The real problem of facelessness

by Nick Charney

---

I wrote a few weeks ago about the facelessness of bureaucrats (See: How Can Bureaucrats Be Interesting When the World Demands that they be Boring), the ensuing conversation focused a lot on the question of whether or not bureaucrats can remain faceless given the pressures of the new media environment. What I've come to realize since then is that its the wrong question to be asking.

Bureaucratic cultures are indeed defined by facelessness

But not the facelessness between individual public servants and the public they serve but rather among and between individual public servants themselves. By this I mean that facelessness isn't some abstract problem out there where we interface with the public, but rather a very real problem in here where we interact with one another.

I may be wrong, but I can't help but wonder if we are slowly coming to the conclusion that our self-isolating, postmodern and deconstructivist organizational cultures are no longer tenable. That it is no longer sufficient to accept as given the close reading and even closer enforcement of rules without reference to the cultural, ideological, and moral opinions of those who first brought those rules to bear. In the words of Derrida, "Il n'y a pas de hors-texte" (there is no such thing as outside-of-the-text) is no longer a cultural pillar we can build around.

In other words, are we realizing that we need to move away from facelessness and rehumanize the civil service? Is this the mountain that may or may not be ready to move? (See: Moving Public Service Mountains, Part 1)

I can't say for sure, but I get the sense that it may be time to shift rewards away from the cold comforts of facelessness and the predictability that rules, frameworks and protocols afford. Make no mistake, these things are still needed, but they ought to be used to build platforms for civil servants and public services to stand on proudly, not cast shadows for them to hide in.

The most obvious and important realities are often are the ones that are hardest to see and talk about. 

Above is an excerpt from a new take on a commencement speech given by David Foster Wallace that went viral last week.

Watch it (embedded below)

Its simple, effective and drives home the discussion I think we ought to be having about problem of facelessness and the deference to "the default setting" of our shared office cultures. It also does it in a far more convincing manner than I ever could.

What We Don't Know

by Kent Aitken

---

I was supposed to continue a previous thread about what is happening, right now, in Canadian Public Service [See: Moving Public Service Mountains, Part I]. Wasn't on my mind tonight. I'll get back to it.

Have you ever read Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson?

It's an amazing book, both for content and impact. It was fundamental to environmental movements, and gets much credit for the ban on DDT in the 1970s.

Over the past few weeks, many people in my circles have touched on the question of whether knowledge workers are losing an appreciation for genuine, deep understanding. The alternative, it seems, is a reliance on statistics, data sets, frameworks, and processes*. Most poignantly, a commenter on a previous post referred to the onset of “methodolatry.” [See: Rearranging the Briefing Room Chairs on the Bonaventure.]

I started thinking of case studies of the need for such understanding from the world of organizations, particularly in the context of change initiatives, but kept returning to Silent Spring.

Silent Spring

The management framework and data analyses were clear: insects were causing massive problems to plant life in the United States. Chemical pesticides, including DDT, could be applied in concentrations low enough to kill the insects, but not the plants they were feeding on. What Silent Spring brought to the public attention was that, unfortunately, there was an element missing from the understanding. What ended up happening was that other animals that ate the insects in massive quantities, particularly birds, eventually hit lethal concentrations of the chemicals and started dying, too. This disrupted the natural check on the insect population and threw the ecosystem out of whack.

Poor results resulting from an inaccurate or incomplete understanding of the environment. This happens in the world of organizations, too: businesses, governments, and civil groups. I'd like to explore some cautionary tales, and some counterpoint success stories.

Modern Medicine in the Developing World**

Timothy Prestero's design team developed a simple treatment for infant jaundice, which was bathing them in blue light. They built a great device to do so, and started trying to implement it. What they didn't realize is that, if there is room in a device for more than one infant, a terribly overwhelmed hospital in a developing country is going to crowd three infants in and dampen the intended effect. After righting this misconception, and a litany of others, they came out with a top-notch solution. By talking to distributors, manufacturers, hospital administrators, mothers, doctors, and watching the device used in action. A lot.

The tech specs said the original version was an incredible device. But they didn't account for what people actually do. It's not “the device in action.” It's “the device used in action.”

Really, the necessity of dealing with people, notoriously complex entities they are, throws a gigantic wrench in the best laid plans. Deep understanding is irreplaceable.

Transforming the NYPD

William Bratton took over the Police Commissioner role in NYC in 1994, when the force was in a sorry state. The turnaround he managed is amazing, captured in one of Harvard Business Review's top ten must-reads, Tipping Point Leadership.

“Yet in less than two years, and without an increase in his budget, Bill Bratton turned New York into the safest large city in the nation. Between 1994 and 1996, felony crime fell 39%; murders, 50%; and theft, 35%. Gallup polls reported that public confidence in the NYPD jumped from 37% to 73%, even as internal surveys showed job satisfaction in the police department reaching an all-time high.”

The first change described in the HBR article is that he started requiring NYPD officers to ride the subway, even though the statistics showed they were the venue for relatively little crime. But the subways felt unsafe, and it sensitized officers to what life was like for those they served.

There are three massive points to consider here.

1. The statistics, without additional strategic thought, would not have led to this action.
2. The goal was to build a genuine understanding.
3. Specifically, the goal wasn't to build a genuine understanding for the Police Commissioner himself. It was to help front-line officers build that for themselves.

Which leads to my next case study.

Canada's Homeless Partnership Strategy (HPS)

The Homelessness Partnering Strategy is an interesting example of a community-based approach to “a wicked problem***.” Former Clerk of the Privy Council Jocelyn Bourgon describes it as showing:

“...how states can address complex issues by applying power through others (via funding) and with others (through processes of collective governance)... the federal government's efforts involved very little direct action but a great deal of capacity building for local action.”

The Senate currently holds HPS up as a success story and a model on which to build.

Some problems are simply too complex for one-size-fits-all solutions, and having stakeholders involved in the decision-making builds legitimacy for decisions. It creates adaptability in the system for things that are working or not working. A doctor on Prestero's design team (one from the hospitals that would use the device) would have exposed the shortcomings. If a loudmouth Mockingbird**** was on the U.S. Science Advisory Committee when DDT was being applied around the country, the unintended effects would have been known far quicker.

One official for the HPS got this, saying that there was “more known outside of Ottawa than inside.”

The lesson from Bratton and the HPS (organizations far larger than Prestero's design team) is that the top of the hierarchy doesn't need to try to understand everything. But they do need to make sure that, collectively, the organization understands as much as possible. And they should constantly wonder about what, and how much, it doesn't.

The Critical Path to Corporate Renewal

The 1990 book The Critical Path to Corporate Renewal attempted the academic approach***** to understanding how positive change happens. Studying six large organizations that had pivoted dramatically, with various levels of success, the authors came up with six success factors:

1. Mobilize commitment to change through joint diagnosis of business problems
2. Develop a shared vision of how to organize and manage for competitiveness
3. Foster consensus for the new vision, competence to enact it, and cohesion to move it along
4. Spread revitalization to all departments without pushing it from the top
5. Institutionalize revitalization through formal policies, systems, and structures
6. Monitor and adjust strategies in response to problems in the revitalization process

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. So yes, I'm biased because this has been on my mind this week, but with the exception of #5, this list reads like an emphasis on deep understanding, with a significant degree of engagement with the front line, and with stakeholders.

Think of change initiatives you've witnessed, or experienced. What worked? What didn't? What elements of this list were present?

How were communications pieces, data sets, frameworks, and tools being used (by, as we've established, notoriously complex people who do not always use tools as intended), where the rubber met the road?

How did the strategists and champions know, and get feedback about, that front line use?

What we don't know, and don't understand, would fill a boat with no hull.

How do we mitigate that?

* Don't get me wrong. I love data. Heck, I have a borderline uncomfortable relationship with it. But I also like context.

** Please continue to not get me wrong. The term "developing world" is debatable, and at best, an oversimplification. 

*** Interestingly, the data wasn't even available to show how big of a problem this was. Bourgon's book describes homelessness as a complex function of "poverty, housing, health, mental health and the security of communities."

**** Link is to poet Rives summing TED 2006, and contains, perhaps, my favourite line from any TED talk. It's about recording everyone's conversations with a Mockingbird, and then getting a key to the city: "And that is all I need. Because if I get that, I can unlock the air. I'll listen for what's missing. And I'll put it there." The role of the artist, redux.

***** Yes, in the context of this post I should be preaching caution towards data. But it's always worth thinking about.

Open Government: Be Bold, Innovate and Engage [Video]

by Nick Charney

---

As a part of the Federal Youth Network Armchair series, the Honourable Tony Clement delivered a presentation at the Canada School of Public Service entitled Open Government: Be Bold, Innovate and Engage; I thought it was worth sharing:

Cheers

Moving Public Service Mountains, Part I

by Kent Aitken

---

This post will be part one of at least two. Next week I'll explain why I believe this is so incredibly important.

At The Museum of Nature in Ottawa, visitors can simulate an earthquake in the Vale Earth Gallery. You turn a crank to pull a spring-loaded hunk of simulated mountain over a surface, and at some point the force overcomes the friction and it slams back into place. The intended lesson is that it's impossible to predict exactly when the tipping point will be reached; each experiment plays out differently.

On To The Dogs or Whoever I referred to a possible “tectonic” shift approaching for public service. I can see the possibility of a very different model for how the bureaucracy functions, develops policy, interacts with Canadians, and creates a competitive advantage for Canada. And in the last few weeks, I've discovered that others have the same hunch. People arrived at this prediction from two very different roads, some on account of mounting evidence, and some from feeling the increasing weight of necessity.

But like the museum counterpart, it's hard to tell if that tectonic shift is actually about to happen. If this mountain worth of inertia is about to move. Or if it needs a shove.

Holmes! A CLUE

Some of the evidence I would point to:

• I've noticed some outspokenness from former Clerks of the Privy Council lately. Mel Cappe has called for Canada to respect its faceless bureaucrats. Alex Himelfarb, to celebrate public service [see: Can Bureaucrats Be Interesting When The World Demands That They Be Boring?]. Another, Jocelyn Bourgon, launched the New Synthesis Project to work with partner countries to explore the future for bureaucracies. Her 2011 release, A New Synthesis of Public Administration, paints a fascinating portrait of the world in store for us, and it looks quite unlike today [see: Is There a Gap Between What We Know and What We Do?].

• Throughout 2013, a Deputy Minister Committee on Social Media and Policy Development will be soliciting input on how public servants carry out a key function in today's world.

• It was recently announced that Deputy Minister Robert Fonberg would join the Privy Council Office with a specific mandate to examine the broader policy development model.

• The Seventh Report of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on the Public Service has “modernizing the employment model” as its theme, going so far as to say that the current model is “outmoded in every respect.” The focus, they say, is “managing for high performance at all levels.” I'll admit that my optimism about progress here is cautious, but it is optimism all the same.

• Treasury Board President Tony Clement has echoed the above report's priorities; performance management is on his radar as well. He's also encouraging public servants to push against the status quo, and to innovate.

• Lastly. Last week, the Clerk's Twentieth Report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada was released. It left us with a teaser of announcements to come, presumably during National Public Service Week in June:

“I believe that we need a clear and shared vision of what Canada’s Public Service should become in the decades ahead,” the Clerk wrote, adding that Deputy Ministers have been tasked with engaging “all public servants in this important dialogue about our shared future.”

Some may greet this litany of anecdotes with skepticism. One could point to Public Service Renewal, the push for a strengthened public service that launched in 2006 or 2007, and ask how far we've come. Is today any different?

Necessity is the Mother of Innovation

On the necessity side, I feel that we have a better grasp now of the mounting need for committed renewal:

• Deloitte's William Eggers highlights, in his Public Sector, Disrupted report, that government is the one sector of economy where innovation has not pushed down costs.

• Samara's research suggests that the number of Canadians satisfied in the way Canadian democracy works dropped from 75% to 55%, in only 10 years.

• Research from Nanos also puts Canadian's level of trust in public servants at record lows. Only 14% surveyed responded that they had a distinctly positive view of the role of Public Servants in developing public policy.

• The rate of mental health related absences in the public service is 300% what it is in private sector*.

All is not necessarily well. I would go so far as to suggest that the status quo is a risky position. So what's next?

Mountains to Move

So here stand we. Staring at a mountain that may, or may not, be ready to move.

We know that it needs to, and we have some forces pushing. It could be another Public Service Renewal, in which we never quite leaned in enough to overcome our inertia. But we have that lesson learned to build on, and the rules have changed. We have black swans proving the possible: there is a Deputy Minister conversing frankly and openly with public servants of all levels and backgrounds about policy development on GCConnex. Another deputy head has resoundingly proven the worth of employee engagement through honest, personal social media interaction. Pictures of cats and all. And the silo-defying, self-organizing GC community is stronger than ever, and has a science fair of success stories to showcase.

Often, we don't know what we don't know [see: The Importance of Being Earnest (and Open)]. And that (unnecessarily) incomplete picture of the world leads to pitfalls and obstacles; in this case, additional friction holding this mountain back. But today, that cold fact is increasingly recognized, and input is being widely solicited. I think we have a unique opportunity now to create discussion.

I don't want to look back, years from now, and wonder if that mountain was ready to go. If all it needed was one more good shove.

*I'd like to unpack that last one for a moment. When I first heard that figure, I found myself wondering how much was due to a safe and generous benefits system, and how much was due to mental health issues. Not that either exists in a vacuum. If a portion is due to the benefits system, it makes me wonder how many of our private sector peers are suffering through untreated mental illness because they are worried about losing jobs, or because they don't have needed benefits. And I'm certain that the system, alone, doesn't explain the discrepancy between public and private rates. Public servants are also more likely to binge drink, which is indicative of stress and mental health issues (although income and education levels impact here as well). There's a direct, and significant, correlation between engagement levels and absenteeism. And there are links between one's perception of control over their jobs and their health. I believe that mental health issues for public servants are a genuine issue and merit significant concern.

The Public Promise of Big Data

by Nick Charney

---

Right now the web is awash with articles about Big Data; it seems like everyone is getting caught up in the rush.

I myself even declared that Big Data will become one of the most important policy inputs over the next 10 years (See: Big Data, Social Media, and the Long Tail of Public Policy).

From what I've read thus far, Big data seems to be most most effective in systems that are stable over time and abrupt shifts are often to blame when big data goes astray.

For government that means that there could be broad ranging implications for not only large scale changes (e.g. the cancellation of the long form census) but also smaller changes in methodology (or even phraseology) that breaks up data that could otherwise be used in longitudinal studies (e.g. changes to the questions asked in Public Service Employee Survey between 2005 and 2008).

As governments inevitably learn more about the importance of Big Data they may find that decisions made in the past - even those made by past governments or long retired bureaucrats - that were originally thought to be relatively straight forward may actually have had a number of unanticipated consequences.

Therefore in the interim, current governments (and their bureaucrats) may want to consider to stay the course with current data collection efforts, ensure any new data mining (surveying) is backwards compatible and avoid locking data into proprietary systems that are not likely to age well.

But big data is not, as they say about every new thing that is expected to eventually make it big, a panacea

Or, as a recent article at the New Yorker's blog put it:

Some problems do genuinely lend themselves to Big Data solutions. The industry has made a huge difference in speech recognition, for example, and is also essential in many of the things that Google and Amazon do; the Higgs Boson wouldn't have been discovered without it. Big Data can be especially helpful in systems that are consistent over time, with straightforward and well-characterized properties, little unpredictable variation, and relatively little underlying complexity.

But not every problem fits those criteria; unpredictability, complexity, and abrupt shifts over time can lead even the largest data astray. Big Data is a powerful tool for inferring correlations, not a magic wand for inferring causality.

In other words, Big Data can help policy makers better formulate their options, not make their decisions for them. I think it is worth quoting the New Yorker further:

As one [skeptic put it], Big Data is a great gig for charlatans, because they never have to admit to being wrong. “If their system fails to provide predictive insight, it’s not their models, it’s an issue with your data.” You didn't have enough data, there was too much noise, you measured the wrong things. The list of excuses can be long.

The quotation shows what is likely the introduction of 'data quality' as a likely scapegoat for poor or unpopular decisions and drives home the importance of data literacy for not only bureaucrats and politicians but also for citizens.

That said, what the quotation fails to address (likely by design, as it wasn't written specifically for a public policy audience) is the fact that the introduction of more complex data may actually increase decision gridlock by creating paralysis by big data analysis.


For example, what happens in the inevitable case where big data fails to paint a clear path forward but citizens continue to press for action?

Make no mistake, this is not a hypothetical problem, but rather likely one of the first problems to follow on the heels Big Data becoming a substantial policy input.

To date, (and correct me if I'm wrong) much of the public sector data discussion, and by extension the appification of government services built thereon, has focused mainly on alternative or augmented service delivery models, not public policy development. In a previous post I addressed how data abundance could impact government policy (again, see: Big Data, Social Media, and the Long Tail of Public Policy but given what has been laid out above and the length of the aforementioned article, it bears both repeating and concluding with:

As a starting point, bureaucrats can anticipate a renaissance of the language of data driven decision making within the larger nomenclature of evidence based policy making. Make no mistake, these terms are still very much in vogue in bureaucratic culture but likely require a fresh definition given that the nature of what underlies them – namely the availability of detailed data, and as a consequence analysis – will improve significantly over the foreseeable future. As a conceptual framework, it would look something like this (click to enlarge):

Note that the framework recognizes that data driven decision making must be understood within a larger context. In this type of environment, policy makers will need to consider the types of data being collected, the analysis being performed and decisions being made across all levels of government: municipal, provincial, and federal. Under this type of model, there is a significant probability that analysis will expose untenable points of in-congruence between the highly contextual and specific insights pulled from the intersecting data points and governments’ tendency to pursue universal, one-size-fits-all, policy solutions. In other words, providing policy makers with a deeper understanding of the complexity of a particular public policy challenge is likely to yield equally complex public policy solutions.

That is, after all what we - politicians, civil servants and citizens - are after, isn't it?