We Have Been Changed For Good

After about the fourth preview at the movies today, I whispered to my son, "I want to see every one of these movies!" After the fifth preview my daughter whispered to me, "Each of these movies is awesome! They've done a good job figuring out what I will want to see, based on what we came to see today." I have such an insightful twelve year old! I also realize that the world has changed and she has never known it to be any other way. Audience profiling and segmentation is no longer under the surface.  

The information age has also improved the way organizations can make choices. Using Big Data we can determine need and improve how we select which ideas to turn into projects. Social media and mobile devices allow us to crowd source information to determine approach to implementation; and we can harness voluminous data using sophisticated data-tracking software in order to measure results.  

Despite being a champion of research-based approaches, data-driven programs and quantifiable outcomes, one of my favorite quotes is, "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." (Albert Einstein or William Bruce Cameron or someone) Furthermore, I recognize potential dangers attached to the information revolution.  Among them, privacy concerns, moral issues, and the risk of confirming unfounded biases rather than reducing their impact.

For now, my solution is to remain alert and keep learning about these serious issues. I have also selected two cautions to put on my bulletin board for the next few months:

1. More and better is best, but better is better than more alone. Sometimes the most important question does not present itself at the outset of a project.  So the more types of data collected, the better the chances that you'll have the data you need once you figure out the right question. But that's quite different than focusing on volume to the detriment of creating thoughtful measures and metrics, ensuring that the data gathered is valid, interpreting data correctly, and taking the time to consider it in context.    
2. Don't let inadequate information lead to inaction. How much data is enough? At some point, you must decide to move forward. In fact, within a portfolio of projects some portion of them should not be supported by directly relevant research, or spot on data. That's a sign of innovation. 

Note:  I will also remind myself that when it comes to coffee and other matters of equal importance I will only query the data if I am prepared to face and act on whatever the answer might be!

3 Reasons to Avoid Best Practices

1. Freedom from the market
In the for-profit arena there is a point of view that industries, not individual companies, succeed.  If that point of view has merit, "industry practice" is reasonable on some level. But a non-profit organization fills a need that is not otherwise met by the market. Almost by definition there is no adequate local industry for the service -- fulfillment of the mission -- that the organization provides.  

2. Avoiding disaster is not good enough
There's a fun theoretical discussion about the differences among "best" "smart" and "good" practices. In the end though, whatever you call them, the practices usually are not emprically proven.  Instead they are: one, common and, two, have not led to obvious failure. If the best that can be said about an employee is that her work is common, or that her work has not led to disaster, any manager will run for cover at the suggestion of working with her.  Likewise, organizations should steer clear of practices that have nothing more to recommend them. 

3. The expert is in the mirror
Sometimes a best practice results from the collective input of experts in a field -- guidelines from an association for example. Here's the thing though, no one is as expert about the unique context of an organization as its board and its leadership staff. Even if the practice is based on empirical evidence, the practice must be contextualized for your organization. So while guidelines from experts are a fair place to begin sifting for excellent ideas, they are not a place to end. 

Before cutting and pasting a seemingly successful neighbor's practices into your organization's arsenal of practices, here are some things to consider:

• Does the other organization have the same goals? The same values?  
• Is the other organization guided by a mission that overlaps with your organization's?  If so, by adopting the practice might your organization compromise the very thing that sets it apart?
• Is there a causal link between the practice and extraordinary measurable results?  
• Is the practice best or safe? In this instance is risk reduction justification enough to adopt the practice?   
• What is the source of the best practices and whose interests does that source promote or protect?
• Are the practices adjusted in some way to be forward looking?
• Do the practices impact the heart and soul of the organization (e.g., governance structure, bylaws, strategic plan, distinguishing characteristics, the story)? 

There is no shortcut to setting goals, assessing risk, allocating resources and thinking through what is right and best for your unique and special organization. And why would we ever want there to be?  That's the fun part!

Striking Balance: Vision, Mission and Coherence

In the last couple of weeks I've read some articles and listened to interviews with  Judith Curry and Steven Pinker.  Their areas of expertise are different from one another's and they have different ways of looking at things, but it struck me that in their own, very different ways they both question the prudence of basing policies on what ifs.  That's an interesting question for a start-up organization to consider. Should it set its agenda based on the state of things as they are, or on the state of things as the organization projects that they will be at some point in the future?  For an on-going concern on the other hand, the answer should be apparent from its bold vision, clear mission and thoughtful strategic plan.   

That question, however, led me to its cousin:  live for the moment? plan for tomorrow? While most people prefer to plan for the future, it turns out that people who live in the moment tend to be happier.  In fact, a wandering mind often is the cause, rather than merely a consequence, of unhappiness. Since, as humans, our goal is to be both happy and prepared, I think we can reconcile these two axioms. But how do you strike the right balance for a mission-driven organization?

As an organization the right balance is decidedly unbalanced. Plan for the future. Resist the temptation to apply for grants and accept funding that is available in the moment, but distracts the organization from its core purpose and strengths. Make the difficult decision to temporarily trim programs, rather than to spend down reserves to an unreasonable level. In the end, the goal of an organization is to get results. So for the sake of sustainability and results (and so the living beings that the organization ultimately serves will be happy) remain coherent and committed to your core purpose. 

Interconnected

I have an uncanny and sometimes useless ability to see connections between almost everything.

It's why I am a proponent of multi-disciplinary collaboration. It's why I am at once fascinated  by brain-based teaching and at the same time baffled by the notion that it is new. How could it ever have been otherwise?  How could education possibly be disconnected from cognition and neuroscience?

Recently I was interviewed for a donor profile.  The profile talks about why I support GreenLaw. In addition to questions that circled around the reasons I invest time and money in Greenlaw's work, I was also asked why I always discuss the environment in the context of health and education. The truth is, it never occurs to me to think about it in any other way. We know that our environment substantially impacts our health; sickness impacts our ability to learn, and we cannot succeed, whatever that means, if we do not learn. 

So today I am thinking about interconnectedness and trying to understand whether there is value in considering issues in a disconnected way. Some topics fueling my consideration are learning for the sake of learning, art for art's sake, Silent Spring, selfless philanthropy.