Category Archives: Positive Change

The Crowded Boardroom: When the long tail collides with hierarchy – a true story.

Posted on by
2
A painting of a naval battle from the 1700. Many sailing ships can be seen fighting with cannons.

This not a random picture, it is how I envision the government, the Canadian federal government. Each ship is a department or agency. The ships have commanders with considerable authority. Communication at a distance is very bad, (they did it with flags, we do it today with email and private conversations). Groups of ships are supposed to work together and sometimes they do, but collaboration is difficult with many strong egos and conflicting agendas. The current administration wants the public service to be more efficient and outcome focused, something I can very much agree with, but have also heard before.

The goal of this post is to try and share some of the lessons from an extraordinary experience that I and many others were part of some time ago. The experience was leading the collaborative tools team that created GCpedia and GCconnex across the Government of Canada (2007-2010).

This part of my professional journey began with the 2000 tech bubble burst and the ride that preceded it ended. Looking for new consulting challenges I looked to government and found a world of opportunity for improvement.  Over the next few years, I undertook dozens of interesting projects in a variety of departments that eventually led to a three-year executive interchange appointment that changed my life, and I dare say, changed the Government of Canada.

When my interchange ended, I realized that this was a career highlight that would be difficult to surpass. So I wrote a paper about it.  The paper reflects on the origin story of what is certainly one of the most successful government collaboration platforms in existence. In the paper, I look at how the project managed to transcend cultural and institutional barriers to change. My hope is that as we embark on the next round of public service renewal the lessons of the past will help improve our odds at success.

Reading it today I am struck by a few things:

we need to adapt

The world has changed a lot in the almost two decades since GCpedia was launched, but government has not. A Westminster system that has its roots in the days of sail, is still challenged by the concept of collective instantaneous communication, whatever will we do to adapt to the age of AI?

Executives need to understand complexity

Large organizations of people are complex adaptive systems and not enough senior executives know what that means. In a complex adaptive system, neither use nor content can be fully anticipated, this has serious implications for how we think about management of information, technology, people, policy and services.

CHange is hard

Introducing change to an organization requires a willingness to manage by exception —the long tail does not easily fit in a boardroom (page 20). A senior central agency executive who is willing to risk manage and lightly “govern” can enable wide-spread innovation.

stealth works

Formal approval mechanisms cannot be expected to understand and preemptively approve the specifics of innovation. A small group with sufficient “policy cover” and lean governance can sometimes achieve good enough for next to nothing.

Conflict of interest is real

Governance and funding models are something we should be looking at and talking about to deal with our shared accountability issue (see the governance description starting on page 13). Existing models have inherent barriers and conflicts of interest that should be acknowledged and addressed if we hope to make collective progress.

I would be delighted to hear your thoughts.

Here is the  PDF 

Here is the presentation to accompany the paper.

The icons in this post come from Peter Stoyko’s brilliant systemviz codex. The header image of the sailing ships comes from Wikipedia Battle of the Saintes which took place in the Caribbean of all places.

More articles and stuff.

PROTECT THE DEVIANTS!

Posted on by
5
Two golden retriever dogs in a puddle as the sun sets.
Otis and Saul enjoying their deviance.

I was a “risky” hire.  Not quite cut from the same cloth. A slightly irregular education. A different sort of professional background. An advocate for better, maybe not anonymous enough…someone with an opinion.

The system, like any mature system, naturally tried to reject me. I failed exams for subjective reasons. Was disqualified based on narrow interpretations. Limited opportunities due to my background and maybe even gender and age.  In fact, I am pretty sure that if the HR System was a person I would have grounds for a complaint. Alas, the system is not a person and harassment only applies to people.

The people I have met are polite, concerned and friendly. Most of them want to do a good job.  Some of them have seen beyond the risk and helped me, and I thank you very much for that.

Now that I am in the system, I realize that I am a bit of a deviant for the same reasons that I was a risky hire.

https://gfycat.com/IdenticalThoseDarklingbeetle

If you imagine government organizations as living organisms and apply some biological logic, it is not hard to see how they would naturally try to reject anything foreign. And in some parts of government culture, I am definitely foreign.  Luckily in other parts of government culture, I fit right in, in fact, I am not as “deviant” as some!

Nevertheless, the places where I do fit in are generally bucking the system, or at least trying to hack it. Their directors and managers are committed to finding a way to do the right thing today, even when the rules are trying to force them to do the right thing for yesterday. It is not easy, they have to work hard, be persistent and continually challenge existing thinking. All before getting on with their mission. 

There is a point to this rant. In his seminal book on organizational culture, Organizational Culture and Leadership Paperback,  Edgar H. Schein talks about how people that first exhibit new traits become different than their co-workers. In most groups of people, this deviance from the norm results in marginalization—cultures by their nature seek the harmony of homogeneity.  Because of this human dynamic, if an organization wants to change it needs to protect the positive deviants from the forces that would see them banished.

The forces that marginalize deviants come in all shapes and sizes. Some are hidden in cognitive biases, others come out as classification, age, level, gender or discipline discrimination. Still, others manifest as well-intentioned policies and rules with narrow interpretations that result in prejudicial side effects.  Risk aversion plays a role here as well. Managers often equate risk with being challenged and the easiest way not to be challenged is to do things the way we have always done them. Deviants are risky by definition, even if they are positive, so the logical path is to get rid of them or not hire them in the first place. 

I think of myself as a positive deviant, and I know there are hundreds, if not thousands of public servants that feel the same way. If the public service is to remain relevant in a different world, it must be different and to be different it needs positive deviants, not former employees. 

Protect the positive deviants! 

The sausage and the salad

Posted on by
1

Over the last few years I have been trying to understand how open government can save democracy and help us deal with the big challenges in society today. Recently I have turned my attention to the policy making process as a big part of what government does.

Policy, according to Wikipedia is “a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes”.  Government does a lot of policy.  It creates laws, regulations and a whole series of policy instruments.  You could argue that government really only exists to create policy, and implement policy via services.  So policy is important.

Traditional government policy is like making sausage

Wikipedia 1200px-Kielbasa7.jpg
Various types of government policy produced in the traditional way.

To make sausage you grind up some meat, add some spices and maybe some filler. You stuff it in a tube of something using a special machine and package it up for cooking and consumption.  Once the sausage is made, it is pretty much impossible to change the recipe.

To make policy we grind up some knowledge, add some words and maybe some regulation. We get it approved by the department, the cabinet or the legislature in a process that takes years. Once approved, it is pretty difficult to change. Lessons from implementation are frequently lost as the policy does not get renewed for years.

The thing about sausage is that even though it might taste good, you never really know what goes into it.  Also too much of it is probably not good for your health.

Open policy making is like making a salad

Modern open policy produced with collective input and open to iterative improvement.

On the other hand, let’s think of a salad. Not only is it more colorful and diverse, you can instantly see all the ingredients. You can tell by looking at it whether it is fresh or not. Salads are versatile and easily changed. In fact, if you really want to you can still toss in some tasty sausage at the last minute.

Open policy making lets you know what went into the creation of government direction, you can easily see and examine the ingredients in the end product. In open policy making you can even offer up your own ingredients.  And salads are generally good for your health.

The world is changing and we need to adapt

We have spent centuries in government perfecting a convoluted sausage policy making process that depends heavily on expert advice and a bureaucratic understanding of the

Declining meat consumption in Canada as a metaphor for the changing policy landscape and rising demand for open policy making. 

public good.    But the world is changing. Meat consumption has been declining for decades and for government to stay relevant it must adapt.

I think we need more salads in our policy diet, what do you think?

Links and credits:

Government as a platform eh?

Posted on by
Reply

I came across this draft post from when I attended the 2009 Gov2.0 Summit in Washington.  It was just after Obama became President and the excitement in the air was like that in Ottawa recently with our new Prime Minister. 

Reading it again, it occurred to me that it might be useful input into the conversation about what digital means to the governments of Canada.
Gov20summitThere was lots of talk about government as
a platform on the first day of the summit and I must admit that I came to Washington a little unclear on the topic. There are multiple “layers of abstraction” and no doubt those who build hardware and software have a more detailed understanding, nonetheless I will share with you what I took away about one of the big themes of the conference.

platform for change

  • A data platform for services
    By sharing data in open machine readable ways, the government can enable industry to create social and financial value by building services on top of that data. The dominate examples had to do with GPS and GIS data, (location, maps and details). There were impressive examples from the battlefront in Afghanistan to the streets of LA. The Obama administration has taken a bold step towards embedding this behavior in the bureaucracy with its Open GOvernment Directive.
  • A social platform
    With its power to convene and consult with groups of citizens the government can be a powerful catalyst for civic action. With much of the credit of Obama’s election win going to the power of the internet to mobilize voters, the administration is very interested in how to involve Americans in taking action to solve their problems. By using modern internet tools the government could fulfill the promise of Jeffersonian Democracy it seems.
  • An economic platform
    Finally with its power to invest the government can initiate market moves and affect the direction of the economy. The feeling in the room was that if government investments in infrastructure good things will happen.

There are probably many more ways you could describe Government as a platform. Gosh, I even heard a sidewalk referred to as a platform for social interaction. (Depending upon how you design and build it, you will get different behaviors. Add a bench and people sit down. Make it narrow and people walk on by.)

The thing about Government as a platform is that it provides a new perspective on the old problem of making government more effective. As I believe that genus with the funny hair said:

 ” you can’t solve old problems with the same thinking that created them”  

New perspectives are a good thing.

There are many ways you can think of Government as a platform. The take away for public servants is to use this perspective to create new forces for good.  To create policy and programs that will address the real problems the world faces today.

There you have it. My thoughts, such as they are. Feel free to comment, correct or elaborate, express whatever you want, just be polite about it ok?

You can change culture now: 3 essential truths for public service leaders

Posted on by
Reply

stick man on stairs squareThe Canadian federal public service has been trying to change its culture for a few years with initiatives like Blueprint 2020 and the Innovation Hubs. Now we have a new federal leadership that wants to adopt a new and more collaborative approach to governing. One might wonder what is keeping us from our goal…

I am not a millennial, but I am a pretty hip, late baby boomer who has been part of the interweb since close to the beginning. My career has been a little eclectic and I have had the opportunity to observe and participate in a wide range of transformational activities. I am telling you this, because it is that experience that has provided the fodder for the observations that follow.

A few years ago I was deep into an analysis of how governments could realize the potential of collaboration and social technologies. As I was mulling over how to synthesise all of the data into a sound bite that could be easily consumed by a busy executive, I was also thinking about how it connected with what I had learned from working in advertising and teaching consumer behaviour. In a rare moment of clarity while waiting for a red light I scribbled down three truths that seem to me to be both obvious and profound.

1. Sharing is good

Sharing is the activity that fuels successful collaboration, knowledge management and communication, which in turn are fundamental to a “capable and high performing” organization. By sharing we become authentic to those around us, sharing preserves hard earned knowledge and makes us more productive, telling stories makes us real, and helps to build the common purpose which is so important to successful change.

Most of the major research firms agree that the biggest challenge organizations face in implementation of social technologies within the enterprise is creating a culture that supports information sharing. Having been involved with over a dozen enterprise collaboration efforts I can say that my personal experience supports those findings. Culture, as the saying goes eats strategy for breakfast, apparently it also eats technology, and probably has a taste for deliverology as well.

Many people don’t share because they are afraid of making a Career Limiting Move (CLM), while others, (kudos if you are one), consider sharing part of their responsibility. Unfortunately too many seem to equate sharing with a CLM, and ultimately we need to institutionalize ways of rewarding sharing and punishing information hoarding. Maybe we can make sharing part of management accountability accords, it is pretty easy to count contributions to sharing platforms like GCpedia and GCconnex…

2. Ego gets in the way

By ego I mean an unhealthy focus on self. We have all come across individuals that try and withhold information, and manipulate those around them for personal gain or promotion. When combined with a lack of emotional intelligence I believe this is one of the most destructive forces in the public service today. We need to get our self-worth from something other than the size of our empire, we need to get emotional and career points for collaborating. We need to recognize the common purpose, (serving Canadians anyone?), as more important than our personal gain. Not only is the, “I only do what is good for me” attitude, bad for the organization, its beginning to look like it may be bad for your career as well.

I have worked on enough horizontal files to have come across this issue more than once. No matter how you structure a collaboration, the people involved can always sabotage it. While researching the horizontal governance issue sometime in the early 2000’s, I came across an Auditor General’s report examining the lack of progress on the climate change file. Without much reading between the lines it was obvious that the real problem was that the primary departments involved could not find a way to collaborate, mostly because the Deputy Ministers did not like each other. Now I am not pointing fingers at the senior ranks, you see this kind of behaviour at all levels. I suppose we should not be surprised, given the competitive, individualistic socialization most of us have grown up with. But humanity’s greatest capacity is to learn, and I like to think that we can learn to work together despite personal differences—if we set aside our ego once in awhile in favour of the common goal.

3. You can’t communicate too much

“You can’t communicate too much”,  I posted this comment on twitter during  a conference  once and it quickly became one of the most re-tweeted updates, so it seems the sentiment hit a nerve.

Back in my advertising days we used to spend a lot of money on media buys and printing, and one of the worst things that could happen was for a print run or advertisement be published with a mistake. When it did happen it was an expensive and embarrassing lesson. After the first time we began to repeat instructions, in different languages if necessary, we would draw pictures, leave notes on the artwork, call the publisher, even attend press runs to make sure all was understood. Later in my career I worked with a Product Line Manager at a major telecom who told me that for an idea to get traction you had to say the same thing over and over again in as many different ways as you could think of —when you are sick of saying the same thing, it’s time to say it again— you can’t communicate too much.

In today’s information intense and dynamic workplace, trying to get the attention of information inundated executive ranks will take more than a little repetition. Going the other way, management can’t communicate too much with staff, especially during times of change. The mushroom school of management (keep them in the dark, and feed them sh*t), simply has no place in an agile and high performing organization— you can’t communicate too much.

In dynamic times, perfection is the enemy of communication, waiting for a complete and crafted message simply leads to speculation and fear, while communicating often and openly, even admitting you don’t know everything, leads to trust and understanding. Having a clear and common purpose is more important than knowing the details of how you are going to get there— you can’t communicate too much.

Conclusion

Changing the culture of something as big as the public service is a daunting task, sometimes compared to turning a supertanker. But the public service is not a ship, it is an organization made up of people, and it’s people who make the culture. The three truths that I have shared can and should be applied from the top down, but more importantly they can be applied by individuals regardless of rank, when you think about that, it means you have the power to change culture.

What are you going to do with that power?

Image Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triskele-Symbol-spiral-five-thirds-turns.png

Editorial Note:

This post is adapted from one of two posts that was written for a GTEC 2013 blog series exploring what it means to be an Agile, Open, Collaborative and Mobile Government. The original post was entitled “Three truths to help you change the culture of the Public Service.” My focus in the series was on the Cultural, Organizational and Policy Infrastructure that provides the foundation for public service culture.

Good enough, is.

Posted on by
10

I have worked with government now for about 15 years and somewhere in that period I became infected with Public Service Renewal disease.  I call it that because that was I how I first learned to articulate it. But you could also call it Blueprint 2020, Destination 2020, Gov.20, Agile Government, Open Government or the current favorite, Digital Government.

One of the differences I have noticed between the federal government and other sectors of society is a preoccupation with obligation. The bureaucracy of government sees itself as obligated to meet a higher standard. Mistakes are rarely tolerated and staff routinely strive to achieve the impossible;  programs that will measurably create results with no risk.  The goal is laudable but consider for a moment how difficult it is to achieve societal goals that are actually measurable in a 4-8 year term. Society changes, but it does so in decades and in ways that economists struggle to understand much less measure. The other side of the equation is risk and as my mother used to say; ” nothing ventured, nothing gained”, venture implies risk so if you are unwilling to risk being wrong for fear of unfavorable media attention, or just because you want to create the perfect solution, you are doomed to an eternity of cost overruns and mediocre results.

Part of the problem is the way that accountability and reward are structured. Senior managers with performance pay are motivated to eliminate mistakes are frequently adopt a strategy of micro-managing. Because that is so unsustainable they quickly become overwhelmed with details.  When they are presented with an innovation that will take some additional effort, it is much easier to say no.

I started this post with the statement, “good enough, is”.   Early in my career, (decades ago now), I was working for the engineering group in a telecommunications firm, I was writing the project charter for a five-year multi-million dollar product transformation. Working with one of the executives articulating project principles, and he insisted that one of them should be  “Good enough, is”.  His rationale was that engineers were constantly almost finishing projects, and then thinking of better, more elegant solutions and restarting the entire effort. This constant pursuit of the very best was getting in the way of actually shipping a product. It struck me then as interesting, and worthy of consideration in realms beyond engineering and telecommunications.

Since those days I have come across the sentiment expressed in a number of ways, from “perfection is the enemy of good”, to perfection is a moving target, to the minimum viable product. Whatever you call it, I think it is worth reflecting on the question of whether you and your team are pursuing excellence at the expense of good enough. In these days of extreme demands and minimal resources, ask yourself is it worth the price?

Recently (2014) I have been encouraged by all the talk about bringing Agile processes into more aspects of government. But one thing that concerns me is I am not sure that folks understand that “good enough is” lies at the heart of the process.  I suspect that a few public servants with a passion for excellence, can pretty easily kill agile with good intentions.  We have to remember that agile is an iterative process. We need to build this into our thinking. Each iteration of a policy or service development cycle may be just good enough, but that is OK, because we can make it better in the next iteration. This leads to the next challenge which is making the iterations short enough, as in next quarter rather than in five years.

Kaizen

This is not to say I think the public service should under-achieve. The idea of “Good enough, is” should always be countered by the concept of Kaizen or continuous improvement. The dynamic tension is a healthy thing.

What do you think?

Note: This post originally appeared on the Government Executive Blog.

Three words for the season

Posted on by
Reply

This holiday season I would like to share a song with you from a band that my teenage son introduced to me to. It is certainly not a Christmas song, but I think the sentiment is one that is appropriate.

The song is called the Shen and it is track 4 from Infected Mushroom’s album Classical Mushroom, released by YoYo Records, in 2000. Infected Mushroom is an Israeli psytrance/electronica duo of producers Erez Eisen and Amit Duvdevani. The intelligible lyrics start around the 6:20 mark in the 8:34 minute long track. According to Metrolyrics.com the entire song consists of these words:

Patience, understanding and love;
Patience, understanding and love;
Patience, understanding and love;
Most of all you need love.

Patience, understanding and love,
that’s what I want for Christmas.

All the best to you and your loved ones,

Thom

If you like this type of music have a listen.

 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2BK48mIdZw

The song may or may not have something to do with the one time secret healing Technique of the Shun Shen Tao.  While preparing this post I came across this video where Grandmaster David Harris shares the “Shen” Technique in the art of Shun Shen Tao.  Interesting stuff.

Colour me naive

Posted on by
Reply

This post originally appeared on the Canadian Government Executive Blog
September 17,2013

You know, I have been around long enough to know better, but still choose to believe in stuff like Blueprint 2020, because change can’t happen unless we believe it can. Don’t get me wrong, I am no Pollyanna and healthy scepticism is, well, healthy, but seriously the first step to making anything happen is believing that it is possible.

Can you imagine an Olympic athlete who didn’t think they could? Do you think they would be any good? It starts with belief.

I choose to believe that the individuals that make up the public service can make a difference. Everyone has a sphere of influence that they affect. Most of us can’t change policy or re-arrange the functions of government, but we can choose how we do our jobs and interact with those around us. When something stupid gets in the way, we can hold up the flag of Blueprint 2020 and maybe stop a little of the insanity.

In his recent post on CGE Blog, (see Does Blueprint 2020 hold Wouters? ) John Wilkins says that authentic public service renewal “…calls for a bottom-up approach, top-level commitment, and continuous improvement.” I agree with his statement, what’s more I think it could already be here.

A bottom- up approach
I know a bunch of Public Servants that have taken the Clerk’s words to heart and take ownership for implementing good ideas within their sphere of influence. What if they all did?

Top-level commitment
I choose to believe that despite their constraints, leaders actually want to the right thing most of the time, but it doesn’t really matter because they have opened a can of worms and will have to do something, it may not be revolutionary but even a “measured response” (see Blueprint 2020: Raising expectations for real change ) is better than nothing.

Continuous improvement
Blueprint 2020 discussions are taking place across the public service and some of those discussions must be turning into conversations that lead to mutual learning and eventual improvement. Learning is infectious and when individuals decide to take ownership for their own improvement the institution either goes along or becomes irrelevant.

There you go, easy as pie. Change is already here, you just have to believe.

Of course it’s not that simple and it’s not that easy, but my point is that our attitude shapes what is possible, and if public servants choose to believe, and I know many who do, then real change is not only possible but inevitable. If you don’t believe me, listen to what Master Yoda has to say.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F15dgBzwOrc&w=560&h=315]

Would you attend a Chatham House party for Blueprint 2020?

Posted on by
2

UPDATE, August 1, 2013

A total of 36 people signed up for invitations. We are now coordinating times and such.
The next update will be a blog post after the event is held.

UPDATE, July 29, 2013

We have reached the magic number of 30 and are now preparing.
The list will close on Thursday, August 1 at noon.

See you soon!

Some blurry people celebrating Canada.

A few weeks ago I posted an idea on this blog about using the Chatham House rule as a way to get some frank and honest input into the Government of Canada’s Blueprint 2020 vision for the public service. I was afraid that some public servants might self censor in an attempt to avoid making a “career limiting move”.

Having barely survived producing the two PS Engage events, I am a little hesitant about jumping back into event management. However the idea generated some interest and as you know I am pretty passionate about making the Public Service better, so…

I have created a mailing list that you can join if you would like to attend a Chatham House event in support of Blueprint 2020.  You can sign up using this form. If more than 30 people sign up, I will organize and facilitate at least one event.  If others decide to organize events then I will let you know what I know via the mailing list.

That’s all for now, lets see what happens!

Three truths to help you change the culture of the Public Service

Posted on by
2

This is one of two posts for the GTEC 2013 blog series where we are exploring what it means to be an Agile, Open, Collaborative and Mobile Government. My focus will be on the Cultural, Organizational and Policy Infrastructure that provides the foundation for public service culture. This is a great time to be discussing these topics as the Clerk has recently announced the Blueprint 2020 initiative with a call to action for all Public Servants to participate in shaping the vision for the Public Service of the future.

Recently I was deep into an analysis of how Governments could realize the potential of collaboration and social technologies. As I was mulling over how to synthesise all of the data into a sound bite that could be easily consumed by a busy executive, I was also thinking about how it connected with what I had learned from working in advertising and teaching consumer behaviour. In a rare moment of clarity while waiting for a red light I scribbled down three truths that seem to me to be both obvious and profound.

1. Sharing is good

Sharing is the activity that fuels successful collaboration, knowledge management and communication, which in turn are fundamental to a “capable and high performing” organization. By sharing we become authentic to those around us, sharing preserves hard earned knowledge and makes us more productive, telling stories makes us real, and helps to build the common purpose which is so important to successful change.

Most of the major research firms agree that the biggest challenge organizations face in implementation of social technologies within the enterprise is creating a culture that supports information sharing. Having been involved with over a dozen enterprise collaboration efforts I can say that my personal experience supports those findings. Culture as the saying goes eats strategy for breakfast, apparently it also eats technology.

Right now, in the Public Service many people don’t share because they are afraid of making a Career Limiting Move (CLM), while others, (kudos if you are one), consider sharing part of their responsibility. Unfortunately too many seem to equate sharing with a CLM, and ultimately we need to institutionalize ways of rewarding sharing and punishing information hoarding. That kind of change will probably take decades, so maybe in the meantime maybe there is a need for some responsible anonymous input to Blueprint 2020? What do you say, should we throw a Blueprint 2020 Chatham House Party…err… Workshop?

2. Ego gets in the way

By ego I mean an unhealthy focus on self, we have all come across individuals that try and withhold information and manipulate those around them for personal gain or promotion. When combined with a lack of emotional intelligence I believe this is one of the most destructive forces in the public service today. We need to get our self-worth from something other than the size of our empire, we need to get emotional and career points for collaborating. We need to recognize the common purpose, (serving Canadians anyone?) as more important than our personal gain. Not only is the, “I only do what it good for me” attitude, bad for the organization, its beginning to look like it may be bad for your career as well.

I have worked on enough horizontal files to have come across this issue more than once. No matter how you structure a collaboration the people involved can always sabotage it. While researching the horizontal governance issue a few years ago I came across an Auditor General’s report examining the lack of progress on the climate change file. Without much reading between the lines it was obvious that the real problem was that the primary departments involved could not find a way to collaborate. Now I am not pointing fingers at the senior ranks, you see this kind of behaviour at all levels. I suppose we should not be surprised, given the competitive individualistic socialization most of us have grown up with, but human’s greatest capacity is to learn, and we can learn to work together and set aside personal differences if we set aside our ego once in a while in favour of the common goal.

3. You can’t communicate too much

“You can’t communicate too much”. I posted this comment on twitter during one of the conferences I attended recently and it quickly became one of the most re-tweeted updates, so it seems the sentiment hit a nerve.

Back in my advertising days we used to spend a lot of money on media buys and printing, and one of the worst things that could happen was for a print run or advertisement be published with a mistake. When it did happen it was an expensive and embarrassing lesson. After the first time we began to repeat instructions, in different languages if necessary, we would draw pictures, leave notes on the artwork, call the publisher, even attend press runs to make sure all was understood. Later in my career I worked with a Product Line Manager at a major telecom who told we that for an idea to get traction you had to say the same thing over and over again in as many different ways as you could think of —you can’t communicate too much.

In today’s information intense and dynamic workplace trying to get the attention of the information inundated executive ranks will take more than a little repetition. Going the other way, management can’t communicate too much with staff, especially during times of change. The mushroom school of management (keep them in the dark, and feed them sh*t), simply has no place in an agile and high performing organization.

In dynamic times, perfection is the enemy of communication, waiting for a complete and crafted message simply leads to speculation and fear, while communicating often and openly, even admitting you don’t know everything, leads to trust and understanding. Having a clear and common purpose is more important than knowing the details of how you are going to get there.

Conclusion

Changing the culture of something as big as the Public Service is a daunting task, I applaud the sentiment behind Blueprint 2020 and encourage everyone to get involved. But it is also important to remember that an organization is people, and an organization’s people are who make the culture. The three lessons that I have shared can and should be applied from the top down, but more importantly they can be applied by individuals regardless of rank, when you think about that, it this means you have the power to change culture.

A final note:

I am writing this on Father’s day, 2013 and as it happens this date is also the anniversary of my father’s passing at the age of 89. A child of the depression and a jet setter of the 60’s he lived his life with an ethos of “doing the best you can, with what you have”. In these uncertain times it is easy to blame others for inaction, but I say, do what you can, with what you have.

What do you say?

Image Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triskele-Symbol-spiral-five-thirds-turns.png

A Chatham House Party for Blueprint 2020?

Posted on by
12

Flickr_-_Sasoriza_-_Rays_in_a_dark_roomThis post is about a getting an idea out there.

Last week the Clerk announced Blueprint 2020, this is an exciting initiative that invites Public Servants to participate in shaping the future of a “capable and high performing” Public Service that embraces “innovation, transformation and continuous renewal”. The vision is based on the following guiding principles:

  • An open and networked environment that engages citizens and partners for the public good;
  • A whole-of-government approach that enhances service delivery and value for money;
  • A modern workplace that makes smart use of new technologies to improve networking, access to data and customer service; and,
  • A capable, confident and high-performing workforce that embraces new ways of working and mobilizing the diversity of talent to serve the country’s evolving needs.

I was with a group of indeterminate  public servants during the Blueprint202 webcast and more than once heard hesitation to making a frank comment because it might be a CLM (Career Limiting Move).  Over the years I have heard that term many times and it seems to me that we need to get those frank comments out in the open. This made me think that maybe there is a place for responsible anonymous input into the vision something like a Chatham House event perhaps?

“When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.”

The Chatham House Rule may be invoked at meetings to encourage openness and the sharing of information.

I like the sound of Chatham House Party, but that is probably because I have teenagers. For a more politically correct approach you could also hold a Chatham House Workshop. A few of the things you might need

  • 5-100 people who care about the future of the public service and are willing to abide by the Rule.
  • A physical/virtual location that can accommodate everyone
  • A facility licenced to serve social lubricant if you are doing the “party” version
  • Facilitator (s) to get the conversation going
  • Recorders who will capture the main ideas without attribution
  • Tweeting from an anonymous account such as @chgc2020 is an opiton

What do you think, would you like to organize or participate?

 

UPDATE:
Please see the new post on this topic

PS Engage Resources

Posted on by
2

psengage-overview-600ppg

This post is to document all the resources produced as part of PS Engage 2011 and 2012

PSengage2ps engage on white 100px

Potential

Posted on by
1

This was written and performed as slam poetry by my son for his grade 12 English class. I thought it was pretty insightful and ultimately a positive message. 

By Sam Kearney

We start off in life with the world at our fingertips,
with the words: “You can do anything” coming out of our parents very lips
And for years these words of motivation stick with you
fueling dreams of being celebrities, astronauts and rock stars too
The World seemed so big, so vast so full of adventure
Those in dentures would give us such a lecture
And so we believe with all our hearts and happy thoughts
That life is a happy place where only in movies are battles fought

But then comes adolescence, and with it comes the many doubts
For many once seemingly perfect family lives become full of arguments and shouts
You see atrocities every day on the television
at first these stories hurt you, on your heart they make an incision
But with this reality creates an invisible division
Your idea of the world has toppled like a house of cards
And with this destruction of an old understanding
sprouts a negative ideology against which we should guard

With this newfound negativity  come new thoughts and mindsets
we make bets with ourselves, putting money against us
We kill that old saying “You can do anything”
Thinking “I could never do this, i’m not good enough, i’m not good at anything”
When really these are just excuses to take the easy path
I mean if we’ve already given up then why put in the effort and try
It’s on that cheesy poster it’s simple math
“You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take” It’s true, in life you either take a shot, or sit and wait to die.

It’s what many of us do, we’re all addicted to it, an entire nation
strangled by what we joke about – procrastination
We need to release from the shackles, locked up by ourselves
Take OUR selves off of the shelves
Stop skimming on the top of the waters of life and delve
deep into the depths of it and discover our full potential
Unleash our inner thoughts and dreams and stop keeping them confidential.

Report from #PSE2011 – Five things you can do today

Posted on by
Reply

At the recent PS Engage Conference  I had the honour of channelling ideas from participants into 5 things you can do tomorrow. With the flip chart paper spread out in my office, here is my report:

1. Read the Social Media guidelinesannounced by the Minister and take advantage of whatever authority they give you. Hold your department accountable for applying the guidelines in an effective way.

2. Reach out to a colleague, it may be someone you know but have not spoken to lately, or it might be someone you know by reputation. Ask them what they are up to, tell them what you are doing. Just a quick 15 minute status check. You never know…

3. When you find a solution to a problem, SHARE IT!  Take the time to quickly document the problem and solution and put it in a place where others that might have that problem can find it. A good default location for Federal Public Servants is GCPedia,  but any place where those that need it will find it is good.

4. High Five!
When you see something good, even just a little good thing – celebrate it! Let the individuals involved know you noticed, and let others know who the good guys are.

5. Connect – access Federal Youth Network, govloop, linkedin, gcconnex, yammer, or whatever network is appropriate for you to extend your connections and learn new stuff.

6. Rewrite your job description. Hell, re-write your team’s job descriptions. Make learning and adaptability an important part of it.

7. Narrate your work. By keeping a log of your work as you do it, you are creating a recorded history that can be invaluable for those that come after you.  If you do it publicly though status reports to your network you are also contributing to 2, 3 and 5 above.

8. Add conferences like PS Engage to your learning plan. Make sure they are in your team’s learning plan. Make learning to learn a priority.

So there are eight ideas not five, what can I say? You are a productive bunch.

See you again soon.

Thom

Q&A with Ina Parvanova

Posted on by
Reply

This is the third installment in our series of highlighting PSEngage Speakers.

Ina Parvanova Public Affairs Director, at Mayo Clinic has extensive experience working in a fast paced environment. Ina started her career as a reporter, working for Reuters and Canadian Press. In 1998, Ina joined the Public Service and spent a number of years at Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada before joining the Privy Council Office where she was responsible for the international communications files.

In 2008, Mayo Clinic recruited Ina to establish its Research Communications function to support $540 million in research operations at Mayo Clinic. Ina is currently part of two leadership teams. One is a reflection of Mayo’s new strategy to make a global impact in healthcare called Global Bridges – a Healthcare Alliance for Tobacco Dependence Treatment. The other is statewide effort called Decade of Discovery: A Minnesota Partnership to Defeat Diabetes.

At this year’s event, Ina will be speaking on innovation at the Mayo Clinic and how Mayo is adapting to current challenges while staying true to its nearly 150-year old mission and values.

We asked Ina about innovation, adaptation and managing when you aren’t a subject matter expert. Here are Ina’s very thoughtful replies.

1. You’ve had a varied career that has covered a wide area of subject matter. What do you do to be confident about the decisions you make, even though you may not be the subject-matter expert?

In Communications, you’re as good as your knowledge and understanding of the audience. If you know your audience, you know what questions to ask the subject matter experts (because you know what questions your audience would ask) and you know how to deliver the message to your audience so it has the desired effect.

I think that’s where my varied career and diverse background come in – as a journalist, I’ve been fortunate to talk to people from all walks of life, to understand how they think. Having lived on two continents/three countries broadened that experience and allowed me to relate to allophones, to immigrants, to single parents – a multitude of audiences. I’ve always been a student of human nature and that’s what gives me confidence as a communicator – along with the belief that with an open mind and empathy one can identify with any audience and then build a bridge between them and the subject matter experts.

2. How much of the innovative process is creative and how much is about defining the business case and making the concept tangible?

You are right that you cannot have one without the other. But in what proportion? I think that depends on the stage you’re in. In the beginning, an idea is just that – an idea, a spark, and the process of implementation seems to take a backseat. But as you go forward, the ratio changes, and no matter how brilliant the idea, it needs a solid rationale and institutional buy-in in order to get implemented. And the more innovative the idea, the more creative you need to be in defining the business case and making the concept tangible.

3. What are the qualities you look for in people to work on innovative files?

Natural curiosity, open mind and tenacity.

4. Resilience is often identified as a key element in one’s ability to accept change. How does one develop resiliency?

Interesting question!

You know, to the extent that experience can teach us, the more changes you’ve lived through, the more resilient you should be. Think of someone who has lived their entire life in their hometown, worked at the same workplace for over 30 years (yes, there are still people like that) – if they are forced to go through a significant change, it can be a traumatizing experience.

On the other hand, if change has been a regular part of your life, you know what to expect and you know you will survive and will be fine.

But experience is only part of the answer, because many would argue that there is a limit to how many changes one can go through without burning out. So can we develop resiliency to prevent that? Is it like a muscle, that as long as you exercise it, it will serve you?

I think so. Especially because it is already in us. We are born with it, it’s a basic survival skill. Kids are resilient. The question is how to maintain it and not lose it after life has dealt us a few blows.

As we go through various experiences – especially hardship – some of us lose that resiliency and start dreading change. Perhaps the key to accepting change in stride is having a healthy self-esteem. As children, we all start with a healthy self-esteem. Along the way, some of us become more fragile, more insecure, and end up finding solace in the past – the old way of doing things, the previous workplace or the last relationship. But if you have a healthy self-esteem, you know who you are, and the past – while it may have enriched you – does not define you. Even when you mourn something that is no longer there, you know that you will survive and the new circumstances are simply a new opportunity. In that sense, to me, self-esteem is the source of our resiliency, the magic ingredient to accepting change.

See Ina live and in person at PS Engage, November 22, 2011 in Ottawa.

Weaving a tapestry of ideas and people

Posted on by
2

Update: For results from the 2011 and 2012 conferences please see the PS Engage Resources post.

As many of you know I am helping to put together a networking and learning event as part of the @PSLeader initiative started by Jeff Ashcroft, Jeff is the same guy that got me into doing the #GovChat series of twitter chats, it all started with a comment on a blog post here.

Anyway, when I was part of the Public Service I was involved in the first Collaborative Management day and was excited about it, basically I think the whole #w2p #goc3 thing is awesome. Sadly, now that I am Private Sector I can’t participate in the same way, so that got me to thinking and…

…a while ago, a group of us in the shadow public service were chatting and felt that it might be a good idea to create an event that builds on the #goc3 momentum for collaborative management.  Of course if we were going to do something it had to have value over and above what an internal conference could provide. The logic we came up with goes something like this:

If the focus of the Collaborative Management events is learning from others inside the Public Service, (and there’s  lots to learn), then  PS Engage distinguishes itself by emphasizing relevant ideas from outside the Government of Canada.  Strategically this makes sense because exposing yourself to ideas outside of your norm is an essential ingredient for innovation. So the focus for us became about bringing new and relevant ideas to the table.

When we started to reach out for speakers, the response was overwhelming with the likes of Mr. GovLoop, Steve Ressler and Ina Parvanova, Director of Public Affairs for the Mayo Clinic, among the luminaries  agreeing to share their stories with us.  Just recently, TBS President, Tony Clement’s office confirmed that he will be giving the opening address—for a conference focused on bringing lessons of change to Ottawa, I can’t think of a more relevant opening speaker.

Speaking of fiscal restraint, lets not panic about cut backs and such. To my way of thinking, financial pressure is a tremendous opportunity when it forces us to look for new ways of doing things. After all, necessity is the mother of invention, or at least that is what my mother used to say—so  come to PS Engage and help invent something great.

As a privately funded event we have to charge, the cost of bringing speaker’s in from out-of-town is significant, however we have managed to keep the price reasonable at $499.00.  Any profit from the event will go towards funding further exploration of the Virtual Government Network Concept.

Group discounts are available, (5 for the price of 4), and if you are student who really wants to go, tell me why you need to attend and how much you can afford, and I will see what we can do.

As an educator, it is great to be part of putting this together, and between the speakers and the networking opportunities I am pretty confident that the conference will be a high impact/low-cost learning event.  PS Engage, a tapestry of ideas and people, the perfect complement to Collaborative Management Day and a great way to get ready for change—what do you think?

Registration is open now, so get out your corporate credit card and go to www.psengage.org, if you need to put it in your learning plan you will find some learning objectives on the site to help you out with the words.

Hope to see you there, if you have any thoughts about this event or ideas for a future one, please share.

Thom

Of course you can follow along on twitter @psengage and #pse2011

Framework for the Virtual Government Network

Posted on by
16

Update

Here is a video of me talking about the VGN at the PS Engage conference.

[vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/32839611 w=400&h=225]

————— Original post with a link to the paper.  —————

The following material comes from a paper I recently finished as part of my studies. I took the opportunity to combine what I have learned about Information Management and Collaboration and then apply that knowledge to something that might be practical.  If you want the paper you can find it on the Articles page, here is a somewhat abridged version for your perusal and comment. By the way, if you do comment I promise to get back to you, however my response may not be immediate.

Virtual Government Network Collaboration Framework

The framework elements are generic in the sense that they could apply to any large-scale collaboration network; in this example they have been populated with the Virtual Government Network in mind.

The common goal

Successful communities share a common goal. Sometimes the goal is urgent and short-lived like when responding to a crisis, other times it is more subtle and long-term, like creating a high quality of life.

In terms of government interests in supporting their jurisdictional economy, most would agree with Velez when he says that the ability to create, access and apply knowledge is a fundamental determinant of global competitiveness (Valez E., 2008, as cited by MacDonald, 2010).

From the knowledge perspective, the goal of the network might be one of conceptual integration. Citing Cosmides et al. 1992, Bates states that conceptual integration across knowledge boundaries generates a powerful growth in knowledge because it allows investigators to use knowledge developed in other disciplines to solve problems in their own (Bates, 2005), she continues to quote Cosmides:

“At present, crossing such boundaries is often met with xenophobia, packaged in the form of such familiar accusations as ‘intellectual imperialism’ or ‘reductionism.”

Although she was talking about how the disciplines within behavioral and social sciences should make themselves mutually consistent I think this principle applies to government as a whole and the Virtual Government Network is for people that want to reduce xenophobia.

From a more practical perspective the Virtual Government Network is about sharing and learning, saving time and money by reusing good work rather than reinventing.  The underlying assumption is that more effective and sustainable government is more likely if we work together. This becomes the stated goal because it is the easiest to understand and likely the most relevant to potential users of the network.

Business Model

The network would initially be provided free of charge, paid for by profits that would be generated from the sale of training and associated professional services. As the network evolves the intention would be to acquire funding from governments, perhaps via the Public Service Chief Information Officer Council (PSCIOC) or a Public Private Partnership. The sustainable model will depend on reaction to the proposal and community interest.

Communication

Communication is consistently identified as one of the key ingredients for successful collaboration and an important part of any successful network. In this framework I identify two key characteristics of the communication infrastructure as being in near real-time and transparent and open.

For the network to be effective in responding to real-time events, communication from operators of the network and between network members themselves needs to be fast and accurate.  Messages between members and groups are completely driven by user content and the system simply needs to provide mechanisms for delivering the messages in a timely and reliable manner.  For messages from the operators to the members some crafting of messages and agreement on those messages may be required. This communications process interacts with governance processes and impedes the free flow of information. Careful attention to process design will be necessary to ensure that this kind of messaging can occur quickly.  Fortunately the principles of open and transparent will minimize the amount of messaging that requires “crafting”.

By operating in a transparent fashion and building in opportunities for any interested member to participate in the governance of the network, the number of messages that need explicit approval of a governance group should be kept to a few per year.

Principles

Statutory responsibilities

Governments share similar responsibilities around issues like providing for freedom of information while protecting privacy or ensuring that information is archived for future generations. Intellectual property needs to be protected and disposition authorities applied. The framework needs to respect these in a way that is acceptable to all parties.

Value statements:

Three broad value statements provided as examples:

  1. Transparency
  2. Neutral space
  3. Learning

1. The need for transparency

This idea is not new, in 1948 Urguhart called for government confidential reports to be reviewed periodically to see what scientific and technical information could be released into the general pool of knowledge (Duff, 1997).  Reviewing confidential information is of course an added cost, and as the body of confidential knowledge increases the sustainability of that review decreases. By keeping the body of confidential knowledge as small as possible the system will be more efficient.  Assuming that we believe that the value of information to society increases with access, shifting our mindset from one of “need to know” to “need to share” should be a top priority.

The concept of transparency is considered by some to be so critical to the evolution of democracy that it has been enshrined in legislation.  Canada’s Access to Information Act is an early example while the Open Government Directive from the United States Federal government is a more recent and dramatically more complete example of the transparency principle being applied.

Finally, I believe that transparency is essential for establishing and maintaining the trust between members that leads to a willingness to share.

2. Neutral Space

To mitigate the potential for political dispute the virtual government network should be a neutral space.  Not a place for advocating particular political viewpoints, but rather a safe common ground, where the focus is on sharing knowledge and making government more effective.

3. Learning

The network supports shared learning and sharing of information and knowledge.  As such the values associated with learning must be respected. For the purposes of this paper these values are:

  • Shared Knowledge
  • Respect for diversity (promotion of diversity)
  • Collective responsibility
  • That individuals are best motivated by autonomy, mastery and purpose (Pink, 2009)

The articulation of the broad community values is something that should be undertaken in consultation with the community, so I am not going to try and develop these any further at this time.

Information Architecture

The framework breaks down the information architecture into three categories that might be useful in terms of figuring out the types of information a virtual government network would contain. One of the pre-development tasks is to prepare detailed views for each of the categories. Brief outlines of each type are provided:

Information about people

  • Basic directory information
  • Enhanced profile information (interests, resume, etc)
  • Activity history (contributions, other)
  • Relationships
  • Group memberships

Information about people might be considered private and as such users need to be able to easily understand and control the release of information about themselves.  At its simplest this would mean users agree to a terms of use and simply not provide any personal information. A more sophisticated approach would be to allow users to complete a profile and control who could access various parts of it.  In either case, a clear privacy policy and excellent user experience design is required.

Information about topics

  • Sources of information (libraries, collections, other…)
  • Bibliographies and searchable databases
  • Groups and individuals working in topic areas
  • Documents and user-created content organized by themes of interest to all jurisdictions such as: Coordination, protection, resilience, social progress. (Wilson, 2010?)

Information about topics represents the explicit knowledge content of the VGN.  The intention is to build a repository of shareable stuff. Any information that could help another jurisdiction or links to such information would be valid.  Intellectual property is an issue to watch here, if protected work is posted the rights to that work will have to be managed.  The simple approach is telling users they are expected to only post unprotected work.  In this scenario the VGN will need processes for monitoring for protected material and quickly resolving any complaints. A more sophisticated approach would be to build some kind of digital rights management into the network, perhaps based on the creative commons licenses.

Information about information (meta-data)

  • Dublin core
  • Rankings (votes, links, citations, source value, etc)
  • State (draft, final, archive, etc)

This part of the information architecture is dedicated to developing a sustainable meta data strategy that will support the finding and managing of the topic based information.  An important consideration is that the user not be required to add much meta data-the system needs to do as much of it as possible to ensure data integrity and user satisfaction. A second consideration would be that if the meta-data collected includes personal information that it be subject to the privacy policy. For instance visits or downloads of a document traceable to a particular user.

People

Users

The primary users of the network are government employees at any jurisdiction in Canada. These users are authenticated and agree to a terms of reference that is acceptable to their employer.  The community is broadly defined by the term Public Servant.  An issue arises with the inclusion of consultants, contractors and other suppliers of services; this shadow government is estimated to be worth $25B at the Federal level alone (Ottawa Citizen, 2010).  It may be that there will have to be two types of users and two different entry levels of user.  Another consideration is whether to permit users from jurisdictions outside of Canada.

Roles

Types of users will have to be defined along with various roles that each type can perform.  The following is a preliminary list of potential user access levels.

  • L1 Members are permanent government employees
  • L2 Members are consultants and contractors under contract
  • L3 Members are the general public
  • L1 Operators are god
  • L2 Operators are like captains
  • L3 Operators have some additional edit privileges and can approve certain events like group creation.

In addition to Members and Operators other relevant people are those providing funds and other stakeholders that identify themselves, i.e. Unions, political parties, governing parties, etc.

Processes

Operation of the VGN will involve many processes. For the purposes of this paper I have identified two broad categories that I believe are particularly important.

Onboarding

Onboarding is generally concerned with attracting people to the network and ensuring that their early experiences are positive. Processes might include:

  • Outreach and promotion
  • Registration authentication and security
  • Skills development & support
  • Solutions matching

Gardening

The gardening processes are intended to maintain quality in the network, ensure that terms of use are complied with and generally support users in their efforts to share and collaborate.  Examples include:

  • Content reporting quality (user reports on content)
  • Activity monitoring (looking for irregular behavior, new content requiring meta-data, etc)
  • User communications (personalized based on activity, role or other options, multiple channels)
  • Tension management (see Donnelly, 2009)

The general concept of information value within the VGN is that users decide what is important. Content value could be some mix of attributes such as: source value, user votes, user links to the information, # citations, comments and other empirical and subjective characteristics that can be measured over time. These ideas should be reflected in the non-functional requirements for the supporting platform.

Technology

This paper is not about the technology, however several characteristics have been defined that will provide some guidance when technology choices must be made. These include:

  • Browser based
  • Mobile enabled
  • Open with lots of connectors
  • Both open and secure (how secure?)
  • Acreditable by government agencies (meets whatever standards are most common)

Governance

Governance of the network covers three areas:

  • Decision making

o   Conflict resolution & resource allocation

o   Permission allocations (granting power to users)

  • Performance measurement
  • Strategic direction

Governance mechanisms should be as inclusive as possible and follow the principle of transparency. Provide a forum and guidelines for funders, operators, users and stakeholders.

Conclusion

The framework is intended to be a fairly holistic, top level conceptual architecture that might be used to guide the creation of a Virtual Government Network. It is a broad brush, high level view; there are improvements to be made, both in the generic framework and in the details. To move forward each element needs much more detail and discussion.  Maybe we can build something like this, maybe not, either way; I hope the framework is of use to others. Please comment and build on it.

Letting go for high performance leadership

Posted on by
2

© Chris Lamphear, iStockphoto

In Gov 2.0 circles I often hear that organizational culture needs to change. If you think about that you will realize that people need to change. If you think about that you will realize that you have to change.  Last year I heard the story of a public servant leader who discovered that sometimes by letting go, you get better results. I think it is a good example of the transformation many of us need to consider for ourselves.

Two years ago, Angelina Munaretto took leadership of the Applying Leading Edge Technologies (ALET)  working group within the Canadian government. This horizontal, mostly voluntary group was established to explore ideas around the use of social media and Web 2.0 tools for the government communications community.

At the outset, the group was structured in a traditional way and using government hierarchy:  a  Project Manager, two sub-working groups with co-chairs, and an advisory committee. Work began on defining the deliverables, finding members for the working groups and then working towards meeting the needs of this  defined structure.

What nobody counted on, but in retrospect is not surprising, is the level of interest, passion and commitment exhibited by the entire government community in response to the global trend towards Web 2.0. All areas — not just communications, but programs, IM, IT and human resources — wanted to participate in some way. Those who were involved in applying the tools on a day-to-day basis started suggesting new projects that would help advance their programs, communications and use of Web 2.0 tools. The community grew into 150 people and 36 departments and agencies represented. Five departments seconded employees to work on deliverables for the community at no cost to the project.

Says Angelina: “We moved from being a community of practice who met to deliver pieces of work, to a group of professionals who wanted to make a difference.”

I know which one of those scenarios I would prefer, what about you?

Resources were needed and community members were stepping up to volunteer to help the ALET group meet the needs of the community. More people and more resources called for more management capacity, but there was simply no additional capacity. The working groups could no longer be managed within the traditional project structure. More management capacity was required but was simply unavailable. Angelina soon found herself in a position where a shift was required.

What this meant for Angelina was that she had to adjust her leadership style. No longer would she define tasks and delegate responsibilities  – she could suggest broad areas of work or needs that the community was articulating, but this was highly different.  When community leaders stepped up and offered their expertise and leadership, Angelina moved to providing secretariat support and broad guidance on the overall outcomes sought by ALET. Members of the group were given autonomy to shape the products they were producing.  It became less about leading the group towards the completion of a deliverable to more about facilitating the collaboration and contributing where help was needed . The deliverables were defined by the needs of those working on them, instead of the project leader. In personal terms, Angelina had to relax her expectation of control.  She also had to learn to trust people to do the right thing, sometimes with very little direction  – and learned when to offer help or check in to ensure that people had what was needed to complete a deliverable.

What she found was that when a group of people are motivated and given the autonomy to take direct action, the results can be impressive. What had started as a management team…led by Angelina became a relatively self-sufficient group that produced impressive results including an extensive research document which provided essential input into policy development, a social media toolkit and numerous guides to using a wide variety of social media. The most tangible result though was getting Departments to share key development documents for use of social media so that the community could re-use these for their own campaigns. The work that started with ALET planted the seeds for a vibrant communications community that continues to grow, share best practices and build guidelines to help others.

Angelina has now moved to Library and Archives Canada, where she is the Manager, Digital Engagement and Social Media. ALET continues to thrive under new leadership and the resource pages on GCPEDIA continue to be some of the most visited.

When I look at this case, I see a perfect example of intrinsic motivation as described by author Dan Pink, there is a wonderful RSA animate video that captures the essence of his message on You Tube. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]

The project, in spite of being run differently than a traditional government project, was highly successful – mostly due to Angelina’s ability to stop trying to control the project and instead to facilitate the collaboration and articulate the greater purpose. She gave the members of the working group the autonomy to make progress on something that would make a real difference.

In my mind, this shift is an example of what needs to happen with leaders across the public service; from a mentality of command-and-control to one of creating a collaborative culture. Angelina’s example demonstrates that when people are given the autonomy to work on something that motivates them and is in service to something larger, whole communities can benefit.  And really, isn’t that what being in the public service is all about?

I would like to thank Avra Gibbs Lamey, a communications professional and contributor to two of the sub-working groups under ALET, for co-authoring this post. Avra can be found on twitter  @gibbslamey.  Angelina can be found @AngelinaMunaret .

To stimulate adoption, just say no.

Posted on by
Reply

This post originally appeared on the Senior Fellows and Friends blog in June, 2010.

Word No, underlined by red pencil

©iStockPhoto/Kanstantsin Shcharbinski

About mid way into the pilot phase of the open collaborative workplace project, we added Karl to the team.  This is the story of his adoption of a wiki approach to preparing a large document. Karl had joined the Canadian Revenue Agency , (CRA) 6 years before, coming from the Nortel Networks meltdown. He had a background in large-scale learning, development and management and he knew this web 2. stuff was probably a good thing, he just did not know exactly how. This is the story of his initiation to a wiki, specifically the MediWiki install known as GCPEDIA. It is a story you may be able to repeat.

One of Karl’s first tasks was to prepare a formal project charter that would begin the process of taking us from pilot to enterprise solution. As you can imagine preparing a project charter in a government central agency is a significant task. There was a prescribed outline to follow, four primary authors and an executive  level steering committee of 20 or so to be consulted. In addition to the immediate circle there were perhaps 100 or so interested parties.

After obtaining the requisite word processing template from the project management office, Karl came to me to discuss the approach for developing the charter. We had a tight deadline and I told Karl that we should use the wiki to create the document.

Two days later Karl showed up with a draft. As a word processing document. He was in a hurry he said and did not have time to learn how to use a new tool. He would put it on the wiki later he said.  I was keen to see the document, but refused to look at it, telling him to “do it on the wiki”.  Apparently he did not believe me because a day later he was back with another word processed document, this time printed!  I rejected it outright. He left in a bit of a huff, probably thinking I was being unreasonable.

After a few minutes of instruction he was working away in the new tool. Some copy and paste and a little formatting and he had a rough wiki version. Commenting that maybe that was not so bad he sent a link to the small group of original authors.

Over the next few days we all contributed to the document and Karl began to smile as the benefits of writing on the wiki became obvious. No  emails with attachments.  No confusion over what version was the most recent.  A consolidated revision history and immediate notification of changes. We worked on it when we could, in the early morning or late at night, from the office or from home, I even made an edit from my BlackBerry.

In a few days we had created a version that we were happy with as a first draft and invited the larger group of executives to take part. A couple of them did, and we also had comments from interested bystanders.  By the time we got to the committee meeting everyone had had their opportunity to contribute and the document was quickly approved.

Lessons:
Most people will naturally resist change, even when they know it good for them. If there is a familiar alternative they will use it, particularly when they are under pressure. By removing the familiar, users have no choice but to try the new way.

If it is possible to make your collaboration space the only way to do something important, make it so. It will force that critical first step.

What do you think?

Do you have any adoption stories you would like to share?

Hope is important…

Posted on by
2

Hope is important, it is what makes good things possible

I tweeted that as part of a response to something from @mgifford this morning and it sounded pretty good. So I thought I would put it here for all eternity.

I could probably talk about it some more in the context of organizational change or something, but I am too busy at the moment.

Maybe you would like to share why you think hope is important?

In whatever context you like.

Thank you

Engagement anyone?

Posted on by
9

There is a lot of talk about employee engagement these days. In management circles we talk about strategies and best practices for achieving high levels of employee engagement. Perhaps this is in response to reports of a general malaise and historically high absenteeism, or maybe because we are finally waking up to the fact that we really do need to “do better with less” if we hope to leave the world a better place.

So what is this thing called engagement?

For me engagement is a personal thing, it is an organic network of relationships, messages and memes. It is about rallying around some of the common themes and goals in an organization. It is about giving permission to staff to take responsibility for finding new and better ways of doing their jobs.  It is about demanding intellectual accountability and value for every salary dollar we spend. It is about enabling staff to take small risks and implement ideas directly. Most importantly it is about trusting each other to do what we think is best. Accepting some risk and celebrating early failure.

Engagement isn’t something you can outsource. It comes from sincerity about working for improvement and a tolerance for many points of view.

So how do we improve engagement?

Attitude.

The #1 factor that will determine the success of an engagement effort is the attitude of the people involved. This means that:

  • Staff need to take on their leadership responsibility by speaking up and pushing their organizations to improve.
  • Middle Management needs to accept the fact that control is an illusion and be willing to trust their staff. And they need to define themselves in a away that does not require the control of information. They need to listen very carefully to those pushing for change.
  • Senior management needs to promote leadership at all levels and demonstrate that appropriate risk taking is acceptable.
  • We all need to be tolerant and listen to multiple points of view. Perhaps most importantly we need to approach the monumental tasks in front of us with a positive attitude.

Engagement isn’t something you design and build so much is it something that you cultivate in your relationships. Certainly we can design processes, polices and reward systems that create an environment that is engagement friendly, and we must continually work to reduce systematic barriers to engagement, but ultimately it comes down to the attitude of the people in the system.

And that starts with you and me.