HighlightsThe decline of social capital due to monopolization, the inability of urban management to advance urban projects, and citizen dissatisfaction are among the consequences of obstacles to communicative action.Strengthening the sense of belonging, promoting communicative action, enhancing institutional cooperation, fostering consultation-based expertise, encouraging pluralism, and achieving institutional synergy are identified as the most effective outcome conditions in urban project management.In certain administrations, communicative activism fosters a sense of belonging and enhances the social capital of managers and staff.Communicative activism mitigates challenges in managing and implementing urban projects by fostering synergy and pluralism rooted in shared understanding.IntroductionUrban management today faces a wide array of physical, economic, social, and environmental challenges. Despite the development of various planning policies to address these issues, implementation often falters due to inter-departmental and inter-organizational functional problems. One effective approach to overcoming these challenges is achieving integrated thinking in the planning and execution of urban projects. Such integration stems from continuous communication and interaction among urban managers and experts within a transparent and pragmatic network—ultimately leading to action-oriented planning.This research is grounded in the assumption that the primary challenge facing urban management lies not only in the formulation of plans but also in weak inter-organizational communication. Focusing on the case of Zanjan, the study investigates how communicative action impacts the preparation and implementation of urban management plans.The central research questions are as follows:What are the main internal and inter-organizational challenges in the preparation and implementation of urban projects?How do urban management entities perceive one another’s actions, and what role can communicative action play in improving project outcomes?Theoretical FrameworkOne approach to achieving integrated planning is through communicative action, a concept rooted in the philosophy of Jürgen Habermas. Communicative action is a form of social behavior oriented toward mutual understanding. In this paradigm, a distinct form of rationality—relational rationality—is introduced, merging knowledge and values and framing spatial planning as a social construct.Here, communication becomes the primary source of truth discovery, and human wisdom is seen as emerging through interpersonal interactions rather than as a product of political governance or isolated reasoning. Communication, in this context, is central to governance and policy development.MethodologyThis study employs a qualitative, phenomenological research design using an inductive interpretive method based on grounded theory. Due to the cyclical and evolving nature of the grounded theory process, theoretical sampling was used throughout data collection, with semi-structured interviews as the main tool. Sampling continued until theoretical saturation was achieved, resulting in a final sample of 45 mid-level managers and experts from 10 executive institutions with consistent inter-organizational interaction in Zanjan (e.g., Roads and Urban Development, Municipality, City Council, Governorate, Water, Electricity, Gas, Telecommunications, Engineering Organization).Data collection included questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Given limitations in recording due to participants' reluctance, efforts were made to establish trust and maintain participant anonymity. Data were analyzed through open coding, followed by axial coding and selective coding to identify core categories and concepts. A paradigmatic model was developed to explain causal, contextual, intervening, strategic, and consequential conditions. For validity assurance, a technical audit was conducted, and procedures were confirmed by two experts familiar with qualitative data analysis.Results and DiscussionThe analysis revealed that managers at both middle and high levels, depending on their organizational roles, often operate within rigid administrative structures and prioritize institutional interests over collaborative engagement. This tendency, driven by fear of losing authority or being reprimanded, reflects a limited form of instrumental action as described by Habermas. Consequently, urban development becomes shaped by individualistic and monopolistic thinking, resulting in citizen dissatisfaction.In contrast, successful instances of communicative action—such as those leading to the development of Sabzeh Maidan Complex, the pedestrianization of key streets, the reopening of Zainabiyeh Street, completion of the sewer network, expedited reviews of zoning change requests, active implementation of national housing programs, and reforms in the electrical grid—highlight the benefits of enhanced inter-agency cooperation.ConclusionThe findings indicate that the absence of communicative action leads to negative outcomes such as individualism, diminished specialization, weakened work commitment, reduced trust, declining social and organizational capital, short-term decision-making, and citizen dissatisfaction. Conversely, implementing communicative action in some administrative units has fostered a greater sense of belonging, strengthened social capital among staff, and reduced project implementation challenges through enhanced synergy and pluralism based on shared understanding.