Vision Vancouver Policy Conference

Conservatives, Facebook and the Culture of Paranoia

So the Ontario and Federal Public service banned facebook because it thought it was eating into work time. Fair enough.

The Canadian Conservative Party however, has taken it a step further. Not only are they banning their staffers from accessing facebook from work, they are prohibiting them from possessing a facebook profile (even on their own time, accessed through their own computer). As this Calgary Herald editorial points out – this sort of restriction and censorship is reasonable:

“There seems to be a palpable fear that something which might embarrass a cabinet minister might find its way into a staff member’s profile and thus fall into the hands of some gleeful journalist. Just for the optics, it’s probably a good idea to try to prevent that from happening.”

I love that the Conservatives have so little trust in their staff they feel it necessary to prevent them from showing their faces or sharing their interests in a public space – even a virtual one.

Just ‘for optics’ maybe ministers and the party should control every aspect of their staffers lives? One wonders what other public spaces the Conservative party should ban their staffers from being seen in? Online dating must be no-no (too much like facebook). What about job searches – posting one’s resume and profile sounds pretty risky. But why stop online? What about parties and bars? Staffer could engage in some activity that might embarrass their minister in these public spaces too. Following this logic, maybe Harper should ban staffer from attending parties?

I love the paranoia of this Prime Minister’s Office.

Also, a H/T to Taylor Owen for drawing my attention to the Calgary Herald editorial.

Public Service Reform: Starting at the Apex

7 Replies

So I’ve just sent APEX a copy of my speech – I actually never write out my speeches so I literally had to go back through it in my head – anyway I will post here soon as well.

For me, one of my favourite parts revolved around the APEX logo (APEX is the organization that represents all the executives of the Canadian Federal Public Service). I asked the conference attendees to take off their name badges, look at them, and tell me what they saw. Most saw it right away. The Apex logo.

Symbols matter. So, when you look at this symbol what do you see?

After a day and a half of hearing speaker after speaker talk about creating a public service that was more open, more innovative and less hierarchical, I wanted to draw their attention to the symbol the Public Service Executives use to portray themselves to the world.

Could one imagine a symbol that conveys hierarchy, control, and dominance more effectively? (I love that it is not just a pyramid, but that its angled so you have to look up at it). “Were on top! Guess where you are?”

Do we want a different public service? It will take a lot of work and changing symbols won’t get us there. But it is a start.

At this point I like to briefly say thank you to Michel Smith for inviting me to talk – he invited me to come and speak and I thanked him by dismantling his organizations logo… he deserves better.

So, in that spirit, I’d like to propose an idea based on something the president of Scandinavian Airlines once talked about in an article he wrote (where, I don’t remember). After much reflection he flipped his organizational chart upside down so as to place him at the bottom, understanding that his role was to support everybody above him, so they could, in turn, support the front-line workers who actually touch the customers. Maybe we could flip the APEX logo on its head? Can we imagine a public service executive that thinks the same way?

Now, if only we could come up with a better acronym… Any suggestions? (Remember it has to work in French and English).

Hollywood-Policy Dorkout

2 Replies

Does any one else see a resemblance between The Wisdom of Crowds author James Surowiecki and ‘Heroes‘ villain Zachary Quinto?

	vs.
James Surowiecki		Zachory Quinto

Feel free to nominate this as the public policy dork post of the year.

After 2 posts on First Nations-Government negotiations, I was in the mood for something lighter…

First Nations Negotiation Process: …and into the fire

4 Replies

Yesterday I was commenting on Jim Prentices proposed reform to the First Nations treaty negotiation process. Specifically, he is considering giving the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) the authority to make legal rulings and thus settle agreements.

While the details have not all been made clear, it would appear that Prentice’s reform seeks to shift the ICC’s role from that of mediator – where any agreement is determined by the parties themselves rather than being imposed by a third party – to arbitrator – where agreements are imposed by the arbitrator and to which the disagreeing parties agree, in advance, to be bound.

The problem with arbitration is that it may not solve the underlying problems plaguing the process. For example, Prentice sites two shortcomings of the current process – it is too slow, and not perceived to be legitimate.

Arbitration, may increase the speed. However, it may not be any more legitimate, and could actually be less so…

For example, on what basis would arbitrated decisions be made? What would be the guiding principles the arbitrators would reference? Who would establish these principles? Will these be negotiated? If so, by who? All First Nations and the government? Or a representative sub-group? Ultimately, if the principles that guide the arbitration are not perceived by all parties to be fair and legitimate, or if the arbitrators themselves lack the respect of the opposing parties then the process may actually be seen as less legitimate then the current negotiations.

Indeed, this is even more important given the nature of the negotiations. Because the parties are negotiating over sovereignty this process is deeply political. Will Canadians, or First Nation, feel comfortable handing such a sensitive decision over to a third party who has no track record in making these decisions and so, to which the outcomes will be unpredictable?

Another problem with arbitration is that it does little to resolve any relationship/trust/cooperation problems between the parties. By bringing in a third party to resolve the dispute First Nations and the government will establish a problematic precedent: When we don’t agree, bring someone else in to arbitrate.

In many respects, treaty settlements are not the end of the process but the beginning. Treaties form the basis for a new relationships between First Nations and the government. Regardless of the treaty’s specifics, the parties are going to have to learn to work together more effectively going forward. To assume, that once the settlement is out of the way, all the actors will know their jurisdictions and powers and so will get along, is probably a false one. Just ask anyone whose ever worked on Fed-Prov relations…

If Canadians are serious about creating a new relationship with First Nations it feels odd that the first step in establishing this new relationship would be to put a third party between the two groups. Negotiating can be fair, legitimate and (relatively) speedy. The question isn’t about arbitration, it is about whether this (or any) government wants to make it a priority.

First Nations Negotiation Process: Out of INAC and…

Missing Boston

4 Replies

Debbie C. sent me this story reminding me of my days in Boston. Debbie and I once hit a Hip concert together at a venue in Cambridge that literally catered to maybe 500 people. I’m a lucky man.

Debbie also had this great suggestion: facebook.gc.ca

I wish I’d heard it earlier. Would have been a great title for the op-ed. Definitely has a better ring (and is easier to remember) then the GEDS address:

direct.srv.gc.ca

Government services don’t have to be boring (even services directed at public servants). Sometimes we just make them that way…

What a week…

2 Replies

I’ve had a fun week on the internet…

First, a little post about anti-abortion protesters’ use of the Canadian Government’s trademark was picked up by other bloggers (who did the heavy lifting) and it became a national story. This in turn prompted a treasury board investigation. Not bad for a couple of progressives armed with little more than some gumption, laptops and internet connections. Big thanks also to some readers who tracked down relevant info, and kept the debate alive. Clearly someone at the associated press is reading…

Then, I managed to get my Facebook oped published as a web-exclusive. I’ve still yet to penetrate the Globe and Mail’s printed page, but given the subject matter, a web-exclusive feels more appropriate. Not that I have much choice (I take what I can get) but there is an interesting toss up: printed op-eds seem to garner more recognition, but the nice thing about web-exclusives is that their not protected content. Unlike the ‘normal’ op-eds, which require a paid subscription to be seen, web-exclusives can be linked to and read by anyone – so people can share the link. So you have to choose: printed page that traditional readers see, or… an online version that people can share virally.

To be honest, I’m just glad the G&M and the Star read and consider what I send them…

Things I promised some readers that I didn’t get to: Publishing my speaking notes on the APEX presentation. Sorry about that, I promise it’s coming (but then… are my promises still worth anything?). In my defense a last minute trip to Whitehorse derailed my writing plans…

Don't Ban Facebook – Op-ed in today's G&M

5 Replies

You can download the op-ed here.

The Globe and Mail published an op-ed I wrote today on why the government shouldn’t ban face book, but hire it.

The point is that Web 2.0 technologies, properly used, can improve communication and coordination across large organizations and communities. If the government must ban Facebook then it should also hire it to provide a similar service across its various ministries. If not it risks sending a strong message that it wants its employees to stay in your little box.

One thing I didn’t get into in the op-ed is the message this action sends to prospective (younger) employees. Such a ban is a great example of how the government sees its role as manager. Essential the public service is telling its employees “we don’t trust that you will do your job and will waste your (and our) time doing (what we think are) frivolous things. Who wants to work in an environment where there own boss doesn’t trust them? Does that sound like a learning environment? Does it sound like a fun environment?

Probably not.

—–

Facebook Revisited

DAVID EAVES
SPECIAL TO GLOBE AND MAIL
MAY 17, 2007 AT 12:38 AM EDT

Today’s federal and provincial governments talk a good game about public-service renewal, reducing hierarchy, and improving inter-ministry co-operation. But actions speak louder than words, and our bureaucracies’ instincts for secrecy and control still dominate their culture and frame their understanding of technology.

Last week, these instincts revealed themselves again when several public-service bureaucracies — including Parliament Hill and the Ontario Public Service — banned access to Facebook.

To public-service executives, Facebook may appear to be little more than a silly distraction. But it needn’t be. Indeed, it could be the very opposite. These technology platforms increasingly serve as a common space, even a community, a place where public servants could connect, exchange ideas and update one another on their work. Currently, the public service has a different way of achieving those goals: It’s called meetings, or worse, e-mail. Sadly, as anyone who works in a large organizations knows, those two activities can quickly consume a day, pulling one away from actual work. Facebook may “waste time” but it pales in comparison to the time spent in redundant meetings and answering a never-ending stream of e-mails.

An inspired public service shouldn’t ban Facebook, it should hire it.

A government-run Facebook, one that allowed public servants to list their interests, current area of work, past experiences, contact information and current status, would be indispensable. It would allow public servants across ministries to search out and engage counterparts with specialized knowledge, relevant interests or similar responsibilities. Moreover, it would allow public servants to set up networks, where people from different departments, but working on a similar issue, could keep one another abreast of their work.

In contrast, today’s public servants often find themselves unaware of, and unable to connect with, colleagues in other ministries or other levels of government who work on similar issues. This is not because their masters don’t want them to connect (although this is sometimes the case) but because they lack the technology to identify one another. As a result, public servants drafting policy on interconnected issues — such as the Environment Canada employee working on riverbed erosion and the Fisheries and Oceans employee working on spawning salmon — may not even know the other exists.

One goal of public-sector renewal is to enable better co-operation. Ian Green, the Public Policy Forum chair of Public Service
Governance noted in an on-line Globe and Mail commentary (Ensuring Our Public Service Is A Force For Good In The Lives Of Canadians — May 8) that governments face “increasingly complex and cross-cutting issues … such as environmental and health policy.” If improving co-ordination and the flow of information within and across government ministries is a central challenge, then Facebook isn’t a distraction, it’s an opportunity.

Better still, implementing such a project would be cheap and simple. After all, the computer code that runs Facebook has already been written. More importantly, it works, and, as the government is all too aware, government employees like using it. Why not ask Facebook to create a government version? No expensive scaling or customization would be required. More importantly, by government-IT standards, it would be inexpensive.

It would certainly be an improvement over current government online directories. Anyone familiar with the federal government’s Electronic Directory Services (GEDS) knows it cannot conduct searches based on interests, knowledge or experience. Indeed, searches are only permissible by name, title, telephone and department. Ironically, if you knew any of that information, you probably wouldn’t need the search engine to begin with.

Retired public servants still talk of a time when ministries were smaller, located within walking distance of one another, and where everyone knew everyone else. In their day — 60 years ago — inter-ministerial problems were solved over lunch and coffee in a shared cafeteria or local restaurant. Properly embraced, technologies like Facebook offer an opportunity to recapture the strengths of this era.

By facilitating communication, collaboration and a sense of community, the public services of Canada may discover what their
employees already know: Tools like Facebook are the new cafeterias, where challenges are resolved, colleagues are kept up to date, and inter-ministerial co-operation takes place. Sure, ban Facebook if you must. But also hire it. The job of the public services will be easier and Canadians interests will be more effectively served.

David Eaves is a frequent speaker and consultant on public policy and negotiation. He recently spoke at the Association of Professional Executives conference on Public Service Renewal.

Messina and Firefox

6 Replies

So I know I’m late to the party but wanted to contribute some thoughts to the Messina debate on Mozilla.

What I find most interesting are not the specifics of the discussion, but the principles beings discussed and the manner by which they are being discussed.

Break Messina piece down and he is essentially making two assertions:

1. “I don’t understand Mozilla’s strategy” and (unsurprisingly!) here are my ideas
2. “Let the community rule”

The response, has been fairly quiet. Some were clearly frustrated. Others saw it as an opportunity to raise their own pet issues. What I haven’t seen (on Planet Mozilla) is a post that really engages Chris’ ideas and says “I don’t agree with Chris on ‘a’ or ‘b’, but he’s right about ‘c.’ ” To be fair, it’s hard to react well to criticism – especially from someone you count on as an ally. When you spend your day fighting billion dollar beasts you don’t exactly want to spend time and energy defending your rear.

However, the silence risks increasing the gap between Mozilla and those who agree with Chris (which judging from his blog may or may not be a fair number of people). I was struck that one commentator said: “I didn’t know somebody could talk like this about Firefox until now.” Such a comment should be a red flag. If the community has some sacred cows or self-censors itself, that’s a bad sign. For this, and other reasons, the thrust of Messina-like rant’s may have significant implications for the future of Mozilla.

The problem is that as the Mozilla community grows and the choices for where to concentrate resources become less and less ‘obvious,’ the community members will increasingly want be part of the strategic decision-making process. When the objective is clear – build a better open browser – its easy to allocate my scarce economic resources towards the project because the aim is obvious (so I either buy-in or I don’t). But as success takes on more nebulous meaning, I need to understand why I should allocate my time and energy. Indeed, I’m more likely to do so if a) I understand the goal and b) I know I can help contribute to deciding what the goal should be.

In this regard Mozilla need to constantly re-examine how it manages strategy and engages with its community (which I know it does!). Personally, I agree with Messina that Mozilla is not a browser company. Indeed, in a previous (not entirely well formed) post, I argue that Mozilla’s isn’t even a software company. Mozilla’s is a community management organization. Consequently its core competency is not coding, but community management. The concern (I think) I share with Messina (if I read between the lines of his rant) is that as Mozilla grows and becomes more successful the decisions it must make also become increasingly complex and involve higher stakes. The fear is that Mozilla will react by adopting more corporate decision-making processes because a) its familiar – everybody knows how this process works and b) its easy – one can consult, but ultimately decisions reside with a few people who trust (or at least employ) one another.

However, if Mozilla is a community management organization then the opposite is true. Mozilla needs a way to treat its strategy like its code, open to editing and contribution. I know it already strives to do this. But what does open-strategy vs. 2.0 look like? What does community management 2.0 look like? Can Mozilla make its community integral to its strategy development? I believe that at its core, Mozilla’s success will depend on its capacity to facilitate these discussions (I may even use the dreaded term… dialogues). This may feel time consuming and onerous, but it pales in comparison to the cost of losing community members (or not attracting them in the first place).

If Mozilla can crack this problem then rants like Messina’s won’t be a threat, they’ll be an opportunity. Or at least he’ll a place where he can channel them.

eaves.ca

if writing is a muscle, this is my gym