P481?

 

 

————

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wil]
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

w

 

 

 

 

PLANNER ROLES IN THEORY AND PRACTICE:
A LITERATURE SYNTHESIS

BY

BRIAN WILLIAMS

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

Master in Urban Planning

School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture

College of Social Science

1986

ABSTRACT

PLANNER ROLES IN THEORY AND PRACTICE:
A LITERATURE SYNTHESIS

BY

BRIAN WILLIAMS

Planners often lack knowledge about the ways their formal
roles restrict the range of problems they identify and the
type of recommendations they may offer. They are unable
to objectively evaluate themselves as practitioners
because they do not have a theory of practice to guide
them. Planners suffer from role conflict without this

guide.

In this study, the literature on planner roles is reviewed

and synthesized according to its usefullness in creating a

theory of practice. The research on key variables that
determine planner role enactment are reviewed and
discussed. The changing orientation of planning practice
in local government is examined. The roles and
corresponding skills these changes require are

highlighted.

Using professional role is recommended as the best
method of connecting planning theory to practice. A
framework of required knowledge for planners to

successfully enact particular planner roles is created.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my thanks to Dr. Roger Hamlin for his
support for me in this endeavor. Many thanks also to Drs.
June Thomas and Frank Fear who demonstrated for me new
ways of thinking about planning practice and community

development.

ii

CHAPTER

I.

II.

III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTIONOOOOO0.0.0.0.000...0.0.0.00000000001

1. Study Overview..............................1
2. Scope of Review and Analysis................5
3. Study Method................................6
A. Study Objectives............................7
5. Study Design................................8

THE PLANNING PROCESS AND ROLE ENACTMENT.......11
1. Defining Professional Role as it Relates

to planning practiceOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOO000.0011
2. The External and Internal Determinants

Of Planner ROIeSOO0.00IOOOOOIOOOOOOOOIO0.0.15

a. Internal Determinants...............17
b. External Determinants...............17

line of Elannina Qnaanization..............19
In: glififlt filélgfl. I O O O O O O O O O O O O O l O O O O O I O O I O 20
In: Eggnfinalilfi filfihfim O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 2 1

3. Using Role as a Method of Connecting
Planning Theory to Practice................22

1‘. summaryOOOOOI0.00...0.000000000000000000000BO

LITERATURE REVIEW ON PLANNER ROLES............32
1. Introauction.000......00.0.000000000000000032
2. Debating Planner-Technician vs. Planner-

Politician: The Notion of Expertise and
AdVice 00.00.00.000...0.00.000000000000000033

IV.

VI.

3. Planner Roles and the Changing Paradigm of

Professional Practice................

000000u2

A. The Expanding Number of Professional Roles

For P1anners0000000000000000000000000

50 summaryOOO00000000000.000000000000000

JOB DISSATISFACTION: ROLE DISSONANCE,
CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY IN PROFESSIONAL
PLANNING PRACTICE00000000000000000000000
10 IntPOduction000000.000000000000000000

2. Understanding Role Dissonance........

00.0005“
000.0067

......69
00000069

00000070

3. Role Resistance and Professional Burnout...78

1". summary00000000000000000000000000000.

A FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNER ROLE SELECTION...
1. Introduction..........................
2. The Framework.........................
3. The New Planner Skills................

1'. summary.000000000000000000000000000000

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................
1. Introduction..........................
2. Problem Summary.......................
3. Summary of Study Results..............
A. Study Conclusions.....................
5. Implications for Planning Practice....
6. Study Limitations and Directions for

Future Resear0h00000.00000000000000000

LIST OF REFERENCESO0000O00000000000000.00

iv

0000008"

......86
......86
......87
......93

00000102

.....103
.....103
.....103
.....105
.....108

.....113

0000011”

00000117

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1. Study Overview

Based upon professional observation and literature study,
this author perceives an inadequate linkage of planning
theory to practice. Using professional role as an access
point for studying this problem, the purpose of this paper

is to describe planner role selection and enactment.

The first section of this chapter states the problem as a
set of assumptions about planner roles based on a
literature review. While not proved by exhaustive
empirical evidence, the concept of professional role is
examined to provide an entry to studying the gap between

planning theory and practice.

This author perceives that the goals of urban planning

that planners profess are reasonable yet planners

often choose inappropriate poles to meet these goals. In
addition, planners have not developed the skills necessary
to enact appropriate roles successfully. When
inappropriate roles are selected in professional action,
failure is imminent and frustration ensues - regardless of

what particular goal is desired.

Planners often only define themselves and the work they do
in terms of their formal or official bureaucratic roles.
Often, planners have little understanding of the ways in
which their own official roles in government service
restrict the range of problems they may acceptably
identify or the types of recommendations they may offer.
As this literature review indicates, there are a larger
variety of roles planners may enact to enhance their
effectiveness. When perceived effectiveness is enhanced,

professional and personal frustration is reduced.

A review of the literature on planner roles from 1975 to
1985 indicates a wealth of materials attempting to close
the gap between undergirding planning theory and the
practice of the profession. Some of these attempts fail.
This failure means some planning practitioners still
"plan" with no coherent guidelines by which to objectively
evaluate their work and claim success when successful or

admit failure when not. In short, many planners lack a

coherent theory of practice.

Operationally, this gap between planning theory and
practice is most evident when the degree of influence
planners expect to have to affect the course of urban
development and the degree of power they actually have
are quite far apart. This author believes this gap leads
to personal and professional frustration about the
profession and leads many planners to become prematurely

bitter and cynical about the work they do.

Often, the planning literature only recommends "end-
states" but does not provide realistic means to reach
those ends. Therefore, in this study, the literature
on professional roles in planning will be synthesized. The
utility of using professional roles to better link
planning theory with practice will be proposed. It is an
attempt to extract a variable (role enactment) and place
it within the context of professional action. Although
roles of planners are intimately connected to existing
social and political movements of any given period, there
are variables (such as role conflict) that cut across
and consistently assist or hinder planner role enactment.
This study attempts to assess those variables and
recommend methods of reducing their impacts on

professional action. In the final analysis, it attempts

to assist in the creation of a theory of practice that

transcends social and political changes.

In this paper, the concept of role is chosen as the most
appropriate method of integrating planning theory and
practice as opposed to planning skills, functions or
goals. Indeed, the time-honored theory that planners are
purely value—free technicians and must define their
effectiveness purely on the degree of technical capability
they have to recommend a particular development
alternative should be reevaluated from a new perspective.
It is suggested here that planning practitioners should
begin reflecting on how the professional roles they may
enact interact with other roles in the political decision-
making process. Planners should be encouraged to enact new
roles and create "theories in action" that are more fluid,
flexible 'and adaptable to a wider variety of situational

variables.

In fact, what differs most between what urban planners are
taught in planning school and what they do in actual
practice concerns their role when dealing with social and
political change. While the gap between planning theory
and practice has consistently been a heated issue among
planning academicians and practitioners, it was not until

1975 that the concept of professional "role” was

explicitly mentioned in the planning literature as a
likely focal point by which to link the goals of the
profession with any coherent theory of professional

practice.

Therefore, if it is going to continue to thrive, one of
the greatest tasks for the planning profession is to begin
to look at the concept of role as an integrating focus by
which it can objectively assess its place in the social
and political structure. Once this theoretical base has
been established, the profession should create new and
more appropriate roles that are better matched to changing
public expectations for what planners should do. It is a
normative prescription. In this way, planning's influence
in the political process will be increased and personal
and professional frustrations of individual planners
within the profession will be reduced. In addition, the
gap between theory and practice should be narrowed. This
will lead to a consistent set of criteria by which
planners and others can evaluate the planning process and

the environments that process creates.

2. Scope of Review and Analysis

It should be noted that the scope of this literature

review and analysis will extend only to that literature

that explicitly mentions the "roles", of planners. It
categorizes that literature taken from the period of 1975
to 1985. This has never been done in any complete way. It
is not an attempt to synthesize every piece of literature

on planging theory in the past ten years.

The context within which this literature will be evaluated
will be those planners in local government who work with
all interest groups who influence the political decision-
making process of development. It is useful only to those
planners who are generalists not, specialists. It is
these planners who are most compelled, by their planning
functions and activities, to deal with a variety of
planning constituencies. It will not, for example, deal
with those planners who are explicitly hired to do data
analysis but will instead deal with those planners who
must make sense of the analysis and present it to various

affected interests in easily understandable terms.
3. Study Method

A literature synthesis was selected as the method most
appropriate for discussion of these issues because it
provides a telling indication of the state of the planning
profession from an historical perspective. In addition, it

provided an opportunity for in-depth analysis of an area

not completely covered in this writer's program of

coursework.

In this analysis, I intend to prove that the state of the
literature reflects the state of the profession in two key

ways:

1) There is disagreement among planning academicians
and practitioners as to the "meanings" associated with
planning. This has led to the gap between theory and
action.

2) Most literature in the planning field either
consists of purely technical materials on particular
analytical skills or theoretical statements not grounded
in any systematic way to existing social and political
realities of planning practice.

A. Study Objectives

The objectives of this particular study are to analyze the
disparate elements of the planning literature in light of

their impacts on role enactment and combine them to:

1) Create a theory of planning practice that defends
extracting the concept of professional role; as the most
appropriate method of closing the gap between theory and
action

2) Link the technical functions a planner performs to
the exisiting political environment in local government
to create a planning theory that encourages planners to
work within the social and political system, not against
it.

3) Delineate potential roles planners may enact to enhance
their effectiveness, given particular key variables.

A) Create a framework of required knowledge for each
planner to make the choice of an appropriate professional
role to enact a conscious and rational decision.

5. Study Design

To set the context for the analysis, the second chapter
reviews the literature on the gap between planning
practice and implementation in general terms and its
impacts on role enactment. The first section consists of
a discussion of the functional and interpretative
characteristics that determine professional planning
roles. It outlines the existing planning literature
that uses the concept of professional role as the best

way to link the means to the ends of planning practice.

This discussion lays the groundwork for delineating
alternative roles that planners may enact to improve
professional performance given existing social and
political constraints in the external environment planning
finds itself in. From this basic definitional framework,
the second section of Chapter II presents an argument for
using "professional role" as the most appropriate method

of integrating theory and practice into a consistent whole

as opposed to "modes of action", planning theory, and/or
planning functions and techniques. It consist of

arguments for and against this method of integration.

Chapter III explores the historical dichotomy in the
planning literature between the planner as technician and
the planner as politician in light of the notions of
expertise and advice. The limiting effect of this
analytical framework for practicing professionals who
attempt to change their roles is discussed. Next, the
changing paradigm of planner roles is explained and
highlighted. The third section summarizes the relevant
literature on the "new" roles that planners may enact in
light of this changed paradigm. It is shown how these
roles are more action-oriented and geared towards plan
implementation instead of-only technical analysis of a

planning problem.

Chapter IV focuses on the literature that highlights
those variables that cause planners to enact a
particular professional planning role. It reviews the

literature on role dissonance, ambiguity, and conflict
and discusses the variables internal to the planner that
most often explain it. In addition, the alternative
behaviors that planners exhibit when faced with role

dissonance will be examined in light of the planning

1O

process in contemporary local government.

Chapter V provides a framework that combines all
internal and external variables that are most likely to
determine a planner's selection of a professional role to
enact. By carefully considering what this model implies
for professional practice, planning practitioners can
evaluate their behavior more objectively and select a more
appropriate professional role. Enacting a role more
successfully will assist them in their day to day
planning functions and activities. 'The chapter concludes
with a review of what the literature suggests are the

appropriate skills necessary for planners to develop in

order to successfully enact the role they have selected.

Chapter VI will provide a problem summary, the
conclusions reached from the literature review, the
implications of the review and its limitiations. In
addition, some recommendations for future research will be
outlined based upon the literature review and the

framework created.

CHAPTER II

THE PLANNING PROCESS AND ROLE ENACTMENT

1. Defining Professional Role as it Relates to Planning
Practice

When planners focus on their cola in the political process
of local government and how a particular role they may
enact interacts with other roles, planners become less
self-centered and more socially and politically astute.
They are able to recognize that the roles they play are
not acted out in isolation from other roles in the

planning process.

The planning literature from 1975 to 1985 reflects that it
is difficult to reach agreement on the exact definition of
the term ngle and how the concept is or should be applied
to the practice of planning. Indeed, there are many
definitions of the term 291: depending upon the context

within which it is evaluated. Therefore, an accepted

11

12

dictionary definition is a good starting point. Webster's
Third New International Dictionary defines cola in one of

three ways:

"a) a character assigned to or assumed by someone, b) a
socially prescribed pattern of behavior corresponding to
an individual's status in a particular society and c) a
function performed by someone or something in a particular
situation, process or operation".

In this analysis, "role" will be used to signify
differing strategies of intervention associated with a
planning function that will make the work planners do more
effective. It will be ”a character assigned to or assumed
by someone". This character will be the "role". It is
an objective phenomenon associated with particular
behaviors and dictated by the necessities of a particular
planning situation. It will not be used as relating to
planner behavior that is based upon social norms that
dictate what action is most appropriate when ”performing"

as a planner.

Viewed in this way, a planner in a local community has
two elements of "role" he or she mustibe.concerned with.
First, a functional role - an "official; role and a job
description from an employing government or private

organization. Second, a socially prescribed role in

dealing with other role players independent of a

13

functional role.

Here, a distinction between "role" and "position" must be
clarified. For the purposes of this analysis, "position"
is the formal designation of what particular functional
activities a person occupying such a "place" in the
structure is expected to perform. "Role" is determined by
both internal and external expectations of the persons
assuming the positions in addition to the functional
activities the position implies. A "role" is much more
fluid and ambiguous but therefore more complete as it more
closely reflects reality than a job title or position
description. It is not static in nature and is "defined
and shaped in the process of interacting with others in

designing and achieving common objectives" (Burke, 268).

In very rare cases in planning does the position itself
define the role. ”Planning roles are rarely acted out in
isolation from others or without a context in relation to
others" (Burke, 27h). They are shaped by both internal
expectations of the person occupying the position and the
external expectations that others have about what is

appropriate behavior.

When an individual assumes an official position in a

planning organization, there is usually agreement as to

1"

the generally accepted behavioral requirements that the

position implies. However in planning, it is rare to find

a position description defined in concrete terms.
Planning is a professional practice requiring a great
amount of individual judgement and it would be

irresponsible to define a planner's role only in terms of
the functional characteristics the position may imply. As
a consequence, usually the individual planner is a
"significant determinant of the planning role" (Burke,

27“).

Historically, planners have officially been advisors to
elected officials or clients. This was their function.
Most planning education and in-service training in
planning has centered on the planner's functional role
and the functional activities associated with these roles
that they must carry out. Rarely, before 1960 did
planners adequately comprehend the socially prescribed
role they play in larger society or in their employing
organization when interacting with other role players. By
1975, the literature in planning began to focus more
clearly on the variety of roles planners enact in the
planning process and variables that most often explain and

predict their selection of a role to enact.

15

2. The External and Internal Determinants of Planner Roles

One author, Burke (1977), believes that concentrating on
the roles planners play is of crucial importance in
comprehending planning's importance as a legitimate
governmental activity. He believes that scholars and
practitioners studying planning need be concerned with two
factors about a planner's role. First, a thorough
delineation of all potential professional roles a planner
may conceivably play; second, the influences that shape
these roles (Burke, 1979: 269). Burke sees the former as
the "functional" activity planners perform and the latter
as the "interpretive characteristic" or "analytical facet"
of a role they enact (Burke, 270). The first factor
relates more directly to the official position and job
description while the second factor consists of the
influences that require the planner to analyze who is

defining the role and why.

Historically, the literature on planner's roles most

often reflects only the functional aspects of the work

that planners do. Burke (1977) provides the most
representative typology of the functional roles of
planners. He distinguishes seven broad categories of

functional roles:

16

1) Analyst-Technician
2) Community Organizer
3) Broker
A) Advocate
5) Enabler
6) Educator
7) Publicist (Burke, 1977: 269-27”).

He admits there are other roles that planners enact, such
as administrator, researcher, grantsperson, financial
analyst, consultant, etc. but suggests these are not
roles, per se - these are instead "specialized functions
for particular planning activities" (Burke, 27“). He
contends that the planner role typically includes both
procedural skills and interactional skills. While
procedural skills imply technical knowledge of the subject
matter, interactional skills include all the elements
that allow the planner to "engage with others in carrying

out a collaborative process of planning" (Burke, 268).

In general, Burke believes what roles planners enact are
determined by three main factors. The first two relate to
the components that determine the informal role and the

third is the formal role itself. These factors are:

1) The expectations of the planners themselves.
2) The expectations of others.

3) The position itself (the formal role) (Burke, 27”).

17

Each of these parameters demands attention individually.

a. internal determinants

The expectations that planners have for themselves affect

how or if they enact a particular role. These

expectations are based on the following variables: 1)

personality variables, 2) values, 3) beliefs and
attitudes, A) personal background, 5) professional
experience and 6) academic training. The literature

indicates there has been°little research on the degree to
which each factor directly affects the enactment of a
particular role. However, a few researchers (Vasu, 1977;
Bolan, 1980; Kaufman and Howe, 198A and Mayo, 1982) have
attempted to study the degree to which personality
variables determine how or if a particular role is
enacted. And, as Burke suggests, these internal
variables, to a large degree, influence the expectations a
planner brings with them to the job. These internal
determinants will be covered in depth in Chapter IV
because they explain, to a great degree, role conflict in

the profession.

b. external determinants

The external determinants of role enactment or the

environmental variables that influence how a planner

18

performs in their job are more important and less easy to

manipulate. According to Burke, they include:

1) The public perception of the individual planner
and the perception of "planning" as a legitimate
governmental activity.

2) The official bureaucracy (placement, structure,
power, influence etc.).

3) The interaction that any particular planning role
has with other planning roles in the planning process.
This includes the context of both the formal and informal
roles.

A) The type of planning organization (local, state,
federal, neighborhood, voluntary agency, metropolitan
etc.).

5) The client system.

6) The cooperative system.

While all of the above factors are important determinants
if or how a planner enacts a particular role at any given
time, the type of planning organization, the client system
and the cooperative system are the easiest variables for
planners to manipulate (even though they are external to
planners themselves). In addition, these variables are
more likely to be directly involved when enacting more

implementation-oriented roles.

line of Elannins Organization

Obviously, the scope and type of planning organization in
which the planner works is a determinant of how or if a
role is enacted. For example, a neighborhood planning
organization may require a planner to enact an activist-
leadership role; a voluntary agency may require a planner
to enact an enabler role whereby the planner's specialized
activities consist of institution-building and self-help
development; a metropolitan or regional planning agency
(MPO) may require a planner to be more of a technician.
In this case, the work may be structured and organized due
to the huge volume of planning data that must be

processed.

However, in the typical local planning agency, Burke
suggests that, given the high degree of flexibility of
individual planners to enact many different roles,
planners must generally exhibit more directive and
proactive types of behavior. He suggests that this is a
historical expectation and "is partly a reflection of
organizational influence within the bureaucracy of city
government" (Burke, 278). In most cases, the specialized
activities of many planners at this level include
development and administration of local zoning ordinances

which has traditionally been the technical backbone of the

20

profession. Because, this is an administrative activity
based upon local ordinances, Burke labels these functional

activities as corresponding to directive roles.

The Client §¥§L§m

The type of client system also influences the roles
professional planners enact regardless of the type of
planning organization. The effect of the client system
on the role of the planner depends on the degree of ”group
maturity" of the constituencies that compose the system.
If a planning constituency has a low degree of maturity,
experience and background, the planner cannot dominate the
planning process but can be an activist or an advocate for
the group in the larger political context. If the
planning constituency possesses a high degree of maturity
and sophistication they exert demands on the planner to
enact the role of "technical assistant". In this case,
the planner then enacts the roles of mediator, and enabler
to assist the group in influencing the normal political
decision-making process. In addition, the formal policy
constituency (the individual, group or organization) is
the entity that employs the planner and thus provides
directions about the activities planners are involved in

and the roles they enact (Burke, 27”).

21

The Qoonenaiixe Sistem

Contained within the client system is the "cooperative
system" that is naturally developed in any local planning
activity (Burke, 186). This system is composed of
selected community influentials and other interested
citizens that are most interested in working with the

planner on plan implementation.

These individuals may be members of the cooperative system
because they will be negatively impacted by a particular
development proposal that the planner may decide to
recommend. In this case, the planner may wish to co-opt
these critics in order to influence their followers. In
another case, this cooperative system is the team the
planner works with everyday and may even include other
planners. This group is an advocacy group and exists to
gather support for a particular planning proposal. It
functions as a political support group and the planner's
role is that of "facilitator" to attain "unity of

purpose" within this support group (Burke, 187).

Within the cooperative system, planners perform the task
of "inducing motivation” by proving that members will, in
exchange for their support, receive either material

benefits (e.g. property tax benefits from a particular

22

land-use decision) and/or psychic benefits (e.g. feelings
of self-worth from simple participation in solving a
community problem), (Burke, 187). In any case, "the
ultimate choice of a role should be worked out in advance
in cooperation with the groups making up the cooperative

system" (Burke, 280).

3. Using Role as a Method of Connecting Planning Theory
to Practice

Earlier, an attempt was made to delineate the internal and
external determinants that impinge upon a planner's
professional role enactment. While it is generally agreed
that these factors are important determinants of how a
planner functions in day-to-day planning activities, it is
not generally agreed that using the concept of
professional role is the best way of connecting planning
theory to planning practice. In other words, it is
agreed that planning theory must guide practice but

disagreement on how best to accomplish this integration.

The planning literature on the subject provides a
commentary on the state of the profession: the goals it
espouses and the means it has selected to achieve these
goals are not consistent with each other. The discussions

reveal much about how professional planning roles have

23

been evolved. For example, Jerome Kaufman at the
University of Wisconsin contends that the contemporary
failure of professional planning is its failure at linking
practice with a coherent theoretical base (Kaufman, 1985:
17). He believes the concept of professional planning
roles is the best way of integrating theory and practice
by providing beginning urban planners with the tools to be

more effective practitioners.

Other authors also recognize that failure in urban
planning practice begins when the planner's roles are not
adequately grounded in any "theory of practice". Like
Kaufman, Susskind asserts that it makes more sense for
planners to "describe ourselves in terms of the roles we
are needed to play instead of the goals we have"
(Susskind,1983: 89). 'Argyris and Schon (197A)
distinguish between "espoused theory" and "theory in use".
While the former is the theory a planner may pledge
allegiance to the latter theory is what "actually guides
the actor's behavior in concrete situations" (Bolan, 1980:

263).

All these writers believe the gap between espoused theory
and theory in use has led the planning profession to the

necessity of redefining itself and that the most effective

2"

way of doing so is by centering on the concept of
professional planning roles. They believe that
traditional planning roles must be discarded in favor of
new ones grounded in a coherent theory of professional
practice that is normative and prescriptive. This
normative prescription is that planners out to act "in

pursuit of planned change" (Kaufman, 1985: 2).

However, other authors suggest that the concept of
professional "roles" are not appropriate when
understanding the work that planners do. They believe

that focusing onhow a planner performs is what is more
instrumental to construct a more appropriate theory of
planning practice. For example, Bolan suggests that
planning will be accepted as a legitimate profession only
to the extent that it concerns itself with "methods of

practice or intervention” (Bolan, 1980:263).

Like Kaufman, Bolan argues that unfortunately, planning
schools teach students a normative prescription of
planning theory that stresses "end-states" of planning
activities and presupposes a ”unitary public interest". In
this way, the goals of urban planning theoretically
represent the "public interest" and are therefore "good".
Also, like Kaufman, Bolan agrees that planning schools

need to be more concerned with teaching planning "theory

25

in use" (Bolan,1980:263).

However, while Bolan acknowledges the necessity to
rethink the traditional ways of practicing planning he
cautions that in real-life "professional episodes” the
use of the term "role” may be too confining (Bolan, 1980:
265). Bolan cautions contemporary proponents of more
action- and implementation-oriented planner roles that
"role prescriptions, in effect, express only minimal or
typical categorizations of expected performance, as so are
only partially useful in predicting actual human behavior"
(Bolan, 1980: 265). He believes that, in most planning
situations, planners encounter others "not as objects only
identifiable through some role designation but as full

human beings" (Bolan, 1980:265).

Bolan asserts that the contexts within which the planner
operates in many planning situations do not lend
themselves to a study of "role behaviors". He believes a
city planner is involved in such a wide diversity of
planning "scenes" that there is little control or
management of the scene and the process is open to
subjective interpretation. While Bolan admits that when
planners attend planning commission or neighborhood

meetings that there are "hierarchical arrangements,

26

formal roles and the norms of conduct within each of these
are easily envisioned“, he stresses that the vast
majority of a planner‘s activities (research and analysis
with colleagues) cannot be broken down into a laundry list

of formal or informal roles (Bolan, 270).

Bolan suggests that instead of focusing on role as a way
of integrating theory and practice that planning
practitioners should focus on "modes of action“ (Bolan,
1985: 2). He defines modes of action as consisting of
those behaviors that make up effective or appropriate
professional performance in highly complex situations.
He contends that planning students only learn technical
planning skills and not how to behave in highly ambiguous
planning situations. Like Paludi, he believes that
planning theoriticians need to develop 'a theory of
planning instead of theories in planning (Faludi, 1973).
"Rather than training planners to be consumers of other's
theories, we really need to train them to be producers of
theories -- constructors of theories in action ~-
including especially their own action" (Bolan, 1985: 2).

In this regard, Bolan cal ls for a new theory of planning.
He suggests that this new theory become more "action-
oriented" and requires major changes in the way

planners think about themselves and think about their

practice.

27

First, planners must comprehend the settings of planning
in terms of "grasping structures of manning rather than
structures of £221}; This "new planning theory" must

entail addressing ‘the issues surrounding the
“effectiveness" of action (Bolan, 1985: 5). This new
theory is grounded in the assumption that what planners do
is beyond reproach. What is needed is for planners to
develop the personal skills and management styles that

will enable them to do planning more effectively.

To operationalize this theory, Bolan calls for teaching
planners ways of developing self-awareness, style patterns
of interaction, communication skills, the development and
use of power and influence, the capacity to motivate
others, tolerance for and management of ambiguity and
conflict, and effectiveness in complex group settings
(Bolan, 1985: 5). He suggests that this type of analysis
of planning action has no direct relation to formal an
informal roles. He believes that when planning students
and practitioners develop these skill; and tenhnigngs,
they are provided the tools by which to "read'I a
planning situation and only then can they make conscious
role-choice decision appropriate to the requirements of the
situation. According to Bolan, the four most fundamental

skills to be developed are:

1) the ability to perceive a situation accurately.

28

2) the capacity for skillful communication.

3) the understanding of one's professional "self" in
relation to others.

A)the ability to construct contextually appropriate and
effective theories of action (Bolan, 1985: 6).

This latter ability' to "construct contextually
appropriate and effective theories of action" relates most
directly to the analysis at hand and is what distinguishes
Bolan from other planning theoriticians. While Susskind
(1983) and Kaufman (1986) believe planners must change
their role in their professional practice, Bolan believes
that there is an intervening step between recognizing a
new role and successfully enacting it. He believes
planners must first develop particular sensitivities with
which to read a professional planning episode and then
select the appropriate role that will maximize their

return. In essence, planner must:

'".be able to learn how to 'see‘ a social
situation at all three levels of perception. He
or she needs to be able to 'read‘ the context of
the planning enterprise and make sense of it
from their own pensgnal perspectiveu.u..
development of this skill requires a sensitivity
and sophistication of capacity to devise
frameworks for 'seeing‘ which aid the [planner]
in sharpening perceptual skills" (Bolan, 1985:
9).

Therefore, Bolan believes that the gap between theory and

29

practice can be reduced when planning theory is more
closely aligned with social realities by allowing for
"greater ambiguity ix: the professional. episode“. By
stressing the importance of language, communication and
perception within these episodes, planners will become
more effective no matter what role they enact (Bolan,

1980: 272).

While Bolan's positions are intriguing and have great
significance for improving practice, in this analysis, I
suggest that using the concept of professional role is
still the most effective way of opening up planning
practice to more closely reflect the social political
realities inherent in the urban environment. Role analysis
is systemic in nature. It more closely reflects
interactions that take place within and between social and
political systems. Indeed, a role must be selected first.
It is the first step to be taken before an appropriate
'mode of action" is selected. Modes of action are

associated with the role but do not define it.

Planning practitioners must first concentrateron their
'roles' in the planning process and how theseroles
interact with other roles. When they only concentrate on
their forms of practice, planning activities and modes of

action when investigating new ways to achieve planning

30

objectives, they do nothing to enlighten themselves about
how planning functions within existing social and

political structures.

Indeed, the problem at hand in professional planning is
a tendency for planners to always blame "the system" when
something goes wrong. However, by focusing on their
'role' and how a role they may enact interacts with other
roles, planners become less self-centered and more
politically astute. They may recognize that the roles
they play are not acted out in isolation from other roles
in the process. But they must first be made aware of the
potential planning roles that they may enact. Role
analysis can be used as an intitial focal point by which
to expand thinking about professional planning practice.
The change in thinking and the skills that must be

developed to enact a role successfully must come later.

A. Summary

The term "role" is applied to the practice of planning as
a character assumed by someone. Each role signifies
differing strategies of intervention associated with a
planning function. It is an objective phenomenon

associated with particular behaviors as dictated by the

31

necessities of the situation.

A planner assumes (or enacts) an official and an
unofficial role. The official role is the position. The
.unofficial role is more fluid and ambiguous. There are
many potential unofficial roles. flow or if one is enacted
depends upon the expectations of the planner, the

expectations of others and the official position.

The planning literature from 1975 to 1985 reflects the gap
between planning theory and practice. It indicates the
degree to which planning theory relates only to the ends
of practice but not to the means selected to reach these
ends. By using the concept of role as a method of
integrating the two, professional practice will be better
grounded to reflect exisiting social and political
structures. By altering professional roles planners enact
instead of only modes of action, planners will be more
effective in the work they do. They will construct their
own theories of action that tell them how to behave in

ambiguous planning episodes.

CHAPTER III

LITERATURE REVIEW ON PLANNER ROLES

1. Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature
on professional planning roles in order to better
understand the myriad of role possibilities authors and
practitioners in planning have developed and discussed.
This discussion sheds light on what planning is and what
planning means. It amplifies the profession's attempt to
come to grips with the failure it has in closing the gap
between theory and practice. Indeed, it indicates the
extent to which the profession needs a rallying point
around which it can carve out a separate niche for itself
in the collaborative process of creating more livable

human environments.

In this chapter, the literature on planner roles is

reviewed and categorized under two key themes: 1) The

32

33

notion of expertise and advice in planning practice and 2)
planning as a form of social action. Within these themes,
the dichotomy between the technical and political roles of
planners will be highlighted, discussed and used as a
conceptual framework by which to understand where planning
practice has been and where it is going. The first
section of the chapter reviews the literature on the
planner roles of technician and advisor to elected
decision-makers. The second section reviews when, why and
how planner roles became more political. The third section
reviews the most recent literature on planner roles. It

reflects the wide variety of acceptable professional roles

planners may enact.

2. Debating Planner-Technician vs. Planner-Politician:
The Notion of Expertise and Advice

Not until the mid 1960's did the literature in the field
of urban planning begin to reflect the concept of
professional planning roles within the context of a social
action model. Given the extreme social and political
upheaval in urban America at the time, planners were
forced into enacting more highly politicized roles. Often

they were unprepared to enact them successfully.

Before this social and political upheaval, the practice

3A

of urban planning was considered a purely technical field
consisting of specialized analytical techniques employed
by technicians to aid politicians and bureaucrats in
reducing uncertainty when making land-use decisions. By
1965, the vast majority of planning-related literature had
become critical of the concept that the technical role-
model for planning professionals was the only appropriate
one. At this time, many authors began to suggest that
"planners-as-technicians" were no longer as effective when
state and local governments had to fight for a dwindling
supply of federal funds earmarked for urban development.
Academicians and practitioners began to discuss other,
more appropriate roles. These new roles were typically
more "action-oriented" and proactive instead of reactive

in nature.

However, In the past twenty years the planning literature
that explicitly focuses on professional roles indicates a
clear dichotomy between those authors believing planners
are purely technicians and those believing planners are
purely politicians. That such a dichotomy exists reflects
the difficulty academicians and practitioners have on

agreeing about what planning means or what planning is.

Nevertheless, in the past decade this dichotomy has become

35

less pronounced and includes a much larger variety of
potential role choices for the planning professional.
Congruent to this refinement has been the effort of the
profession to more clearly relate the means of planning to
the ends of planning. The literature suggests there is no
one ideal role for every planner and there is disagreement
in the field about which role or groups of roles planners
should play in the existing political decision-making
environment. While the dominant ”technical” model of
planning has fallen into disfavor, some have argued it
still is the cornerstone of planning theory and practice -
the cornerstone that distinguishes it from other

professions.

At the core of this "technical" model of planning is the
notion of expertise. The technician-planner was conceived
as an apolitical designer of plans within a framework
established by elected decision-makers (Susskind and
Ozawa, 1983: 8). In Benveniste's The Eelities sf Essentise
(1977), the sociologist argues that planners should
maintain the tradition of playing the expert role because
this role is the ultimate source of their power. He
suggests that "the expert's apolitical stance serves to
distinguish policy experts and planners from other
political actors” (Benveniste, 1977: 65). Without this

distinction, planners have no legitimate access to any

36

social or political power since they are appointed, not
elected. Benveniste regards the contemporary planner's
source of power as the degree to which he or she can
reduce the level of uncertainty that exists in any
decision-making situation. This is the planner's special
expertise. By using particular analytical skills they
assist decision-makers in doing "the right thing".
Therefore, the expert or "technician" role should be
maintained if plans developed by planners are to be

implemented.

Baum (1983) takes this notion of expertise and
analytically breaks it down to three variables external
to the planner that affect his or her use of their
particular brand of expertise. The first variable is
legitimacy, or the extent to which a planner has the
political authority to utilize his or her expertise. The
second variable is autonomy, or the degree to which a
planner has the independence to utilize his or her
expertise. The third is accountability, or the degree
to which a planner's expertise is perceived as responsible
to the broader public interest (Baum, 17). In a
pluralistic society, Baum believes that the planner's
brand of expertise lacks political authority, autonomy and
accountability (Baum, A). He argues that planning is

often unsuccessful because planners cannot rely alone on

37

technical apparatus to "sell" their expertise. He
suggests that expertise is only valuable to the extent it
is acceptable to politicians and the constituencies they
serve:
"Professional practice assumes a distancing
(autonomy) of one's clients and constituents.
But autonomy is inimical to the work that
planners do (social decision-making) in which
the planner's accountability to public groups is
necessary for planning activity

legitimacy...planner's expertise is not matched
to public expectations" (Baum, 2).

Baum implies that the successful enactment of the role
of technician-planner presupposes a stable political
environment and assumes the planner has a publicly
legitimate agenda already established whereby he or she
is free to influence the political and social decision-
making environment. Because this is rarely the case, Baum
calls for new and expanded professional roles whereby
planners are more socially and organizationally astute.
In this way, they may utilize their technical expertise
where appropriate and their influence in the political

process will be increased.

Other authors have suggested that while expertise may be'
the source of a planner's power, this expertise does not
exist in a political vacuum and have suggested ways for

planners to use their expertise in a more effective way.

38

Benveniste believes planners or experts have a very
concrete effect on public and private decision-makers when
the statements they make about the future have a high
probability of proving true. Therefore, Benveniste
suggests that the most important component of the expert's
role is to couch proposals in appropriate language: "the
way the experts present their plans or recommendations

provides a new source of social power" (Benvenite, 36).

Other authors see the notion of expertise in the planning
process as an out-growth of the specific role requirements
of an "advisor". For example, Kreiger believes a planner
functions best in an advisor role. And, he sees an
effective advisor-advisee relationship as having three

requirements:

1) A relationship of persons in trust and truth.

2) A context for advice-giving (personal knowledge and
experience).

3) A public understanding of who we are as a
community (Krieger, 5).

Kreiger believes that leaving out any one of these
requirements makes for inadequate advice-giving and admits
that since human beings are limited, very rarely are all
three requirements met. In order to span these

limitations, people adapt by taking on "official" roles of

39

professional planners and experts. "The breakdown of each
of the three requirements for the giving and receiving of
advice produces specific social roles. Advice becomes
technical" (Kreiger, 16). Kreiger continues: ”When the
relationship of persons in advice becomes problemmatic, so
that trust has no foundation in ordinary experience,
snefessienslism develops" (Kreiger, 17). However,
professional planners, as advisors, help stabilize the
circle of mutual dependency between advisor and advisee.
Advice bridges the gap between planning and
implementation. "Politicians seek advice when knowledge
is not available as when they are making big decisions
with unpredictable consequences....they must supplement it

with technical assistance"(Kreiger, 18).

Other authors agree that when planners maintain their
”expert" status that their political and social power is
maintained. Indeed, most planners still see themselves
as technical/staff advisors rather than policy advocates
or politicians. Many contemporary planners see this anti-
political bias of the planning profession as in keeping
with the traditional values of municipal reform (cleaning
up city hall) and suggest much of the capacity of the
planner to exercise power is because of his or her expert
status. Vasu (1977) adds: "There is evidence that a

political role may be regarded not only as unnecessary to

”O

truly professional planning but as inherently
unprofessional because of its propensity to not focus on
'comprehensive' and 'rational' solutions but selitieal

ones" (Vasu, 1977: 83).

However, Vasu admits that planners' expertise is often
utilized by local decision-makers to provide a non-
political or technical "motif" for what is really a
political policy e.g. locating parks in such a way as to
separate different socio-economic groups. In this way,
these technical or rational planners are adding a
"rational veneer to what is simply a set of opinions"
(Vasu, 1”). Indeed, Vasu calls the "political neutrality"

of the master planning process a "fiction" (Vasu, 83).

Vasu contends the politically neutral planning process is
a mechanism by which to avoid confrontation between
planners and politicians over questions related to
legitimacy. "To define a process as inherently political
and then claim expertise is a poor strategy on which to
build support" (Vasu, 71). He goes on to suggest that if
planners do not accept the rational/technical role of
expert that they are simply reduced to the status of just
another interest group within the bureaucracy who have

specific policy preferences.

A1

Baer (1977) also recognizes that professional planning
practice emphasizes rational decisions ”while decision-
makers frequently use the act of planning as a cover to
disguise choices made on quite a different basis" (Baer,
671). Catanese (197A) believes most planners classify
themselves as "technicians" but suggests that when
planners try to overcome political considerations on
technical grounds that they are bound to fail (Catanese,

1979: 18).

Like Baum, Benveniste and Vasu, Howe (1980) has suggested
that the choice of an appropriate, compatible role is a
fundamental decision for any planner yet views the
technical-political dichotomy as a continuum (Howe, 398).
She contends on most ocassions in most situations
planners adopt both technical and political role elements

creating a "hybrid role".

This direct naming of hybridization was the first
indication that choosing a professional planning role to
enact could be and, in fact,should be a rational and

conscious decision.

N2

3. Planner Roles and the Changing Paradigm of Professional
Practice

Howe (1980) has developed a model to predict how or if
planners will enact particular professional planning
roles. The model uses "the technical and political aspects
of role as two separate dimensions, resulting in three
role choices - the technician, the politician and the
hybrid" (Howe, 399). In her study, those planners seeing
themselves as politicians believe planners should be open
participants in the planning process, allowing their
values to influence their work and openly advocating
particular policy alternatives that they may have
developed. These "politician-planners" feel planners
should "organize and use support groups, should try to
neutralize opposition to their plans and should lobby to
defeat proposals they thought were bad" (Howe, ”00).

However, Howe's technicians disagreed.

The technician planner contends the planner's source of
power lies in their ability to be objective "both in the
sense of keeping their policy views to themselves, and in
the sense that their primary source of effectiveness is
based on their reputation for doing objective and accurate

analysis" Howe, 1980: ”00).

”3

In Vasu's landmark study of planner attitudes about
themselves and the profession, he discovered the ”planner
as expert-technician" philosophy is still the dominant
mode of professional planning practice. Well over 50% of
Vasu's sample of practicing professional planners
indicated that they perceived their professional role as
that of a technician. This finding lead Vasu to comment,
"according to this data there is not much support for
those who would imply that the planning profession is
undergoing a significant transition with respect to its

preferred role definition" (Vasu, 77).

Nevertheless, because by and large, all planning includes
elements of both roles Howe suggests most planners are
really ”hybrids" and don't acknowledge it. Hybrids "see
advantages to both orientations and engage in either a
constant process of choice or in an attempt to balance the
inconsistencies" (Howe, ”01). As discussed in Chapter V,
these inconsistencies contibute significantly to the role
frustration planners experience in professional practice.
Indeed, the literature indicates a dissatisfaction with
the limiting technician roles of the past and support the

notion of a changing paradigm of professional practice.

In the 1960's, increasing federal involvement in planning

””

at the local level led planners to become involved in a
wider variety of "official" functions. With these
expanding number of positions (e.g. War on Poverty,
Community Action Programs, Model Cities, Urban Renewal)
the flexibility of individual planners to become something
more than technicians was in evidence. As the planning
field expanded so did the number of role choices. This
increased flexibility led to a great amount of literature
on the wide variety of roles that planners may play in
the planning process. The literature reflects the
paradigmatic shift in planning practice from those
planning roles that are entirely rational-technical to
those requiring political acumen and socially sensitive

analytical techniques.

In an attempt to better ground the practice of planning in
role theory, more contemporary authors have outlined
alternative roles for planners to enact that are more
independent from the social and political context within
which planning operates. For example, Baer sees planners
as being most effective when they play a midzuife role
(Baer, 1977: 675). Baer believes that the "new" planning
literature suggests that planners are "movers and
shakers" whereas in reality they are still more often
feeilitseens or middlemen so others can move and shake.
Baer believes planners rarely make things happen; they

usually only facilitate. (Baer, 676). Yet, in this

”5

middleman role or facilitator role Baer believes planners
perform a valuable service to society - a role nobody else
officially plays. This role "helps structure societal
inquiry by posing sophisticated questions and cautioning
against simplistic answers" (Baer, 676). If planners have

any real power in the midwife role, it is that of an

agenda snitch.

Forester sees the planners role as "manager of
information", believing the planner's power derives from
the various uses of information in a politically
pluralistic society (Forester, 1982). He sees planners in
a "communicator role" whereby they have the ability to
selectively withhold key pieces of information and set
agendas. Forester suggests that playing such a role can
in fact lead planners to become menisuletezs: "if
information and communication in the planning process are
not (1) clear and comprehensible, (2) sincere and
trustworthy, (3) appropriate and legitimate, and (”)
accurate and true, then to that extent may the
participants in the planning process be misinformed, or,

possibly manipulated“ (Forester, 71).

Forester contends that to adequately understand and

conceptualize what planners do, planning theoriticians and

”6

practitioners must place an emphasis on communication
and sources of misinformation. In this way planning
practice will be based upon the "practical-bureaucratic
recognition and anticipation of structural sources of

misinformation" (Forester, 73).

Susskind and Ozawa (1983) conceive of the planners role as
one of mediate: among conflicting interests. They see
mediators as "identifying shared concerns and and common
interests of those parties involved in negotiations" as
the primary activity in this role. By emphasizing the
possibility of "joint gains" and mutually satisfying
arrangements the mediator-planner enhances the chances of
implementing a particular course of action. Mediator-
planners assume very active roles and "control
communication of the parties, coordinating the exchange of
concessions and, at times mask the bargaining strengths
and weaknesses of one side from the other" (Susskind and
Ozawa, 10). They add that most planners are already
trained in such "process management skills" and can easily

transfer these skills into mediation (Susskind and Ozawa,

6).

Susskind and Ozawa suggest that among the most important
and crucial process-management skills associated with the

mediator-planner are listening to each party involved in

147

the negotiation process and then assisting in formulating
the final agreement to which both sides have contributed.
However, they admit that the mediator role for a
professional planner is most appropriate in the context of
environmental and community disputes between parties
reflecting conflicting interests (Susskind and Ozawa, 13).
Indeed, the authors suggest that the planning profession
can claim a "specialized competence to overcoming
obstacles in achieving a community-wide concensus on
divisive issues" (Susskind and Ozawa, 1”). If, in fact,
there is no unitary public interest then planners can
assist elected decision-makers in achieving, if not
outright agreeing, on a particular policy, program or

planning issue.

This mediator role for planners has begun to be the most
popular "new" planning role as it most closely identifies
the paradigmatic shift in the planning profession. Its
cornerstone is that there is no such thing as a unitary
public interest but that by the same token, this does not
imply that planner's can infuse the plans they develop
with their own values either. It assumes that when no
interested party is absolutely "right" then only by
bargaining can a mutually acceptable political decision
be reached. Often this means a planner must develop

informed consent among those parties most likely to be

”8

negatively affected by a planning decision.

An additional planner role that has been infused with the
more politically and socially sensitive theory of planning
practice is the traditional role of planner as sexless.

Although, traditionally, the planner was seen as an
advisor to elected decision-makers, recent authors have
suggested that this role can be fundamentally redirected
in content without changing its form. In this way, the
politically acceptable role of planner as "official
advisor” can be maintained but the content of the advice

can be manipulated to fit political realities.

Although planners may provide expert advice to decision
makers, this advice might not always be accepted freely.
Kreiger has written extensively on the planning process
and what this process encourages planners to do in order
to be effective. He perceives the planning process as one
of "advice-giving" (Kreiger, 1981: 5). Kreiger contends
the advisor role is the most appropriate role for planners
to assume and believes the most crucial aspect of the
advisor-advisee relationship is developing trust. He
suggests that when the planner learns how to confront
themselves honestly, they can become more effective in

establishing the relationship and building an environment

”9

of trust.

Kreiger asserts that persons in such a relationship have
feelings and that these feelings should be expressed. If
planners let how they feel and not just what they know
play an actual role in their professional capacities, they
will be able to receive and to give sensible advice.
"Advice needs trust and truth....treating each other like
persons and trusting each other, advisor and advisee
express the needs associated with their roles" (Kreiger,
10). However, he asserts the role of "advisor" has built-
in "contadictory limpulses“ that are likely to make for
difficulties for planners in fulfilling the official
requirements that constitute the role of advisor and
will prevent them from enacting it properly. (Kreiger,
18). Kreiger suggests that these contradictions may
destroy the potential for effective planning action in the
formal advisor-advisee relationship if they are not

acknowledged:

"When trust becomes a product of a
formalized relationship of persons in
professionalism, then the caring nature of
the relationship may be lost...the formal
character of technical thinking may prevent
us from talking about non-technical but
important issues. A sanitized version of
reasonableness, as rationality, removes
from our consideration significant but
perhaps non-rational forces in advice"
(Kreiger, 18).

50

Therefore, Kreiger sees a dilemma professional advisors

like planners face:

"...city planners, for example, have
been predominantly universalistic,
effectively neutral, collectively oriented
and functionally specific as well as
achievment oriented. It is almost as if
planners want to forget they are

persons....all the sterility and impotence
frequently associated with planning may
serve the planners deepest need and fears.
Yet rejecting themselves as persons,
planners are ineffective....plans are
cookbooks. Cookbooks are filled with
projects and searches. But if you do not
know how to be a person, they cannot help
you cook" (Kreiger, 196).

Heikoff views the planner's role as a sells! analyst
instead of a technician en politician. He believes the
planning process is such that various interest groups in
a pluralistic community interact to achieve concensus. In
this sense, the "planner as policy analyst" should
understand that elected officials may be confronted with
the demand to make a program or design decision sefene
they have had an opportunity to formulate a policy about
it. Therefore, it is the planner's responsibility to
assist the official in understanding and analyzing the
roles of all relevant actors in a political decision "if
he is to have a reasonably correct appreciation of how

policy choices are made" (Heikoff, 86).

51

In general, Susskind (1983), Kaufman (198”) and Catanese
(197”, 198”) believe an activist role is the most
appropriate planner role to enact in contemporary local
government. They believe it is more in line with the
realities of power sharing in a community. As opposed to
functioning purely as an advisor or technician to the
chief executive, these authors and others suggest that
planners must become "managers of change" (Susskind,
1983), or take a managerial stance when interacting with
the executive sue the legislative branches of government
(Catanese, 197”) or directly enact roles that will lead
the planner "in pursuit of planned change" (Kaufman,

1985).

It is important to distinguish here between planners
enacting roles of "change agents" within the system or
without it. Needleman and Needlemans' "guerillas in the
bureaucracy" typify the difficulties inherent in enacting
action-oriented roles that attempt to influence the
political process outside of formal decision-making
structures (Needleman and Needleman, 197”). Indeed,
Kaufman, Bolan, Catanese and others do not recommend that
planners enact roles associated with "advocacy planning"
but enact roles that are legitimate within the political

system.

52

For example, Catanese believes that planners are most
effective when their activities and functions are directly
linked with elected officials. Only in this way will
their influence in the decision-making structure be
maintained. In fact, acting as a "manager of change” does
not specifically include citizen participation. He
believes the essence of the citizen participation features
associated with the new activist form of practice is "the
implicit assumption that politicians can do a better job
of influencing citizens to become involved in the

decision-making process than can planners" (Catanese, 98).

A planner as activist identifies opinion leaders and
community influentials in order to influence elected
decision-makers. By harnessing these influentials,
planners link politicians with those individuals most
representative of special interests in a pluralistic
society. When planners structure the form of public input
into usable bits of information for decision-makers to
react to, then they will become more indispensible to
politicians and their influence will be enhanced. On its
face, this planning strategy is participatory because it
was generated from the bottom up. But on a more realistic
political-action, it does not require a planning

initiative to have broad, grass-roots support from every

53

actor affected by the plan or proposal.

Others see the planner's role of managing change as
entailing developing consent for planning proposals among
those most affected by them. The Institute of
Participatory Management and Planning has recently
developed specific techniques for managing change that
will lead to planners becoming more effective

implementors.

They suggest that planners enact roles that will lead
them to developing more effective implementation
strategies. "There are a great many urban planners who
can come up with solutions to urban problems, but only a
fraction of them are equally good at getting all of the
potentially affected interest groups to go along with the
implementation of those solutions" (IPMP, 1985). In this
way, reaching agreement on solutions to problems is the
cornerstone of the role planners should play. For too
long have planners assumed that agreement "is the
technical side-effect of analysis" and that planners must
now recognize that agreement must be "developed, created,
nurtured and grown... it doesn't just happen" (IPMP, 1983:
6).

5”

”. The Expanding Number of Professional Roles for Planners

A great variety of professional planning roles have been
developed in response to the increasing difficulty of
distributing dwindling resources in a pluralistic society.
Many of these roles have been borrowed form other
professions, such as social work. It is an attempt by the
profession to better account for all potential roles that

planners may enact given particular situational variables.

For example, Baum (1983) argues that planning and
therefore planners are inextricably linked to organizing
(Baum, 27). He sees planners organizing agreements about
solutions and problems, as well as agreement about the
allocation of resources to solve these problems (Baum,
27). Baum suggests planners lack cognitive maps (or have

inaccurate cognitive maps).

He defines cognitive maps as "abstractions which are
intended to assist action by focusing the individual's
attention on details most likely to be important in
choosing effective actions" (Baum, 185). He suggests
there are two types of cognitive maps or cognitive styles
an individual may possess. They are the divergent and the

convergent:

55

A) Divergent/Political
characterized by:

1) a complex cognitive structure with many
differentiated categories.

2) an ability to be flexible in solving changing
problems.

3) tolerance for ambiguity and consistency.

”) a sensitivity to subtle cues.

5) a capacity to role play and think in
hypothetical terms.
B) Convergent/Intellectual
characterized by:

1) independence of social cues related to one's
role.

2) flexibility with regard to prevailing
opinions.

3) and ability to differentiate potential means
and ends in problem solving.

”) a tendency to reflect before making a
judgment and to withhold judgement where
information is scarce.

Baum contends that most often planners have convergent
cognitive maps that are a disservice to them as they
perform an organizing role. He conceives of planners as

social actors in the political process and believes that

56

one of the reasons planners hold the cognitive maps that
they do is because of their university training in
planning and the professional socialization the profession

endorses:

"The university training of planners covers the
technical subject of planning projects but rarely
"planners as social actors". There is little in
the formal education of planners that teaches
them how to express a consciousness of
self...planners have been taught to make
recommendations free of personal judgement and
emotion. As a result of this socialization,
planners talk about their products of work as
opposed to themselves as workers" (Baum, 89).

Because most planners have incorrect cognitive maps, the
goals and expectations of many planners are out of place
in the official positions they find themselves filling in
bureaucratic organizations. Their work is most often
purely intellectual problem—solving and they act in a
world of ideas "not located in any slsee" (Baum, 180).
Baum suggests that planners are often unable to settle -
intellectually, emotionally or politically - on where to
locate in the process of making decisions about problems.
If planners assumed the role‘of organizer in conjunction
with a better organizational sense, intellectual decision-
making could be extended to politically astute decision-
making. As Baum asserts, what, in fact, planners are best

able to do once they are organizationally literate is to

57

organize new danisinnzmakina nnnnedunes which could gain

public legitimacy for social decisions" (Baum, 27).

In the past, planners have enacted their official role
believing they were to be concerned only with the
technical aspects of the planning process (e.g. relating
project evaluation to goals and objectives) and that they
"owned the problem" (Baum, 205). He suggests that
contemporary planners have changed in that they are taking
on more active roles. However, in doing so, they have
reduced their public accountability for the alternatives
they recommend. In fact, Baum believes that planners are
now functioning as "entrepreneurs" in the sense that they
are functioning without a "place” - they are working

without a place in an organizational context (Baum, 205).

Baum suggests that the real source of "expertise" of
planners is their ability to help "define and regulate
relationships" and to "refine procedural knowledge about
how to solve problems in the political arena" (Baum, 22”).
In order to do this, planners must define their roles as a
place in the social and political structure of a local
community. To successfully enact these roles means a
planner must become a more active participant as a
tneublezsheeten: "There is often little differentiation in

the public mind between planners who may be concerned with

58

finding solutions to broad social programs and bureaucrats

who are responsible for designing and administering
specific programs" (Baum, 2”1). Thus, Baum believes a
planner should enact a role that maximizes their

public accountability and legitimacy. Such a role would
include such activities as facilitating communication
between competing public interests and taking leadership

roles in "group processes" (Baum, 257).

Catanese also acknowledges the volatile social and
political environment in which planning takes places.
However, in the past, Catanese contends that planners have
assumed one of three roles without taking into
consideration this volatile environment. Catanese's

typology of roles is:

1) Apolitical-technical
2) Covert—activist
3) Overt-activist

He believes that the more traditional apolitical-technical
planners have not been cognizant of the function politics
plays in decisions about planning issues and that for too
long these planners have relied upon their technical
expertise as a way of influencing the political process
(Catanese, 197”). On the other hand, Catanese contends

that those overt-activist planners may have a misplaced

59

conception of their role as public servants. He suggests
that some overt-activist planners believe they are
"charged with the responsibility of societal change”
(Catanese, 39). While he agrees with this contention he
goes on to argue that when this change is "an attempt to
reorder values then there is wrong in the concept of

public service" (Catanese, 39).

Catanese believes a more appropriate role for planners to
enact is one of a covert-activist which he defines as
"outwardly technical but political behind the scenes”
(Catanese, 197”: 57). In a pluralistic society, the
covert-activist planner is a translator and educator. In

defense, Catanese asserts:

"Different groups have different lifestyles and
preferences for environmental quality. These
differences must be understood and communicated
hefene planning is undertaken. If this kind of
meaning for the built environment is not
communicated well, then there is a false sense
of belief that plans will work well" (Catanese,
99).

Additional authors agree that planners must enact more
action-oriented roles when practicing their profession.
Kaufman argues that planners should enact the role of
intesyentienise in public policy (Kaufman, 1981). Kaufman

argues that planners must become initiators of policy

60

instead of only reacting and putting out brush fires for
politicians who have made bad decisions. Indeed, often,
it is the planners who take the heat for these decisions.
Kaufman sees a policy initiator as one who "nurtures
support for an issue that may be latent somewhere in the
community, or winning the opposition over to its side or

neutralizing it and developing informed consent" (Kaufman,

18”).

Slater also believes planners should redefine and expand
their roles and provides a typology of planner styles
corresponding with the appropriate planner roles. In
essence, Slater believes planners should become less
technology-centered and more "people-centered":
"Planners are more likely to lose their jobs for failing
to work well with people issues than for failing to work
out the technical aspects of their job" (Slater, 198”:
1”3). Slater recognizes that even though organizational
interrelations are built around people rather than
abstract and generalized titles and descriptions, the
roles that planners usually play "will vary with the

boss's definition" (Slater, 51).

However, Slater distinguishes community planning "styles"

with actual roles that planners assume. He asserts that

61

most individuals tend to lean towards a particular style of
local management and that, once this personally accepted
style is perceived and utilized through a process of
self-assessment, then an expanded version of potential
roles for planners to assume can be made a more conscious
and rational decision. The actual role selected will
relate the functional aspects of the planning activity to

what a planner feels most comfortable with.

Slater's styles of local management are:

1) Community Leaders - these are community
change agents and the "idea" men and women.

2) Chief Executives - these are the politicians
who ask the cautious questions from within the
system.

3) Administrative Planner - these are the
planners (or others) who work to initiate change from
within the system.

”) Caretaker Planners - these are the planners
who are most interested in order and routine and not
in change from within or from without.

Slater interprets the forms of practice and leadership

styles most often exhibited by each type of planner:

"The community leader exhibits high people
skills and low technical competency. The chief
executive has low people orientation and just
wants to deliver services to prove competency.
The administrative planner has high technical
capabilities and low people orientation. The
caretaker planner is only involved in

62

bureaucracy" (Slater, 1”9).

Using these four basic planning styles, Slater develops
six planning roles that directly or indirectly,
depending on the individual, correlate with planner

style. These roles are:

Policy analyst/technician
Organizer

Broker

Advocate

Enabler

Publicist

GUT .1:de
vvvvvv

Given the contemporary social and political environment in
which the practice of planning finds itself in, Slater
argues that, regardless of preferred style planners must
assume the role of community leader more often. He sees
planners as appropriately filling community leadership

roles in four functional areas:

1) conceptual leadership - centered on priorities,
interrelatedness of issues and long-term consequences of
short-term actions.

2) public policy leadership.

3) situational leadership.

”) agency and staff leadership (Slater, 168).

Like Slater, Levin believes that planners must change

63

their roles in contemporary planning practice and
discover and enact new ones because “people are tired of
being pushed around by government agencies" (Levin, 1977:
7). Levin sees planning as a way of "accomodating widely
divergent lifestyles within communities" and developing
ways, through policy, of "serving public purposes without
requiring public money" (Levin, 7). Levin sees the most
appropriate role for planners to enact is "seyeeate;
teehnieian" (Levin, 250). He believes planners are
responsible for assigning priorities for public policy and
then formulating criteria by which development projects
can be evaluated. Like Kreiger's advisor, Levin sees the
cornerstone of a planner's power as his or her objective
analysis of planning issues. Yet he sees planners as
enacting the role of advocate for this analysis. In this
way the traditional role of technician has not changed on
its face but is used as a facade to push through plans and

proposals a planner may feel is ”the best one".

Levin includes, within this more general role of advocate-
technician, two more specialized roles of public educator
and coalition builder. Levin sees planners as educators
in that they are "continually engaged in a process of oral
and written persuasion, in conjunction with colleagues,
planning boards, civic associations, the media, interest

groups, engineers, lawyers and the general public. They

6”

spend much of their day holding adult education classes”

(Levin, 10).

Levin asserts that planners are coalition-builders and
that most acknowledge this. However, he admits that
"fashioning effective coalitions is a task calling for
considerable energy, shrewdness, tolerance, patience and a
willingness to compromise" and that many planners feel
compromise is "selling out" (Levin, 15). Indeed, he
believes this feeling is directly due to the university
training of planners who are led to believe that there is
one best "rational" solution for every planning problem.
"The practice of conferring in private to make plans is
anathema to planners...but that is what is dictated by
administrative and political realities" (Levin,12). Levin
seems to imply that planners must be comfortable in being
used by politicians as "endorsers and validators" of a
particular policy that the planner has worked to get

accepted within the community.

Like Susskind and Ozawa, David Eversley suggests that the
most appropriate role for a planner to play is one of
mediator between conflicting political interests and warns
that if every conflicting group in society were left to
fight it out that anarchy would prevail. He asserts that

"the planner's task is to arbitrate; to adjudge the claims

65

of the various factions, to settle priorities. The
planner guides the natural forces of protest into a

coherent whole" (Eversley, 1973: 215).

Like Howe, Eversley sees the planner's role as a series of
points along a spectrum from technician to politician. He
sees four responsibilities of the planner - each of which
corresponds with a different professional role. As a
Leehnieisn, Eversley sees planners as trying to avoid some
of the undesireable side-effects of certain kinds of
development as they prepare plans. As a medieeen, he sees
planners as speeding up the process in accordance with the
deelened political objectives of his or her political
master; as an asyeeete, the planner is to identify those
areas of need which have not found an articulate and well-
connected spokesperson; and as a selieyzsnelyst, should
decide on policy priorities after all of the above have

been completed (Eversley, 220).

In a landmark study of community planners, the
sociologists Needleman and Needleman made an attempt to
delve into the professional role identifications of city
planners in ten major urban areas in the early 1970's. By
conducting descriptive in-depth interviews with hundreds

of planners, a clear idea of the role constraints planners

66

face in contemporary community planning is revealed.
Needleman and Needleman focused their efforts on
”advocate" planners but labeled them "community planners".
Using Paul Davidoff's seminal piece on advocacy planning
as a starting point, they analyzed the role perceptions of
those planners who found themselves doing advocacy
planning whether they wanted to or not because of internal

and external organizational sanctions.

Needleman and Needleman suggest that given a planner's
official, bureaucratic role that rarely are planners
"advocates". Because the city government that employs
them usually define the city's planning goals, community
planners who work at the neighborhood level, while they
may be playing a role somewhat close to Davidoff's
"advocate", are more likely to be playing the role in a
covert way. Therefore, they J coined the term
"administrative guerilla" as more adequately representing
the "political pressure system" of contemporary community

planning (Needleman and Needleman, 197”: 120).

Needleman and Needleman's administrative guerillas come in
two varieties. The distinction between these two
varieties centers on their conception of who is most
appropriate to define the planning problem and set the

planning agenda. A Qeliyeny sgenL is more likely to

67

accept the community's definition of a planning issue and
therefore functions more as an advocate in the Davidoff
sense. The ensnge agent, on the other hand, presupposes
some distorted communication between the haves and the
have-nots and sees his or her role as a community planner
of "uncovering and bringing to the attention of the
community the community needs and problems they might
otherwise misunderstand or fail to perceive" (Needleman
and Needleman, 1”6). In Needleman and Needleman's opinion,
an additional manifestation of this latter "change agent"
role is "educating" the community into agreement with the

planner's perception of the area's needs.

5. Summary

Historically, planning-related literature reflects the
debate between two widely divergent schools of thought.
This debate centers around the notion of expertise and
planning practice as a method of social action. One school
of thought contends that when planners maintain their
"expert" status, their influence is enhanced. The other
school of thought contends that planner "expertise" is

useful only to the extent it results in tangible changes.

Contemporary planning literature indicates that planning

68

practice is undergoing a shift with respect to the
potential roles planners can and do enact. As planning
has become institutionalized as a legitimate local
governmental activity, the flexiblity of planners to adopt
non-technical roles has increased. These roles have
evolved in consort with changes in social and political
structure and the interrelationships between these

structures. They include:

1. Midwife 11. Entrepreneur

2. Facilitator _ 12. Trouble-shooter
3. Middleman 13. Interventionist
”. Agenda-settor 1”. Broker

5. Communicator 15. Advocate

6. Manager of information 16. Enabler

7. Manipulator 17. Publicist

8. Mediator 18. Educator

9. Delivery agent 19. Coalition-builder
10. Community organizer 20. Change agent

The planning literature suggests these new roles have
evolved because planners' expertise lacks political
authority and public accountability. Planners realize
they can no longer rely purely on objective and unbiased

judgement alone when recommending future development.

PM.

CHAPTER IV

JOB DISSATISFACTION: ROLE DISSONANCE,
CONFLICT AND AMBIGUITY IN PROFESSIONAL PLANNING PRACTICE

1. Introduction

Planning—related literature has begun to reveal that, as
planning roles began to change from those roles more
technical to those more political, the degree of job
dissatisfaction among practicing planners increased (Baum,
1983); (Mayo, 1982); (Howe, 198”); (Kaufman, 1985). The
increasing number of potential planning roles and the
number of roles planners are expected to enact has created
a confusing professional environment. These role changes
have increased the unpredictability of the work that
planners do. It leads to conflict over the internal and
external expectations that define the role. It has also
leads to a gap between role enactment and skills

development.

By concentrating on the actual and potential roles

69

7O

planners may enact in the planning process, professional
practice will begin to be more closely alined with social
and political realities. When this realignment does not
take place, planners become frustrated in the work that

they do and exhibit signs of professional burn-out.

This chapter outlines the literature that has attempted to
analyze those variables that most closely predict and
explain planner behavior when they enact a planner role.
It examines those variables internal and external to the
planner that affect how or if a planner enacts a
particular planner role. Role dissonance, conflict and
ambiguity will be discussed with respect to planners
enacting political roles. In addition, alternative
behaviors a planner exhibits when suffering from role

dissonance are examined.

2. Understanding Role Dissonance

The planning process is an attempt to make rational what
is inherently irrational. The results of such an irony
are unpredictable. For example, based on a comprehesive
survey of practicing planners in the early 1980's, Baum
(1983) suggests this unpredictability is most evident as

planners attempt to make sense out of the neles they are

71

expected to play and the roles that they themselves
believe they sneuld play: "Planners reveal the confusion
of the organizational process of planning in references to
difficulties in controlling their neles in the process"
(Baum, 92). Baum also believes that planners have
difficulty in evaluating their work because "it is
difficult to evaluate yourself as a role player within a
context of many role players" (Baum, 90). In addition,
Baer (1977) has noted: "the planning profession has the
unenviable task of crystallizing political conflicts in
the context of planning and society, in the course of

articulating its own role" (Baer, 1977: 671).

The issue of role dissonance conflict has not been dealt
with in any coherent way. In fact, most authors cannot
even agree on definitions of role dissonance and/or
conflict, besides agreeing on the variables that are most
likely to explain it. The literature in the field from the
past ten years reflects this confusion. When determining
the variables that most strongly affect professional role
performance, most authors generally support the contention
that there are both internal and external variables that
impinge on the proper execution of any planning role.
However, they differ on the degree to which variables are

most important.

72

For example, Baum contends role dissonance or conflict is
"an isolation of their professional identity from what
they do in their actual roles" (Baum, 95). Baum believes
that, inwardly, planners feel that they are usually doing
the night thing but outwardly, they are not provided the
measures by which to objectively evaluate their work.
Thus, there are systemic indications that planners are
prone to role dissonance and conflict given the nature of
planning tasks assigned to them in their formal roles or

tasks they choose for themselves in their informal roles.

Benveniste suggests planners feel role dissonance and
conflict because they must use the traditional roles of
technician and policy analyst "to attempt to fulfill needs
they consciously or unconsciously recognize" (Benveniste,
10). He believes that planners, as they emerge from
planning school, are ignorant of the "sociology” of their
role. Therefore, they most often play the role of
”expert" (as a more conventional role definition) without
considering the wide variety of potential roles they may,
in fact, be able to enact. Planners are led to believe
that they enact their technical roles in isolation from
other roles in the planning process and suffer from role

conflict when they are not successful.

Faludi disagrees somewhat. She believes planners

73

experience role dissonance because they hold a generalist
concept of themselves but upon entering the workplace, the
governmental bureaucracy and their clients do not expect
them to be genensllsts but to perform and enact the roles

of a sneaialist:

"The ‘generalist' concept is not generalist at
all. It can be interpreted as part and parcel
of the on-going process of specialization and
differentiation of public bureaucracies.....
Planners tend to emphasize the role of statutory
procedures of planning as constituting the base
of their specialism” (Faludi, 109).

Faludi implies that planners experience role dissonance
when attempting to enact informal roles in the planning
process. She asserts that in planning school and in-
service training, planners are led to believe that the
strength of their discipline lies in its comprehensive
approach to development. However, in reality, planners are
expected to enact roles of specialist, experts or

technicians.

Faludi contends generalists view planning as broad and
comprehensive and specialists purely in terms of
development control alone (Faludi, 117). Within this
framework, the general public and the governmental

bureaucracy places on the planner the expectations that

71:

they will fill a "specialist" function and will enact all
of the corresponding roles associated with an "expert".
Planners, on the other hand, perceive themselves
differently and carry to the workplace an expectation that
they will be allowed the lee-way to enact those
professional roles most closely associated with a
"generalist". In this way, a planner suffers role

dissonance.

Michael (1973) emphasizes that the external expectations
of any role are the chief determinants of whether or not
a professional planner experiences role dissonance or
conflict. He asserts that "role conflict is greatest
when the prevailing expectations [external] emphasize low
rules orientation and low closeness of supervision"
(Michael: 1977, 167). This situation is best described as
the working environment most closely associated with

informal professional planning roles.

Still others see planner role conflict as developing more
directly because of internal expectations and determinants
of how a role is enacted. In this case, role conflict
develops in those individuals who do not have the skills
necessary to perform in the job they are assigned to do or

in the formal roles they enact.

75

For example, Mayo defines role dissonance in two ways.

He indicates that planners may feel role dissonance when
they perceive (an internal expectation of role) that a
particular role is important to their work but feel the
inability to perform that role "satisfactorily in terms of
the importance they assign to it" (Mayo, ”82). An
additional definition of role dissonance is when a planner
may feel a particular role is important in his or her work
but feel constrained by their organization in using that
role. Thus, Mayo argues "planners can experience role
dissonance through both personal inability and

organizational constraint" (Mayo, ”82).

While surveying 535 public planners in the spring of 1977,
Mayo attempted to measure the extent to which
socioeconomic, organizational, professional, role
dissonance and value incongruence indicators can predict
job dissatisfaction among planners (Mayo, 1982). According
to Mayo, the planner utilizes nine roles that most closely
approximate the skills and abilities needed to be
effective planners. They are: .community knowledgeable,
initiator, technical expert, expert on process, public
leader, mediator, judge, veto power and coalition-builder
(Mayo, ”82). The planners interviewed were then asked to

assess both their personal abilities in enacting these

76

roles and "the amount of constraint their organizations
used in permitting or preventing them from exercising

these roles" (Mayo, ”82).

If role dissonance is defined as the gap between the role
requirement and the constraint a planner has when enacting
a role, then, in Mayo's factor analysis, the cluster of
roles he defined as political (public leader, mediator,
judge, veto power, and coalition-builder) "explained about
two to three times as much role dissonance as technical
ones" (Mayo, ”83). Thus, it remains to be examined to
what extent planners felt they were unable to enact the
roles successfully because of personal inabilities or
organizational constraints (internal expectations vs.

external expectations).

Mayo's conclusions indicate the extent to which planners
may be unprepared to enact the roles that are expected of
them in the political arena. His study has indicated that
to adequately meet the planner's need of job satisfaction
"political success in performing roles in their agencies
is more important than success in technical roles" (Mayo,
”89). The planners in Mayo's study felt that overcoming
political and/or organizational constraints Was more
critical than overcoming their personal inabilities to

perform the cluster of more technical roles:

77

"Organizational constraint in political roles

is a strong influence. Self-development is
often viewed as a way of improving technical
skills for gaining legitimacy as a
professional. Planners...perceive that

constraint in political roles is more critical
for being satisfied at work than inabilities in
technical roles. Planners want to improve their
technical abilities, but this does not appear to
be enough. They may want to use what they know
in political situations to accomplish something
worthwhile and feel good about it. From their
perspective, their organizations may not let
them do so, and as a result, they are more
frustrated with their agencies than with their
technical abilities to perform" (Mayo, ”90).

Mayo's work indicates that external determinants of role
enactment play a more crucial factor in explaining job
dissatisfaction in practicing planners than do internal
determinants. Nevertheless, this does not address those
skills internal to the planner, that assist them in
effectively enacting their roles once they have chosen a

particular one to enact.

Like Mayo, Baum (1983) believes that most planners pay
little attention to the nature of organizational roles and
that this might be a contributing factor when they
experience role dissonance in enacting political roles.
He believes that planners experience role dissonance and
conflict because they do not see the gap between
"realistic professional goals" that are defined by, 1) the

type of planning organization, 2) the ways in which formal

78

and informal work roles are structured in a planning
organization and 3) the planning techniques that planners
have been taught in school to believe would effectively
lead them to these goals. In essence, "they have 02L been
socialized to see the variety of roles they would be
expected to play" and the variety of roles they eenld play

(Baum, 205).

3. Role Resistance and Professional Burnout

Even though Needleman and Needleman describe role
dissonance of "advocate planner", they highlight a crucial
concept of planner role dissonance that can be applied to
planners today. This concept centers around the notion
that any planner who is forced to define his or her role
may experience role dissonance, regardless of the larger
questions of social and political context. There are
certain key pressure points in doing planning work that
forces planners into behavioral patterns of gels
nesistance because of hole resizintinns- These behaviors
are reactions to role dissonance or role conflict borne
out of enacting political roles without proper knowledge

or training.

"...to gain community trust, planners try to
convince the community that their role in city

79

government is both limited and powerless. Yet,
by doing so, they raise skepticism about their
potential usefulness...a planner can be seen as
influential and untrustworthy or as trustworthy
but useless" (Needleman and Needleman, 92).

Thus, as Needleman and Needleman's study indicates, even
those planners that feel restricted from exercising the
professional roles they may feel are most appropriate,
"they are constantly trying to convince the community that
the planner's influence on city government is minimal"
(Needleman and Needleman, 90). This reflects the extent
to which planners have little knowledge and experience in
enacting and roles other than "policy analyst" or
"technician". If they did, the role dissonance they
experience would be based soley on external determinants

alone.

Needleman and Needleman interviewed planners who have
spent their professional careers attempting to convey to
the wider community that the planning role (or the
professional roles that they themselves assume) have
nothing to do with implementation in order to protect
themselves. In fact, one planner suggested that: "Any
complaints about implementation or adequacy of actual
programs should go through political channels. We are
planners and architects, not politicians" (Needleman and

Needleman, 91). This planner's statement reflects the

80

ambivalence, dissonance and conflict experienced by many
contemporary planners. They are trained as technicians
and policy analysts but find themselves having to "sell"
their policies and programs. This brings in the element

of ”persuasion" and, in effect, sums up politics.

The Needlemans suggest that there are psychological
stresses built in to any profession that chooses to define
itself in terms of eeslen;enlented roles and they
outline these psychological stresses inherent in these

roles as "complaint clusters". These complaints include:

1) The naturally escalating demands of an action-oriented
role.

2) The imbalance between effort and achievement.

3) The high risk of disillusionment about the meaning of
”success" (Needleman and Needleman, 295).

Needleman and Needleman suggest that most action-oriented
roles are characterized by "vagueness or ambiguity of
goals and loose organizational structures that allow for
positions of opportunity in which individuals doing
community contact work structure their own roles"
(Needleman and Needleman, 316). It is ironic to note that

the the vagueness and ambiguity associated with actual

81

professional roles for planners is precisely the criticism
most often leveled at the profession as a whole. This

vagueness led one planner to announce:

"This isn't a profession. It's a racket" (Needleman
and Needleman, 303).

Given this vagueness and ambiguity of the framework
guiding professional planning practice, planners are
forced into self-defined tasks. Indeed, this is as true
today as it was in the late 1960's. They experience job
dissatisfaction when the tasks they have defined for
themselves require such a degree of personal committment
that their work becomes intolerable. And, given what they
expected to accomplish as idealists in graduate school,
the disparity between effort and achievement become wider
and wider. Thus, instead of scaling their expectations

downward, they become convinced they have failed.

Needleman and Needleman liken planners to Peace Corps
Volunteers in that Peace Corps Volunteers most usually
create their own roles as they go along. Needleman and
Needleman see these professional roles as "volatile
roles". They contend that once a person chooses to accept
such a role they immediately, ”self—destruct, quickly

driving the role occupant to the breaking point of

82

psychological strain and thereby forcing him out of his

role" (Needleman and Needleman, 316).

Like Mayo's planners, those planners who experience role
dissonance develop alternative patterns of behavior to
deal with the negative feelings they have about themselves
and their jobs. When planners experience role dissonance,
they develop patterns of nnle nesistance and col:
inespaeity (Needleman and Needleman, 120). Role
resistance is typically shown by, inwardly, believing that
adopting more action-oriented roles is desirable, but
refusing in principle from departing from technical and
comprehensive planning. Others, try to enact the role but

simply fail:

"The role requires skills the planner receives
no training in. The planner has to be able to
think on his feet. He [or she] has to present
his arguments to skeptical, often hostile
community leaders to inspire their confidence.
He is forced to function, not only as a planner
but also as an actor, a politician, a salesman,
a con-man and perhaps even a charismatic leader"
(Needleman and Needleman, 153).

Needleman and Needleman's planners have found themselves
caught between two opposing forces: doing the "right
thing" and doing the possible. This situation led the
Needlemans to suggest that in planning schools, planning

students are given very little guidance as to how to deal

83

with these dilemmas or even that these dilemmas -may
arise. Thus, they suggest that planners have found
themselves with a scenario in which they must construct
their own roles to effectuate the social and environmental
changes that they deem appropriate. Because creating new
and unique professional roles leaves a lack of objective
criteria by which to evaluate themselves as professionals
and the quality of the work they do, this has created a
great deal of job stress and premature burn-out,
particularly for those planners in highly charged and

dynamic political environments.

An additional issue partially explaining job
dissatisfaction is the extent to which internal
expectations of planners are far out of line with respect
to what it is reasonable for any public servant to
accomplish. Planners can be ”malcontent utopian dreamers
and develop unrealistic expectations in their education
and work" (Mayo, ”91). But when planners develop
expectations in line with what their agencies can
realistically deliver then consensus through participation
can determine what their role is to be and the internal
and external expectations which are the parameters that
determine how their role will be enacted will be in
agreement. Thus, planners, in consort with others, sen

develop criteria by which they can objectively and

8”

subjectively evaluate their work.

”. Summary

As planners enact professional roles of a highly sensitive
political nature, job dissatisfaction is increased. This
dissatisfaction is defined as role dissonance. When a
planner is experiencing role dissonance, they wish to
successfully enact a role but are prevented from doing so.
These constraints include determinants both internal and

external to the planner.

In most cases, the literature suggests that as planners
begin to adopt more activist or "action-oriented” roles
they will feel most constrained by the organizational
variables that influence their latitude in successfully

enacting their roles. They feel more constrained and
experience more role dissonance in enacting the newly
required political roles. In addition, this dissonance is
most explained, not by the planner lacking the necessary
technical skills but by being politically constrained in
enacting the roles successfully from within and without

their planning organization.

85

Internal variables predict most role dissonance
experienced by planners generally. But when enacting
planning roles of a more fluid and political nature,
external variables are most likely to constrain the
planner and affect dissonance levels. Indeed, the
profession finds itself in a Catch-22 position. As
planners realize they must enact more political roles to
maintain their visibility and therefore their
effectiveness, they find themselves constrained from
enacting these roles by the very system that requires them

to enact these roles.

In order to reduce role dissonance, conflict and
ambiguity, planners must first recognize the potentially
useful role they may play in the planning process and more
accurately match the internal and external expectations
that naturally function as the limiting factors in

successful role enactment.

CHAPTER V

A FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNER ROLE SELECTION

1. Introduction

Planners must link their technical expertise to solving
problems. They must concentrate on their role in
facilitating these linkages. Previous chapters have
reviewed the planning literature that suggests using the
concept of professional role is the most appropriate
method of closing, thegpgap between planning and
implementation. This literature indicated that, by better
delineating all the social and political variables that
affect planning practice, alternative roles are created
for planners to enact. Based upon the previous analysis,
it is suggested here that planners must make the selection
of an appropriate role to enact one of the most important
considerations in their day to day activities. Choosing
an appropriate role will reduce job dissatisfaction and

enhance effectiveness.

86

87

In order to select the most appropriate role, planners
must create a logical and consistent framework by which
they evaluate themselves, the situation and the desired
end. This chapter recommends such a framework and is based
upon careful analysis of the variables that most closely
impact planning practice on a day-to-day basis. It
attempts to provide a prescriptive theory of practice.
This theory is based upon this writer's personal and
professional observation and the literature on the subject
presented above. Therefore, it has not been tested
empirically. While not completely foolproof, this
framework is designed as an additional tool to be used by
planners as they grapple with how to be more effective at

what they do.

2. The Framework

Because most planners in local government are so busy
putting out political fires, many do not understand
themselves or the work they do in terms of the
professional roles they enact or how those roles (official
or unofficial) coincide and/or interact. Those that do
understand often make the wrong role decision because they
either do not have sufficient information to make a
responsible choice or because the information they do have

may be inaccurate.

88

The literature from the period of 1975 to 1985 reflects
this central concern of planner roles and how these roles
are created, developed and enacted. For example, Baum
believes the roles of the planner are of central concern
when identifying the usefulness of "planning" to the
larger society. While he agrees that there is no ideal
role for every planner he believes the selection of any
particular role must be a conscious and rational
decision based upon three variables: 1) the situation, 2)
the planner's attributes and 3) the planner's resources

(Baum, 76).

The following framework will substantially expand Baum's
ideas. It will include important additional variables to
be considered that can assist a planner when choosing the
most appropriate role or combinations of roles for optimum
results. While the variables selected are by no means
inclusive of all variables to be analyzed in every
situation or for every individual, this framework can be a
useful tool for the majority of planners attempting to
reduce their personal and professional frustration on the

job.

In this writer's opinion, there are two main requirements
that must be fulfilled before the process of selecting an

appropriate professional planning role can begin. These

89
requirements are:

1) PROBLEM RECOGNITION - The first step in the process of
making a role decision is the recognition that such a
possibility exists. Indeed, it is ironic to note how
planners are technically skilled identifiers of problems
yet are often unable to distinguish the forest from the
trees in their own professional lives. Until planners
recognize that it is their neles in the planning process
that are the most easily manipulated variables they
control personally, they will continue to flounder around
blaming ”the system" or their personal inablities and

insecurities.

2) KNOWLEDGE OF ALTERNATIVE ROLES - Planners must become
aware of the myriad of roles open for them to enact. While
many planners already enact many political roles without
realizing it, this does not advance the profession in any
coherent way toward creating a place for itself in the
local political process. For example, while a planner
may, on occasion, recognize the need to negotiate, they do
not become negotiators nor do they recognize that this
must become the explicit role they enact and announce it
to others. They are seen as "planners who know how to

negotiate" not just "planners”.

90

Once these two requirements are met, the planner should
begin to closely analyze those variables that are most
likely to affect their choice of a role to enact in a
particular planning situation. To make this process of
selecting an appropriate role as rational as possible,
planners must first acknowledge all potential planning
roles open to them and then consider each one in light of

three main categories of knowledge:

1) KNOWLEDGE OF SELF - Self-knowledge is often taken for
granted. It should not be. A It requires alot of effort.
For the planner, self-knowledge should include such
concrete things as personality orientation (such as
whether a person is inner or outer directed) to less
direct personal feelings about religion and philosophy.
Planners should confront their personal strengths and
weaknesses, biases, fears, and prejudices they may

possess.

For example, if a planner feels uncomfortable in large
groups of people, he or she should not agree to be the
broker between a citizen group and the planning commission
in a public forum. The planner could be just as effective
behind the scenes. If a planner believes all developers
are greedy, then he or she should not agree to be an

arbitrator between an environmental group and a developer.

91

The planner's bias will preclude any objectivity. He or

she will not be effective and everybody will recognize it.

2) DEGREE OF INSTITUTIONAL FLEXIBILITY - This type of
knowledge refers to the degree to which a planner is
provided the flexibility by their own organization or the
organizations he or she deals with most to create, develop
and enact new roles in the planning process. Often, this
degree of flexibility is a direct function of the size of
a planning organization and the degree to which activities
are specialized. Nevertheless, many planners assume too
quickly that their functional activities dictate their

role instead of the role dictating the activity.

The newer planner roles are not based on functional
specialization but on types of interactions and
interventions with others. Most planning organizations
may limit a planner's flexibility in terms of activity but
not in terms of role. For example, if a planner's
functional responsibility is to provide government with an
environmental impact statment on a particular development,
their flexibility is limited with respect to the type of
document required. However, the role they play in
securing such a document is usually left up to the

planner.

92

3) SITUATIONAL VARIABLES - These variables are many and
varied. Often planners are more likely to see each
planning situation as entirely different from the one
before it instead of seeing the similarities and acting on
that common ground. Specifically, the situational
variables that are most important relate directly to the
particular objectives the planner is trying to achieve.

They are:

1) personal commitment level at the time.

2) the degree of support from those most affected by
the proposal or recommendation.

3) the commitment levels of coworkers.
”) the planner's perceptions of liklihood of success.

5) the planning activity itself.

This fifth situational variable is often the most
difficult to diagnose but is also the most important. For

example, is the planning activity intended to:

1) Enhance the planner's credibility?

2) Create consensus?

3) Identify problems?

”) Mediate between polarized interests?

5) Establish the legitimacy of the planner's agency?
6) Accept and understand communication?

7) Establish the legitimacy of the planning process
the planner has recommended?

93

8) Generate solutions?

It should be noted that the "planning activity” as it is
used here can refer to a piece of research, a meeting, a
proposal, a recommendation or any other form of
communication. It is used generically to signify any

planning effort in written or oral form.

Once planners realize the wide variety of roles they may
enact within the planning process and consider each role
in terms of the three categories of knowledge, they must
work to develop the skills necessary to enact the roles
properly. Indeed, often the key to awareness about
potential roles planners can play is the development of

the skills necessary to enact these roles properly.

The skills the literature suggests are most important when
enacting new planning roles are outlined in the next
section. In addition, how these skills can be applied to

create a prescriptive theory of practice is highlighted.

3) The New Planner Skills

An additional theme running throughout contemporary

planning literature on professional roles are new skills

that planners should develop in order to become more

9”

effective in the work they do. Many authors (Baum, 1983;
Kaufman, 1985; Kreiger, 1983; Bolan, 1985) have discussed
the lack of inter-personal skills development within the
planning profession. They contend that there are
inevitable forces at work that are forcing planners to
become more adept at using their perceptual and
communication skills. For example, the increasing
sophistication of community organizations, neighborhood
groups and private voluntary organizations require the
planner to develop plans that are acceptable to a greater
range of subjective criteria. This has created,
particularly in light of shrinking resources in urban

areas, a greater need for concensus than ever before.

Michael (1973) contends it is generally accepted that
planning can no longer be divorced from politics. He
suggests that effectively integrating both politics and
planning requires combining both within the same
structure of thought and action. He contends this requires
the development of new skills for planners and believes
that enhanced inter-personal skills are required to supply
the emotional support the a planner needs when confronting
role conflict and ambiguity. "Honesty and perception
require both self-understanding and understanding of
others as well as the skill to combine these into relevant

and supportive inter-personal transactions" (Michael,

95

1973: 192).

Catanese (197”) believes such skills are actually
"political" rather than professional and that these skills
must be developed within the context of the political
process lest many planning problems "could be mistaken as
technical and methodological rather than political, and

inter-personal" (Catanese, 197”: 163).

The skills associated with the new politically and
organizationally sensitive planning roles center on the
ability of planners to 1) become risk takers 2) develop
normative theories of action and 3) respect the autonomy
and power of special interest groups. These abilities
require honesty and perception, skills which are developed
through self-understanding and the understanding of others
combined in such a way to foster "relevant and supportive

inter-personal transactions" (Michael, 1977: 192).

Faludi contends planners are ineffective participants
in the political process because they have not raised
issues in the application of their "technical“ knowledge
to "an often diverse clientele" (Faludi, 1973: 1”3). Like
Bolan (1980, 1985) and Michael (1973) Faludi agrees that
the formulation of action programs is of central concern

for planning and planners but she differs with them on the

96

root cause of this failure.

While Faludi agrees that planners have not developed the
professional skills which, once alternative roles are
identified, assist them in choosing the most appropriate
one for any given situation, he sees this failure as
originating in planning schools. He labels this problem
as not adequately integrating disciplines for the
planning student. Faludi believes that planning education
is at fault by not properly linking substantive knowledge
with social scientific aspects of planning theory. Faludi
sees sociology as ”an attempt to fit all human knowledge
into one large, ordered perspective for the sake of
undenstsndlng , in and of itself, and to provide a basis
for sane and well balanced social reform" (Faludi, 1”3).
Therefore Faludi sees that planners develop physical
planning programs (housing, transportation and industrial
location) that fail to view the underlying issues of
social structure thereby doing nothing to immediately

affect social ills.

Faludi believes that the skills and techniques of
interpersonal communication and perception will never be
stressed in the profession until planning "incorporates an
image of society" (Faludi, 1”3). She believes that
physical planning techniques have not been adequately

linked with the ends of social justice in planning

97

education:

"Planning students are being taught various

disciplines, not merely because of the
educational value of being exposed to them but
because of their alleged contribution to the
student's effectiveness in practice.

Responsibility for understanding how this
occurs, however, is all too often shifted to the
students who are expected to integrate subjects
in their own minds. Instead of being told
explicitly to what end each discipline should be
used for developing a consistent theory of

practice, they are not. Planning education
should consist soley of integrating disciplines"
(Faludi, 137).

Like Kaufman (1985), Baum (1983), and Bolan (1985),
Kreiger (1983) contends that planners, in an attempt to
become more effective practitioners, are recognizing that
planning must begin to articulate the skills and
techniques that are necessary to close the gap between
planning and implementation. However, he believes that
"advice” is what really bridges this gap. In order to
know when the giving of advice is appropriate, a "planner

must be able to recognize when someone is lost" (Kreiger,

8).

While obtuse, this statement really reflects the necessity
for planners to become more sensitive as they attempt to
"read" situation in order to respond in the most

appropriate way. It also brings up the necessity for

98

planners to become more aware of others. Kreiger advises:
"If we forget that advice involves persons 'like me' in a
community then advice easily becomes directive or orders,
or conversely, pleas in the dark of confusion and

lostness" (Kreiger, 9).

Kreiger sees the value in Baum's "cognitive mapping"
(Baum, 1983), Bolan's "sensory perceptions" (Bolan, 1985)
amd Kaufman's "boundary-spanning" (Kaufman, 1985).
Kreiger sees planners as being effective when "they make
sense out of a situation and reformulate it in such a way
that we understand it better: we recognize it as one we
have seen before and we see our dilemmas more sharply and

with less confusion" (Kreiger, 12).

Kaufman (1985) suggests that for planners to successfully
enact the “new" planning roles that planners must develop
skills as "boundary-spanners” and "strategists" (Kaufman,
1985: 8). He suggests that planning students become
familiar with the literature on the community development
process and strategies for bringing about planned change.
As a first step, he suggests that planning students and
practitioners must become boundary-spanners; Kaufman's
boundary-spanners develop interpersonal communication
skills to "reduce the distance between themselves and

others" (Kaufman, 1985: 11). Kaufman believes these

99

skills are necessary when planners enact professional

planning roles that require them to:

"...communicate with others through speech,
writing and graphics; by attempts at persuasion;
by facilitating group meetings; by trying to
resolve conflicts; by negotiating and
bargaining; by mediating; by mobilizing support
groups; and by other behaviors in interaction
settings" (Kaufman, 1985: 11).

It is this author's contention that these skills have
become so indespensible for planning effectiveness that
they should be learned in planning school (or at least,
that students must become aware of them). Therefore, this
writer recommends implementing, in graduate coursework and
professional in-service training, sessions on
interpersonal communication skills development. Indeed, a
review of'the planning literature from the past ten years
reflects the profession's attempt to articulate these
skills. In general, these planner skills encompass
techniques that enable planners to become more sensitive
with respect to interpersonal transactions. Planners must
be able to "read" a planning situation more accurately in

order to select the appropriate role to enact.

It is this author's contention that all of these skills

fundamentally indicate how planners should become more

100

sensitive to inter-personal transactions that intimately
affect the planning process. In fact, what is most
germane to all of the skills outlined above are their
effects on the planner as practitioner. They all indicate
the need for planners to become more effective

communicators.

"Boundary spanning", "strategizing", "cognitive mapping"
and enhancing interpersonal communicationshould be
required training for all practicing planners and those
receiving graduate education in planning. While many
planners may be unable to acquire all of these skills
quickly, they must, at least, be made aware of the issues
these skills address. These skills can be developed in a

varriety of methods:

1. Planners must act on an individual basis to

recognize the necessity of acquiring these skills.

2. Graduate schools must begin including coursework
on improving interpersonal communication. This could
involve requiring communication and development coursework

from outside the planning department.

3. Organizations such as the American Planning
Association should continue their efforts at including

more sessions on inter-personal communication at their

101

conferences and workshops throughout the year.

”. The planning profession should begin to establish
more direct linkage with those professionals involved in
organizational development and personnel management. A
large number of leadership development workshops are
currently offered in many public and private sector

management companies.

In this writer's opinion, effective communication is the
cornerstone of good planning practice, regardless of
normative theories about what constitutes "good" planning.
If planners were to develop better communication skills,
and adopt the specific behaviors developing these skills
include, practitioners will become more effective at what
they do and personal and professional frustration will be

reduced, regardless of the planning agenda.

In conclusion, there is very little political expediency
in viewing development in a comprehensive way. Planners
and the profession they represent are the only
professionals who attempt to view local development in a
comprehensive fashion. Cities need planners. Therefore,
planners must develop the skills to enhance their

effectiveness.

102

9) Summary

The planning literature indicates the need for planners to
enact planner roles that are more socially, politically
and organizationally sensitive. In order to become more
effective, planners must extract the concept of
"planner role" from the planning process and make the
selection of an appropriate role a conscious and rational
decision. This decision must be based on three main

categories of knowledge:

1) Knowledge of Self
2) Degree of Institutional Flexibility

3) Situational Variables

Once these new roles are selected, planners must take
steps to develop the skills necessary to enact them
successfully. All of these skills center on the notion
that planners must become more effective communicators

regardless of the particular planning agenda.

These skills can be developed by a combination of self-
improvement, improved graduate education in planning and

in-service training by private leadership developers.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

1. Introduction

The first section of this chapter presents a brief
overview of this study. The purpose and objectives will
be outlined with respect to the problems being
investigated. The second section presents a summary of
the conclusions reached from the literature synthesis.
Next, the implications of the results of this synthesis
for improving planning practice are considered. The final
two sections of the chapter present the limitations of the
study in conjunction with recommendations for future
research in this particular area of planning study and

practice.

2. Problem Summary

This study explored three interdependent problems in the

study and practice of planning:

103

10”

1) Planners often choose inappropriate professional roles
to enact when engaging in the planning process. This has
led to the perception that planners lack political
influence to shape the course of urban development. This
perceived lack of influence creates personal and
professional frustration in planning practice.

2) When planners are confTonted with the necessity of
changing their professional roles in theeplanning process,
they often suffer role dissonance, conflict and ambiguity.
They have either inadequate or incorrect information about
how their roles relate to and interact with other roles in
the process.

3) Historically, much of the theoretical planning-related
literature has focused exclusively on recommending
particular "end-states" of planning presuming a "unitary
public interest". This has left planners without a guide
by which to objectively evaluate themselves as
practitioners. They have no theory of practice.

The overall purpose of the study was to discover and
analyze how these three problems are interrelated in the
planning literature. A literature synthesis of the
planning-related literature explicitly about planner roles
was the method selected by which to more clearly show how
these problems affect planner performance. The more

specific objectives were to:

1) Examine the extent to which much of the literature on
planner roles contains theoretical concepts not grounded
in any systematic way to the existing social,
organizational and political realities of practice.

2) Examine the disagreement among planning academicians
as to the root cause of the gap between planning theory
and practice using the concept of professional nele as the
focus of analysis.

105

3) Delineate potential roles most recently developed that
planners may enact to enhance their effectiveness when
enacting political roles.

”) Create a framework of required knowledge for each
planner to make the choice of a professional role to enact
a conscious and rational decision.

5) Justify recommending a theory of practice that uses the
concept of professional role as the most appropriate
method of connecting planning theory to action.

3. Summary of Study Results

This literature review and synthesis yielded the following

observations:

1) A planner mes; enact an official role. This official
role is the position they occupy. A position is
associated with particular behaviors found legitimate by
society. It provides parameters for accepted and required

behaviors but is not inclusive of all sesslble behaviors.

This official role is grounded in tested social and

political theory. However, the official roles planners
enact often do not lead them to success in their
profession. Therefore, they enact unofficial roles that
more closely reflect how the social and political

environment within which planning operates has changed

106

over time.

2) Planning literature on planner roles from the period of
1975 to 1985 reflects the historical debate of "planner as
technician and advisor" to "planner as politician". This
debate centers around the notion that "expertise" is the
source of a planner‘s power. The key aspects of this
debate effectively define what planning is in relation to

other legitimate governmental functions.

3) Planning literature indicates that planning practice
and the roles planners can and do enact are undergoing a
shift towards more political roles. This shift is
occurring because the profession is recognizing the
planner's "expertise" lacks political authority and public
accountability. These new roles have evolved with the
increasing need for planners to create consensus among
sophisticated sets of political demands (i.e. interest

groups).

”) As planners begin to enact roles of a more sensitive
political nature, studies suggest job dissatisfaction is
increased. Research indicates this is primarily due to:
a. inadequate skills development.
b. organizational constraints.

c. perceptions of barriers by planners.
d. unwillingness to take risks.

107

5) In the literature, role dissonance is defined as the
frustration experienced by a planner when confronted with
the necessity of successfully enacting a new role they may
not be familiar with. This frustration emanates from
both internal and external constraints. Research
indicates that most dissonance is explained by variables
internal to planners themselves (i.e. they have some
degree of control). However, when enacting roles of a
sensitive political nature, most dissonance is explained

by external variables.

5) Research shows the flexibility of planners to adopt new
non-technical planner roles has increased. It does not
indicate the extent to which the profession has adopted

these new roles as legitimate forms of practice.

6) Contemporary planning literature asserts planning
theory relates best to the "ends" of practice. However,
planning practice involves developing adequate means to
reach those ends successfully. This gap has left planners
without the tools to adequately respond to problemmatic
planning situations. In addition, it has not provided
planners with the means to evaluate themselves as
practitioners. Authors have suggested planners must
develop theories of action that tell them how or how not

to behave in ambiguous planning situations where a unitary

108

public interest cannot be assumed.

7) The literature contends planners must become more
sensitive to the interpersonal transactions that
intimately affect the planning process. Planners must be
able to better "read" a situation in order to respond with

the appropriate professional role.

”. Study Conclusions

By focusing on professional roles as the method of
accessing the planning related literature, a number of
issues were raised in this study about the practice of
planning. It is clear that planning academicians and
practitioners possess extensive knowledge about the
problems that planners face, the activities that occupy
their time and the organizations that planners work for.
Indeed, we can describe planning practice but we don't
know how planning is different from any other legitimate
governmental activity. This is because it is not
adequately grounded in any coherent theoretical base;
Causal relationships between the means and ends of

planning have not been successfully established.

109

The literature (and the limited research in this area that
it describes) indicates that when planners think about
what they do, they often feel frustration. The root of
this frustration is the difficulty they have "in getting
things done". It is my contention that this frustration
is primarily due to the fact that they only enact their
official roles as technical experts and advisors to

elected decision-makers.

This role of technical advisor is now recognized as too
constricting. As much of the most recent planning
literature indicates, "advisor" is not a very fulfilling
role to enact unless those being advised already favor
what the advisor recommends. To be technical experts and
advisors is entirely compatible with a planner's training
and is congruent with the expectations of their employers
and the general public. However, planners perceive (and
rightfully so) that they have little influence to shape
the course of development within urban areas when this
development occurs in a volatile political climate rife
with competing interest groups. In short, technical roles

do not provide the means to balance conflicting interests.

Ironically, research indicates (e.g., Vasu, 1977) that
planners are reluctant to abandon these traditional roles

because they are more comfortable. They allow the planner

to hide behind a smokescreen of technical superiority.
And these roles are grounded to the social and political
realities they find around themselves. To be sure, their
claimed "expertise" allows them access to elected
officials but does this "access" really amount to any

substantive influence?

It is now being recognized by many academicians and
practitioners that the planning profession cannot continue
to only look outward at society. The profession (and
planners) must begin to look inward at the mechanics of
their practice and ground the elements that describe this

practice into concrete behaviors.

In spite of the fact that the "new" planner roles that are
grounded in normative theories of action are not seen as
legitimate by the general public, employing organizations
or legislation, planners must not abandon hope. It is my
contention here that, because planners perceive they have
little influence to substantively affect change that they
often overlook the potential in their official and

unofficial roles.

The functions most associated with activist planner roles
involve clarifying issues, mediating, bargaining,

increasing communication within and between groups and

educating the public about problems from a "process"
orientation. Indeed, this process orientation could be
the single most valid contribution by the profession.
Process could become both the content and consequence of
planning and planners. When planners focus on process
objectives instead of purely technical analysis, they may

become less frustrated at what they do.

Planning acquires legitimacy because of its
comprehensive approach to urban problems. However,
political decision-making is an incremental activity.
This contradiction leads to a situation where planners
and the profession they represent must work towards
developing a more effective process that better
compromises between these competing philosophies.
Historically, the planning literature has not been focused
on a central theme for making sense about what planning

means 0

If the them? of professional r016 were used as this
rallying theme, the gap between planning theory and
practice would be narrowed. When narrowed, planners would
able to invoke justifications for their actions that are
based on a coherent theoretical basis. They would be

better able to claim success when they succeed and admit

112

failure when they do not. By developing objective
measures by which to evaluate themselves as practitioners,
personal and professional frustrations will be reduced.
This study indicated how developing theories of action
would release planners from only looking outward and begin
looking inward to themselves as role players within the

context of other role players.

This study also indicates how the literature in planning
is partially to blame for the gap between planning theory
and action; role conflict; personal and professional
frustration on the job. If, in fact, a central problem
within the profession is to make sense out of what
planners do, then the literature should make attempts to
assist in this process. Heretofore (with the exception of
a few key academicians in the last few years) very few
works have highlighted and outlined alternative behaviors
and skills that planners must develop to become more
successful at what they do. Often, writers are so busy
pointing out the forest they have difficulty in seeing the
trees. In essence, planners know what the ends are.
These ends are studied in school. What they need are to
understand the skills and techniques to utilize to most

effectively reach those ends.

113

5. Implications for Planning Practice

Ultimately, what these conclusions mean for planning
practice and for the profession in its entirety is more
status and direct influence in the political decision-
making process that shapes urban areas. When planners
make changes in their official roles or enact new lnfennsl
neles, these adjustments lead to a change in the official
functions of planning. These changes may lead to a change
in the process of political decision-making. In turn,
these adjustments will lead to more status and power for

planners and the practice of planning.

Planning practitioners must possess a complete and
thorough delineation of alternative but useful roles that
they may assume in their professional practice. These
roles must be formulated in consonance with internal
expectations that are more appropriately matched with
external organizational constraints. This will lead to
improved planner performance and increase planning‘s
”legitimacy" as a viable governmental activity. If this
process were to begin to occur (and perhaps it already is)

three scenarios could be realized:

1) Planners who find a particular alternative
professional role attractive may organize to restructure
traditional planning practice in some fashion which might

11”

allow them to play these new roles effectively.

2) Planners who find these roles attractive may
attempt to assume them in their present settings thereby
effecting greater discretion in the latitude accorded to
them in their current "official" role.

3) The planning profession as a whole can be
strengthened by attracting a different population of
planning students who are more attracted to these
alternative roles as being consistent with their
personality or social and political orientations and
affiliations.

In addition, planners must begin to adopt the skills that
will lead them to enacting more action-oriented roles more
effectively. These skills center around the notion that
planners must become more effective communicators. It is
recommended that both graduate school of planning together
with professional associations such as the American
Planning Association take concrete steps to include
sessions on interpersonal communication skills development
in their coursework for both planning students and

practitioners.

7. Study Limitations and Directions for Future Research

In any exploratory study, limitations are encountered.
Many of these limitations indicate directions for future

research in the area of planner roles. The limitations

115

and research recommendations generated from this study are

listed below.

1) The number of planning-related pieces of literature
that explicitly mention planner roles is limited. Indeed,
this proves the lack of attention by academicians and
practitioners alike to this area of planning study. This
indicates a need for greater research into what
constitutes a ”role" in planning practice and how these

roles relate to other roles in the planning process.

2) This analysis centered on planners at the local level

who work in the public sector. The conclusions reached
regarding professional role enactment cannot be
generalized to all planners. The analysis centered only

on those who attempt to adopt more political roles at the
local government level because previous research indicated
it is those planners who suffer most from role conflict.
A more thorough analysis of potential roles for public and
private planners at the state and federal level would be
valuable in order to compare and contrast the internal and
external constraints faced by other groups of planners who

enact different roles.

3) The fact that this is a literature review and synthesis

is a limitation in and of itself. Given limited time and

116

financial resources it was impossible to do an empirical
study of practicing planners that would conclusively test
many of the conclusions reached in this analysis. For
example, Vasu's contention that although the flexibility
for planners to shape their own professional roles is
increasing, planners do not perceive this to be the case
and therefore are not taking advantage of this new, more
flexible environment should be reexamined in an empirical

study.

”) Limited resources also prevented an empirical study of
all internal and external variables that impact on planner
role enactment. Additional research that extends Mayo's
analysis of alternative planner behaviors as planners
enact more political roles should be conducted. In order
to reduce role conflict, planners must be able to better
match internal and external expectations that impinge upon
role enactment. The most important variables and their
interrelationships have not yet been conclusively measured
and analyzed. Establishing such quantitative
relationships would vastly improve the framework created

in Chapter V of this document.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Allensworth, Don T.
1980 Git: Planning Political Praeser. New York-

Alterman, Rachelle and MacRae, Duncan
1983 "Planning and Policy Analysis: Converging or

Diverging Trends?”. Joannal of thc Amcnican

Planning Association. Vol- ”9. No. 2. 200-
21 .

Barr, Donald A.
1972 "The Professional Urban Planner", issnnal ef

the American Planning Association. Vol. 38.
NO. 3, 155-159.

Baum, Howell S.

1983 filennens ens Psnlle Expectetionsi Schenkman,
Cambridge, Mass.

Beauregard, Robert A.
1980 "Thinking About Practicing Planning",
Democratic Alannina in Austcnitii Enacticcs

AAA Ineeny, Clavel, Forester, Goldsmith
eds., Pergamon Press, New York.

Benveniste, Guy

1977 The Politics of Exocntiac. Boyd and Fraser.
New York.

Bolan, Richard S.

1985 “Planning Theory and Experiential Learning".
Paper prepared for the annual conference of
the ASCP, Atlanta, Georgia.

117

118

1980 "The Practitioner as Theorist: The
Phenomenology of the Professional Episode".

ionnnal of the Ancnican Planning
Association. Vol. ”6. 261-27”.

Burke, Edmund M.

1979 A Panticioatonx Aoonoach to urban Planninai
Human Sciences Press, New York.

Burton, Dudley J. and Murphy, Brian M.

1980 "Democratic Planning in Austerity: Practices
and Theory" in Acton and Regional Planning
in an Ace of Aostcnitz. Clavel. Forester.
Goldsmith, eds., Pergamon Press, New York.

Catanese, Anthony James
198” The Politics of Planning ans Dciclooncnt.
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills,

California.

Cherry, Gordon, Ed.

1980 Shaoina an Hanan Honloi St- Martina. New
York.

Clavel, Pierre, Forester, John and Goldsmith, William W.,

Eds.

1980 Planning in an Ace of Anstcniti. Pergamon
Press, New York.

Cox, Fred M.

197” Qommnnitx : Actions Planning and
Qeyelgpment, F.E. Peacock Publishers,
Itasca, Illinois.

Dandekar, Hemalata C.

1982 The Planncnis use of Infonnation. Hutchinson
Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

119

Davidoff, Paul

1965 "Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning", gAlfi

Donald, Michael N.

1973 On Laanninz to Alan and Plannina to Learn.
Josey-Bass, San Francisco.

Eversley, David

1973 The Planncn in Socictx; Inc Qhanaina Aolc
sf e Pnefessien. Faber and Faber, London.

Faludi, Andreas

1978 Essaxs on Planning Inconi and Education.
Pergamon Press, New Yok.

Forester, John F.
1982 "Planning in the Face of Power”, Jeennal ef

the Ancnican Elannina Association. Vol. 38.
NO. 1’ 67’800

Galloway, T.D. and Edwards, T. J.
1982 "Critically Examining the Assumptions of
Espoused Theory". lounnal of tho Amcnican

Planninz Association. Vol. ”7. NO- 2-.18”-
195.

Heikoff, Joseph M.

1975 Bolitics ano Hanan Planning; A Pnincn.
University of Illinois Press, Urbana-
Champaign.

Hoch,Charles

198” "Doing Good and Being Right", Jeannal ef the

Amcnican Planning Association. Vol- 50. No.
3. 335-3t5.

120

Howe, Elizabeth
198” "Role Choices of Urban Planners", lesnnal ef

the American Planning Association. Vol. ”6.
No. ”, 398-”09.

Institute of Participatory Management and Planning
1983 "Public Distrust, Skepticism, Cynicism and
Other Anti-Government Attitudes". The

Consentahiulders Bulletin. Vol- 1. 3.

Jacobs, Allen B.

1978 flaking Qitx Planning Work. American
Society of Planning Officials, Chicago,
Illinois.

Kaufman, Jerome
1985 "Teaching Planning Students About
Strategizing, Boundary-Spanning and Ethics:
Part of the New Planning Theory". Paper
presented at the 27th annual ACSP
conference, Atlanta, Georgia, 1985.

Klosterman, Richard E.
1983 "Fact and Value in Planning", Jeannal ef

the American Plannina Association. Vol. ”0.
No. 2, 216-225.

1978 "Foundations for Normative Planning".
iglg‘, v01. all, NO. 1’ 37-1860

Kraushaar, Robert and Gardels, Nathan
1982 ”Towards an Understanding of Crisis and
Transition: Planning in an Era of Limits"
in Critical Readings in Planning Theorx.
Chris Paris, Editor. Pergamon Press, New
York.

Kreiger, Martin H.

1981 Adrioe and Planning. Temple University
Press, Philadelphia.

121

Levin, Melvin R.

1979 "Bumpy Roads Ahead", Planning. Vol.”5, No.
7, 29-350
1977 Qommunitx anc Regional Elanninai Praeser.

New York.

Mayo, James M.
1982 "Sources of Job Dissatisfaction: Ideals

Versus RealitieS". Journal of the American
Planning Association. Vol. ”7. No.” h81-h95.

McConnell, Shean

1981 Theories Eor Elannina. Heinemann Prose.
London.

Needleman, Martin L. and Needleman, Carolyn Emerson

197” Guerrillas in the Bureaucracu. John Wiley
and Sons, New York.

Peattie, Lisa R.
1967 ”The Social Anthropologist in Urban
Planning". The Journal of the American

Eégnnina Association. Vol. 33. no. 3. 266-
2 .

Perin, Constance
1967 ”Some interests in the City Planner in
Social Science Research". Jeunnal ef the

American6£lannins Association. Vol. 33. No.
2, 11 -1 .

Popenoe, David
1967 "Community Development and Community

Planning". Journal of the American Planning
Association. Vol. 33. No.3. 259-265.

122

Slater, David C.
198” The Management of Local Planning.
International City Manager's Association,
Washington, D.C.

Susskind, L. and Ozawa, C.
1983 "Mediated Negotiation in the Public Sector:
The Planner as Mediator". Paper prepared
for presentation at the 25th annual
conference of the ASCP, San Francisco.

Tennenbaum, Robert
1978 "Try on a New Hat: It Might Suit You",
Planning, Vol. ””, No.8, 30-33.

Vasu, Michael Lee

1979 Eclitics anc Elannina. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.