[Printable Version]

For communities to respond to their challenges, they must resolve, for themselves, that their capacity to solve problems requires revitalization. Outside consultants can make recommendations, but without local ownership of the strategy and implementation plan, it is not likely that the community will take action. The Civic Index, a twelve point community self-evaluation tool, helps communities develop their problem solving capacity by providing a method and a process for first identifying strengths and weaknesses, and then structuring collaborative problem solving strategies. Today's column discusses the Civic Index component of Community Leadership.

Leadership: Giving up power to gain power

From the 1940s, and until the mid-1970s, citizens looked to their elected officials and the business community (from which many of these officials sprung) to make the decisions that affected their communities' futures.

People assumed that governmental leaders had expertise, experience and access to information unavailable to the rank and file citizenry. Moreover, in general, citizens assumed that the public and private sector leadership had the community's interest at heart, so there was no need for their direct involvement.

The local government, therefore, owned the public agenda, both in terms of ability to set the issues under discussion and to take action upon those issues. Even when mechanisms were established for public input, such as advisory councils and blue ribbon panels, the people who comprised these groups invariably came from similar backgrounds and held like beliefs to those holding governmental positions. Very few voices actually mattered or were represented in the local political process.

While the "old model" of politics may have functioned well 25 years ago, this approach has in fact proved to be counterproductive when placed within the changing context of American community politics. As community populations have become increasingly diverse, more and more individuals from previously excluded populations are demanding to be part of the decision making process.

At one time, community power was held in several large blocks by major community players - the mayor, the city manager, the large local employer, and the wealthy family that had been in town for generations. These blocks could sit down in the back room and make a decision or cut a deal. Now politically, racially, geographically, ethnically, and economically diverse stakeholder groups are demanding to be allowed into that "back room."

Moreover, the days when citizens fundamentally trusted their officials to represent their interests well are long gone. Citizens often do not even trust local officials to attempt to serve their interest well. They view their officials with a presumption of bad intent, looking for ulterior motives when policy proposals are issued.

In addition, in the past, when citizens gave up their proxy to governmental leaders, they did so in part because they did not think they had enough information to form a balanced judgment on the issue at hand. Given the explosion of information technology in recent years, citizens now feel they have enough information to be directly involved in the resolution of issues and expect to be so.

A consequence of the need to bring new players into the political system is that governmental leaders will need to adapt and modify the way they lead. Successful community leaders will throw off old traditions, realizing that no group will succeed unless the diverse needs of the entire community are met.

They will need to move away from the autocratic and exclusionary leadership style that has fomented distrust and hostility among their constituents. While traditional leaders often hoarded power, new leaders need to share power and share the public agenda. They must come to the realization that, while governmental leadership is part of what makes democracy work, it is not the whole of it; businesses, nonprofit organizations and citizens all need to participate in public deliberations about social issues. The role of governmental leadership is to convene this discussion, not control it.

Once a more inclusive environment for public policy decisions is established, new leaders need to modify any behavior patterns they developed which were suitable for traditional politics. New leaders need to create safe places for all participants, a place where issues such as equity, inclusion, and empowerment can be discussed in non-confrontational ways.

Where old leaders talked, new leaders should listen; where old leaders argued, new leaders should look for common ground; where old leaders were closed and secretive; new leaders should be open and share information and information resources. In short, where old leaders sought power to decide issues, new leaders need to work to enable others to decide issues.

Nancy Geha, assistant director of the National Civic League's Community Services, reports that she's often confronted by similar concerns from local leaders.

"Many mayors and local managers are struggling to determine what their roles should be," Geha says. "They lack a paradigm - the rules of the road. The old paradigm was a world that was dominated by older, white, upper-middle-class men who all lived in one neighborhood. The guys played golf together, and their wives played bridge together."

"But the world where concentrating power in the hands of a few people or interests has changed. And that change is forcing officials to change as well."

While this shift in leadership behaviors will be difficult, it can be done. Leaders and communities across the country have already successfully navigated the change. Henry Cisneros as mayor of San Antonio, Texas was renowned for modeling new leadership behavior; as is former Mayor Terry Goddard of Phoenix.

The Civic Index lists a number of questions communities can ask themselves to help gauge the quality of their community's leadership, including:

• Are there leaders to represent most interests?
• Is there an ongoing forum for local leaders, or do they meet only in times of crisis?
• Is there active leadership from all three sectors? Do leaders from the three sectors work well together?
• Is government willing to share the leadership turf?
• Are there training programs to nurture new leaders?
• Is leadership results-oriented? Is leadership risk-taking?

The public, private, nonprofit and grassroots community must jointly develop leaders with the above skills. Current community leaders must recognize the demographic changes in their communities and work to ensure that it is reflected in training opportunities for future leaders. This training process must develop leaders who are results oriented, willing to take risks, able to work well together and communicate effectively. Above all, they must be willing to share the leadership mantel.

For information on how the concepts and techniques presented in this column can be applied in your community, or for a copy of the 1999 Revised Civic Index, contact the National Civic League by e-mail at ncl@ncl.org; on the world wide web at www.ncl.org; or by phone at (303) 571-4343.

<< Back to Community Services Articles