Enhancing public participation with diverse and divided audiences

Loud, angry people make it difficult to meet the goals of town hall meetings - finding out what community members think and want.  The actions of the loudest tend to intimidate anyone who has a different opinion from speaking up.  If you take others' silence as agreement, you might make decisions that unfairly favor one group over another.

If the others won't talk for fear of the yellers, here are some tips for getting their input:

• Develop with the audience workable ground rules for public participation.  If one of the rules is "everybody's voice is respected," the audience can agree that "no one gets booed or laughed at."  Enforce the rules during the meeting, or you will lose credibility with the audience.
  
• Provide everyone with index cards where they can write their comments and a box to put their comments in.  Make sure the box is covered or not clear, and has only a slot (that way audience members can't open up the box.)
• Arrange the room in small tables if you can.  Most people feel more comfortable speaking up from a table with their friends than in an auditorium format. When the yellers do appear, they are less likely to appear to be speaking for the whole audience.
• Invite people to share their input via email or phone calls before and after the session.  Organized activists will also dominate this type of communication.  But you're more likely to get other opinions.
• Set time limits on speakers during the public input portion of the meeting.  This will help prevent a yeller from running out the clock on a public meeting.
• Consider holding online public meetings.  These are more difficult to disrupt.  This should be done only in areas where most people are comfortable participating online.  It always should be an add-on to in person community meetings, not a replacement.
  
• If a yeller says anything that appears intended to intimidate participants from presenting other opinions, use that as an opportunity to defend the right of everyone to speak their minds.  This changes the subject from the yeller's concerns to the fact that the yeller is trying to disrupt the democratic process.  This might make some in the audience more comfortable about speaking up or sharing their thoughts later on.

--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Have a professional development tip you want to share? Share it with Leo


Feel free to comment on this or any other post in PDI Advisor


For more information:
 The Bloustein Online Continuing Education Program offers courses in public participation and community outreach.  Among them are Planning in the Age of Direct Democracy.  For more information, and to see upcoming courses, or our course catalog, please visit the Bloustein Online Continuing Education Program.

Building effective relationships with the media

Developing effective relationships with the media is a good way to help your cause, organization or yourself. Being a favored source for newspaper reporters helped Robert Moses become the foremost figure in planning in 20th century New York.  "Rebuilding Communities," a landmark study by Avis Vidal, showed that funders were more likely to give support to community development corporations with greater visibility.

Here are some tips on building effective relationships with reporters.  (By the way, I was a newspaper reporter for five years and still write for online publications and magazines.)

First, ensure that you have the appropriate permissions to speak 'on-record' to the media.  Many governmental agencies and organizations, having been stung by bad publicity, limit who can talk to the media and in what capacity.

Reporters are like police officers; once they identify themselves professionally, everything you say or do can be used for their purposes.

Cultivate relationships with reporters who ask good or difficult questions.  This often demonstrates that they are attentive and have prepared for the interview.  Reporters who ask you for basic information that they can find on your website might be lazy or unconcerned with the story.

Reporters look for stories that have any of the following qualities: new information, unexpected information, clear impacts on their readers, and conflicts in which the issue and the opponents are easy to identify.  For example, most reporters wouldn't be interested in writing about a capital improvements plan.  But they would be interested in writing about new roads or street improvements that would reduce flooding.

Look for or create photo opportunities.  Stories that have 'art' (the journalistic term for photos and other images) are more likely to get published and to get better positions within the publication.

Unless you are a whistleblower, there is almost never any need to go "off-the-record."  If you decide to go off the record, understand what the reporter means by that term.  For some, off-the-record means they can use the information without naming you as a source.  (This is what other reporters call "on background.")  For other reporters, off-the-record means they can't use the information at all in a story.  In either case, you should expect that reporters will share what they know with editors, who are responsible for the content in their publications.

Good reporters are busy, especially in today's 24-hour news cycle. If you call a reporter, ask him or her if she is on "deadline."  If so, ask about a better time to call back.

If a reporter calls you, call back within 45 minutes.  Give the reporter all of your contact numbers, and be prepared to take calls at night or on weekends.  Be patient and pleasant.  A reporter might file a story at 5 pm, but has to respond to an editor's question at 9 pm.

"General assignment" reporters and those new to a beat are usually not experts in the subjects they cover.  The more useful information you can provide, the more valuable you become to those reporters.

Remember that the story belongs to the reporter and his or her editors.  They choose what goes in and stays out of the stories. If you want to control what goes into a publication, take out an ad.

When writing press releases, try to adopt the writing style of the publications you are trying to influence. In some cases, especially for shorter stories, reporters may simply lift or slightly revise what you wrote.

If you want to be quoted, speak in short sentences and a little more slowly.  Most quotations in newspaper and magazine stories are only a sentence or two long.

--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Where to learn more about strategic communications:
The Leading Institute's Leading from the Middle program
 

If you have a professional development tip you would like to share, please send it to Leo at vazquezl@rutgers.edu

Conference networking tips

Whether you're a gregarious extrovert or a shy introvert, the tips below can help you get the maximum benefit from a conference.

Engaging and disengaging individuals

Most professionals go to conferences to meet other professionals.  So it's perfectly appropriate to go over to someone and introduce yourself.  Make sure that the person is not otherwise engaged in a tight conversation or other activity.

You don't need a "line."  Just introduce yourself, say what you do and where, and then ask the people you talk to their names, what they do, and where they work (or used to work.)

Aim to spend more time listening and asking questions than talking.  Most people love talking about themselves.  Everyone appreciates being listened to.

Asking "how," "why" and questions asking for clarification are good ways to keep your audience engaged.

If you're not interested to someone, you can quickly excuse yourself by saying something like, "It was a pleasure to meet you," and walk away from the conversation.  If you're not comfortable being so direct, you can pretend to have a phone call or urgent message.

Don't worry if someone excuses him or herself after a few minutes.  He or she may have different networking goals than you.

Aim to get at least five business cards per day of the conference.  On the back of each one, write a note to remind you when and where you met the person and a word that indicates what you talked about.

Ideally, you would follow up with everyone you met.  At least follow up within a week with those people who you would most like to meet or engage later on.

When talking to someone for the first few minutes, avoid trying to "sell" your organization, services or program.  Work to make the person feel comfortable with you.  If the person gives you his or her card, you're welcome to follow up. 

Increasing your visibility

Do you remember the person who sat in the back of the room during the presentation and asked no questions?  Neither does anybody else.  Make yourself more visible by asking questions or asking a speaker to add to an earlier comment that he or she made.

Disagreeing directly with the speaker, or adding a tangential comment, can make you look pushy or arrogant.

Feel free to introduce yourself to the speaker(s) at the end of the session.  In most planning and related professional conferences, the majority of presenters do not get paid.  Many are themselves looking to increase their own visibility or awareness of their ideas. 

Special tips for networking at mealtimes

If you came with colleagues or associates, sit at different tables.  You don't need to network with your friends or co-workers.

If you see empty seats at a table, ask if you can join the group.  When there is an appropriate opportunity, engage the people closest to you.

Avoid ordering or eating long pastas (spaghetti, linguini, etc.) or any food with a lot of sauce.  It could get sloppy, which could distract your audience.

Avoid a table where everybody sitting there is "huddling."  Those people have probably closed the networking circle and you would find it difficult to enter without seeming pushy.  On the other hand, if someone at the table isn't part of the huddle, he or she would probably welcome some conversation. 

Chain networking
Chain networking is the practice of networking with people who are networking with people you already know.  It works best if you go to the conference with friends or co-workers, or already know people at the conference.

If you see that your colleague is talking with someone, feel free to join the group.  Introduce yourself by your affiliation with your colleague.  This will make the other person more comfortable in speaking with you.

If your colleague joins you while you're networking, make the introductions.    

Networking with groups
When three or more people talk together, they tend to form groups.  Read their body language to determine if you should try to join them.

If they form a closed circle (facing one another, backs to rest of the room), avoid trying to join them.  You might be perceived as an interloper.

If you are on good terms with someone in a closed circle, you can probably enter it comfortably.

If the circle is more open, you can try to enter it casually.  For example, you can listen from the side, and at an appropriate moment say something like "that's an interesting point.  Why do you think that?" 

Networking around conference sessions

If you don't need the continuing education credits, or aren't interested in any of the sessions, hang around the hallways outside the session rooms.  You'll probably find others like you there.

Avoid standing in the refreshment line during the coffee breaks.  Lines usually give you an opportunity to network with only two people at a time. 

If you're looking for a job 
Fight the urge to ask the person you just met if there are jobs available at his or her workplace.  Instead, ask if there is someone you could follow up with to 'learn more about' the person's office.

In this economy, it's ok to let someone know that you're in between jobs.  It's better to say your position was cut, or you were one of several laid off.  If that's not the case, or you don't want to say any of those things, call yourself an independent consultant.

--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

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