Power vs control

The more you try to control knowledge workers, the less power you have.

That's one of the key challenges facing managers in the knowledge economy - which includes urban planning, as well as community and economic development.  (Any organization whose primary work involves creating and sharing ideas is part of the knowledge economy.)  Knowledge creation workers are those people whose main jobs are creating and distributing ideas or information.  You most likely fit in this category.

The function of management is to achieve results as efficiently as possible.  Traditionally, managers do this through control and coordination.  This makes sense when talking about inanimate resources - funds, equipment, property, etc.  In the late 19th century and early 20th century, promoters of bureaucracy and scientific management extended this idea to people.  Actually, treating people like property or farm animals is as old as slavery.  Authors like Weber and Taylor helped bosses justify this treatment.

In those days, this way of thinking seemed to work (for the companies). Before the advent of unions, most industrial workers had few options.  Large families often depended on single wage-earners, who often had limited education and limited resources.  And the output of industrial workers could be easily measured.  So if a manager treated a scared worker like a pack animal, and the worker produced more, the manager felt justified.

Let's put aside the moral issues of literally dehumanizing people by treating them as capital.  Why is the old industrial model ineffective with today's knowledge workers?

Most industrial age workers produced tangible products, through the combination of physical labor and machines. With the exception of those workers who could carry all their equipment with them, industrial age workers had to be at specific locations at specific times for the organization to run efficiently.  Knowledge workers produce ideas.  They can function anywhere, anytime. In economic terms, knowledge workers "own the means of production."  In industrial organizations, the machinery and the physical health of the worker had to be strong to produce more units.  (The quality of the units depended on the workers' motivation, but quality control wasn't as big a concern for management researchers a century ago.)  The ability of knowledge workers to produce more and better ideas depends on more than their competence and creativity.  Their emotional state is just as important.  A knowledge worker who is angry, distracted, has low morale or feels powerless is going to produce at a lower level of quality and quantity.  You can't measure the amount or worth of knowledge that doesn't happen.   Since you can't get inside a worker's brain and soul, you can't know when or whether a knowledge worker is at peak production.  Most knowledge workers are sophisticated enough to know how to appear productive.  So they can spend hours at the office "doing their job" without producing.

What do knowledge workers want?  The same things everybody does - respect, flexibility, acknowledgment and affirmation.  Workers who are committed to an organization's mission want to be treated as resources, not capital.  (Anyone who thinks that workers are motivated only by money needs to take a basic course in human resources management.)

Thus the power/control conundrum.   The more you try to control knowledge workers, the less productive they will be.  In fact, they might work slower, make more mistakes, or be thinking more about their next jobs than the ones they have.

Here's another thing managers need to know:  Supervisors can not motivate staff.  Everyone has their own distinct set of motivations, and they will pursue what they value most.  Supervisors who want to improve the performance of their staff need to understand what they most want, and do what they are able to help workers meet their own interests.

                                                  --Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

 

Do you have a professional development tip you would like to share?  Have a question that you would like to see answered here?  Please send it to Leo at vazquezl@rutgers.edu

In the 21st century, planners need a new watchword

“Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty.” Daniel Burnham

Daniel Burnham’s biggest influence on urban planners was not in urban design but in their DNA. Burnham created the model of large, comprehensive thinking in the 1909 Plan of Chicago. And many if not most planners today focus on orderly and harmonious development.


This has brought a lot of benefit to the places we serve. When property owners know what their neighbors can do with their property, there is less risk, and property values go up. Planning that provides a clear set of goals and objectives can give stakeholders more hope about places that are unsafe and unhealthy.

But the lust for order nurtures intolerance. Anyone who makes order their watchword is going to be uncomfortable with diversity. Maybe not a diversity of land uses, because zoning maps don’t talk back at you. Tension builds when people with different perspectives, beliefs and demands share space. This tension is usually not orderly or beautiful.

But diversity is valuable, if not essential, for enhancing creativity and helping communities find better and more sustainable solutions to difficult problems. (There are a lot of scientific studies that prove this point. Start with Scott Page’s The Difference) Planners who want to help their communities succeed in the 21st century need to do better at balancing the discomfort of diversity with the demand for order.

If you read the works of Leonie Sandercock, Stacy Harwood, and the authors they reference, you’ll see how planners use racially neutral language and methods of problem solving to perpetuate structural racism and stymie innovative thinking. I believe that most planners are open-minded and welcome creativity, so I think that what we’re seeing is the impact of decades of incomplete or misguided professional training.

Oyster Bay is the latest in a long string of communities to use the “order defense” to make it more difficult for low-income Latinos to look for work there. A new ordinance prevents a pedestrian from soliciting employment while standing on a sidewalk. Of course, there is no specific language targeting Hispanics (there never is). It just happens that the people who are most affected by this are low-income Latinos. More than 90 years ago, the city of Louisville, Kentucky used the order defense to justify zoning that prevented African-Americans from buying property in white communities. (The city argued in Buchanan v. Warley that the ordinance was to protect the safety of African-Americans, who would be attacked for moving into white neighborhoods.) Burnham’s most powerful descendants, including Robert Moses, used urban renewal to clear away neighborhoods and build housing projects that looked orderly on paper but failed in real life. Even the New Urbanists display their order gene through their formulas and intolerance of urban design that doesn’t fit their romanticized visions of pre World-War II American communities. (That’s probably why a couple of New Urbanist leaders got their hats handed back to them when they tried to push a diverse area of Biloxi, Mississippi to adopt new urbanism.

Is all this the fault of planners? No. But they do often unintentionally aid and abet. And this is again a result of the order gene. By focusing on orderly practices, planners in many cases are little more than coordinators, data jockeys and glorified jacket holders for powerful interests in communities. Unable or unwilling to manage the complexity of diversity other than by avoiding it, planners in many cases squander their powers to lead.

In another essay, I wrote about how planners can more effectively work with diversity by being more culturally competent. And in that vein, I understand why Burnham placed so much emphasis on order and beauty. The industrial revolution changed American cities dramatically. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, cities got packed with huddled masses who couldn’t breathe free because of the dirty factories that polluted their communities. The nation was only a few decades away from an existential struggle over who should have what civil rights, and the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants who had for centuries ruled urban centers were understandably distressed by so many people of different colors and creeds crowding cities.

But that was then. Why is the desire for order still so entrenched in the minds of urban planners? One reason is that the public sector, being focused on the efficient delivery of services, tends to be less tolerant of risk than the private or nonprofit sector. Public administrators are trained to focus on the efficient delivery of services. That, combined with the fear of looking bad in public when mistakes are made, tend to make public sector leaders value stability and fear change. But all organizations – especially large ones – tend to become more orderly over time. It simply is more efficient and less risky to repeatedly do the same thing. Another reason is that planning school students tend to be trained by social scientists. They are the core faculty members, which means they determine what is taught and how, who gets to teach, and the culture of learning. Though scientists learn by trial and error, the ideal scientific method is orderly (and frankly, a little compulsive). So planners are trained to value order, and then they see that maintaining order is the best way to get ahead in their organizations. It’s no wonder then that the person who most changed the way planners think was a self-proclaimed ‘housewife’ with no college degree and no formal training in architecture or urban planning – Jane Jacobs.

A third reason is that humans crave order in times of change.  That desire is why relationships (even bad ones) persist, why cultural habits continue, and why charismatic individuals who offer easy solutions become leaders in times of crisis. Many planners want to serve the interests of the communities they work for, so it's natural that these planners would want to give people what they want: a sense of order.

But while order is a short-term relaxant, it makes societies vulnerable in the wake of changing conditions.  (One of the best studies of how societies fail when they fail to change is Jared Diamond's book, Collapse)

So we can understand how Burnham’s words became a part of the planner’s genetic makeup. But we know that DNA is not destiny. Planners can learn to do a better job of working with diversity while effectively promoting order. But first they have to realize their genetic makeup, question their assumptions, and develop new ways of thinking and acting.

In the 21st century, let your watchword be balance and your beacon creativity.

Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

When a fence is more than a fence

Someone in my hometown, a leafy, liberal New Jersey suburb, put up a fence. It's a nice fence: Americana white pickets that curve gently, rising from two feet high to a little more than four feet where they meet the solid fenceposts. It stands at the property lines of a beautiful Victorian-style house. I went to a zoning board meeting to have it removed.

My problem was not the fence itself. It was the symbolic communication of the fence. Several years ago, my town required in its zoning ordinance that front-yard fences be no more than two feet high and placed no closer to the street than the building setback line. (The setback line is the marker that tells you how close your building can be to the street or your neighbors' property.) The purpose was also symbolic: to let residents and visitors know that the town is safe and welcoming. Fences send a different message: This is my property. Stay away.

Another reason: The fence was built illegally. The property owner's representative said his client was given permission by the local building official to put up the fence, but offered no proof. If the zoning board allowed the property owner to keep the fence, the board would implicitly be sending the message that it's better in our town to beg forgiveness than to ask permission. Obsessing over rules and regulations may be unwise and unhealthy -- except to lawyers -- but sometimes you risk compounding a mistake by letting it go.
In his application to the zoning board, the applicant said that the fence was for safety and privacy. But this didn't make much sense. Neighbors said there were never any problems with intruders walking on the property. (A two-foot fence is not going to deter anyone anyway.) The fence has large gaps where you would expect gates to be, as well as gaps between fence posts and trees on the property. So it seems that the fence is meant to say: This is my property. Stay away.

After objections to the fence by several neighbors, the zoning board denied the applicant's request.

This story is not really about a fence. It is about the strength of objects in our built environment to be symbols. Symbols are physical objects (like fences) or conceptual objects (like logos) that convey information about the values, beliefs, customs, etc. of a place or organization.

Symbols are powerful because they give us a shorthand way of processing information about complex systems. We use symbolic communication every day in our gestures and rituals, and often convey symbolic stature on the objects in our offices and communities.

Imagine that your office is ordering new chairs. Everyone gets the same type of chair, except for the office director. Now the chairs aren't just furniture. They're symbols of the difference in status between the office director and everyone else.

Of all the land use disciplines, urban design and place marketing are most focused on symbolic communication. Too many people make the mistake of thinking that streetscaping, historic preservation and other urban design issues are just "decoration" and luxuries. These people tend to think that market forces will ensure quality design, or that no one should be told "what to do" with their property. This is an expensive mistake. People would rather go and live where they can make sense of place; in other words, where the symbols provide clearer communication.

Of course, urban design can be used as a tool for excluding people or trying to control social behavior.  That is why in an increasingly diverse world, we have to be more mindful of the symbols, and the people who determine the rules about them, in our communities.  Take a look at your community's historic preservation, zoning, and design review boards.  How much diversity do you see there?

So there has to be a balance between the community's desire to provide some sense of order and individuals' desires to express themselves and feel they have a stake in the community. In this case, the fence sent a message that was wholly inconsistent with the community's intended messages of openness and friendliness. That's why no matter how nice the fence was, it was in the wrong place for the wrong reasons. If you find yourself on an architectural review board that is deciding what colors should be allowed on residential properties, please do more than look at what colors you like. Think about who likes those colors and what they symbolize about the community.

   

--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Do you have a professional development tip you would like to share? 

Have a question that you would like to see answered here?  

Please send it to Leo at vazquezl@rutgers.edu

Minimizing mistakes under pressure

While rushing to do other things recently, I sent out an email newsletter with the wrong title on it.  It was the kind of simple mistake that can make you look bad.  Someone might think: “If they can’t something as simple as an email headline right, how can we trust them on the big issues?”

As we are pressured to work with fewer resources and more stress, we’re more likely to make mistakes.  When they happen at work and are visible to others, they tend to reflect on our departments, divisions, organizations, or even fields.

Trying to stop every mistake can be time-consuming and expensive.  Here are some tips for cost-effectively minimizing mistakes under pressure:

*When reviewing statistical information, or any document with lots of facts and figures (such as a budget), do a random check on every third or fourth fact on random pages.  If you find errors this way, there’s a good chance there are more in the document.  You might be able to also find the cause of the errors (such as calculating figures from the wrong column).

*If a “fact” doesn’t sound right, flag it.  You might be surprised by your research, but more often the data will support your intuition.

*Double-check the proper names of all places and people in documents.  Readers tend to be sensitive about these errors, and critics tend to see more than just simple mistakes in them.

*To mark that a fact has been double-checked, write CQ, ZD, <>, or some combination of characters that normally do not appear together in English.  The notation indicates to the final editor that the fact has been verified.  The notations can be easily removed through find and replace features in office programs.  Even if a notation gets published, it will look like nothing more than a harmless typographical error.

*Walk away from your document for at least an hour.  Forget about it – literally, but just for that hour.  This way you can come back to it with a fresh set of eyes.  When you have worked too hard and too long on a document, you tend to see what you expect to see, rather than what is there. 

Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Principles of culturally competent planning and placemaking

Cultural competency defined

Cultural competency is a set of knowledge and skills to help individuals engage more effectively in culturally diverse environments.  Culture has many definitions, but in the realm of social sciences, it usually refers to a shared set of beliefs of behaviors exhibited by a distinctive group.  (Schein, 1992; Rice, 2008)  Culture is manifested in many ways, including through language and non-verbal communication, customs, religious exercise,  and bodies of knowledge passed on by mentors and teachers.  Objects, symbols and other elements of the physical environment reflect cultural values.  The red brick (or stamped red concrete) sidewalks in the suburbs of New York are not simply design features.  They are meant to evoke a romanticized image of what many residents might consider a simpler and more orderly period in American history.

Culture also serves as a touchstone to help individuals connect themselves to the larger world.  When someone introduces him or herself as “I’m a ___________,” that person is connecting to a group that has a distinct cultural identity.  This aspect of culture is particularly important to community-level urban design, in which physical elements of a place are either destroyed or preserved.

When cultures intersect in groups, organizations, or societies, there are dominant and subordinate cultures.  Dominant cultures tend to have the greatest array of political, financial, or other capital.  One of the privileges of dominance is to establish the frame of reference for the collective. Their cultural view becomes the “correct” view while diverging perspectives of subordinate cultures are seen as odd or deviant.  Typically, members of the dominant culture are unaware of their biases.  When that happens, they become less culturally competent.

This helps explain why multiple cultures persist, even as societies work to become more inclusive.  For people who feel disenfranchised, their group identity provides a source of validation and empowerment.  Where a society or organization imposes restrictions on individuals, culture provides an opportunity for individuals to reach their higher level psychological needs – personal growth, self-actualization (being ‘all that you can be’) and transcendence (helping others meet their higher level needs). (Huitt, 2004)  Historically, churches in African-American communities provided such opportunities.  A man who because of racism could not reach his personal or professional goals in the larger, White dominated society, could become a deacon or other position or prestige within the church.  It is not surprising, that Fox News, known for its conservative and libertarian commentators, saw ratings jump in the first few weeks after Barack Obama became the United States President. (Shea, 2009) 

The White (Non-Hispanic) American urban planner who says “If they don’t show up at the charrette, they don’t care”1 epitomizes this lack of cultural competence.  The planner bases his judgment on his own frame of reference:  If you care about your place, you participate in civic life.  The planner had not considered that some stakeholders may feel intimidated or uncomfortable expressing themselves among design professionals. 

Because all people have multiple cultural characteristics that impact the way they experience and view the world, all groups have some amount of cultural diversity.  Typically, discussions on cultural competency focus on engagement with individuals of different genders, races, ethnicities and sexual orientation.  Less discussed, but equally important, are differences among professional and sectoral cultures – such those between a public sector urban planner and a private sector civil engineer. 

Cultures are dynamic.  Individuals are challenged to rethink their beliefs and behaviors in light of changes in the environment and within themselves, especially as they work to integrate their multiple identities.  So, like defining the waves in river, it is impossible to accurately know every culture.  

“It would be naïve to think that one could know the world from someone else’s shoes,” Umemoto says (2005: 187)  Nor is it realistic to think that one could become conversant in an unlimited number of cultural paradigms.  It is not unrealistic, however, to create the foundation for social learning that emphasizes multiple epistemologies2 within planning processes.”

Cultural competency focuses on three dimensions: awareness, beliefs and behaviors

Awareness is the ability to recognize and understand the reasons for the actions of individuals from one’s own and others’ cultures. Awareness elements include:                      

•  Self-awareness.  Specifically, the individual recognizes that his or her own perceptions and ability to get new information are limited by his or her own experiences and prejudices.  Individuals who are self-aware have a better understanding of how the world sees them, and how they in turn see the world.  
  
  
•  Awareness of others’ cultural beliefs and behaviors.  This also includes an awareness of the social, economic and other environmental factors that maintain or change cultural beliefs and behaviors. 
  
  
•  Awareness of power relationships among dominant and subordinate cultures, and how they manifest themselves in beliefs, behaviors, and the physical elements of a society.
  
  
•  Awareness that individuals are both distinct and have multiple cultural identities.  Every individual is a member of multiple groups – gender, race, ethnicity and profession.  The experience of having multiple identities, as well as innate characteristics – such as physical strength and intelligence – causes individuals to have beliefs and engage in behaviors that depart from the stereotype of a particular culture.
  
  
•  Awareness that because of the complexities and dynamics of multiple cultures, organizations and individuals are never fully culturally competent.  Cultural competency for individuals, groups and societies is a continual learning process.

Beliefs are the judgments about the world that shape how individuals determine what information is valid and what sources are reliable.  Individuals rationalize their behaviors through their beliefs.  Culturally competent beliefs include:

•  Valuing differences among people and groups.  Culturally competent individuals do not just tolerate difference – they seek it out because they believe that diversity will lead to better outcomes.
  
  
•  Believing that individuals should suspend judgment when examining the beliefs and behaviors of other cultures.  This is not to say that individuals should tolerate or support every behavior of every culture, but that every one should be assessed before it is evaluated.
  
  
•  Believing that individuals act rationally according to their own sets of cultural beliefs.  Individuals will act to get what they value most.  The challenge to the culturally competent individuals is to understand the value structures and hierarchies of people who differ from them.

Behaviors are actions that flow from awareness and beliefs.  Individuals demonstrate their cultural competency through a variety of behaviors, including:                   

•  Communicating effectively across cultural boundaries.  This refers to the ability to communicate effectively with others (both sending and receiving messages).
  
  
•  Seeking diversity in problem-solving and group activities. 
  
  
•  Taking actions to promote cultural competency in others.

Cultural competency and placemaking

Where cultural competency matters most is in the area of placemaking.

Placemaking is the set of processes by which a geographic area becomes more than the sum of its parts.  New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco are major American cities with the same economic and social elements.  But they are felt by many people to be different “places.”  They have distinct meanings and cultural identities.  

Neill (2004:112) identifies three key elements of placemaking:

“The first of these involves the functional city of jobs and services extending to environmental well-being.  It is strongly influenced by economic positioning and social class.  Civic identification and the feeling of stakeholding involves expressions of ‘pride in place’ and has a relationship to how local place-making decisions are made.  Such processes can entail varying degrees of fairness, equality and inclusiveness. Cultural attachment to place goes beyond the city as a container or ‘theater’ for social activity.  It involves an emotionally charged spatial imagination extending from the personal to the various collective manifestations, including spiritual and symbolic identifications.  This often involves the endowment of space with deep meaning.”

Places reflect more than the collective values of a culture.  They represent the structure of values (Lynch, 1981).  This structure includes:

•  Strong values – What a society (through its decision-makers) values most.  Objects and other resources that represent strong values get more prominence and support from a society.
  
  
•  Weak values – Other values reflected, to a lesser extent than strong values.
  
  
•  Wishful values – Stated values, which are not well-represented in a place.  
  
  
•  Hidden values – Unstated values that are well represented in a place.

Consider a city in which the master plan calls for increased equity through more affordable housing.   Only about half of the amount of housing called for in the plan is built.  The units are in isolated and undesirable pockets of the city.  Residents of the city have to travel farther and longer than wealthier residents to get to jobs, shopping and schools.  “Increased equity” is a weak, or even wishful value.  The hidden value in this example would be a preservation of economic privilege.  The culturally competent planner would know how to assess the value structure within the community.   

In downtown Detroit, near the City Council offices, there is a statue of a large black fist swinging in a triangular frame. In a predominantly African-American city facing a significant amount of crime, underemployment, and resident anger, the statue is not merely an aesthetic representation of a human body part.  It is an expression of African-American power.  (Neill, 2004)

Culturally competent planning and placemaking

Thus, culturally competent planning and placemaking would include the following knowledge and behaviors:

Awareness:                 

•  Of one’s own theories of what “good planning” is, and how one’s own experiences and biases shape those theories.
  
  
•  Of the cultural beliefs and behaviors of one’s own professional and sectoral cultures.
  
  
•  That stakeholders are likely to have experiences and biases about planners and planning that will affect how they relate to planners.  In other words, stakeholders may be responding more to the position than to the individual.
  
  
•  Of the impact of land uses on people of different cultures, in particular members of low-income and disenfranchised communities.
  
  
•  Of the roles planners have historically played in promoting and institutionalizing the interests of dominant cultures within communities.
  
  
•  That members of cultures which have had little positive experience with urban planners are less likely to participate in collaborative planning engagements.  As a result, planners may inadvertently prepare reports and plans that serve the needs of dominant groups within an environment.
  
  
•  Of the distinct and overlapping cultures within a study area, and the ability to see the “cultures within cultures” (for example, national origin in Latino or Asian communities).
  
  
•  Of the norms of different cultures, as a way of demonstrating respect and knowledge.
  
  
•  Of the relationships of power among planning professionals and other actors in the development and maintenance of the built environment, and among planning professionals and the various communities with which they interact.

Beliefs: 

•  Planning is about making choices, and all choices in planning are normative.  In other words, a choice is neither right nor wrong, but a better (or worse) way to further values.
  
  
•  Cultural beliefs and behaviors have significant impacts on urban planning from the neighborhood to the regional levels.
  
  
•  Cultural beliefs and behaviors are important sources of data to be ascertained prior to preparing a plan.
  
  
•  The best ways to understand how people of different cultures would be impacted by planning is to engage them in collaborative planning practices.
  
  
•  The best teams are diverse, and are led by individuals who value diversity and inclusiveness and have the skills to manage the conflicts that arise from diversity.
  
  
•  Planners and planning organizations should seek to model the same kind of cultural competency they hope to see in communities.
  
  
•  Planners should seek to be both more self-aware and aware of other cultures as part of their own professional development.
  
  
•  Planners must have the courage to reconsider and change beliefs and behaviors that are counterproductive or inefficient in the context of cultural competency.  

Behaviors:  

•  In culturally diverse environments, significant amounts of resources are focused on engagement and collaborative practice.
  
  
•  Planning directors and managers habitually build culturally inclusive organizations and teams.  Directors and managers develop skills suited to lead such organizations and teams.
  
  
•  Planners work to understand and be understood by culturally diverse audiences.  Where planners are limited by their own communication skills, they engage others (individuals, organizations) to bridge communication gaps.
  
  
•  Planners prepare documents that can be understood by as many people as is reasonably feasible.
  
  
•  Planners and planning organizations engage in continual reflective practice so that they can become more aware and better adapt to new information and changing conditions.

Implications for planning education

Various authors have written about cultural diversity and communicative practice (Umemoto, 2005).  These authors include Sandercock, Thomas, Forester, Healey, Baum and Friedmann.  While the topics appear to be a growing part of the literature of planning, many planning skills do not require students to demonstrate their ability to work effectively across cultures. 

By reframing the term cultural diversity as ‘cultural competency,’ it can be established as a knowledge base as critical to the planning practitioner in the 21st century as urban design, demography, or qualitative research skills. This primer is also designed to help readers and educators operationalize cultural competency by providing measurable goals that educators and practitioners can use to test their knowledge and mastery of the cultural issues in planning. 

References:

Huitt, William. G. 2004. Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.  http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html 

Lynch, Kevin. 1981.  Good City Form. Cambridge: MIT Press

Neill, William. J. 2004. Urban Planning and Cultural Identity. New York: Routledge.

Rice, Mitchell F. 2008. “A Primer for Developing a Public Agency Service Ethos of Cultural Competency in Public Services Programming and Public Services Delivery,” in Journal of Public Affairs Education. Volume 14, No. 1.  Spring 2008.

Schein, Edgar. 1992.  Organizational Culture and Leadership.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Shea, Danny. 2009.  “Fox News Ratings ‘Crazy High’ During Obama Administration, #2 Channel in All of Cable,” in The Huffington Post. March 24, 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/24/fox-news-ratings-crazy-hi_n_178615.html

Umemoto, Karen. 2005. “Walking in Another’s Shoes: Epistemological Challenges in Participatory Planning,” in Bruce Stiftel and Vanessa Watson (eds.), Dialogues in Urban & Regional Planning. London and New York: Routledge

Footnotes:

1 Yes, this was actually said to the author by a nationally-known American non-Hispanic planner.

2 Epistemology is a field of thought focused on how knowledge is produced and validated. 

For more information:

Only a few authors in the planning field have explored this issue in ways that are useful to practicing planners.  The best sources of more information are the works of Leonie Sandercock (especially Towards Cosmopolis) and John Forester (especially The Deliberative Practitioner  and Planning in the Face of Power).  Another excellent source of wisdom is Kenneth Reardon, who as an academic and practitioner promotes culturally competent planning practice. 

--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Speaking truth to false dilemmas

"Either build that toll road to lessen congestion or let traffic speeds go down to 10 miles an hour during the rush." "The debate about global warming is about letting the free market take its course or making regulations that will hurt our economy." "Either I take this job that I'm going to hate, or just not have any income coming in for six months." These are examples of false dilemmas, a rhetorical tool that blights productive conversations. False dilemmas make us less creative and more prone to making bad choices.

A false dilemma is a statement that creates the impression that there are only a few real options, when there may in fact be many more. In the first example, there may be other realistic options to reducing congestion besides a toll road -- such as more public transportation, improvements to existing roads, etc.

There are two main causes for false dilemmas: either the speaker is not aware that other realistic options exist, or the speaker is trying to manipulate us into accepting the speaker's preferred alternative. A classic example is the case of residents of a low-density suburb who oppose townhouses or apartment buildings on the grounds that these buildings will turn their community "into a city." Assuming there are no ulterior motives, this is an example of an innocent false dilemma. To these residents, a "suburb" and a "city" are completely different, and there is no way to combine the best of both worlds.

What should you do when confronted with a false dilemma? The best approach is to name it and show that there are a number of reasonable choices. But this is easier said than done.

• If you're in a position of authority, you can simply make the speaker aware that other possibilities exist, and should ask the speaker to investigate other options.
  
  
• If you're in a subordinate or peer relationship (such as with a colleague or client), you have to be more artful.
• First, try to understand why the speaker is making the false dilemma. Does it appear to be a lack of awareness? Or is something more going on there?
• If your relationship with the speaker is already tense, avoid naming the false dilemma. This may aggravate the tension and cause the speaker to dig in on a position.
• Ask non-threatening questions, such as "what would happen if..." "have someone considered..." These may help to expand the thinking of the innocent speaker. The manipulative speaker may still dig in, but other members of the audience might start to think differently.
• Create learning opportunities. To help residents think differently about higher density houses, planners and architects use charrettes and other public forums to show how many communities can add different types of buildings and stores while protecting their character.
  

If you have a professional development tip you'd like to share, please send your tip to Leo Vazquez at vazquezl@rci.rutgers.edu.  Please also give us your full name, title and affiliation, so we can give you proper credit.

Conducting urban land use surveys safely and efficiently

No matter how much information is available online or in your database, you will still need to do in-person surveys to determine land uses, building conditions, occupancy, and architectural details. Here are some tips for doing so safely and efficiently.  

1. If you don't have existing or relatively current land use data, go onto Bing maps (formerly Microsoft Live Maps) to get a bird's eye view of your survey area.
This free service offers a good amount of detail that can help you get started in your survey. Using the bird's eye view at the highest resolution, you can see sharp images that provide useful information about a property (number of stories, general architectural style, accessory structures). The zoom is not high enough to look at building conditions. The aerial photographs appear to be relatively recent (at least since 2005).

2. Surveys should always be done with at least two people

If you think it's dangerous to drive and text message at the same time, imagine doing a land use survey while driving. Don't do it. The driver should focus on driving, the passenger(s) on collecting data. Use a car, van or SUV with large windows. If you are working in an area with active drug, gang, or prostitution activity, avoid driving the same street multiple times, or making visible notes while in the middle of a dangerous area. You are probably going to be watched by people who don't like to be watched themselves.

If you're planning a walk-around survey, you might think you could save money by having one person do it instead of two.  Actually, it might cost more.  There's usually too much data for one person to absorb.  So a surveyor working alone is more likely to work more slowly, make more mistakes, or simply miss important details.  If your budget can't handle two professionals conducting surveys, consider asking for volunteers and use the process as a way to teach ways of reading the urban environment.

3. Let local community organizers and police know if you're going to be doing a land use survey in an area with drug or prostitution traffic
If you're in an area with a high amount of drug or prostitution activity, police might get the wrong impression about why you are in the area. Local community organizers, or other representatives from community-based organizations, can guide you to help you avoid embarrassing or uncomfortable situations. Ask your partners about any places where you need to be especially careful.

4. Do walk-around surveys early in the morning, preferably with someone from a local organization
The safest time to do your surveys is in the mornings, especially around rush hour. This is when more people are around, and there is less likelihood of gang or other dangerous criminal activity. In safer communities, it is better to do your surveys when residents are around so that there is less likelihood of your being mistaken for a burglar or a robber.

5. Wear clothes that make you stand out
You're less likely to be seen as a threat -- either to residents, police or criminals -- if you wear clothing and accessories that clearly show that you're in the neighborhood to do work. Utilities workers and delivery people typically wear uniforms or have vehicles with clear labels. You may want to get a light colored safety vest (such as what road repair people wear) or wear bright clothing to show that you want to be visible. You may also want to wear a name or organizational badge to stand out even more.

6. Trust your feelings
If at any point you feel unsafe, get out of the area and come back another time.

lf you have a professional development tip you'd like to share,

please send your tip to Leo Vazquez at vazquezl@rutgers.edu.

Getting to the point: An exercise

Busy people have little time to read and listen.  You want to get their attention?  Present your best arguments quickly, clearly and concisely.

Here's an exercise that can help.  You will need a large index card, a small index card, and a smaller sheet of paper (such as a 3x3 square).

First, write down everything you want to say on a regular sheet of paper.  Use as many sheets as you'd like.  (If you don't want to write something new, use something already prepared, such as a memo.)

Now write it again, on the larger index card.  Use one side only.  You have less space; think about what's most important.  (No fair writing in a smaller size.)

Now write it again, on the smaller index card.  Use one side only.

On the smallest piece of paper, write down the "key" words or phrases that you most want your audience to remember.

For an added challenge, try to write a headline for what you wrote on the small index card.  A headline is typically is one sentence that presents the key facts of the entire article.  (Check out headlines in your favorite newspaper or news site for inspiration.)

What you prepared on the smaller index card is your "elevator speech."  It may also serve as the executive summary of your memo or report.  On the smallest piece of paper are the key words and concepts that you would want to emphasize in any longer presentation.
   

--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Do you have a professional development tip you would like to share?  Have a question that you would like to see answered here?  Please send it to Leo at vazquezl@rutgers.edu

Building sustainable collaborations

Everyone likes the idea of collaboration. Leaders, directors, and funders often call for more of it. Why is it so hard to do and sustain -- and how can you be more successful at it?

First, let's talk about why collaboration is worth the trouble. It is one of the keys to the dominance of Japanese automakers in the American market and the increased safety of air travel.

The biggest challenge is that many organizations and funding programs implicitly promote not collaboration, but competition. Executives who distribute limited resources based on individual success and funders who use traditional means of selecting grant recipients foster environments where people and groups fight against one another. Some competition is good, in that it challenges employees and grantees to be more effective and efficient. But it also leads to behaviors that drain resources and energy: power plays, hoarding of information and resources, and pretenses of collaboration. Bring together a bunch of organizational directors from the same industry, and they'll say they should work together. Check with them a year later; see how many have.

Under these conditions, those who initiate collaborations take on risks and added costs. Everyone else can sit back and get the windfall benefits of these efforts. Or they can focus on what will get them more resources, while the initiators spin their wheels.

If you want to see more collaboration, you have to do more than ask. You have to reward it. Here's how:

If you are an organizational director:
*Institute 360-degree performance evaluations. Employees tend to cooperate more with one another when they know they will evaluate one another.
*Reward efforts at collaboration in individual and group performance evaluations. Do not just reward outcomes; an indifferent worker or group could scuttle a successful effort at teamwork.
*Model collaboration yourself. You want employees to work across divisions and levels? You do it too.
*Ensure that employees understand that teamwork is a core principle of the organization, and highlight it in organizational communications.
*Have confidential conversations with staff to find out if individuals or divisions are engaging in "silo" behavior. Then through carrots, sticks, or some combination of the two, encourage the isolators to change their behaviors.

If you are a funder:
*Give more money to collaborative efforts than individual ones.
*Ask applicants to describe who they will collaborate with and how. Putting someone on an advisory board that does nothing is not collaboration -- it's tokenism.
*If applicants are seeking funds for themselves, ask them why they chose not to collaborate with other, similar groups.

If you are a team leader:
*Design tasks so that different members of the team work together.
*When tensions first arise, encourage teammates to talk about how the team should make decisions.
*Be alert to information hoarding, power grabs and back biting. Deal with it quickly. If you don't, your teammates will assume you're tolerating the behavior.
*Remember that everyone has different reasons for collaborating. Some are inspired by the team mission and feel comfortable in teams. Others may want to protect their interests. Understand your teammates' interests, and further them with teamwork.

People do tend to work together more effectively when they feel there is a crisis that they can't handle themselves. Of course, you want to avoid a crisis. But if it has to be dealt with, it's better to do it together.

--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Do you have a professional development tip you would like to share? Have a question that you would like to see answered here? Please send it to Leo at vazquezl@rutgers.edu

A new role for planning in a culturally fractured society

An interesting article in Miller-McCune (by way of Planetizen) on growing segregation in the United States: Re-crafting the United States as Disunited Duchies

What can and should urban planners do about this troubling trend? We’ve tried inclusive zoning and promoting more public spaces as a way to bring people together. Culturally competent urban designers work to make disadvantaged communities more visible by developing streetscapes that reflect the art and voices of their culture.

But we need to go beyond land use solutions. Planners should use their ability to see the relationships among people and the built environment to transform how communities address diversity. What distinguishes planners from other land use professions, such as architects and civil engineers, is our focus on the dynamic network of relationships in places. (In other words: architects design boxes. Engineers design the connections between the boxes. Social workers help people who use the boxes and connections. Planners develop and manage the relationships among all these things.)

A plan can be a first draft of a community. Both plans and drafts are similar in that you learn as you do. You can see connections, opportunities, mistakes and bad assumptions as you plod through. Of course, the more you try to accomplish, the more you struggle.

By engaging leaders and power brokers over time, planners have the opportunity to shape how they think about diversity and integration, and build their confidence to do the right thing. But here’s the thing: It’s not going to happen in one meeting with a bunch of good data and charts. It’s not going to happen in a single public hearing with a bunch of pretty pictures. Transformative leadership requires commitment, patience and persistence, as well as excellent strategic communication skills. The quiet conversations together are more powerful than the soapbox orations.

To do transformative leadership that promotes sustainable solutions involving diversity and inclusion, you need to be culturally competent. Cultural competency is more than “being nice to people who are different than you.” It is a set of analytical and communication skills – a competency – that allows individuals to better understand and adapt to culturally diverse environments. For more on this, read the works of Leonie Sandercock, a professor at the University of British Columbia.
We need to work on these issues now because our society is becoming more fractured. It’s not just that people are moving away from one another and clustering with people who look and think like them. The explosion of different media means that many people are not seeing the same information or hearing common interpretations of the facts. We are in a society with a shrinking mainstream and less common ground.

Why is self-segregation so bad? Shouldn’t American planners and other land use professionals respect the rights of people to live how they want – and with whom – even if we don’t agree with their decisions? I believe that the most critical responsibilities of American planners are to enhance opportunities for all people to fully partake in society, protect individual freedoms that do not restrict opportunities for others, and develop solutions to sustain the world so future generations have equal opportunities and freedoms. When people move away from one another physically, intellectually and emotionally, conflict is easier to start and harder to resolve. History tells us that dominant groups in society will use their powers to restrict opportunities and freedom for others. (Low-income housing built on the opposite side of the highway. Ordinances banning taco trucks. Exclusionary zoning.) Whether we do neighborhood or regional planning, the problems we face – environmental, economic, traffic – are spread wider than the communities in which we work. We need people to work together to promote opportunity, protect freedom and pursue sustainability.

Planners can help. But it means spending less time looking at maps and spreadsheets and more time leading conversations.

Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Picking good leaders

In the Harvard Business Review article "Leadership That Gets Results," author Daniel Goleman says that of the six major leadership styles, four generally help improve the climate for success in organizations, while two tend to worsen the factors that affect performance. How well do you know effective leadership styles? Try this quiz:

You're the CEO of a large planning, community development and urban design consulting firm, and you have to pick a new vice president to lead the consulting divisions. You want to choose from one of six managers in the firm.

This is a new position created to address several problems in the firm: low morale, unproductive bickering among staff and high turnover. All of these factors are reducing productivity, increasing errors, and generating additional management costs.

All the candidates have similar experience and skills and manage similar groups and budgets. The key differences among them are as follows (candidates are identified by geometric symbols):

• Triangle employs a traditional, field marshal style of management. When Triangle is asked to sum up his/her leadership style, Triangle says: "Do what I tell you."
• Circle leads by encouraging staff to move toward a vision - for the project, organization, or client. Circle's one-sentence approach to leadership: "Come with me."
• Square is the kind of person who tries to get as much input and feedback from as many people as possible. Square's one-sentence approach to leadership: "People come first."
• Rhombus uses a democratic approach to decision-making by working to get consensus. Rhombus' one-sentence approach to leadership: "What do you think?"
• Oval, the firm's most productive employee, believes leaders should model the behavior they want from others. Rhombus' one-sentence approach to leadership: "Do what I do."
• Rectangle spends significant time sitting with his staff in their offices and coaching them. Rectangle's one-sentence approach to leadership: "Try this."

Which two would be the wrong type of leaders for your company's situation?

You probably figured out that Triangle would be a bully who would drive away your best employees, and that Circle would be more likely to inspire staff to perform to a higher level. And Square's affiliative approach - relying on mediation and promoting harmony - could enhance performance by managing tensions better.

Let's make this more interesting. Triangle, Circle and Square drop out as candidates. Who's the best candidate: Rhombus, Oval or Rectangle?

Were you thinking Oval? Oval is the most productive employee. Maybe Oval can set the pace for the managers, who in turn can do the same for front-line staff?

Sorry, wrong choice. Under most conditions, the "pace-setter" actually hurts the climate for performance. There's nothing wrong with being good, and highly-motivated staff can benefit from a manager they can look up to. Unfortunately, the pace-setter will likely expect that staff see problems and issues the same way he or she does - and then take over when the staff member takes a different approach. This tends to cause more friction - especially where the staff are diverse - and demoralize employees by making them feel inept or patronized.

Pace-setters can be successful - if they also adopt the visionary, relationship-building, democratic and coaching styles that Goleman says enhance organizational climate. The most effective leaders use a combination of styles - including, in extremely rare occasions, a coercive style.

I suspect the problems with the pace-setters start with the people who hire them. Too many people see production work, management and leadership as a simple progression. You know: Work hard for a few years, then become a manager. Work harder, move into a leadership position. Those who see work this way may not know that production work, management and leadership requires different skill sets. Being the smartest person in world in demographic analysis does not help you to motivate underperforming staff.

Another problem is that pace-setters believe, correctly, that they are being rewarded for their production skills. In their eyes, people skills are not as important as "getting the job done." As a result, staff become extra arms and legs of a favored production person. Would you rather be a whole person or an appendage? That's why pace-setters tend to demoralize their staff.

In knowledge economy industries such as urban planning, community and economic development and architecture, demoralizing workers is like putting ammonia in your machines instead of fuel.

Summary: With a few exceptions, pace-setters can do more harm than good in organizations. The people who pick leaders should be more familiar with the pros and cons of each leadership style. Pace-setters who master various leadership styles can succeed.

For more, read "Leadership That Gets Results," by Daniel Goleman, Harvard Business Review, March 2000. Click here to buy article

By the way, for those of you, like me, who can be skeptical of leadership articles: Goleman based his ideas on the findings of a study of nearly 3,900 executives worldwide.

--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Do you have a professional development tip you would like to share? Have a question that you would like to see answered here? Please send it to Leo at vazquezl@rutgers.edu

Why being smart is not enough in the new economy

A New York Times columnist recently wrote about a newspaper in Pasadena, California, that uses reporters from India to cover local news. Traditionally, reporters attend public meetings, meet with sources and work in the communities they cover. But these outsourced reporters watch meetings on streaming video, and never work in communities they cover. How can they get to know a place? Google Maps. Community blogs. Pasadena-based websites. The more that's on the web, the easier it is to learn about a place.

So what does this story mean for planning, public affairs, and community and economic development professionals? Anything you can do from your desk could be done by someone else anywhere in the world - and probably for less money.

Technical professionals - those who specialize in analysis and technology tools like GIS -- should be especially concerned. In order to expand their markets, technology companies over time make their products easier to use. A decade ago, there were many trained web designers building sites that can now be done by technophobes with templates. How many people still work exclusively as typists?

Even when the economy recovers, it doesn't mean that technical or desk jobs will be safe. The growing global market means increased competition - and more pressure to be more efficient. If a few firms save money outsourcing some technical functions, expect others to do the same. Nonprofits and government agencies, under pressure to be cost-conscious, will follow suit. (Government agencies may lag behind because of political pressures to keep local jobs. But they may contract out more services to firms that would then outsource their jobs.)

How do you protect yourself in a recession and the new economy?

• Build your leadership, management and interpersonal skills. Become more effective at leading groups, managing conflicts, getting others to work at a higher level, adapting to change and communicating effectively in diverse organizations and environments. These functions are much more difficult to outsource. Become more knowledgeable about budgeting, project management, regulations and other matters that help keep organizations running. This may make you more useful in your employer's eyes.
• Network, network, network. In our fields, where so much work is collaborative and done in the background, it is hard to distinguish yourself from other professionals. The more people with whom you have good relationship, the more opportunities you may get.
• Broaden your areas of knowledge - and make your peers and supervisors aware of your growing knowledge base. As with any ecology, when economic conditions change, specialists who fail to adapt get hurt. By the way, knowing more may help you be more creative and effective.
• Pay attention to office politics. The people who support you now may leave, or be removed from, their jobs. If you've got support from their supervisors, great. If not...
• Keep your resume fresh. Keep your eyes open for new opportunities. It's better to change on your own schedule.

For more reading: Maureen Dowd's "A Penny for My Thoughts?"

--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Do you have a professional development tip you would like to share? Have a question that you would like to see answered here? Please send it to Leo at vazquezl@rutgers.edu

Finding the right job candidate

Imagine that you are on a commission to develop a major new park in a large city. You're tasked with hiring a park superintendent to manage the creation of the park. One of the candidates for the job is a 35-year-old travel writer and farmer who is also a struggling publisher. He has no training or experience in park planning, civil engineering or architecture. Would you hire this candidate? Would you even interview him? No? Too bad - you missed out on working with Frederick Law Olmsted.

Olmsted - urban public health leader and the catalyst for landscape architecture and urban planning in the United States - was, on paper, "unqualified" to become, in 1857, the superintendent of what would become New York's Central Park. His selection, and his success, is a lesson for anyone looking to hire "the best person for the job."

A candidate's experience and training are important, of course, but they don't tell you enough about how well the candidate will do on the job. Nor do the standard answers to the standard interview questions. (Every job candidate says he or she works well in teams.)

So how do you choose the best candidate for the job, and avoid overlooking the next Olmsted?

· Decide what characteristics are most critical for the position. Is it more important that the ideal candidate be more entrepreneurial or cautious? A motivating leader of teams or a hard-nosed bottom-line manager?
· Think about how you ranked the characteristics. What is it about the job or the workplace that make these characteristics critical? How do you envision these characteristics being used on the job?
· Strive to make your preferences known as clearly as possible in your job announcements.
· Design interview questions that will help you evaluate the candidates' strengths in the key characteristics. If you are seeking an entrepreneurial candidate, ask questions about how the candidate pursued an opportunity or led a program to completion.
· Get candidates to talk about how they faced challenges. Any team leader looks great when in successful groups. What did the candidate do when a team was underperforming?
· Be specific when communicating with a candidate why a particular characteristic is critical to the success of the position. Vague comments such as "fitting in well in the organization" could be perceived by a candidate as code for "we only hire people who are like us."
· Comb through the candidate's resume or CV. Look beyond what the candidate's job responsibilities. Look for information, such as accomplishments or volunteer experience, that tells you more about the candidate. Olmsted's background as a publisher and farmer showed that he had business and management skills. His experience as a writer showed him to be thoughtful and creative. The fact that he could pursue such different professional disciplines demonstrated that he was an entrepreneurial thinker with a broad knowledge base. All this made him a good choice for the Central Park job.

For more about Olmsted, please read "How Frederick Law Olmsted Got the Central Park Job," in Planetizen
There are plenty of free Internet resources on interviewing job candidates. Start with "Interviewing Job Candidates" from Georgia State University's office of Human Resources. If you need more information, look for materials prepared by human resources professionals.

--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Do you have a professional development tip you would like to share? Have a question that you would like to see answered here? Please send it to Leo at vazquezl@rutgers.edu

The power of handshakes

It's always hard to meet with people who don't like or don't trust you. It's even harder in open, public meetings, where your antagonists can merge into the crowd while you're in a fishbowl up at the front. You can't prevent people from being hostile, but here are tips to manage the conflict.

• Diagnose the hostility the way you would any other problem. Why is the other side angry? Is it because of what you did, or perhaps what you are? (If you're a planner in a neighborhood that has had bad relationships with earlier planners, you may be seen as a proxy for those others.)
• Identify those people who are leading or stoking the hostility. Try to understand their concerns.
• Go to the meeting early and seek out the antagonists. Say hello, shake their hands and make small talk. Do not try to resolve conflict there, or discourage them from speaking up at the meeting. If they want to express their anger there, encourage them to talk with you at another time. If you try to engage in conflict resolution before the meeting, you may lose your focus.
• Under the best of circumstances, your antagonists will find your actions disarming and be willing to think about you in a more charitable way.
• If the antagonists refuse to engage you, or even shake your hand, that's ok too. Remember that others might be watching. If they see you make an effort and be rebuffed, it might make you look better, and your antagonists look worse.

--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Do you have a professional development tip you would like to share? Have a question that you would like to see answered here? Please send it to Leo at vazquezl@rutgers.edu

Dealing with writer's block

It happens to all of us. You have great ideas and a lot of data. You go to your computer, put your hands on the keyboard, stare and the screen and... nothing.

Before you walk away in frustration, try this:
*Talk as you type. You may find it easier to put the words together if you feel like you're talking to someone.

*Pretend you're talking to a supportive but skeptical person. Here's what the person might ask:
-- Why is what you're writing about important?
-- Why should I care about it? How does it affect me?
-- (If you're asking for action) What do you want me/him/her/them to do? When?
-- What information do you have to support your arguments?
-- Do you have any charts, images or other graphics that might help convince or persuade me?

Another good tip: The best way to become a better writer is to write more often. Writing is like exercising; the more you do it, the easier it becomes, and the more you can do.

--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Responding to online attacks

Those nasty online comments by anonymous posters sting hard. It's one thing if they would simply argue the facts. But instead they attack your integrity, your competence, bring in distracting and irrelevant information, or just plain tell lies. You just want to get on the keyboard and tell those @#(*... Stop. What you do next could defuse the situation, or make it worse. Do not try to negotiate or argue with people online. People online tend to dig in their heels, which makes it more difficult to reach consensus. That's because in what researchers call computer-mediated communication (CMC), we lack the tools to help us communicate in a rich and nuanced manner. These include such tools as body language, tone and timing. If I say "Sit Down!" online, I am angrily commanding you to be quiet or happily inviting you o join me in a conversation? If you haven't heard the tone in my voice, you probably don't know. (Emoticons help, but don't fully replace facial expressions and tone.) If someone makes wrong or outrageous statements about your project, invite that person to go to a future public meeting or to talk with someone from your team in person. You may not change the person's mind. But you will demonstrate to others that you are open to criticism and dialogue. And most people aren't as rude in a face-to-face situation as they might be behind an online mask. If someone makes personal attacks against you, you can do several things: Take the high road and say you will not respond to personal attacks (although you may want to correct any errors offered by the writer). You can contact the moderator of the forum where the comments are to see if there are any rules against making personal attacks. You can also ignore the comments to see if they die on the vine or if they get picked up by other writers. This is risky. But I think more readers today realize that some people simply have an axe to grind, or are just unreasonable, and they tend to overlook outrageous claims. The comments to be most careful of are those written well enough to sound plausible. Take the friendliest tone possible when presenting information online or responding to a writer. If I'm responding to a reasonable argument, I like to say something like "I understand why you might say that, but here's why I see it differently." Avoid making comments that imply that the other person lacks knowledge or understanding. This is insulting, and I've never seen this strategy to work. If you honestly feel that the other person does not have "all the facts," ask if he or she has considered X or Y. And be willing to listen to their facts, even if you don't like what you hear. Feel free to invite your friends and allies to present their views as a way to counteract attacks. When defending your actions, do not repeat any malicious claims others say. Repeating the claims tends to cause readers to remember them more. One way to help minimize the problem of online attacks is to create forums for people to talk about your projects. In these forums, set up "netiquette" guidelines that give you the freedom to delete any comments deemed as personal attacks. (If you work in the public sector, check first with your agency attorney to see if deleting comments violates First Amendment guidelines.) Develop a thick skin. I remember somebody telling me "If you raise your head above the crowd, someone's bound to throw a tomato at it." Final thought: Don't email angry. An impulsive mistake can cause you and others a lot of pain. --Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Selling and sharing your vision

You've got a great idea to do something somewhere. You can make it happen, if you can get enough "buy-in," support, or enrollment from the right people. How do you do it?

Simply informing others isn't enough. You need to let your audiences know what you would like them to do. That depends on whether you're trying to sell or share your vision.

Selling your vision is like selling any other product. The audience either buys it (in other words, supports it) or doesn't. Selling is useful if you're trying to get financing or need support from a government agency.

Sharing your vision is more complex. Audiences don't just support it. They get involved with it. They may even modify it. Sharing is useful when you want to build long-term relationships or motivation. Successful plans need the ongoing support of the people who are affected by them. If those people are sold a vision, and there are unforeseen problems -- as there always are -- people can change their minds quickly. (Think about toothpaste. If you start to dislike the taste, the price, or the company that sells it, do you wait for it to change? No. You buy another brand.)

When you're selling, the vision tends to be more detailed and constructed. When you're sharing, the vision is more vague and open-ended. The more detailed the vision is, the more it seems "finished" or "closed." Most people don't feel comfortable trying to change a finished product.

Let's say your vision is to build a supermarket in a low-income community. You probably have a sense of how big the supermarket should be, what it should look like, and maybe even who should run it.

You would probably sell that vision to a bank. The banker would want to know that your vision is a safer investment for the bank's money. More details can help your credibility.

You would probably share the vision to community groups. They may have different ideas about the mix of products in the store and who should run it. If you simply try to sell your vision, they may say "no thanks."

Be prepared to sell and share. In today's world, the bank might feel more comfortable buying your vision if the community shares it.

--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Keeping your ear to the ground online

Blogs, discussion boards and interactive websites are great places to find out what's being said about your program, plan or project. Unfortunately, there are so many, it is hard to keep track of them all.

A number of online tools can help. Mashable (which offers "social networking news") provides a list of tools that help you scan blogs.

I use Google Alerts. It sends me emails whenever a website, blog, video site, news site, or other online source publishes something new about a topic that I selected. Since it searches by words or phrases, I sometimes get updates that are irrelevant. (BOCEP, the acronym for the Bloustein Online Continuing Education Program, is a phrase or acronym used by other organizations.) But otherwise I find it easy to use and useful.
--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP