On Trump Cards and Gatekeepers

Make no mistake our culture is one largely defined by trump cards and gatekeepers. You undoubtedly have run into one or the other, or perhaps more rightly, the latter deploying the former as some sort of delay tactic, tripping you up on whatever you are working on. For the uninitiated, the term trump card can refer to any sort of action, authority, or policy which automatically prevails over all others" (source: wikipedia) whereas a gatekeeper is someone who controls access to something (e.g. funding, approval, the next stage) (source: wikipedia).


Common trump cards

In the government’s technology space, common trump cards include (but aren't limited to) IT security, accessibility, official languages, privacy or access to information laws. I have run into countless gatekeepers during my travails through the public service; people who overemphasize their concerns, reference a policy in some abstract way, and suffocate your line of thinking in its infancy (not even a project, but a line of thinking!).

 At this point in the argument I should probably say that not everyone who occupies a position as a gatekeeper acts strictly as an organizational brakeman. There are good ones out there, ones who will cite concerns, relate them to a specific subsection of the relevant policy document, and either propose an alternative or develop a mitigation strategy (or perhaps even an amendment to the policy!). What follows isn't advice aimed at helping you deal with those types of people, because quite frankly (and you'd probably agree), they are approaching their work the right way. That being said, if you want to move beyond your organization’s brakemen (gatekeepers) you need to be able to push back on them, ask insightful questions, and ask them to cite with precision the points of contention between the legislation, regulation, or policy and the line of thinking you are proposing. 

The reason trump cards are so effective is that we understand them collectively to be a final answer. If you want to undermine their utility you simply have to stop accepting them as a the final resolution to a problem. This takes courage, and can make gatekeepers uneasy because they have grown accustomed to using trump cards as a conversation ender; my challenge to you is to use them as a conversation starter.


But this problem isn't unique to the technology space in government, its emblematic of the entire culture.

This is just a caveat to illustrate the pervasive nature of trump cards and gatekeeping. A few months ago I took a photograph in the lobby of a government building. I was outside the security checkpoint, I didn't photograph anyone, nor did I capture any security equipment. I was immediately approached by security who told me I wasn't allowed to photograph the lobby area, citing that it was against policy. He didn't tell me which one, nor did I ask, but as he approached me (presumably to ask me to erase the photograph) I informed him that I was an employee and showed him my ID badge. He glanced at it quickly, retracted his statement and proceeded back behind the security desk. I was (and still am) completely dumbfounded. What policy was he referring to? What were the specifics? How did it differ because I was an employee?




Originally published by Nick Charney at cpsrenewal.casubscribe/connect

Public service renewal: the weekly round-up

For the week of September 19 - 23, 2011

If you’re involved in public service renewal – or just a curious bystander – here's the run down of stuff you'll want to read and do this week.

To do:

Sign up (as soon as possible!) for an inexpensive (read: $5) opportunity to scheme virtuously and network at: Beyond the Kool-Aid: Open Government? Space is limited and conversation promises to be dynamic. Join experts from Google, other levels of government and Mediastyle to talk Government 2.0; while the ideas have been discussed over and over, for many it feels as if little progress is being made. Where do we go from here?

Join us: Now that school has started we’re gearing up for yet another #w2p mixer, this time with a different twist. Mark your calendars for September 28 where the #w2p community will be mixing it up with the Advanced Leadership Program.

To read:

• The Future of the Federal Workforce: can we apply the cloud model to the PS workforce?

• On cuts: Federal unions launch petition drive to call on Clement to put critical services and the long-term social safety first.

• Junk the jargon, cut the clichés and use plain English – a new tone of voice would help so many public organizations

• The U.S. is having a national dialogue on improving government web sites - and there are loads of fabulous ideas to be found on the site.

Have a great week!

This post has been a collaborative effort from Lee-Anne Peluk and Nicholas Charney.You can check out Lee-Anne's blog "In the Shuffle" at www.leeannepeluk.wordpress.com

subscribe/connect

The Rise and Fall of Public Sector Youth Groups

I've spent a lot of time around departmental youth groups since joining the public service; I've launched them, provided informal advice to chairs, and spoken at national conferences. My general observation is that public sector youth groups are forged out of a deep sense of frustration that plagues many new public servants. It is a frustration born out of over-promising during intake, under-delivering after the hire is made, and otherwise muddling through the logistical details of the on-boarding process (e.g. office space, ID badge, computer login credentials that often aren't ready; managers with no time or materials to brief you with; and no clear articulation of duties in relation to mandate). Back in 2008, I interviewed a new hire who put it thusly:

"Despite coming in really pumped from the recruitment process, the first week on the job was very slow. My manager was away and the rest of the team generally kept to themselves. I spent the first week eating lunch alone."

To be fair, I doubt everyone's experience is terrible, however I would say that my own initial experience and many of the stories others have shared with me of theirs confirms the sentiment of the text cited above. In fact, one could argue that the trajectory of new public servants is not too dissimilar from the 5 stages of grief:

1. Denial: This can't actually be this bad, people wouldn't just sit back and let themselves be treated like this. 
2. Anger: This is bullshit; management needs to get their heads out of their arses and fix this. 
3. Bargaining: Maybe if I give it a year it will get better. Everything moves slowly here, I'll just give it a year. 
4. Depression: The organization is so broken. Change is hopeless. I'll just self-medicate with coffee and cigarettes.
5. Acceptance: (a) Retire on the job or (b) Quit or (c) Fight the good fight.

Enter Public Sector Youth Groups

Public sector youth groups are likely to form when you have recruitment efforts that result in large numbers of new recruits entering the organization at the same time because they generally proceed through these stages together. When everything is unfamiliar to them, they tend to coalesce with other new employees because they share a common experience: their relative newness to the organization. My sense is that most youth groups are the formal end point of what starts out as an informal assembly of new friends and colleagues sharing shit stories over beers about how they perceive themselves to be (rightly or wrongly) under-appreciated, under-utilized and over-managed. Yet, if it is empirically true that youth groups form out of a common sense of dissatisfaction or unrest, then their very existence can be construed as evidence that there is something inherently wrong with the organization.

My observation is that as new recruits proceed through the Kubler-Ross stages of grief, they build affinity for one another and the group increases in size. Upon reaching the 5th stage (acceptance) the group starts to move towards collective action (provided they decided to fight the good fight). These actions usually start around the periphery of the organization, and focus in on activities that senior managers wouldn't blink an eye at (social events, lunch and learns, charity events, etc). These activities do a couple of things for new hires: First it gets them out of their cubicles and allows them to meet other people all over the organization; and second, it provides them with unique opportunities to showcase their talents outside those cubicles. In short, participation in youth groups brings exposure, and exposure brings opportunities.

Moreover, many of the youth group coordinators I have spoken to over the years have expressed a deep disdain for doing the actual work within the youth group, but see that work as a means to an end. They see it as the stepping stone to get away from the work at the core of their desk, work they often have an even deeper disdain for. What happens next is what we usually call serendipity, but given the circumstances, is the logical climax of the story line: the on-display abilities of new recruits are noticed, and subsequently they move on to higher-profile jobs. This movement has two related impacts. The first is that these now not-so-new hires are less dissatisfied with the overall status quo because their own lot has ameliorated (i.e. they have been satiated for the time being). The second is that they now have additional responsibilities so they have less time to invest in the youth group and related activities. In short, their interest in and ability to participate are lessened. This is how most youth groups disband, the majority of the drivers move onto bigger and better things and the group loses its critical mass until the next batch of new recruits is hired and inevitably stumbles upon the novel idea of forming a youth group, allowing the cycle to simply repeat itself.

To be honest I don't have a lofty conclusion, I just thought this was an observation worth sharing.






Originally published by Nick Charney at cpsrenewal.casubscribe/connect