We are stuck in a loop, wanting various levels of government to help us, but it is us collectively that need to help our government by electing better leaders. Maybe we’ve built a hierarchy for managing a system and not shaping it and taken ourselves out of the equation. And maybe a fragmented media landscape makes all this worse by not offering simple central explanations to issues for us to digest. So many things competing for our limited attention to increasingly complex issues.
Maybe this reduces to us just needing to be better ourselves, or maybe just more engaged in the system. But how do we do that without help? Maybe simplify to start. So I want to engage more people in a conversation about policy leadership and break this conundrum.
I wonder if you feel like I do that Provincial and Federal levels of government are less relatable all the time. Holding onto municipal politics so tightly in a belief that it is the most accessible and impactful level of government we have. Disagree that our local government isn’t the right arena to take on the biggest issues, believe it’s the best one, maybe the last. However municipal government is reluctant to lead with policy, and here’s the gap. We need local solutions to these big problems.
Policy and requirements are the ways leadership should enact the change we need. I see a “fix the potholes approach” as politically effective, but not effective at making the required difference. It’s good management and poor leadership. So look to simple and effective ideas and not specific people or things when electing officials. Well written policy will accomplish two critical things and combine to solve a problem more effectively.
The first thing is acceptance, that any policy initiative is viable and good. I believe that people are inherently good and when presented with understandable options that represent their values they'll be supportive.
We go wrong when we ask people to weigh in on the details of individual projects without presenting a detailed picture of the whole system. It’s not fair to ask lay people to be responsible for complex solutions without access to a detailed system diagram, a complete set of requirements and experts.
So instead write clear policy in an active voice. “The active voice describes a sentence where the subject performs the action stated by the verb.”
For example: The City of London requires streets to be planned, designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe, convenient and comfortable travel and access for users of all ages and abilities regardless of their mode of transportation.
Or: Complete Streets allow for safe travel by those walking, cycling, driving automobiles, riding public transportation, or delivering goods.
Direct staff to describe in detail solutions to these requirements that could be applied to every use case in the city. Staff should engage the public here, validating that they have gathered all the cases and met every unique stakeholder. Always building on the library of cases and keeping an inventory of solutions up to date that can be applied to any project.
We need to document the scope and high level requirements of every road and define what a road is.
Define and drive use through feedback. Document all the assumptions, risks and constraints, then work to keep that policy up to date and progressive by measuring the impact and empowering it with governance and process. A well grafted policy approach allows citizens to see and understand why and buy into a policy that aligns with their values.
Policy leadership also brings the gift of constraint. Implementing policy and high level requirements can form constraints. Constraints are a gift. Counsel has a clearer job now, validate the policy requirements are met. We have a simpler job, validate our leaders know our requirements. Staff have a clear set of expectations to solution for.
Individual projects will still bring disagreement, now however the constraints can limit your change management process. Change management must be limited to remain effective. The policy acceptance obtained if you design policy well is what can mitigate the resistance to change.
If we had clearer policy and therefore constraints, consider how that might let the city manage its portfolio more effectively…
The Budget: in lieu of going line by line as Council did, debating individual items and then evaluating initiatives as a secondary activity. Council would have a more realistic picture of what is required and the cost would be less flexible. Projects would need to meet policy requirements and growth made more sustainable as a result.
BRT: We put a solution before requirements. I’d like to see “The transit system must run on a 10min frequency” , “The transit system must be within 2.5km of every home” , “The transit system must accept all forms of payment” … etc VS “Must be a BRT”.
Sidewalks every winter : “Sidewalks must be planned, designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe, convenient and comfortable travel and access for users of all ages and abilities regardless of their mode of transportation.” Let’s stop arguing of who bought the wrong plows. The problem is they don’t meet the requirements, if we had a policy we could correct the issue and not get mired in the sunk cost fallacies.
Hiring an Active Transportation Manager is a step in the right direction. I hope this position contributes to the creation of needs based policy that represents the best interest of all Londoners and better moves us to our progressive objectives.
Reading that inspired me to write this blog…
Policy Leadership: A Theory-Based Model / Kevan W. Lamm, Ph.D. , Nekeisha L. Randall, Alexa J. Lamm, Ph.D. and Hannah S. Carter, Ph.D.
10.12806/V18/I3/T1Utopia for Realists / Book by Rutger Bregman
The Bully Pulpit / Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism/ Book by Doris Kearns Goodwin
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding / John Locke