Free Essay Example on 4 Planning Styles: Conflict & Compatibility

There are four different planning styles: technical (bureaucratic), political influence, social movement, and collaborative (Innes & Gruber, 2005). Planners in each type have a unique tacit view of plans, information, and public participation, and believe their approaches to planning to be superior and morally correct. The difference presents conflicting interests and positions of the planners making the styles incompatible. The four styles are practical and right depending on the nature of the situation; therefore, several considerations should be looked at before adopting a specific technique.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Each planning style has unique features separate from the others. The technical/bureaucratic style is whereby the planners operate as analysts to explore various alternatives and select the best feasible. Technical planners are neutral and provide objective information in quantitative forms to convince decision-makers about the best choices (Innes & Gruber, 2005). The style only relies on official statistical data and less involves public views. The political influence style depends on the leader's agenda, and the plan includes the interests of the key influential individuals rather than the region's interests.

The social movement style involves public groups that feel excluded in the planning process. Different individuals and organizations join together to oppose the current policies and convert people to support their vision. The social movement style is made to counter the technical and political planning style, which ignores the interests of some minor groups in society (Innes & Gruber, 2005). The style is open to participation; however, it does not accommodate a wide variety of views to avoid vision dilution. The collaborative style allows the representation of all stakeholders and collectively formulate a plan to solve their problems.

I think that all styles should be applied depending on diversity and interdependence of interests. Different situations would require a different approach. I feel that where the interdependence and diversity levels are low among the stakeholders, the technical approach is most suitable as the best option will be selected based on qualitative evidence. In cases of low independence of interests and high diversity levels, political influence would be the best approach. I think social movement works best where the stakeholders' interest is interdependent and not diverse as they share the same vision. Where the interests are interdependent but diverse, a collaboration planning style can help the holding to formulate a solution that will sound fair to all.

I find the article interesting and educative on the best planning styles to adopt in different situations. It is not easy to include all the stakeholders' interests while planning hence should consider interdependence and diversity. I think technical, social, collaborative, and political planners are correct, but they should consider the situation's nature.

Reference

Innes, J. E., & Gruber, J. (2005). Planning styles in conflict: the metropolitan transportation commission. Journal of the American planning Association, 71(2), 177-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976691