If you could start with a blank sheet of paper…
For many, the challenge of spreading the impact and value of Government 2.0 is not about the technology (although there are plenty of challenges there of course) but about the way public servants behave in the more open and collaborative world of social networking. Culture change is key, we’re told.
Only this week, at a conference in Canberra on Government 2.0, Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner (one of the Ministers who commissioned this task Force) said that public servants “should feel free and encouraged to engage in robust professional discussion online.” Yet as discussion later in the conference bore out, the reality is that doesn’t always happen.
The question then becomes how best to provide guidance to public servants so they can be more active and confident as contributors to the conversations and interactions in the spreading online communities of influence and practice?
Many organisations in public, private and community sectors have developed guidance about social media and online engagement (http://laurelpapworth.com/enterprise-list-of-40-social-media-staff-guidelines/or http://socialmediagovernance.com/policies.php.) And there are guidelines already in place from the Australian Public Service Commission, currently under review (Circular 2008/8: Interim protocols for online media participation).
But imagine for a moment it was your job to create the guidelines that will help public servants engage online. Although you have the examples from other organisations, you are given the rare luxury to start with a blank sheet of paper (at least for this exercise). What would you write? What issues would you include? Where would you start? Who would you talk to?
We’d like to hear your ideas about the kind of guidelines you think would be most useful. You can either write a full set of guidelines or just offer some ideas or items that you think could form part of a larger set of guidelines. And if, in the process, you have any thoughts about the underlying values which the guidelines should reflect and reinforce, feel free to say something about those too.
When you are offering your thoughts, please keep these three constraints in mind:
- The guidelines and values statement should be as short as possible – probably no more than one sentence for each principle, with maybe a few sentences to explain if you think that’s needed.
- Write the statements themselves in a clear, simple style that avoids too much jargon
- Put your ideas to a simple test – would the statements provide useful and reliable guidance to a public servant who wants to get involved online, to be engaged, but wants to do it with confidence and impact. And feel free to illustrate in ‘cameos’ which could be incorporated in supporting materials.
Look forward to your ideas and suggestions.
RSS Feeds
Email Subscriptions
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
table rasa eh?
That’s very unfair of you, believing a culture can be changed by instruction (unless you give me a boy for seven years).
But now we know you’re a catholic, let me try. Leadership is number one, and Lindsey’s a good template.
Where would you start? This committee in aph.gov.au and give them the same toys as they’ve funded for their children.
What issues would you include? Hmmm. I suppose what for? If I wanted a real discussion, I tend to use this doc from Milton.
A cameo? Publicsphere3.
I think the way to go with a new APS Code of Conduct is to have something much more inclusive. The current focus is to much HRish and does not fit with Gov 2.0. Current approaches seem quite inward looking. In short, why not move beyond codes of conduct and the like?
Taking a leaf out of Barak Obama’s book I think we need to start thinking in terms of a compact. Compact 21 – Working Together? Should cover Community : Service (that’s us) : Business
The compact should cover how we all conduct ourselves and should probably be chunked as follows:
Propose – how we conduct ourselves when planning to do something.
Discuss – how we talk to each other when refining courses of action/ideas.
Decide – how we go about deciding which path to take.
Deliver – how we go about delivering to the community, one another and business.
So I guess what this means is having a compact that breaks down the silos and walls – of being more open and inclusive from the ground up.
> public servants “should feel free and encouraged to engage in robust professional discussion online.”
Ha – we can’t get to FaceBook, YouTube, Flickr, or most common discussion forums where I work.
Thanks for the thoughtful query Martin, but I think it contains the answer to the question it raises.
Minister Tanner wants robust professional discussion. This appears to me to be consistent with the current values.
The values already place requirements on public servants to act professionally, honestly and with integrity (for example). In other words, they already facilitate exactly the type of discussion that the Minister is supporting. If that’s the case and public servants are still feeling a little gun shy then I’d suggest that changing the values isn’t going to help. That will change what’s on paper, but getting to the risk averse operating culture that works underneath that is going to be a MUCH harder task.
I guess this is what makes me a little crazy about this debate. Web2.0 is a new medium but I’m really not convinced that it is qualitatively different in conception to all the other public media that public servants work with. We’re still, fundamentally, talking to people, representing the Government, or being private citizens who are mindful still that we have responsibilities to our employer at all times – whether that’s on Facebook on in the letters pages really doesn’t matter.
If that’s the case, then let’s have a little critical thought about precisely where the current set of values is letting us down and what is realistically possible. I say realistically because, let’s face it, Government works in a political setting and it’s never going to let an open slather approach apply; you can’t expect that it will trade off it’s need to be seen to be acting professionally, impartially, and courteously, for example. It will never relax requirements to comply with the law, including discrimination legislation, or significantly relax disclosure and secrecy provisions just because of some new medium.
So, what exactly is wrong with the current set? If you want to simplify them, what would you take away? If you want to clarify them for social media, what would you add (and will that make things simpler)?
Thanks posterboy,
I agree with most of what you’ve said. But Martin didn’t say that getting better guidelines would solve the problem – which as you say is mostly about the culture within which the guidelines are situated.
Still that doesn’t mean that
1) it isn’t a worthwhile task to ask what would they look like if we started with a clean sheet of paper and
2) that a good set of guidelines might not make quite a reasonable contribution.
For instance, the UK Ministry of Defence Online Engagement Guidelines begin “Service and MOD civilian personnel are encouraged to talk about what they do, but within certain limits to protect security, reputation and privacy.” Should we start with something like that?
let’s say that the guidelines began.
Well it wouldn’t bring about a revolution overnight it’s true. It might not change anything much immediately. It is probably not possible to write the guidelines in a way that won’t allow some senior managers who don’t fancy any of this to make life hard for those who are leading on the issue, but it would even up the scales a little, and empower those managers who can see the benefits to encourage others to do it, and, as they say, send a signal. And of course the cultural work on the ground would have to continue if we were to get cultural change. Like you say, cultural work is hard work. It takes time.
Thanks Nicholas.
I think this leaves us in the position where we’re looking at a broader context than just Web2.0 and, rather, are asking the question about what set of values will best encourage public servants to engage productively with the public. This needs to reflect the gamut of those interactions, of which Web2.0 is just a subset.
We should also recognise that there are a couple of other framework issues which do limit the flexibility available:
1. the primary relationship that the values and the rest of the Public Service Act are aimed at is that between the APS and the Government, not the public at large. It sounds odd to emphasise this in this context, but I think it’s important to remember that the allegiances of APS employees are to the law, the Government, and the public in that order. Why? Because when push comes to shove you can bet that the Act will protect that order rather than placing the public before the Government (and this is actually a good thing within the context of representative government theory). So, while disclosure is generally a good thing, Government will always be interested in setting boundaries;
2. whatever values are arrived at will need to work for some 100 APS agencies. They will have their own concerns and some of them will have pretty rickety IT platforms and limited support available. I’m guessing most people on this blog think it’s dumb or anachronistic to block access to YouTube, but I suspect some agencies do it because they don’t have the bandwidth;
3. in terms of the broader debate, we need to distinguish between what is said and how it is said; and
4. we should bear in mind that the Government has a bucket load of related reviews on foot. The most important of these, for my money, is what’s happening in PM&C at the moment with the review of the public service, but there are lots of other things in the ether supporting a move to a more pro-engagement, pro-disclosure environment.
So, given all that, what are the current limitations on APS employees (leaving aside the practically trivial but totemic issue of whether I can use Facebook at work)?
They’re probably less than most people think, and mostly governed by Public Service Regulation 2.1 (which is a part of the broader Code of Conduct). Broadly, they prevent the unauthorised disclosure of material that would prejudice the effective operation of Government or which was received in confidence.
It’s hard to see that changing much. But it still leaves an enormous amount of Government information potentially open to the public if people want it to be that way. It grows even further when information is authorised for disclosure by the agency head.
I guess there’s a lot of debate about whether the current values restrain or enable on-line engagement, but the fact is that they’re mostly silent. When I look through them what I see that’s relevant is the duty to act apolitically, impartially, professionally, ethically, fairly, and courteously, and in a manner sensitive to diversity.
Not much to argue with there, I’d say. Probably better not to attempt to reinvent the wheel and look instead at where progress can be made. It might also be useful to think about how the existing values can be made to work properly.
For example, s10(1)(d) – one of the existing values – provides that
(g) the APS delivers services fairly, effectively, impartially and courteously to the Australian public
I’d argue that at the very least the requirement to act effectively is, in many cases, going to help provide a basis for public servants using blogs as a policy development tool, for example (on the other hand, if it’s not effective, why pursue it?). Rather than changing the values, it might be quicker and easier to think about what the existing ones really mean.
And there are also issues with the Code of Conduct. This limits both what public servants say and how they can say it, requiring
• behaviour that is honest and which has integrity
• care and diligence
• respect and courtesy
• compliance with the law
• confidentiality about dealings with the minister
• avoiding conflicts of interest (real and apparent)
• using Cwlth resources properly
• behaviour that upholds the reputation and values of the APS at all times
and forbidding
• providing false or misleading information
• using inside information to gain a benefit for themselves or anyone else
I don’t think many people would argue with most of these and, as I posted earlier, I think they are unlikely to be abandoned by Government. My belief is that for the most part they work pretty well, but if there is one area of tension it’s probably the intersection of employment roles with private roles and even non-employment professional roles (membership of professional organisations are an example).
I think it will be relatively easy to get people used to the idea of working for the Government in a more open way, even if it does require a generational change and the timescale that implies. If you want to have some explicit statement like the MoD one you volunteered (which in my view does not much more than bring together some of the strands I’ve outlined) then that’s fine and I think probably would make things a little clearer and comfort the anxious.
The trickier issue, I think, is when people want to bag either their agency or the government. At a time like that, I would want them to pause and consider whether that’s really the right thing to do or whether it raises both conflicts of interest and concerns about whether that person can undertake their own job impartially and apolitically. People will always want guidelines that will let them see where the line is and how they can walk it but, to be blunt, I think that’s impossible. Each case is subtly different, and picking the line between what’s acceptable, legitimate comment and what’s not will always depend on the full range of circumstances of each case.
It may sound counter-intuitive but at a time like this it’s often best simply to ask your own agency about whether making public comment is appropriate or not.
Thanks for the comment PB. One of the best comments we’ve managed to attract and I completely agree with pretty much all of it.
I agree that having public servants publicly attacking their agency is not what we’re trying to encourage. On the other hand I think the professional discussion that the Minister was talking about can be about a lot more than discussion strictly within the confines of a professional society or about strictly professional matters – like some point of actuarial calculation or whatever.
It seems to me it would be helpful if public servants were able to participate in broad public discussion about policy matters relevant to their areas, subject to the requirement to being continued to be seen as broadly apolitical.
Some great discussion. A few quick reflections on what’s been raised so far:
1 Web 2 is just another channel which is not qualitatively different; I’m not sure I agree. Web2 creates a cluster of tools, platforms and capabilities that are the closest we’ve yet got to reflecting the human instinct not for ‘broadcasting’ (ie simply using another channel to send messages) but for ‘conversation’ (ie expecting, relishing and adding to an interaction that is not fundamentally controlled by the ‘broadcaster’). Just like many corporates, governments often make the mistake of assuming Web2 is just another channel, only to be confounded by those who understand it best and use it well to have real conversations.
2 The issue about giving public servants guidance and encouragement about the best way to use these new social networking tools with confidence is not about disclosure. I’m not sure why that crept into the discussion. Noone, so far as I know, is arguing that public servants ought to be allowed to disclose secret or confidential information (anymore than I expect to be prohibited from disclosing secret or confidential information about Cisco’s business – and I am!). I think it’s a bit of a red herring. A bit like the point about not bagging your agency in public. Not sure there’s much argument there.
3 I like the point that many of the generic values and prescriptions in the code of conduct may actually not always pose too much of a problem . It may well be that the code/values may not be the issue – it’s a great point and it ought to be tested by some more research. It may have much more to do with those intent on using the code and values statements as a smokescreen for olld-style comand-and-control instincts of prohibition, control and ’spin’. The answer to this conundrum, of course, is empirical. Ask public servants what their experience has been and why they feel reticent about using the social networking tools? Is it because they feel the code of conduct is all wrong or because, for example, their manager has decided to intervene in ways that make it harder, all in the name of the code of conduct? A commitment to some open and widespread research on this would be timely.
4 Admitting that the existing code and guidelines might not always be a problem doesn’t deal, though, with the issue that they remain generic and relatively high level. Aspirational, even. But they deal with generic statements about the behaviour, in genral terms, of public servants. What’s missing is a set of simple, direct, accessible and contemporary statements about the specific opportunities and risks of social media and social networking tools in their own right. And, what’s more, a set of guidelines and advice written by people who know that world well and are intimately familiar with its rhythms and nuances. It’s true that few of the guideline or code of conduct statements could be argued with and, as PB suggests, they reflect attributes that governments are unlikely to retreat from any time soon (and good thing too, for the most part). The real question is not so much what do the current guidelines and code of conduct statements allow me to do or stop me doing. The real question is, given the enduring values associated with being a professional public servant conducting themselves in a suitable mannner, what specific advice is there about the way in which a professional, well-behaved and responsible public servant (that is, one who abides by the code of conduct etc) should engage these wonderful new tools in order to become an even better public servant, but still one who is professional, well-behaved and responsible.
5 It is also an empirical question as to whether public servants can’t access YouTube because of bandwidth, or because the management of some agencies assume that access to YouTube is frivolous and a distraction from real work. Quite soon, if it hasn’ already, the bandwidth excuse is going to run out.
6 The current PM&C initiative on the future of Australian public administration is a key related project, I agree. What I haven’t yet seen is a specific engagement from that initiative to the Govt2 phenomenon (other than some relatively general statements about the role of technology). My sense is that, in some very important and fundamental ways, the future of Australian public administration IS Govt2.0. I’m not sure how widely that view would be shared across the leadershop of the public service not just here but in most countries around the world. One of the striking things about the Obama ascedancy is precisely the way in which the President and his adminstration, at least at the moment, seem to have accepted that proposition as a guiding principle of their wider ambitions for public innovation and reform.
7 A final comment has to do with ‘voice’. I think one of the most beguiling, and sometimes unsettling, characteristics of the Web2.0 world is the way in which ‘voice’ – your online personality if you like – is chosen, defined and accepted. Without going into detail, ‘voice’ can reflect mutliple identities and positions. If you translate that into the world of public administration, that changeability can be confusing and even dangerous. This is because, for the most part, we have assumed up to now that public servants only have one voice when they speak in public, and that is as a representative of their agency. That means they have to be often heavily constrained in what they say because what the do say will always be construed as ‘official’. If Govt2.0 is going to prove to be as transformational as its advocates promise, we are going to have to grapple with this fundamental point. Public servants need to find ‘voices’ which allow them to use their knowledge, expertise and insights – always subject to the basic rules of proper confidentiality etc – to engage in discussions where they can add real value to the quality of a discussion. And part of that process is to make it both easier and more transparent for them to adopt a ‘voice’ that is not representative or official, but much more personal and contextual. I not only think that is necessary but I think it is central to the evolution of some of our core concepts of what it means to be a professional public servant. Simply abiding by the ‘rules’ won’t be enough (although not abiding by the rules, assuming they are the right rules, isn’t acceptable either). If everything we are learning about the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ and the power of ‘crowdsourcing’ is true, and if it is right that im many situations “the network knows more than we do”, then not having these voices in the debate simply because they are effectively prohibited from contributing (even if that is more perceived risk and prohibition than real) is a bad thing. It diminishes the role and professional satisfaction of the indiviual, it robs an agency of new sources of insight and knowledge and it represents a terrible waste of a highly valuable resource. Which is something we keep hearing we can ill afford in the face of a tangle of ‘wicked’ problems rising onto our increasingly crowded policy agenda.
As always, Martin’s comments provoke thought and deserve a response.
1. Web 2 as a facilitator of conversations: No argument that it can do this, but we need to note that there are so many levels of communication between the community and the government. The people who read this blog are interested (some passionately) in conversations; most of the community are much less interested (I’d suggest). Maybe this will change as a result of the possibilities of Web 2, but then remember that the Web 2 usage stats are inflated by anyone who only looks at a YouTube video or a wedding pic on Flickr.
2. Advice about Disclosure is very important. It’s been suggested that guidelines could be simplified to say “Use common sense”, but that’s just not enough. Of course you shouldn’t bag your agency in public, but it will happen.
Here are some possible points inclusion in Guidelines for an open public sector culture
1. Public servants are encouraged to talk openly and publicly about their areas of expertise and professional practice so as to encourage a rich and well informed policy debate.
2. To encourage such debate, public servants who participate in policy debates – whether directly in their area of expertise or outside it – will be regarded as on duty for up to 2 hours per week and this will be regarded as part of the officer’s professional development.
The reason for suggesting this is that part of the reason there is a culture against participating in a government 2.0 debate in public is not just that it’s in public. Similar reluctance to participate infects even debates that are internal if there is no explicit expectation that this is a legitimate use of one’s time within one’s paid working life.
3. No adverse actions will occur in reprisal for anything said in a public debate so long as it is consistent with these guidelines.
4. Public servants who participate in such forums should make clear that, unless a view or stance they express is the policy of their agency, they are expressing a personal view.
5. Public servants should take care not to disclose personal information, information the release of which could prejudice public health or safety, information which must not be disclosed by law, or information the release of which is against the public interest.
6. Public servants participating in such debates should not engage in personal attacks or vilification. They should engage in debate in a spirit of free debate, expressing opinions in a neutral point of view using Wikipedia’s guidelines on this topic.
7. Where a public servant’s views are criticised in the media or by other 3rd parties the agency will indicate in public statements that the officer was expressing a personal view in accordance with these guidelines, and will refrain from criticising the officer even though it may disagree with the policy position an officer has taken (unless the officer has clearly departed from these guidelines).
8. Public servants will not directly criticise the agency by which they are employed, or the government. However, this does not mean that they may not express a personal point of view that may be interepreted as differing from an official government policy.
As a general comment, I believe that the cultural barriers to participation of public servants in web 2.0 debates cannot be solved solely as an issue that is internal to the public sector. A key issue is the way media treat stories about public servants’ private views. If an issue is controversial and a public servant expresses personal views perceived as inconsistent with government policy, this will too easily be used by the media to embarrass the government. This is a real risk for public servants. They will be quite afraid that their advancement will be limited, or worse. In some jurisdictions, senior public servants can be legally dismissed without reasons given.
The level of maturity and comfort with the perception of internal criticism by executive Government, and the immature tendency of media to get an easy story out of mere internal disagreement, will be key variables in changing the culture. And these things are outside the sway of public sector guidelines or values.
That is, the real fear may be that “you say that we are free to comment, but we don’t think you really mean it”.
Finally, let me be clear that these views are my own personal views and not those of the agency by which I am employed.
Looks like this thread’s taking off, which may indicate how many potential sore spots there are.
Fascinating comments, but I do have few things I want to add or clarify.
1. I can’t yet agree that there is a qualitative difference with Web2.0. I can’t accept in particular the apparent view that public servants broadcast rather than converse, even if I look at the broad form of that where I think Martin’s implying that most conversations public servants have with the public are in some way ‘fundamentally controlled’ by the public servant.
This just doesn’t match my experience. Let me give you just two examples from many. Firstly, I run an area which each day gives advice to people about difficult legal and emotional issues they’re bumping up against. My team and I absolutely do not control those conversations, they wander largely wherever our callers wish to go. I think you’d find that anyone who’d worked in or managed a call centre would be similarly sceptical about the conclusion (recognising that I may have missed Martin’s point).
Secondly, in critical areas like policy development my experience is that good public servants deliberately cultivate rich relationships with ‘outsiders’ to develop more informed, balanced perspectives. We don’t need social media to do this, we can pick up a phone, go to a conference, organise a face-to-face.
Where Web2.0 may change this, I think, is in generating a higher, less predictable and controllable, inflow of comment and ideas, but I’m even a bit sceptical of that.
Martin, we may have to agree to disagree.
2. We have to address disclosure. It’s not a red herring. There are, in fact, plenty of people arguing about what should be disclosed at the moment. What worries me more is people disclosing material thoughtlessly or without checking that that’s OK.
A clear case in point would be the Bennet decision from a few years ago that led to a significant rewriting of Public Service Regulation 2.1. I don’t think that when Mr Bennnet made the comments he made he thought he was likely to be at risk of breaching the non-disclosure provisions but he found himself quickly in the Federal Court on exactly that issue.
Mr Bennet was ultimately cleared on a legal argument about the constitutional limitations of regulation 2.1, but it was by no means a simple (or inexpensive) thing.
Why do I think this is so important? The immediacy of social media is, I suspect, likely to cut down thinking time, increase the probability that people will let slip material that they shouldn’t, and create an indelible record of that. It’s an interesting mixture for employees and employers alike.
3. Similarly, with respect, the issue of bagging your agency is a live one. There’s a case in another jurisdiction on foot right now concerning prison officers who criticised their employer on Facebook. There’s also the case of the UK civil servant who was dismissed for criticising her Minister despite the fact that she thought she was acting anonymously. Whoever gets to write the policy and guidelines around this issue is going to need to work out what to do with cases like this.
4. Which may give you some indication of why I am sceptical about anyone’s ability to provide simple, specific, clear guidelines. We’re dealing with complex issues that don’t reduce easily to simple nostrums, and where there will always be qualifications and exceptions. I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and people often ask me my view, and the best advice I feel that I can usually give them is to read widely and think carefully before acting.
Even if we picked up one of the better suggestions from Michael W, e.g.
Public servants should take care not to disclose personal information, information the release of which could prejudice public health or safety, information which must not be disclosed by law, or information the release of which is against the public interest.
Looks simple, doesn’t it? Except it isn’t. Ask anyone who’s had to wrestle with the Privacy Act about the definition of ‘personal information’, or has considered what could prejudice public health or safety (from the profound to the trivial), or wondered about how ‘that’ secrecy provision applies in ‘this’ case or – and this is the big daddy – tried to develop a reliable definition of the public interest.
In the more recent Kessing case you’ve had a particular person shouting from the rooftops that, never mind the breach of the criminal code, what he did was in the public interest. That’s a line that’s dominated the media (who always support plucky whistleblowers who give them good inside information) but the trial judge was a lot more damning about Mr Kessing’s actions, noting that it was more a matter of good luck than good management that he didn’t derail several major criminal investigations.
What looks simple quickly degenerates into not just a matter of opinion, but a matter of contested opinions where the discloser had better be pretty sure their employer or the Courts will see things their way.
Given that, and given the consequences and potential liability for getting it wrong, whoever ends up writing guidelines on this is likely to write in general terms and stress that public servants are going to need to develop and rely on their own judgement. And, as I said earlier, asking the boss is usually a safe if conservative approach.
5. I would have been surprised if there had been a direct consideration of this issue in the PM&C work. But it’s there, if you read between the lines. Have a look at the Advisory Group’s discussion paper and their references to inclusive policy processes, and citizen-centred government. I hope that the taskforce picks up the opportunity to make a submission.
6. In my younger days I thought the collapse of capitalism was just a few fiery speeches away. Capitalism turned out to be a more flexible beast than I thought.
Similarly, I’m dubious about the transformative power of Web2.0. I’d love public servants to be more forthright about participating in public debate – in fact I think they often should be as a consequence of the current values and code – but the idea that they might find a voice in that debate which is substantially independent of their employer (where it relates to relevant issues) is fanciful.
Michael W is exactly right about the role of an immature media in this. I’d go further and add that the adversarial nature of our political system will continue to add to the pressure to generate risk averse operating cultures. As a public servant you simply cannot be seen to be advocating policies at variance with those that you have a professional responsibility to administer or implement.
We need to remember that the traditional role of Government is to set policy direction, which public servants then implement and administer faithfully. Their role in relation to each policy is to explain, but not advocate – that’s the task of the elected arm. It’s an amazingly difficult thing to do often, in practice, but if this were not the requirement then I think we would have genuine fears for a heavily politicised public service in short order.
I don’t think it matters a damn whether you say at the same time that these are my opinions, not those of my employer. Firstly that gets lost in the wash and, secondly, it still leaves bystanders with the knowledge that those implementing a program aren’t committed to it. That would be diabolical for confidence, public trust and integrity.
Finally, a thought from left field.
I think it’s pretty clear that I don’t see a lot need to change the current set of values or the code to achieve a more pro-engagement, pro-disclosure culture. I think that that change will be driven by senior managers who want to be seen to be responsive to a clear Government agenda.
But, to help things along a bit, there is an alternative. The values are set out in s10 of the PS Act. Section 11(1)(b) requires the Public Service Commissioner to issue (binding) directions about the scope and application of those values. As a disallowable instrument, those Directions are relatively easy to change.
As they currently stand, they’re not a great document in this regard, but I think they could be amended relatively easy to make it clear that qualities like professionalism and effectiveness include, for example, a preparedness to engage with the community in discussion (within other limits such as those I’ve set out earlier).
Great conversation – and very necessary.
Until there’s clear guidance from the government and from central agencies that not only is it OK for public servants to engage online (within the appropriate framework) – but that they are encouraged and empowered to do so and cannot be marginalised, bullied or otherwise sidelined by their superiors for engaging appropriately – we are not going to get far with Gov 2.0 in Australia.
This type of engagement could be perceived by a few senior managers as a loss of control by agencies. However the more experienced and enlightened management recognise that only by having a workforce skilled in using modern technology to engage citizens will they be able to meet and successfully resolve the complex challenges facing their agencies and society.
Responding to a few of posterboy’s comments:
I haven’t interpreted Martin’s comments as implying that public servants ‘control’ these conversations. Public servants cannot ‘control’ conversations with the media, in town hall meetings or in any other type of conversation with the public and stakeholders either.
However I believe that public servants should be expected to control their own boundaries and comments in these conversations, avoid inappropriate or unprofessional behaviour and be sensitive to differing views and perspectives – just as in any other interaction.
Call centres are a good example. Good call centre operators make the boundaries of good conduct clear in an assertive but not aggressive manner and address the caller’s needs in a responsive and sensitive fashion. Online discourse – or town hall meetings – require precisely the same type of approach, and is advantaged by the potential for thinking twice before pressing a submit button. In fact online comments should, on average, be more measured than responses via telephone or in person.
And in regards Posterboy’s comment:
Good public servants don’t need telephones or conferences to achieve these relationships either. However they use them because they leverage their ability to reach people who can provide useful comments and input. Social media leverages this even further, making it faster and more cost-effective to cultivate and use these rich relationships.
The (awesome) international reference group that Nick has put together for the Taskforce is an example of this leverage. It would not be possible to gather this range of informed and balanced perspectives to support good policy and service development without the use of the internet.
I think Michael’s points are brilliant – particularly the concept of treating views expressed by public servants as personal EXCEPT where explicitly on behalf of an agency. This reflects the legal system we have – innocent until proven guilty – rather than a situation that may risk having all comments by public servants treated with suspicion or disciplined on the basis that they are assumed to be making comments representing an Agency’s views unless they explicitly state otherwise.
It also reflects the ‘BBQ’ situation. At a BBQ no-one assumes that you’re speaking on behalf of the government unless if you expressly say you are. Let’s maintain the same logic online.
I do, however, agree with Posterboy that the following idea from Michael can be troublesome:
What is personal information? A person’s friends list on Facebook can reveal a lot of personal information about them. It’s also quite common for people to have personal relationships online as well as professional – and it is difficult to keep the two sides separate to a level where it is not possible to match them up. All it requires is a search engine and some detective work in most cases.
Also personal information can be revealed outside of an individual’s control. Others can put material online about a person (photos of their family on Flickr, videos on YouTube, etc) which can reveal their personal details. Remember the recent example in the UK? (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/05/uk.spy.chief.facebook/index.html)
Finally, how much right does an individual have to share their personal information, versus how much of this right do they give up to an employer?
If a public servant wants to tell people details about their new laptop, share an experience at a buck’s night or express their religious views in an appropriate online discussion, should they have less right to do so than someone who is not a public servant?
So much good stuff.
And, if I could make a quick reflection on the nature of this discussion itself as a pretty good example of what’s possible on a social media platform that isn’t possible by picking up the phone or writing letters or attending a conference…The key here is that 4 or 5 people are engaged in a fascinating and pretty civil kind of exchange about some very big and important issues. There’s agreeement, some contest, some clarifications and so on.
But two things seem to me to be pretty game-changing about that. First of all, the people are engaged in ways and at times that suit them. In other words, we have discovered a technology that allows multi-party, but asynchronous conversation. That strikes me as quite significant. We got to choose how and when to contribute as it suuts the contours of our different lives and commitments. It is, in that sense, a very human technology.
But secondly, although there are a relatively few of us putting finger to keyboard, you can be sure there are others reading and thinking abut what we’re saying and the ideas we’re sharing. At any given moment, someone else could intervene and offer a perspective or an experience or an insight none of the rest of us could have offered. Exactly as PB pointed out in one of the earlier comments – we have dramatically increased the likelihood of more people offering “less predictable and controllable” contributions to the discussion. In my book, that is a qualitatively different conversation than one where PB and I exchanged emails or a phone discussion or Craig and Michael did the same. And, for me, the qualitative difference is definitely positive. Not that more people and open conversations guarantee wisdom or insight or the right answer. But they fundamentally change the odds in favour of that outcome.
Couple of quick reflections on the other comments thus far:
1 We seem to agree that the current code and values statements are not too bad as generic statements of what it means to be a ‘proper’ public servant. What does seem to be in question is whether the government and the public service itself needs to be more explicitly encouraging and protective of the instinct to engage in robust public debate (as Minister Tanner put it).
If the issue here is to make sure that those who choose to take this opiton are not “marginalised, bullied or otherwise sidelined” for their actions, then it may be we need something a little more than generic principles and statements. The suggestion, at least, is that those kinds of statements are not enough to promote the practice and to propely protect those engaging in it.
The issues will include some pretty pratical considerations – can a manager effectively reprimand a public servant for contributing to an online debate (a blog perhaps) on a policy topic related to their work if the manager determines that blogging is not a legitimate use of their time? Can the prohibition on inappropriate use of government property – eg your work computer – provide a proxy for a level of control and direction by a manager over their staff that may not turn out to be appropriate, legitimate or fair?
2 I think my point about ‘control’ has been slghtly misinterpreted, although I think PB and Craig both raise good points. Actually, PB’s comment about social media lifting the rate at which “less predictable and controllable” contributions are made in a debate or discussion is much more to the point.
The issue is actually quite fundamental and impacts not just governments, but all formal and structured organisations including corporate and nonprofit bodies.
For the most part, organsiations are designed to avoid surprise and resist change. Peter Drucker made that point all the time in his management writings and it’s empirically self-evident. But the ethic of Web2 is precisely the opposite. In so many ways, the whole point IS surprise and lack of control or at least the lack of a particular type of control.
Of course, what you quickly realise when you delve into the world of open source or Wikipedia or whatever examples you care to look at, there’s elements of control and direction in all of them. It’s not anarchy or a kind of sentimental communitarianism, at bottom. But it is about a very different way to organsise, interact and ‘control’, and one that is much less dependent on, or respectful of, imposed hiearchies of authority.
In this world, authority is earned by contribution and value delivered. In most organisations, especially large public, private or civil society bureacuracies, that is much less likely to be the design principle for organisational leadership and control.
So my point was that the promise of Govt2, if it is to reflect that ethic of surprise and serenditipity, implies a mode of behaviour and control that is antithetical to many of the instincts of large scale organisation. That is why it can appear to be so unsettling to those who occupy some of the hierarchical positions and who are unsure about how to exercise necessary authority in this more fluid, contingent and relational world.
3 Accept entirely PB’s concerns about the complex nuances in many instances of the exact nature of what disclosure might mean and how to pin down what you can or can’t say. So the response in my mind is to keep sifting the evidence and keep refining the guidelines to get them closer and closer to the complex reality that public servants might face.
I also accept that publicly criticising your Minister is probably not wise or that bagging your agency isn’t much smarter.
4 PB argues – as others do – that the ‘instant’ and ‘always on’ nature of social media tends to encourage sloppy and superficial contributions that betray a lack of judgement and care. Some truth in that concern, I think, although I’m not sure the answer is to limit the way people engage. I suspect, by the way, that both the advocates and the critics of the Web2/social networking world often tend to over-egg their respective puddings.
The best way to lift the standards of socially-mediated discussion is actually to have more of it. People learn by doing and the best form of training is active engagement. We need to “educate the discretion” of those taking part, which is an outcome likely to be achieved by the wider community of contributors anyway over time.
My experience is that the social media world is quick and ruthless (and sometimes, it has to be said, a little brutal) in sidelining people who are not treating the discussion or the activity with the respect that is due to others in the group.
And, as a public servant myself in years gone by, I have seen work betraying many, if not all of the deficiencies PB notes from some social media contributions, despite interminable processes of writing, ren-pen editing and rewriting. In many ways, social media and the very openness and transparency of the social web will likely be the best antidote to the problems that they will, from time to time, create.
What I am taking from this terrific discussion so far includes the following:
1 We may or may not agree about just how transformative Web2 is or could be (although perhaps more substantial than the disparaging analogy to a few fiery undergraduate speeches about the death of capitalism?). But the application of its culture, pratices and tools is already changing the business of government and will continue to do so.
2 Generic statements of values and high level code of conduct frameworks are helpful but not sufficient. They define broad parameters of acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour, but they don’t provide a suitably explicit and robust context in which online engagement by public servants in encouraged, resourced and protected.
3 In the public sector, writing definitive guidelines that speak to often complex and contested principles where nuance and context are so critical is always going to be hard. That complexity should not be underestimated or somehow pushed aside by the allure of Govt2.
4 The wider context for public work, especially driven by the behaviour of the media (something I think we all agree on!) is never going to be easy.
What this discussion is providing is a rich exposition of the complexities inherent in defining the best set of workable rules for public servants who want to (and already are, for the most part) dedicated and energectic professionals but who want to extend the quality of their work by engaging with a set of tools and practices that are already transforming thier world and the world of many of those citizens with whom they interact.
But it is also clarifying for me at least a few additional issues:
These trends are unstoppable and already impacting the work of public servants, whether we like it or not.
These tools and practices are fundamentally positive and have already demonstrated how they can make the work of public servants, and the governments they serve, more efficient, of much higher quality and much more rewarding.
Putting some robust principles and guidelines together that can both guide and encourage the best possible pratice by public servants in these new spaces is not a simple proposition.
I have been reading with great interest some apposite contributions to this discussion from the blog of Andrea DiMaio, whose writing on eGov and Gov2 from his role as a Garnter analyst are well known. Andrea has some predictably provocative and interesting ideas to throw into the debate, and includes some references too to some other social media guidelines attempts in the private an dpbulic sectors.
References and a couple of short excerpts follow:
http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2009/06/01/a-no-nonsense-guide-for-government-employees-on-social-networks/
“One topic that I discuss a lot with government clients is about what codes of conduct they should develop to regulate the use of social media by civil servants. There are quite a few examples around the world, but very often consultants as well as government officials point to policies developed by private sector organizations, such as IBM Social Computing Guidelines or Sun Guidelines for Public Discourse, clearly some of the earliest and best publicized. Also my colleagues Anthony Bradley and Nikos Drakos at Gartner wrote an excellent piece about Establishing Policies for Social Application Participation (subscription required), which provides most useful advice to organizations planning their presence on social media.
Many believe that government organizations need to add complexity and further limitations to those examples from the private sector.
But the reverse is true. Government employees already sign into a pretty limiting code of conduct when they get hired. There are rules about how they deal with information, how they deal with the public, how they deal with the press, what they can and cannot say. Social networks are just a different channel, but do not present any new challenge.
I have found two excellent examples of codes of conduct that follow this approach:
•How the Civil Service Code applies to online participation from the UK and
•Principles for interaction with social media from New Zealand
In both cases, documents make reference to the relevant Civil Service Codes of Conduct, which determine rights and obligations of government employees, and do not modify those in any way.
Government organizations do not need yet another complex policy on the use of social media, as they can leverage what they have already. Effort is rather required on determining the exact purpose and value of engaging on social media and the rights and obligations of employees when it comes to using their own private networks for official use. But how comes that there is far less effort on these topics?”
Taking the discussion wider, Andrea has some interesting reflections on why he feels the North American public service mya ‘get’ the Gov2 opportunities earlier than their European counterparts:
http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2009/10/30/why-north-americans-will-get-government-2-0-and-europeans-wont/
“What I noticed in every single meeting (in the US and Canada), also when people came from a completely different perspective, has been the willingness to challenge themselves, to consider alternative viewpoints, to use some of my intentionally provocative views to reflect about where they can improve. Once again, it has been a refreshing experience, with officials at all levels debating issues, bouncing back ideas, drafting roadmaps they had not considered possible before. It has been an exciting experience where I have got from our clients at least as much as I hope I have given them, if not more.
While a typical North American celebration such as Halloween approaches, I can’t but think about how different many Europeans are when challenged on the same topics. I do distinctly remember a guy who sat in a minister cabinet explaining to me why I was totally wrong about suggesting that government agencies open social media access to their employees: his view was one where employees are not an asset but a liability, where management tools are the same as those used in the fifties, where time seems to have frozen at the gates of his agency. He is not alone though. Several officials in European countries that I have been interacting with are relatively dismissive of any advice that runs contrary to their beliefs. I never assume I am right in what I say, but I love to provide alternative viewpoints for people to challenge their own ideas and possibly improve them. While most North American clients will engage and react, most European clients won’t.”
Generalisations are always interesting but risky. But the underyling contrast is key – how you decide to approach the task of how to ‘guide’ and ‘control’ the way public servants use socila media and explore the potential of online engagement is determined by some pretty fundamental cultural, professonal and individual perspectives and outlook.
One of the interesting (but difficult) aspect of this debate for me is the likelihood that real engagement in social media will make it impossible for the civil servant to maintain the neutral external face of the past. If I am talking openly and honestly about a policy that I am working on, won’t it come out that while I am perhaps enthusiastic about some aspects of the policy there may be others that I, shall we say, find harder to understand? Similarly, might it not come out that while we would have liked to have done things in a certain way, we had to adjust the policy because of another department? The optimistic response to this kind of issue is to see it as a move towards a more mature debate and a more transparent policy process. After all, this is the reality of making policy, so why shouldn’t the public see and understand that? However, it would be a major shift and the media make it a difficult one to undertake. I think the UK’s Digital Britain blog is a good a example of a relatively frank blog by a policymaker but you can see that he is treading a fine line. http://digitalbritainforum.org.uk/
Paul,
Perhaps it makes for more interesting, or perhaps lively discussion to head towards the more controversial areas where one wonders where the line should be drawn. Personally I would take the line you predict that a fan of ‘openness’ might take. But I wouldn’t do it dogmatically. Not only might I be wrong (entirely possible with the media always only a gaffe or deemed gaffe away from their next frenzy), but I couldn’t carry many or at least enough people with me. So what’s the point?
But wouldn’t you agree with me, that right now, we’re nowhere near a controversial line. We’re pretty much in a dessert where public servants having lively professional and public discussions about their work is simply not done – despite the fact that it’s allowable within the guidelines/code of conduct. When one academic was seconded to the APS recently it was made clear it wasn’t appropriate for him to maintain his blog, even though quite a lot of it was a bulletin board of events and interesting articles (and he could have toned down anything the Department might have been concerned about).
So isn’t it worth those public servants who would like to try their hand doing a little more of this, without immediately becoming concerned that lines will be crossed. Right now practice is nowhere near those lines.
Nicholas you are right. As the UK example I mentioned indicates, there are civil servants in the UK who are expanding the boundary of what is considered normal and acceptable behaviour, although I am sure there have been plenty of cases where civil servants have been warned off public participation. Here I think Tom Watson as minister did quite a lot by encouraging the civil servants around him to do stuff and then others felt freer either to copy them or to do what they wanted to do anyway.
Cripes. You take a couple of days off and things get busy ☺
Apropos some of Craig’s comments:
But isn’t this really part of the difficulty? I have no problem with the principle but what you may see as bullying or harassing I may see as legitimate management action. What you think appropriate I may think inappropriate. I have a feeling that as we unpack some of our personal values around these concepts things will get difficult.
So let’s start here:
At this point we come to a screeching halt. I’ll say this as plainly as possible. There is no BBQ exception, and I can’t realistically imagine one. What we do have is a situation where people act in an unguarded manner and say things carelessly. Usually they get away with it because no-one hears or makes too much of it, or there’s an evidentiary problem in making any ‘charge’ stick. But there are instances were people have found themselves in trouble regardless – what, for example, happens if you’re a senior manager in an agency who disagrees openly with Government policy that you’re responsible for and that cutie you’re talking to over a couple of glasses of white wine just happens to be a journalist. It happens, and it ruins careers.
Let’s be clear – the problem isn’t necessarily that you haven’t specified that you’re only speaking as a private citizen. The problem is that a senior public servant, one who’s in a real position to know better, is at odds with the Government he or she is purportedly serving. It’s an implicit statement that the Government is wrong. That’s the story and will be tomorrow’s headline.
Web2.0 takes this situation and fixes the central evidentiary problem by creating a permanent record of what was said. Even if there were an exception, that would kill it. But there isn’t.
Have a look at section 13(11) of the Act. Notice that it applies at all times and that it creates a positive obligation to act in a way that upholds the reputation of the APS. It is the single most commonly breached element of the Code of Conduct (as reported by the APSC in its annual State of the Service Report).
Tricky, but I think the answer can be: yes, they do have less right – at least under current arrangements. Some of this is not problematic but the example you’ve given about their experience at a bucks’ night is potentially a problem.
It depends obviously on the circumstances, particularly the seniority and importance of the person involved, but in the unlikely event that, say, the head of an agency revealed lurid details about their behaviour it’s actually easy to imagine how that might affect public perceptions of their agency and public confidence in its administration. Similarly, if the religious views that you’re talking about encompass, for example, conscientious Holocaust denial or other religious intolerance then similar issues might be expected to arise. Let’s be clear again – in circumstances like this the Code of Conduct is a way of getting rid of people that damage public confidence in the integrity of the administration.
This is not, incidentally, only limited to public servants. Other industries also operate in this way to some degree.
Apropos some of Martin’s comments:
I love this. I think it’s absolutely right and encapsulates so much of the problem. My personal view is that in a contested political environment agencies will not willingly relinquish that control. They may agree, at some intellectual level, that there is a chance of a better long term outcome, but their instinct will be that the short term grief will not warrant it. And they may be right.
I’m not yet at the stage of the gentleman that Martin referred to. I do think that staff are assets rather than problems, for the most part. But I also know how difficult it can be for agencies to cope with the small number of trenchant whistleblowers (who, it must be said, are sometimes wonderful people but often are not) and the resources it can chew up in managing both that person and the media cycle. I can’t help worrying that if some of the more laissez-faire approaches proposed at stages within this thread took root then the small number of problems would increase dramatically, along with an increase in associated costs, for very little apparent social benefit. I’ve no data to back this up, but I’m sure it will figure in considerations.
Martin has also talked about the need to recognise and accept the complexity of the issue. Can I suggest the following as a jump off point for further discussion?
We should accept that there will be some form of explicit value statement e.g.
‘the APS engages with the Australian community in a professional and respectful way, and recognises its role
• in informing the community about Government policy and programmes and
• involving the community properly in developing policy and service delivery initiatives.’
There’s no reference at all to any particular vehicle, but there doesn’t need to be.
I think there is a smallish number of major categories under this that will need individual consideration. Put crudely, I think they’re
1. routine, uncontroversial interactions where information is simply handed over. Probably nothing to do here, and probably the great bulk of transactions
2. transactions involving incorrect information being given by the APS employee. In most cases this should be recognised and addressed as a performance management issue depending on severity and regularity. I don’t think it’s too much to ask people to get things right and be accountable for their own mistakes. We may want to recommend minimum standards about the level of care to be exercised in checking data (which would not act as a defence)
3. transactions publicising the opinion of APS employees about Government policy. In my view, this is a matter generally best dealt with as a Code of Conduct issue
• this will need to discuss responsibilities both on and off the clock. It will recognise that there will be occasions when it is simply inappropriate for an APS employee to engage in public debate on an issue
• I think it should involve a responsibility, when participating in on-line discussion, to declare any conflict of interest – which may include employment status. When discussing an issue related to your APS role, that status should be up front automatically
• while I appreciate the irony, it should eschew any approach that condoned the use of pseudonyms while blogging as lacking in integrity
4. transactions involving the release or disclosure of information that should not have been released. This is currently covered by both the Code of Conduct and the Criminal Code. I suspect Government will wish to retain this as a backstop.
I’ve not included anything about banning harassment or victimisation of people for engaging in on-line discussion appropriately. I thin that’s already covered by s13(3) among others.
It’s late at night and the brain is a little fuzzy, but the specificity may get a few thoughts rolling in.
I’ll endorse what PB says about the BBQ conversation.
If I meet a senior (or even a junior) bureaucrat at a Canberra BBQ and that person says that the Government intends to ignore the report from a current Taskforce, I’m going to take notice.
Why? On what basis do you assume that anyone at a BBQ is telling you the truth or is even talking about something of which they have any real knowledge? Maybe it’s just gossip and rumour? Or just playful ‘kiteflying”. I’m not saying you might not take some notice and possibly it could be true, but the assumption in your response, as in PB’s initial point about BBQ talk, is if you hear it at a BBQ it must be true is odd.
I’m also interesed in PB’s assumption that if a public servant openly criticises a government action or policy it must mean the policy or action is wrong. Why? maybe the public servant is wrong? Maybe the government is perfectly right and the public servant simply disagrees. Now, before PB unloads, I am actually not especially advocating that a public servant in any situation, certainly where they are in some kind of public situation, should simply go about bad mouthing government policy, especially in an area they work in . (Although just think how may BBQ-attending public servants would have been giving the Howard Government both barrels, and very openly, about say the ‘children overboard’ issue or the ‘Pacific solution’).
But that shouldn’t mean there aren’t ways to professionally and productively enter into a robust discussion with someone or a group in an online discussion without resorting to crude criticism. There are plenty of ways to express opinions and put ideas into a discussion without revealing a personal preference but still adding the value that might come from past experience, academic or professional training or simply a perspective. For heaven’s sake – they’re public servants…they make a living expressing opinions that aren’t what they really think so they can get a point across and still protect their personal opinions.
The other thing that is bothering me about some of the discussion, especially the more legalistic issues – and they are important in this situation, I understand that – is the risk that we’re losing sight of some of other important dimensions.
This whole thread ought not to stand or fall on a few points about how to treat whisteblowers (something PB seems very concerned about) or some ‘bad egg’ players who want to bag their Minister or disclose inappropriate information.
No question all of those contingencies must, as far as possible, be dealt with properly. But the central issue here is not about those situations. It is about giving public servants access to a platform and a set of tools that offer considerable opportunity to extend their professional conduct and dramatically improve the impact of their work. And access to a platform and a set of tools that are already offering similar opportunities to the people and communities with whom they are expected to interact.
If I’m criticised for appearing cavalier or dismissive of the detailed concerns that PB is raising, I will have been misunderstood (to pre-empt a little). But I am unequivocal that the larger significance of this discussion about how we can help to make the work, life and experience of public servants more impactful and satisfying gives us the right frame within which we decide how best to move forward.
Enjoyable debate – here’s some further comments.
Public interest
Posterboy said:
Yes, the public interest is difficult to define, but there are workable defintions out there now. See for example, the Queensland Right to Information Act 2009 or the NSW Government Information Public Access Act 2009. These may miss out on the simplicity that was called for in the initial post in this stream – but the public interest is a well established notion.
Posterboy also points to the fact that public servants will be taking a risk if they chance their arm with a judgement that a particular public utterance would meet the public interest test. Again, both of the above new ‘Information Acts’deal with this by saying, in effect, “if you act in good faith, even if you get it wrong there will be no legal repurcussions for you”. That is what I was attempting by point 3 of my earlier post.
Further, if more certainty of judgement for risk averse public servants is needed, why not adopt a scheme similar to either the St James Ethics Centre or the Law Society of NSW that offer free phone counselling services on ethical issues. There could be a panel of ethical advisers from other agencies. If a person is in doubt they could call one of them anonymously for confidential advice. If they Act in accordance with the advice they should be automatically protected with nothing more to prove.
Privacy
In response to Craig Thomler’s comment:
I wasn’t clear enough in my earlier post. I was not so much concerened with protecting the personal information of public servants themselves, but of third parties. Public servants ought to protect the personal information of 3rd parties, but if they want to embarrass themselves that is up to them. Nor was i suggesting that aspects fo a public servant’s personal life ought never be an issue affecting their professional role. I think it is quite proper that some private activities (eg criminal activities) may be regarded as inconsistent with certain public sector roles. But that limitation in no way limits the kind of debate of policy this thread has been talking about.
National economic resource
Elsewhere on this blog there is praise for the concept that government information be regarded as a national economic resource. Perhaps a similar concept should be applied to participation in public policy debates so that an additional principle would be:
9. Participation by public sector officials in public policy debates is to be regarded as a contribution to Australia’s (and each of the States and Territories) information infrastrucutre.
The BBQ exception
Craig says
but Posterboy says
and Kerry Webb says
I don’t think that the ‘BBQ rule’ gives free license to anything and everything that might be said at a BBQ. Being in an informal situation does not allow you to breach confidences, including obligations to an employer to act in accordance with your authority – so that would includ not revealing a government’s decision on a taskforce if the decision is not yet made or announced. But that does not mean you are not allowed to express a personal view about a particular policy issue at a BBQ. The distinction is between expressing a personal opinion and disclosing government information. At the moment the culture of the public sector is that, in public, you cannot do either. I am not arguing that you should be able to do both – only the expression of personal opinion.
Yes, all of this is going to require some sophistication on behalf of public sector officials involved. One hopes they are up to that.
But it also requires a reasonably robust appetite for risk by both the politicians and the higher mandarins. And the real question is how can they build trust in the seriousness of their intentions? If they say they want open debate, how do we know we can believe them?
Maybe there could be institutional structures to give us confidence? Perhaps the changes in attitude that have emerged from discrimination laws are a model?
I’ve said a few things earlier about some of these points.
But let me try out a couple of BBQ scenarios (maybe we should label this provision in any new code of conduct or online engagement guidelines as “the BBQ provision”:)…
1 An officer of AGIMO or Special Minister of State, who has no involvement and is working on other areas of policy, says at the BBQ “the Government hasn’t taken a decision about the Task Force report but I reckon the whole thing was a waste of time and isn’t going to amount to a hill of beans”. (Not true, ofcourse, but let’s just pretend…).
Someone asks why they think that and they explain that in a differnet role (another agency or perhaps as part of the MPA) they had considerable exposure to this issue and had to research the international experience with Web 2 and online guidlines and that experience had lead them to the view that the Australian approach was inadequate. Is that ok, or not? And would it change if the exchange happened on blog somewhere which had started a thread about how the public sector needed to get much better at Web2 and related stuff?
2 A senior office of AGIMO involved in briefing the Minister about the Task Force report makes exactly the same comment at the BBQ. Presumably not ok? What about if they did it on a blog? And what about if they did it on a blog after hours from their home computer using a psuedonym?
3 And would it make it any different if, on the blog, one of the contributors revealed tht they were responsible for these issues in another jurisdiction and could add some right-up-to-date information about new guidlines being developed in the public domain but which our officers didn’t know about and could use in their own work as a result?
I guess scenarios like this help a bit, and you can have lots of fun thinking up all sorts or more or less credible permutations. But in the end, while we can learn by testing different approaches out in real life situations, we have to adopt a set of guidelines within a larger frame that determines that, by and large and properly done, this kind of behaviour is not only ok but increasingly going to become a feature of what it means to be a ‘proper’ public servant (professional, ethical and sensible).
Michael W, I’ve been following your links and have some points and questions.
I was very excited to see this. As someone who’s been grappling with the concept of the public interest for decades I’m pretty aware that it’s an established notion but, equally, that it’s proven very, very difficult to build a useful definition – at least before the fact. So I was somewhat disappointed – but not surprised – that these two definitions are completely circular. Each of them says that the public interest is those things that are, on balance, in the public interest.
I had a quick look at both pieces of legislation and couldn’t find clauses that cover this off. Do you have more specific references? I’d be fascinated to follow up, and I think it would be an interesting and useful precedent.
Hi Martin
There would be worse things to be remembered for than ‘the BBQ exception’.
In my experience the answer to this is a definite maybe. I can see a number of additional factors that might be relevant that aren’t in the scenario. For example, how senior is the officer? They seem to be senior enough to know what’s happening in some detail outside their immediate work sphere so it may be that they’re part of the AGIMO executive. This adds to the likelihood of it not being OK.
Who are they talking to? Colleagues or friends or strangers? That counts too because it contributes to the question of reputational damage.
Another factor is that it’s not really a criticism at this stage of the decision or view of the Government or even, apparently, a criticism of the Taskforce report. It’s more a criticism of the status quo with a dollop of cynicism on the side, which might be argued to support the decision to set up the Taskforce.
In deference to your concerns I’ve avoided detailed legal exposition but will add it if necessary.
Perhaps the more interesting question is whether we think it should be OK or, more appositely, whether the Taskforce is prepared to make a recommendation that public servants should be able to express personal opinions inconsistent with those of their employer or the Government without fear of retribution. In preparation for this post I’ve gone back to Tanner’s speech and I think that point is quite unclear, that what he meant by ‘robust professional discussion’ is something of an open question. I do notice, however, that he did talk about public servants presenting ‘the views of the Government’, but only differentiating ‘between their personal views and those of their employer’, and not allowing ‘public servants to simply tell reporters what is on their mind’ (and I’d equate blogging to this given that once a comment is out there, it’s out there).
I wonder what he had in mind.
Probably, but for practical reasons rather than those of principle. If you look at the APSC data for recent years (published in the State of the Service Report) there have been a lot of conduct cases aimed at misuse of the internet and email. Largely this is because it’s so easy to catch and prove. There’s also the fact that when you’re blogging you have to assume that the audience is the world, including every journalist.
And what a fine, upstanding bunch you all are fellas, he hastened to add.
Almost certainly not OK, but it would probably depend to some degree on who he/she is talking to and the extent to which confidential information was disclosed. It would also depend somewhat on the extent to which that opinion was consistent with or contradicted the briefing he/she/AGIMO had been giving the Minister.
Very, very likely to lead to a short, sharp investigation. Probably followed, in my experience, by termination of employment or demotion.
The point here is the open nature of the audience (everyone) and the degree of reputational damage (and, to return to a point that apparently I didn’t make clear enough earlier, who’s right and who’s wrong doesn’t matter for this purpose). If employment was not terminated then I would expect demotion because the post would be seen to display a level of judgement that would not be expected in a senior officer.
A surprisingly unimportant issue. I suppose it avoids the question of misuse of Commonwealth resources, but most agencies allow for some degree of reasonable personal use of computers. This question will come down to local policies.
Very interesting question, and one that I’ve been grappling with a bit myself.
At one level it reduces risk because of the relative anonymity it provides (although it’s by no means perfect in that respect), but at another it introduces the potential that the act of using a pseudonym might be seen as lacking in integrity, mostly because there’s an argument that people who have integrity should be prepared to put their name to their statements and accept the accountability that goes with that. There’s an additional level of culpability, I think, if that anonymity is being used to cloak a broader agenda.
I doubt it.
Sure, except that I’m still some way from convinced that Government is really looking for recommendations that will give public servants the right to make public statements of their own opinion – for reasons I’ve canvassed at length. And as I’ve said already in this post, I think the leaning of the Government is quite unclear. It would be easy to conclude that what Minister Tanner is really looking for is public servants being more willing to engage in on-line discussions to present the Government view in a more robust professional way.
We’ll see.
Two points I would make at this stage:
1) other efforts to make government more transparent will help this issue too. In the Uk virtually no policy advice from civil servants is published officially and the reality of inter-departmental clashes only ever comes out via leaks usually by ministers or special advisers. If more of this was open and recognised, there would be less danger of civil servants revealing (inadvertently or otherwise) was is really going on.
2) its not totally different in the private sector. Many companies like Cisco are quite happy for their staff to blog but that does not mean they can write whatever they happen to feel or believe with no regard for the company or how their comments might be seen. We have guidelines that are quite good, but every time I intervene on the internet I do not rush to check them. Rather I recognise that as an employee I need to act responsibly and while this does not generally constrain me, there probably are things about the company and my work that I might say in the privacy of a discussion with my wife that I would not put in a blog or any other online forum.
On protections for public servants giving voice to their thoughtsPosterboy says
In relation to the NSW Government information Public Access Act the reference is to section 115 which says
In my view this is sufficient to cover disciplinary action by an agency against the employee. It could in principle be strengthened even further by having a provision similar to the NSW Protected Disclosures Act which provides
And
I concede that the Queensland equivalent is not quite as strong as it does include the qualification “without negligence” – see section 174 of that Act.
Of course any of these would have to be modified to make sure the protections applied to voluntary public utterances as well as information applications.
Interestingly the new NSW Government Information Act has a provision permitting informal release of government information (unless against the public interest) and requiring agencies to proactively release certain information. If information is released in one of these two ways then the general protections apply to the public servants releasing them. Perhaps a combination of these powers would already be sufficient to enable guidelines to give protections to public servants participating in open discussion.
However, I suspect some legislative provisions would be required to give comfrot to the risk averse.
On the public interest
Posterboy says:
I don’t really agree that that’s what they say. At least the NSW Government Info Act basically says “release requested information if on balance it is not against the public interest” (because there is a presumption in favour of release). The Act enumerates those things that are either conclusively presumed to be, or that may on balance be, against the public interest (see Schedule 1) It then says that only those enumerated things can be counted in the equation against the public interest. On the other hand anything can count as a public interest consideration in favour of release. So at that other end the category is open-ended. But I don’t think that the fact that something is open-ended means that it is circular. It is quite possible to enumerate considerations for something being in the public interest – for example:
- it favours transparency
- it aids democratic decision making
- it enhance’s the community’s information infrastructure
- it allows better understanding of decision-making
- it allows more participation in decision making.
However, it does not finally close the definition of public interest because there could always be new situations where a reason why something is in the public interest has not been thought of. That doesn’t make it circular.
So coming back to my original post, I suggested
If the NSW Government Information Act were used as the model, this would be a closed and defined category of reasons.
On Martin’s BBQ scenarios:
I think Posterboy is correct in assuming that it does make a difference whether a view is identifiably made to the world or whether it is made at a BBQ. The reputation consequences are wider on a blog.
But I think all of the issues come down to whether professionally confidential information is being disclosed (eg “this is what the government is thinking”, “this is what the Minister said in a meeting”, “they didn’t accept my argument that… for political reasons”) versus expressing an opinion. The second should be allowable, the first not.
But the fact that it should be allowable, does not necessarily mean that the public servant should not continue to exercise caution and judgement. There are ethical dimensions. For example, if the motive for the blog post is to have a second run at getting the argument up, or amounts to criticising or dismissing the internal arguments of colleagues – there are interpersonal consequences to consider. Those issues should not however lead to disciplinary responses.
Thanks Michael W, that’s very interesting. I still have some comments but they’re increasingly off topic so I’m going to invite the moderator to pass them to you ‘off list’ if they wish to, and let you know that my email is poster-child@live.com.
I’ve had a look at section 115 and I’m not sure I share your conclusion, especially if you look at that provision within the broader ambit of Part 6, Division 1. I’m not certain on this, but I think the provision is likely to be interpreted to prevent claims by civil litigants rather than the employer (I also think this is true for s174 of the Queensland equivalent). Do you know of any case law on point?
This looks to me to be very similar in some respects to section 16 of our own Public Service Act, which creates a similar protection for whistleblowers, although that doesn’t explicitly debar disciplinary proceedings (I think it would be picked up by implication as part of the broader prohibition against victimisation).
While this would be a decision open to the legislature, I think it’s unlikely you’ll see this sort of defence made available much more broadly than that – public interest disclosure regimes are specifically aimed at encouraging disclosure and protecting disclosers. I doubt that the same imperative would be seen to apply to people participating in a conversation on-line. But it’s an option, and should be folded into the mix.
Point taken, and I should have read the NSW stuff more carefully. Having said that, when I look at Schedule 1 and section 14 together they seem to me to allow extraordinary leeway and I’d reckon just about anything could fall within them. Short and concise they are not. It’s also interesting to me that they’ve attempted to list the reasons why matters should not be disclosed but don’t seem to have balanced out the other side of the ledger beyond the general presumption of disclosure in s5 and the objects clause.
On this we may disagree. I think that the prospect of people expressing personal opinions on matters that are the policy responsibility of their own employer or their Minister will always be problematic. I’m inclined to think that even under current arrangements public servants can express their opinions fairly freely, it’s when they get close to their working role that things get difficult.
Certainly a blanket prohibition on work-related comment would be at least conceptually simple. And now I find to my chagrin that the APS Commission has beaten me to the punch with this publication
Martin,
I should apologize for my first comment here. I did not mean to be trite. After reading through this thread for the umpteenth time, we seem to have covered all the perspectives which seeming appear so obvious to a practical mind. (again, excuse my arrogance). The main one being;
We must all admit to this one.
Nick does point out the obvious conclusion in which all these kinds of discussions terminate.
So could we focus on using the media tools available which, through their combination, some National cultures might be cultivated. Only an American or Aussie seem to have this belief that making guidelines for a one form of media (Web 2.0) are going to change our silotic state. Europeans, even Poms and especially scots are more interested in how this new one can utilzed, combined with others (mainly broadcast) and be used to improve upon the means by which isolated citizens engage, and cultivate the levels on which they do.
Craig, please don’t don’t this as criticism. But I did have to explain this to James, when you pointed at the data, when he asked a question about engagement. It’s always important, I find, to make the cultural differences explicit.
I would have expected that by now we would have a non tech advisory team composed of people from Digital Engagement teams from around the world. (and another of MP’s like Mr F McAveety )
I had hoped we would be seeing some relationship between this taskforce, a-pac and the PEO to begin the hard work of influencing entrenched beliefs, and outdated guidelines. E.g. When the recommendations from this inquiry (and Kate’s) are handed to a Minister, the session is broadcast into the rooms of participants that the inquiry has used, and then leads back to the source of the recommendations (i.e. this domain), rather than this page.
Recommendations are pretty easy. It’s the implementation of them which is the hard part. Anyway, excuse me for interupting this thread. E-gov is as irrelevant to me as e-research or e-education. But at least we know they must, one day, share the same cultural habits, and be seen to be doing so. It seems, in the anglo speaking world of e-gov, the practical Scots understand this the best.
And the debate gets richer and more complex all the time (which I guess is a good thing; as my English professor said at my first lecture at university, “my job is to make sure, in four years’ time, you think you know a lot less than you think you know now!”).
Let me issue an invitation at this point – but not as a way to stop the flow but more as an attempt to take stock.
There are two sorts of insights emerging from this thread. One kind is the rich, contextual and detailed exposition of the law and practice around public servants and online (and other forms of) engagement.
The other is a more direct attempt to actually start defining some guidelines for the APS, or at least some propositions that could be incorporated into a set of guidelines.
So the invitation is this. If you were pressed to distill your views into no more than a single page how best to give members of the APS the best advice you could that would help them be more confident users of online tools and social media, what would you tell them?
Many people have sent me recently the (apparently) one-page social medua guidelines which the ABC released last week. There are other similarly pith examples from the public and private sector. So it’s in that spirit that I issue the invitation to see how you feel. If you feel it’s both premature and inappropriate, I’m sure you’ll say so.
A couple of comments on Martin’s request (without actually responding to it yet):
1. Are we to assume there is no change to currently legislation to underpin the guidelines? (Hopefully the answer is “No, there can be changes to legislation to offer protections that would underpin the guidelines”).
2. Are we to assume the stance of any public servant offering advice to any other public servant, or the official stance of the head of the public service offering declaring a policy intent and offering to back it?
To answer the question
If there is no change to legislation, and it is justme giving my best advice with no leadership from the top, I would keep it really simple:
“Be very careful about taking such a risk”.
In other words, I think those other changes (legislation and leadership) are necessary but not sufficient to underpin the cultural change, and probably need to be agreed first.
So perhaps we should assume the capacity to legislative change and that we can say things about the leadership dimension as well?