Selling Government 2.0 - Some lessons from the past.

This morning I was pointed to an article by Steve Radick on the "20 uses of Social Media in Government 2.0". My initial reaction was that its heart was in the right place, but it was also easy to lampoon if you were a skeptic. To work it also has to appeal to the head - ie to be adopted in the organisational space just appealing to passion is not enough, there has to be a more "rational" rationale.

I've gone through the points one by one to try and add this rationale, or point out what is required. Its not meant to be an attack on the writer, more a "build on work of those who have gone before" sort of thing. Its in the style of scrilbbles in the margin, that one may make.

(I'm speaking from the point of view of having more than a few scars from implementing new systems and effecting change over 20 years or so in organisations - Social Media is one of a long line of good ideas with great promise that may still founder)

Anyway, on to the 20 points (in italics) and my comments:

1. The risks of social media are greatly outweighed by the risks of NOT doing social media.

This is an assertion with no proof given, and thus unfortunately lacks credibility as it is a device used by all who would pimp something new, for good or ill, material or inconsequential. Recall also Machiavelli's words about steadfast bolstering of the existing vs lukewarm support of the new. To be credible the statement needs to be backed up with a summary of WHAT the expected benefits are, and WHY the risks of not doing social media are so great.

2. Your Government agency/organization/group/branch/division is not unique. You do not work in a place that just can’t just use social media because your data is too sensitive. You do not work in an environment where social media will never work. Your challenges, while unique to you, are not unique to the government.

Too general, and thus easy to pick holes in - there are clearly some parts of government where information is very sensitive. In fact, there are even parts of government where social media probably is not appropriate. Loses impact because of this blanket assertion, and also because Social media's benefits are not explained..

3. You will work with skeptics and other people who want to see social media fail because the transparency and authenticity will expose their weaknesses.

Absolutely. And with skeptics of many other things. But not all are skeptics because they are scared of something exposing their weaknesses, and to tacitly imply this is the case again makes it into a faith based argument - "believe or be an infidel" - that puts off any neutral and gives ammunition to naysayers. Better to grab the Machiavellian view of the dynamics, as noted above.

4. You will work with people who want to get involved with social media for all the wrong reasons. They will see it as an opportunity to advance their own their careers, to make more money, or to show off. These people will be more dangerous to your efforts than the biggest skeptic.

Yes, but these are also the some of the key supporters you will need initially, because very few people behave altrusitically (zealotically?) - most want to see payback. If you don't embrace this reality you are unlikely to get critical mass early on, and will also be blocked by people who don't see the point of handing you the keys to key resources without a transfer of benefits. Its called organisational politics ....

5. Younger employees are not necessarily any more knowledgeable about social media than older employees. Stop assuming that they are.

True. And that assumption also cuts down your likely recruiting base. Also, don't assume all young employees are friends of Social Media or care very much about it either.

6. Before going out and hiring any social media “consultants,” assume that there is already someone within your organization who is actively using social media and who is very passionate about it. Find them, use them, engage them. These are the people who will make or break your foray into social media.

Very sensible first step, economically sensible and brings potential early champions into the camp - but remember that consultants also fulfil a number of useful roles - bringing in credibility via outside case studies, being able to say things no one in the organisation can, giving credibility to the project via neutral, rigorous work (well, some do anyway)

7. Mistakes can and will be made (a lot). Stop trying to create safeguards to eliminate the possibility of mistakes and instead concentrate on how to deal with them when they are made.

True re mistakes being made, but understand that mistakes in the early days of an untested, controversial project will usually kill it. It is critical to manage air-cover and manage the message. The two time honoured models are skunkworks (hidden) and Top Dog support (essential for bigger projects). Ideally a big rollout should only occur once some skunkworks have proved the concept.

8. Information security is a very real and valid concern. Do NOT take this lightly.

Typical - one line on it and then back to the sunny Social Media uplands .

This is one of the biggest obstacles Social Media faces, and it really has to deal with it squarely upfront and constantly in the process. There is very poor reconciliation between Privacy requirements and Social Media functionality today, and this area needs to be far better sorted before organisations will feel comfortable. In my view the rules for consumer Social Media Privacy are not fit for purpose for organisations and need a lot more thinking through.

9. Policies are not written in stone. With justification, passion, and knowledge, policies and rules can and should be changed. Sometimes it’s as easy as asking, but other times will require a knockdown, drag-out fight. Both are important.

True - but also, recall that to fight the good fight it is also good to swing a big axe as well. If there is sound business rationale and demonstration of benefit elsewhere it is a lot easier to make one's case. The words "Return On Investment" (ROI) need to be taken to heart by Social Media people wanting to change things.

10. Be humble. You don’t know everything so stop trying to pretend that you do. It’s ok to be wrong.

It is also necessary to understand that much of what we understand today about Social Media is very early days, and is likely to be wrong as it moves out of Consumerspace into Organisationspace. It is going to be changed as well as change things

11. But, be confident. Know what you know and don’t back down. You will be challenged by skeptics and others who do not care and/or understand social media. Do not let them discourage you.

Confidence is good, but will run out of gas when hard questions arise. One needs to understand the arguments of the skeptics, and be able to refute them rationally, ideally with examples. Calling them no hopers who don't "get it" will just reinforce their views that its all bollocks. For neutrals, it is usually enough to show that there is potential of benefit to themselves and/or the organisational bit they are in.


12. There are true social media champions throughout the government. Find them. Talk to them. Learn from them.

And outside of ones own government - and on that, its more useful to look at Social media success in Enterprises than in the consumer space as examples.

13. Government 2.0 is not a new concept. It’s getting so much attention now because social media has given a voice to the ambitious, the innovative, and the creative people within the government.

And because "Web 2.0" has give a Vox to the Populi, which is rattling many governments. Also, Governments see it as a potential way to cut costs massively. Recall what we said about ROI? If Social Media can step up to that plate, it has a great potential future.....

14. Social media is not about the technology but what the technology enables.


If the technology doesn't work, or is clunky, most people will never adopt it and it will die at birth

15. Social media is not driven by the position, the title, or the department, it’s driven by the person. Stop trying to pidgeon-hole into one team or department, and instead think of a way to bring together people from across your organization.


Implementing stuff cross-functionally in the early days is a nightmare. Even if you get a Top Dog pushing the project, silo heads probably won't collaborate. Look instead to have successful small pilots in politically homogenous areas (or among interested parties in a small value chain) first.

16. Instead of marketing your social media capabilities, skills, experience, platforms, software, etc. to the government, why don’t you try talking with them? An honest conversation will be remembered for far longer than a PowerPoint presentation.

Personal Comms is all very well, but actually, most busy people with responsibility will have an operating mode something like "Show me the beef. Don't care how you do it. Just do it." When I worked in large organisations I didn't have time for all the people who "just wanted a chat". I wanted to see what they had, upfront, before any talking happened. Powerpoint presentations work well for that.

17. Today’s employees will probably spend five minutes during the workday talking to their friends on Facebook or watching the latest YouTube video. Today’s employees will also probably spend an hour at 10:00 at night answering emails or responding to a work-related blog post. Assume that your employees are good people who want to do the right thing and who take pride in their work.


Sadly, anyone who has spent any time in organisations knows that employees run the gamut from sleazy shirkers to gung-ho boy scouts. In my view its better not to make statements like this, it comes across as ideological, or even worse, naive. We need to show how these systems will "nudge" the majority of the people towards good behaviours and ensure the bad apples can't spoil the barrel.

18. Agency Secretaries and Department Heads are big boys and girls. They should be able to have direct conversations with their workforce without having to jump through hoops to do so.

They are also busy boys and girls, so one of the things they will be worried about is the time spent in having all these conversations, and the incremental costs of them. They thus have to be offset against time and cost benefits elsewhere. Social Media costs money to run - community managers etc - and this needs to be itemised upfront.

19. Transparency, participatory, collaborative - these terms do not refer only to the end state; they refer to the process used to get there as well. It’s ok to have debates, arguments, and disagreements about the best way to go about achieving “Government 2.0.” Diverse perspectives, opinions, and beliefs should be embraced and talked about openly.

Yes and no - decision architectures show that some decisions are big, some are small, some need to be done quickly and others can be done over time. And some have to be done in confidence.

Heavily socialised decisions typically are slow (see note below), leaky and can have high transaction costs - not ideal if the decisions required are short term, small and/or confidential.

Note - it is possible to make "crowdsourced" decisions fast, but there is then increasing risk of crowd insanity rather than wisdom coming into play, and one also has to have checks and balances against the activists who will always try and carry an issue.

20. It’s not enough to just allow negative feedback on your blog or website, you also have to do something about it. This might mean engaging in a conversation about why person X feels this way or (gasp!) making a change to an outdated policy. Don’t just listen to what the public has to say, you have to also care about it too.

There is a reason why governments are careful about promises they make, whereas oppositions and apostles spread promises and solutions around liberally. Its called execution authority, and that needs resources, which are always limited. The worry will be that Social Media interactions will drive all sorts of potential commitments that have to be resourced and delivered, without it being clear that those asking for these things (i) represent any silent majority or are just a strident minority and (ii) will not be satisfied anyway no matter what you do. Social Media enthusiasts have to be able to quantify these costs, outline strategies to manage them, and show the benefits that offset them.

In summary, my conclusions are that Social Media needs to "show the beef" now to be taken seriously, and that means:

- Articulating the benefits
- Being honest about the costs and implementation issues
- Showing where and how the ROI occurs
- Dealing with the privacy issues (social, legal, operational, technical, regulatory) that an organisation faces - its a whole order of magnitude harder than consumer privacy.

Do this and it will be implemented. Fail at these hurdles and it will be another great idea, that would have been amazing if only those idiots had "got it".

So, thats my 20p worth. Comments, Criticisms, Creative suggestions welcome. Big thought though is that Passion is great for recruiting consumers and organisational visionaries , but Prosaic and Practical is what wins in the long run if its implementation and change one wants.