Robert W. Ruhe, formerly General Superintendent of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and Director of the Skokie Park District, is now a management and planning consultant residing in Glenview, Illinois. His professional affiliations are diverse and his awards are numerous, including the Cornelius Amory Pugsley Award as "Outstanding Municipal Superintendent in America," and both the Illinois and American Park and Recreation Societies' "Distinguished Fellow Awards". Well known as a speaker and writer on many professional subjects, Mr. Ruhe has lectured at the Universities of Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota.

The following article is a revised and updated version of a presentation first made by the author at the Allen V. Sapora Symposium on Leisure and Recreation in May, 1977.

If administration is such an important ingredient in the success of our programs and so much emphasis is placed on technical preparation, why is it that so many persons fail? Why do some fizzle out into mediocrity? While these two questions are not typical, they do occur often enough that they should be examined in light of our experience. The basic question is whether administration is an art or a science.

Each of us can reflect on our educational experiences and recall vividly academic courses which scientifically emphasized such principles of administration as responsibility must be centralizeld, decisions must be supported by fact, administration should take into account community customs and traditions, sound administration is foresighted, etc. These are all valid principles, and continue to be technically sound.

The sequence of one's career follows the pattern of taking a college degree into the field and applying the scientific principles learned against given situations with the expectation of successful results. After all, we've paid the university to provide us with the scientific knowledge required. Failure or mediocre results give us cause to suggest not enough subject matter was included, and therefore, the blame rests with the university which was responsible to prepare us for any and every eventuality.

The truth of the matter is that no institution can prepare a person for every eventuality. There is justifiable cause to suggest some of the college curricula is irrelevant. Emphasis is frequently poor. We have, unfortunately, come to rely upon intelligence as the most important ingredient in success and therein is undoubtedly the greatest misgiving regarding education. I can find fault with the university, but I can find more fault with those who complain.

There is no justification to relieve the individual from the responsibility for applying the principles of education in accordance with one's own style, personality and knowledge of people. This is an individual's responsibility and is what makes administration an art rather than a science. If we solely depend upon technical skills then the thrill of individual success is eliminated and the experience becomes rote. I can't speak for you, but I can for myself.

Art is individual, it is creative and above all, it is resourceful. Make no mistake, intellectual competence is not a hazard; it simply isn't a guarantee that success will automatically accrue to all who possess it. It is the introduction of "you" into the process and the personal abilities you have to apply the principles which makes it artful.

Anyone who is associated with a civil service system today can speak with authority on its major weakness — the selection process. It was devised for the purpose of removing patronage from government service. It has, by and large, done that by emphasizing and examining technical competence, but certainly has been a dismal failure in determining the personal characteristics so essential to achievement. Civil Service testing tends to push us into two traps; the misconception that competence can be expressed in a test score and secondly, that intellectual potential (knowledge of principles) implies its effective use. These are too simplistic. We must look to a more complete and thorough appraisal of human potential to find the solution to the managerial problem of administering with skill.

The "art" of administration denotes not only unusual persons, but a depth of character essential to achieving a kind of success that has quality, meaning and permanence. Further, it not only applies to one's chosen profession, but equally to the person's obligation to society, family, and self. The art of administering requires not only technical skills depending on intellect, but also a set of personal characteristics predicated upon human values of what is in the total public interest.

Briefly, these characteristics include the ability to extract depth and meaning from experience, an inner

Illinois Parks and Recreation 4 November/December, 1979

compulsion which far outweighs the outer attractions of success, a deep and abiding faith solidly grounded in courage, self discipline and personal organization, the respect and liking of others, (but not at the expense of taking unpopular stands), and a set of personal values which are consistent, enduring and compassionate.

It is risky to speculate about the future in a fast moving world, but we can be reasonably certain about certain things. My observations are not based upon fact, and I doubt they will leave you with imperial gallons of wisdom. If you say, "prove to me you are right," I have only to reply, "prove to me that I am wrong." I am really not worried because somehow we always seem to believe the most in the things we know the least about. If, however, my assumption is correct that administration is individual, creative, and resourceful, I am free to speak to several areas, which, in my judgement, require a change in perspective.

The first area is "Programming." I am aware of the quantities of activities listed in every department's brochure and the increasing number of professional workers being retained to cope with increasing leisure time. However, the type of programming to which I wish to address myself deals with the totality of the activity experience.

I must confess an absolute indifference to any expansion of the "more of the same concept" and an even stronger resistance to a continuation of the "bandaid" approach as the means. It causes me no joy to be critical. However, there are any number of things which perplex me about the "here we go gathering nuts in May" approach, not the least of which is the suspicion that we still accept activity as the means and end of programming. I continue to believe that entirely too much emphasis is being placed on revenue producing facilities as a substitute for program leadership failures.

The importance of program requires a professional attitude which stresses establishing a compatible relationship between facilities and program. This attitude is based on the belief that human enrichment is the appropriate objective we seek. I believe we must de-emphasize what a person does in leisure and place more emphasis on what happens to him when he does it.

I suggest we define programming as the effect activity has upon the individual participant through his involvement in the total program. The collection of all seasonal operations into a single year-round program on a geographic basis (neighborhood or community) would enable the participant to relate to the same staff. Until we come to the recognition that staff continuity is absolutely essential, it is unlikely our programs can have the suggested positive effect.

Consider, too, the minimum importance placed on the quantity of leadership. There is no modern phenomenon known by which a leader can adequately relate to more than 25 persons, yet we continue to minimize leadership ratios and to accept lack of participant interest as a cost of doing business.

"Give us a graduate, trained as a generalist, who understands the place and contribution which recreation makes..."

The Recreation Center, built with maximum flexibility, offers the greatest opportunity to achieve neighborhood identity. We should be sensitive to the fact that program purpose remains constant while activities change to attain the purpose.

Strong aversion is expressed for specialized or singular purpose buildings. We can't really afford buildings for only special interest groups if for no other reason than the desirability of integrating these groups into the total community program. The use of centers by such community organizations as neighborhood action groups, parent self-help clubs, civic and political groups, scouts, etc., too, should be encouraged, for this use is as integral to community life as is the recreation program.

The university curriculum continues to make strides towards producing a potential graduate who has a better understanding of programming. Give us a graduate, trained as a generalist, who understands the place and contribution which recreation makes, who has an appreciation of human behavior and development, an effectiveness in working with others, a proficiency in evaluating the outcome of learning experiences, and skills in the recognition and needs of people we can, through subsequent training and experience, do the rest. This emphasis in curriculum, together with a personal value system, will enable us to provide meaningful and rewarding programs emphasizing human enrichment as the objective which meets the social needs of people.

Another area of concern is that of the citizen's role in government. Two particular areas of citizen participation seem to be worth special attention. They are planning and programming. Under any circumstances all involved must understand and recognize the premise that we are dealing with systems as a whole which must, above all, be operated in the total public interest.

The citizen's role is clearly defined as working within flexible policies, established by the policy board for the entire system which has also been established with public involvement. The definition of the public's role is a critical determination, for it clearly indicates what they can and can't do. Historically, staffs have been technically competent, but they have not been as strong in areas of interaction among people and community organization.

In the area of programming, it has been previously advocated that the hub of the program should be on a geographic basis with a type of professional worker trained in understanding the social significance of recreation. Appropriately, there is much to be gained through the appointment of Neighborhood Program Policy Councils by the Policy Boards for the geographic areas served by the program. These councils could well

See Administration...
Page 27

Illinois Parks and Recreation 5 November/December, 1979

Administration...
From Page 5

determine the program to be offered, operating under the overall program policy developed by the parent policy responsibility, to advise the Program Council and yet to maintain a line responsibility through the system's organizational structure.

The advocacy of this change in perspective is with the full recognition that it is not without problems, but we must admit it would be a refreshing change to provide programs flowing from the people rather than generating only from those activities best known by the professional! Of course, the success of Neighborhood Policy Councils rests with the representation therein and their ability to devise well-rounded programs for persons of all interests, ages, and sex. Herein lies the responsibility of the professional. Yes, there are some dangers but there are also dangers under the present system of total dependence on the professional.

Increasingly, this country is recognizing and accepting a diversity and tolerance of differing value systems. Recreation professionals must also recognize that they are products of the environments in which they were raised and must reflect these value systems. These may or may not be representative of the neighborhoods in which they work, and in fact, in central cities.

I suspect recreation personnel are significantly different than the constituents they serve. Thus, dedicated professionals will involve indigenous populations in programming so they may grow as they become familiar with value systems other than their own; neither better or worse, only different. Without this ability to adapt to diversity, recreation could become increasingly irrelevant to the use of leisure time for many citizens.

The physical planning process offers an excellent opportunity to involve citizens in decision making. Historically, citizens have generally been involved in planning as reactors, after the fact. Our technical staffs are highly skilled, but generally lacking in areas of interaction with the public and community organizations.

There are positive means to involve citizens by supplementing our technical planners with "Social or Resident Planners," thereby responding to and implementing advocacy planning. Every community has persons who have given valuable civic service and who possess socially orientated educational backgrounds, with proven community organizational skills. Social planning is integral to the planning process as is the technical aspect and frequently determines whether plans are implemented or remain on the shelf.

The social discipline referred to is available in communities by retaining such persons on either a volunteer or paid basis depending greatly on the quantity of time involved. These persons can be assigned the lead responsibility in working with citizens and should be privileged to call upon any staff or consultant discipline to give technical advice on a given project or problem.

Specifically, the "Social or Resident Planner" is responsible for identifying resident expressions of need, and for advocating these points of view to the administration and policy body. Conversely, they have the responsibility to interpret the goals and objectives and system policies to residents. These two points of view can be compatible and reconciled if properly presented.

The goal of the local park and recreation authority is to achieve a system of capital improvements which has resident input and support. At the same time, it is vital to achieve comformity of the subject plans to the system as a whole. Achieving compatibility of the two is the principle role of social planning by identifying citizens who can represent objectivity and rationale.

Advocacy planning is becoming more and more sophisticated and there is a growing demand that citizen advisors be selected by the organization they represent rather than by direct appointment of the policy body. There is an underlying concern that citizen representatives be responsible for their decisions to the organization they represent, not the policy authority. The social planning skill required under these circumstances suggests the need to work with community organizations in identifying criteria for citizen involvement as well as possessing intimate knowledge of organizational

Administration...
See Page 29

Illinois Parks and Recreation 27 November/December, 1979

Administration...
From Page 27

structure and personality make up of citizen advisory groups.

The components of such a structure include:

1. Public Preparation: A means of giving citizens necessary facts and background.

2. Participation Mechanism: Identifying and establishing criteria on what classes and types of organizations or individuals should be represented and assisting in the selection process.

3. Accountability: To explain the reasons behind policy decisions to the general public.

The "ivory tower" planning concepts of the past are no longer suitable to satisfy present citizen demands. The centralization of power theory, whereby policy authorities propose and citizens react, appears to require some moderation. Planning should be directed to providing alternate solutions to problems self-defined by communities.

Under the process suggested controversy is not eliminated, but it is reduced. Although controversy frequently brings the public charge that those in authority are unresponsive if differences exist, there still remains in the minds of citizens an attitude of credibility that they have at least been involved. Out of such controversy and involvement can come a citizen dedication and commitment to the process, and a resulting positive attitude to the park system even if referendums for physical improvements fail.

One of the real problems we face in the park and recreation movement is that we have depended upon principles. Thus, the overriding reason an administrator succeeds in achieving new objectives is based not only on the science they have learned, but on personal qualities, depth of commitment, guiding principles, and indeed, on the "art" by which they administer.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 29 November/December, 1979