Speaking For All Mankind

Fascinating story on NPR about the “trust” hormone (oxytocin) and one researcher’s findings that trust in the government is related to the amount of stress someone feels at the time.  According to the study, trust in the government is at an all time low because of the stress people feel due to the recession.  When college students were given a squirt of oxytocin they reported feeling more trusting of other people.  From this trust, they also reported less distrust in the government.

So, by promoting wellness and lowering the national stress level, could the government also be promoting better citizen engagement?

White House released the self-evaluations of the agencies open government plans.  Only three agencies (Health and Human Services,  Department of Transportation, and NASA) fully met the requirements while the rest made progress on their goals.

I’ve fully read both NASA’s plan and the Office of Personnel Management’s plan while skimming the rest of the plans.  NASA does have a great plan that is detailed and just well thought out.  Other plans used the right buzzwords but you can tell that there is not a strategy for fully realizing the capabilities of social networking.

It would be good to see some independent reviews of the plans.  Might be an interesting project for the summer.

As we work on how to use social networking technologies in Gov 2.0, I thought this article from IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management might be of some interest to practitioners. “The Strategic Implications of Web Technologies: A Process Model of How Web Technologies Enhance Organizational Performance” answers two questions:

1) “How do Web technologies support the strategies of an organization?”
2) “How do Web technologies enhance organizational performance?”

The authors of the study argue that existing efforts to use Web technologies are not being effectively utilized because the organizations do not know how to align the technologies with the strategic goals of the organization due to a limited understanding of how to achieve such an alignment. Using a case study of a Singapore IT publication (Hardwarezone.com), the authors list the seven capabilities of Web technologies:

1) “Enable an organization to transcend geographical and temporal boundaries.”
2) “Facilitate improvements to processes in an organization’s value chain.”
3) “Provide an effective means of collecting customer information and feedback.”
4) “Enhance the timeliness of organizational information.”
5) “Reinforce offline business models and facilitate the creation of new business models.”
6) “Reduce the capital outlay involved in establishing and expanding a business.”
7) “Enable the development of virtual communities.”

None of the above should be surprising to Gov 2.0 practitioners. Having listed the seven capabilities, the authors then describe their process model which consists of the three core logics of strategic management and the two core logics of organizational sociology:

1) Strategic Management
a. Logic of Positioning – how a company strategically positions itself in the marketplace
b. Logic of Leverage – effectively using strategic resources and capabilities
c. Logic of Opportunity – innovating effectively in response to a changing external environment
2) Organizational Sociology
a. Logic of Optimality – creation of the optimal organizational form for the current environment
b. Logic of Social Congruence – organization harmonizes relationships with key stakeholders

So, what does this mean for Gov 2.0 practitioners? Even though the process model applies to business organizations, the same logics can be transformed into public administration equivalents. For example, when selling a new social networking technology to agency management, you can demonstrate how the technology’s capabilities can fulfill one of the logics.

Let’s say you want to start up a Twitter feed to publicize agency activities. The Twitter feed meets capabilities 1, 3, 4, and 7. These capabilities meet the logics of Positioning, Opportunity, and Social Congruence. By demonstrating how the new technology aligns with some of the strategic goals of the organization, Gov 2.0 practitioners can better sell these new technologies to upper agency management.

References:
Tan, B.C.C., Pan, S.L., & Hackney, R. (2010). The strategic implications of web technologies: A process model of how web technologies enhance organizational performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 57: 2. 181-197.

(Cross-posted on GovLoop)

Been spending a lot of time on GovLoop last week in preparation for this Wednesday’s OpenGov Workshop.  The theme of this workshop is about cultural change and OpenGov which intersects beautifully with my dissertation.  I posted this in response to one of the conference questions:

Q: How do we facilitate a change from existing behavior and culture to open government?

A: I did my doctoral research on questions similar to this question. In my research, I examined the link between the communication of a change vision (a special form of mental model) and organizational alignment to determine what constitutes effective communication in bringing about organizational change. I developed a case study of the merger of a city archives and a county archives into a single metropolitan agency.

Listed below are findings that might prove especially relevant to the questions:

1) There are two change visions: an internal change vision and an external change vision. The external change vision in this case is the one that is promoted from the Obama administration to the general public. This external change vision explains the benefits of open government and attempts to build support with the external stakeholders of the government agencies. The external change vision is detailed and extensively communicated through a wide range of communication methods.

In contrast, the internal change vision is the vision that is communicated to the employees of the affected agencies. This vision is often lacking in detail and is not as well-communicated as the external change vision. In many cases, there is little or no effort to gain support of the internal change vision. The internal change vision is imposed from the top-down with no input from the rank-and-file employees. There may be some discussion of the benefits from adopting the internal change vision but the main message is that resisting the internal change vision will harm or terminate the employee’s job.

2) Examples of poorly communicating organizational change to employees is to give little opportunity for feedback and abundant use of clichés. In the case that I studied, the employees attended mass meetings with the government merger team but did not receive specific answers to their questions. There was an intranet but none of the communications encouraged feedback to the announcements from the change team.

Clichés and “management speak” are especially pernicious because employees – already concerned about the organizational change – will interpret clichés and management speak in the most negative ways. In my case study, the change team talked about addressing the “lowest hanging fruit” first. The archives employees took this to mean that the less-essential, non-revenue producing agencies will be either shut down or drastically downsized. This was never said by the change team but the adverse perception was widely communicated among many of the employees.

3) The organizational change was still successful despite the poor communication of the vague internal change vision. I believe that this was the result of two factors. First, the professionals of the archives agencies have a mental model of how a professional archive should work and they used this mental model to fill in the gaps of the internal change vision. Second, there was a “change vanguard” or a group of employees who perceived the need for organizational change and took advantage of the vacuum created by the vague internal change vision to implement changes they wanted.

Kelman (2005) believes that it is a myth that people are resistant to change. Front-line employees are most familiar with the shortcomings of the organization and would like to change processes and operations but feel they don’t have the power to initiate the change. Once a leader signals their support for the change, the vanguard is emboldened enough to sustain the change effort. The change vanguard can be a great source of innovative ideas and help to motivate the rest of the organizational members in support of the change vision.

Thus, for OpenGov to be successful, government change agents should become aware that there is more than one change vision and that they need to spend just as much effort on the internal change vision as they do on the external change vision. Change agents should also realize the existence of change vanguards and work to recruit them into the change effort to help increase the possibility of success of change efforts. Collaboration, openness, and transparency in affecting organizational change in the government agencies will bring about the organizational alignment needed for OpenGov.

References:
Brantley, W.A. (2009). The effect of mental models on creating organizational alignment around a change vision (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from Dissertations and Theses Database (UMI).

Kelman, S. (2005). Unleashing change: A study of organizational renewal in government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

A little neuroscience research for your Monday:  According to research from Etienne Koechlin (Université Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris, France) we can only handle two tasks at a time.  Add a third task and our performance plummets.

This is due to an area in our brain called the medial prefrontal cortex (MFC).  As the research demonstrates, this area is able to assign one task to one hemisphere of the brain while the other hemisphere works on the second task.  Because we only have two hemispheres the MFC cannot handle any tasks past two.  This may also explain why we have a difficult time making choices between multiple options.

The MFC is also the reward area of the brain in that it determines our motivations for a task.  Our brain uses rewards to determine which option we should pursue.  So, if you are given the choice of fish or chicken for dinner, your brain can easily make the choice based on the perceived rewards of the two options.  Given a choice between steak, fish, or chicken, your brain quickly decides between two of the choices and then compares that choice to the remaining option.  The more options, the more time it takes to process the pairings.  Think about the time it takes to make a decision when you go to a Baskin Robbins and you have an idea of the processing that the MFC undertakes.

What are the practical aspects of this research?  First, realize that at best, people can only handle two things at most.  Second, when making decisions among multiple options, develop a method of weighing options in pairs so that you have a consistent way of ranking your options to derive the best choice.  The most practical aspect of this research is that it demonstrates that focusing on one task allows us to use our whole brain on a problem rather than half a brain on two problems.

President Obama laid out an ambitious vision for American space exploration that included missions to an asteroid and to Mars while opening up routine launches to low-Earth orbit by private industries.  It is a great vision and I especially like the mission to an asteroid because of the vast mineral wealth from Near-Earth Objects and to develop an ability to protect against asteroid impacting on Earth.  It also appears that the plan has widespread support in the space community.

I do disagree with leaving out a mission to the Moon.  The Moon is a great base for launching missions to the asteroids and to Mars.  We know we can reach it within a few days, it has mineral resources, water, and an energy source for fusion.  The Moon’s gravity well is much smaller than the Earth’s gravity well and thus it easier to build bigger craft and launch them with less fuel.  Building a base on the Moon allows us to test out technologies and methods that can help us explore Mars.

This is not an argument for reestablishing the Constellation program.  Canceling Constellation was the right call as is the push to leave Low-Earth Orbit.  But skipping past such an obvious asset in our mission to Mars just doesn’t make sense.

I know I said I wasn’t going to write any more about training in this blog but I had to pass this book recommendation along:  Evidence-Based Training Methods by Ruth Colvin Clark.

Tis the night before Tax Day and I’m preparing my checks for the federal and state taxes.  A bit of bigger bite than expected but that is what happens when you have a day job and run your own business on the side.  I fully accept the rationale that taxes are the price we pay for civilization and I am glad to kick in my share.

But . . . it is grossly unfair that my one-man small business paid more in taxes than GE or Exxon Mobil.  My piddly profits would be considered a rounding error at GE or Exxon but at least I paid taxes on my earnings.  It’s part of being a good corporate citizen so why don’t some of these other megacorporations demonstrate their gratitude to the American public that buys the products?  Pay your fair share for the civilization that provides the free markets that you benefit (greatly!) from.

Back in 2005 I presented a conference paper on a framework for general organization failure.  Five years later and I find that the framework is still valid with parts of the framework being confirmed by neuroscience experiments.  I compiled a list of books and articles to update the research and will expand the paper into a book.  I hope to have it finished by the fall.  Stay tuned for updates.

Thanks to Henry Brown from GovLoop.

People with Power are Better Liars
Dana R. Carney, Andy J. Yap, Brian J. Lucas, & Pranjal H. Mehta
Columbia University

Abstract:  “Telling a lie is costly: emotionally, cognitively, and physiologically. Lie-tellers experience
negative emotions, cognitive impairment, physiological stress, and reveal this through nonverbal
cues. The emotional, cognitive, and physiological resources taxed by lying are enhanced by the
experience of social power. Power-holders enjoy positive emotions, increases in cognitive
function, and physiological resilience. This research tested and found that holding power buffers
individuals from the stressful event of telling a lie and leads to easy and effective deception. In
situations of high (vs. low) power, lie-tellers appear like truth-tellers emotionally, cognitively,
physiologically, and nonverbally.”

My guess on why this is true is that the leader may feel that his or her deception is for the good of the group and thus their sense of altruism prevents the expected stress of telling a lie.