The challenge put forth by Harvard professor Michael Porter, chairman and founder of ICIC, was that if we’re to see dramatic change in meeting the employment needs of inner city residents and economic growth in these communities, more focused and customized strategies are needed.  He also proposed that focusing on industry clusters, which is much more prevalent globally and increasingly utilized in the United States, can and should be an economic development strategy within distressed urban areas.

Why?  Because regional growth and prosperity depends on it.

So what does this take?  In example after example, panelists and presenters highlighted key elements that need to be present:

• Clarity of vision
• Coordinated leadership, aligning and leveraging stakeholders (their strategies, strengths and resources)
• Communicating transparent and relevant information to all involved
• Creating trusted relationships
• Bridging social capital, especially across race and class
• Committing to the long-term

These elements reflect the “how” rather than the “what.”  Far too often, we get focused on the next best thing.  And while I believe in the sharing of approaches that work (and even sharing those that didn’t), when it comes to developing and implementing strategies in communities–whether at the neighborhood or regional levels–the “what” becomes highly customized to the local environment.

I will contend, however, there were some really great approaches shared, too.  Transformation of Chicago’s City Colleges system to help students achieve economically relevant credentials for the jobs of today and the future vs. jobs in the past 25 years.  Re-framing the industrial/manufacturing sector as cluster development in inner cities and preparing the workforce to be able to obtain those jobs.  Focusing on small business development, particularly minority-owned businesses, as assets in inner cities helping to create employment and wealth creation opportunities.  An inspirational story of Revolution Foods, a social enterprise producing and distributing fresh food to schools.  And the list goes on.

ICIC is promising to continue the dialogue started at the summit at their website:  www.icic.org.  I’m looking forward to checking back in with them.  More importantly, I’m interested in figuring out how to put this wealth of information to work.  Let me know your thoughts.

This absolutely reflected the tenor of our location–being in our nation’s capital while lawmakers are attempting to do the nearly impossible: resolve spending and revenue raising policies that both reduce the deficit, meet entitlements, global interests and defense, and invest in our nation and communities.  (That’s the least partisan way I can put it.)

At the same time, we were called by several influential voices to stand-up, step-up, and fight for the programs and policies we know are effective and where we are seeking innovation and re-tooling across the board.  Let me share with you some of the points of view that may of interest to readers of Leadership and Community:

• Diana Aviv, President and CEO of Independent Sector, said that the nonprofit sector is struggling to define success and challenged the audience to measure impact for ourselves first versus solely leaving evaluation to funders and policy makers.  We absolutely need to know our business, what makes it effective and where we need to make changes.  More importantly, we need to be able to explain what we know to other reasonable people (without jargon) and who don’t share the specific expertise of our field.

• Rey Ramsey, President and CEO of TechNet, is seeking ways to help the tech sector connect with social innovators.  He said there is a great need for more transparency, clarity of purpose and value, and a shared vocabulary.  His challenge to the nonprofit sector was to be clear about purpose first rather than simply focusing on using technological tactics like social media.

• Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius noted changes within the federal department where they are placing a great deal of emphasis on coordination, integration and expansion of new ways of delivering service in a smart way with evidence-based strategies.  One example is using more place-based strategies for delivering “one-stop” health centers in neighborhoods and communities such as in schools.  She called on the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors to work alongside government to create more impact and effectiveness.  A similar call came from HUD Assistant Secretary Mercedes Marquez where the Department of Housing and Urban Development is collaborating with the EPA and the Department of Transportation to support greater alignment between housing, transportation, and land-use to create “sustainable communities.”

• Lastly, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne summed up the challenge best during a session he moderated calling on progressives to sell the benefits of revenue raising by elevating what we have gained as a country from government investments in people (and places) rather than solely focusing on the dire consequences of cuts in public budgets whether at the local, state and federal levels.

If you’re like me, you’re passionate about service and community.  I think these are worth fighting for in the midst of our collective economic uncertainty and seemingly endless policy challenges.  We should be debating the best ways to do this rather than fighting over whether or not to invest in our nation and communities.  It’s no time to throw in the towel (or hide under it).

Part professional development program, apprenticeship, and community leaders network, the Careership will have over 120 alumni at the end of this year, with over 60% of participants having secured paid employment in the field.

The individual stories are compelling.  We’ve helped both men and women, ranging in ages from early 20’s to their 80’s –- yes, 80’s – connect their passion for community building with transferrable skills that can be put to work in organizations seeking to develop housing, commercial districts, small businesses, local workforces, youth development and neighborhood services throughout the region.  Many of these alums now serve in nonprofit, for-profit, and government agencies and institutions at a range of levels, including executive leadership.

Why mess with a good thing, right?

I think there’s more we can do.  However, it’s stretching our thinking and comfort levels to go beyond the idea of adding more individual leaders into the field (still a laudable goal) to supporting this growing network, and perhaps “networks of the network” that strengthens and combines the energies of these leaders for collective action in our region.  For us, it may mean changing our notion of leader and leadership and the types of supports needed to foster greater connections, collaboration and engagement among individuals and the institutions, communities and systems they serve.  We’re starting to conceptualize this strategy as “developing leaders in place.”

There is much more we can learn from our alumni, our partners, others and you as we attempt to transform this program.  I’m particularly intrigued with the insights gleaned from the Leadership Learning Community to challenge our thinking.  But there are many more ways to foster adaptive and networked leadership for social change.   We’re seeking insights, promising strategies or learnings from examples gone wrong.

I hope you’ll be a part of our process of exploration and programmatic transformation by making suggestions or offering comments below or reach out directly to us at Twin Cities LISC.

Manuel Pastor, a professor of Geography and American Studies & Ethnicity at the University of Southern California, described the difference in styles of leadership by stating there are some leaders who play chess and some who are puzzle masters. In chess, (with all due respect to chess masters and Pastor) the players are black and white, have different roles and levels of power, the game-board and rules of engagement are prescribed, and the goal is to knock other players off the board to win. With puzzles, the pieces are many colors, possessing unique shapes and equal value, and each makes a contribution toward completing the whole. Pastor’s argument is that we need more puzzle masters in today’s world.

I couldn’t agree more.

Leadership and community work call for greater understanding of how each member can offer his or her unique contributions, and how those contributions mutually reinforce each other toward achieving a common good. Despite very real power dynamics that exist in our communities, organizations and institutions (e.g. positional authority, resources, age, professional tenure, race, income, citizenship status, etc.), our new economic reality and the social and environmental challenges we face as a community, nation, or even world, are calling for ways to act less like a chess player and more like a puzzle master.

I have to admit this is a daunting task. Moving away from the more predominant and recognizable paradigm of “win-lose” (or “in/out”, “up/down”) toward practicing a new way of doing business that is more integrative and holistic won’t be easy. But just like puzzles, success in our communities will come from making sure no pieces fall off the table and we continue to strive for finding the combinations that create the whole.

Agree or disagree? Examples? I’d be interested in learning more from you about how to lead like a puzzle master.