For the first time in months, I recently found myself at home on a Sunday morning rather than traveling to an AIA event. I celebrated by pouring myself a latte and settling into a comfortable chair for a quiet read of The San Francisco Chronicle. It took only a few minutes for three lead articles to catch my eye, and I spent the rest of the morning reflecting on the larger picture that began to emerge.

The first dot
John King, the Chronicle's urban design reporter (smart guy, not an architect, writes from the perspective of Joe Citizen) penned an article entitled "When Smart Growth Is Dumb." King does a good job of providing a chronology of the concept—crediting Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening and former Oregon Gov. Tom McCall with popularizing the term Smart Growth. He identifies numerous legislative and creative pilot projects and references the five regional agencies with a combined 25 initials that are sponsoring smart growth strategies.

In the end, however, the article disappointingly concludes that in spite of the number of organizational efforts, the individual brainpower and desire, and the political support for motherhood and apple pie that "people hate change." He writes: "[P]ush past the anecdotes and buzz and development looks about the same. [T]he ideas have widespread support but the challenge is in the individual projects."

Not once during King's well-written and provocative essay did the word design appear. Not once were design concepts discussed as central to the success of these societal issues encompassed by the concept of smart growth. Not once was an architect identified as a thought leader in these discussions. Not once was the AIA identified as a resource.

What's the lesson here? It's this: Although many architects and the AIA rightly point to design as our contribution on this topic, there clearly remain opportunities for a broader and deeper level of leadership from all of us in the creation of livable communities.

The second dot
"Jobs Mean More than Money" was an article that profiled a national trend of graduates from both private and public universities who are taking a pledge, or an oath, to help bring about social and environmental change. Some wore a green ribbon, some signed a pledge, some recited an oath in unison, and others carried their pledges away on wallet-sized cards to their new jobs. Over the years Neil Wollman, a senior fellow of the Peace Studies Institute at Manchester College in Indiana, has studied student idealism. Not surprisingly, the outcomes vary: some keep their promises; others do not. But for those who did stay the course, the pledges were often life affirming; giving them the strength to turn down jobs, change their jobs, and instigate changes in their company's policies and philosophies.

What is the lesson of this second dot? It is the power that comes from making a commitment to something greater or higher than ourselves. Such a commitment should be planted and nourished in the academy and then taken into the workplace, where it could take the form of a company or firm oath. There are countless examples in other societies where workers make such a commitment.

In America, where we value our personal freedoms, such displays can seem scary. I have to admit I can't envision 145 of my colleagues lined up each morning reciting some sort of pledge.

Yet, just how crazy is it given our interest in living a sustainable lifestyle, our firm's interest in doing sustainable design, and our collective desire as a profession to be socially responsible? Or, as author James Michener puts it, can we do well by doing good without being total wackos?

The third dot
The third and final article of my Sunday morning read was a review of General Knowledge, a book written by University of San Francisco management professor Oren Harari about the leadership style of General Colin Powell. Harari begins by stating that Powell isn't shy about angering subordinates, colleagues, or bosses. However, the anger is never the consequence of clumsiness or ineptitude. In the general's words: "If you are a leader, you're going to expect that you're going to get people riled up." Translating this insight into management terms, Harari observes that the reason so many corporate mission statements turn out to be useless is that the leaders entrusted to carry them out won't make tough decisions. They don't want to rile the rest of the team. What a sad statement about our leaders!

Harari credits Powell with an ability to mix sensitivity with the forcefulness of a leader. He speaks of Powell's desire to engage in honest, candid debate on issues, his skill at listening to other opinions, and his openness to accepting disagreement. But once a decision has been reached, Powell insists on the importance of loyalty in executing a decision as if it were your own. Harari reminds us that "loyalty means loyalty to the cause, loyalty to the mission, loyalty to the team." He separates the issues from the personalities.

The full picture
The individual elements of a leisurely morning read came together to reveal a portrait of the modern architect, a portrait distinguished by a commitment to civic participation, to applying our understanding of design to address smart growth issues, to pursue ideals larger than ourselves, and to demand from those who would lead us a more bold approach to the challenge of leadership.

Phew—it must have been the latte!

Copyright 2002 The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved.