Five Steps to Leadership
By: Mit School Of Architecture
Tags: Urbanismo, Urban Planning, Leadership Skills, Civic Engagement, Leadership

By Jeff Levine

Lecturer of Economic Development and Planning/MIT

Excerpt from “Leadership in Planning: How to Communicate Ideas and Effect Positive Change”

Why do you want to be a planner?

This is one of my favorite job interview questions. It is also one of the best things that graduate school advisors and professors can ask their students. Unfortunately, it’s a rare interview where this question is asked. Inevitably it must come up over the course of two years of graduate school, but it doesn’t get the respect it deserves.

Some of the most common answers include:

“I want to make the world a better place.”

“I want to build sustainable places.”

“I want to reduce global warming and environmental degradation.”

“I love cities and want to work on them.”

“I want to protect open space and farmland.”

“I want to develop multimodal transportation systems.”

These are all very good goals — and I am sure there are others that I am have missed. The answer that rarely comes up is “I want to be a leader.” Most people do not enter urban planning to become leaders. Those who naturally desire leadership more often go into politics, get an MBA, or pursue some other path more directly related to leading. However, leading is an essential part of accomplishing all of the great planning goals that good students and employees pursue. Planners without leadership skills often struggle to do good planning.

That’s because leadership is an important means to their ultimate ends. However, more often planners naturally shun leadership roles, feeling that political leaders are too busy playing politics and that management leaders don’t care about lofty goals. Whatever their initial feelings about leading, planners who dismiss leadership are less effective as planners.

The Power Structure versus the Leadership Structure

Planners are natural functionalists. The idea that there are systems, and that they explain how the world works, is reinforced in most planning disciplines. Transportation planners have the four-step travel demand model. Landuse planners conduct population projections by developing spreadsheets that extrapolate births, deaths, and migrations to predict the future. Statistical analysts look at multivariate regressions and theorize that every additional year of education translates into an additional $10,000 in income (plus or minus $5,000, of course!)

So, when planners enter a work environment, they look at the organizational chart. The new planner in Yellowstone, Northwest Territories (an interesting place to do planning, as an aside) might find this chart awaiting them and feel that they understand the organization.

“I am a Planner 1 in the Planning and Lands Division. Therefore, I report to the head of that division, who reports to the head of the Planning and Development Department, who reports to the City Administrator, and so forth,” they might think. “So, if I do an excellent job on my report, my division head will support it, and support it to his director, who will support it to her boss, and the Council will support it!”

It’s a wonderful concept, and it can sometimes come true. However, it usually takes more than a good report to be an effective planner.

Figure 9.1 Organization chart. Credit: City ofYellowknife, NT, Canada, as modified by the author. Available at: https://www.yellowknife.ca/en/city-government/ organizational-chart-of-city-departments.asp

Effective Planning Leaders

It’s hard to think about effective planning leaders without running into some issues. Robert Moses was, for many years, the most effective planning leader in the United States. However, as was discussed earlier in this book, his other failings make it hard to look to him as a good example. Jane Jacobs was an effective leader in planning — so effective that she was able to lead away from Moses’ path. However, much of her philosophy was based in the failings of the planning profession and the concept that planners should just leave things be.

Edmund Bacon in Philadelphia and Ed Logue in New Haven and Boston come closer to providing examples of planning leadership. However, neither of them was perfect. More recently, New Urbanist pioneers like Andres Duany showed a pathforward with a positive model of planning. While it was often based in re-inventing planning from the ground up — a path that is rarely an option in typical cities — the example has merit.

It’s understandable that many planners eschew leadership. Leading has a bit of a bad reputation in the planning world. Most often when people think of planners leading, they think about urban renewal. Planners led the way in efforts to destroy huge parts of cities in the name of progress. The idea of cleaning up slums and blight became an excuse to drive residents from their homes and to build large-scale, in hospitable buildings to replace them. Those large-scale projects were based on theories planners believed about urban regeneration and LeCorbusier’s “Cities of Tomorrow.” However, as the errors of those theories became clear in practice, it was the planners who had led these efforts that took the blame.

In the 1960s, planners were lumped in with everything that was wrong with society. In the name of “improvement,” planners had led the way to more urban decay. Jane Jacobs, Robert Goodman, and many others castigated planners as intentionally undermining the urban fabric and culture in the name of a larger military-industrial complex.

In reality, most of these planners were probably interested in making the world a better place. They were likely horrified at the results of their work, as well as how they were perceived in popular culture. Planning as a profession retreated and regrouped, and a new generation of urban planners were trained in public participation methods and collaboration.

Figure 9.2 Radiant City. Credit: SiefkinDR. Creative Commons Attribution- Share Alike 4.0 International License, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-sa/4.0/legalcode

Was this result inevitable? What might the planning profession have done differently in the 1950s to avoid this outcome and a half-century of suspicion from the very people they were aiming to help? The answer comes down to the difference between using raw power and leading.

Planners in the urban renewal era were given broad powers to condemn areas they deemed blighted and almost unlimited funds to build replacement buildings. There was no need to consult with the people affected. At the same time, the profession had little understanding about why they should ask people what they thought about these changes.

Not surprisingly, people fought back and the planners lost much of their power. Today, planning is often an administrative profession, where professional staff with graduate degrees do little more than draft staff reports and defer to political leaders and the public. Planners often grumble about this situation. At their worst, planners may wield the limited power they have in making an applicant jump through unnecessary hoops to get their signoff. At their best, they may simply be resigned to the situation and wait for payday.

Figure 9.3 Not even Fairbanks, Alaska, avoided large-scale urban renewal. Credit: Public domain photograph from the 1963 Lathrop High School Yearbook.

It doesn’t have to be this way. There is a difference between the raw power exerted by urban renewal planners and true leadership in planning. There is definitely a difference between the administrative role played by most planners and leadership. How do planners get back to what they are supposed to do — providing the professional planning perspective on complex policy issues and suggesting solutions no one else can? By having the courage and empathy to listen to stakeholders — even angry stakeholders — and responding honestly and clearly. Sometimes this means that the planner has learned from the stakeholder. Just as often, the stakeholder may be missing an important perspective on the issues and needs to hear it. Finding that middle ground takes courage and self-confidence. It requires leadership.

The Great Communicator

Being a planning leader means being a good communicator. There’s more than one way to explain the same information. How you choose to explain it can make the difference between making a new friend and making a mortal enemy.

Part of communicating well is finding the right way to say something. Using the right language means you can find common goals with lots of people, rather than just a select few who share a specific worldview. This can be the difference between leveraging the power of lots of people — some of whom are leaders in their own rights — and just working with a small set of advocates.

A non-planning example of this leadership lies in the coalition that formed to fight against the Axis powers in World War II. There is no doubt that the Allies disagreed on a number of basic things. The United States and the United Kingdom no doubt had major issues with the Soviet Union on matters ranging from human rights to the Soviet Union’s early non-aggression pact with Germany. Even the United States and the United Kingdom had disagreements about issues, although these were not as significant. However, by 1941, the leaders of all three countries had decided that the Axis powers represented a major threat to all of them. They were able to set aside their differences and agree on a common goal that was communicated in the language that worked for each party.

Similarly, in planning, you can often find common goals with surprising allies. Affordable housing advocates can find common ground with Libertarians on reducing regulatory barriers to housing development. Conservationists can find common ground with those concerned about their own property values to reduce development potential on plots that to one party are a sensitive habitat and to the other simply represent a way to get a nice view.

As I will explain below, this finding of common goals is not without its challenges. You may not want to ally with a group that, in other areas that are important to you, hold views you can’t support. Each individual has to find that comfort area where they are willing to make tradeoffs in order to be effective. However, it’s very difficult to be an effective leader if you will not even consider making these tradeoffs.

How to Build an Alliance

Once you have decided that your big ideas are going to need help, you have to build that coalition that will help implement it. This is not as simple as explaining an idea at a planning conference, where everyone may agree it’s a great idea.

In order to create an effective group to advance a good planning idea, you first have to conduct a fairly traditional stakeholder analysis. Who is likely to support your idea? Who may oppose it? Why might they have that view and how can you get potential supporters excited about it?

Once you know who may be supportive, you need to reach out to them. That may not always be possible in a complex political environment. You may need to pick your time and place carefully, and in some cases, you may not be able to meet directly. If you work for a Mayor who does not like a certain City Councilor, you may not want to meet with them, but you may be able to find a common friend who can communicate your ideas to them.

Once you (or someone else) have those meetings, the ideas need to be explained clearly and succinctly. They need to be phrased in plain English or, even better, in the terminology that person is familiar with in their own profession. Reducing the paved area may be a matter of improving stormwater quality to a wetlands scientist and a matter of becoming less car-dependent to a transit advocate.

Figure 9.4 Thinking through stakeholders with whom you work. Credit: Author.

It’s important to be engaged, even excited, without being overbearing. No one wants to have a discussion with a wide-eyed fanatic. And no one wants to have a discussion with someone who is boring and disengaged either.

Listen to what others are saying. Hear their concerns and ideas. You may have been wrong about their interest in supporting yourideas. On the other hand, you may realize your idea isn’t so great after all. Good leaders are good listeners and adjust their plans accordingly.

Find common goals and acknowledge differences with others. You may have to reveal the 800-lb gorilla in the room, in the form of a major difference of opinion you may have with that person, in order to move beyond it. In the case of the City Councilor mentioned above, you may have to explain that, while you like working for the Mayor and like their leadership, this Councilor may not. This doesn’t require a big discussion, but it’s usually a good idea to get the difference on the table and then move beyond it to ideas you may both agree about.

Figure 9.5 A Power-Interest matrix, showing strategies to use based on the quad- rant in which the stakeholder is categorized. Credit: Zirguezi, https://commons. wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stakeholders_matrix.svg

There is more than one kind of community member and leader in this world. In fact, it’s helpful to think of a matrix that divides them into four types based on the amount of power they have in the system and how much interest they have in your ideas. “Latent” stakeholders have the most power but the least interest. “Promoters” have both power and interest. “Apathetic” stakeholders have less of both, and “Defenders” have a high amount of interest but little power. Each can be useful in different planning debates — although, not surprisingly, some are more useful than others — and keeping in mind each style you may work with will help you in framing your big ideas.

Let’s explore each of these groups in a bit more detail:

Latents. These are powerful people if you can motivate them properly. Sometimes they are the people you know support a certain idea, but who aren’t at the public meeting. Lots of Defenders and Promoters are there, so why aren’t the Latents? This situation can be especially frustrating when you have spoken to them and you suspect they are a majority in the community. Even worse, they have spoken to your boss, but won’t bother to come out publicly. Getting Latents motivated to get involved can be important to good leadership. In private settings, public relations firms are often charged with this task. In your public sector world, that’s not usually an option and you and your staff have to serve that purpose.

Apathetics. These may be the true majority of people if you are to believe much of what you hear about Americans nowadays. They just don’t really care much about the issues that put a fire in your belly. Planning is meaningless to them. It’s very hard to get them to be focused on your big ideas unless these are directly related to something they care about at that moment. For example, they may not care about environmental protection until someone proposes filling a wetland next to their house. Getting Apathetics engaged and supportive is a challenging aspect of planning leadership. Sometimes it is a lost cause. Sometimes you are able to find enough of a common interest with them to get support for ideas you want to champion. But be careful! That support can be fleeting. When they want to fill the wetland in their backyard to make space for a trampoline, suddenly they may not support environmental issues anymore!

Promoters. These are the active and powerful section of the population. Whether fighting to protect their neighborhood, pushing for more affordable housing, or supporting good public transit, they put the “civic” in civic engagement. Promoters can be a great thing if they support ideas you want to lead on. If they are opposed, they can be your biggest challenge. Supportive Promoters need to be offered ways to help follow your lead — and most often they will. Ones who do not agree with you deserve engagement and discourse. They may not be convinced you are right, but the fact that you have discussed your ideas with them will often bring respect and deference from political leaders. Also, there may be some times you realize they have a point, and perhaps your leadership efforts should shift course a bit to resolve their concerns.

Defenders. When people want to be Promoters but lack the influence or effectiveness, they are Defenders. Often on the short end of political battles, but with strong opinions, they have the passion, but can’t seem to score the big wins. However, occasionally Defenders will be a part of a winning coalition, as they sometimes can evolve into Promoters. Even if they don’t, they are worth consulting on any big idea, if only because that’s the right way to do planning. Sometimes they may surprise you with their willingness to do little things to follow your lead.

In general, the most effective planning leadership approach is to moti- vate the Promoters who support your lead and activate Latents who support your ideas, but may not bother to do anything unless you tell them what and how. In Figure 9.5 above, I suggest actions to utilize for each of these four types. Playing a game with a lot of players requires playing different hands for each of them. In planning, unlike in cards, that’s allowed — as long as you remain honest at all times.

How Are You Viewed?

I’ve described how you identify various important members of a possible coalition. I’ve also talked about how some people may serve as your loyal opposition that you may not win over, but should engage with anyway. Now comes the next step, which has to do with making that link between wanting to have effective allies and actually having them.

Different Types of Stakeholders Require Different Approaches

This is a difficult part of the process because it involves some soul searching and even honesty about the role of planning in today’s world. Doing so without defensiveness and with an open mind doesn’t make you a bad leader; it makes you stronger.

Think about these various stakeholders: political leaders, neighborhood group presidents, other department heads, and others. Then think about what they think you do all day. Be as cynical as you can and try to sum it up in one sentence. Some examples may be as follows:

• Neighborhood Leaders think you try to destroy the livability of their neighborhoods by not stopping projects that are bad.

The City Manager or Mayor may think you complicate important city pro- jects by bringing up issues like historic preservation.

Other Department Heads ideally think you help them get their jobs done. Sometimes they may not be sure what planners do all day except regulate.

Federal Partners may think you conflate local priorities with federal ones. They may even think you don’t keep good files when they come to audit your grant programs. Ideally, they think your work is an effective way to use federal funds on good local projects.

Some of these may be worst-case scenarios, but may help you think about how to frame your ideas for these people when you want them to follow your lead. To a city manager, you can emphasize how much smoother projects go when they factor in your planning issues ahead of time. To a federal partner, you can remind them that when you look good spending federal grants, they look good. This framing can pre-empt efforts to undermine your leadership with snarky comments or simple reluctance to engage with you on your initiatives.

Five Steps to Political Savvy

So, you know who you need to convince to follow your leadership, and even have some ideas about their personality types and what approach might be helpful to take in relation to dealing with them. There are five universal steps that will help you be an effective leader and allow you to have a good conversation with these members of your community:

Reach out to them. It takes time to build interpersonal relationships. You can’t just start when you need someone’s support; you have to show real interest and good listening skills. This takes time and effort. It may even involve opening up a little bit and adding a personal dimension. This is where planners who are more gregarious are at a big advantage. As you meet with people for a periodic coffee or at least a phone call, spend some time learning about their values and needs. By all means, meet with the neighborhood activist who doesn’t seem to like you very much. Explain your perspective. As you build this relationship, periodically explain what you hope to get done — not just in the moment, but in the long term. Have concepts that are compelling like “I want to make it easier to build the right things in our city and harder to build the wrong things.” As part of this conversation, explain why you want their support. Be honest. Speak from your heart, not as a calculating bureaucrat. Tell this neighborhood activist why you support density in the neighborhood, at least sometimes. Acknowledge your differences. Many people will have different views of the world from you. That’s OK. It’s important to recognize these differences and be upfront about them, so that you can get past them. Tell people that you may disagree on those issues, but you hope you can agree on certain common concepts. Be honest, but also focus on what you have in common. Be clear that you understand the activist does not support dense infill developments most of the time. Respect them. Respect stakeholders’ power. Tell them you know that they have some influence and you are hoping to get them to use that influence to help on the efforts you have in common with them. Don’t be condescending. As you speak to stakeholders, keep in mind that you identified them for a reason and remember why. Tell that neighborhood activist that you know lots of people listen to them on planning issues and that you hope you can get them to support your ideas. Say their support matters. This almost goes without saying, but explain why you want — maybe even need — their support to pull off your effort. Don’t pander to them, but explain why it is important to you. Try to explain why working closely with you on this effort helps them as well. Tell the activist that you hope to gain their trust, if not agreement.

These five steps are not always going to be the same. You will probably not have time to follow them all with each person you need to support your efforts. On the other hand, as good planners know, you have to know what plan to deviate from. These five steps are the ideal plan to start from.

Isn’t This Just Empty Spin?

At this point, you may be wondering if you are reading a book about planning or a self-help narrative. Even worse, maybe you are wondering if you are reading a book on the ad business or even Soviet-era propaganda.

No, this is important for you as a planner. It’s not the same as selling cigarettes or convincing citizens to work harder. You will be using some similar tools, but hopefully for a much more civic end. Rather than selling candy, you are selling ideas that will make your world a better place.

Figure 9.6 Using good leadership skills is not the same as doctors selling cigarettes! Credit: Collection of Stanford Research into the Impact of TobaccoAdvertising, https://tobacco.stanford.edu

Figure 9.7 Nor is using good social skills to lead the same as pushing for the end of capitalism! Credit: Public domain in the U.S.

In Other Words…

Planners have lots of big ideas, but don’t always spend time figuring out how to get people to care about them. Most often planners use their own language to describe ideas — an effective tool to get support from other planners, but not so much for political leaders or the public. Thinking about why others should care about your ideas is an important tool for leadership.

Leading is hard work. Once you have your big idea, the work has just begun. First you need to identify the stakeholders who may matter in implementing your idea. Then you need to figure out what kind of stakeholders they are. Finally, you need to spend a lot of time working with them to find common threads between what motivates them and where you want to lead. It’s much more time-consuming than just sitting in a conference hearing about the new ideas in planning. On the other hand, you probably entered this profession to make a difference. This is the best way to make sure the difference you are making is the one you care most about.