Sun, 20 May 2012 22:30:24 -0500WeeblySat, 31 Mar 2012 15:07:40 -0500http://bobbiesmith.ca/1/post/2012/03/responsibilities-and-roles-versus-control-in-public-sector-communications.htmlCommunicators Cannot Do it All. When I worked in the federal public service, I found that as a Communicator, I often faced the expectation that I was responsible for all communications in the department as opposed to the managers who really were the ones responsible. One reason this expectation existed was that sometimes managers were told not to communicate unless it went through our Communications department. 

Another reason was that some Communications Managers believed they should have control over all communications in an organization. I worked in three departments: Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), Health Canada and Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) and found the latter department was most guilty of this charge.

Communicators do not have to orchestrate everything, and while some felt they should know about all communications activities, they sometimes also felt the need to have an element of control over those messages and how they are delivered. Most Communications Managers did not feel this way, in fact, they were often quite happy to share the work.

There is some merit to the public sector Communications shop or branch knowing about all communications activities across a department so they can try to ensure consistent messages and a coordinated approach. However, even if they wanted to, they couldn’t be everywhere since resources are not usually set up to manage that volume of activity.

What if communications officers and advisors had the resources to tackle the volume? That’s a big ‘what-if’, but still, the reality is that they are not always embedded into the program areas and their top offices, meaning their program ADM’s offices, to know what’s going on, when, who’s involved and what’s the best approach to a particular event or activity knowing the audience. In fact, communicators who responded to my initial survey directed at government communicators (2005) reported that up-to-date information from clients on a timely basis was one of the factors that had the greatest impact on their ability to do their jobs. Communicators cannot be expected to provide strategic advice on events or activities about which they do not know anything. I wonder if this is still the situation in 2012?

Communications shops could ‘let go’ of some of that interest in controlling all communications activity and decide to negotiate agreements within the organization so branches and programs can get their work done, allowing advisors also to be plugged in and offer the best possible service. This approach is more decentralized and does have its challenges, but in the end, a shared responsibility may be more effective as long as someone identifies the roles and responsibilities of managers and communicators.

]]>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:19:59 -0500http://bobbiesmith.ca/1/post/2012/02/operating-in-a-bureaucracy-as-a-communicator.htmlWhen Kenneth Kernaghan and David Siegel categorize criticism of bureaucracy in their textbook: Public Administration in Canada (ITP Nelson, 1999), they say the following: “The word bureaucracy normally conjures up images of government employees and organizations characterized by unresponsiveness, inaccessibility, inflexibility, inefficiency, arbitrariness, and empire-building.”

While the authors do highlight some positive comments, this is the one that speaks to me. In general, they are the words to describe what it is like to work in government most of the time. Sure they are times when people are responsive, accessible, flexible, efficient and effective, but because of the system and the culture or the bureaucracy, it feels like most of the time they are not.

The word bureaucracy has a negative connotation. This reputation is well earned.

In plain language, it is largely because of two reasons:

1. How hard it is to get things done quickly and

2. How difficult it is for everyone to know what is going on at the right time.

If an employee at an officer or advisor level has a question or feels the need to raise an important issue, they do not go directly to the Deputy Minister and say: ‘I just wanted to point this out to you,’ at least not without reservations or even repercussions in some places. There are exceptions, but generally, most public servants will not recommend this practice. It is part of the unwritten code of conduct. Thou shalt not communicate directly with anyone higher up than your supervisor.

From the outside this notion may sound ridiculous. How could you possibly get anything done if you have to go through one person for absolutely everything? There are benefits to having one point person to go to for guidance, next steps and support. A good supervisor can give you exactly who you should talk to when and about what, especially if you are just beginning. A great supervisor will give you that if you need it but will also let you do the job – as long as you keep them informed of what you are doing. This sounds simple and it is, but it takes time and energy to keep people up to date. It is such an important part of being a communicator in government that it should be in the job descriptions.

On the inside, while some days you wonder, you realize that it is possible to accomplish plenty but that things are never done quite when you would hope them to be and they often seem to be less effective by the time the activities have been completed. For this reason, the operational role of communications can be a real nightmare.

So instead of going directly to the deputy minister, government employees realize they must communicate the issue to their supervisor only, hoping that the message will get up to the next level or two and back down again, or it will go up and over to a colleague and down through their organization to the officer/advisor level who will take care of it. Whether managers are good at communicating or not, this kind of silo-driven communications can dampen any effort. The issue can become either a moot point by the time it gets to the next person or it can suddenly become a bigger issue.

Whereas if employees were able to establish ongoing lateral communications with people at their level and including their supervisor and one or two levels up as well as the other side to where the message is going, everyone would find out at once. This approach would be much more effective in minimizing issues and in getting things done.
]]>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 03:00:00 -0500http://bobbiesmith.ca/1/post/2012/01/the-link-between-employee-communications-internally-and-employee-reputation-externally.htmlPublic servants have a bad reputation. Ask anyone outside of the public sector what they think of government employees and you’re likely to get a less than positive review. As Tom Shoop, Editor-In-Chief of Government Executive, a US-based blog, wrote in April of this year: “A Rasmussen poll released this week shows that 70 percent of Americans think private sector employees work harder than their counterparts in government.” And while the accusation of not working as hard as private sector employees may be correct, it doesn’t mean that government employees are hardly working, as public opinion tends to imply.

A typical example of public opinion here in Canada shines through this post by Betty White (and ‘liked’ by 117 others) on CBC news online on June 20, 2011, in response to an article about pending public sector layoffs forewarned by Tony Clement: “They could lay off layers and layers and layers of overpaid useless managers that nobody would miss, but instead they will lay off the young, healthy, strong, union workers with the least seniority, who by the way are just starting out with young families.”

It’s sad that this opinion is out there as not everyone is ‘overpaid’ nor ‘useless’. And while some individuals could improve their performance, most government employees want to do a good job. When employees come up against barriers constantly in their efforts to succeed, it can bring the most optimistic employee to a grinding halt.

One of the most important boosters for employee morale and a critical success factor for achieving milestones in government is solid employee communications activity.

Without good internal communications and solid management support, the government employee reputation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy creating a difficult cycle, which can be difficult to break. Employee morale goes low when there is little or poor communications; low morale leads to disengaged, lethargic and unhappy employees and eventually you have employees who aren’t likely to improve this reputation.

Most public servants do want to make a difference, especially when public servants are hired. They really want to change something in their world that can make life easier and better for a citizen: a senior citizen, an Aboriginal or a child and more. Despite what's been revealed in media coverage of the sponsorship scandal and the Gomery Commission, or the Mulroney hearings, among others, most public servants have tremendous respect for taxpayers' money. Over time, the feeling of frustration, lack of power and being beat up in the media largely for what politicians and unions have done can demoralize employees in a system already wrought with plenty of challenges.
]]>Sun, 11 Dec 2011 03:00:00 -0500http://bobbiesmith.ca/1/post/2011/12/the-more-authority-you-have-the-greater-the-positive-role-you-can-play.htmlI say this to managers in government:
The more authority you’ve been given, the wider your scope of impact on improving the system. The bigger your role, the greater the positive result you can have on employees and improving ‘the system.’

The system definitely plays a role; and at no time does its impact feel stronger than when you are immersed in it. The system actually has a feel to it. It lives. It breathes on you. You feel surrounded by nameless layers of approval, endless lists of procedures and countless FTEs (Full-Time Equivalents) who can’t answer your questions. The system is real, there’s no doubt about that, but it is as real as the people who inhabit it and it can be changed.

I am not referring to the power you may or may not have in your title, but in your people. Your impact will always be the greatest with your employees. The most positive thing you can do as a manager in the public service is to inspire, motivate and communicate with your employees to the point where they feel satisfied at work.

Don't be afraid.

This role is not one you have been encouraged to play. Perhaps verbally you’ve been encouraged to do so but in reality, you’ve seen mixed messages. You’ve read the body language. You’ve seen the behaviour of your superiors; you’ve figured out that a manager must say how important good communications is, but oddly must only pass on certain pieces of appropriately-deemed information at the appropriate time. You are constantly told you must communicate with your employees and you must do it well. What if you have nothing to say at the moment? Perhaps you’re waiting to be inspired?

As a supervisor, middle manager, senior manager, director, executive or whatever your title, your ability to play that critical communications and leadership role for your employees will determine whether or not there is significant progress in the Government of Canada. If you have the will, the persistence (or patience) and the courage, you can improve the lives of government employees and in turn you can improve the lives of Canadians.

So the centre of this blog is not about the gap between managers and employees of the public service. It’s about what can happen in the Government of Canada when managers like you own the process and the results.

Improving internal communications in the federal public service is not a field or subject area that is saturated. While writers have covered topics such as leadership, management and business transformation in public sector organizations, which does get into communications and engagement, no one has ever focused solely on Internal Communications in the Government of Canada in an independent way.

I want to show employees, potential government communicators, consultants and senior managers inside and outside of government that it is possible to work around some aspects of the infrastructure in place, but only if people accept new ways of working and if the culture can shift.

I believe managers are willing to consider options for improving their internal communications at every level of government and in private companies, but are you willing to act on these possibilities?

]]>Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:05:39 -0500http://bobbiesmith.ca/1/post/2011/11/people-play-a-more-important-role-than-the-system-in-federal-government.htmlPhil Jenkins a talented Ottawa-based writer once told me “you need to find your centre when you write a book.” In his book: An Acre of Time, one acre of controversial land on Lebreton Flats was his centre. Everything focused on that piece of land and all the activities that took place over the centuries. It’s a fabulous read that takes the reader through everything from the insects to the inspectors who walked across that land. The mark they left or removed from the land was as important as their own existence.

I believe the same can be said for a blog. Blogs without a centre quickly become the rants of a scattered brain and readers like focus. Although I admit there could be the odd rant that takes place here.

At first, I thought the centre of this blog might be the communications divide between senior managers and employees, but focusing on the airspace between thousands of managers and thousands of employees would only be deflecting the responsibility for changing our communications ways away from people and instead onto an inanimate, abstract concept. Why should anyone be responsible for change if there is no focus on people? It’s too easy to say it’s the system or the culture. That means you’re giving up and saying there’s nothing anyone can do. I believe there are things people can do.

I have decided to focus on the federal government. I spent six years in the Government of Canada (2000-2006) working mostly in internal communications and my experience inspired a search for knowledge, understanding and solutions. I admit that I felt overwhelmed by the obstacles I encountered at the time and needed a creative outlet to capture ideas that could inspire me and perhaps others. As a result, I drafted more than a hundred pages of material and let it sit for the last six years. It’s time to unearth it and perhaps discover if it is still relevant, if there are solutions, principles, ideas or concepts that can be shared and used today.

People play a more important role than the system, but only if they choose to. 
]]>Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:41:12 -0500http://bobbiesmith.ca/1/post/2011/11/people-dont-have-time-to-read-muck.html What is muck?

It is intriguing the number of definitions of 'muck'. To me, muck is a mess of text that somebody else expects me to slog through to get their message. I might even want to receive the message but the format, writing and delivery is so inconsumable, I'm turned off by the first trail of muck across the top of the page, or the subject line of an email message.

To the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, muck is many things:

1. soft, moist, farmyard manure. We all know what that really is.
2. slimy dirt or filth.
3. defamatory remarks or writings. This one is interesting. I am not implying that defamatory remarks are the ones with inconsumables messages that turn me off. Defamatory remarks that are completely consumable would ALSO turn me off. I'm talking about writing that is cumbersome to read.
4. rubbish, nonsense. Now we're getting close!
5. dark, highly-organic soil, aka MUD. Yes. Who wants mud?!
6. synonym: gunk. Very appropriate.
7. material removed in the process of excavating or mining. Yes, think of what Mike faces during his show: Dirty Jobs: Muck, which a capital 'M'.

Now translate this nasty idea of muck into the world of writing in business, reading business materials and how much text and content we all write and read in the usual day-to-day routines of our work lives. That's a lot of muck, because, I don't know about you but not a lot of it is very...appealing.

My goal in life is to write for companies who understand that the muck gets in the way of their key stakeholder relationships and their ability to have a profound impact on their bottom line. We have become a 'text-dependent' society. Words are what make the world go around. They are what change the world. But if you're sharing muck instead, who knows what your audiences are thinking.

Don't be a stick in the mud. Reach out to a professional. We can help.
]]>