It never fails. Just when my faith in the innate goodness of human beings starts to soar and I begin to think that just maybe we can all play nicely in the sandbox, the crap hits the fan.  Not too long ago I was watching a Twitter exchange between two prominent, intelligent people who locked horns over a pretty hot topic. Things got a bit heated between them but never really crossed the boundaries of polite, albeit tense, conversation.

Ta da! Enter the troll.  I don’t know why this surprises me. I swear I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday or anything but still it shocked me that someone would stoop to name calling, blatant racism and general lunacy. The troll isn’t a new invention, we’ve all seen them. I guess  I just thought that now that social media is more ingrained in our culture, and in particular our business and political culture, that this troll stuff was as passé as ‘jumping the shark’.  

 So, I did a quick Google search about etiquette and social media. There’s still quite a bit to read on the subject as it turns out. Some articles focus on what they refer to as “cocktail” party etiquette, i.e. don’t be the guy in the room who talks only about themself and promotes their own interests shamelessly. Others helpfully remind us that Twitter and Facebook are public forums and therefore they are open to the public.  Thanks for the tip folks.

 Is it really that there’s just a jerk in every crowd who has to ruin what could be an interesting, heated, and grown-up dialogue? Does anonymity really breed stupidity?  What does someone gain by being an internet troll? Fame? I hate to break it to the trolls out there but we don’t know who you are and therefore the notoriety you hope to gain by being a moron doesn’t really touch the real you.  Perhaps that’s the lure? And, if you’re so brave and so intent on trashing people, why not have the courage to show us who you are?  Then we could put a face to the faux wisdom you dispense so willingly. This concept of the troll is a bit different to me than the stories we hear about people pretending to be someone they’re not, or dead when in fact they didn’t exist at all (poor Manti Te’o).  That’s a whole other story!

 I think it just makes me sad that anyone would want to use these wonderful platforms we have to trash others.  Social media is a powerful tool, we all know that. It’s a tool that provides us with so many opportunities to do good work, and of course lots of people do great work using social media. It affords us the chance to have a discussion with someone we might not ordinarily be able to talk to, and to engage with people who aren’t like us or part of our social circles. Right now we all get to hear from Commander Chris Hadfield‏ (@Cmdr_Hadfield) who tweets the most amazing pictures and provides us with his perspective as someone living in space. How cool is this? Why would anyone want to ruin something that has this kind of power? 

I think I’ll leave the last words to George Carlin, “Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist.”

As many of you know, I spent about 10 years in the Civil Service in Nova Scotia, and during that time I had occasion to meet a wide variety of individuals who advocated on behalf of an equally wide range of causes. One of the things that always struck me about my interactions with some people outside of government was their lack of knowledge about how to communicate with government on a very basic level. This inability to effectively communicate was not isolated to individuals in small grassroots organizations – the misconceptions about how government hears, understands, and acts on issues is widespread, occurring even among the highest levels of academia.

The problem of communication, of speaking the same language to accomplish a goal, generally acquiring government support for ideas or movements, is one that I worked hard to rectify. I tried very hard to translate the needs of stakeholders into the language of government, and offer guidance on what is and is not effective in communicating ideas and soliciting support from representatives of government.  I had cause to return to the topic recently during my current project, as it became clear that there was an expectation that as long as the correct individuals were identified, the message in whatever form would be conveyed effectively. That isn’t the case. Often convincing government of the wisdom or efficacy of a project or plan is not dependent on the content of the message; rather it is dependent on the delivery. What you say is important, but how you say it is critical.

I decided, therefore, to jot down a few pointers that people can use when approaching government – a quick course in government relations. If you keep certain things in mind, your communications with government will be more effective, and you will have a better chance of reaching your goals. My experience is at the provincial level for the most part, but I have worked often enough on federal-provincial and regional committees to know that certain rules hold true more often than not.

When communicating with government, keep the following things in mind:

• Clarity: I have often seen people approach government officials with great ideas, only to have them fail because the presenters took things for granted – for example, specialized jargon, or the ‘lingo’ of a profession.  Let’s say I want to convince you that the IMDB is a great source of information that has made certain choices easier to make, or led me to make choices that I wouldn’t ordinarily have made. Many of you doubtless know I am referring to the Internet Movie Data Base, but those of you who didn’t may wonder what sort of influence a website may have over me. When you present an idea or concept, consider the fact that the audience may not be intimately familiar with the subject matter. Even if they are, keep it simple and to the point; spell out acronyms and use plain language, not technical jargon, when speaking. Support will only come if officials understand what you are saying.

• Brevity: Again, some ideas are great, some not so great, and many of both types can be dismissed if they are presented badly or in a slide presentation that makes “War and Peace” seem like a commercial. As Shakespeare said, “Brevity is the soul of wit”. Consider that if you are a high-ranking government official who has been able to clear time in her schedule to hear some proposals based on recommendations from staff, what you want is to be given the highlights, and to have time to ask questions that will ensure that the presentation makes sense and can be remembered later. Take the time beforehand to ensure a presentation or a report is not bogged down in detail. Particularly on the initial exposure, if more detail is wanted, most senior civil servants that I know will not be shy about asking questions.

• Information At The Ready: So, given that you will be asked questions if you have done your job right up until now, do you have the answers? Based on your audience, all of the details may not be in your presentation – but do you have them close at hand when you need them? If I were to give anyone presenting to government one piece of advice, it would be this: if you don’t know with some certainty how much your idea will cost, you haven’t a chance of getting very far.  Approximations are fine, within reason. If you tell me something will cost between five dollars and one million dollars, my next response will be to wish you a nice day and send you packing. The two questions you need to be able to answer will be: “How much will it cost?” and “What’s the evidence in support of the idea?” One of the most important things to keep in mind when presenting to a provincial audience is whether your idea has been tried in other provinces – we’re all one big happy Canadian family, but families can be competitive – provinces certainly are.

• Know Your Audience: How you present information to government can be largely dependent on who your audience is. Of course, you are communicating with “government”, but the cultures within government can be rather different if you differentiate between junior, mid-level or senior civil servants. In my experience, junior civil servants actually do the work – should you be successful in ‘selling’ an idea, you should expect to work closely with them to make it happen. However, they can’t make decisions, only recommendations. Mid-level civil servants will be the ones who order actions to be taken, as they supervise the junior levels. They can help or hamper you based on their level of interest in a project or idea – these are the people who will want the detailed budgets before they jump aboard and commit their staff to making recommendations based on the evidence you provide. They don’t make the big decisions either, although their support will carry a lot of weight if senior officials need to be convinced. Senior officials, all the way up to Deputy Ministers, are the real decision makers. Most of them that I’ve met and gotten to know have been incredibly intelligent, did not suffer fools gladly, and had the capacity to be utterly ruthless in ensuring that government funds are spent wisely.  Don’t get me wrong though: they are still human beings at the end of the day – parents, grandparents, wives, husbands. They are experienced, professional politicians, even more political than the actual elected officials. An idea stands or falls with the endorsement of a Deputy Minister.

• Time is Relative: This may be somewhat of a cliché, but the reality is that government time is considerably slower than the time the rest of the world uses. This isn’t a result of disinterest on the part of the individuals who work with government (I have in my career met far more dedicated, energetic civil servants than lazy or uninterested ones) but there is the reality of the checks and balances that exist to protect the public trust – for my part, I always took my role as a steward of the public trust very seriously, and it was important to me that I knew that what I was doing created benefit and minimized waste. In addition to the financial accountability and transparency necessary to move things forward (which requires considerable detail work), there is still political influence to deal with. Although it may sound a little strange, one truth I have come away with is that politics were the worst part of governing. An idea may be wonderful, but unless it is also politically popular, your chances of success become lessened. In any case, don’t expect the wheels to have turned fully by tomorrow. It takes time to work things through the political and financial processes that are the everyday reality of government, so if you have a big idea that you believe will save the world and you approach the government for support, get comfortable, you’re in for a long ride in most cases.

There are other considerations, of course, and one must always consider the individual climate of each jurisdiction when tailoring a message, but for the most part these are the main considerations anyone who needs to interact with government must keep in mind. We’re fortunate here at Monkeytree to have experienced consultants like Monkey leader Andrea and I to help individuals and organizations work with government effectively – Government Relations is one of the more fascinating areas of our expertise, and one that can have clear and tangible benefits. As with any important interaction, sometimes finding a good translator is half the battle.

What I’m about to say may seem self-evident or even silly, but is more important than many people and organizations realize: never underestimate the power of effective policies and governance.

I am currently engaged with an incredibly talented and intelligent group of experts who have been charged with creating an online educational program for first responders in the fields of Health (Doctors, Nurses, Technicians), Psychosocial (which is to say Social Workers, Clergy, Psychologists) and Communications (Social and Traditional Media). The online course will promote interprofessional learning and provide opportunities for simulated responses to mock disasters through interactive games which would engage teams from around the world – the project has support from experts in the UK, Italy, the United States, Israel and others.  The project began with a core team of individuals meeting somewhat informally and has grown and gained momentum over the past few months. At one point, it was possible to hold the meetings and make decisions  somewhat informally, but this project has quickly achieved and surpassed the critical stage where more formal structures have to be introduced; the level of complexity of the tasks required has outpaced the ability of informal rules to keep up.

My job on this project, given my background in government policy and legislation and my role as a non-content-expert in any of the fields concerned, is not to contribute to the knowledge base of the project as much as it is to facilitate all aspects of project operations. My role is to ensure that the project maintains efficiency in decision making and has a sufficient level of documentation to support the project’s goals, as well as to create policies that ensure transparency and accountability for the project as a whole. Creating these policies, and the underlying structures to support them, has been a source of some consternation on the part of some team members, but ultimately they understand just how important good governance is to the project as a whole, and how I can make their jobs easier. My job is, to use my favorite metaphor, to put the bones into the boneless chicken.

This got me to thinking: why is governance – clear, effective structures and policies to tie them together – so important? An organization undertakes the development of such structures and policies for several reasons:

1. Clarity: Any organization must have a clear chain of command; even groups which make decisions based on consensus must have a clear method of achieving it, and of achieving sufficient input from members. It is also important to know what happens when consensus doesn’t work, or is inappropriate. What does a vote look like? Is it a simple majority? Are some members excluded? It isn’t necessary to memorize Robert’s Rules of Order, but believe me, it helps if everyone knows how decisions are made and by whom.
2. Efficiency: As in the example of the committee I am working with, there comes a time when the tasks at hand may become too broad for one group to tackle without getting bogged down in micromanaging the minutiae of day-to-day operations. When that time comes, it is important to know what individual or group of individuals will have responsibility for completing certain tasks and reporting back to the main committee. Letting smaller subcommittees or trusted individuals deal with smaller, more specialized items will make the work of any committee go much more smoothly.
3. Transparency: This is particularly important when dealing with government or other granting agencies. Clear and concise policies can be crucial in spelling out who is responsible for what and when, and in de-mystifying the processes undertaken by project members to accomplish tasks such as purchasing or even disciplinary matters. The more complicated or arcane your methods are, the less confidence others are likely to have in regard to the integrity of your team. The more easily understood your rules, methods and responsible parties are, the better the impression you can give – and the more trust you gain.
4. Accountability: Going hand-in-hand with #3, accountability is a must. Everyone must know and understand what their roles are and how that fits within the structure of the overall project. Roles and responsibilities must be well understood, as well as how they can work together most efficiently and effectively. For example, if two committees or teams within a large project need to interact because their mandates overlap, is it more effective to have a single liaison between the teams, or do they meet jointly? Clarifying such things as points of contact can save the potential time wasted by repeating the same actions multiple times in multiple settings and ensuring communication follows proper channels. Ideally, everyone knows what they are responsible for, who they should talk to if they need help in a particular area, and what the outcome of the project in relation to their role should look like. Accountability, besides contributing to external confidence as in #3, also can help morale within teams – everyone knows their role is important and that they are contributing in a meaningful way.
5. Legacy: Like it or not, all of us won’t be here forever. If we want long-term projects to have any chance of success even with the inevitable change in personnel, policies and structures must be easily understood and maintained and revised when necessary (more on that in a moment). Coming from government, I can remember at least one instance when a particular course of action we had undertaken was questioned. Without a clear understanding of who made or implemented a decision, and the rationale for doing so, not to mention an adequate support structure, we were locked into performing a particular activity just because ‘it had always been done that way’. That was an embarrassing situation for someone like me, who took my role as a steward of the public trust very seriously. The situation stopped being transparent, or accountable, or even rational, because of the failure of institutional memory.

So, organizations undertake the development of a governance structure with the above in mind; can we say, however, that once the policies are written that the task of governance is complete? Of course we can’t. it is crucial that the policies and structures evolve with the task – policies should be ‘living’ documents that are dusted off on a regular basis and examined to ensure that they still meet the needs and more importantly support the goals of the project. This is, of course, the ideal case; often the policies are revised on a more urgent basis, in response to an unforeseen circumstance. One of the key points to remember when creating policies is that you must make it clear who is responsible for maintaining and updating the policy and how that is accomplished. It may seem a trifle self-referential or circular, but the ability to amend policies easily in response to unexpected events will inevitably prove very, very valuable.

During my career with the civil service in Nova Scotia, I had become an expert in legislative matters: from submitting requests to Cabinet to actually writing legislation and regulations (for which I was given a citation by the Department of Justice). Generally speaking, if things needed to be done in the area of legislation or procedure, I was the go-to guy. It was always exciting to me to be involved in the development of new legislation; the process of discussion among my colleagues and experts was always fascinating. One habit that can easily develop, however, is attempting to account for every possible scenario that could potentially occur under the legislation. It is a noble effort, but ultimately due to fail – humans make policies and laws, and humans are fallible. An Assistant Deputy Minister who was a friend and mentor to me during my time at labour and Advanced Education always stopped us going down the wrong path by calling upon the “alien scenario”. Quite simply, he would smile and look at us all feverishly thinking up scenarios and simply ask, “and what if an alien lands?” You simply cannot anticipate every scenario, no matter how far-fetched. We certainly did the best we could, and as it turns out did quite well in anticipating problems thanks to the expertise utilized along the way, but in the end we recognized that new and unexpected things can always arise when the rubber hits the proverbial road.

Recently, changes to provincial legislation have necessitated changes within organizations; specifically, health professions have had to adapt and change to become self-governing under omnibus health regulation legislation. While this is good news for the public and for professions, it places a burden on practitioners and administrators who may not be prepared to undertake the changes necessary; in particular, they may not be familiar with how effective policies and structures that will fulfill the requirements of government are created. When I joined the online education project, I was concerned at first because I didn’t understand all of the nuances that each specialty was bringing to the table – it was too much knowledge to absorb. It was a great relief to realize early on that my role is not to be an expert, but to facilitate the work of the real experts. It quickly becomes apparent just how important ensuring things run smoothly can be. The experts on the committee are the parts in the machine, but you are the grease that keeps things moving along. It may appear to be a ‘killjoy’ type of job, making sure the creative and intelligent folks toe the line – but there is a great satisfaction to be gained by seeing others being able to work to their full potential because of the stage you set for them.

That’s why I am so happy to be able to play that role – I and others at Monkeytree bring years of experience to the table, and that is something we take pride in, because it’s a role that I believe we play better than anyone else – putting the proverbial bones in the boneless chickens.