Success Breeds Success

The bulk of Orton’s Heart & Soul approach focuses on collaboration that develops the H&S “environment,” implements results through H&S project work and successfully defends against shortsighted threats to H&S values. This approach requires new behavior and thinking by emphasizing broad public participation, identifying shared values and reconciling values with priorities.

Stick with me now...

An implicit objective throughout this work is identifying unique behaviors that preserve the Heart & Soul of a place. So what if the Foundation decided to study small cities and towns that are not currently in decline? What if we investigated places that have successfully defended against threats to their well-being—cultural, economic and otherwise? What if we complimented our current H&S work with a rigorous search for, and a disciplined study of, communities that have managed to sustain their vibrant character? And how would we determine which communities fit the bill? Are they the best places to live according to the AARP? Are they Outside Magazine’s Top Ten? Where are these places, and how do residents—including decision makers—behave in these places? Next, we would need to test those behaviors in our project work and reconcile those behaviors with our approaches.

Rebecca Sanborn Stone’s Review of Processes and Practitioners is a substantial step in this direction, as is the Foundation’s nascent award program, which will (correctly and smartly) celebrate communities that have successfully implemented elements of the H&S approach. But let’s consider going farther by understanding the unique behavior that produced the desirable outcomes. This could happen concurrently with the work already being done and would, as I imagine it, inform and compliment our projects overall. Who might be the best person to conduct this research and analysis? A PhD student, a fellow, cloned staff members?

This notion is an extrapolation of ideas presented early in Influencer: The Power to Change Anything (Patterson, Grenny, Maxfield, McMillan, Switzler: McGraw Hill 2008). One of their premises is that “a few behaviors can drive big change,” and one way to identify those vital behaviors is “by studying positive deviance. Look for people, times, or places where you or others don’t experience the same problems and try to determine the unique behaviors that make the difference.”

While the Foundation is currently testing new behavior, our approach is based largely on people and places that are experiencing significant change and confronting immediate, consuming challenges. Let’s consider identifying and studying stable places (in addition to tools and practitioners) and testing successful behaviors already in practice.