Return to Electronic
Discussion Paper Index PageLEADERSHIP TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF TODAY'S CHANGING NEEDS
Christopher Jarvi, Director; Parks, Recreation and Community Services, City of Anaheim
(adapted from the Crawford Lecture given by Mr. Jarvi at the 1992 NRPA Congress)
Parks And Recreation: A Profession In Crisis
The park and recreation profession is clearly recognized by those we serve as providing a needed social service. From the turn of the century to the 1970 s, our profession has experienced unprecedented growth and acceptance as the American public recognized the importance of play, open space preservation, physical development and the enhanced quality of life associated with the services and facilities we offer. In an era of strong family values, economic growth and boundless optimism, our profession thrived and became increasingly complex and strong.
The 1970s gave us our first hint that all was not well with the parks and recreation movement. In a paper entitled Future Perspectives, David Gray and Seymour Greben warned us that the profession was caught up in powerful social and political forces that would require change in the way our profession did business. They observed a growing disparity between our profession's values, methods and programs and the emerging needs of society. They went on to observe that the profession lacked the leadership needed to address the real social ills facing Americans at that time.
They concluded that our "movement" must change its culture if it was to continue to be a profession which met the needs of those it served. Unfortunately, we really haven't changed much since 1970. It appears that the gap between how park and recreation professionals view their role and what the public demands in terms of our services has grown even larger over the past twenty years. Instead of addressing the need to change our professional culture and paradigms, we have devised systems of professional certification and agency accreditation to validate our own worth and to protect our jobs. We have justified such actions under the guise of protecting the consumer of our services even though I have yet to find a member of the public crying out for such protection. In fact, application of such systems have the potential to create a professional rigidity or rigor mortis in a world where change is the norm and the ability to adapt to change is a prerequisite for success. We are developing the perfect formula for planned obsolescence as we deny our vulnerability to change.
While we are busy trying to legislate our own protection and defend our honor, we are being faced with a professional crisis of monumental proportions. This year, a number of universities have dropped their park and recreation curriculums due to fiscal problems. Entire departments are being disbanded in California or are being merged with other departments of city government. Funding crises created by Proposition 13 in California and duplicated throughout the country have robbed once strong departments of a large percentage of their operating budgets. Such departments seem almost doomed to failure as they are unable to meet the public's expectations for programs, maintenance and capital development due to a lack of adequate resources.
In addition, most departments are facing unprecedented pressure and anxiety in their communities as the federal government divests itself of its role as a social service provider by drying up subvention programs, revenues diminish due to a sluggish economy and the demographic profile and values of their citizens change. In their recent article in Parks and Recreation Magazine entitled "Parks and Recreation and Our Growing Invisible Populations," H. Doug Sessoms and Dennis Orthner discuss the impact of these changes on parks and recreation service delivery as one reason to reevaluate our social mandate as a profession. Susan McCormick, in a 1991 article in Parks and Recreation entitled "Parks and Recreation + Social Change = The Future," points out that many professionals believe that current social issues such as substance abuse and lack of affordable child care threaten not only our quality of life in the 21st century, but the future of the park and recreation movement. Powerful forces are requiring us to address such unfamiliar matters as dependent day care, travel and tourism, gangs and drugs, economic development, public safety issues, environmental regulation and human service problems.
The social and political changes that alarmed Gray and Greben in the 70s were not nearly as great as we are seeing today. The surroundings in which our profession must operate including the larger social, political, economic, technological and institutional environments are certain to continue to change at a dizzying pace. And the gap in leadership identified in Future Perspectives is continuing to increase in geometric proportions. I'd like to share some thoughts about what it's going to take to close that gap.
The Need For A Common Professional Vision
In nearly any textbook on leadership, the most important requisite of leadership is a strong and abiding vision founded in a clear moral purpose. A leader must possess a clear understanding of what he or she expects to achieve both personally and professionally. Along with this vision, a leader must have the strength to persist in the face of the most severe setbacks. In the professional milieu, the vision is usually expressed in terms of a "mission" which is easily and uniformly understood, articulated and applied by every member of the profession.
It has been well documented that the parks and recreation movement was born out of the massive changes which occurred as the result of our country's transition from an agrarian to an urban society caused by the industrial revolution in the 1800s. Ironically, the public's concerns of the period included many we face today such as environmental degradation, juvenile problems, homelessness, displaced workers due to new technology, new immigrants and public health and safety issues. The profession evolved from massive citizen involvement focused on actions designed to deal with these issues. Gradually, two value-oriented, citizen-based movements--parks and recreation--became institutionalized and incorporated into government at the local, state and national level. These related disciplines were consolidated into a single profession which is represented by state and national organizations, a standardized service delivery system and a national professional association.
While we pride ourselves as having the trappings of a profession, we continue to be hindered by the lack of a common vision or professional mission. In a paper entitled "Leisure in the 1990s," Geoff Godbey defined parks and recreation today as a series of services and specialized occupations rather than a series of social movements. He speculates our profession will be subject to challenge in the next few decades because we lack a clear focus.
In an effort to define what we are about as a profession, H. Doug Sessoms made an extremely important point in last year's Crawford Lecture entitled "Lessons from the Past". He observed that our mandate as a profession must address the needs of the people we serve if we are to deserve and expect their support. He further stated that there must be little ambiguity between the professional's and the public's view of our mandate as a profession if we are to continue to exist. Finally, he argued that no profession can remain viable if it ceases to address its primary mandate, its reason for existence. His view of our mandate was built on the concept that we exist to provide "opportunities for play and recreation for all those who wish to come regardless of race, gender, or the ability to pay". He defined parks and recreation as "a public want and a public good" and charged us to focus on that concept as our mission.
While this rationale is sound, it didn't go far enough in my estimation. I would suggest that our mandate is deeply rooted in certain fundamental human values which surfaced in the late 1800s and early 1900s before the public had professionals around to assist them. And, I believe that those values are just as important to us today as we are faced with many of the same types of problems that existed at the turn of the last century as our profession began to evolve.
I would argue that our public may not view our services in terms of how we perceive ourselves. They may be reminding us that they view our facilities, programs and services as a "means to an end" rather than the end product itself. I believe their vision for us may be that we provide for the development of better human beings and the creation of community wellness rather than the provision of park and recreation services to help fulfill their "leisure" needs. In this period of unprecedented change, we may be strategically positioned to address a myriad of social problems if we are willing to accept a broader view of our mandate.
Given this redefined mission and the paradigm it suggests, it becomes less important how we define ourselves and more important to begin allowing ourselves to be defined or redefined by the community's expectations of why we exist. Proof of this phenomena is already evident today as departments are broadly expanding their scope of services using this new paradigm. Debate about the inclusion of formerly foreign disciplines (e.g., child care, counseling, services for the aging, substance abuse prevention, intervention and diversion, gang outreach, wellness) into many urban department missions has become academic. Taken in this new context, departments able to change and adapt to their new mandate will be most likely be viewed as successful by those they serve over the next decade. In the simplest of terms, the profession's paradigm is changing because the environment in which we operate is changing. However, I believe that the basic reasons our profession was developed remain constant and will provide the foundation upon which our movement's leaders of tomorrow must build their common vision.
Leadership In The Context Of Government
If the massive changes in the social, economic and political environment in which we work weren't enough to worry about, we are also facing revolutionary changes in the public's perception and expectations of government as an institution. There has been a fundamental shift in the way Americans now view government that will greatly impact how we do business through the rest of this decade. The public's confidence in government has fallen to record lows at the same time as funding for our programs has severely declined. In spite of budget cuts, the public expects and often demands the same level of service that they have received in the past and offers us "no new taxes" in return. Their frustration with the growing gap between their expectations and our ability to perform to these expectations has created a demand for (l) greater public participation in decision making, (2) more accountability, (3) improved cost effectiveness, (4) flexibility in service delivery and (5) better customer service.
Under intense fiscal pressure, state and local elected leaders have forced us to become more competitive, entrepreneurial, creative and resourceful in our service delivery. Many professionals feel that these changes no longer leave us capable of doing that which we were educated and trained to do (i.e. provide facilities, programs and services).
While it is true that most governmental organizations stifle change, David Osborne and Ted Gaebler have documented that the public sector is undergoing a dramatic transformation in their book Reinventing Government, a recent New York Times top-ten best seller. Osborne and Gaebler cite examples of how government is becoming more flexible and adaptable, responsive to their customers, offering choices of services, leading by persuasion rather than by command, giving employees meaning and control and empowering citizens rather than serving them. Their vision of the government of the future is one that pushes ownership and control into the community by removing barriers to such control; encouraging organized communities to take control of services; providing seed money, training and technical aid to assist communities to help themselves; and moving resources into the control of the community. Over time, they see government less as a provider of services and more as a mechanism for making sure community needs are met. Their premise is that citizens are people who best understand their problems on their own terms. They are more flexible and creative than are large service bureaucracies. They find cheaper solutions than service professionals. They enforce standards of behavior more efficiently than bureaucracies. And, they have a greater commitment to their members than service delivery providers have to their clients.
While everyone might not agree with this view of government in the next decade, they cannot deny that such changes are occurring and are having a dramatic impact on the way in which we will do business in the future. This type of governance suggested in this new paradigm stresses the need for an ability to provide leadership which helps empower a community's various interest groups to embrace common goals and strategies which provide for the mutual benefit of all.
The Leadership Challenge of the 90s and Beyond for Parks and Recreation
If we accept that (1) change is going to be the norm in the future, (2) our basic mandate or mission is still as vital as it was at the beginning of this century and (3) government itself is going to force us to change the way we do business, then we must seek out a type of leadership which allows us to deal with our uncertain future with confidence.
The ideal professional leader of the 90s will need to have a firm practical and philosophical base in parks and recreation and, at the same time, have the skills of a generalist to include conflict resolution, facilitation, networking, coalition building, entrepreneurship, community participation and strategic planning.
The leaders in this profession must begin to address the critical social, economic and environmental issues facing society today within the context of what they do best. We must remind ourselves of the great leaders of our profession like Stephen Mather, Frederick Law Olmsted, Bob Crawford, and William Penn Mott who created cultures that confronted stereotypical behavior and challenged others to expand their horizons, skills, views and priorities. We are at no less of a critical threshold than each of these leaders were when they embarked on their own personal "vision quest." And, the skills that they used are not terribly different than what will be needed in the next decade. These are skills that our professionals must acquire to achieve a higher and more effective level of leadership. I believe that we must each:
1. Make a personal commitment to become a leader. This is a life-long commitment that is as personal as any we shall ever make. We must never stop growing either personally or professionally through the application of continued self-discovery and life-long learning. We must constantly reassess our role as professionals in light of our rapidly changing social, economic and political environment and allow ourselves to evolve out of our own personal experience, unencumbered by the profession's paradigms that may have only served to stifle change.
2. Seek to rediscover the fundamental reason for the existence of our profession and be able to define it in the highly personal terms of those we serve. The key to our success as professionals will be found in the degree to which we can prove that we are relevant to the public we serve by being able to express what we do in terms that they can easily understand. The best way of rediscovering our relevancy is to associate more closely with our citizen-based advocacy groups. They will help us, once again, to define our personal vision and collectively redefine our professional mission.
3. Become much more "futures" oriented and anticipatory in our problem solving. We must use every means possible to identify and forecast trends impacting the profession in order to determine and react to challenges and opportunities certain to define the profession in the future. We have to view ourselves as being part of a much larger social system in which we play an ever-changing and increasingly important role. We must seek out trend information from many different non-traditional sources and we must routinely use this information in the application of strategic planning in order to survive.
4. Network with other disciplines on a routine basis to find ways of sharing resources and problem solving skills. We are clearly guilty of talking to ourselves too much. We need to test our values, norms, and beliefs as well as our philosophy, theories and principles by sharing them with those in other disciplines. As parks and recreation is increasingly viewed as a preventative social service, it will become essential that we network and develop strategic alliances with other disciplines such as those dealing with the environment, youth, the disadvantaged, unemployed, homeless, the aged, housing, immigrants, etc. In doing so, we should allow our profession to function and evolve organically. We should insist that our profession's function should determine its structure, rather than the other way around. We must be cognizant that this approach may have revolutionary impact on the way we define ourselves in the future and gladly embrace the change.
Because of the unique position of trust we hold in each of our communities and because we possess a highly unique personal and professional skill base, we have an outstanding opportunity to play a critical role as "a park and recreation profession" in helping those we serve shape their future. To the extent that we are successful in our new leadership roles, we can give those we serve a stronger sense of purpose and identity in their communities by challenging them to become active, innovative, responsible and aware of what they are doing and why it is important in their lives. There is no greater challenge for us as professionals.
(see original paper for references)