Proceed Until Apprehended

That’s funny. My title made you think I was going to tell you about all the subversive things I’ve done to make the government system inoperable…. well, sorta. I’m going to detail what I saw, at least in part, from my experience in the public service.

I’d like to provide some reflection on my seven years spent in the Saskatchewan Public Service. It was a period of tremendous growth and maturation for me. As the province’s largest employer, it represents the experience a lot of Saskatchewan people receive, or will receive, so here’s my take on what you’ll see.

There are two pretty distinct groups of people working in government. The distinguishing point, in my opinion, is how an individual interacts with the numerous boundaries the bureaucracy presents. Some people see these boundaries as porous and bendable, and others see them as air-tight and immovable.

There are written rules for when you’ll show up, when you’ll take a break, when you’ll get a performance review, how you’ll provide advice to decision-makers, how you’ll request bereavement leave… the list goes on. Then, there’s unwritten rules, like how you’ll dress, or what kind of message you’ll leave on your phone, what your out-of-office email message will say, where you’ll park your bike, there are even some unwritten rules for what are reasonable excuses for calling in sick.

The first, and most significant, choice government implicitly invites you to make is which group you’re going to be in. Most make a non-choice to follow the rules. However, now that you’ve read this far, you’re no longer eligible for the non-choice. You’ll have to choose. If you choose that government boundaries are rigid, congratulations. You’ve just gotten a job that will ensure you and your family are fed for the rest of your life. Mission accomplished.

That choice, however, requires you to accept assignments that appear pretty much meaningless, misguided and sometimes demeaning. If you’re OK with accepting that someone else knows better than you, even when you’re doing more thinking, researching or interacting on the topic, you’ll do fine with this.

My experience with government is that approximately 80% of employees choose to blindly follow the rules. It’s not that everybody starts this way, but they have to keep choosing, everyday, and government has a way of wearing you down until you accept the boundaries. Then you don’t have to choose anymore.

Even in this environment, 20% of individuals don’t accept the bureaucratic expectations. They choose to push, prod and break the boundaries. They work for change.

There’s different levels of investment to the work done on the 20%. Some work on the periphery, away from bread and butter issues. It’s a little more comfortable there. They can fight for changes to regulation 32 C of the Labour Standards Act, and feel proud that they fought the good fight… and no-one bit back.

Others try and strike right at the heart of the organization. They say, “12,000 public servants are working at half speed. We need to change the way we organize and engage employees.” It’s a herculean task given the amount of bureaucracy and control they’re confronting.

It’s in this environment that I worked for seven years, and it had three stages for me:

Stage 1 – Crash Course in Analysis

My amazingly brilliant supervisor demanded more and more from me during this time, and I wanted to get better. I got what I suspect was Masters-level training in creating concrete, credible and compelling solutions. It was a very beneficial relationship… for me, certainly, and I hope for my boss. That training is the foundation for the thought process I apply every day.

Stage 2 – My Attempt to Dent the System

My supervisor moved on, but the timing was impeccable. I was just starting to want to take on more ownership. Ownership not just for the work, but ownership for how I created my own brand and value in government. I challenged boundaries and had some success, primarily in helping others see their relationship with the boundaries. I also had failures. Lots of them. But they were mine, and I learned from them, so… success.

Stage 3 – My Burnout

I had built what I felt to be a healthy, productive little “shop,” an oasis in the bureaucracy, where people were responsible to be thoughtful and practice ingenuity. It was far from perfect. There was lots of growth left to pursue, but time ran out. New leadership brought new direction, and I found myself starting back near the beginning, so yeah, failure. I didn’t do what was necessary to lock in the changes I’d made.

I don’t know if you can “lock in” progress in government. (I don’t know if what I did was progress. If you like this blog, maybe it was.) I left the public service without knowing how to lock in what I’d done. I acknowledge this limitation. I think this was when I knew it was time to leave. I didn’t have the appetite to start again and rebuild what I believed in, and even if I did, I didn’t know how to sustain it when a more senior person’s philosophy didn’t jibe.

Here’s then, what government gave to me. If you’re a recent graduate or considering a career change, you can use this as a checklist to determine if government is right for you:

• Significant investment in my ability to produce quality thinking and advice
• Practice at managing and leading people
• Practice at building a grassroots cultural change
• A near-militant commitment to challenging status quo environments
• Pessimism for the future of all governments
• An innate sense of a bureaucrat’s motivations

I welcome your thoughts, especially if you’re a public servant in Saskatchewan or elsewhere. I tried to write this without pessimism, but I’m not sure it’s possible. Some other perspectives would help round it out.

I’m forever grateful for who I became through my public service experience, but mostly because of how it served as a motivation and a foil for me to grow up and away from it.

On the first day in my previous job, I brought my bike right into my office.

“Oh,” my supervisor said, “they’re going to want you to put your bike in the outdoor cage.”

The cage is like a bike rack with police tape around it. “Hey,” it announces, “these bikes might be worth taking a look at.” It offered slightly better security than police tape, of course. If you were using really thick police tape. well, that would be a different story.

I kept my bike in my office.

On day three, an email came from Corporate Services:

Government Services has advised me that bikes are not allowed in the building and have asked me to pass along that message to you.  There is a locked cage/compound off the alley that has been designated for employees to secure their bikes if they are not comfortable locking them in the [non-cage - ed] bike racks.  If you would like me to show you the compound please come see me.

Thanks for your co-operation.

My response:

Is this a written policy? I’d like to know if I can satisfy this policy without removing my bike. I’m concerned that my bike may not be as secure outside. Does the policy specify any liability the employer assumes for damage or theft? Thanks for offering to show the compound. I am aware of its location and the combination lock.

I kept my bike in my office.

There was no response to my email. There’s some funny things about bureaucracy. One of them is that if you practice civil disobedience you can sometimes get your way.

My theory… actually, the theory of civil disobedience… is that if you have a fairly reasonable justification for not following the rules, you might be able to make the powers-that-be engage in a dialogue about the policy. Ghandi said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” I’d hoped someone would come and speak to me plainly about their interests and I could express my needs as an employee. We could negotiate and find a shared solution. Not so. I was ignored.

The week before I left, a full-fledged written policy on everything related to our use of the office space came out.  If it has to do with offices, it was in there. The author appeared to have been given a clear assignment: Whatever it is, offload all responsibility onto the individual employee. The only convenience to be considered is our own.

The section on bicycles says no bikes are to be in any government building. All liability resides with the owner of the bike. I’m disappointed with this policy, of course. It is completely organization-centric and has nothing to do with the interests, needs or engagement of public service employees. A sort of a black mark, I’d say, against an organization pursuing a brand of “employer of choice.”

Perhaps, if I was still there, my bike would still be in my office. Maybe I’d have gotten a “fight.” I think I would have enjoyed that.

In these days of economic turmoil, there is a growing gap between successful organizations and those that are on the slow path to failure.

There seems to be a huge difference in the kinds of employment experiences these organizations offer, as well. It’s a virtuous circle, or “runaway” as Seth Godin calls it, as successful companies engage their employees, get better results, recruit better employees, engage them even more, get even better results, etc. The troubled companies? It’s a circle too (or spiral), but not quite so virtuous.

When we’re considering employment opportunities, it’s important that we ask how we can recognize the good companies. There’s a bit of “greener grass” when you look at any potential employer, but what really makes the difference? Here’s my list.

Real leadership

Topping the list of desired traits in an engaging employer is a leader… a real leader. Leadership can take many forms, and at first glance, many business heads look the part and they certainly have the title. Figuring out if they can actually drive engagement and excitement is something altogether different than appearance or title, though. Jim Collins defines a leader really well in Good to Great. He calls it ”Level 5 Leadership,” and these leaders distinguish themselves through a combination of Humility and Will. I can’t do his full description justice, but my takeaway is that Leaders often put their ego in check as they make choices that are for the good of the company. I’d suggest there’s a simple test: Does your potential leader work on things that create results today and tomorrow or do they work for some distant future? The former makes them look good and feel good. The latter serves the organization more than themselves.

A healthy relationship with ideas

A healthy relationship would mean a conversation takes place… ideas would not be met with a response based on how it’s different than the conclusions that exist already. Are ideas examined or are they disputed? Are external ideas a distraction from the agenda or an opportunity to get better? Ideas need a meritocracy, not a pass-fail response. An engaging environment gives ideas a fair chance.

A reliance on their employees

Speaking of meritocracy, what’s the relationship with employees? I’ve yet to see a business that doesn’t say some version of “Our people are our greatest asset.” It’s come to the point that it’s now meaningless to say it. As with so many concepts, there is often a gulf between word and deed. I think this is most easily seen in the nature of the delegation. Are employees simply researchers for the boss’s agenda or are they asked to help find the direction? The creation of an engaging environment is one where the employees are empowered to pursue and develop the direction even when the boss isn’t around. In the unhealthy ones, the work happens when the spotlight is on, but it dies away when the boss’s attention is elsewhere.

As an off-shoot of this kind of orientation, I find I’ve got a hyper-sensitve response to job ads. When I read a description of an opportunity, I almost immediately classify it as an employer looking for labour or an employer looking for thoughtfulness. I’m sure I shouldn’t be so quick to judge so as to keep options open, but I suspect I’m saving a lot of wasted time, too.

A progressive business model

Another book with some fantastic concepts about successful, engaging businesses is Jeff Jarvis’ What Would Google Do? In it, he presents this gem: “There’s an inverse relationship between control and trust.” This is the foundation of some really exciting businesses. Google, of course, and Zappos, the online shoe-seller, are a couple examples of organizations where the leadership of the organization has ceded significant discretion and decision-making power to the individuals that are doing the work… in some cases suppliers and partners. If the organization is designed in an elegant, thoughtful way, letting go of control puts you in the centre of something infinitely more valuable. A business model that thrives on openness and transparency is also a lot more sustainable and, of course, engaging for employees. This one’s perhaps a bit more subjective to read, but in a conversation with people at the top of the hierarchy, are the gripping the steering wheel or looking for ways to hand over the keys?

I’m sure there’s many other essential elements important to a healthy employer. This is just the list that comes to mind for me. I invite you to share what makes a good employer for you in the comments.

Where does innovation come from? I think we’ve all been in a few meetings where “youth” is the answer. If you’re like me, you’ve also heard “new employees,” regardless of age. I don’t think I’ve yet heard “those close to retirement,” but it wouldn’t surprise me.

To be honest, I always kind of dread these discussions. It’s not that I don’t want to be part of a discussion about innovation; it’s that the perception of where innovation comes from feels quite tired and unexamined.

I want to take a peek at the source of innovation, the person. I do think a lot of innovation can come from youth. A different education, a constant immersion in a media-rich environment and a fresh introduction to the workplace is bound to give this cohort a number of “why is it done this way?” kind of moments.

Likewise, new public service employees enter an organization either with the “youth” lens or with the lens of someone who has been working in a different kind of structure. They may simply bring different approaches, or they may have that same sort of questioning “why?” moment.

Both of these groups bring something valuable to the table – a different perspective. They offer a shock to our current thinking. They haven’t been indoctrinated into the rules, structures and dogma that govern the way we do our jobs.

I don’t think, however, that innovative ideas come from a certain age or a certain set of experiences. Primarily, I think new ideas come from your worldview. Worldview is a nice all-encompassing word to describe how you see the world. It’s your description of reality. Perhaps another way to say it is that our worldview is the collection of conclusions we bring with us based on what we’ve seen.

As you can imagine, everyone’s worldview is different. You can be trusting or less trusting, more open to risk or less. You can believe in the power of a god and you can believe in the power of the state. You can think that social media is the end of community or a new beginning. When somebody believes in grassroots organization and somebody else believes in corporate benevolence, those different worldviews bring different/new/innovative solutions to addressing public issues. These differences create distinct approaches and different solutions to challenges.

The nature of most organizations is to build consistency and uniformity into everything, including how we think. The organization works hard to keep everything static and in control. Maybe you’re still having innovative ideas, but the typical response and reaction within the walls of the organization to new thinking makes it difficult to express those ideas (and continue expressing them).

What youth and new employees can bring is a distinct worldview that hasn’t yet been critically transformed. Eventually, most employees resolve themselves to a worldview that includes something like, “At work, it’s easier to follow the rules than to examine them.” Until that defeatist language is added to the worldview, some profound things are liable to slip out.

Accessing individuals who see a different reality and believe that change is attainable are key elements of innovation for me. Right now, the “low hanging fruit” are the individuals that readily bring that kind of thinking. It’s a mistake, however, to attribute that kind of thinking to a demographic cohort or a certain experience. We’re missing all the worldviews that are quietly being suppressed.

I was talking to a friend the other day and she said, “I came to government with a set of skills, abilities and passions, and none of them get used.”

Innovative ideas are there. We’re just not asking for them.

Erring on the side of caution is really bad advice.

Erring on the side of caution is a vote for the status quo. It says, “Let’s keep this really simple and round the corners off of it. That way, the potential failure will be minimized.”

Everyone sleeps well the night before the launch. After, I can envision smug and knowing smiles as “disaster” is averted. Nothing really changes and no-one looks bad… unless you step back. From there, you can see that avoiding failure cost you the opportunity to make something valuable happen.

An example:

There’s a theory that goes something like this:

• employees have great ideas
• our system doesn’t allow them to invest in or launch those ideas
• if our employees had resources and corporate support, these ideas would flourish
• we need some sort of “outside of the system” system that TOTALLY supports our employees
• some of the ideas will be stinkers, so we’ll need a way to identify the good ones before we take them too far. We don’t want to waste money/look bad/prove the naysayers right/give our bosses a reason to say no.

Do you see a flaw? The “safe” resolution to our innovation need is to keep the paradigm but change the forms. We’ve decided to institute a new and improved Bureau of Idea Approval. We’re exchanging one form of vetting for another.

Well, here’s some surprising news. We have enough vetting in our organizations to kill excellent projects already. It’s layered so thick, you could take out every official “sign off” process in your organization and you STILL wouldn’t get ideas. There’s a culture of safety and maintenance that goes well past the policy and procedures manual.

Building a process that remotely acknowledges that there might be bad ideas is a mistake. Trust me, stuff that won’t work will get caught. You don’t have to design more roadblocks.

Don’t believe me? Here’s a test: If your boss announced a prize for the biggest mistake, would you still be cautious?

When we get a huge stinker out of the gates, that’s when we’ll know we’ve had some success.

My limited understanding of criminal law (thanks mostly to Law and Order) is that in the innocent-until-proven-guilty presumption of our courts, the “burden of proof” lies with the prosecution. This creates a healthy bias in favour of the accused. Someone on trial won’t be thrown in jail because they can’t prove they didn’t do it. Someone else has to prove they did do it. Fair enough. I want that justice system if I’m accused of a crime I didn’t commit.

At work, the “burden of proof” lies with the person that is challenging the status quo. That “healthy bias” is against you. If you propose change, you’re immediately presented with a number of concerns, all of which you’re responsible to allay. The new proposal is considered guilty until proven innocent.

Most of the challenges that come up will actually have some validity. I’m not intending to argue that they don’t. It’s just where the burden lies that gets me.

So, what’s a person that sees a better way to do? The organizational version of presuming guilt and innocence isn’t changing anytime soon. The burden of proof is going to be placed squarely on your shoulders. Do you accept the challenge?

I say do not accept, at least not exactly. That’s because the challenge they’re foisting on you isn’t the challenge you’re seeking. You’re asking to pursue a better way, not prove your point through the established rules. Don’t fight the opposing view. Energize your own perspective. Create something that replaces the old instead of trying to go toe-to-toe with it.

The next time you have an idea that’s going to be presumed guilty, don’t start that conversation. Just start making change happen and see how far you can go without engaging those who would resist. You won’t be by yourself. The informal team you build will be of people that are helping you, not resisting you. When you do meet up with resistance, see how much of it you can ignore. It’ll mostly be language and semantics and furrowed brows. Ask if these are actual barriers or bluster. Do they have a veto? They may just be trying to get you to quit.

Side-stepping naysayers isn’t to avoid barriers and concerns that must be addressed before changing structure. The real challenges have to be resolved to create an effective, reliable solution. The side-step is about choosing your own approach. It’s about creating a culture of value-through-creation instead of value-through-critique.

If you accept status quo rules and expectations, you also accept that you’re on a path of incremental adjustment. You know we’re past the time for incremental. We have to make the choice that brings us revolutionary change.

Change. Let’s just take that as a given.

Your organization. Unless it was established in the past decade,  it was designed or incrementally built for a different era and a different notion of how companies are successful.

Now, the world is different. Creating value had different rules. To make an old organization relevant for today, you have to adapt.

In evolution, adaptation is done though trial and error. A long beak either helps you survive or slows you down. A different shape to your ear either helps you hear predators or it dulls their footsteps. Species have thousands of mutations and a few work. Ultimately, the adaptations that improve design are the ones that make it.

So, in our organization, why do we think it is going to be the vetted, approved-in-triplicate, endorsed-by-the-president idea that is going to change your organization? That’s the common expectation. Everyone keeps looking for the home run.

If nature offers any clues, we should likely be considering the “small ball” of little trials and errors. Trying a hundred small things gives us a lot more opportunity to find a winner and plenty of knew information, besides.

A culture of “small innovation” guarantees you’ll find some real, effective improvements. It just won’t happen like in the movies.

I’ve got one word for you. Plastics.

I don’t have good advice. I tricked you, as so many others have before. In my defense, at least I’m willing to admit the charade.

I’m pretty frustrated by the “helpful” advice we get from friends, colleagues, parents, teachers, guidance counsellors, professors, supervisors, people that are older than you, people that have some sort of societal status… I’m sure you have more to add to the list.

It is soooo hard to discern good advice from bad. You can’t tell from tone of voice, cut of clothes or the number of degrees on their wall. Seeing material evidence of their success or media coverage of their latest coup doesn’t actually mean anything, either.

Whatever they say, you’re still confronted with an individual that is giving well-meaning advice about a future they can’t predict.

I’m in a unique role now to see LOTS of people who have listened to LOTS of well-meaning advice and are still struggling to find success, to get work or to feel valued. All those people that provided advice with gentle eyes and a hand on the shoulder? They didn’t know. They just thought they knew. From a paradigm of “my position requires me to groom, control and cultivate,” they sold a Nigerian inheritance.

I’m thinking it would be more helpful if they said, “I don’t know what’s needed. I’ve had a long and full life with a particular strategy for adding value, but I’m not sure it’s relevant anymore. I think the only thing I can encourage you to do is ready yourself for a lot more change. Be ready, willing and adaptable.”

THAT would have saved me some time… if I listened to it.

I checked in with a colleague to see how he was and how his project was going.

He said he had completed his recommendation and submitted it. When he saw it in the next phase, it had substantially changed.

“How did you feel about that?” I asked.

“Well, by the end, it kinda got out of my hands anyway. I was more just interpreting instruction than making choices for the recommendation.”

Turns out, it wasn’t really his project anymore. He was still holding the document, but his “superiors” were calling the shots.

That’s disappointing. That’s a brain underutilized, to say the least.

When the project got into this dynamic, you can guess he was still spending a lot of time revising and editing the document. However, the rules changed in terms of what he did to make it better. Sure, he still found the document could be improved if he applied his knowledge and skill, but he actually did a subtle little calculation that dramatically changes the overall outcome. He first determined if he intrinsically cared enough about the project to go through the eye rolls, the patient deep breaths and the paternal voice that tells him why they’re not doing it that way. Most of the time, you can guess that he determined it wasn’t worth the discomfort.

If you’re a manager, please understand that taking things out of people’s hands isn’t done by announcing that you’re taking it out of their hands. I know you’ve got better sense than to take that drastic step. Taking things out of their hands happens when you amend their work without consultation or you cram your expectations for the product down their throat. I know you’ve got pressures and deadlines. What’s the emergency that justifies ripping the individuality and creativity from your employees?

I just watched the Blue Planet episode where they show how coral grows and overtakes other coral.

Here’s the piece that got me thinking. At 38 seconds there is some fascinating time-lapse footage of one coral overtaking another.

If you were snorkeling or scuba-diving by this fascinating scene, would you notice? I think it would look pretty static and I would swim on by.

Bureaucracy is pretty static too, right? What if we could time-lapse photograph a bureaucracy? What would become apparent that’s difficult to see with the naked eye? Speeding up the pace would likely make the slow encroachment of policies, procedures, restrictions and risk aversion look as sinister as this coral. If you sped it up , I think you’d see that the well-intended efforts to influence and control employee behaviour actually kills an employee’s discretion and ability to be independently thoughtful.

This progress goes seemingly unnoticed every day. We tend to take for granted, or perhaps we shrug off, the daily insults to our autonomy and ability to be discerning. We choose not to push back. Through time-lapse, we’d see that we’re losing the battle. We’d see the bureaucracy move forward so steadily that you’d think it could only be planned.

I don’t in any way think it is planned. Rather, I see it stemming from a culture and paradigm of command and control that doesn’t work. Those that champion this out-dated style or those who don’t stand up against it need to see some time-lapse footage of its effects.