2 Achieving effective community leadership
Community leadership is not a new role for managers, but trends in local politics make it more important than ever that the local government manager bring to this role the distinctive qualities of responsible professionalism. Furthermore, in their interactions with citizens, managers need to develop a new awareness of the changing dynamics of community life; they also need to use new organizational methods and personal skills. The question, therefore, is not whether managers are involved in the community but rather how much they are involved and, above all, how effectively.
Local government managers are significant figures not only in their governments but also in their cities or counties as a whole. They may be more visible or less, but by virtue of their positions they are at the center of efforts to identify and address the needs of their communities. Although the title “manager” implies an emphasis on carrying out the policies adopted by elected officials and an internal and organizational focus, in reality the people who fill the position of top manager or administrator in cities and counties are community leaders in three respects. First, they help shape the agenda of the city or county and propose policies for adoption by elected officials. Second, as both individuals and representatives of their governments, they interact with people outside of government and thereby contribute to the life of the community. Third, they shape the orientation of their governmental organization to citizens: how the organization treats citizens and how it facilitates citizens’ participation in governmental affairs.
Another way to describe the three ways in which local government managers are community leaders is to point out that, alone among public administrators, they interact directly with three key sets of actors (see Figure 2–1). First, the local government manager works for and interacts directly with the governing board or the mayor or both. Second, the manager also handles a wide range of interactions with the people and organizations within the city or county and outside it. Finally, the manager is the head of the administrative organization—not the assistant to the head—and therefore shapes the way local government staff members deal with the citizens they serve.
There can be tension among the three aspects of the manager’s leadership role—leadership vis-à-vis elected officials, in the wider community, and within the organization—and some managers choose to give greater emphasis to one aspect than to others. The distinctive challenge of local government management is to blend these three dimensions of the position to fashion comprehensive community leadership.
After first considering whether community leadership is appropriate, this chapter explores the three respects in which local government managers provide community leadership; assesses the changing political context in which managers operate in the new millennium; and offers guidelines for assessing one’s own personal style, the dynamics of the community, and the characteristics of the major actors in community politics. The chapter concludes with a consideration of key behavioral components of effective community leadership.
Appropriateness of community leadership by local government managers
It is possible to minimize the community-leadership role of the local government manager. Some people would argue that the manager’s job is to work for elected officials, give them the information they need to make decisions, and direct the organization. In this view, the manager lets elected officials handle the community-leadership dimension of local government. The manager focuses on the internal organization and seeks to keep outside forces from interfering with the work of local government. This approach is characterized by a passion for anonymity. It is commonly believed that most managers before World War II took this low-profile approach and confined themselves to the administrative sphere. In fact, however, community leadership has a long tradition in local government management.
From the beginning of the council-manager form to the present, community leadership has been recognized as a central responsibility of local government managers. The origins of this view can be traced to Richard Childs and his call (in 1918) for managers to create “new enterprises of service” (see Chapter 1) and to the drafters of the second Model City Charter (in 1915), which endorsed the council-manager plan of government. The drafters of that charter expected the manager to exert great influence on “civic policy” and urged the manager to “show himself to be a leader, formulating policies and urging their adoption by the council.”1 C. A. Harrell of Norfolk, Virginia, in his presidential address to ICMA in 1948, endorsed this approach.
When offering leadership in the community, managers will naturally be concerned to do so in a professional way.2 Professionalism should characterize the manager’s objective, methods, and standards of conduct. The objective should be to advance the public interest. The methods should facilitate discussion, obtain feedback from citizens, and contribute to strategic planning. The standards of conduct should produce behavior that promotes inclusiveness and equal opportunities for citizens to participate, ensures fairness and impartiality when demands are assessed and conflicts resolved, and advances equity in the distribution of resources within the community. When managers have a professional objective and adhere to professional methods and standards of conduct, they will be operating within a professional framework in their community-leadership activities.
The values and standards that guide community leadership are clearly articulated in the organizational norms of ICMA; and, building on its traditions, the local government management profession has committed itself to offering multifaceted community leadership. The ICMA Code of Ethics (Appendix A) and Declaration of Ideals (Appendix C) oblige the manager to promote the welfare of the community, serve all the people, promote equity and social justice, support citizen participation, and create diversity in that participation. Also, a set of standards for community leadership has been articulated as part of ICMA’s Practices for Effective Local Government Management (see Chapter 1): 10 of the 18 core content areas deal directly with citizens and the community, and this count does not include areas relevant to community leadership but applicable to all aspects of the manager’s work (e.g., integrity, presentation skills, and personal development).3 The full text of the practices appears in Appendix B.
Finally, although the manager’s job is obviously grounded in the relationship with the council, two current trends that affect the work of local government professionals are “building and maintaining a sense of community” and “modernizing the organization.”4
The ideal manager is a positive, vital force in the community. He spends a great deal of his time thinking of broad objectives which would greatly improve community life. Why should he hesitate to initiate policy proposals and submit them to the council? Neither the mayor nor individual councilmen can give much time to this task and if the manager also shies away from such leadership the community stands still and important matters are allowed to pass by default. … [The manager] visualizes broad objectives, distant goals, far-sighted projects.
C. A. Harrell
Community-leadership aspects of local government management
Community leadership entails monitoring all aspects of the interaction between the local government and the community served. Local government managers are community leaders when they shape the council’s agenda and propose policy, when they relate directly to individuals and groups in the community, and when they make administrative and managerial decisions within their organizations. Community leadership is a long-standing role of local government managers, and its scope has expanded over time in response to new conditions in communities.
Shaping the agenda and proposing policy
Local government managers are not neutral bystanders when it comes to setting the agenda for their governments and making policy proposals. (See Chapter 6 for other perspectives on agenda making.) Surveys of city and county managers over the years have indicated a widespread acceptance of their obligation to provide policy leadership. City and county managers generally agree (80 percent or more) that a manager should advocate major changes in policies, assume leadership in shaping policies, and advocate new services in order to promote equity and fairness for low-income groups and minorities.5 Consistent with these views, a majority do not agree that the manager should remain neutral on any issues on which the community is divided. The manager complements the political leadership of the governing board with a professional perspective on the community’s needs and on ways to address them,6 and on the basis of his or her knowledge, experience, and independent monitoring of community sentiments and conditions, the manager may be led to raise issues or propose alternatives that the board would not have considered.
Agenda setting involves both broad decisions about mission and specific policy decisions. Mission decisions determine the basic purposes and role of government within the community and the goals that are pursued.7 In making such decisions, managers favor extensive involvement by elected officials. Managers must recognize, however, that it is often hard to get serious consideration for major changes despite (or because of) the high stakes involved. The manager must decide whether and how to raise an issue that is being ignored or is unpopular and how to help groups that are having difficulty getting a matter on the political agenda.
Policy decisions involve deciding how to spend money, design a program, or develop the details of a plan. Concrete policy proposals are likely to draw the attention of many participants with specific interests. Staff members play a large role in developing these proposals because they typically have in-depth knowledge about the matter, but local government managers must ensure that consultation occurs with, and input is invited from, all the groups that will be affected by a policy decision.
Local government managers are highly involved in shaping the mission of their communities and in making policy recommendations, and they have an effect that both they and elected officials recognize. In the 1997 survey referred to in note 5, city managers in council-manager cities rated their own influence as greater than the mayor’s or council members’ in both the budgetary and economic development processes; city administrators in mayor-council cities rated the mayor’s influence as higher than their own in economic development but lower in budgeting.8 When council members are interviewed, they see things somewhat differently, although they recognize the manager’s contributions. They do not view the city manager’s influence as greater than theirs, but, in a 2001 survey of cities over 25,000 in population, more than half of the council members in council-manager cities considered the city manager to be a very important initiator in the policy process, and another 38 percent saw the manager as an important source of initiation. City administrators in mayor-council cities were considered to be very important by 30 percent of council members, and an additional 49 percent rated their contribution as important.9
With changing trends in the social and political characteristics of communities (discussed in greater detail below), local government managers are expected to contribute even more broadly to their communities in terms of setting the agenda and proposing policy. Community groups are becoming more contentious in pushing for specific favored programs, and governing boards more fragmented—and both developments make it harder for elected officials to set goals and establish policies that are consistent with the goals.10 Thus, it is even more important for the manager to monitor the community independently and pay close attention to the policy-making process. The manager must put long-term questions on the table for consideration, secure continuing support for previous commitments, and critically examine the contribution of new initiatives to overall goals and purposes. Local government managers do not dictate what matters are on the agendas of their communities, but they are the keepers of the agenda who help ensure that important matters receive attention.
Relating directly to the community
The second aspect of community leadership is relating to the community, or community relations, and it entails participating in organizations and civic affairs generally. It includes explaining what local government is doing and exploring the possibility of new needs and approaches. In addition, the manager may be instrumental in helping forge partnerships between government and the community. The manager negotiates with private citizens and organizations to get support for local government projects and seeks help from the community in dealing with problems that government cannot fully address. Roughly half of local government managers think they should work through powerful members of the community to achieve policy goals.11 Managers also are involved in mediating differences and helping resolve controversies among groups. In addition, they can help promote a sense of community.
There is a trend toward the use of comprehensive community-based strategies to address social and economic challenges. For example, more and more professional managers—whether at the city, county, or state level—are being called on to provide leadership in redesigning programs to better meet the needs of families and children. This trend requires managers and agency directors to be creative and flexible, at times even donning the hats of community organizers to mobilize neighborhood groups and other citizens to be more involved in policy and planning.12
More generally, local government managers have extensive interactions with a variety of individuals and groups in the community, although from country to country the amount of interaction varies. Compared with chief administrators in 13 other countries (in Europe plus Australia), U.S. managers have a very high overall involvement with citizens, business leaders, leaders from voluntary and nonprofit associations, and journalists (see Table 2–1). In all, 14 countries were studied: Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United States.
These interactions serve two purposes. First, managers are soliciting input by informing a wide range of actors in the community about the work of local government and by receiving information in return about the ideas and concerns of these actors. Second, managers are building a constituency—people in the community who are interested in what managers are trying to accomplish and are willing to provide help. This is not a political following that permits the manager to stand against the council, but a network of individuals and groups through which the manager can communicate to the larger community and from which the manager can receive information and suggestions. Although local governments have extensive formal channels of communication, these do not eliminate the need for extensive informal channels as well.
U.S. local government managers can be divided into two broad groups according to the extent and nature of their networking with the community and with other governments. In the 14-country study mentioned above, managers fell into four groups of approximately equal size, each based on the managers’ own assessments of what kinds of actors were important to their success. One group of managers was largely isolated from all actors, including elected officials in their own governments (this group is called “isolates”). A second group focused only on the mayor, council, and staff; no other external relationships were very important (“internal networkers”). A third group focused primarily on relationships with other governments but had relatively little contact with other actors within the government or in the community (“intergovernmental networkers”). The fourth group was made up of managers who were inclusive in their networking behavior; they considered elected officials, other governments, and a wide range of individuals and groups in their own communities all to be important to their success (“inclusive networkers”).
Table 2–1 Extent of chief administrators’ communications with actors in the community
*Involvement is measured on a 100-point scale, with the highest score indicating daily contact; 75, several times a week; 50, weekly contact; 25, once or twice a month; and 0, no contact.
Note: Weighted number of U.S. respondents is 285–287, depending on the item; weighted number of respondents from other countries is 3,440–3,721. The other countries are Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden.
Almost all U.S. managers in the survey fell into the second and fourth groups. Over half—55 percent—had primarily internal networks. These managers focused on the elected officials and their own organizations and gave little attention to others. In contrast, 42 percent were inclusive networkers—the highest percentage for all countries except Finland—who assigned higher than average importance to community leaders and other governments as well as to elected officials. This proportion is high compared with the total of 27 percent for all the countries.13 Although it can be argued that community relations is a key ingredient of effectiveness as a local government manager, more than half of U.S. managers are largely inside players, offering community leadership primarily through their interactions with the council and their own staff but with only modest direct links to other actors in the community. The average of 27 percent for all countries indicates that, despite the fact that community relations is the second of the three aspects of community leadership, most managers do not have broad, inclusive networks in the community.
Orienting the organization to the community
The third aspect of local government management that points to community leadership as a role for managers is the orientation managers give to their organization in its treatment of citizens. Many elements of local government managers’ leadership of the organization—both their administrative and their managerial decisions—are relevant in this regard.
Administrative decisions involve delivering services, implementing policies, and undertaking projects. These decisions impinge directly on the citizens who will receive the service or are affected by the policy or project. These decisions are usually made by administrative staff according to the technical, legal, and organizational criteria appropriate to the type of decision being made. Nevertheless, under the guidance of the manager, staff in the implementing department have to consider what kind of citizen involvement is needed to ensure that the implementation is effective and that citizens will meet it with responsiveness and acceptance. For example, the police can be more effective and can work more cooperatively with citizens when the type of policing adopted is community based. Another example involves permitting and inspections in subdivision development: these can be more effective and efficient if administrators seek input from builders. A third example: consulting with residents and operating in accordance with fair criteria for siting facilities can reduce conflict over who gets something desirable (such as a community center) or something undesirable (such as a landfill). In other words, when an organization ignores citizens’ reactions, the likelihood of controversy and extensive involvement by the governing board increases.
The traditional way in the U.K. is to appoint an in-house public relations manager to herald the dawn of a new empire of assistants, support staff, and escalating publications budgets. … My approach … proceeds from the simple proposition that all staff should be involved in publicising their services, and it should be a part of the job of all local government managers (not just top managers) to develop proactive PR skills as part of their core jobs.
Michael Ball
Furthermore, managers need to set high standards for service delivery and for staff relations with citizens. They should instill the attitude that all staff members are responsible for positive interaction with the community.
Management decisions, too, can be linked to community leadership. These decisions involve the coordination and control of the resources of the organization. Management decisions largely affect internal matters and are guided by systems and procedures. They concern personnel, hiring, promotion, and appraisal; contracting and purchasing; and the technical aspects of governmental functions, such as engineering standards for street construction. Normally these management decisions are made by staff and are handled internally. But if the decisions affect outside groups or if elected officials or citizens become involved in them, they can generate community issues. A minority contracting program affects outside groups and can engender support and opposition from firms that are affected positively and negatively. An investigation of alleged police brutality and the dismissal of an employee with political connections can embroil staff in a community controversy. When either kind of situation arises, the boundaries between the internal and the external become blurred. While maintaining the integrity of the organization’s procedures, the manager must be attentive to outside groups.
Changes in the political context of community leadership
The manager’s role of community leader has expanded in response to new political realities. Populist politicians—politicians critical of government action—have become more common, and interest groups have become more influential. More special interest groups have spokespersons on the governing board, and the groups’ activity has become more intense. In addition, the number of communities (even small ones) that have more ethnic groups and more immigrants has grown since 1900.
At the same time, fiscal stress has heightened debate about the role of local government and has increased conflict about scarce resources. Since September 11, 2001, new security challenges have added to the load of services that local governments must provide, and in many communities these challenges have put further strain on intergroup relations. All these forces—the growing prominence of interest groups, the growth in number of immigrants and ethnic groups, fiscal stress, and security responsibilities—put pressure on the local government manager to provide greater and more sensitive leadership.
This pressure needs to be understood in the context of two sorts of changes affecting the local government manager. One is a change in the relationship between local government and outside actors. The other is a change in the behavior of local government leadership itself.
Changes in the relationship between local government and outside actors
Present-day managers should neither underestimate the community challenges their predecessors encountered nor overestimate the difficulties they face in the early twenty-first century in exercising leadership to bring expertise to bear on the problems of their communities. Still, managers must recognize that the number of community activities they should be involved in is increasing, and the range of groups with which they need to communicate effectively is broader. Fragmentation within the community is one trend drawing managers in that direction. Two others are the emergence of new approaches to governance, and the rapid growth in information technology. With new approaches to governance, some of the local government manager’s responsibilities have become more diffuse—less a matter of law and more a matter of influence exerted informally. Information technology has affected governance by greatly increasing citizens’ ability to access information from government and to respond to it.
Divisions and the dwindling sense of community An important dimension of the shifting politics at the turn of the millennium is changes in communities themselves. The divisions within communities are sharper, and the political activism is more intense. The NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitude appears to be more deeply entrenched as neighborhood groups assert their interests and block government action more effectively.
At the same time, general support for a broad public agenda has declined, and the sense of community that could be a counterweight to divisive forces is dwindling. Residents’ time, energy, and inclination for involvement in the community are diminished by more frenetic lifestyles, longer workdays, more households with both spouses working or with single parents, fewer children, increased relocation at retirement, and a larger number of people over 75. Regionalization of some activities, new technologies that permit more things to be done from a residence, and the disappearance of places for informal gathering reduce the engagement of residents with each other. “In several surveys in 1999 two-thirds of Americans said that America’s civic life had weakened in recent years, that social and moral values were higher when they were growing up, and that our society was focused more on the individual than the community. More than 80 percent said there should be more emphasis on community, even if that put more demands on individuals.”14
There are some modest countertrends. Developers’ and planners’ increased interest in “new urbanism” suggests a recognition that the design and location of facilities are important in promoting a sense of community. More public spaces are being created. Interest in service is rising, and the numbers of community volunteers are increasing. The same technologies that permit people to work at home also connect people in new ways.
New approaches to governance Since 1990, new approaches to governance have unmistakably emerged, changing key features of the world of local government administrators. The new governance, as it is called, is based on the increasing devolution and decentralization of the way societal needs are met.15 In the past, governance largely occurred within the governmental process, and there was some clarity about which governmental levels or units were responsible for action. In contrast, under the new governance, responsibilities are diffused across levels of government, across units of government at the local level, and across public-private partnerships. In the delivery of services, contributions by nonprofit organizations, community groups, and businesses have increased; and functions have been transferred from government to the private sector.
The authority of public administrators in general, and of local government managers in particular, is diminished under the new governance. Ironically, both the administrators and the managers still have great responsibility, but they exercise it less and less in direct relationships with their own elected officials and subordinate staff. Local government managers increasingly need to act on their own initiative to be the facilitators of people and organizations they do not control, the brokers of resource acquisition from sources other than their own governments, and the builders and sustainers of informal networks.
Three examples highlight the manager’s altered position in the new governance. First, welfare reform put county managers in the midst of an array of public, nonprofit, and for-profit providers of services with no one clearly in charge. Second, brownfields redevelopment requires pulling together a wide array of actors in federal and state government, local groups, and potential investors, none of whom can be compelled to act; instead, they must be brought together and kept together in an extended, complex process of renewal.16 Third, in relationships with other governments focusing on such regional matters as air-quality control, local government managers are working with people who are outside their control and their jurisdiction; among neighboring governments and governments in urban regions, it is at the professional level that much informal communication and cooperation take place.17 (For an extended discussion of interorganizational networking, see Chapter 7.)
Changes in information technology The continued acceleration of change in the uses of information technology (IT) has been mentioned above. Although IT may not be creating the revolution in the political process or the equalization of power and resources that some had predicted,18 it has vastly increased the amount of information readily available to citizens and has widened the channels of communication and quickened its speed. As the use of IT as a whole has expanded, access to it has become broader.19 The digital divide, however, remains a reality and affects the extent to which local government managers can rely on electronic media. Still, a manager who fails to recognize the importance of the information explosion is ignoring a fundamental reality: in 2001, 93 percent of those between the ages of 9 and 17 used the computer, and 69 percent used the Internet. Electronic communication has altered the way people relate to each other and to government.
When these three factors (fragmentation, new governance, and IT) are combined, the inescapable conclusion is that greater collaboration is required within and across organizations. When information, ideas, resources, and power are shared, the result can be increased leverage over problems that no one organization can solve on its own.20
Changes in the behavior of local government leadership
Just as the relationship between local government and outside actors has changed, so too have the relationships among the players in local government itself: the members of the council, the local government manager in relation to the council, and the local government manager in relation to the mayor.
Governing boards’ greater focus on the particular and the specific The characteristics and attitudes of members of governing boards have changed. Typically council members, particularly in council-manager cities, have been viewed as trustees who were concerned about the well-being of the entire community and who served from a sense of civic duty. But in the early years of the twenty-first century, more council members are activists who seek to tackle particular problems. It is still true that almost all council members have a desire to serve the city as a whole, but increasingly they also serve particular neighborhoods and promote specific projects and interests.21 Council members spend more time on their elected positions than previously, but much of that time is spent acting in the role of an ombudsman: providing services to citizens, responding to complaints, and helping obtain information, as indicated in Table 2–2. Consequently, the manager and staff will have extensive interactions with council members about specific matters dealing with constituencies and constituent relations.
Reflecting the increased diversity of and divisiveness within the communities they serve, governing boards are more fragmented, and achieving leadership within them is more difficult, although it does not follow that all governing boards are lead-erless or fragmented. In a 2001 survey of city council members in cities over 25,000 in population, seven council members in ten expressed the view that they provided their city governments with sufficient overall leadership. Still, half of the council members agreed that they focus too much on short-term problems and give too little attention to long-term concerns. Over two-fifths cited conflict among council members as a serious problem. Finally, one-third indicated that a lack of clear political goals negatively affected their ability to perform their jobs as elected officials. These changes in the orientation of governing board members mean that the manager bears more of the responsibility to respond to the needs of the entire community, balance competing demands, and take a long-term perspective.
Table 2–2 City council–member workload by city size, 2001
Source: Computed from survey conducted in 2001 by James H. Svara for the National League of Cities.
Note: Number of council members interviewed: 670.
Managers’ greater focus on the council There is evidence that managers are giving more to their relationship with the council despite the increasing need to interact with other groups and attend to community problems. In a 1965 survey, managers in cities over 100,000 in population were asked to indicate the relative importance of a policy role (including relating to the council), a political role (including relating to the community), and a management role. One-third of the managers indicated that community leadership was most important to their success, compared with 22 percent who chose council relations. By 1985 a dramatic shift had occurred. Over half—56 percent—now indicated that council relations were the most important, and the proportion choosing community leadership had dropped to 6 percent.22 In both surveys, just under two-fifths chose the management role as most important to success. In 1997, 79 percent of the city managers in large cities chose the policy role (including council relations); only 21 percent saw the management role as most important. No city managers in these large cities identified community leadership as the factor most important to their job success.23 Certainly, many managers spend a considerable amount of time working with citizens and leaders in the community, as the evidence on networking indicates. It is not community leadership, however, that determines the manager’s job success. Whereas many local government managers were previously able to concentrate on community leadership with a clear understanding of the policy priorities of a cohesive council, increasingly they devote their attention to working with council members to develop agreement on policy and to respond to the members’ constituency concerns.
The emphasis on council relations to the exclusion of community relations as indicated by these responses may be somewhat misleading. To some extent, managers must bring community relations into their work with elected officials on projects that the mayor and council members want to advance and on constituent problems. In this respect, the two roles overlap. Furthermore, in smaller cities, managers assign somewhat less importance to council relations. Still, managers face a major dilemma. They must be active in community relations, but their job success increasingly depends on how they handle council relations.
For city administrators in mayor-council cities, the situation is somewhat simpler. Administrators are more likely to leave council relations to the mayor, but they are also much more likely to see management rather than active community involvement as their key role. These administrators, like their city manager counterparts, face the hard choice of deciding how much time to spend on a crucial role that, by itself, will usually not lead to success.
Managers’ and administrators’ relationships with mayors An important aspect of the manager’s community leadership is the relationship with the mayor. It seems likely that most citizens would identify the mayor as the official who is (or should be) the most important person in city government. When the local government manager is active in setting the agenda, relating to the community, and orienting the organization to the community, is there a risk that the manager will come into conflict with the mayor, especially if the mayor is also active? The question must be answered separately for the two major forms of government in which appointed administrators work.
In the council-manager form, the mayor potentially handles three sets of roles: the traditional or “automatic” roles of the office, such as presiding over and being spokesperson for the council; the role of coordinator who promotes effective working relationships and team building within the council; and the role of policy guide who helps the city council shape an agenda that incorporates citizen preferences and the goals of the mayor and members of the council. If mayors fill all these roles well, they can be effective facilitative leaders.
On the basis of survey responses by city managers about the mayor’s performance, one can identify three groups of mayors, depending on the level of facilitative leadership displayed. Group one combines caretaker mayors (who do not handle any role very well) and symbolic heads (who play only the traditional roles and are ineffective at helping the council adopt policies and at promoting communication within the city council). This group represents about two-fifths of the mayors in council-manager cities over 5,000 in population. Group two consists of mayors who are coordinators (i.e., they are effective at improving the governmental process but offer little policy leadership). The coordinators represent almost two-fifths of the mayors. Group three consists of the director type of mayor (mayors who are process leaders and, in addition, help chart the course for the community). Such leaders, like former Wichita, Kansas, mayor and National League of Cities president Bob Knight,24 are effective as both coordinators and policy innovators. These visionary facilitative mayors are found in only one city out of five. The mayors in groups two and three (the coordinator and the director types) also have strong relationships with citizens, as shown in Table 2–3. The more effective the mayor is in filling all three aspects of the office, the better the council functions, the clearer the division of labor between the council and the manager, and the better the relationship between the council and manager. Thus, more effective mayors do not diminish the manager’s position. In fact, they enhance it.25
Local government managers must adjust their leadership to match the leadership coming from the mayor. As indicated above, in cities where mayors have limited effectiveness, a leadership vacuum is created that others, including the city manager, must try to fill. In other cities, the mayor makes a substantial contribution by helping other officials work well together but is not an effective policy leader. In a minority of cities, one finds a comprehensively effective mayor, and the council members, manager, and citizens benefit from having a political leader who is able to identify a course of action for the community. In these cities, managers contribute to both shaping and accomplishing the goals set by the mayor and council, and they build on the mayor’s strong public leadership. These managers are just as active in all three aspects of community leadership as those who work with less-effective mayors, but managers who work with these effective mayors are moving with the current, so to speak, rather than paddling upstream in their community-leadership tasks.
Even though a positive or at least not a negative relationship between the mayor and the manager is common in council-manager cities, it is important to recognize that, in a few cities, expanding the power of the mayor has been linked to reducing the manager’s authority and changing the form of government. When the constitutional question is how the executive position will be defined, the strong-mayor model and the city-manager model conflict. As a commentator put it in Dallas in 2003 when a charter commission was at work in that city, “In the beginning was the question: Should the mayor of Dallas have more power and the city manager less?”26 Although city administrators in mayor-council governments are professional leaders who contribute to their governments (as discussed below), a change in form confers upon the mayor executive power that, in the council-manager form, is exercised by the city manager.27
In some cities, such as Cincinnati, Ohio; Kansas City, Missouri; and San Jose, California, the powers of the mayor have been expanded without necessarily reducing the authority of the city manager. These cities have “empowered” their mayors, as Hansell puts it,28 by adding to the mayor’s office the power to do one or more of the following: appoint citizens to serve on boards and commissions without council concurrence, exercise a veto, receive the annual budget prepared by the city manager and present it to the council with the mayor’s own comments and suggestions (or prepare a mayoral budget in addition to the managerial budget), nominate the city manager for approval by the council, and initiate the dismissal of the manager. There is debate about whether these changes constitute a shift in the form of government, especially in the case of Cincinnati, where charter change gave all these powers to the mayor. In large council-manager cities and counties, the respective responsibilities of the chief elected official and the city manager or county administrator, and the political dynamic accompanying their formal duties, are likely to be sensitive constitutional issues for the foreseeable future.
In mayor-council cities with a city administrator or chief administrative officer—an office found in 38 percent of mayor-council cities29—the method of appointing the administrator makes a big difference. When the administrator is nominated by the mayor and approved by the council, the administrator serves to bridge—but does not eliminate—the separation of powers. Results from a 1997 survey of administrators indicate that when the council approves the appointment, most city administrators feel they should be equally accountable to the mayor and the council, and most feel they can have sufficient power to bring the values of professional management to the administration of city government.30 When the mayor appoints the city administrator without council approval, on the other hand, the administrator feels accountable to the mayor. Still, most city administrators, whether approved by the council or not, feel that they are increasingly the agent of the mayor and that the scope of their office is shaped by the mayor. Regardless of how they are appointed, administrators are active in policy making and community relations at levels very similar to those of city managers.
Setting priorities [In the midst of preparations for city-county consolidation, on October 1, 1997, the International Speedway Corporation asked Kansas City, Kansas, for a proposal for a new racetrack, to be developed in three weeks.] Dennis Hays, chief administrative officer, recalls: “It wasn’t until that point that I realized how serious this was and how much time and energy would have to be devoted to it. I got to the mayor [Mayor Carol Marinovich], and I remember saying, ‘Mayor, do we want this? Do we throw everything we have at it?’ She was facing a September election, and she couldn’t know how this would affect her chances to become mayor of the consolidated government. But she looked at me, and she said resolutely, ‘Yes, we are going for it.’ ” The city administrator got the political direction he needed. The mayor would work with the council, and Hays now knew where his priorities lay: NASCAR first, transition [to consolidated government] second.
Council approval of the appointment of the administrator appears to increase the likelihood that the city administrator will play an integrative role, helping both the mayor and city council. Council approval was endorsed in the eighth edition of the Model City Charter, but having a city administrator, no matter the method of appointment, is preferred over not having an administrator. The city administrator helps the mayor or the mayor and council set the policy agenda, takes care of the community-relations activities the mayor wants the administrator to handle, and sets the tone for the administrative organization, incorporating themes the mayor emphasizes. Like the city manager, the city administrator is a community leader, although in filling this leadership role the city administrator operates to a greater extent as the agent of the mayor.
Sizing up one’s own community-leadership style
To be effective in dealing with others, a local government manager or administrator needs to size up personal values, ideals, and qualities and needs to be honest in recognizing personal preferences, strengths, and weaknesses. Only by personal understanding—in terms of individual traits and also in relation to a typology of community-leadership styles—can the manager hope to match performance to the characteristics of the community served.
Four salient dimensions of personality
Four dimensions of personality are particularly salient to an understanding of community-leadership style: internal versus external orientation, degree of innovation (extent to which innovation is initiated or fostered), technical orientation (degree of reliance on expertise), and degree of flexibility. On each dimension, a manager can be low, medium, or high.
Internal versus external orientation The issue here is whether the manager relates primarily to members of the organization and the city council or is highly active in community affairs. The question is not whether the manager is involved outside the organization, since such involvement is unavoidable. Rather, it is whether the manager enjoys, is good at, and is extensively engaged in community affairs. As noted in the above discussion of networking, managers can locate themselves on this dimension by listing the actors inside and outside government whom they consider to be important to their performance of their duties as well as the actors they do not consider to be important.
A personal characteristic that can affect the orientation to community relations is the extent to which the manager is engaged in, and energized by, relating to other people face-to-face. Managers who seek out contact with other people and enjoy the give-and-take of verbal exchange probably find it more natural and enjoyable to have extensive dealings with citizens and groups. Those who prefer to have enough distance to be able to reflect on information they have received, who prefer written reports to discovery through dialogue, and who need time to themselves to recharge their batteries are going to be less drawn to involvement in the community. They will also be drained rather than energized by extensive interaction. These contrasting types might be labeled “extroverts” (people who are drawn to relating to others) and “introverts” (people who prefer to reflect on the information they have received).31
Degree of innovation The second salient dimension of personality is the degree to which the manager initiates and fosters innovation. How creative, change oriented, and visionary is the manager? Some managers focus on the concrete, the here and now, and the facts of the situation. Others look at the same information and see patterns and possibilities. They focus on how things can be different, and they develop plans for the future. These two types are “sensors” (the realists) and “intuitives” (the visionaries).
Technical orientation The third dimension is technical orientation: how much emphasis does the manager place on using administrative and managerial expertise? The manager who has a strong technical orientation incorporates management systems in the organization and, in decision making, emphasizes the collection and analysis of information. Managers who are low on this dimension place more emphasis on the art of management and their feel for the situation. A technically oriented manager is more comfortable with data about community conditions and citizen attitudes and looks for logical analyses and reasoned conclusions about what is the “best” approach or solution to a problem. The less technically oriented manager puts more trust in knowing how people are affected by a decision and how they feel about it. This manager would be comfortable bargaining to find mutually acceptable solutions and compromising to find the basis for agreement. These two types are “thinkers” (or analysts) and “feelers” (or empathizers).
Degree of flexibility The final dimension—degree of flexibility—can interact with any of the others. Some people like order, predictability, and closure. Others are happier with spontaneity and surprises; they like to keep their options open, and they postpone making decisions. Most managers might be called “closers,” who like to get decisions made and problems resolved.32 The “processors,” on the other hand, want to delay decisions and keep their options open. It should be noted that the political process tends to produce delays that the processor may be better able to tolerate. Decisions are frequently postponed and are sometimes reopened after being made. Frequently, citizen groups will want to raise new factors and reconsider decisions.
Typology of community leaders
From variations on the four dimensions (particularly the first three), one can develop a typology of community leaders. The following descriptions of hypothetical managers are designed to highlight the distinctions among the types. Many additional types can be imagined, and, in reality, the combinations of qualities do not form clearly differentiated types. An individual manager is likely to be a blend of the characteristics of several of the types. The examples here may suggest how managers can think about their own characteristics and tendencies.
The complete community leader has an external focus, is highly innovative, and has a high technical orientation. This is the ideal type for those who think the manager should be actively involved in community affairs, a creative leader, and highly proficient in the technical aspects of the position. Even though the community-leader type of manager, like most others, may think council relations are the key to success, managers of this type still devote a considerable degree of attention to community relations as well as to the management aspect of the leadership role and are able to make all three aspects work to support each other.
Also with a strong external focus are the coalition builder and the arbiter. The coalition builder is happiest working with people and groups in the community to build agreement to meet community problems. This manager is very attuned to the feelings of others and picks up on negative vibrations that others often miss. But because of a low technical orientation, this manager finds the details of the job to be dull and uninspiring. The arbiter is similar to the coalition builder but ranks lower on innovation. This manager negotiates with groups and helps them compromise but is not innovative in approaching problems.
The chief executive is similar in many ways to the community leader but has a stronger internal orientation. Thus, this manager relies more on staff to develop proposals and is somewhat detached from the community.
The administrative innovator is highly innovative when it comes to making the organization work better and has a strong technical orientation. Even more than the chief executive, however, this manager avoids community involvement.
The administrative stabilizer or improver also likes to work on the inside but places more emphasis on making the existing systems work better than on introducing new systems. These managers are pragmatists interested in how to get the job done. They are most inclined to examine new ideas that have been tested in other cities and then adapt them to fit the circumstances in their own cities. Both the administrative innovator and the administrative stabilizer/improver rely on the council as their channel to the community. They are inclined to view elected officials as the ones who will speak for the community and secure the public support needed for the implementation of decisions.
Finally, a manager who ranks low on all three dimensions is a caretaker. With an internal focus, low innovation, and low technical orientation, this manager concentrates on housekeeping or maintenance functions. The caretaker certainly does not want to make waves in the community.
Assessment of one’s own style
As stated above, developing a good sense of one’s own characteristics and tendencies is important to one’s effectiveness as a local government manager. People who fit almost any of the types described here can be effective managers if they recognize their weaknesses and blind spots, on the one hand, and appreciate their strengths, on the other. Furthermore, a person can certainly develop attributes that do not come naturally and are not acted on with as much facility as other attributes.
One approach to assessing style is to develop a self-portrait of community leadership. Practicing managers can describe what they actually do. Future managers can project how they think they would handle the position.
Another approach to self-assessment is to use an inventory that identifies key traits. One instrument that is commonly used to gain personal insights is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.33 The traits typically manifested by managers who have completed this inventory suggest that if managers’ behavior were determined entirely by their own preferences, most managers would fall into the administrative stabilizer/improver type. There are many exceptions, but managers tend to be introverts—reflectors rather than relaters—and therefore are more likely to be somewhat removed from people and groups in the community rather than highly involved with them.34 They are typically concerned about concrete problems in the present (the sensors, or the realist characteristic) rather than highly innovative and visionary (the intuitives). They prefer rational, logical approaches to decision making (the “thinking” characteristic) rather than being highly empathic (the feelers). Finally, they have a strong preference for being orderly, maintaining control, anticipating and preparing for problems, and bringing decisions to closure (the “closer” characteristic) rather than being spontaneous, flexible, and willing to postpone decisions (the processors). All these traits have advantages in community leadership. Still, it is the atypical traits (i.e., being outgoing, innovative, empathic, and flexible) that are associated with facility and comfort in community relations.
Assessing your community-relations style
- What parts of your job do you like most? Least?
- What actors inside and outside of government do you consider to be important in the performance of your duties? You can also list the actors whom you consider not important. What do the two lists tell you about the extent and inclusiveness of your networking?
- How comfortable are you dealing with the council? Do you like it when they look to you for explicit leadership (whether or not it is wise for you to lead)?
- Are you comfortable interacting with groups in the community? Which groups do you like to deal with and which do you not?
- Do you look at situations and think about how things can be changed in fundamental ways or do you concentrate on specific actions that can improve how the organization operates?
- Are you interested in dealing with the big problems and needs facing the community and in developing a vision for this community?
- Are you interested in using the best available methods and adhering to the highest standards of practice in your organization? Do you pay as much attention to practices that pertain to citizen and community relations as you do to internal operations?
- How flexible are you? How do you feel about adapting the decision-making process to involve diverse groups and opinions?
- Which type of community leader described in the text is most like you? Which other types have some characteristics that you demonstrate? Which type do you most want to be like?
Anyone can develop the “shadow” trait that is the opposite of his or her own natural tendency. Doing so involves identifying the characteristics associated with the shadow trait and assessing which of them could be used to soften the natural tendency or make interaction in atypical ways easier. For example, a naturally outgoing and expressive person could make the effort to pause after making a point and ask the other person for feedback. After local government managers have assessed their own tendencies, they may need to make special efforts to strengthen the characteristics that bear on their community-leadership role.
Local government managers adopt the community-relations style that is based on their personal traits, the skills they have developed, the circumstances they face in particular situations, and the (changing) characteristics and needs of the community. They have probably felt the need to adopt the styles of many or all of the types at different times in their careers. The mode of behavior that is closest to one’s personal preferences will be the one most commonly used and the one to which the manager tends to revert. Nevertheless, effective managers need to be able to understand all the types and styles and adopt them when necessary. Furthermore, local government managers can supplement their community-relations style with a comprehensive community-leadership approach, one that includes setting the agenda and orienting the organization to the community. This approach will address the needs of the community and meet professional standards.
Understanding community dynamics
A comprehensive community-leadership approach requires the manager to understand the community’s dynamics: what the community as a whole expects of government, and what the configuration of the community’s political landscape is.
Expectations of government
Some communities, usually small ones, have a dominant orientation toward, or expectation of, government. Others, particularly larger communities, have a number of differing expectations about what local government is and what it does. Managers must be able to understand the characteristics of their own community and adapt their style to the expectation and needs of the community. Disparities between the manager’s expectations and the community’s will diminish effectiveness and produce tension in the relationship.
Three pure types of expectation Citizens and communities as a whole differ in what they demand from government and public officials (i.e., the services provided, the degree of governmental activism, and the level of expenditures). At one time it might have been possible to identify three types of communities, depending on whether the government was expected to focus primarily on being an instrument of growth, a provider of amenities, or a provider of caretaker functions.35 A challenge to local government management in the twenty-first century is that most jurisdictions are characterized by conflicting orientations.
Citizens and groups that stress economic growth and development ask their local jurisdiction and its officials to serve primarily as catalysts for community and regional growth. Here public managers are busy promoting population expansion, fostering industrial development, encouraging commercial activities, and building the essential infrastructure (roads, sewers, and so on) to further business development and economic progress. A local public manager’s community involvement therefore entails a good deal of promotion; participation in the planning of industrial and residential site development; and effort to keep costs low, provide tax advantages or other incentives for local business development, and ensure adequate utility, transit, labor, and other necessary services for rapid economic expansion.
The commitment to development can weaken, however, if residents come to feel that there has been enough growth. For example, the town of Cary, North Carolina, next to Raleigh and Research Triangle Park, ballooned from 8,860 residents in 1972 to 103,260 in 2002. In 2000 a new majority on the city council adopted a growth management plan. The same city manager who had helped the city grow since 1994 shifted to leading the staff in implementing the plan to contain growth.36
Other citizens and groups emphasize quality of life and urge local government to focus on providing life’s amenities. Here public managers must be involved in offering residents an attractive, desirable, comfortable community in which to live. Consumption as opposed to production or growth is therefore the principal and most cherished value of these communities. In a consumption-oriented community, the present way of life is preferred over the possibility of attaining a new or better one tomorrow. Thus, a local public manager in these communities emphasizes such activities as the provision of adequate parks, recreation, and leisure activities; prompt and courteous responses to citizens requiring public services; strict enforcement of zoning; the quiet and safe flow of traffic; and abatement of noise and pollution.
In communities with this orientation, an important part of the local government manager’s job is being able to supply public goods and services in innovative ways at a reasonable cost to citizens. The manager and staff must be prepared to devote a fair amount of attention to involved citizens who are interested in particular services (e.g., a library board and support group) and want special attention given to “their” service in order to make it as good as possible, with little regard to the impact on the total budget.
A third orientation comes into play when citizens and groups prefer that government provide minimal services, or when the community’s fiscal resources may force the government to restrict what it offers. In responding to this orientation, managers must demonstrate that they are keeping the costs of government down and keeping the size of government as a whole to a minimum.37 The preferred approach here would be to rely largely on the private sector or on other levels of government to supply such necessary public goods and services as refuse collection and recreation—if these services are supplied at all. If new projects are to be undertaken, private rather than public funding would be preferred.
The minimalist orientation could be linked to an opposition to professional local government management itself. Even so, the manager needs to maintain extensive ties with the community as a positive representative of government. To persuade elected officials and the community that the local government is being operated frugally and effectively, the manager will need to be both a good communicator and an accomplished organizational leader who looks for ways to cut costs and improve productivity.
Overlapping expectations in communities in crisis and transition Citizen orientations commonly overlap when the community is in crisis and in transition because of a sudden change in economic fortunes. In these communities, forces that favor limited growth and enhancement of quality of life counter pro-growth forces. Economically disadvantaged groups press for a wider range of services directed toward their needs. Groups that want lower taxes and less government activity tend to oppose everything. In this situation, the local government manager needs the skills and sensitivities appropriate to interacting with each group separately and must also be effective at linking dissimilar groups, promoting the identification of common interests, and, of course, resolving conflicts without getting caught in the cross fire. In a transitional or crisis setting, the manager’s role is particularly important because the governing board is likely to reflect the divisions among groups and be unable to serve as the unifying force.
Examples of situations in which communities are in crisis and transition can be taken from recent history. Despite the economic boom of the 1990s, one-third of central cities in the United States continued to struggle with high levels of poverty, and one in six experienced unusually high unemployment at the end of that decade.38 Then during the economic downturn that started in the second half of 2000, conditions worsened. Although the 2000 census showed that population trends in older central cities were not as negative in the 1990s as they had been in the 1980s, the change represents a slowing of decline rather than a reversal of fortune.39 In distressed urban areas, local government managers seek to arbitrate differences among the competing groups in a diverse population and to discover ways of expanding opportunities. The public manager’s job is especially difficult because of pressure on local government to provide extensive services to a population increasingly marked by poverty and dependence and to expand opportunities in the face of negative forces. The job involves managing conflict—sometimes quite intense conflict—among groups and interests over the allocation of scarce public goods and services. In distressed communities, the public manager’s community-relations skills are often tested to their utmost because much of the manager’s time is spent negotiating, compromising, and bargaining in order to build common ground on which to act. Symbolic actions on the part of the manager—the “right” gestures, proclamations, or appointments—can be as important as solid managerial results.
Although these conditions are commonly linked with central cities, an increasing number of inner-ring older suburbs are experiencing the same conditions. In any community where a major employer shuts down or economic opportunities are limited, the need and demand for services are very high and resources are few. Local government managers in these communities must not only be adept at resolving conflict but also must develop close personal ties within the community to try to off-set feelings of alienation from and distrust of local government.
These managers must also develop measures to reverse decline and promote economic development. In both the central city and older suburbs, success depends on a dual strategy of encouraging the reuse of underused land and buildings within the community while forging regional partnerships. Redevelopment and revitalization can transform blighted areas into magnets for shoppers and tourists from outside the city and for new residents in rehabilitated housing. Managers must take care, however, that revitalization not produce a dislocation of low-income residents or of local merchants and companies. In addition, single communities must work with others in the region to reap the benefits of industry clusters.40
Redevelopment and revitalization “Successful redevelopment of first-tier suburbs … will exert strong positive impact both inward, toward the center city, and outward, to aging outer ring suburbs, helping them learn how to avoid decay. The great hope: healthy metro regions. …”
William Hudnut developed a list of “urban acupuncture” tips in which some suburbs already excel—and many more could.
Examples from his book:
- Rebuild Main Street—a strategy that’s already worked for such towns as Bethesda, Maryland; Merchantville, New Jersey; Webster Groves, Missouri; and Pasadena, California.
- “DeMall” failing shopping centers for second-generation uses such as offices (Whitehall, Ohio) or even demolish them for radically redesigned, pedestrian-friendly, full-service town centers (Park Forest, Illinois).
Small towns in rural areas also face challenges, although generally different ones. The lifeblood of a small community can slowly drain away as main-street businesses close and young people leave to seek opportunities elsewhere. Or life can be suddenly disrupted when a major employer shuts down. Small towns have a narrow resource base, limited services, and limited transportation linkages. Small-town revitalization requires a multifaceted approach that includes fostering new investment, growing new businesses in empty storefronts, and training dislocated workers. These approaches, like those in metropolitan areas, require extensive community leadership from the local government manager.
Configurations of the community’s political landscape
In addition to being attentive to a community’s expectations of local government, the manager should be attentive to basic configurations of the community’s political landscape. This is important because the degree of fragmentation in the community can affect the scope of local managerial action.
In communities that are small and homogeneous, that is, where differences in ethnicity, race, and income are minimal, conflict is relatively rare. Here the public manager usually has considerable latitude for active leadership in community affairs and finds citizens generally willing to cooperate on a broad range of initiatives and activities. In fact, because of the manager’s full-time involvement and specialization in public affairs, citizens frequently look to the manager for leadership and direction, and local leaders often have great confidence in the manager and give that person considerable latitude. A study published in 2003 shows that local government managers with tenures of 20 years or more tend to be found in this kind of community.41
With greater size, diversity, and a changing population, the situation facing the local government manager is more challenging and less predictable. Midsize communities with more diverse populations are sometimes divided into two roughly equal interest groups or factions. Examples of such divisions are pro-growth people and environmentalists, blacks and whites, members of the old ethnic group and the new minority, established people and newcomers, Democrats and Republicans, and progressives and conservatives. Obviously in this type of community the manager’s maneuverability is severely limited because the manager cannot become too closely identified with either side.
For a manager, the most dramatic example of a fluid shift in power between the factions is when a council controlled by one group hires a manager and the opposition group wins the next election. The manager may suddenly be without a job or at the very least confront the challenge of winning the trust of a council whose majority comes from a different faction than did the hiring.
Managers should develop ties with both factions and should treat them equally and fairly. In the case of factions aligned with political parties, the manager should avoid any partisan connection with either party and, as required by the Code of Ethics, should be scrupulously neutral in elections. The code also requires that the manager provide information equally to all members of the council and implement with equal faithfulness the policies adopted by either group when it is in the majority. At the same time, the manager should not take actions that the group in the minority will view as detrimental.
In council-manager governments, the level of political stability varies and has some effect on managerial turnover.42 Even in stable situations, however, conditions can change, and managers are often unable to anticipate a coming shift in political control.
Managers need to continually monitor community groups and the dynamics of relations among them. Managers should also assess how community conditions match their personal style. In general, the greater the divisions in the community, the more externally oriented the manager needs to be. The more diverse the population, the more carefully the manager needs to balance a strong technical orientation with empathy for others and sensitivity to how groups with different backgrounds and values will respond to actions taken. Innovative managers need to ensure that their vision is widely understood and shared. Managers should also take stock of their ability to work with specific groups and of their community-relations skills.
Identifying the actors in community politics
In addition to understanding one’s own community-leadership style and the general dynamics of the community, a local government manager needs to understand the individual and group actors in community politics. Communities are made up of a variety of actors: groups, institutions, and networks. Developing an inventory of actors involves identifying general patterns of influence, general patterns of participation, and specific groups.
Sources of power and influence in the community
People with the capacity to tackle a big problem alone are rare. Some actors attempt to exert “power over” others and impose their wills, but they are often checked by those other actors. Progress is more likely to be made when two or more actors combine their “power to” contribute to an accomplishment in order to achieve a shared purpose.43 In assessing sources of influence, managers should look beyond the governing board because in the new millennium council members are less likely than in the past to come from or have ties to influential organizations in the community. They are now more likely to be political activists with neighborhood or issue-based followings. In working with the governing board, therefore, the manager does not necessarily have much access to community elites.
In the process by which a community action is accomplished, different groups are likely to have influence at different stages. The first question is: How do ideas originate; that is, what are the sources of change in the community? The answer is that both public officials and interest group leaders as well as economic elites figure prominently at this stage. In mayor-council governments, mayors are particularly important “entrepreneurs,” but in other forms of government, with less fanfare, mayors and board chairpersons, governing board members, and local government managers also help identify problems, issues, and goals. For example, at the time of the opening of a new center for the performing arts, the News & Observer in Raleigh, North Carolina, recognized the many people who had helped shape the project. Included in the list identified by the newspaper was the city manager, whose contribution was described in this way: “He conceived the idea for an affordable performing arts center and sold it to other city leaders.”44
The second stage in the process of accomplishing community action is legitimation and decision. If significant opinion makers and value shapers oppose a proposal, it may not secure a place on the issue agenda or, if it does, it is unlikely to receive support. Other groups will have to work harder and seek public support for their cause by taking direct action. A wide range of groups can be involved in seeking to win acceptance of or to reject the proposal.
The next stage is the provision of resources. When an idea or project needs resources beyond those that government can generate, the sources of support obviously exert great influence over whether that project comes to fruition.
Finally, new ideas or projects need to be implemented. The activists who will play the key roles in implementation are likely to come from government, a range of civic and nonprofit organizations, and interest groups. Although these actors are not typically thought of as being holders of power, they are usually crucial to the actual success of a new project or program, that is, they have the “power to” make the initiative a reality. When planning the early stages of community action, the local government manager needs to consider the perspectives of the actors who are crucial to the final stage.
Thus, the participants—those who have some influence over affairs in the community—are varied in their backgrounds and prominence. Local government managers should carefully assess all those whose support and contributions are necessary for specific projects. It is a mistake simply to assume that the major economic interests in the community control all decisions; however, it is also a mistake to ignore those interests.
Approaches to expanding citizen participation
In addition to identifying sources of influence and resources in the community, the local government manager should also be concerned with reaching out to and fostering involvement by a broad range of citizens.
Most citizens do not participate directly in community affairs. A small segment of the population will be attentive and active, some of the population will be attentive to a specific interest and active in their efforts to advance that interest, and most of the population will be inattentive and inactive unless an issue arises that directly affects them. Organized interest groups, for example, generate intense participation but represent only a small minority of the population. Those who vote in local elections also represent only a small minority of the population, typically only 12 to 20 percent of adults (or 20 to 30 percent of registered voters).45 Citizens with higher levels of education and income and with professional occupations are more likely to feel they have a duty as citizens to take part and more likely to think their participation will make a difference. Citizens who have fewer resources and weaker motivation to take part are not likely to participate in community affairs in the absence of either special efforts to involve them or events that have a direct effect on their lives. Local government managers should always be aware of the differences among the activists, the attentive electorate who will choose the governing board members, and the general citizenry. Managers also need to solicit input about the quality and impact of local government services directly from consumers and not rely on the opinions of activists or voters to determine whether programs are being run well.
In addition, interest in new conceptions of citizenship and attention to the social conditions that support them are increasing, and here, too, the manager has a role to play. Citizens are commonly seen as individualistic claimants who press for government action; expanding citizen participation means seeking to ensure that all voices are heard and all groups can express their demands. However, there are other ways of looking at citizen participation: A social-contract approach balances shared responsibilities against individual rights. The republican roots of the American revolution stressed civic virtue and the common good, not simply a commitment to individualism.46 In the new (or newly rediscovered) definitions of citizenship, a central element is the emphasis on building community as a collection of formal and informal institutions and organizations that connect people and provide the setting for collective actions to address needs.47 Service and volunteerism are important because “people helping people” is an essential quality of community. Citizenship involves people coming together on their own initiative to work on common projects and goals.48 Managers can help foster these efforts to build community.
Managers also have an important role as citizen educator. In informal gatherings, presentations to civic groups, classroom appearances as a visiting speaker or instructor, and, of course, the interactions with elected officials and staff, the manager has the opportunity to broaden knowledge as well as understanding of local government affairs. The teaching should move beyond explaining current problems and projects to examining the reasons for problems in the community, the rationale for alternative actions, and the possibilities for the future. In addition, the manager should provide lessons in democracy to help citizens of all ages understand how government operates and how people can work together to improve the community. (See also Chapter 4.)
Types of groups and constituents
A wide range of groups is active in local affairs. The larger the community, the more groups there will be and the more likely they are to be well organized. Table 2–4 provides a general picture of the relative influence of certain major types of groups as seen by city council members who responded to a National League of Cities survey conducted in 2001. Most council members view neighborhoods and business organizations as being influential, and roughly half of the council members in cities of all sizes consider women and environmentalists to be influential. Elderly people are given greater influence ratings in small and midsize cities than in large cities. For a number of other groups, the proportions are reversed: as city size increases, racial minorities, ethnic groups, labor unions, municipal employees, and political parties are more influential. Groups that are part of national movements (e.g., pro-choice or right-to-life organizations) can exert substantial pressure if they are able to mobilize allies regarding a concrete issue in a particular community. Similarly, groups and organizations that are peripheral to local government can be galvanized into action over a specific issue (e.g., churches over zoning for “adult” establishments, or garden clubs over removal of trees). The challenge to local officials is to be accessible to all groups, yet to reach sound decisions despite the pressures and cross pressures. The rest of this section discusses eight groups in more detail.
Table 2–4 Percentage of council members who believe interest groups influence council decisions
Note: 670 council members were interviewed in 2001.
Neighborhood groups Neighborhood groups are among the most numerous and, in the view of council members, the most influential in local government affairs. Many of the most intense issues that arise deal with the characteristics of neighborhoods (e.g., what kind of housing will be permitted) and with providing services that will make neighborhoods more attractive (e.g., a community center), protecting them from threats (e.g., drug trafficking), and resisting changes that will have adverse effects (e.g., widening a street and thereby increasing the traffic). Not only do residents seek to protect the lifestyle of their chosen neighborhood, but they also, in the case of homeowners, seek to maintain the value of a major investment in property. The increased use of district elections has increased the influence of neighborhoods. In addition, many local governments have created formal mechanisms for input, such as neighborhood-based citizen advisory committees. For example, the city of Richmond, Virginia, created a Neighborhood Team Process (NTP) in 1988 to bring residents from more than 100 neighborhoods into nine working teams organized into nine districts.49 These teams continue to address service complaints by citizens, provide ideas for the operating and capital improvement budgets, and find ways to help the police prevent drug sales. NTP has fostered a partnership approach with community development corporations, leveraging private- and public-sector resources and targeting them to a limited number of strategically selected neighborhoods to maximize impact.
Neighborhood organizations can provide the base for resisting changes that are viewed as actually or symbolically detrimental. The NIMBY phenomenon is a powerful force to be reckoned with when siting decisions are made. It is imperative, therefore, to consult the neighborhood before making a decision, to recognize the concerns of residents, and to address those concerns. Taking these and other measures to resolve conflicts (a topic discussed below) will not ensure acceptance by the neighborhood, but failure to take these actions will certainly lead to strong resistance from the area affected.
Business community The business community is divided roughly into two groups: (1) businesspeople with firms whose ownership is located elsewhere and whose markets are national and international, and (2) businesspeople with firms whose markets are local, who therefore have a vital stake in local development since their livelihoods depend on it directly. The challenge with the former group can be to get them involved in the local community and keep them from relocating or disinvesting. Members of the latter group, especially when the business is locally owned, are normally active in the local Chamber of Commerce and other such organizations for promoting local growth. They include department store owners; utility company executives; real estate developers and salespeople; and small-business owners whose economic survival requires them to press local government for downtown redevelopment, better roads, improved trash collection, mass transit, and better services overall to lure customers to their businesses. Thus, business leaders are often great supporters of physical-improvement projects and initiatives to improve municipal management. Chambers of commerce and city governments commonly form close partnerships.50
Because the business community has influence and a critical role in any community’s economic prosperity and job opportunities, the local public manager interacts with it extensively. With the clout that businesses have, local government managers must take care that actions reflect need. The demands of business must be justified and balanced against the broader needs of the entire community.
Racial and ethnic groups Communities are experiencing a transformation of their racial and ethnic composition as a result of population shifts and expanding immigration. Although cohesive European ethnic groups continue to be important participants in the local politics of cities, they are found primarily in the Northeast and Midwest. African Americans, formerly living mainly in the rural areas of the South, are a major segment of the population in communities throughout the country. The large number of immigrants from Latin America and Asia are adding new ethnic groups to communities, and these groups are moving into all parts of the country, even though more than 50 percent of the Hispanic population is still found in Texas, California, and New York,51 and the largest Asian concentrations are in large cities.
It has been common to think of small cities as being relatively homogeneous and large cities as diverse. This generalization is getting weaker over time, and the 2000 census shows that minority groups are found in cities of all sizes. As indicated in Table 2–5, in one-third of the urban places between 2,500 and 10,000, minorities make up less than 5 percent of the population; none of the largest cities is this homogeneous. At the other end of the scale, however, one-quarter of the urban places between 2,500 and 10,000 have minority populations greater than 35 percent. It may be common to think that it is only the city administrators of very large cities who have to be adept at dealing with diversity, but 566 towns that are under 10,000 in population and 372 cities with populations from 10,000 to 499,000 have sizable (35 percent or greater) minority populations. Thus, a significant number of small and moderate-size jurisdictions face the challenges that come from having a high proportion of minorities. In comparison, 31 of the 72 largest cities (more than 500,000 inhabitants) have these population characteristics. Local government managers in cities of all sizes must be prepared to work with people from many different ethnic groups and with large, well-established groups as well as with growing minorities.
Table 2–5 Minority population percentage by size of urban place, 2000
Source: Calculated from Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1).
Note: An urban place has a population equal to or greater than 2,500 and is defined by the census as an urban cluster or urban area. Some urban places combine two or more municipalities.
The presence of diverse groups in communities has always created dynamic forces for change and renewal. Diversity has also produced tensions over competing values and conflict over how resources are distributed, as new groups seek to get a share. Members of minority groups have often suffered from discrimination, although members of European ethnic groups have found it easier to avoid discrimination than have members of identifiable racial groups.
The dynamics of racial and ethnic relations must be assessed carefully with attention to the specific combinations of groups and local traditions in each city and county. Managers need to be attuned to the potential for clashes between large ethnic minorities over electoral office, government jobs, and services. As the size of the Hispanic population grows to equal and surpass the number of African Americans in the general population,52 clashes in the electoral arena and in the competition for jobs are increasingly likely.53 In the early years of the millennium, however, the overlap of substantial African American and Hispanic population groups is still relatively uncommon. In 2000, in only 6 percent of the urban places (a total of 199) did both groups have a population share that was 10 percent or greater. On the other hand, one in six urban areas over 500,000 in population had this combination, and the number of communities with sizable numbers of both groups will be growing in the future.
When any non-English-speaking immigrant group grows, language becomes a salient issue for the local government; and where there are large numbers of immigrants, it is necessary to be able to communicate with at least some citizens in their native tongue. In many communities, therefore, managers will need to be bilingual.
The issue of unequal provision of or access to services, or both, is magnified when differences in provision or access correspond to racial and ethnic divisions. The nation’s underlying economic conditions continue to reflect racial and ethnic inequality. Whereas African Americans and Hispanics together represented 26 percent of the population in 2001, they accounted for 49 percent of the population below the poverty line.54 Access to housing and the provision of credit reflect disparities in income as well as discrimination.
In relating to all groups, local government managers need to promote recognition and inclusion. They should also determine whether there are problems in the community that relate to race or ethnicity. Such problems may include the following: a systematic bias in living conditions and opportunities, discrimination against and exclusion of any groups, tension and conflict among groups, and acts of intolerance and violence directed toward members of minority groups. Local government managers are committed by professional values to promoting equality, fair provision of services, service delivery that is sensitive to the characteristics of citizens served, affirmative action to expand opportunities, full participation by all groups, and protection of the rights of minorities.
Issue and interest groups The number of groups that promote specific issue agendas is very large. These groups may be nationally oriented, taking up local issues only when the issues are relevant to the group’s concerns (e.g., the Sierra Club) or may be organized specifically around local issues (e.g., a save-the-park organization). A general phenomenon that affects local government (as well as the national government) is the increasing ability of organizations to mobilize members by phone, direct mail, and the Internet to apply intense pressure regarding a specific issue. The pressure may take the form of lobbying as well as supporting candidates for the governing board. The activity of these groups has expanded the local government agenda and injected many new voices into public discussions, but it has also increased the possibility that a response to one issue will create imbalances in other areas and that some of the people elected to the governing board will have a very narrow agenda. Managers need to communicate more extensively with governing board members to help them be aware of the general needs and policies that should be kept in mind when the board is handling specific decisions.
Gay and lesbian people Gay and lesbian organizations are increasingly important in large cities, but measures to expand gay rights are extending beyond large cities. Initially the goals of these groups focused on city services and protection from violence and from police entrapment. Over time, the groups’ political concerns have expanded to include issues of personal safety, civil rights, and recognition of same-sex domestic arrangements.55 In 2003, more than 160 local jurisdictions, including cities, counties, and school districts of all sizes, recognized domestic partnerships.
Elderly people The elderly (over-65) population grew by 3.7 million people in the 1990s, an increase of 12 percent (and the over-75 population increased by 26 percent). As a share of the total U.S. population, however, the over-65 group actually shrank a bit, dropping from 12.6 percent in 1990 to 12.4 percent in 2000.56 This surprising decrease is important only because it means that far more change will be experienced in the future: between 2000 and 2010, the over-65 population will grow both numerically and proportionally from 35 million (or one in eight Americans) to 40 million (or one in 7.5). By 2030, 70 million (or one in every five) Americans will be over the age of 65.57 The elderly are a growing segment of the population in communities of all sizes and in all areas, although in the 1990s the greatest growth occurred in the West (19.9 percent) and the South (16.0 percent), with much slower rates of growth in the Midwest (6.6 percent) and the Northeast (5.4 percent).58 Local government managers should recognize that people over 65 have distinct characteristics and needs and that they vote at higher rates than younger people.
As an interest group, elderly people may push for services that benefit themselves, and they may withhold support for programs—such as public education—that raise their taxes but do not benefit them directly. Local officials will need to rethink how they approach and involve elderly people as their numbers grow and their attitudes shift. Large numbers of elderly people are not familiar or comfortable with computer use; although this proportion will decline as more people carry their computer literacy into older age, age is still one source of the digital divide that affects the implementation of e-government.
Volunteers Local governments already make extensive use of citizen volunteers in their programs, but there are contradictory indicators regarding this use (as well as the use of volunteers in nonprofits). On the one hand, the potential sources to be tapped for service work are growing. A new generation of high school and college students seeks opportunities for community service. And members of the so-called Generation X can be drawn to service work if it has a hands-on aspect and produces clear-cut results.59 Furthermore, already some of the 76 million baby boomers are looking for ways to give something back to society. They and others among the growing number of retired persons may be looking for activities to occupy their time. However, busy work lives, economic pressures, and values centered on self decrease the availability of volunteers to many organizations, which have to hire staff for work that volunteers once performed. Today’s over-65 population has the lowest volunteerism rate of all age groups.60 To attract more volunteers, particularly among the Generation Xers and baby boomers, organizations must engage volunteers and give them ways to make meaningful contributions to the organization as whole, not just perform specific tasks.61 Nonprofit organizations generally have greater flexibility to make these adjustments, so local government managers will need to be more effective in the competition to identify, reach, motivate, and manage volunteers.
Poor people Poor people are different from the members of other groups in having a low level of participation in community affairs. Feelings of alienation, apathy, and exclusion make them less likely to vote and less attentive to government. As individuals, many lack the knowledge, skills, time, and resources for effective participation. Few job skills and a lack of mobility limit their employment options, and illegal immigrants without papers can take only the most menial jobs. As a group, poor people are fragmented (e.g., some are elderly, some are mothers with children, men without jobs, people without homes, and ill and disabled people) and are divided by race and ethnicity. They have limited organization and leadership.
Local governments are severely constrained in their capacity to respond to the underlying problems of poverty. Restricted budgets and increasing needs in all areas limit the ability of local governments to allocate more funds to programs for poor people, particularly in cities with the greatest problems. Any substantial redistribution of income must be undertaken by higher-level governments because localities that provide extensive services and benefits may find themselves with much higher costs per resident and a more dependent population than those that do not.
City of Phoenix strategic approach to neighborhood revitalization Phoenix has committed to concentrating community development resources primarily in five noncontiguous Neighborhood Initiative Areas. … The five Neighborhood Initiative Areas are primarily residential and contain at least 51 percent lower income residents.
The strategy is to comprehensively address the social, economic, and physical needs of the neighborhoods, complete revitalization activities, and move on to other neighborhoods.
Revitalization is accomplished through:
- Neighborhood residents defining success and developing completion plans
- Community-based nonprofit partnerships providing additional resources to support neighborhood revitalization efforts
- Multiyear funding commitments
- Interdepartmental city service delivery teams
- Multiple economic development activities that assist small businesses to add physical improvements to and/or expand their operations, provide training and job opportunities for lower-income neighborhood residents, and that leverage private resources to the greatest extent possible.
Source: City of Phoenix Consolidated Plan for 2000–2005, chapter 7, Strategic Plan.
There are, however, seven effective general strategies that local government managers can use to promote social equity: (1) fair and prompt responsiveness to problems of and complaints by individual citizens regarding local services, (2) effective and impartial delivery of basic services (fire, police, recreation, refuse collection, social services) to all parts of the community, (3) equal opportunity for jobs and promotion in the government workforce, (4) special efforts to identify, support, and seek input from leaders of groups that speak for poor people, (5) sustainable development strategies that locate jobs near workers and invest in public transportation, (6) renewal of low-income neighborhoods, and (7) prohibition of discriminatory practices by public employees and constant monitoring for unintended exclusionary impacts. Effective strategies require coordination and the concentration of limited resources.
One of my mottos is “Gerencia con corazon.” Management with a heart. Having the skills needed to run city government, but also having the best interest of the community at heart. I think it’s a formidable combination that has worked well for me.
Alex Briseño
Behavioral components of effective community leadership
Exercising community leadership effectively in the new millennium requires the local government manager to understand
- Changes in the political context
- Styles of community leadership
- Dynamics of the particular community
- Actors in community politics.
Exercising effective community leadership also means understanding and manifesting certain principles of behavior.
Four key behavioral aspects of community relations are facilitation, conflict resolution, communication with the public, and leadership in a diverse community.
Facilitation
Facilitators help a group come together and improve its interactions.62 Facilitation is guided by four core values about the way people relate to each other in solving problems. First, interchange is based on valid information, with participants sharing all information relevant to the issue under consideration. Second, participants make a free (unconstrained) and informed choice. People are able to define their own objectives and the methods of achieving them, and choices are based on valid information. Third, participants feel personally responsible for the decisions they make, and their commitment to the decisions is based on the intrinsic value of action rather than on possible inducements or sanctions. Fourth, participants feel compassion for each other. They are concerned about what is good for one another and for themselves. Facilitators help groups act in a way that is consistent with these four core values, and they also use the core values to guide their own behavior.
The role of the facilitator is to
- Establish ground rules for effective group process
- Identify behavior that is inconsistent with the ground rules, as well as behavior that is consistent with them
- Help group members learn more effective behavior.
Facilitation takes training and practice, and it starts with a commitment to promote the core values that support facilitation. Managers who undertake facilitation with the intention of leading citizens to an outcome preferred by the manager are undermining the integrity of the process. In addition, effective facilitation includes skills such as remaining objective, listening actively, soliciting balanced participation, achieving group agreement, and responding to feedback.63
Conflict resolution
Conflict resolution is necessarily divided into two separate tasks. First, the parties must agree or be persuaded to come to the table and engage in dialogue. Second, the parties need to be helped to find some basis for agreement. The first task entails building a forum for the cooperative resolution of disputes.64 The key participants must be persuaded that the process will be open and fair and that no outcome will be imposed on them. They must agree to a set of ground rules about how to proceed. (Ground rules cover the openness of the meetings, the members’ relationship to the media, and the way decisions are made; and participants must agree to the use of a facilitator or mediator.) Establishing the ground rules provides an opportunity for the groups to reach agreement before turning to the substantive issues that divide them.
The second task involves facilitating discussion according to certain principles that have been designed to change the tone of interaction (from negative to neutral to positive) and to identify common ground.65 It is important to separate the people from the problem and avoid personalizing attacks. Disagreement should be invited, and the inferences drawn from statements as well as the assumptions made about other participants should be explicitly tested. It is also useful to seek an understanding of underlying concerns and interests rather than defend preferred positions. At this early stage there may be more agreement than the participants realize. The process leads participants to think of new options that satisfy the concerns and interests of both sides. Seeking consensus for solutions prevents a win-lose mentality and ensures that each side and each participant has an equal role in shaping the agreements that emerge.
Local government officials can also develop structures that will promote communication and understanding among citizens and between citizens and officials. Traffic and parking issues, for example, often turn out to be loaded subjects that touch on serious underlying differences about how the city should function and develop. The parties in dispute can engage in hostile exchanges, and the city council can devote considerable time to those issues, with only minimal success in coming up with satisfactory resolutions. To promote the desired communication and understanding, the Sonora, California, city council created the Sonora Parking and Traffic Commission, where these differences could be explored in a constructive fashion and deliberative decisions made. The commission’s membership includes council members, representatives of key departments, and at-large members from the community. The place chosen for the commission meetings allows no physical separation between the commission members and the people who come to its meetings: there is no dais, and no raised seating for commissioners. All sit at a round table, and conversations are constructive rather than confrontational and argumentative. The whole approach has prompted “a renewed sense of community.”66
Communication with the public
Communication with the public encompasses most of what local government does, but two functions are singled out here: media relations because it is so central to the manager’s connection with the community, and e-government because it is steadily growing in importance.
Media relations Managers can easily fall into the trap of viewing the media as the enemy and thinking that it is impossible to influence coverage. Managers can take steps, however, to improve media relations and the news coverage of local government.67
A media relations strategy Good media relations start with a strategic plan for the organization that can be easily explained to the media, and a communications strategy that is part of that plan. The following pointers are for the local government manager as well as for the information officer and the assistant manager.
- Start with the reporters. Get to know them and ask them to attend periodic briefings. Be as available as possible—for either good times or bad—and always be frank and honest.
- Give reporters opportunities. Provide them with good news items and, especially, with well-planned informational events that enable them to do good context work.
- Get to know the circumstances of the local media. Develop an understanding of the pressures and constraints under which reporters and editors are working.
- Get to know the editors. Start with a social event or with a request for an initial editorial board briefing and continue periodic briefings.
- Provide spaces for meeting with reporters where you can display context information (maps, graphs, photographs). Do this especially with your office and at least one conference room.
- Use retreats or other special opportunities to work with the press. Try to assure good coverage that doesn’t distort the process.
First, the manager should recognize and accept the fact that the public has a right to know what goes on in local government. It is professionally responsible, as well as effective, to respect the letter and spirit of freedom of information acts rather than engage in contests with the media over how much will be hidden and how much will be revealed.
Second, the local government should establish a clear policy for press relations. Press relations should be coordinated by one person, with a clear assignment of responsibilities for releasing various types of information. Reporters should be encouraged to talk to any officials, but officials and employees should know what information is public and when comments on policy questions are appropriate and inappropriate.
Third, the local government manager should take time to orient reporters to local government operations and explain who does what, what the various acronyms mean, and how and why certain decisions are made. If a news story is inaccurate, the manager should not hesitate to tell the reporter but should respect the reporter’s news judgment and ignore minor inaccuracies.
Finally, the manager must accept the fact that criticism of local government, the manager, and other officials will appear in the media and that skepticism is built into reporters’ professional training. The media are not in the business of quietly informing local government when a problem is discovered. Instead, their job is to inform the public. Nonetheless, with careful attention to media relations, managers can help make the media’s coverage more focused, accurate, and positive.
E-government Relating to the community and providing expected services increasingly calls for information to be distributed electronically.68 The challenge is to fully integrate the new technologies of communication with reorganized internal processes. Chapter 5 discusses e-government in detail.
Transforming city hall “ ‘There are four phases Internet migration goes through,’ [Meisburg] says. ‘The first is a very simple demographic thing, where with pictures and names you make more people aware of the things the city does, the key players, the names of the commissioners. Then there is the query phase. That’s when you give them simple information about what these entities do: Who do you call if …? Then there’s the transactional phase, which is where we are now. In this stage, your customers can begin to do their work, pay their bills, get their services, change their services, track their billing over the internet.’ The final phase, [he] says, is the hardest: ‘the transformational phase, in which city hall is reconfigured.’ ”
A specific application of information technology (IT) is the paperless council meeting.69 Preparing council packets with electronic files makes the information used by the council accessible in the same form to staff and citizens, while it also saves time and money.
The next challenge is applying IT to the process of citizen participation. E-democracy, as it is called, offers the promise of opening new channels of input and strengthening the interaction between citizens and officials in the decision-making process. For example, the Web site “Have Your Say” announces that the city council in Wellington, New Zealand, “relies on the people of Wellington to help us make the right decisions on policy and projects.” It not only asks for opinions on identified issues but also offers background information on these issues and, in the particular case of a possible change in the method of electing council members, offered an online survey form that examined a range of issues related to representation as well as to preferences for the method of election.70
The manager should be wary of overblown promises for a new “virtual town meeting,” however. The electronic medium may be misused.71 Overcoming barriers to computer access and allowing alternative methods of input for people unfamiliar or uncomfortable with computers will be essential to incorporating electronic citizen participation into the governing process. Furthermore, e-democracy cannot be permitted to crowd out other elements of sound governance. Representative democracy places council members, in their decision making, under the obligation to reflect and deliberate about how to advance the public interest of the community as a whole, not just electronically count hands. Professionalism requires that administrators present recommendations based on knowledge, best practices in other communities, impact on stakeholders, and analysis of long-term needs and trends, not just respond to easily transmitted popular pressures. In the future, therefore, local government managers will have to guide their communities toward finding new ways to blend citizen participation—both computer-assisted and traditional—with representation and with professionalism.
Leadership in a diverse community
The fourth key behavioral aspect of community relations is leadership in a diverse community. Ethnic and cultural diversity have been linked to a community’s ability to attract the “creative class” who contribute to economic dynamism.72
As mentioned above, effective leadership in a diverse community requires that the manager perceive and relate to citizens in distinctive ways. The manager’s orientation to groups should stress inclusion, appreciation of diversity, and representation in the processes of local government.
Inclusion Leadership involves creating a sense of community out of diversity rather than dividing or polarizing groups. Efforts to identify common ground and overarching principles that all accept must start with a willingness to encompass all groups. The challenge is to make inclusion a reality, not just an assembly of representatives of different groups. The test is getting results; that is, managers must not just be open to participation but must actually get participation and achieve a broader perspective on the nature of problems and their solutions.
Appreciation of diversity Appreciating differences among people leads one to understand not only the reasons for behavior but also the effect of cultural traditions or experience on a group’s values and on its participation in community affairs. The challenge for local government officials is to achieve a depth of understanding that will overcome stereotypical assumptions and prejudices. It is one thing to be aware of an ethnic group’s traditions in its original homeland. It is more difficult to understand how those traditions and values affect behavior in the group’s present circumstances.
Representation of diversity in local government With the increased use of district elections, a wider range of groups are securing membership on city and county governing boards. Still, the representation of minority groups typically lags such groups’ proportions in the population. New and less-organized groups have difficulty getting members elected, as do groups that are too small or too geographically dispersed. Councils can use appointments to government boards and commissions to broaden participation. Leaders can create forums for the expression of diverse views. Many cities have used study circles to involve ordinary citizens in discussions about improving human relations. Local government managers, as part of their commitment to citizen participation, must act to ensure that all groups have a voice.
Building bridges: A community process to heal racism Wichita, Kansas, used a dialogue process to increase respect among people from different races, cultures, and religions and to encourage citizens to contribute to community problem solving.
Nearly 300 citizens participated in dialogue groups representing over 75 organizations from business and industry, social services, educational institutions, government, law enforcement, and faith and community groups. Dialogues were held in churches, schools, police substations, bookstores, companies, and museums. Over 23 businesses and civic groups hosted the dialogue groups.
In each group, 8 to 15 community members from different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds discussed challenging topics as introduced in a written curriculum developed by the Study Circles Resource Center (SCRC). Two trained facilitators of different racial or ethnic backgrounds moderated. Each group met for six consecutive weeks for two hours. The conversations moved through important trust-building exercises to discussions of the root causes of problems identified and the actions needed to address the problems effectively. Participants made commitments towards direct action individually and as part of a larger group.
Source: “Moving from talk to action,” Everyday Democracy
- Local government managers lead their communities by helping shape the policy agenda, actively networking with citizens and groups, and orienting the staff and organization toward being open and responsive to all citizens.
- Local government managers not only lead, but they also seek to promote leadership by others, for example, by supporting elected officials in carrying out their roles and by empowering citizens to address their own problems.
- Professional managers are obligated to ensure that all groups have access to the decision-making process and are treated fairly, whether or not they are directly represented on the city council or participate actively in local politics.
- As governing boards become more diverse and members are more focused on specific areas and groups, the local government manager must assert a perspective that encompasses all segments of the community.
- Local government managers should be outgoing and inclusive in their community relations, although more than half of the local government managers in the United States focus on internal actors in their networking.
- Local government managers, regardless of their typical personality characteristics, should extend themselves beyond being pragmatic problem solvers to become visionary innovators.
- It is important to size up the community’s orientation to local government and assess which groups exist in the community and their level of involvement in community affairs.
- Local government managers should develop the capacity to be effective in handling facilitation, conflict resolution, communication with the public, and diversity within the community.
Community assessment for project initiation
When local government managers work to get a major project under way, they fill several roles:
- The initiator, who helps get an issue on the public agenda and seeks to secure effective action
- The catalyst, who brings others into the process and who works through others
- The responsible professional, who seeks to ensure that the decisions are (1) clearly related to and advance the mission of the organization; (2) based on appropriate information about needs, alternatives, and impacts; and (3) reached in a legitimate way by the governing board with broad-based participation of all those affected.
The following are questions the manager can use to assess and monitor the involvement in the project of various individuals and groups in the local government and community.
Local government
Where did the project originate?
Is there complete and objective analysis of the need and the alternative approaches?
What other departments will be affected? What input do they have or should they have in developing a proposal?
Is there an appropriate level of understanding and support for the project in the organization?
Governing body
What is the stance of elected officials with regard to the project? Are they in agreement, divided by constituency, opposed, or waiting for a decision to be presented to them?
If they are supportive, how firm is their support?
How much do they know about the project? (Have you been the only source of information?) Who might sway them in different directions?
What would happen if something goes wrong or a new issue appears?
Are you too far out in front of the governing body? As you venture into the community, is the governing body behind you?
The active community
Who constitutes your network of supporters through whom information about the project can be disseminated and general support can be obtained?
Whose support is needed? What kind of support?
1. Non-opposition
2. Approval
3. Endorsement/publicity
4. Participation
5. Resources
How will support be obtained? Who is the best contact?
Who will oppose the project? When? At the beginning, middle, or end of the project? If opposition will occur late in the process, should participation be invited earlier to secure the input of opponents? On what grounds is the opposition based? Is common ground possible? How can it be secured? Are opponents willing to engage in conflict resolution efforts?
The inactive community
Who will be affected by the project but not necessarily participate in the decision-making process?
How will they be affected?
Will they support or oppose the project?
Should they be left alone or involved? Are they being left alone to make it simpler to get the project approved? (If so, they should be brought into the process.)
Who should contact them?
To capture the steps and interrelationships in the process, develop a Gantt chart (bar graph plotting of action by start and completion date) or flow chart for the process. Be particularly attentive to the sequencing of actions. Asking the question “Who should be contacted before I take this action?” helps the manager identify people who might otherwise be left out and steps that might be overlooked.
Notes
1 Clinton Rogers Woodruff, ed., A New Municipal Program (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1919), 31 and 130.
2 Some fear that, by engaging in community leadership and being active in the policy role, managers are operating outside the bounds of their professionalism. See Bill Kirchhoff, “Babbitt Could Have Been a Manager,” Public Management 72 (September 1990): 2–6; and James R. Griesemer, “Restoring Relevance to Local Government Management,” Public Management 72 (September 1990): 7–12.
3 The nine areas are 2. policy facilitation; 4. citizen service; 6. initiative, risk taking, vision, creativity, and innovation; 7. technological literacy; 8. democratic advocacy and citizen participation; 9. diversity; 11. financial analysis; 13. strategic planning; 14. advocacy and interpersonal communication; 16. media relations.
4 John Nalbandian and Carol Nalbandian, “Contemporary Challenges in Local Government,” Public Management 84 (December 2002): 6–11.
5 James H. Svara, Official Leadership in the City (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 188–192. In a 1997 survey of city managers and city administrators in cities over 5,000 population, 86 percent agreed that the administrator should assume leadership in shaping municipal policies. Calculations from survey conducted by author; for information on the survey, see James H. Svara, “U.S. City Managers and Administrators in a Global Perspective,” The Municipal Year Book 1999 (Washington, D.C.: ICMA, 1999), 25–33.
6 James H. Svara, “The Myth of the Dichotomy: Complementarity of Politics and Administration in the Past and Future of Public Administration,” Public Administration Review 61 (March/April 2001): 176–183.
7 The levels of decision are defined in Svara, “Dichotomy and Duality: Reconceptualizing the Relationship between Policy and Administration in Council-Manager Cities,” Public Administration Review 45 (January/February 1985): 221–232.
8 James H. Svara, “U.S. City Managers and Administrators in a Global Perspective.”
9 James H. Svara, Two Decades of Continuity and Change in America’s City Councils (Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities, 2003).
10 James H. Svara, “The Shifting Boundary between Elected Officials and City Managers in Large Council-Manager Cities,” Public Administration Review 59 (January/February 1999): 44–53.
11 Svara, Official Leadership in the City.
12 National Civic League, “Building Communities That Strengthen Families,” Governing (October 1998): 2.
13 Poul Erik Mouritzen and James H. Svara, Leadership at the Apex: Politicians and Administrators in Western Local Governments (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2002), 99–102. The other percentages for U.S. managers were 2 percent isolates and 1 percent intergovernmental networkers. The breakdown for all countries was isolates, 24 percent; internal networkers, 27 percent; intergovernmental networkers, 21 percent; and inclusive networkers, 27 percent.
14 Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 25.
15 Donald F. Kettl, The Transformation of Governance: Public Administration for Twenty-First Century America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002).
16 “Preserving Cultural and Historic Resources through Brownfields Redevelopment,” E-Library document, ICMA, 2002.
17 H. George Frederickson, “The Repositioning of American Public Administration,” Political Science & Politics 32 (1999): 701–711.
18 Alexei Pavlichev and G. David Garson, Digital Government: Principles and Best Practices (Hershey, Pa.: Idea Group Publishing, 2004), chap. 1.
19 Between 1997 and 2001, the increase in computer use among African Americans and Hispanics was 28 percent, compared with 22 percent among whites. Racial differences in use were still substantial, however: among whites and Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders, 71 percent used computers; among African Americans, 56 percent; and among Hispanics, 49 percent. Similar racial patterns can be observed for income and educational levels. A Nation Online: How Americans Are Expanding Their Use of the Internet (Washington, D.C.: National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau, 2002).
20 Russ Linden, “The Promise and Challenge of Collaboration,” Public Management 85 (August 2003): 8–11.
21 Svara, Two Decades of Continuity and Change.
22 Charldean Newell and David N. Ammons, “Role Emphasis of City Managers and Other Municipal Executives,” Public Administration Review 47 (May/June 1987): 246–252.
23 James H. Svara, “Metamorphosis of Government and the Importance of New Governance” (presentation, ICMA Annual Conference, 2002).
24 Roy Wenzl, “Bob Knight Profile: All about Bob, How a Lonely Kid from Wichita Became Our Mayor Seven Times,” Wichita Eagle, October 17, 1999.
25 James H. Svara, “Mayors in the Unity of Powers Context,” in The Future of Local Government Administration: The Hansell Symposium, ed. H. George Frederickson and John Nalbandian, 50–52 (Washington, D.C.: ICMA, 2002). The managers’ self-rating of influence was slightly higher in the director-type cities than in other cities.
26 Victoria Loe Hicks, “Stronger City Council Proposed: Charter Review Panel’s Preliminary Draft Seeks More Accountability,” Dallas Morning News, February 24, 2003.
27 James H. Svara, “Do We Still Need Model Charters? The Meaning and Relevance of Reform in the Twenty-First Century,” National Civic Review 90 (Spring 2001): 19–33. The change in form also has important implications for the council and tends to make it a more reactive body responding to proposals from the mayor rather than a body that shapes the policy agenda through give-and-take with a city manager who serves at the pleasure of the council as a whole.
28 Bill Hansell, “Revisiting the Reform of the Reform,” Public Management 81 (January 1999): 27–28.
29 Kimberly L. Nelson, Structure of American Municipal Government, Special Data Issue, no. 4 (Washington, D.C.: ICMA, 2002).
30 Svara, “Do We Still Need Model Charters?”
31 Terms used in this discussion are drawn from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). See Sandra Krebs Hirsh and Jean M. Kummerow, Introduction to Type in Organizational Settings (Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1987).
32 The corresponding Myers-Briggs types for this dimension are termed “judgers” and “perceivers.”
33 For those who have completed the inventory and know their types, the approximate connection between the categories of managers we have just described and the MBTI types is as follows: community leader-ENTJ; chief executive-INTJ; administrative innovator-INTJ; administrative stabilizer/improver-ISTJ; coalition builder-ENFP; arbiter-ESFP; caretaker-ISTJ. Information about the MBTI is available in David Keirsey, Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence (Del Mar, Calif.: Prometheus Nemesis Book Co., 1998).
34 Charles K. Coe, “The MBTI: A Tool for Understanding and Improving Public Management,” State and Local Government Review 23 (Winter 1991): 37–46. The breakdown of types for city managers in North Carolina is as follows: extroversion 39 percent, introversion 61 percent; sensing 76 percent, intuition 24 percent; thinking 87 percent, feeling 13 percent; judging 82 percent, perceiving 18 percent.
35 Oliver P. Williams, “A Typology for Comparative Local Government,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 5 (May 1961): 150–164. A fourth type was the arbiter of conflicting interests.
36 William B. Coleman started work in Cary as assistant town manager in 1988 and became city manager in 1994.
37 William D. Eggers and John O’Leary, Revolution at the Roots: Making Our Government Smaller, Better, and Closer to Home (New York: Free Press, 1995).
38 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Now Is the Time: Places Left Behind in the New Economy (Washington, D.C.: HUD, 1999).
39 G. Thomas Kingsley and Kathryn L. S. Pettit, “Population Growth and Decline in City Neighborhoods,” in Neighborhood Change in Urban America (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2002).
40 An industry cluster can be defined as a geographically concentrated group of interdependent firms and supporting institutions. See Michael E. Porter, “Clusters and Competition: New Agendas for Companies, Governments, and Institutions,” in On Competition, ed. Michael Porter, chap. 7 (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 1998).
41 Wendy L. Hassett and Douglas J. Watson, “Long-Serving City Managers: Why Do They Stay?” Public Administration Review 63 (January/February, 2003): 71–78.
42 Gordon Whitaker and Ruth Hoogland DeHoog, “City Managers under Fire: How Conflict Leads to Turnover,” Public Administration Review 51 (March/April 1991): 156–165. Managers completed a survey in 1986 that included questions about the political stability of the community. The managers who then left their positions were reinterviewed by telephone three years later.
43 Clarence Stone, “Power and Governance in American Cities,” in Cities, Politics, and Policy: A Comparative Analysis, ed. John P. Pellissero, 130–131 (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2003).
44 News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina), February 18, 2001, 3I. The city manager was Dempsey Benton, who served in the position from 1983 to 2000.
45 Nationally, approximately 64 percent of the population 18 years of age and over was registered to vote in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2000, issued February 2002, P20-542). In Virginia, local elections had a 25 percent turnout of registered voters in May 2000 (Commonwealth of Virginia, Local Elections—Voter Turnout, May 2, 2000, www.sbe.state.va.us/web_docs/election/results/2000/may_local/l_loc_turnout.html). In California for off-cycle and odd-year November local elections in 2000 and 2001, 28 to 30 percent of registered voters turned out (Research Brief, Public Policy Institute of California, March 2002).
46 David Greenberg, “Debunking America’s Enduring Myths,” New York Times, June 29, 2003, section 4, p. 3.
47 The term “civil society” is sometimes used to refer to all institutions that are not part of either the market or the government (e.g., family and religious organizations, nonprofits, and other voluntary associations).
48 See, for example, the Alliance for National Renewal fostered by the National Civic League; the Center for Democracy and Citizenship at the University of Minnesota and Public Achievement, which it sponsors; and other partner organizations of the Civic Practices Network.
49 For information, see the Web site of Richmond, at www.ci.richmond.va.us/citizen/neighborhoods/cmxxs_process.asp.
50 Alan Ehrenhalt, “For Chambers of Commerce and Cities, the Days of Conflict May Be Over,” Governing (November 1989): 40–48.
51 Lynette Clemetson, “Hispanics Now Largest Minority, Census Shows,” New York Times, January 21, 2003. The political impact of Hispanic growth is diminished somewhat by the fact that roughly one-quarter of Hispanics living in the United States are not U.S. citizens.
52 Ibid.
53 Ron Nissimov, “Some Blacks Irritated by Immigrant Influx,” Houston Chronicle, September 19, 2002.
54 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2001 and 2002 Annual Demographic Supplements.
55 Steven H. Haeberle, “A Curricular Guide to Gay/Lesbian/Queer Studies; U.S.: State and Local Government” (American Political Science Association Online, 1998), www.apsanet.org/_lgbt/state.cfm. A list of the local governments that provide domestic partner benefits can be found at “Domestic Partner Benefits,” Human Rights Campaign Foundation, www.hrc.org/worknet/dp/index.asp.
56 Liza Hetzel and Annetta Smith, The 65 Years and Over Population: 2000, Census 2000 Brief (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Census 2000 was the first time in the history of the census that the 65-and-over population did not grow faster than the total population.
57 “Projections of the Total Resident Population by 5-Year Age Groups, and Sex with Special Age Categories: Middle Series, 2025 to 2045” (NP-T3-F)(Washington, D.C.: Population Projections Program, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
58 Hetzel and Smith, The 65 Years and Over Population: 2000.
59 One example is the organization, Content of Our Character, www.contentofourcharacter.org/.
60 Ken Dychtwald, “The Age Wave Is Coming,” Public Management 85 (July 2003): 6–10.
61 Laura B. Wilson and Jack Steele, Marketing Volunteer Opportunities to Baby Boomers: A Blue Print from the Field. 2001. Accessed through National Service Resource Center, www.nationalserviceresources.org/filemanager/download/727/boomers.pdf.
62 Roger Schwarz, The Skilled Facilitator, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002), 46–50.
63 Gordon McIntosh, The Local Government Leadership (LGL) Facilitator Program Tool Kit. Victoria: LGL Institute at Royal Roads University, 2003.
64 William Potapchuk, “Building Forums for the Cooperative Resolution of Disputes in Communities,” National Civic Review 77 (July–August 1988): 342–349.
65 In addition to Potapchuk, see Roger M. Schwarz, “Groundrules for Effective Groups,” Popular Government (Spring 1989): 25–30; and Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes (New York: Penguin Books, 1982).
66 Liz Bass and Greg Applegate, “Come, Let Us Reason Together,” Public Management (November 2001): 20–22.
67 Many of these points were drawn from Stribling P. Boynton, “A Dozen Tips for Working with the Media,” Public Management (March 1989): 27–28.
68 Evelina Moulder, E-Government: What Citizens Want; What Governments Provide (Washington, D.C.: ICMA, 2002).
69 “The Paperless Council,” ICMA IQ Report 34, no. 10 (October 2002).
71 Pavlichev and Garson, Digital Government, 6, note this negative assessment: “Santa Monica’s seminal and much-vaunted example of e-democracy, PEN, which could be said to have started it all, after an initial tsunami of publicity and flurry of actual use soon fell into relative disuse as elected officials came to see it as a vehicle for hecklers and political junkies not representative of the community and not helpful as a forum for their exposure for purposes of re-election.”
72 Richard Florida, “The Rise of the Creative Class,” Washington Monthly 34 (May 2002): 15–25.