policy & Practice™ (ISSN 1942-6828) is published six times a year by the American Public Human Services Association, 1101Wilson Boulevard, 6th Floor, Arlington, VA 22209. For subscription information, contact APHSA at (202) 682-0100 or visit the website at www.aphsa.org. Copyright © 2019. All rights reserved.This magazine may not be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission from the publisher.The viewpoints expressed in contributors’ materials are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of APHSA. Postmaster: Send address changes to Policy & Practice 1101Wilson Boulevard, 6th Floor, Arlington, VA 22209

Advertising Natasha Laforteza ads_exhibits@aphsa.org Subscriptions Donna Jarvis-Miller djarvis-miller@aphsa.org Design & Production Chris Campbell

President & CEO Tracy Wareing Evans Communications Director Jessica Garon pandp@aphsa.org Communications Consultant Amy Plotnick

2 0 1 9 Ad v e r t i s i n g C a l e n d a r

Issue April June

Ad Deadline

Issue Theme

March 4

What It Takes: Creating a Modern and Responsive H/HS System Human-Centered Design: Putting Family at the Center of Our Work Innovating for the Future: Maximizing Modern Tools and Platforms

May 3 July 1

August October

August 30 November 1

Navigating Upstream: Achieving Better Health and Well-Being Through Prevention

December

Partnering for Impact: Co-Creating Generative Solutions

Size and Placement Two-page center spread: Back Cover (Cover 4): Inside Back Cover (Cover 3): Inside Front Cover (Cover 2):

Rate

Discount for 6 Consecutive Issues

$8,000 $6,000 $5,400 $5,400 $3,000 $1,200 $1,050

$7,200/issue $5,400/issue $4,860/issue $4,860/issue $2,700/issue $1,080/issue $945/issue

Full page:

Half page, horizontal: One-third page, vertical:

4

Policy&Practice February 2019

from the field By Lori Anderson, Luba Bezborodnikova, Debbie O’Neil, Tina Chen-Xu, Tyler Farmer (not pictured), and Sonya Stevens

Rulemaking that Works: Consensus by the Community for the Community

H ow do you engage people in the community and leverage their expertise and experience during times of change? Is it possible to bring these diverse community members together and work collaboratively to create transformational outcomes? In Washington State, the Department of Early Learning used a process called Negotiated Rulemaking (NRM), a 10-month effort that brought diverse community members together from across the state to collaboratively update child care regulations. Why Negotiated Rulemaking? Enacting new rules and regulations can be difficult. One major barrier to implementation is often a lack of buy-in from individuals directly affected by the rules. Much of the chal- lenge can stem from the feeling that an administration is “forcing” new changes with a “top-down” approach and doing so in a vacuum, without communicating with those affected. Whether or not this perception is true, a process that embraces the idea that people have the right to influence regulations directly affecting them creates a strong foundation of substan- tive outcomes. 1 Common rulemaking practice is for an agency to draft proposed rules and then decide how much public input is allowed and how much weight the input has on decision-making. Most often, there is limited or no opportu- nity for conversations between affected parties. 2 Although public comment submission processes, often online, and public hearings are designed to

engage all affected parties, they do not always result in an inclusive process for all levels of the community. NRM, on the other hand, can be an effective solution for state and local governments to develop and enact new regulations. NRM is a process where representatives from govern- ment and community stakeholders work together to reach consensus on what ultimately becomes a proposed rule. 3 Consensus means all parties have decision-making power in the negotiation process; in other words, all voices can have an impact on the final language of the rule. NRM, first implemented in the early 1980s and amended in 1990 to improve the acceptability and substance of rules, helps to increase the likelihood that affected parties accept enforce- ment or do not challenge those rules in court. 4 Although the upfront invest- ment of time and effort on NRM can be high, the impact of the investment may mean decreasing the cost of roll-out, implementation, and enforcement of new rules by increasing the “buy-in” by affected parties.

Many federal and state agencies have developed systems to involve community and key stakeholders in the rulemaking process. How does it work? Five Steps for Moving fromTraditional to Negotiated Rulemaking 5 1) Informing the public 2) Consulting the public by requesting input 3) Involving the public by accepting input and engaging in reflection 4) Collaborating through shared decision-making 5) Empowering the public through decision-making NRM in Action in Washington State Mandated by the Washington State Early Start Act (2015), the Department of Early Learning (DEL, now the Department of Children, Youth, and Families) 6 proposed a comprehensive realignment of the state’s child care

See Rulemaking on page 32

5

February 2019 Policy&Practice

locally speaking By Christina Finello

Critical Intercepts: Breaking the Cycle Through Multisystem Collaboration

L ike many places, Bucks County is dealing with the growing popula- tion of individuals in the criminal justice system with mental illness, substance abuse, or co-occurring dis- orders. Solving the problem requires more than merely decreasing their numbers. It is about connecting individuals with behavioral health issues to appropriate community supports to avoid a return to the criminal justice system. Individuals with behavioral health issues repeatedly come back into the criminal justice system. Researchers note that persons with mental illness have higher rates of recidivism and those with co-occurring disorders of substance abuse and mental illness are more likely to recidivate than individuals with only serious mental illness. 1 Undoubtedly all levels of the criminal justice system are seeing more individuals with mental illness, substance use, or co-occurring dis- orders as their number continues to rise. They often stay in jail longer, are less likely to make bail, and are more likely to experience delays in case processing. The arrest rate for persons with behavioral health issues is also higher—4.1 percent compared with 1.2 percent for individuals without those issues. The arrest rate is as high as 16.1 percent for individuals with a mental illness and a substance use disorder. Recent studies place the rate of serious mental illness in jails at 14.5 percent for men and 31.0 percent for women (taken together, 17 percent of those entering those facilities), and 68 percent of jail inmates have a sub- stance use disorder. 2 Of the 17 percent

health issues in the criminal justice system requires true multisystem col- laboration. Working within a complex system, like human services, can be challenging at times and bringing in another equally complicated system— criminal justice—can compound those challenges. How can two seemingly distinct systems work together to achieve the goal of a better life for our county’s residents? In Bucks County, we recognized that a roadmap is needed to help focus efforts to solve the problem. We use a framework, the Sequential Intercept Model (SIM), 3 to achieve that purpose. The SIM is an organizing tool that helps conceptualize how to reduce the number of people with mental illness, substance abuse, or co-occurring

of individuals in jail with a serious mental illness, about 72 percent have a co-occurring substance use disorder. 3 This trend is evident in Bucks County, as stakeholders from both the systems of human services and criminal justice collaborate to devise strategies to reduce these numbers. Creating opportunities for diversion through appropriate community- based services outside of the criminal justice system would ameliorate this issue. Breaking the cycle of criminal activity for those with mental health or substance abuse issues requires understanding the pattern that formed the habitual behavior and those determinants that can be changed to improve the health and quality of life of individuals. Reducing the number of people with behavioral

See Intercepts on page 30

Illustration by Chris Campbell

6

Policy&Practice February 2019

client corner By Whitney Page and Stacy Taylor

Valuing Customer Experience in Human Services

D elightful customer service has become the new normal in consumer-facing services. In many industries, companies prioritize customer service over price and even quality. 1 Many go to what may have once been considered extreme measures. For example, Zappos employees will often mail baby blankets to customer homes if they hear a baby crying in the background on a service call; Costco goes out of its way to listen to user feedback and will often proactively reach out to customers directly if, for example, an item purchased has been recalled; and Trader Joe’s employees take time to connect with shoppers to create a personalized shopping experience, often recommending new products and recipes based on items in the customer’s basket. 2 Consumers have come to expect this level of service: friendly, comprehensive, and personal. In addition—and more important for human services—new research shows that how a customer experiences a program can be just as important as the service itself. Well-designed customer experi- ences change consumer buy-in and behavior, multiplying the effects of a program with seemingly small design tweaks. 3 What are the implications and opportunities for human services with this new generation of expecta- tions and insights? The bar is high, the barriers are more challenging, and the consequences are greater. But the field is stepping up to the task in innovative and ground- breaking ways.

Start by Listening to Your Customers Companies across industries invest millions of dollars in gathering customer feedback through user tests, focus groups, and in-depth inter- viewing. One of the easiest places to start is with a customer survey. Surveys provide a glimpse into how customers are feeling, good and bad. They can be used to measure changes over time, see short-term impacts of changes, see how experiences differ across sites, get feedback on proposed future changes and—not to be under- estimated—give a feeling of power and buy-in to respondents. 4 When used

well, they are a simple, straightfor- ward, impactful tool. The Tennessee Department of Human Services has used a Customer Experience Survey to gather ongoing feedback from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and other human services participants across Tennessee. The survey, distributed online and at service sites, has given state policymakers a glimpse into what to celebrate and where to target change efforts. 5 However, one challenge

See Customer Service on page 34

Image via Shutterstock

7

February 2019 Policy&Practice

Creating a Cultural Onboarding Experience

By Jill M. Hillebregt

W

of its leaders, selection criteria for hiring and promotional decisions, and the nexus between its mission state- ment and employee performance.” 5 A cultural onboarding experience should be the foundation for all government agencies as they continue to refine their onboarding programs. “We are already beginning to see significant effects of rapid change within our political and government institutions. Do we have robust, resilient agency cultures in place that can cope with disruptive challenges in the future?” 6 What is Culture? Organizational culture is the way a government agency thinks and acts. At its most basic level, culture is “gained knowledge, explanations, values, beliefs, communication and behaviors of [a] large group of people, at the same time and same place.” 7 Every government agency has one, and it can make the difference between accom- plishment and failure. 8 Employees are a government agency’s culture experts. Adapting to an agency’s culture is essential for all employees to do their work efficiently and effectively. Remarkably, cultures are fluid. Differences in geographical areas, n written and unwritten rules n symbols such as logos or uniforms n language and acronyms used n organizational structures n politics n decision-making and rules n customs, beliefs, values, and goals n ceremonies, rituals, or routines n communication style n stories, myths, or traditions n employee and leadership structures n verbal and nonverbal language markers that let you know what is okay and not okay Culture is a Government Agency’s …

departmental goals, and job require- ments have an effect on norms, values, beliefs, and behaviors of employees. 9 A government agency’s culture may be hard for an outsider or a new employee to navigate. Adaptive leaders not only recognize the nuances of fluid cultures but they have the ability to communi- cate effectively to minimize confusion. Government Cultures Are Di erent Government objectives are political in nature. “If political pressures on goals are visible in the private sector, they are blatant in the public arena. Public agencies operate amid a welter of constituencies, each making demands and trying to get its way. The result is a confusing multiplicity of goals, many in conflict.” 10 They are influenced by certain values found in the private sector such as efficiency, effectiveness, timeliness, and reliability. However, they are also influenced by values that are often in conflict with one another such as being responsive to the rule of law and public demands, being open to scrutiny and criticism, adhering to strict ethical standards, and conducting public affairs with fairness, equal treatment, social equity, and impartiality. 11 Just as individuals have different personalities, patterns, and expecta- tions, so do government agencies. Experts feel that the variations in political beliefs found across the country are due to the original immi- grants who settled in different parts of our country. 12 In the map on page 10, Elazar, Gray, and Spano divide the United States into three different political cultures: moralistic, individu- alistic, and traditionalistic. Areas with a moralistic political culture (shown in purple) were devel- oped from the Puritans as they moved westward. Moralistic cultures value citizen engagement and desire citizen

hile for-profit compa- nies such as Google and Facebook famously invest financial

resources into creating positive and productive organizational cultures, government agencies must deal with dwindling resources and taxpayer accountability. 1 With up to 20 percent of staff turnover occurring within the first 45 days of employment, 2 adapting our leadership styles to provide an organizationally relevant cultural onboarding experience for new government employees is essen- tial. Adaptive leadership understands when to hire someone who cannot only adjust to change but help push the existing government culture in the direction their agency should be moving. Government leaders today must be resilient, not only for citizens, but for their employees. A sometimes overlooked, yet critical factor in proper onboarding is the new employee’s comfort level within the agency, particularly its culture. Understanding and sharing your agency’s culture during new employees’ onboarding experience helps them adapt and thrive quickly. “Employees who know what to expect from their company’s culture and work environment make better deci- sions that are more aligned with the accepted practices of the company.” 3 “Losing an employee who is a poor fit or not performing well may be a fine outcome, but losing employees because they are confused, feel alienated or lack confidence indicates inadequate onboarding.” 4 Creating a cultural onboarding experience helps new employees understand the unique culture they have become a part of and the chal- lenges they will face in a government position. “The touchstones of an orga- nization’s workplace culture include its treatment of employees, the credibility

Image via Shutterstock

9

February 2019 Policy&Practice

participation. Citizens in moralistic cultures are more likely to support individuals who earn their positions in government on merit rather than as a reward for party loyalty, yet are more open to third-party participation. 13 The individualist political culture areas (shown in green) originated with settlers from non-Puritan England and Germany. Individualists see the government as a mechanism for addressing issues that matter to individual citizens and they expect the government to provide goods and services they see as essential. 14 Traditionalistic political cultures (shown in blue) were shaped by the plantation lifestyle, rather than by any particular immigrant group, where a limited group of wealthy landholders and business families held all the power. They believed the government existed only as a necessity to maintain the existing social order. 15 Economic, legal, social, and tech- nological changes have also triggered changes in state government cultures. New government employees must figure out how to “fit in” with their agency’s culture, shared values, behaviors, and politics. What many government agencies fail to recognize is that their organizational culture and leadership are the keys to enhancing onboarding. To remain competitive, government agencies are going to need to prepare their leaders to use the strat- egies that influence culture. Adaptive leaders must be intentional about helping new employees adapt to their agency’s culture. Creating a Cultural Onboarding Experience A carefully planned cultural onboarding experience is inexpen- sive, yet creates short- and long-term

Cultures Are Expressed by Different People in Different Ways 20 Employees Employees bring their own beliefs and values when they come to work. What employees believe culture is may be completely different from the perceptions of leadership.

Leadership

Do you know your agency’s culture? An adaptive leader has a clear view of the realities of your agency’s culture. Every government agency makes statements about its mission and culture. But is it accurate? By proclaiming one thing and permitting another, leaders can inadvertently foster the belief that your agency cannot be trusted. Different members of the public will have different perspectives regarding the culture of a government agency. Leaders should know that these perspectives are largely fed by what employees and consumers say and share online.

Agency

Public

Elazar’s Cultural Classification by State 21

Moralistic Traditionalistic Individualistic

leadership to shifting priorities. “There have been cuts to staffing and oper- ating hours, agency consolidation and cross-agency service delivery, and … these changes have occurred simul- taneously with increasing demands for less expensive but more effective services.” 19 As the competition for talent heats up, it will be essential for government leaders to adapt to these new realities and to offer solutions and inspire changes on how to onboard new employees. While it is not a one-size- fits-all approach, adaptive leaders must be prepared to introduce their agency’s evolving culture to new employees.

benefits for both government agencies and their new employees. “The hiring surge, plus the looming retirement wave, offers a rare opportunity for government to invest in comprehensive onboarding programs.” Onboarding should highlight how a new employee’s job contributes to the agency’s mission. It must paint a realistic picture of your agency’s culture so new employees understand what they are getting into. 17 Adaptive leaders understand that culture is constantly evolving, one in which leaders learn from shifting circumstances and employees do not merely buy in but instead “join in.” 18 In a post-crisis economy, govern- ments are being challenged to rethink assumptions about organizational culture and how to adapt their

Jill M. Hillebregt is a Supervisor in the Housing and Support Services Division at the Minnesota Department of Human Services.

Reference Notes 1. Holt, T. (2013). Creating a Great

Organizational Culture in the Public

10

Policy&Practice February 2019

for Human Resource Management. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/ foundation/ourwork/initiatives/resources- from-past-initiatives/Documents/ Onboarding%20New%20Employees.pdf 5. Ibarra, P. (June 13, 2017). Curating a Healthy Workplace Culture in Government. Governing. Retrieved from http://www. governing.com/columns/smart-mgmt/col- curating-healthy-high-performing-culture- government-workforce.html 6. Mroszczyk-McDonald, D. (December 12, 2016). Organizational Culture Change: Understanding Your Culture. GovLoop. Retrieved from https://www.govloop.com/ community/blog/organizational-culture- change-understanding-culture/ 7. Shahzad, F., Luqman, R., Khan, A., & Shabbir, L. (2012). Impact of Organizational Culture on Organizational Performance: An Overview. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(8), p. 976. Retrieved from https://journal- archieves14.webs.com/975-985.pdf 8. Mroszczyk-McDonald, D. op. cit. 9. Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership. (3rd ed.), p. 102. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 10. Bolman, L., and Deal, T. (2013). Reframing Organizations (5th ed.), p. 193. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 11. Rainey, H.G. (2003) Understanding and managing public organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 12. Elazar, D., Gray, V., & Spano, W. (1999). Minnesota Politics and Government (Politics and Governments of the American States, p. xxii). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 13. Leckrone, J. (December 18, 2013). State and Local Political Culture. The American Partnership. Retrieved from https://theamericanpartnership.com/tag/ elazars-political-culture/ 16. Lavigna, B. (June 2009). Getting Onboard Integrating and Engaging New Employees. Government Finance Review. 25(6), 65-70. Retrieved from https://www.gfoa.org/ sites/default/files/GFR_JUN_09_65.pdf 17. Ibid. 18. Ibarra, P. op. cit. 19. Pynes, J. E. (2013). Human Resource 20. Organizational Culture Change: Understanding Your Culture. GovLoop. Retrieved from https://www.govloop.com/ community/blog/organizational-culture- change-understanding-culture/ 21. See https://courses.lumenlearning. com/amgovernment/chapter/ state-political-culture/ Management for Public and Nonprofit Organizations, p. xviii. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid.

Cultural Onboarding Activities for the Adaptive Leader Create an “employee first” experience

n Give new employees the opportunity to define what they need as part of their onboarding process. n Employees who know what to expect from their agency’s culture and work environment make better decisions. n Create an open, questioning environment for new employees. They will need time to adjust to their new culture. n Provide feedback often. New employees often make mistakes and may find it challenging to navigate your culture. n Tailor your cultural onboarding experience to the type of new employee (e.g., director, supervisor, front-line staff, or internal employee). n Introduce new employees to senior leadership, key partners, and workgroups in their first day/week. n Establish partnerships between new employees and agency “insiders.” This partnership will establish the foundation for an effective long-term working relationship with the employee and agency. n Before new employees’ first day, email their bios and pictures to their new team. Often past work experiences and extracurricular activities can help speed up introductions with coworkers. n Set cultural expectations. n Explain your agency’s cultural expectations. n Host a meet and greet for new employees at the end of their first week. n Encourage new employees to participate in voluntary agency functions, events, or groups. n Provide new employees with a cultural coach (not a mentor) shortly after starting to help them navigate your agency’s culture. n A cultural coach provides cultural insight about your agency, its people, and the work. They help new employees understand the written and unwritten rules of your agency’s culture. n Cultural coaches support agency leadership and are present at leadership meetings. n Share stories and the history of a new employee’s team, division, and agency. n Connect your agency’s culture to its mission, vision, values, and strategic priorities. n Explain how issues are resolved and where a new employee might be involved in the problem-solving. n An abbreviated “internal” cultural onboarding process should be developed to meet the needs of employees who change positions within an agency. While an internal employee is not new to the agency, a role change often comes with a change of team members, new leadership, and new cultures.

Communicate culturally

Provide a “cultural coach”

Create a feeling of purpose

Sector. American Society for Public Administration’s PATimes. Retrieved from https://patimes.org/creating-great- organizational-culture-public-sector/ 2. Carucci, R. (December 3, 2018). To Retain New Hires, Spend More Time Onboarding Them. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/12/to-retain- new-hires-spend-more-time-onboarding- them?utm_source=feedburner&utm_

medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A +harvardbusiness+%28HBR.org 3. Maurer, R. (2018). New Employee Onboarding Guide. Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/ hr-topics/talent-acquisition/pages/new- employee-onboarding-guide.aspx 4. Bauer, T. (2010). Onboarding New Employees: Maximizing Success. Society

11

February 2019 Policy&Practice

12

Policy&Practice February 2019

27

Stanford Social Innovation Review / Winter 2015

The deep changes necessary to accelerate progress against society’s most intractable problems require a unique type of leader—the system leader, a person who catalyzes collective leadership. ,

The DaWn of Sy ST e m L e a d e r S h i p

By Peter Senge , Hal Hami lton , & JoHn Kan i a

i

illustration by Paul rodgerS

ith the passing of Nelson Mandela in late 2013, the world celebrated a remarkable life. But the spotlight on Mandela’s accomplishments relegated to the shadows much of the reason that he has had such a lasting impact, in South Africa and beyond. Above all, Mandela embodied a system leader, someone able to bring forth collective leadership. In countless ways, large and small, he undertook interventions aimed at bringing together the remnants of a divided country to face their common challenges collectively and build a new nation. In the four delicate years between Mandela’s release from prison in 1990 and the first open election, he supported a scenario process that brought together the formerly banned black political parties to work through their alternative visions for the future of South Africa. Exploring their different ideologies and their implications openly and together

13

February 2019 Policy&Practice

28

Stanford Social Innovation Review / Winter 2015

resulted in the moderating of potentially divisive differences that could have ripped the nation apart, such as whether or not to na- tionalize critical industries. 1 Perhaps the most transcendent example of Mandela as a system leader was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a radical in- novation in the emotional healing of the country that brought black and white South Africans together to confront the past and join in shaping the future. The simple idea that you could bring together those who had suffered profound losses with those whose actions led to those losses, to face one another, tell their truths, forgive, and move on, was not only a profound gesture of civilization but also a cauldron for creating collective leadership. Indeed, the process would have been impossible without the leadership of people like Bishop Desmond Tutu and former President F. W. de Klerk. Even more, the process invited the thousands who participated to step forward in co-creating a new reality for South Africa—and, in so doing, to embody an ancient understanding of leadership; the Indo-European root of “to lead,” leith , literally means to step across a threshold—and to let go of whatever might limit stepping forward. At no time in history have we needed such system leaders more. We face a host of systemic challenges beyond the reach of existing institutions and their hierarchical authority structures. Problems like climate change, destruction of ecosystems, growing scarcity of water, youth unemployment, and embedded poverty and inequity require unprecedented collaboration among different organizations, sectors, and even countries. Sensing this need, countless collabora- tive initiatives have arisen in the past decade—locally, regionally, and even globally. Yet more often than not they have floundered—in part because they failed to foster collective leadership within and across the collaborating organizations. The purpose of this article is to share what we are learning about the system leaders needed to foster collective leadership. We hope to demystify what it means to be a system leader and to continue to grow as one. It is easy when we talk about exemplars like Mandela to reinforce a belief that these are special people, somehow walking on a higher plane than the rest of us. But we have had the honor to work with many “Mandelas,” and this experience has convinced us that they share core capabilities and that these can be developed. Although formal position and authority matter, we have watched people contribute as system leaders frommany positions. As Ronald Heifetz has shown in his work on adaptive leadership, 2 these leaders shift the conditions through which others—especially those who have a problem—can learn collectively to make progress against it. Most of all, we have learned by watching the personal development of system leaders. This is not easy work, and those who progress have a particular commitment to their own learning and growth. Under- standing the “gateways” through which they pass clarifies this com- mitment and why this is not the mysterious domain of a chosen few. Today, many of us are “swimming in the same river”—trying to cultivate collective leadership in diverse settings around theworld even while our larger cultural contexts remain firmly anchored to themyth of the heroic individual leader. This search for a new type of leadership creates a real possibility to accelerate joint learning about systemleaders. For undoubtedly we are at the beginning of the beginning in learning how to catalyze and guide systemic change at a scale commensurate with the scale of problems we face, and all of us see but dimly.

Peter Senge is a senior lecturer and direc- tor of the Center for Organizational Learning at MIT Sloan School of Management. He is also the founding chair of The Society for Or- ganizational Learning (SoL) and co-founder of the Academy for Systemic Change. Senge is the author of the book The Fifth Discipline and co-author of the books Presence, The Necessary Revolution, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook , and Schools That Learn.

Hal Hamilton is director of the Sus- tainable Food Lab and co-founder of the Academy for Systemic Change. He was previ- ously executive director of the Sustainability Institute and the Center for Sustainable Systems. JoHn Kania is a board member and man- aging director of FSG, where he directs the firm’s consulting practice. Kania is co-author of “Collective Impact” and three previous articles in Stanford Social Innovation Review , as well as numerous SSIR blog posts.

Core Capabilities of system leaders Though they differ widely in personality and style, genuine system leaders have a remarkably similar impact . Over time, their profound commitment to the health of the whole radiates to nurture similar commitment in others. Their ability to see reality through the eyes of people very different from themselves encourages others to be more open as well. They build relationships based on deep listen- ing, and networks of trust and collaboration start to flourish. They are so convinced that something can be done that they do not wait for a fully developed plan, thereby freeing others to step ahead and learn by doing. Indeed, one of their greatest contributions can come from the strength of their ignorance, which gives thempermission to ask obvious questions and to embody an openness and commit- ment to their own ongoing learning and growth that eventually infuse larger change efforts. As these system leaders emerge, situations previously suffer- ing from polarization and inertia become more open, and what were previously seen as intractable problems become perceived as opportunities for innovation. Short-term reactive problem solving becomes more balanced with long-term value creation. And organizational self-interest becomes re-contextualized, as people discover that their and their organization’s success de- pends on creating well-being within the larger systems of which they are a part. There are three core capabilities that system leaders develop in order to foster collective leadership. The first is the ability to see the larger system. In any complex setting, people typically focus their attention on the parts of the system most visible from their own vantage point. This usually results in arguments about who has the right perspective on the problem. Helping people see the larger system is essential to building a shared understanding of complex problems. This understanding enables collaborating organizations to jointly develop solutions not evident to any of them individually and to work together for the health of the whole system rather than just pursue symptomatic fixes to individual pieces. The second capability involves fostering reflection and more generative conversations. Reflection means thinking about our thinking, holding up the mirror to see the taken-for-granted assumptions we carry into any conversation and appreciating how our mental models may limit us. Deep, shared reflection is a critical step in enabling groups of organizations and individuals to actually “hear” a point of view different from their own, and to appreciate emotionally as well as cognitively each other’s reality. This is an essential doorway for building trust where distrust had prevailed and for fostering collective creativity.

14

Policy&Practice February 2019

29

Stanford Social Innovation Review / Winter 2015

The third capability centers on shifting the collective focus from reactive problem solving to co-creating the future. Change often starts with conditions that are undesirable, but artful system leaders help people move beyond just reacting to these problems to build- ing positive visions for the future. This typically happens gradually as leaders help people articulate their deeper aspirations and build confidence based on tangible accomplishments achieved together. This shift involves not just building inspiring visions but facing dif- ficult truths about the present reality and learning how to use the tension between vision and reality to inspire truly new approaches. Much has been written about these leadership capabilities in the organizational learning literature and the tools that support their development. 3 But much of this work is still relatively unknown or known only superficially to those engaged in collaborative systemic change efforts. Gateways to beCominG a system leader Many years ago, a mentor of ours, William O’Brien, past CEO of Hanover InsuranceCompanies, posed an important question, “Many business leaders espouse ideals like vision, purposefulness, andgrow- ing people to grow results. If these aims are so widely shared, then why are such organizations so rare?” O’Brien’s answer was simple, “I think it is because very few people appreciate the nature of the commitment needed to build such an enterprise.” We believe this insight also applies to budding system leaders seeking to help build collaborative networks for systemic change. Watching people grow as system leaders has shown us repeat- edly the depth of commitment it requires and clarified the partic- ular gateways through which budding system leaders begin their developmental journeys. These gateways do not define the whole of those journeys, but they do determine whether or not they ever commence. Those unwilling to pass through them may say all the right things about system leadership, but they are unlikely to make much progress in embodying their aspirations. re-directing attention: seeing that problems “out there” are “in here” also—and how the two are connected | Continuing to do what we are cur- rently doing but doing it harder or smarter is not likely to produce very different outcomes. Real change starts with recognizing that we are part of the systems we seek to change. The fear and distrust we seek to remedy also exist within us—as do the anger, sorrow, doubt, and frustration. Our actions will not become more effective until we shift the nature of the awareness and thinking behind the actions. Roca, Inc., is a community youth development organization founded in the Boston area in 1988. Rocaworkswith youthswhom, by and large, no one else will work with. Many of the organization’s staff are for- mer gang members who nowwork on the streets to help current gang members redirect their lives. 4 In 2013, 89 percent of the high-risk youth in Roca’s program for parolees and ex-convicts had no new arrests, 95 percent had no new technical violations, and 69 percent remained employed. On the strength of these outcomes, in 2013 Massachusetts entered into a $27million social impact bondwithRoca, whereby Roca will be paid to keep at-risk youth out of prison, receiving remuneration directly in proportion to the positive outcomes they achieve. 5 Critical to Roca’s success has been its ability to build transfor- mative relationships with the young people it works with. It does this by what it calls “relentless” outreach and relationship building.

“Our first job is simply to ‘show up’ for kids,” says founder and CEO Molly Baldwin. “The truth is that many have never had someone they could count on consistently in their lives.” Showing up for young people means using processes like “peace- keeping circles,” a Native American practice that Roca has adapted and applied in diverse settings, fromstreet conflicts to sentencing and parole circles. The practice begins by getting all the critical players in any situation into a circle and opening with each person saying a few words about his deepest intentions. The central idea behind the circle is that what affects the individual affects the community, and that both need to be healed together. 6 “We learn to listen to each other in a deep way in circles,” says Roca youth worker Omar Ortez. “You see that a problem is not just one person’s problem, it is all our problem.” Developing peacekeeping circles has not been easy, including for Baldwin herself. At Roca’s first circle training 15 years ago, “Forty people came—young people, police and probation officers, com- munity members, and friends,” recalls Baldwin. “Halfway through the opening session, everything blew up. People were screaming, the kids were swearing, everyone was saying, ‘See! This is never go- ing to work!’ Watching the session break down was wrenching, but eventually I understood how committed I was to divisiveness and not unity, how far I was from being a peacemaker. I understood on a visceral level the problems with ‘us and them’ thinking, and how I perpetuated that, personally and for the organization. Continuing to insist, ‘I’m right, you’re wrong! The issue is you, not us, because we hold the moral high ground!’ was a big source of what was limit- ing our ability to truly help people and situations.” In their book Leading from the Emerging Future , Otto Scharmer and Katrin Kaufer describe three “openings” needed to transform systems: opening the mind (to challenge our assumptions), open- ing the heart (to be vulnerable and to truly hear one another), and opening the will (to let go of pre-set goals and agendas and see what is really needed and possible). These three openings match the blind spots of most change efforts, which are often based on rigid assumptions and agendas and fail to see that transforming systems is ultimately about transforming relationships among people who shape those systems. Many otherwise well-intentioned change efforts fail because their leaders are unable or unwilling to embrace this simple truth. Baldwin’s development as a system leader started with her willingness to face her own biases and shortcomings (and how these shortcomings limited Roca’s effec- tiveness in their work) and her openness to gradually setting a tone for the whole organization. Today, this willingness to open the mind, heart, and will has extended far beyond the four walls of Roca as the organization has evolved into a critical interface between gangs, police, courts, parole boards, schools, and social service agencies. Indeed, many of Roca’s important allies are the police departments in the communities it serves. It has been a long journey for former social activists who often saw the cops as the enemy. re-orienting strategy: creating the space for change and enabling collective intelligence and wisdom to emerge | Ineffective leaders try to make change happen. System leaders focus on creating the condi- tions that can produce change and that can eventually cause change to be self-sustaining. As we continue to unpack the prerequisites to success in complex collaborative efforts, we appreciate more and

15

February 2019 Policy&Practice

30

Stanford Social Innovation Review / winter 2015

more this subtle shift in strategic focus and the distinctive powers of those who learn how to create the space for change. For Darcy Winslow, the journey to becoming a system leader began in 1998 when she was responsible for Nike’s advanced research department and was reviewing a gas chromatograph toxicological analysis that showed, she says, “for the first time the chemicals em- bedded in one of our top running shoes. Our VP of product looked at the results—the known toxins embedded in our products and processes and the many chemicals that posed uncertain risks— and then surprised us, by asking what we thought he should do. We figured he was the head of this part of the business and would know. But after some time, we understood. The stuff that was in our products was there because of cost, function, and our design and material choices. The real question became, ‘Who could—and should—lead in tackling this truly complex problem?’” Over the ensuing weeks and months came an epiphany for Winslow. “Nike creates products,” she says. “Our first maxim is, ‘It is in our nature to innovate.’ The people we had to reach were the designers. While Nike had about 25,000 employees at that time, there were only about 300 designers. Five to 10 percent of our de- signers represented only 15 to 30 people. Suddenly, building an initial critical mass seemed far less daunting. So I went knocking on doors.” With the report in hand, Winslow simply showed the results to designers and asked what they thought. “You could tell within two minutes if the person was stirred up to do anything,” says Winslow. “If they weren’t, I moved on. If they were, I asked for a second meeting.” SoonWinslowwas bringing together groups of engaged designers and others in related product creation functions, and a new network started to emerge. “If you tell a great designer something is impos- sible—like you cannot make a world-class running shoe without glues—they get very excited. It is the challenge that engages them.” Within two years, about 400 designers and product managers con- vened for a two-day summit where leading sustainability experts and senior management explored together the concept of design for sustainability. A movement was born within Nike. Today, Nike’s efforts have spurred collective leadership through- out the sports apparel industry on waste, toxicity, water, and energy. For example, the Joint Roadmap Towards Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals, a joint initiative of Greenpeace, Nike, Puma, Adidas, New Balance, and others, aims to systematically identify major toxins and achieve zero discharge of hazardous chemicals in the entirety of the sport apparel manufacturing industry worldwide, starting in China. 7 (Winslow left Nike in 2008 and is now manag- ing director of the Academy for Systemic Change.) We are all on a steep learning curve in understanding this gate- way of creating space for change, but it seems to be crucial not only in initiating collaborative efforts but in what ultimately can arise from them. A few years ago, one of us co-authored an article describing five conditions for achieving progress at a large scale through a disciplined approach to collaboration called “collective impact.” 8 Today as we research and observe effective collective impact initiatives, what stands out beyond the five conditions is the collective intelligence that emerges over time through a disciplined stakeholder engagement process—the nature of which could never have been predicted in advance.

Systemic change needs more than data and information; it needs real intelligence and wisdom. Jay Forrester, the founder of the system dynamics method that has shaped our approach to systems thinking, pointed out that complex non-linear systems exhibit “counterintuitive behavior.” He illustrated this by citing the large number of government interventions that go awry through aim- ing at short-term improvement in measurable problem symptoms but ultimately worsening the underlying problems—like increased urban policing that leads to short-term reductions in crime rates but does nothing to alter the sources of embedded poverty and worsens long-term incarceration rates. 9 Another systems thinking pioneer, Russell Ackoff, characterized wisdom as the ability to distinguish the short-term from the long-term effects of an intervention. 10 The question is, How does the wisdom to transcend pressures for low- leverage symptomatic interventions arise in practice? System leaders like Baldwin and Winslow understand that collec- tive wisdom cannot be manufactured or built into a plan created in advance. And it is not likely to come from leaders who seek to “drive” their predetermined change agenda. Instead, system leaders work to create the spacewhere people livingwith the problemcan come together to tell the truth, think more deeply about what is really happening, explore options beyond popular thinking, and search for higher leverage changes through progressive cycles of action and reflection and learn- ing over time. Knowing that there are no easy answers to truly complex problems, system leaders cultivate the conditions wherein collective wisdom emerges over time through a ripening process that gradually brings about new ways of thinking, acting, and being. For those new to system leadership, creating space can seem passive or even weak. For them, strong leadership is all about execut- ing a plan. Plans are, of course, always needed, but without open- ness people can miss what is emerging, like a sailor so committed to his initial course that he won’t adjust to shifts in the wind. Even more to the point, the conscious acts of creating space, of engag- ing people in genuine questions, and of convening around a clear intention with no hidden agenda, creates a very different type of energy from that which arises from seeking to get people committed to your plan. When Winslow went to the designers, she went with basic data and a big question, “What do you think about this and what should we do?” Her success in building an extraordinary net- work of collaboration and shared commitment over 15 years, whose ripples are still spreading, started with this basic shift in strategy. System leaders understand that plans and space are the yang and yin of leadership. Both are needed. But what is needed even more is balance between the two. Practice, practice, practice: all learning is doing, but the doing needed is inherently developmental | Bringing together diverse stakeholderswith little history of collaboration, different mental models, and differ- ent and even apparently competing aims is a high-risk undertaking. Good intentions are not enough. Youneed skills. But skills come only from practice. Everybody wants tools for systemic change. But too few are prepared to use the tools with the regularity and discipline needed to build their own and others’ capabilities. This is why system leaders like Baldwin andWinslow never stop practicing how to help people see the larger systems obscured by established mental models, how to foster different conversations that gradually build genuine engagement and trust, and how to sense

16

Policy&Practice February 2019