How Exactly Does One Collaborate With Government?

Obama has declared that Government will be Transparent, Collaborative, and Participative. But exactly how we do that remains to emerge. It seem like I'm not the only one who is experiencing the new administration as a force field with a gravity which is pulling me into formation...

Mike Parker, a disabled veteran in rural Indiana, called me at work last week. He'd found me on the web because of an article which I wrote about the history of the Forest Service Enterprise Program. Mike Parker has an idea about turning woodchips into an energy source and creating jobs in his county, where some factories have recently shut down. Mike Parker wants to be part of the solution. He wants to collaborate and participate, but he doesn't know how to "play the game".

I have a soft spot in my heart for people who feel passionate and driven and want to contribute to solutions, so I'm doing what I can to find someone in the agency to talk with Mike about his idea and how to carry it forward. I know that the agency's portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA - the economic stimulus bill) is meant to be used for three main things: 1) create jobs, 2) reduce hazardous fuels (to prevent wildfires), and 3) explore woody biomass as an alternate energy source. So Mike and the Forest Service seem like a good fit, and our new President wants people like Mike to be able to participate.

Here's the frustrating part. Our government is a huge, complex, and unwieldly system which moves very slowly. In order for a citizen to interact with us in an effective way they must possess an extreme amount of patience and some could argue a higher education. I personally think that government is one of many systems which are undergoing major turbulence right now because of its own ineffectiveness, but that's another post altogether.

My team is now getting involved in creating communications products for internal use about the agency's role in economic stimulus. I'm supposted to bend my noodle toward supporting Forest Service employees in understanding our new roles and how to be successful. I'm not exactly tasked with communicating with the public. But tell that to Mike Parker, or to the lady at the coffee shop, or to my neighbors who know I work for the government. Our 35,000 employees are the face and voice of the agency. There's not just a few controllable entry points to pre-packaged and manageable information about the agency's role in Economic Recovery. Any one who wears a green uniform to a grocery store has just become the spokes person for the entire government.

We must tackle our social media learning curve ASAP in order to create containers for all of this stimulating dialogue. We also must support employees in having very basic answers for all their neighbors questions. We are a "can do" organization, we'll find a way to be successful. I just worry that some of us will die trying (stress is one of the top health concerns in the nation).

Government: Transparent, Collaborative, Participative

On Friday, along with millions of other federal employees, I received a memo from Obama stating that government shall be transparent, collaborative, and participative. This is very exciting news and promises to maximize social media, such as blogging. Of course, everyone has heard by now that Obama is also the first blogging president.

Conceptually, I really support and understand the idea of things becoming more transparent, collaborative, and participative. I'll admit I'm not an expert at most social media platforms, but I consider myself an early adopter. I'm taking time to become more familiar because this seems to be the way of things. But, as open and adaptive as I like to think I am, I'm still experiencing resistance and confusion around how to fully realize the next era of effective communications.

I'm experiencing uncertainty around a number of big questions. Let's start with transparency. Who exactly should be transparent and how transparent should one be? I love the idea of having close to real time data in line-by-line transactions on the web where any American can go and see how the dollars are being spent. And I love the idea of reading blogs written by executive leaders. In both cases, people don't have to actually read either of these -- simply knowing its available increases the perception of being trustworthy. Let's take the case of Forest Service leaders blogging. I've been advocating this for a couple of years now. I want to hear weekly updates about what the Chief of the Forest Service has been doing, who she met with, what conferences she attended, etc. I want to hear her reflect upon the trends and dynamics she witnessed. I want to feel like I'm sitting in her office when the light bulb clicks on and she realizes that there is a connection between what she saw on Monday and what she felt on Wednesday.

But that's not how blogging is going in the agency. So far it's been very sporadic. The few blogging executives seem to post once every few months and when they write it seems white-washed and safe... like all the other internal publications. It's easy for me to understand why: it's scary to be that open! The reason why transparency builds trust so quickly is that transparency requires vulnerability!

I'm no executive, and there aren't 35,000 employees being reminded that there's a blog they could check out. Yet I'm still experiencing fear and resistance around this new media. Intuitively I know that we humans are striving to actualize new forms of networked intelligence and collective consciousness. I know that my own knowledge is only as valuable to the collective as it is accessible to the collective. And yet I am having a miniature identity crisis in the process of making myself accessible to the collective!

All in one week I've been asked if I had a FaceBook profile... by a professional contact, a spiritual friend, and my sister-in-law. I don't have a FaceBook profile because I can't figure out how to relate to each of these three kinds of contacts as myself. My sister-in-law could care less about the professional jargon-laiden side of my life. And my colleagues could be uncomfortable if exposed to something about my spiritual beliefs. What's really ironic is that I want to just be one person! I want to feel safe being who I am... without that jeopardizing my effectiveness.

But in order to be an active participant in this vibrant and dynamic web of connection, community, and co-creation, I absolutely must put myself out there. And if I want to feel whole and honor my whole self, should I put it all out there? I must not be the only person who is trying to balance all of this.

I believe that it is a travesty of human experience that we are discouraged from being our entire selves in the work place. It is yet another form of fragmentation which needs to be healed in order for us to achieve our highest potentials as individuals and groups. I advocate for a balance in the 5 dimensions of well-being: mental, physical, spiritual, emotional, and social. Emotional wellbeing, for example, finally entered the workplace in a more meaningful way when Daniel Goleman's work on emotional intelligence became popular in the mid 1990s. Physical wellbeing has been supported by employers for considerably longer because of the clear linkages between health and productivity. Mental wellbeing is an unspoken requisite for becoming and remaining employed. Social wellbeing is left to the individuals and differs greatly depending on personality types and the culture of the organization. Spiritual wellbeing is generally not touched by a 10 foot pole within organizations. There are good reasons for (and plenty of scar tissue around) the separation of church and state.

I don't really have a good way to conclude this post... other than owning the fact that I'm standing on the edge of a precipice and I won't be able to lead others into a new era of effective communication until I'm willing to leap into the uncertainty myself.