The plodding and somewhat regressive bureaucrat. These are the subjects of Jan Banning’s portraits, drawn from trips to Bolivia, India, Central Asia and other places.

I admire the pictures for their composition, but despise them for the effort they imply: the bureaucrats are shown posed behind their desks, stiff backed and waiting for a request to be opposed or denied.

There may be signs of modernity, like a solar calculator or a large bakelite phone, but the overwhelming imagery is of large bulky furniture, a traditionally built space in some form of disrepair, and a process that is largely dictated by paper documents and personal relationships.

That may be reality, but I don’t have to like it.

You could knock me over with a sheaf of briefing notes. The Communications Community Office (CCO) has released a promotional video on YouTube.

The CCO is a small shop within the Government of Canada charged with encouraging the development of professional communicators across the government. They arrange summer work programs, hold pre-qualifying job competitions, and promote the sharing of knowledge and experience among communicators.

One of their tools is the Student Networking Cafe*, where students currently working in a government department or agency can get a chance to speak to more experienced government communicators in a number of areas, like e-communications, marketing, media relations and strategic communications.

The video is little more than a repurposed promotional video for the Student Networking Cafe, but at least it’s a start.

*I doubt that link will work for you - it’s probably behind the Government of Canada firewall.

The U.S. Transportation Security Administration has launched a blog*, but Jake McKee has wondered whether the TSA has picked the right tool for the job:

“… The first round of posts and the hundreds (1308 comments submitted on six entries as I write this) are largely focused on questions from confused travelers. The first entry jumps straight into answering the inevitable travel policy questions. Is the blog the right tool here? I’d argue that a social tool that allows questions to be submitted and voted up by site visitors is a far more interesting idea over a blog..”

Click through for other incisive observations about the blog - and how organizations should program for a blog.

*the blog is called “evolution of security” - which may be something of an overpromise in terms of depth and breadth of topic.

As I pushed through the final stages of preparing one of our annual reports this week, I was reminded that public sector organizations MUST communicate with ALL their stakeholders.

For social media evangelists, this means we must remember that the world cannot be migrated to online information, publications and connections - at least not yet.

For example - our annual report, while not a thick publication, makes for a relatively big .pdf file. Nowhere near the size of an .mp3 or a video, but large enough that quite a few Canadians would be unable to download it easily.

You have to remember, you see, that not all communities have broadband. Not all Canadians have computers, or even access to a computer.

And it’s not just a question whether our intended audiences have the right appliances to access our content.

Not all Canadians are literate at a university or college level.

As public servants, we have to serve all our citizens. And that is one of the brakes on the full implementation of web 2.0 apps and social media in the government setting.

When you run through a staffing exercise to hire a new media analyst, remember two things:

• monitor staff appropriately as they conduct the exercise;
• and teach proper email procedures.

Quite a large kerfuffle in Toronto about a completely insensitive email mistakenly sent to an applicant for a low-level media analyst position in the provincial government - an email where a contract employee referred to one applicant for the job as the “ghetto dude.” How did Evon Reid, the applicant, find out? The contract employee sent her comment to him instead of her colleague as intended. (Toronto Star, among many)

Not only does this incident reflect poorly on how the hiring process was managed, but it also highlights a shift in attitudes towards winning a job in the civil service.

Back in the old, old days, a civil service position was such a sinecure that applications (or should that be supplicants) approached each qualifying exam and screening interview with a sense of deference or fear. Hiring managers often believed that applicants “should be glad we’re even looking at them, this is such a golden opportunity” - and behaved that way during the hiring process.

Well, the world has changed. Many applicants have no fear in criticizing what they see as a flawed process. Clearly, Mr. Reid was entitled to bring the email to light and highlight the inherent insensitivity of the comment about him.

But other applicants feel no reticence in highlighting unprofessional behaviour in the hiring process. Like this commenter on the Torontoist blog, who applied for the same job as Mr. Reid:

“However, when i was interviewed i was absolutely dumbstruck by Ms. Siu’s lack of professionalism. The interview process was basically Ms. Siu and her colleague, who both seemed to be recent grads themselves, and their supervisor who seemed like d a legitimate government employee of several years. They made it clear that i would have to impress all three in order to get my second interview, and questions were shared equally between the three.

Anyway, the problems came when their supervisor had to leave half way during the interview, and Siu and her colleague began joking around. Hey, i love jokes, initially they were doing a great deal to put me at ease, as i’m generally very tense in an interview. But they just kept going with it to the point where Siu was pretending to collapse drunk on the table and all focus was taken off asking me questions and trying to find out if i was the right person for the job, which was why I was there. When the questions did return to me, at least one of the questions ask was an illegal on as set forth by the ministry of labor, or however if in charge of making such guidelines (see, very under qualified for the job.) The question asked was “How do you plan on getting to work each day?” which as innocent as it sounds, cannot be asked in an interview situation. Now, should not the Ontario Government be following the same rules as its given all other HR departments in the province?”

In the past, most civil services tried to recruit from the same informal network of candidates and applicants - people with similar educational, social and economic backgrounds.

Today, we have tried to cast our net wider, to expand the range of interests, expertise and experience recruited into the civil service.

And, thanks to online technologies, candidates and applicants can continue to share information, caution and criticism about the jobs (and the managers) on offer.

h/t to Accordion Guy

Tony Blair has delivered the last in his “Our Nation’s Future” lectures and it has launched some debate in the British press and online. It’s easy for me, as a Canadian, to simply overlook the impact of Alastair Campbell’s message machine, the repurcussions from the Hutton Inquiry and the increasingly antagonistic media environment in the United Kingdom.

So I will, because I think Blair makes clear that the increasingly polarised relationship between politicians and the media is having a significant effect on the work of civil servants.

First, I want to point out that Blair introduces the speech on YouTube. That’s unusual - providing “b” roll as a commentator - on your own speech. The total text is available online, as is a video. But here is an important excerpt:

“…The final consequence of all of this is that it is rare today to find balance in the media. Things, people, issues, stories, are all black and white. Life’s usual grey is almost entirely absent. “Some good, some bad”; “some things going right, some going wrong”: these are concepts alien to today’s reporting. It’s a triumph or a disaster. A problem is “a crisis”. A setback is a policy “in tatters”. A criticism, “a savage attack”.

NGOs and pundits know that unless they are prepared to go over the top, they shouldn’t venture out at all. Talk to any public service leader - especially in the NHS or the field of law and order - and they will tell you not that they mind the criticism, but they become totally demoralised by the completely unbalanced nature of it.

It is becoming worse? Again, I would say, yes. In my 10 years, I’ve noticed all these elements evolve with ever greater momentum.

It used to be thought - and I include myself in this - that help was on the horizon. New forms of communication would provide new outlets to by-pass the increasingly shrill tenor of the traditional media. In fact, the new forms can be even more pernicious, less balanced, more intent on the latest conspiracy theory multiplied by five.”

The MediaGuardian’s OrganGrinder blog provides a summary of reaction from British media.

For example, the Guardian’s leader supports my point:

“…Mr Blair’s heartfelt homily deserves a more serious response. His words will have struck a sympathetic chord, not simply among people in public life, frustrated at the way their words and deeds are mediated, but among a broad section of readers and viewers as well…”

More, but from the Times:

“… There has been a democratisation of content but this has come with a hint of the mess of postmodernism. It can lead to a collective stampede that is frequently an unattractive spectacle. The press should be more willing to admit that most politicians enter public life out of a sincere desire to improve the lives of their fellow citizens and that they often have to make decisions with less time and less information than they would wish. None of us is perfect in this respect. …”

Here’s an innovative approach to the commercialisation of government data and publications: a U.S. not-for-profit is asking consumers to order their government documents, data and video through them. Public.Resource.Org will then seed those documents online, making them available to everyone.

I don’t know if this approach will be viable around the globe. Apparently, the U.S. government does not retain copyright on its publications. In Canada, many agencies retain Crown copyright and nominally require that permission be secured before their doucments are duplicated.

 Pointer from MarginalRevolution.

David Armano has been building out an argument for the role of a “community architect” at his Logic + Emotion blog. BusinessWeek has given him a chance to speak to a more general audience this week, and many of Armano’s clear and informative graphics accompany the piece.

The image above is taken from a presentation, Emerging Media’s Impact on the Customer Experience, that Armano prepared for a MarketingProfs webinar last week.

Bob Glaza posted some observations after participating in the webinar:

“The obvious - and foremost - thing for us to remember is we serve people. Whatever our vocation, calling, job, gig - call it what you will - if we are not putting people first - it won’t work. We might call them customer, consumers, readers…but cut to the chase…and its people. And people want good experiences. Part of a good experience is good design. In order to help create good experiences, we need to be good designers. Design is not about making something look good - thought that is part of it - but its more about creating an experience that is pleasurable. “

While Glaza was referring to marketers and more consumer-oriented marketers, his comments apply equally well to the role of government communicators.

As well, Armano’s emphasis on conversation architects, instead of conversation managers, points to a weakness of many of the plans developed by government communicators: a belief that we can manage a conversation at all. Or even manage the environment around messaging and interaction with our stakeholders.

As I’m finishing this post, I’ve realized that Armano’s The End of Thought of Leadership, posted today, provides a perfect capstone to this observation:

“In the conversation economy, dialogue rules. Monologue, and rehearsed presentations play second fiddle. An academic or corporate pedigree is nice—but really doesn’t matter. If you have something valuable to say and you are willing to listen, share and participate—then you have the opportunity to “submit” your ideas and be heard.

These are the new rules of the conversation age, or economy or whatever you want to call it. This is why, if you have adverse reactions when you hear strange words like “blogging” or “twittering”—then you are a fool. I’m sorry but it’s true. I’m not saying that we should all jump on the bandwagon of the latest buzzword or technology that gets thrown out there. I’m actually saying the opposite. We need to investigate the latest tools to the best of our abilities and decide how they impact our own worlds. The blogging movement was never about blogging in the first place—it’s about a new way to share, connect, collaborate, discuss, debate, and ideate.” (Logic + Emotion)

Government communicators have a lot of experience in playing within the ” traditional thought leadership model”: the model that emphasizes formal relationships, detailed policy documents and carefully choreographed private and public dialogues.

Our challenge is to learn how to play within both this traditional model and as participants in a newer, looser, more reactive online environment.

We’re no longer the refs in the conversation game: we’re not even linesmen. We either learn how to dribble, pass, lateral or shoot - or we go home.

Stakeholder relations. Consultations. Public outreach. Town hall meetings. There are countless ways that government organizations claim they are building a dialogue with their citizens and partners. With the growth of online tools and communities, though, the opportunities for contact and feedback have exploded.

The tech community has recognized the challenge this poses to the normal pattern of interaction with customers/clients/citizens. Many of these companies are exploring the idea of a “community manager” to help their organization build effective relationships with these groups.

This is a concept and role that will become vitally important to government communicators (and others) as we grapple with the same changes in our relationship with our citizens and partners. I hope to discuss the implications, the application, and the complications of this technological and societal change in future posts.

For the moment, I’d like to point to several resources that help introduce the role of community manager:

• Jeremiah Owyang’s discussion of the “Customer/Community + Evangelist/Advocate/Manager/Guy/Girl“
• Tara Hunt’s presentation on community marketing at ETech. (make sure to view the slideshow)
• Jake McKee’s Customer Interaction Manifesto.
• Christopher Salazar’s “Who can be a community evangelist.”

One recurring theme to note in all of these materials:

Sometimes, a community manager must push against institutional lethargy, traditionalist obstinance or stubborn pig-headedness in the name of the client/customer/citizen.

It’s often hard to find training and development materials designed for government communicators and available on the web. By that, I mean free. Or low-cost. There are plenty of products and events produced for the public sector, but at quite a cost. $2500 conferences. $250 webinars. $80 photocopied packages of award-winning cases.

The breadth of public relations material and debate available online certainly helps, but these materials often need to be customized to fit the particular qualities of our working environment. Clearly, we’re professional communicators, public relations specialists, and marketers, but our workload often demands competence in a variety of specialized skills.

Corporate social responsibility? Seems awfully familiar to people working on accountability and stewardship files. Community relations? That’s well-trodden ground for municipal flacks working on zoning disputes. Crisis Communications? Try working for a police department, transportation investigation board or the armed forces. Community building? Try talking to some communicators who specialize in public health issues.

That’s why my RSS subscriptions dig into a number of blogs with specialized topics. One group with particular relevance to government PR are community and issues activists: putting all issue-specific quarrels aside (please?), both activists and government communicators honestly want to encourage a two-way conversation on issues important to society.

And, frankly, it seems that these groups and their sponsors are preparing more material and making it available online. Like the latest report from the Communications Leadership Institute.

Discovering the Activation Point, as Green Media Toolshed explains, helps groups find the point where constituents, members and supporters will actually take action in support of an issue. A sample:

• What are you trying to persuade people to do?
• What is the smallest number of people you need to activate to get what
you want?
• How can they be persuaded?
• How many audience segments do they break into?
• Do they bring others with them (i.e., are they a social reference group)?
• How can you test your requested action to make sure it will compel
your audience target?

The report is available after a free registration, and is well worth the download.