John Plodinec

Resilience — One Movement, Many Voices

December 19th, 2011 - John Plodinec  

Earlier this fall, I attended the annual meeting of the Federal Alliance for Safe Homes (FLASH). For those of you who aren’t familiar with FLASH (see www.flash.org), they are doing an amazing job in raising consciousness about strengthening homes to severe weather conditions. I was struck by the applicability of their motto – quoted above – to resilience.

For resilience has become a movement; and like all movements it has developed branches as diverse as the roots from whence it came. Transition Towns and Resilience Circles, Asset-Based Community Development communities and many others are all fluorishing branches of a movement aimed at strengthening communities so that they can withstand adversity.

The Transition Towns approach to community resilience is ultimately based on a philosophy of despair (as is that of its close cousin – Resilience Circles). The British founders of this approach see Peak Oil, Global Warming, and the Great Recession as working together to fundamentally change the nature of society. They foresee a rapidly approaching end to the Age of the Automobile, and a concomitant possibility of severely disrupted supplies of food and other necessities. Some of their writings seem almost apocalyptic in their forecasts, including the collapse of civilization. Their answer is to make communities as self-sufficient as possible. Hence, an emphasis on growing food locally, and a more communal lifestyle in general. While there is an anti-technology Luddite element to this, one cannot deny that participants have found much satisfaction – and even joy – in the renewed sense of community in Transition Towns.

The Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) approach has a very different philosophical basis. Developed by John McKnight and co-workers at Northwestern, the ABCD approach seeks to discover and develop community competence by helping neighborhoods, for example, to recognize the assets and capabilities they contain within themselves. While ABCD shares with Transition Towns a general distrust of the ability of external bureaucracies to address local problems, it ultimately celebrates the capacity of the commons working together to solve local problems. David Gershon’s work in Philadelphia and New York, while not explicitly based on ABCD, shares much in common with it.

There are many other branches that deserve recognition – FLASH’s work to make homes more robust, TISP’s efforts to develop a more resilient infrastructure, the Department of Health and Human Services’ inclusion of resilience as a core element of their strategic and operational planning, the Army’s work to enhance the resilience of soldiers and their families, and especially FEMA’s Whole Community approach to emergency management spring to mind. Where then does CARRI’s approach fit in?

Back in July, I wrote a blog about resilience and the problem of scale (Community Resilience and the Problem of Scale or There are Horses for Courses). CARRI’s approach focuses on the community, and particularly on the challenges that communities face. While some of these challenges are universal (economic distress), most of them reflect the specific conditions and setting of the community itself. Applying Brian Walker’s insight from ecology, this means that CARRI must help communities consider these challenges from both the individual-family-neighborhood and regional perspectives, if the community is to successfully meet them. As William James said, “The community stagnates without the impulse of the individual. The impulse dies away without the sympathy of the community.” And sometimes the community must call on resources beyond its own, if the impulse is to lead to positive action. CARRI is thus centered on the community, and its role is thus to energize and empower the individual to influence the community to take action to meet the challenges it faces.

Ian Moore

The Framing Effect

December 14th, 2011 - Ian Moore  

The way that a question or situation is phrased has a strong effect on your answer or decision. We tend to make decisions which are closer to the ’starting point’ which the issue has imprinted on our minds.

For instance in one experiment two groups of people were asked (in 5 seconds and without the use of a calculator) to perform the following calculations:

Group 1:
2*3*4*5*6*7*8

Group 2:
8*7*6*5*4*3*2

Obviously, at least for most people, 5 seconds is too short a time to work out the answer. Most people start working from the left and when their time runs out make an estimate based on what they worked out up to this point. Group 1 answers were smaller numbers than in group 2. Their estimates seem to have been affected by the last number they were able to calculate before their time ran out.

In large numbers of tests Group 1 participants answers averaged at 512, Group 2 participants average was 2,250, nearly four times as much. (It is also interesting to note that since the correct answer is 40,320. Both groups dramatically underestimated.)

Another interesting example of the framing effect is when the people were given the following two scenarios (try this out yourself):

Scenario 1:
An event is expected to kill 6,000 people. You can adopt one of two interventions:
A. 2,000 people will be saved
B. There is a 1/3 chance that 6,000 people will be saved and a 2/3 chance that no one will be saved
Which intervention would you choose?

Scenario 2:
An event is expected to kill 6,000 people. You can adopt one of two interventions:
C. 4,000 people will die
D. There is a 1/3 chance that no one will die and a 2/3 chance that 6,000 people will die
Which intervention would you choose?

There are no right or wrong answers to these but let us first have a look at Scenario 1. If you choose intervention A, then 2,000 people will be saved. If you choose intervention B, either everyone will be saved or no one will but the weighted probability is that 2,000 people will be saved (the same as A). Interestingly the vast majority of people (nearly three quarters) choose A.

In scenario 2, intervention C is exactly the same as intervention A and intervention D is exactly the same as intervention B. However the interventions chosen are reversed with the vast majority of people choosing intervention D (over three quarters).

The only thing that has changed between the two scenarios is ’saved’ to ‘die’.

So the way that a decision choice is phrased has a very strong effect on the decision that people make.

John Plodinec

Resilience for Dummies 2: Effective Community Leadership

December 13th, 2011 - John Plodinec  

Not too long ago, an interviewer asked me what were the keys to community resilience. I answered “Leadership, leadership, leadership. And, oh yes, connections and resources.” We talked a bit more about that, and the whole conversation was then pushed to the back of my mind’s garage. It was recently brought back to me when I read a blog from Bill Hooke (Living on the Real World) on leadership, which led me to a column by the Washington Post’s Sally Jenkins on Tim Tebow, which led me to some very interesting work by Robert Hogan.

First, let me define what I mean – and don’t mean – when I talk about a leader. In terms of community action, an effective leader is someone who
• Mobilizes at least part of the community, and its resources, to achieve common goals.
• Works effectively as part of a team to achieve those goals.
• Is committed to improving the community.

Hogan provides some valuable insights into the qualities that make an effective leader (see the figure that I’ve adapted).

First, he notes that being a leader implies having followers – and that it is both the leader’s innate personality and the followers’ perceptions of that personality obtained from the leader’s behavior and actions that make the leader effective. Hogan then identifies the key personality traits of an effective leader:
• Integrity. If followers believe the leader has integrity, it creates trust that the leader will carry out promised actions.
• Vision. People are more likely to follow if they believe that the leader has a vision for what the future should be that is aligned with their own.
• Clarity. People are more likely to follow if the leader can clearly communicate a vision, the goals that must be achieved to attain the vision, and a plan to achieve them.
• Decisiveness. People are unlikely to follow the wishy-washy. Decisiveness indicates a confidence in one’s own direction.
• Competence. To be effective, a leader must be able to use the tools available to move the community forward. Playing the blame game to explain lack of forward motion eventually is seen as a sign of incompetence. While the first four traits can boost a person into a position of leadership, incompetence will eventually unseat them. However, to be competent, a community leader should have experience in working on problems that involve a large part of the community.

An effective community leader does not have to be an elected official; he or she can come from any sector. Hugh McColl, a banker, was not an elected official, and yet he spearheaded the transformation of Charlotte, NC, from a declining textile town into the nation’s second largest financial center.

An effective community leader is not necessarily a manager. Managers are made responsible for the motion of their subordinates in some pre-defined direction based on their positions, through command. Leaders take responsibility for achieving a vision and move others to follow them, through conviction.  However, more often than not, effective community leaders have experience working at the community level. They almost have to, if they are to be able to convince people throughout the community that following them will lead to positive results for all. This is probably why we so often look to elected officials for community leadership. They generally have experience at the right scale of action.

It may be instructive to look at the election of President Obama in 2008. Certainly, there were few apparent differences in the integrity of the two candidates. Mr. Obama laid out a vision for America that was more generally appealing than that offered by Senator McCain, though there was little clarity in either’s vision. Mr. Obama’s confidence during the campaign inspired confidence (or at least hope) that he would be a competent president, while Senator McCain’s choice of Governor Palin led many to question his potential competence as president. Neither candidate had an apparent edge in decisiveness. Thus, the electorate’s view of Mr. Obama as a better potential leader certainly increased his electability.

It is interesting to note that the President’s “leadership quotient” among the electorate has distinctly fallen. He has not demonstrated the ability to get things done, and is continuing to play the blame game after three years on the job. Whether this will hurt him in the upcoming election is questionable, though, and will depend on the personality of his opponent, and the voting public’s perception of his opponent’s leadership potential.

In the next post in this series, I’ll continue looking at community leadership, particularly communications. The ability to communicate is probably the most important single skill a leader must have.

John Plodinec

Resilience and the Hole in the Rock Expedition

December 5th, 2011 - John Plodinec  

Jenae Holtzhafer in the Emmaus (PA) Patch posed this question in a posting this summer.

“What if our circumstances on this Earth suddenly changed? Would we be able to endure the extreme physical and mental challenges faced by our ancestors to push through the hardships and survive with nothing more than basic necessities?”

She pointed to the Hole in the Rock expedition of 1879 as an example of the resilience of our forebears. For those who don’t know the story, in late 1879, 236 Mormons set out on a missionary expedition to southeastern Utah. They had selected the shortest path to their destination – they expected it to take only six weeks, but one that was largely unexplored. Trapped by snow behind them two weeks after they started, they were forced to go forward. Perhaps their most difficult feat was building a wagon road through the hole in the rock – a narrow cut in the cliffs surrounding the Colorado River gorge – and crossing the river. It took them about 8 weeks to build the road and get all of their supplies across, and another 10 to reach the site they choose to establish their “colony.” Amazingly, no one died on the five-month trek, and 238 arrived at the new settlement – two babies were born en route.

Holtzhafer’s gut answer were “No, we are not as resilient – we have lost the skills to survive these hardships.” A closer reading of history, though, makes her conclusion less compelling. The intrepid party – even though they set out as winter neared – was reasonably well-prepared. Eighty wagons, over 1,000 head of cattle, tools, dynamite and other necessary supplies – they were ready to confront what they faced. They had taken full advantage of the technology available to them. In similar circumstances today, most of us we would do the same. While we may have lost some of the skills those hardy Mormons possessed, we have other skills and technologies they did not have.

However, the expedition has an important lesson to teach us – being ready for surprises. The missionaries expected to be gone about 40 days; instead, they were on the road for 100 more. They didn’t expect to have to build a bridge across the Colorado, but they did.

Most communities try to prepare for specific threats – hurricanes, earthquakes, human-induced crises. But look at some of the events the Gulf Coast has experienced in the last decade – a recession in 2001-2; Hurricane Katrina and the levee break; the BP oil spill; the Great Recession…what’s next?

The pessimist looks at this list and says “Why bother to prepare? The next event may well be different. We’ll just adapt to it when it comes.”

The optimist says, “We’re strong, we will weather whatever comes; let’s prepare for what we know.

But the resilient realist says, “Prepare for the known threats, but be sure to include in your preparations those things that will help you survive and thrive in the face of any threat. Most importantly, make sure your people know each other and will help each other, no matter what threat they face.”

A simple thought, but with some profound implications. First, it means we shouldn’t rely on institutions to pull us through a crisis, but on ourselves. Second, we can’t count on getting resources from outside in a crisis – we can only count on what we have in our homes and our neighborhood. Most importantly, the one thing “Government” in general is not doing but could do to prepare us is to hammer these messages home.

Yesterday, I was speaking to a victim of one of the many floods that have hit the St. Louis area. Her house up to the top of the first story was flooded – she had to live in the upper floors. She “commuted” to wherever she had to go in her neighbors’ boats. She pointed out that it took 45 days before the floodwaters had receded enough for safe vehicular traffic to her home. By the time she and her family were ready to begin recovering, the news cameras had moved on; her story was old news; most of the government assistance was gone. With good grace and a sense of humor, she is coming back more or less on her own, with the help of her friends and neighbors.

Her experience shows that some of us, at least, are as resilient as any who came before. Her experience also testifies to the wisdom of the resilient realist: people are the best preparation for surprises.

Warren Edwards

Resilience and the Social Contract

December 1st, 2011 - Warren Edwards  

Democracies, the functional ones at least, are always in a discussion about the social contract between the government and its people. In the United States, the times and conditions may change and the conversation may wax and wane but it is never entirely absent. Usually it centers on whatever topic is perceived to be the most relevant of the day but in general the themes do not change significantly – more taxes or fewer; more regulation or less; federal or state control or no control at all; individual liberty or sacrifices for the common good. What sometimes changes is the intensity of the debate. This change in intensity has led occasionally to seminal changes in the way citizens view our American social contract. The American Revolution began that process for the new nation although the conversation and debate was already an old one in the colonies. Other significant and sometimes dramatic changes occurred during the American Civil War, the Great Depression, and perhaps the aftermath of World War II.

The United States may be in or approaching one of those significant periods of change today. While the themes remain consistent with our past the debate seems now concentrated at the more extreme ends of the spectrum of positions. Beyond ideological advocacy, there appears to be very little interest in or movement toward finding a positive premise around which to organize the debate and give it coherence beyond platitudes and fixed dogma. Resilience, however, provides a powerful concept for organizing thought. It allows the nation to collectively discover practical solutions that avoid the extremes of ideological driven thought. Resilience pursues what works not what someone thinks ought to work.

Resilience when applied to civil society has great appeal. We are in a time when change seems almost overwhelming and disasters, natural and human induced, are evident in each day’s news. Life for many everyday people seems out of control. Resilience requires regaining a measure of authority over our lives, our families and our future. It requires everyday people and leaders at all levels to assess the present and plan for the future. Resilience breeds confidence that we can take action now, withstand adversity when it comes, and rebound quickly and completely.

Resilience has legitimate and practical appeal across a wide range of political philosophies. It requires more self-reliance, more realistic expectations of government, and more personal responsibility at the individual, family and community level. It also acknowledges a leadership place for governments at all levels, a need to address chronic stresses at the local, state and national levels and an equitable opportunity for every American to prosper. Resilience is a way to empower citizens making them the core of the solution rather than simply part of the problem. Empowering citizens, neighborhoods, communities and regions is a way of managing expectations and creating positive action in a time of limited resources. Resilience can be a powerful consensus builder; there are few who will come forward and declare themselves to be anti-resilient.

Just a few years ago, the word resilience was a term of art in the material, medical and ecological sciences. Now it has become so prevalent across a wide spectrum of disciplines that it may be in danger of losing all meaning. Rather than let such a powerful concept go to waste, it is time to make it the thought around which we organize the nation’s conversation about many things but certainly about the relationship between citizens and government.