I’m back from a blogging hiatus, caused by a combination of less-than-positive thinking and cheating on my blog with Twitter. While I’ve been away, I’ve been thinking a lot about learning, people who learn and innovate, and how that relates to the holy grail known as the knowledge economy.

The knowledge economy appears to be the next desired stop on our way out of this recession. It’s a nice concept – transition from a world where we make widgets and produce things in a linear fashion to a world that is more open and flat, with a focus on people, how they think, how they learn, and what that means in terms of what and how they exchange.

But we’re in a mushy spot on the road to this shift, and that’s where my frustration has been over the past few months.

Why should you or I care? Because how we approach an emerging economy has huge implications for how we build our communities and who is included in that effort. How we adapt at the most local level will determine how we transition on the larger scale… I guess I believe the knowledge economy is inherently a grassroots change. (Your thoughts?)

I’m noodling through how to express this constructively, but for now, here’s what I’m chewing on – you could call these missed opportunities or manageable factors on the way to a new kind of working:

A lot of emphasis is on pathways – but what about practices?
Particularly in Michigan, new efforts have focused on increasing the number of college graduates, connecting students with internships, and other initiatives that build a knowledge workforce. What about internal culture, business models, and practices? My sense is that small businesses will be more nimble in this regard, but I wonder how large organizations are making visible shifts or assessing their readiness for new ways of working.

Some companies hire for innovation but manage for status quo.
If organizations want to embrace new ways of working and a new economy, one of the easiest things to do is hire innovators and learners and explore how they think. Sometimes cultural shifts require individual champions. But in my experience, there’s a disconnect between hiring innovators and welcoming the change they bring.

You know your company is struggling with this if they talk about new ideas and bold projects with public stakeholders but internally scoff ideas for improving process, require exhaustive rationale whenever suggesting a different approach, or fail to understand the value of learning if it can’t be directly quantified or monetized. (Maybe this is a regional issue?)

Some choose short-term production over long-term progress.
Maybe we just can’t help ourselves — maybe we’re so darned used to building cars and furniture and parts. If we can build a functional chair and cut some corners along the way, why not? A chair is still a chair, right? And any time you can make a process more efficient, you’re helping the bottom line, right?

It seems knowledge-driven work requires a new kind of logic and new definitions of what makes process and products successful. Efficiency isn’t enough anymore, and it doesn’t mean the same thing. I imagine the organizations that add value to their process and articulate this sense of savvy to customers will be the winners… even if at face value they are selling a similar “end product”: a chair, a car, a website, etc. (For example, would consumer demand for green products be the same if consumers were still only interested in end products like hand soap, detergent, and clothing? We can’t underestimate or ignore the fact that consumers are changing, too, and are already ahead of some companies in terms of this thinking.)

• Again, these are initial thoughts based on personal experiences, conversations, and reading. What has been your experience? What are the hiccups on the way to a new kind of economy, and what does this mean at the local or individual level?

Originally posted at Upside Down Bananas (former blog)

A lot of good conversation has been happening in response to Robert Putnam’s recent study (see also: Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, CitizenPost). It’s a fascinating discussion in a broad/philosophical sense—but more practically, I’ve been interested in how recent activity in my own community connects to the questions Putnam raises about diversity and how it relates to the civic health of communities.

For instance, last Sunday, the local paper’s letter from the editor shared differing perspectives of an area of Grand Rapids that is diversifying economically, socially, and culturally. Our downtown area is experiencing a boom right now that will bring new industry and new people to the city. Urban life has become a draw for many who may not have considered living so close to the city’s core (if in the city at all) in the past.

The letter profiled Jim Wilson, who has lived near downtown for 12 years and who questions the consequences of the development… not to mention the intentions of people moving to the city from the suburbs. As he says:

“We love living in the city, and we are living in the city. Not above it… There’s a sense of melancholy about what we’re losing. Pushed out will be the colorful characters, the street people, the restaurants that were tacky, but had real personality, the neighborhood grocery and drug stores. I miss that blend. The Press story, with pictures of a rooftop swimming pool bothered me. Those people live far above the gritty world down below. I hope that these more affluent types, who gladly pay $12 for a bottle of extra virgin olive oil, will also gladly come down from their towers and walk the streets.”

Reading Jim’s thoughts, I couldn’t help but feel a great sense of urgency… as we speak, as the cranes whittle Michigan Avenue into a new “medical mile”, something is changing forever. In one sense, the area is becoming more diverse, but is that potentially at the cost of other, perhaps less-monitored and less-noted diversity? (After all, would the Press really give quirky neighborhood features like those Jim mentions the benefit of the business/economic development coverage the rooftop pool received?)

Let me be clear—I’m very much for progress. But like Jim, and perhaps like others who have responded to Putnam’s study, I think this progress—the diversification of our communities, our people, and our economies—deserves a deeper, more questioning look, so we can understand the ramifications and seek ways for everyone to benefit.

In Grand Rapids, I’ve learned that one of the effects of our changing community is a shift in voting patterns. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m part of a team that’s developing a neighborhood-based voting project called We Vote. A significant portion of our work to date has involved collaborating with the Community Research Institute (CRI) to review voting patterns over time.

As we started the project, CRI produced color-coded maps to demonstrate local voter turnout. We had been told to expect that the city’s core would be void of color, with the colors getting more intense, and in pretty defined rings around the core, as we headed further from downtown and into the neighborhoods where voting activity is much higher. This is how the data had looked for some time.

But when we used more recent numbers, we realized the ring effect had become garbled. The definitive “donut” we had been told to expect could not be spotted. At first glance, some people interpreted this as a really positive indicator that voter turnout is on the rise in Grand Rapids, which some might also positively relate to a rise in civic engagement.

I’ve never been as comfortable with this conclusion, however, and it gets back to this whole idea of communities “diversifying” at a potentially unknown cost. When I looked at the map, I wondered how it might relate to a map of neighborhood transition from the same time period. For instance, we know that some families from suburbs that are more traditionally engaged (i.e., Rockford, Jenison, East Grand Rapids) are moving into the city. As they move in, they bring their sense of civic responsibility with them, and they also bring expectations and savvy about the kind of community and access they need and deserve.

Even from a logistical perspective, their move affects voting and other access points of civic engagement… more residents might mean additional or different polling locations. A different kind of resident (higher income, consistent voter, etc.) might also mean more attention from or access to politicians.

As Jim points out, while this transition occurs in the city, another kind of neighborhood may feel distanced or may even disappear. Perhaps people from different backgrounds, including those more likely to feel disenfranchised, no longer feel at home. Or perhaps their homes are literally transformed for this new set of urban dwellers. For instance, what happens to low-income renters whose landlords want to take advantage of downtown’s economic upswing?

In a sense, there’s diversity in all of this. But it’s diversity displaced. And when that happens, civic confidence and civic engagement are undoubtedly affected. At least from my initial reading of the Putnam conversations, that’s the key point. This isn’t about diversity threatening the civic equilibrium of places like Grand Rapids. This is about making the civic equilibrium one that is collaboratively defined, with equal access to the process, and with shared responsibility for making that process rewarding for all community members.

Originally posted at Upside Down Bananas (former blog)

When I graduated from college, my husband and I made a conscious decision to stay in Michigan. Less than a year after graduation and securing my first job, we made another conscious decision: to buy a house in the city of Grand Rapids, in a diverse neighborhood that’s close to the growing Medical Mile and a thriving downtown.

Since then, between mowing the lawn, establishing a career, replacing the windows on the house, paying the bills, and watching friends graduate from college, I’ve experienced a nagging frustration: am I the only 20-something worried about the flight of young, talented, passionate people from Michigan?

It’s a fear that distracts me when I’m driving sometimes, especially when I’m on the road to Lansing for a meeting, wondering about how our state is going to reinvent itself as the sole means of sustaining itself. I think about it when I brush my teeth in the morning. I think about it when I’m at my husband’s lacrosse games. He coaches middle school students… kids who are two blinks away from college and perhaps only a degree away from leaving Michigan.

I feel an incredible sense of urgency about this problem of Michigan’s fleeing young talent. It seems so tangible–it’s not a slowly leaking faucet that’s easily ignored. It’s a broken water main that’s threatening our infrastructure.

A recent Detroit Free Press article only confirmed my anxieties–in fact, it made my stomach hurt. Fifty three percent of more than 600 students surveyed at Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and the University of Michigan said they do not plan to stay in the state after graduating.

Fifty three percent. Imagine half of MSU’s student body simply disappearing from the state over the next few years–about 20,000 people (when considering the total undergraduate student body). Social workers, doctors, teachers, writers, actors, philosophers, leaders… a myriad of people–resources–who are gone.

Imagine if even 10,000 of them chose to stay and bought a home. Imagine if only 500 of them became engaged in their local community. Imagine if 100 of them made a commitment to stay forever, invest in their local community, and become leaders personally and professionally. How would Michigan be different in 10, 20, or 50 years?

The answer always seems to be that this is irrelevant because there are no jobs in Michigan. Times are tough–everyone can agree on that. But I can’t submit to the notion that jobs are the end-all, be-all. Most of my peers who have left Michigan did not even try finding a job here. Most of them were talented and well-networked, meaning that there job search would have been difficult but probably not fruitless.

And some friends of mine who do have jobs–and good jobs, in their desired field–still insist that they are leaving Michigan soon. Some talk about going to school, others want to just get out and try something different.

I ask them to buy a house in Michigan and travel everywhere instead. I tell them about the incredible rates MSHDA offers on mortgages to first-time homebuyers. I remind them of economic progress, like the Medical Mile. And I believe fervently… if there was ever a time when thinking globally and acting locally was critical, this is it. If there was ever a time for ambitious 20-somethings to authentically imagine themselves as social entrepreneurs, this is it. (I’m talking about incredible people like my friend Social Citizen–I’m not afraid to name names!)

In short, it’s time to ditch the flight for some fight. The departure of talent from Michigan is not just an economic development problem–it’s a social one. It’s not just a trend–it’s the pulse of our state’s future.

And let’s get this perfectly straight: it’s not just about jobs. That’s a short-sighted excuse for a bigger question about what motivates people to invest in Michigan. This is a conversation about communities–not just jobs. I expect that unless there is some response to the departure of Michigan’s young people, the flight will continue regardless of an improvement in the job market.

This is about pride. And choice. And the opportunity to shape something bigger than yourself… beginning in your local community–maybe just the home you own–and influencing the bigger picture. Maybe it’s not the allure of Sex in the City, but it’s not just homespun simplicity, either.

Michigan is my home, but more importantly: it’s my choice. Who else will choose? If we’re not asking the question, then we’re not doing enough.