ABSTRACT: In seeking to understand the full set of insights that communicative action theory offers the practicing planner I follow the thread of emotion and reason in planning work. Effective outcomes in contemporary planning processes require a deep understanding of the needs and circumstances of citizens as well as a deliberate engagement of the emotional underpinnings of their discourse. A number of theorists have highlighted the significance of addressing passion and emotion in planning processes. However, little is known about assessing or improving the efficacy of planners in relating to people's emotions. Facility with emotional communication is seldom taught or discussed in planning schools or professional associations yet it is integral to planning work. In this research I draw on literature in facilitation, mediation, negotiation and leadership to create a framework for empathic leadership that will aid practicing planners in recognizing and managing emotive challenges to effective communication and public engagement. Using previously documented cases studies I demonstrate how empathic leadership in planning uses vision and creativity to acknowledge the limitations of different groups in articulating their needs through rational discourse alone. Reason and rational discourse remain the common language that individuals, groups and communities use to communicate but the subject of the discourse often includes values and emotions. Empathic leaders create the space and opportunity for different groups to express their needs, hopes and fears in order to freely discuss the future of their communities.

---

Empathic Leadership in Planning

The purpose of this paper is twofold. It is to integrate communicative action theory with knowledge from mediation, negotiation and leadership to create a framework of empathic leadership and then to apply it to three cases from the literature. By developing and using an empathic leadership framework I will demonstrate that planning work involves emotional content, which receives little attention in the planning literature. The personal and developmental realms of self-reflection, self-awareness and healing are quite significant in mediation and leadership literature and are only just starting to be recognized in planning. I will explore these areas and expand upon their employment and significance to planning work. New methods and manners of conducting planning that acknowledges the planner’s own needs would have major implications for communicative planning theory, as well as prescriptions for planning practice and the requisite imperatives for planning education.

The work of planners as promoted by planning theorists, and as further demanded through their negotiation of the complex terrain of sustainability, pluralism and advocacy, requires action and practices amounting to leadership. In addition to the variety of social, institutional and political contexts within which change must take place, leadership is a necessary and primary ingredient. Flexibility, creativity, team building, refined social skills, risk-taking, coalition-building, negotiation, persuasion are all practices commonly espoused in theories on leadership. Drawing from other disciplines sheds light on the work that planners are expected to undertake, and in many cases already undertaking, while highlighting specific areas that need to be explicitly engaged in planning education and practice.

Calls for the continued democratization of society and of organizations, as well as the constant global and local environmental and economic changes demand an appreciation, and indeed the cultivation, of the planner as an agent of change. A requisite side-effect of change is pain. In business research many view pain and trauma as the unfortunate and negative downsides of change (Kotter 1996:4). Researchers in planning on the other hand are beginning to recognize emotional content as an integral component of resolving conflict and achieving change (Forester 2000).

Mechanics of Communicative Action

Communicative action has gained momentum in planning literature as an emerging theory that both describes and prescribes planning work. Theorists working in this area (Forester 1989; Innes 1995; Healey 1996; Healey 1997; Innes 1998; Forester 1999) rely on direct observation of professional planners and build heavily on the theories of communicative action articulated by Jurgen Habermas (Habermas 1984). Following the tradition of argumentation and reason, Habermas develops his theories without empirical observation. He abstracts the human condition and considers the actions of ideal subjects achieving consensus through communicative interaction. He proposes a culture of constant dialogue and deliberation in which decision making is an integral part of civic life.

Communicative action builds on traditions evolving from the Frankfurt School of Thought that sought to reject the uncritical embrace of technology and all things scientific. It was put forward by Habermas as an empirical observation of the evolution of the sphere of public discourse at the end of the seventeenth century in England, and in France one hundred years later (Mattelart and Mettelart 1998:64). Planning underwent a similar critique of modernity as it transformed from being based on science and its neutral revelation of facts and natural laws (Friedmann 1987) 5 to being a facilitative process of negotiating between multiple groups and multiple truths (Sandercock 1998).

The 1960s saw the beginning of a rejection of the supreme authority of science and rationality. Many factors lead to this gradual but insidious rejection of objective rationality. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was instrumental in casting doubt on the supremacy of scientific intervention by illustrating the deleterious effects of pesticides (Carlson 1962). This work did not receive much mention in planning theory but had a significant affect on public opinion in North America and is attributed to have propelled the environmental movement. Jane Jacob's Death and Life of Great American Cities cast doubt on the value of planning expertise which consistently favored large planning projects that destroyed the humanistic character of cities and city streets (Jacobs 1961). The major failures of the day were freeway construction that displaced inner city neighborhoods and large monolithic housing tenements that ultimately lay abandoned. The popularity of Paul Davidoff's advocacy planning further demonstrated the great divide between the technical knowledge and plans of planners and the needs of various neighborhoods and communities (Davidoff 1965). It became evident that while planning was rational it was also exclusive in its bias towards certain segments of the population while excluding others (Sandercock 1998).

This scientific and absolute attribute of modernity was first cast into doubt, from within science itself, by Einstein's understandings of the relative nature of our "objective" observations of the natural world. It was subsequently further undermined in the field of philosophy by the post-modern writings of Derida and Foucault. Sandercock brought the full bearing of this evolving understanding of truth into planning practice and theory (Sandercock 1998). Sandercock demonstrates the existence of multiple stories, multiple histories and realities each with an equal claim to validity and truth. The history of planning is not a confined singular truth but rather a plural and evolving series of perspectives and relationships of individuals and groups to each other and to society as a whole.

Habermas posits that of the three types of reason that humans employ instrumental-technical, moral and emotive-aesthetic, it is the first that has dominated public discourse and invaded private spheres (Healey 1997)51. Habermas also proposes a normative model of democracy that concerns itself with "action oriented to reaching understanding" and to an ideal "structure of linguistic communication" (Habermas 1998:246). This alternative to liberal and republican understanding of democracy is deliberative democracy and forms the foundation of a state wide adoption of communicative action as a form of governance. It relies on will and opinion formation through a "free and open political culture and an enlightened political socialization, and above all on the initiatives of opinion-shaping associations." (Habermas 1998:252). Habermas goes on to say that it is only with difficulty that these processes can be subjected to political control. So here we have a well articulated and powerful vision of society governing itself through discourse, dialogue and communication. Much of Habermas' work is based on empirical observation of the real life muddling through of decision making but he affords us more inspiration than instruction in the realm of democratizing communicative action.

Healey enriches the discussion of communication theory in planning by drawing on Giddens and his understanding that power dynamics are constantly recreated through mutual exchange; "we are culturally made or socially constructed, and at the same time makers of cultures and social structres." (Healey 1997:46). She further summarizes Giddens' theory as one which sees humans as living "through culturally-bound structures of rules and resource flows, yet human agency, in our continually inventive ways, remakes them in each instance, and in remaking the systems, the structuring forces, we also change ourselves and our cultures."(Healey 1997:47) This is an empowering idea because it implicates us as accomplices in the perpetuation of our own power structures even if we don’t have unfettered agency in any political system.

Even if discourse and communication have the power continuously recreate society with all its attributes, both positive and negative, they have the power to prop us hitherto unheard voices. Rational discourse and articulating visions are standard tools for planners but they are also the tools of the powerful. This does not negate the significance of communicative action as an agent of change and empowerment but rather stresses the importance of adding texture and color to this broad theory. The diversity of our citizenry demands that we accept and nurture more inclusive methods of communication that reach beyond technical rationality and into moral and emotional rationality. Habermas lays the foundation for the kinds of conditions that would give rise to a more inclusive rationalism in the following excerpt:

"Thus the rational acceptability of a statement ultimately rests on reasons in conjunction with specific features of the process of argumentation itself. The four most important features are: (i) that nobody who could make a relevant contribution may be excluded; (ii) that all participants are granted an equal opportunity to make contributions; (iii) that the participants must mean what they say; and (iv) that communication must be freed from external and internal coercion so that the "yes" or "no" stances that participants adopt on criticizable validity claims are motivated solely by the rational force of the better reasons. If everyone who engages in argumentation must make at least these pragmatic presuppositions, then in virtue of (i) the public character of practical discourses and the inclusion of all concerned and (ii) the equal communicative rights of all participants , only reasons that give equal weight to the interests and evaluative orientations of everybody can influence the outcome of practical discourses; and because of the absence of (iii) deception and (iv) coercion, nothing but reasons can tip the balance in favor of the acceptance of a controversial norm. Finally, on the assumption that participants reciprocally impute an orientation to communicative agreement to one another, this "uncoerced" acceptance can only occur "jointly" or collectively.(Habermas 1998)44

For others this devotion to rationality, irrespective of how inclusive we might make it, is a perpetuation of a Cartesian binary that subjugates emotion (Murphy 1999). Murphy argues that emotions are integral to the human being and cannot be separated from reason and that pure emotion and pure reason do not exist. We are always subject to a mixture of the two. For Murphy "reason and emotion never exist in isolation, do not form a dichotomy, and certainly are not antagonistic human qualities. Rather they are essential, harmonious functions of the psychosomatic entity, the human person - intricately interwoven manifestations of the subjective and objective fact of human consciousness." (Murphy 1999)46. Murphy sees the separation of emotion from reason as one of the fundamental problems of modern society. The dichotomy assumes that reason can be devoid of emotion and therefore elevated in its capacity for truth and that emotion is somehow purely subjective and therefore has no resemblance to objective truth.

The critique of communicative action that I am putting forward has to do with a continued devotion to the rationality. The Modernist paradigm has been rightly accused of being exclusively devoted to the machinations of the material world. Truth and knowledge were confined to that which can be observed and analyzed impartially. Postmodernism has given us the opportunity to appreciate that such impartial objectivity is an illusion. Science itself, through Einstein's work on relativity, was a glimpse into the power of the observer in shaping the observation. Derida, Foucault took this much further and dissected the very structure of our socially derived identities and relationships. Neither action nor interaction can escape the affects of power and privilege on the actors. Context became central to the action. This understanding of the world gelled more naturally with the experience of planning. Comprehensive master plans that served the public interest and met all the needs of all the citizens came to be known as an illusive dream.

Planning, however, even with the contributions of Habermas, continues to be exclusively confined to the realm of rationality. I am not suggesting that we begin to teach students irrational behavior and unaccountable spontaneity. We need rationality to understand the dynamics of planning processes and the relative positions of each party within those processes. But there is a huge dimension of the human condition that cannot depend on rational discourse alone. Furthermore Habermas’ conditions for optimum communicative action, as comprehensive as they seem, do not account for everything. The assume that different groups and different individuals will be equally capable of engaging in rational deliberation in which the most reasonable argument forms the basis of consensus. Expression is not as simple as giving people an opportunity to be heard. There will always be some segments of society who are perfectly suited to debate, self-expression and articulating their values. Others may be incapable of expressing themselves verbally and may have never been socialized to be model communicative citizens. It is naïve to think that everyone could be or would even want to be.

Foucault states the paradox of rationality through historical analysis.

"How can we exist as rational beings, fortunately committed to practicing a rationality that is unfortunately committed to practicing a rationality that is unfortunately crisscrossed by intrinsic dangers? One should remain as close to this question as possible, keeping in mind that it is both central and extremely difficult to resolve. In addition, if it is extremely dangerous to say that Reason is the enemy that should be eliminated, it is just as dangerous to say that any critical questioning of this rationality risks sending us into irrationality. One should not forget- and I'm not saying this in order to criticize rationality, but in order to show how ambiguous things are - it was on the basis of the flamboyant rationality of social Darwinism that racism was formulated, becoming one of the most enduring and powerful ingredients of Nazism. This was, of course an irrationality, but an irrationality that was at the same time, after all, a certain form of rationality… if philosophy has a function within critical thought, it is precisely to accept this sort of spiral, this sort of revolving door of rationality that refers us to its necessity, to its indispensability, and at the same time, to its intrinsic dangers." (Foucault 1984)249.

Acknowledging that we are emotional as well as rational beings necessarily requires planners to consider the emotional content of their communications. As Forester succinctly puts it "people not only have interests; they care about them as well."(Forester 1996:256). He goes on to say "passion is a central element in the micro-politics of the planning process" (Forester 1996:258). Sandercock relays emotions that run deeper and are more insidious: fear and trauma (Sandercock 2000) People are not only motivated by what could be or by preserving what is, but more deeply by what was and what has been.

If planners "ignore the affective and passionate pulse of people's participation, they will be scorned as being insensitive and callous, to say little of being distrusted, if not detested." (Forester 1996:258). Forester goes on to suggest that a truly progressive planning practice would deliberately engage passion and emotion in its dealings with people in planning processes. Emotional projection or empathy further enables us to more fully appreciate the complexities of the issue and the experience of those involved in conflict situations. We cannot presume to have "perfect intersubjectivity" or perfect understanding of the experience of others but we can certainly bridge differences and attempt to appreciate the experience of a particular problem from another person's perspective (Forester 1999:40).

Nassbaum makes an argument on philosophical grounds that takes emotional health to a "normative ethical view that stresses imagination, reciprocity, flexibility, and mercy." For her a public ethic that appreciates emotions leads to greater capacity for self-realization, but, on the other side of the same coin she sees emotions creating a positive contribution to ethical deliberations. She makes the case for compassion leading to concern for others in the absence of any other personal motive and this concern is necessary for ethically desirable outcomes such as helping others (Nussbaum 2001). In an uneven and imperfect world helping others to some degree is necessary both ethically and pragmatically but for our purposes it is sufficient simply state that helping others needs to take place and that it does indeed take place.

There is another major imperative that requires planners to deliberately confront the emotional content of their work. The historical assumption of singular and absolute truth and a singular public interest has resulted in decades worth of policy and design interventions that have favored one public interest over all others. The contribution of Sandercock's work has not only been to expose this historical bias, but also to inform us of the trauma that such a bias has caused in our cities and neighborhoods (Sandercock 1998). Planners acted as experts who knew what was best and have been responsible for promoting their notion of what is best. The now infamous abandoned tenement buildings throughout the US are an obvious testament to the distance between the lived experience of citizens and the visions of the "public good" as implemented by planners and architects. Demolishing the buildings may remove the physical problem but there are residual emotional effects that cannot be as easily removed. Issues of resentment and distrust and anger cannot help but surface as planners attempt to work with residents who have felt wronged in the past.

Nussbaum's departure from the traditional schism between emotion and reason is central to a growing literature on emotions in organizations. Frost et al. have noted that "dominant discourse separates emotion from rationality and divides people in organizations from their emotional responses" (Frost, Dutton et al. 2000). They counter this dominant discourse and start by acknowledging that "organizations are sites of everyday healing and pain." Their research relays stories of individuals in organizations who encounter emotions as part of their daily work. A professor summarizes it well when she says "I see lots of pain which people bring to their workplaces simply because they are human beings… most people actually walk in through the doors as wounded people" (Frost, Dutton et al. 2000).

Compassion here rises in the face of pain and not simply for the sake of a collective or benevolent ethic or out of a desire to gain deeper understanding. The goal in the cases that Frost et al. studied is an instinctive human response to offer comfort in the face of pain and injury. It is neither premeditated nor part of a larger social plan but it is "involves reaching toward another in ways that allow feeling to guide action"(Frost, Dutton et al. 2000). Unlike much of the preceding discussion, which has shown how emotions play a role in communications and processes of collaboration and mediation, the significant premise here is that pain is always present and is as varied as it is ubiquitous.

The presence of an emotional component to planning work is significant in terms of interpersonal and group communications and also for the personal health of the planner. Mediation work, for example, can be lonely and emotionally demanding. Working with people whose "anger and emotional wounds are overpowering, but with whom the mediators must hold themselves in check or disguise their own painful or angry reactions," will undoubtedly require great resilience on the part of planners (Kolb and Associates 1994:485). Wendy Sarkissian's "speakout" in which residents spoke of old injustices and lingering fears was an emotionally charged event that must have stirred all kinds of emotional responses in those who witnessed it including the planner herself (Sandercock 2000). We have no mechanism in planning theory or in our planning curricula for addressing this role of planners yet it seems so important in making progress. Before venturing into other disciplines to learn about emotions and planning let us briefly define the terms.

Definitions of planning and the work of planners are varied and numerous. Friedmann, in his comprehensive mapping of the evolution of planning, defines planning in many different ways depending on the particular lens through which he seeks to understand planning work (Friedmann 1987). Communicative action planning theorists view planning as the exercise of communication, facilitation and mediation between different individuals and institutions to arrive at solutions and processes reflecting the range of interests affected by the specific planning issue. We can carry these definitions further to include the work of planners working directly within civil society and not as planning office planners. Community leaders, activists, community advocates, mediators, negotiators, and policy analysts all play an important role in engaging and empowering civil society and promoting change through action. Any contemplation of action that is forward looking, involves a number of parties, and has an outlook that is physically, socially, economically and temporally broader than the immediate context, is planning.

The exercise of defining emotions has been more often concerned with the presence or absence of basic emotions than it has with the actual experience of emotion. Debates range from disagreement over what emotions are considered basic to whether emotions are pre-cognitive or are socially constructed through feedback mechanisms (Gallois 1993). The field of emotions and emotional communication is vast in disciplines of psychology but for our purposes it is perhaps sufficient to state that the basic emotions generally agreed upon in the literature are "happiness, sadness, fear, anger, and disgust, and sometimes contempt, guilt, shame, or love."(Gallois 1993) Emotional communication occurs through verbal and non-verbal means, has distinctions based on culture and gender, and has complex social and physiological triggers (Gallois 1993). Another analytical tool that is potentially useful for planners is to consider whether an emotion is positive or negative, how intense it is and the frequency with which it occurs (Gallois 1993).

Facilitation and Mediation

Mediation and negotiation were likely always used by planners to persuade politicians and other professionals. The practice became more formalized with the onset of advocacy planning and its legal frame of reference. The conciliatory experience of mediators in the face of adversity is informative for our understanding of the challenges of communicative action. At its most elemental level the work of facilitators and mediators encounters emotions any time a conflict exists or arises. Planning work frequently involves. For example, conflict around land-use and natural resource allocation is common (Dorcey 1997). The absence of conflict does not however mean an absence of emotions and it is the manner in which emotions are treated or ignored that has the potential to address long-term progress.

Bush and Folger’s approach to mediation departs from being results oriented and focuses instead on larger social transformation and recognition. These concepts are attached to "an emerging, higher vision of self and society, one based on moral development and interpersonal relations rather on satisfaction and individual autonomy" (Bush and Folger 1994:3). Bush and Folder see a role for mediation that is broader than mere resolution of conflict. For them this is a process that allows participants to become more self-aware and to better understand themselves as well as the other parties. Empowering weaker parties, "safeguarding them against pressured settlements" and contributing to greater equality in society is for them the promise of mediation. This larger social goal is not only admirable in itself, but it is also synonymous with notions of social sustainability.

What is of particular interest here is the definition of empowerment and recognition. Empowerment in the mediation process is to give all decision making powers to the parties. Recognition is about each party gaining understanding and insights through the process about themselves and the other party(Bush and Folger 1994:141). Recognition is an appreciation of the human predicament of the other party not out of self-interest for strategizing against them, but out of a genuine desire to empathize (Bush and Folger 1994)90-91. The use of terms such as sympathy, compassion, respect and empathy clearly indicate an emotional exchange is taking place when one party moves to recognize the circumstances of the other and to offer some kind of accommodation. Thus defined, recognition in mediation can be defined as the diffusion of negative emotions between parties and their replacement with positive ones.

Making use of opportunities for empowerment and recognition is a procedural process of repeatedly placing the decision maker power in the hands of the parties and intervening only to ask questions of clarification, to offer alternative interpretations of situations and to articulate the general state of progress. There are many opportunities for identifying and recognizing the emotion involved in conflict. The kind of self-reflection that is demanded by eliciting a party's views of itself and of others could undoubtedly lead to the surfacing of strong emotions. Bush and Folger talk of the common feeling of being threatened and attacked, and reacting with hostility and suspicion in mediation processes(Bush and Folger 1994:89).

Kolb and Associates critique mediation through a systematic analysis of the work of mediators across a number of different areas of work (Kolb and Associates 1994). The myth of social change and personal transformation is debunked. These normative positive elements are not altogether absent and there are examples of it occurring but it is far from the ideal espoused in the literature and proclaimed by many of the mediators themselves(Kolb and Associates 1994:466). Furthermore, the pure neutral benevolence of the mediator is deconstructed in a manner similar to planning theory's deconstruction of the planner as the impartial technician and promoter of public good (Kolb and Associates 1994:488). Mediators are people with their own agendas and their own sets of needs and tactics. They are business people who are running a business in a competitive business climate. This explicit acknowledgement of the subjectivity of the mediator or mediating planner is particularly important for the study of planners working towards a prescribed end such as sustainability.

Subjectivity of purpose has a parallel in the presence of subjective emotions. Kritek describes negotiation as a process that "is transacted among vulnerable and limited humans, all of whom harbor their personal set of needs, hopes, dreams, fears, fantasies, vanities, failures, and faults"(Kritek 1994:20). Kritek further identifies compassion as the essential trait for relating to others and that patience is the foremost tool for enabling compassion. In the absence of compassion negotiations could harm both parties. For Directing compassion inward is just as important and is essential for understanding your own needs and to allow you the chance to step away from a process to yourself a chance to heal. Kritek's own exposition of her self-reflection is quite revealing. She recognizes that sometimes "unacknowledged intolerance or vanity or fear lurks in [her] heart" and prevents her from "seating compassion" at the negotiating table "(Kritek 1994:20).

Kritek's definition of compassion is very useful for our discussion of the toxic emotional exchanges that planners can face. She defines it as the "capacity to be aware of distress and to wish to alleviate it, to bear with, to suffer with …it is reflected in our willingness to place ourselves in their reality as they experience it, to feel as they feel and to feel with them… compassion assumes empathic oneness with others." (Kritek 1994)227. It is not the same as pity in which we see others as standing outside of others and merely observing them and regreting their afflictions but do not share them. The kind of self-reflection exemplified by Kritek's work is essential for enhancing the awareness of planners, both about their own place in a particular planning process and about the experiences of others with whom they are working.

Kritek's experiences seem to relate directly to planning work. She describes how negotiations can actually increase compassion and understanding of different points of view. Forester makes direct links between the work of mediators and that of planners. The emotional content of this work is both implicit and explicit. "Sensitive improvisation", listening, understanding, perspective taking, role-playing are some of the tools through which planners can respond to different circumstances (Forester 2000)166. Forester does not suggest that mediation always be used in planning processes or that all planners ought to become mediators but he offers us some useful insights into planning in a multi-cultural setting.

If you listen closely to others, try to hear what they are saying and also what they are not saying, what they are feeling and what they are trying not to feel, you begin to know and understand the dimensions of their humanness (Kritek 1994). Collaboration plays a similar kind of role in building bridges and opening lines of communication. For Dorcey collaboration has the advantage of making the power structures in planning processes more even. Consensus and multi-stakeholder processes building new structures to address the evolving needs in a climate of government "retreat." The emphasis here is on the institutional and governance structure through which "politics, power relationships, history, organizational inertia, human dynamics, time, resources and uncertainty" can be addressed. In this case study the goal of collaboration was progress towards sustainability within a large watershed with overlapping political jurisdictions, a variety of land-uses and a wealth of natural resources" (Dorcey 1997:191).

Dorcey describes in detail the mechanics of the multi-stakeholder process indicating the extensive web of communications and relationships that such a large process would necessarily require. The greatest difficulties were faced in gaining support of individuals in government agencies and in doing so the challenge was communication. Dorcey describes staff having to "spend inordinate amounts of time contending with active hostility to the initiative, allaying suspicions, correcting misinformation…"(Dorcey 1997:191). Here we see the high costs of managing emotions when planning for change and some important long-term questions arise. What role does emotional communication between the parties play during the formulations of these positions of suspicion or hostility? To what extent do negative emotions prevail despite efforts at building trust and goodwill? This research does not attempt to answer these questions but rather I intend to highlight their significance and include them in the framework of empathic through which we can begin to address emotional content in planning work.

Leadership and Emotions in Planning

The work of planners often amounts to leadership in general and to the management of emotional exchanges in particular. This is not an area that has received much attention in the planning literature but has flourished in the management sciences and organizational behavior literature. The field of leadership has also grown to require the inclusion of issues much larger than single institutions or confined organizations (Fairholm 1991)12. In the following section I draw on leadership literature to help map the terrain of empathic leadership in planning.

Developing the skills and the experience of managing emotions requires independent initiative and change in the culture of planning. It requires working with hope against fear, managing anger and building trust and empathy. Recognizing the presence of emotions in the exchanges and communications undertaken in planning work is the first step, but having the capacity to address emotions and manage them takes planners outside of their areas of expertise. Planners are neither councilors nor psychologists so we look to the experience of professionals, who are likewise untrained, but who still have to contend with emotions and communicate through difficult and possibly traumatic situations. We need to learn from leaders and the study of leadership. Leadership literature is relevant to our purposes not only because it has dealt more explicitly with emotional engagement, but also because dealing with emotions in planning requires leadership. The decision to take on the task of emotional management requires taking risks and navigating areas of public engagement that have uncertain outcomes. It requires having a vision of a particular culture of interaction and working with others towards that vision. Leadership of one form or another is necessarily integral to change regardless of the scale at which this change occurs.

Fairholm eloquently articulates the pivotal role of leadership in our society. Although his research stems primarily from organizational analysis his thesis applies equally to a broad range of social settings.

The leaders we select to head our social organizations will set the goals and determine the values by which we measure accomplishment. They will integrate the needs and activities of the pluralistic constituencies that look to our social institutions for support, service and meaning. They will tie together the disparate goals, measures of success, and strategic policies that will govern our lives in the next century.(Fairholm 1991) 3

Leadership has traditionally been studied and analyzed in countless ways (Chrislip and Larson 1994) however the literature has generally evolved from stressing the innate traits of leadership and the unique attributes of the individual, to an appreciation of the set of circumstances and conditions that give rise to outstanding leadership(Useem 1998). Authors often represent past leadership trends as being myopic and deficient, like the study of planning, and they therefore propose a new more useful approach to leadership. The study of leadership has traditionally been informed by scientific methodologies and the search for an exact and predictable management science (Fairholm 1991:11). Contemporary thinking on leadership presents a more fluid understanding of the practice. It is neither an exact science nor a method of controlling subordinates. Leadership is now understood to be "a series of dynamic relationships between people [and…it is] the art of making these relationships work." (Fairholm 1991:11).

Leadership has been studied in order to catalogue, communicate, educate and replicate the practice of leadership. Beginning with the great man theory that distinguishes leaders from those who follow them, to tracing the behavior of leaders, leadership scholarship moved to a contingency theory of attempting to understand the context within which leadership occurs (Hunt 1984). According to this perspective leadership is as much about the circumstances and the environment, which allow leaders to emerge and followers to be drawn to them, as it is about the unique attributes of the individual leaders.

Any discussion of leadership must necessarily touch upon issues of authority and the hierarchy of decision making. Traditional notions of leaderships were synonymous with authority. Authority relationships create efficiencies that have enabled the rise of civilizations but they simultaneously expose us to misuse and abuse (Heifetz 1994:70). This is can be particularly problematic in planning if expertise and professional opinion is used authoritatively to disregard the expressed hopes and fears of citizens. We know from past experiences that conditions of authority and privileged opinion are highly subjective so we must be deliberately cautious about introducing the idea of leadership into the sphere of planning. However, contemporary literature on leadership has independently become critical of purely authoritarian modes of leadership.

Collaborative leadership, values leadership and servant leadership are some of the recent trends away from top-down imposed authority. Heifetz does maintain, however, that some circumstances absolutely require relationships of authority. He uses the example of the emergency room in which collaborative decision making would likely result in death (Heifetz 1994) 71. In the sphere of planning such urgent decision making is far less likely but issues of urgency and survival have appeared in environmental planning literature. Citizens are told that in the face of impending human extinction it is imperative to willingly accept the authority of austerity.

Current understanding of leadership, and indeed the utility of leadership analysis for planning, is less about predicting and ensuring desired outcomes and more about managing unpredictability. The emotional content of planning communication render processes necessarily unpredictable. The following definitions of leadership demonstrate a spectrum of perspectives of leadership. Each may be the most relevant depending on the institutional and interpersonal context within which planning takes place but it is the collaborative and communicative types of leadership that will most likely characterize planners' work.

For some, leadership is a polarity of types, from tactical to positional with collaborative leadership emerging as the preferred method (Chrislip and Larson 1994:127). For others the polarity is between the conservatives and the radicals with the former being more inclined towards scientific precision and the latter towards the process of leading and following. Values leadership is similarly concerned with process. It is a developmental approach that stresses individual development of leaders, followers and stakeholders (Fairholm 1991). Leadership based on the philosophy of values includes an explicit definition of the values of the organization and individual development in line with these values. Caring, service, innovation, productivity improvement, vision-setting and self-development are leadership dimensions that Fairholm draws from surveys of state and local leaders in the US. The ultimate effect of values leadership is the creation of other leaders and culture of individual development. This approach is particularly applicable to discussions of empowerment and citizen participation in civil society as it pertains to planners.

Through a lifetime of practicing and reflecting on leadership in commerce Greanleaf developed the concept of servant leadership (Greanleaf 1998). It is an approach to leadership that places followers as the focal point rather than the leader. It is still the work of the leader that is studied but it is always in reference to service towards followers. This theory lends itself to an appreciation of the significant role that compassion, empathy and therapy play in the work of leadership. It is also a powerful lens through which to study the work of planning practitioners. Useem’s portrayal of leadership is through an analytical narrative of events. He recounts stories of critical moments in the history of a group or organization and analyzes the setting and the actions of leaders during those times (Useem 1998). His findings are a series of implications interwoven through his analysis and elaborate on behavioral reactions to specific contexts. Through Useem we gain an appreciation for the great richness, depth and resonance of leadership events. These events vary in duration but are generally very short relative to the life of the individual or the organization. Every situation is different but what emmerges as a clear commonality is that leadership is not a solitary event. The most trying moments are also the most emotionally charged. Handling emotions and channeling them in a particular direction is essential to success.

The benefit of Heifetz’ work, particularly as it relates to planning theories of power, is his explicit engagement of authority and influence as mechanisms of, and within which, leadership occurs. For Heifetz leadership is most useful when seen as adaptive work that involves the tackling of tough problems. This conceptualization is akin to that used to describe the work of planners and is useful for understanding planning in the context of complex array of issues and power dynamics. Goleman applied his widely sighted work on emotional intelligence (Goleman 1995) to leadership (Goleman 1998), and found that self-awareness, compassion, empathy, social skills, motivation and self-regulation are essential for effective leadership.

Gardner arrived at the study of leadership through his research on cognitive and developmental psychology (Gardner 1995). Through a systematic historical analysis of individuals of major influence, Gardner identifies four factors that appear central to the practice of effective leadership; a connection to the community or audience of followers, a routine of reflection, a relationship between ideology and practice, and choice on the part of both followers and leaders to be engaged in the follower leader relationship. This analysis achieves both richness and simplicity but is limited in its emphasis on leaders of high profile and historical influence. According to Gardner the eleven (1) leaders he studied exhibited some common traits although there were always exceptions to these traits. Confronting authority and taking risks was a central theme among his exemplary leaders. They exhibited a concern with moral issues. They were ambitious, tended to be competitive and were adept at communicating with others. The leaders tended to have highly resolved relationships with their family and friends extending out to neighbors and ultimately to hundreds of people. Furthermore they are atuned to a particular community or audience that has a basic question to which these leaders had fairly resolved answers.(Gardner 1995: 285-290).

The relationship of leadership according to Gardner depended on a story that has relevance to "the untutored mind" or those without a formal education. The main conduit between the leader and his community is the story. The story is the central message that the leader brings to her followers. It has to achieve a delicate balance between inclusion and exclusion. It must speak to the identity and perhaps unique experience of a community and appreciate its struggle against others while at the same time catering to a wide audience and a variety of needs. In most cases greater inclusion is necessary to enable individuals to feel part of a larger whole, while in others the story has to exclude others to avoid feelings of resentment and abandonment by the leaders community (Gardner 1995:291). The story must have a relevant audience that is willing and eager to hear it (Gardner 1995). By implication the leader must be intimately familiar with her audience and how that audience relates to the leader's story. All of the leaders that Gardner studied had experienced failure at some point in their leadership. Gardner noted rises and falls in which a leader demonstrates her capacity to be resilient and flexible and adaptive to evolving conditions. The degree of inclusion or exclusion of the story may have to change to accommodate changing circumstances. Typically those who lead within clear organizational structures had a more straightforward task of understanding, relating to and responding to their followers while having clearly defined authority in an established hierarchy.

In its most basic definition leadership is about guidance in a particular direction or towards a particular goal. It includes an understanding of the terrain that must be traversed in reaching the goal as well as an understanding of the entity that must reach that goal. According to the literature reviewed above, the first entity that must be understood is the leader’s own self. The inward journey to discover what it is that has shaped the leaders experience of the world and what it is that they carry with them when they interact with others, is central to their ability to communicate with people and guide them in a particular direction. I introduce the term empathic leadership because it captures the theorists postulations of the importance of leaders projecting their personality out towards people and situations in order to more fully comprehend the variety of perspectives that make up the planners constituency and professional community.

Insights from the mediation and negotiation literature also emphasize the importance of achieving a basic degree of self-reflection and self-awareness to be able to relate to others and to understand them as equal partners in a process. The absence of hierarchy between oneself and others and the capacity to see legitimacy in the realities and experiences of others is essential to making lasting change. The potential for personal and social transformation to occur out of a seed of trust building and compassion forming is significant even if the reality is a somewhat watered down version of the ideal. The relevance to planning and to planners is equally significant.

Hence my framework for empathic leadership begins with the personal realm and includes self-awareness, self-reflection and value formation. Reflection then extends out to others in the form of awareness and empathy so that the experience and outlook of others is understood and valued. This is the relational realm and includes an understanding of people and an ability to communicate, collaborate and build relationships and inspire others. The third realm in the framework is developmental and is associated with the acquisition of knowledge and skills as well as cultivating an understanding of culture, society and power. Emotional development occurs in the form of healing and balancing of personal priorities [see Table 1]. Perhaps the most challenging form of development is about healing and having to overcome the debilitating effects of traumatic events.

Table 1: Framework for empathic leadership

	Actions and Attributes
Personal	Personal Self-Reflection and Self-Awareness Relational Compassion and Understanding Others Communication and Relating to Others
Relational	Compassion and Understanding Others Communication and Relating to Others Building Relationships Participation/Collaboration/Inclusion Conflict Resolution Inspiring Others Visioning and Creating Culture
Developmental	Acquiring knowledge and skills Understanding Power and Influence Empowering Others Healing and Confronting pain

 

Emotional engagement is not an isolated action that can be turned on and off. It is part of a larger repertoire of actions and actions towards people and situations. It is about building personal and interpersonal facility over time. No action discretely fits into a single one of the three realms; the personal, the relational and the developmental. Rather there is considerable overlap and relationship between them. The framework is descriptive as well as analytical of planning case studies borrowed from Forester and Sandercock, both of whom have sought to present the "messy" human side of planning work.

The cases offer mere snapshots of the complex work of planning but are nevertheless insightful for our purposes. The first involves the work of an architect planner trying to broaden the scope of his work to include impoverished areas in his design of a tourist waterfront (Forester 1999). The second is a land-use dispute in which different groups have very different visions for the use of the site of an old factory (Sandercock 2000). The third is a meeting at which a developer and his team negotiate with a municipal planner and his team over the design of a large residential urban development (Forester 1996). Although each case has involves many individuals and a complex array of planning issues, for the purposes of distinction I will refer to them as the Economic Planning Case, the Social Planning Case and the Environmental Planning Case (2) respectively.

Framework for Empathic Leadership In Planning

Self-Reflection and Self-Awareness

For all contemporary leadership theorists the foundation is a strong and healthy relationship with the self. (Fairholm 1991; Chrislip and Larson 1994; Heifetz 1994; Gardner 1995; Kotter 1996; Greenleaf 1998; Useem 1998; O'Sullivan 1999). It is a mental dialogue, or perhaps the absence of a dialogue between the leader and herself. Mediators and negotiators likewise have to be able to understand their own internal struggles and prejudices in order to be fully capable of understanding others (Bush and Folger 1994; Kritek 1994). Knowledge of our own strengths and weaknesses, knowledge of our own prejudices and presuppositions, and knowledge of our own emotions are precursors to knowing how to engage others let alone to getting to know them. This is not just a singular period of self-awareness and maturation beyond which we start to see the world through different eyes, although the significance of this "adult" transformation may be profound. Self-reflection and self-awareness are constants that leaders carry with them through all their work. They range from deep thought on a particular problem to an ongoing sensitivity and analysis of a communication as it is occurring.

The personal and private nature of this form of deliberation makes it difficult to study. In planning literature this action arises only the context of ethical dilemmas in which the planner has to make a difficult decision. None of the three cases mention self-reflection on the part of the planners yet in both the Social Planning Case and the Economic Planning Case careful deliberation before taking action or initiating a process is clearly evident. The planner in the Economic Planning case, for example, formalizes reflection by insisting on allocating extra time at the beginning of a design process to think things through (Forester 1999:102). However, deliberation in the absence of self-reflection might serve to always assume a distance between the planner and the work, a distance that may not exist. An awareness of oneself and ones place in the process could become an integral part of all planning thinking. It can accompany any kind of task and it need not take up inordinate amounts of time or be foremost in the planner's mind. It is simply a reflexive tendency towards acknowledging and understanding the subjectivity of the self as it relates to the world around it. Perhaps most importantly self-reflection gives us the ability to learn from our mistakes and realize our imperfect natures.

Self-Regulation

Everyone learns self-regulation to some degree and some forms of it, such as waiting to cross the street when there are no cars, are more critical than others. Self-regulation and self-discipline are about the socialization of knowing what to say, when and how, depending on the circumstances. It is about holding back when the impulse is to lash out or about maintaining beneficial habits and a healthy routine. Self-regulation in relation to others is necessary of effective leadership, conflict resolution and any work involving dialogue (Kritek 1994; Useem 1998). The significance of this action for planning work speaks for itself and it is especially important in emotional exchanges. Being on the receiving end of an angry exchange, for example, requires a great deal of self-control. Seeking to understand the emotions behind the exchange and wanting to avoid taking the attack personally and engaging in shouting matches requires self-regulation. Sometimes the anger may seem irrational but to the "zealots" their outrage seems perfectly justifiable and logical (Susskind and Field 1996)18. Responding in a manner most conducive to a constructive dialogue is not a simple recipe. It grows out of self-awareness as well as the particulars of the specific situation. Aside from the deliberation mentioned above in which the planners chose to think before proceeding with the projects, self-regulation seems natural to the team of planners negotiating with the developer in the Environmental Planning Case. On two separate occasions in the discussion when the developer seemed irritable and aggressive in his manner, the planners chose conciliation over confrontation. It seemed well within their mandate as professionals "guarding the community from an urban design viewpoint," to stick to their position in defiance of his demands for less resistance (Forester 1996) 246. Yet they did not react with arrogance nor indignation.

Articulation of Values and Visioning

This action receives much more attention in the leadership literature than anywhere else because it is the impetus that drives the individual and makes her work build towards a particular outcome. The successful leader is one who has a vision of where she wants to go and how she wants to be, coupled with an indelible drive to get there (Fairholm 1991; Useem 1998). In leadership literature these values are the spring board for what would eventually become the values of the entire organization. Hence visioning is both a personal action as well as a relational one and a discussion of its relational attributes follows in the visioning and culture forming section. The personal visioning is an introspective exercise of becoming aware of those values that drive us as individuals. It is what matters the most and what we are earnestly passionate about.

For some planners these values are much clearer than for others. Advocacy planners for example, are very clear about their personal mission of aiding disenfranchised groups (see Davidoff 1965). It is the mediator type of planner, or the planner as manager of processes, who has to exert extra effort in understanding her or his personal vision. As Kolb and associates, clearly state even among mediators the absence of a personal agenda is a myth (Kolb and Associates 1994). The agenda may well be, as Forester, would see it, a less adversarial form of advocacy (Forester 1989). It would be a dedication to doing good and being fair and attempting to bring justice to the injustice of power domination and oppression. An even more procedural vision might be committed to an inclusion of all voices and a deference to the "will" of the process. Sandercock's inclusion of multiple stories and multiple histories might lead to this form pluralistic vision (Sandercock 1998). Whether the emphasis is on content or on process it behooves planners to be able to articulate their personal vision to know the reference point from which they relate to others.

This is not explicit in the cases but in both the Social Planning Case and the Economic Planning Case it is clear from the narrative that the planners have a strong vision. In the Social Planning Case Wendy Sarkissian was willing to take a risk and organise a "speak-out" in which people were invited to speak about their feelings no matter how painful or difficult to hear they may be (Sandercock 2000:24). The extent to which this planning action is indicative of Sarkissian's personal vision is the extent to which she was willing to risk success and the possible implications for her reputation as a consultant. In the Economic Planning Case, Arie Rahamimoff had to convince government officials to look at a tourism project in a more holistic way as a historic city with an ancient tradition (Forester 1999). Again there is some risk involved in seeking to expand your mandate as a planner. By expending extra time and energy both on the part of the planner and by the expanded consortium of agencies, including tourism, archeology, education it becomes increasingly important that the initiative succeed. In both cases an element of courage is evident, and my assumption is that this courage comes from a strong personal vision and conviction rather than an penchant for risk and danger.

Compassion and Understanding Others

Many have spoken about the importance of compassion both in conflict situations and in day-to-day organizational settings. Kritek, Bush and Folger spoke of its transformational value (Bush and Folger 1994; Kritek 1994). Frost et al. spoke more directly to its necessity as a counter to the ever presence of pain (Frost, Dutton et al. 2000). To follow Kritek's model compassion is an extension of self-reflection, self-awareness, listening and patience. For Frost et al. compassion is an intuitive action in response to a perceived need in others. It is a reaching out to help. Both approaches are relevant for planners. The systematic slowing down of impulsive reaction and the questioning of ones own preconceptions and prejudices is necessary for planners dealing with the public as well as other professionals. Personal dynamics of character and personality can affect any interpersonal exchange and in the absence of self-reflection breakdowns in communication could become barriers to progress. Likewise the unacknowledged presence of pain could poison a process from the outset.

Sarkissian's work in the Social Planning Case is the epitome of understanding and compassion. From the outset she recognized that trauma was involved and that it needed to be addressed. The case does not suggest much about her personal relationship to the events or the people and we know nothing of her own feelings. However, by the very nature of her public "therapeutic approach" it is clear that she has an appreciation for the importance of compassion and empathy by each group towards the other (Sandercock 2000:25). She sought to create a safe space in which people could express themselves without fear. Rahamimoff expressed compassion and understanding in the manner in which he spoke of different individuals, and the limitations placed upon them by their respective disciplines (Forester 1999:68). There is no explicit demonstration of compassion on the part of the planners in any of the cases yet there is a general sense that it is a subtle undercurrent throughout the cases. The role of the planner as a party relating to other parties is distinguishable from the role of the planner as a facilitator or mediator between two or more parties. In the first case the planner is involved and invested in a vision. In the second she is merely a facilitator of visions but the skills needed to deal with emotional communication are the same. The important distinction is the degree to which the planner is likely to be a direct participant in the emotional dialogue.

Communication and Relating to Others

Communication is of paramount importance for any kind of collective decision making process and its accompanying emotional exchange. The capacity to listen to others and understand what they are intending to communicate, and the ability to communicate thoughts and sentiments in accessible ways are the basic tenets of dialogue and are the currency of communicative action advocates. In addition to sending communication and expressing oneself, receiving communication and sending an acknowledgement of having heard what was communicated are important for validating what was said. Relating to others is as necessary in planners as it is in leaders and mediators and it is the basis for learning about the parameters of a problem. This attribute is again most evident in Rahamimoff's and Sarkissian's work. In the Social Planning Case Sarkissian had to be "fluent in a range of ways of knowing and communicating: from storytelling to listening to interpreting visual and body language" (Sandercock 2000).

Building Relationships

This is an obviously necessary characteristic for anyone who has to interact with people as part of their job it is especially the case for interdisciplinary, inter-agency, and inter-group work. For planners "deliberations involve exploring and building working relationships as much as they involve research, analysis, expertise and visual presentation skills" (Forester 1999). Both Forester and Sandercock recount many stories of building relationships and establishing trust where none existed. The planner in the Economic Planning described some of what he did as "downgrading the image of [his] own profession, having more professional humility-reflecting first of all upon what [he’s] doing and being more open for more negotiated approaches…[he] had to build confidence." (Forester 1999:94). This quote speaks to several of the actions outlined in this framework. It demonstrates self reflection, compassion and understanding others, but more fundamentally it is about building relationships.

Participation, Collaboration and Inclusion

Fairholm's portrayal of values leadership includes a process of change that disseminates power and shares decision making responsibility (Fairholm 1991:118). This evolution varies with the idiosyncrasies of the individual leader. It requires systematic and deliberate steps to change those with whom leadership is to be shared. There must be a mechanism by which co-workers and constituents can exercise their own talents and intelligence in advancing the collective vision. The leader, according to this perspective, "must be willing to engage in a continuing program of personal change to develop those capacities and those values that honor people, share governance, and produce high-quality performance at all levels." (Fairholm 1991:118). This is evident in the Environmental Planning case in the way senior and junior planners shared the responsibility of responding to the developer’s protests (Forester 1996).

Conflict Resolution

It comes as no surprise that effective leaders are effective at resolving conflict. No matter how well intentioned the leader is disagreements and conflicts will arise and the leader has to be adept at dealing with them. Conflict resolution is an extensive field in its own right with practitioners coming from a variety of disciplines. As the conflict grows or as the planner becomes aware of its depth and breadth she would have to rely on the expertise of professional mediators. In all three cases conflict was always close to the surface. In the Social Planning Case the emotions ran so deep and had accumulated for so long that they threatened to erupt and disrupt the whole planning process (Sandercock 2000). Through painstaking communicative work before and after the "speak-out" Sarkissian was able to avert disaster.

Inspiration

The quality of affecting others in such a way that they are moved to feel, think and act in a certain way is necessarily emotional. Motivation comes from within but it is fueled by its like in others. The capacity to inspire comes with "self-confidence, dominance, and a conviction of moral rightness." (Fairholm 1991:185). It requires a vision that is logically sound and internally consistent and morally upright, but it is also about a feeling. Inspiration is a desire to emulate, repeat and perpetuate a certain state of being or knowing that is communicated by the leader. There is little evidence of inspiration by the planners in any of the cases, but the stories themselves are inspirational. Perhaps our lack of studying relationships is a result of a conceptual bias against viewing the work of planners as inspirational or a methodological tendency to not study the personal effect of the planner on others. These reasons are mere speculation and further study is necessary to determine whether planners can and do inspire people with whom they work. It is clear from the leadership literature however that this is a very important ingredient to effective leadership (Useem 1998).

Visioning and Creating Culture

This is related to the articulation of a personal vision discussed earlier. Here, however, the personal vision becomes part of a larger whole. It begins to occupy a presence in every exchange and eventually forms a culture that is integral to the organization. "We need tireless advocates of a vitalizing mission" Fairholm states, " [w]e need leaders who urge others to share their vision for the organization and get involved…this kind of leadership… asks the leader to move the organization from believing to doing to being." (Fairholm 1991:13 original emphasis). The greater the change that is being sought the more necessary it becomes to be able to move from ideas to actions. Because of their relatively short duration, the cases we are considering here do not lend themselves to studying organizational culture. It is obvious in the Economic Planning Case however that a certain culture of collaboration and understanding between different government agencies was established. A healthier vision of the historical town as an integrated whole seemed to have carried the process through (Forester 1999).

Acquisition of Knowledge and Skills

In addition an acute awareness and sensitivity to the planners constituents and stakeholders, the planner must be prepared to act on this awareness to develop skills in areas in which he or she is deficient. These can be technical skills or, for our purposes here, they can include greater capacity to undertake any of the actions in this framework. They are also about acquiring knowledge in a certain area to better enable the planner to understand the context within which she or he is planning. Once again the short duration of the cases do not lend themselves to studying how planners acquire knowledge and skills over time in response to the needs of their communicative action work. However it is clear that both Sarkissian and Rahamimoff tool the time to learn about their constituencies before proceeding with their respective projects. Leadership literature is clear in this regard. Knowledge and in some instances specific skills are essential tools for making decisions and moving forward (Heifetz 1994; Useem 1998).

Understanding Power, Authority and Influence

Forester and Sandercock have each written extensively about power dynamics and the tendency of the power elite to seek to perpetuate the socio-political structure in which they flourish. In an organizational context, understanding the hierarchy of authority and decision-making is essential for being able to introduce change, take initiative or exercise leadership. It seems self-evident that "the organizational environment of planning will substantially influence the reception, appreciation, and effectiveness of planners' work" (Forester 1989:67). But, planners also need to know who the decision-makers are, who the powerful interests are, who most influence the politicians to whom planners report. Who are the powerful developers, for example, who are pushing for a certain zoning change? Who are the special interests who favor this form of urban investment over another? This awareness is equally important for non-governmental planners who have to operate outside the system. Knowing who is resisting the planner's attempts at taking a particular approach and understanding the impetus for this resistance is necessary for building communication, building relationships and moving forward. This is evident in both the Social Planning and Economic Planning cases.

Empowering Others

For leaders with authority empowering others involves delegating responsibility and sharing authority. When you have it, it is relatively easier to distribute it. For mediators and negotiators their position of neutrality can be used to buttress the weaker parties against the manipulations or influence of the stronger ones. For planners the task becomes trickier. They can use different types of information and they can affect the presentation and use of information to balance the playing field in favor of those who are only armed with stories and anecdotes against those armed with consultant reports, engineering studies and financial projections (Innes 1998). Planners could also use their discretion in strategizing with one party over another to empower the weak over the strong (Forester 1989). The idea is not favor groups or individuals over others, but rather to understand the power dynamics and to seek to counter the imbalances. In the Economic Planning case Rahamimoff sought to, and indeed succeeded in, empowering a group of citizens that were not even a part of the initial scope of work (Forester 1999). He managed to persuade government officials that a superficial treatment of the tourist waterfront while ignoring the social problems of the communities living a few blocks away would not work. The agenda was expanded and the local population, which was suffering from severe deficiencies compared to national standards, began to receive services and their confidence strengthened over time (Forester 1999).

Healing and Confronting Pain

Specific mention of pain and healing in emotional communication is just as sparse in leadership literature as it is in planning literature. Studies of leadership differ in that they make much more frequent and focused reference to issues of change both at an organizational level and a personal level. Change produces stress, uncertainty and confusion. It follows that change is traumatic and that trauma requires healing. Frost et al.'s work is seminal in this area as it demonstrates the constant presence of pain and healing in organizations (Frost, Dutton et al. 2000). It gives explicit validity to an area that has so often been relegated to the domestic sphere and considered insignificant. The presence of pain demands awareness and a strategy or mechanism for dealing with it, or at the very least, familiarity with the different methods that people employ to deal with pain and suffering. Sarikissian's work in the Social Planning Case is all about healing. Community members called it therapeutic. Racial tension and mistrust was pervasive in the neighbourhood and had been built up over "200 years of racist history" (Sandercock 2000). The therapy is not necessarily successful and planners have to be extremely cautious and aware of the limitations of their own training. Planners cannot and should not become therapists, but they must recognize that there is a therapeutic component to their work. When citizens show up angry at public hearings and shout out their opposing opinions, the planner must acknowledge the pain and confront it if she is ever to begin a dialogue between the opposing factions. In the Environmental Planning Case when the developer got impatient, the planners reacted by calming him rather than staying neutral, or further antagonizing him (Forester 1996).

A superficial initial application of the empathic leadership framework to planning cases studies reveals that many of the practices employed by mediators, negotiators and leaders are already used by planners [see table 2]. With the exception of inspiring others, planners seem stronger in the relational realm than in the personal. Areas of self-reflection and self-regulation in an ongoing basis seem deficient but they are also actions that are not typically studied by researchers. The same can be said for inspiration and healing. This brief study does not prove the absence of any one activity but rather highlights what needs more research. The presence of emotions in communicative work is affirmed but could also greatly benefit from more research and from a series of case studies with research methods specifically designed to target entire spectrum of empathic leadership.

Strong Evidence ***
Some Evidence **
No Evidence *

Table 2 - Empathic Leadership in selected cases studies

Actions of Empathic Leadership in Planning
	Actions and Attributes	Economic Planning Case	Social Planning Case	Environmental Planning Case
Personal	Self-Reflection and Self-Awareness	**	**	*
	Self-Regulation	**	**	***
	Articulation of Values	**	**	*
Relational	Compassion and Understanding Others	**	**	**
	Communication and Relating to Others	***	***	***
	Building Relationships	***	***	***
	Participation/Collaboration/Inclusion	***	***	**
	Conflict Resolution	**	***	**
	Inspiring Others	*	*	*
	Visioning and Creating Culture	**	**	*
Developmental	Acquiring knowledge and skills	**	**	*
	Understanding Power and Influence	***	***	***
	Empowering Others	***	***	*
	Healing and Confronting pain	*	***	*

 

Conclusions

As Forester, Healey and Innes have pointed out, planning work can indeed be seen as communicative action. The evidence that planners are engaged in deliberative processes of expression, understanding and debate is convincing. While theorists have focused on the different conditions that would give rise to fair and egalitarian deliberation, such as helping the less powerful as Forester advocates, or using different types of information as Innes demonstrates, there has no been no study of the role of emotions in communicative action.

Communicative action theory lays a foundation for understanding the communicative work of planners but it falls short on addressing the individual's role in the process and the kinds of relational dynamics that affect the communication. The framework for empathic leadership introduced here begins to address this gap and links personal, relational and developmental actions in the daily life of a planner. Literature in mediation, negotiation and leadership demonstrate that there is much that planning can learn from a study of the relationship between the individual and the context within which she or he is working. No theory advocates the abandonment of reason in favor of emotion but this paper demonstrates that emotional content is present in a variety of planning work and that this presence must be acknowledged.

There is no evidence that the presence of emotions displaces rationalism in any way. The discourse continues to be rational but the presence of emotional content is either actively acknowledged or intuitively managed. We must seek to understand the role of emotion in communicative action and how it could be managed to better serve the planners and those for whom they are planning. This paper builds on the foundational work of Forester and Sandercock and builds a conceptual framework for explicitly studying emotion in communicative action. The kind of interdisciplinary, inter-agency, multi-cultural, and communicative work of planning requires a kind leadership that is self-reflective and empathic. The untapped potential for training planners as empathic leaders is significant. Empathic leadership would magnify the effectiveness of the array of technical and conceptual skills that they traditionally employ. Indeed these skills are likely abundant amongst planners and may already be a part of their palette of intuitive behavior, but this is under-studied.

The interconnectedness of reason and emotion in the human experiences leaves open a wide arena for planners to work in. In a practical sense planners do this all the time. From the plan-checkers who have to tackle difficult exchanges on the requirements or deficiencies of a plan, to public hearing facilitators who have to manage angry exclamations, emotional content is part and parcel of much planning work. In a normative sense planners have to ask themselves how they can make use of multiple methods of expression and dialogue, including emotional expression, and how can they give equal weight to each. How should planners and planning educators be more deliberate in addressing the emotional component of their work?

If we consider a profession to be the application of technical knowledge to a social utility then what can the planning profession offer in terms of a technical management of planning related emotions. As we proceed in this vein we have to be mindful of not setting up or perpetuating yet another divisive polarity between emotion and reason. How do we methodologically isolate emotional communication or content without isolating it conceptually? This research would benefit from a systematic investigation of the emotive details of communicative action as it applies to planning coupled with an understanding of the self-reflective, deliberative and emotional processes of the individual planner. Future research would therefore seek to ask specific questions about the nature and role of emotive reason in planning work. This paper was a first step in identifying the parameters of empathic leadership in order to start cultivating a new kind of literacy amongst planners. The next step is to develop and employ methods for a more critical assessment of the degree to which these parameters are already in place.

If "our sense of ourselves is inherently created through interaction with other people and the natural world," (Healey 1997:45) then it is incumbent upon planners to pay more attention to how planning discourse shapes the world of the constituencies for whom planning is taking place. The expanding demarcations of previously discrete fields of knowledge into overlapping areas is the result of disciplines outgrowing the capacity of their own perspectives in addressing the problems of the day. Complexity has demanded new conceptual formulations that traverse disciplines and defy categorization. Planners can afford to learn from the work of mediators, negotiators and leaders and they can in turn take on a leadership role in expanding the domain of their expertise and dealing with the emotive barriers and opportunities for change. Leadership is not confined to the powerful and there is much to be gained by recognizing that there is a little bit of leadership in each and every one of us.

---

NOTES

1. In this study Gardner studied Margaret Mead, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Robert Maynard Hutchins, Alfred P. Soan, Jr., George C. Marshall, Pope John XXIII, Eleanor Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Jr., Margaret Thatcher, Jean Monnet and Mahatma
2. This case involves physical design and the urban environment and is not about environmental Planning per se. The terms is simply used to indicate issues in the physical environment of a neighborhood.

---

References

Bush, R. A. B. and J. P. Folger (1994). The Promise of Mediation. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Inc.

Carlson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin.

Chrislip, D. d. and C. E. Larson (1994). Collaborative Leadership: How Citizens and Civic Leaders can Make a Difference. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Inc.

Davidoff, P. (1965). "Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning." Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31(4).

Dorcey, A. H. J. (1997). Collaborating Towards Sustainability Together: The Frazer BAsin Management Board and Program. Practising Sustainable Water Management: Canadian and International Experience. D. Shrubsole and B. Mitchell. Cambridge, Ontario, Canadian Water Resources Association: 167-199.

Fairholm, G. (1991). Values Leadership: Towards a New Philosophy of Leadership. New York, Praeger.

Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Forester, J. (1996). Argument, Power and Passion in Planning Practice. Explorations in Planning Theory. S. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza and R. W. Burchell. New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey: 241-262.

Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press.

Forester, J. (2000). Multicultural Planning In Deed: Lessons from the Mediation Practice of Shirley Solomon and Larry Sherman. Urban Planning in a Multicultural Society. M. Burayidi. Westport, Connecticut, Praeger.

Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault Reader. New York, Pantheon Books.

Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Frost, P., J. E. Dutton, et al. (2000). Narratives of Compassion in Organizations. Emotion in Organizations. S. Fineman. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications.

Gallois, C. (1993). "The Language and Communication of Emotion." American Behavioral Scientist 36(3): 309-339.

Gardner, H. (1995). Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership. New York, Basic Books.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York, Bantam.

Goleman, D. (1998). "What Makes a Leader?" Harvard Business Review.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). The Power of Servant Leadership. San Francisco, Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston, Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (1998). The Inclusion of the Other. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.

Healey, P. (1996). Planning Through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. Readings in Planning Theory. S. Campbell and S. Fainstein. Malden, Massachusetts, Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning. Vancouver, UBC Press.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.

Hunt, J. (1984). Organizational Leadership: The Contingency Paradigm and its Challenges. Leadership: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. B. Kellerman. Englewood Cliffs, New jersey, Prentice_Hall: 113-135.

Innes, J. (1995). "Planning Theory's Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Integrative Practice." Journal of Planning Education and Research 14(3): 183-190.

Innes, J. (1998). "Information in Communicative Planning." American Planning Association Journal 64(1): 52-.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, Vintage Books.

Kolb, D. and Associates (1994). When Talk Works: Profiles of Mediators. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Cambridge, Harvard Business School Press.

Kritek, P. B. (1994). Negotiating at an Uneven Table: Developing Moral Courage in Resolving our Conflicts. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Mattelart, A. and M. Mettelart (1998). Theories of Communication. London, Sage Publications.

Murphy, B. K. (1999). Transforming Ourselves, Transforming the World: An Open Conspiracy for Social Change. London, Zed Books.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Upheavals of thought: the intelligence ot emotions. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

O'Sullivan, E. (1999). Transformative Learning: Educational Vision for the 21st Century. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

Sandercock, L. (1998). Towards Cosmopolis. Chichester, John Wiley and Sons.

Sandercock, L. (2000). "When Strangers Become Neighbours: Managing Cities of Difference." Planning Theory and Practice 1(1): 13-30.

Susskind, L. and P. Field (1996). Dealing With an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach to Resolving Disputes. New York, The Free Press.

Useem, M. (1998). The Leadership Moment: Nine True Stories of Triumph and Disaster and Their Lessons and For Us All. New York, Random House.

---

Author and Copyright Information

Copyright 2002 by author