Journal

Compare the differences between adaptive challenges and technical fix interpretations in the case study. Critique the interventions used and the ways it changed or could have changed the outcome in the case study.

There exist a wide difference between technical fix and adaptive challenges. Technical fix or challenges can be defined as problems that can be easily solved or fixed (Green, 2009). On the other hand, adaptive challenges are the dynamic and more complex issues that cannot be easily fixed rather they require the behaviors of the stakeholders to be interfered with. The city of Mission in the case is aiming at improving the transportation sector such as roads as well as fixing the problems in the pathways for cyclists and pedestrians. To enable them to fix these problems, there must be adequate funding.

The technical fix that is available is increasing the sales tax so that they can get the money to fund the projects. However, this technical fix cannot be adequate to fund the whole project. However, another adaptive fixation has to be made. Adaptive fixation is likely to increase the number of funds for the project. The core and most promising strategy in the adaptive fix are increasing the property taxes. This is a dynamic method since it helps in increasing the levels of funds to the project. However, this method is a bit complex and is required both the members of the public as well as the members of the council in thinking and contributing to the strategy. At first, these stakeholders have to be given an insight into the benefits of the whole projects. An example of the adaptive challenge in the case was when a meeting was called in a local meeting hall and the members were allowed to discuss the whole issue. They were given a chance to learn the way the city was aiming at getting the funds and the way they would use the funds for the benefits of the stakeholders. The meeting was aimed at helping them get an ideal adaptation on the way the city was pulling funds out of various sources in creating the pool for funds for the project. This was an ideal adaptive challenge.

Examine the challenges that arose between leadership vs authority in the case study.

There is a great difference between leadership and authority. A person in authority is a person who has been given the power to discharge his/her power on others. On the other hand, a leader is a person who has the ability not necessarily power to lead and guide others in undertaking specific tasks. It should be noted that one being in power does not necessarily mean that he/she can be a good leader. In the case, the people in the authority did not demonstrate ideal leadership qualities. Leadership means working with all stakeholders and involving them in the process. It requires leaders to organize public participation forums where the members of the public can freely give out their views and insights. In the case, the people in the authority organized very minimal public participation forums. The people's opinions were not highly put into consideration in the process of implementing the funding process of the project. They hardly allowed the public to freely vote for the strategy rather they used a very wrong way of hindering the members of the public their opinions and rights. This is a clear and direct lack of leadership qualities among the people in the authority. A good leader is the one who gives the people who he/she is leading the priority and allows them to give out their views and insights. Good leaders do not use tricky strategies to win people's support rather; they speak the truth and freely allow them to give their views (O’Malley, 2012). There must be an ideal commission between the leaders and the people who are led. They should be good engagement among the leaders and the public. The authority would have first act as good leaders in convincing the members of the public about the importance of the project and then, later on, they would have exercised their power by imposing the property tax that had been agreed by the members of the public.

Relate ways the four competencies were used or could have been used to change the outcome in the case study.

There are 4 core competencies which make a good leader. These include the first competency which is the diagnosis of the situation. The second one is the competency of managing oneself then the facilitation of intervention and the last one is energizing other people. In the case of the city of Mission, the situation was properly diagnosed since it was found that there was a great need to improve the transport infrastructure in the city. The authority did not undertake good self-management since they would not be able to control themselves on proper ways of identifying their problems. The Mission was also not able to properly facilitate the intervention. They only introduced more taxes without proper involvement of the public. In that view, it was not able to energize the members of the public. If the members of the public would have been properly involved, the whole project would have been more popular.

References

Green, C.  (2009).  Redeveloping Mission and the ‘Driveway Tax” controversy.  Kansas Leadership Center Case Series, pg. 97. 

O’Malley, E.  (2012).  The competencies for civic leadership.  Kansas Leadership Center.  Retrieved from https://www.emporia.edu/dotAsset/631d8f1f-ff9c-47e1-9d05-4179779c1414.pdf