Think Like a City Planner: Building Generative Capacity in Higher Education Governance

How Urban Planning Principles Can Transform Board Leadership from Oversight to Insight

#GenerativeGovernance #HigherEdLeadership #StrategicPlanning #BoardDevelopment #InstitutionalTransformation #CampusPlanning #UniversityGovernance #EducationalLeadership

When Georgia Tech's Board of Trustees contemplated crossing Atlanta's Downtown Connector in 1999, they faced more than a physical barrier. The eight-lane interstate that divided their campus from Atlanta's business district represented a fundamental governance question: How do boards move beyond reacting to current challenges to actively shaping institutional futures?

The answer, as demonstrated through documented cases of institutional transformation, lies in developing what urban planners call "long-view thinking" – the ability to envision and shape futures while addressing present needs. This capacity for generative governance, seeing possibilities where others see only problems, marks the difference between boards that merely oversee and those that truly lead.

The Planning Mindset in Practice

Georgia Tech's development of Technology Square exemplifies how planning principles can transform board governance. As documented in institutional archives and urban development studies, the board approached their challenge not as a simple space problem but as an opportunity to reimagine the institution's future. Then-President G. Wayne Clough captured this perspective in his 2004 address to the University System of Georgia Board of Regents: "We weren't just planning buildings; we were planning the future of Georgia Tech's relationship with Atlanta's innovation economy."

This shift from reactive to generative governance produced remarkable results. By 2020, Tech Square had attracted more than 100 corporate innovation centers and catalyzed over $2 billion in new investment in the surrounding district, according to the Midtown Alliance's 2020 report. More importantly, it transformed Georgia Tech's role in Atlanta's innovation ecosystem, demonstrating how boards thinking like planners can reshape institutional possibilities.

From Vision to Implementation

The University of Pennsylvania's West Philadelphia Initiatives (1997-2007) provides another thoroughly documented example of planning-oriented governance in action. When Penn's board confronted declining neighborhood conditions in the mid-1990s, they demonstrated how planning principles can guide boards from problem-solving to possibility-creating.

As documented in Judith Rodin's "The University and Urban Revival" (2007), Penn's board approached neighborhood decline not as a security problem but as a planning challenge. This perspective shift led to a comprehensive strategy that transformed both institution and community. John Fry, then Penn's Executive Vice President, explained this approach in his 2004 testimony to Philadelphia City Council: "We understood that our future was inextricably linked to our neighborhood's future. This wasn't about charity – it was about intelligent institutional planning."

Building Planning Capacity in Board Governance

These documented examples reveal several key principles for boards seeking to develop their generative capacity through planning-oriented governance:

Comprehensive Context Understanding: Both Georgia Tech and Penn succeeded by developing sophisticated understanding of their complete institutional contexts. This went beyond traditional metrics to include community relationships, economic trends, and future possibilities. For boards, this means developing systematic approaches to understanding their institution's full ecosystem.

Long-term Vision Development: The Georgia Tech board's ability to see beyond the interstate barrier to future possibilities exemplifies how planning perspectives can transform governance challenges into opportunities. This requires boards to develop capacity for what planners call "future-back thinking" – starting with desired futures and working backward to present actions.

Stakeholder Integration: Penn's success stemmed from understanding how various stakeholder interests could align toward common futures. Their board developed systematic approaches to incorporating multiple perspectives while maintaining clear institutional focus.

Implementation Framework

For boards seeking to develop planning-oriented governance capacity, these cases suggest several concrete practices:

Context Mapping: Regular systematic assessment of institutional contexts, including physical, social, economic, and competitive environments. Penn's board commissioned detailed studies before acting, demonstrating how thorough analysis supports generative governance.

Future Scenario Development: Regular exercises in envisioning possible futures and their implications for present decisions. Georgia Tech's board's ability to see beyond current constraints to future possibilities exemplifies this practice.

Stakeholder Integration: Systematic approaches to understanding and incorporating diverse perspectives while maintaining institutional focus. Both institutions demonstrated how multiple interests can align toward common futures.

Conclusion

The city planner's perspective offers boards more than just useful metaphors – it provides proven approaches to developing generative governance capacity. As these documented cases demonstrate, boards that learn to think like planners can move beyond oversight to actively shape institutional futures.

Additional Readings:

• Rodin, J. (2007). The University and Urban Revival: Out of the Ivory Tower and Into the Streets. University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Perry, D. C., & Wiewel, W. (2005). The University as Urban Developer: Case Studies and Analysis. M.E. Sharpe.
• Chapman, M. P. (2006). American Places: In Search of the Twenty-First Century Campus. Greenwood Press.
• Kenney, D. R., Dumont, R., & Kenney, G. (2005). Mission and Place: Strengthening Learning and Community through Campus Design. Praeger Publishers.
• Martin, R. L. (2009). The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking. Harvard Business Review Press.

About the Author: Robert (Skip) Myers, Ph.D., advises and counsels college and university governing boards and their presidents seeking to optimize and align their joint leadership performance.

Follow him at Robert (Skip) Myers, Ph.D.