Welcome to GovernmentChangeAgents.com (pre-October 2006)
You have arrived at the GCA.com Archives, which contains postings published before October 2006. To reach the GCA.com Main Page, or for archived postings published during or after October 2006, please click here. While this archive is maintained to preserve pre-October 20006 postings, the primary site and new postings have been migrated to a new blog platform.
Our new platform offers several new features to improve your GCA.com experience. Most notably, readers now have the ability to respond directly to posts and other readers' comments. To submit a signed or anonymous response, simply click the "comments" link directly below the post. Your comments will be viewable once approved by one of our moderators. Another new features is improved search functionality, which allows readers to perform keyword searches against all postings archived on the new platform.
We are excited to offer a site enhanced with these new features, and welcome your feedback as we continue to evolve GCA.com.
Please click here if you would like to subscribe to our RSS feed.
Video Games: The Next Generation of Soap Box
October 11, 2006
For years, the entertainment industry has felt a certain obligation to push civic awareness. Through music and movies, artists express their concerns about humanity and social responsibility. Now, for the first time in it's 30 year history, video game developers have taken up the torch; building games intended to connote a specific message, empathize with other viewpoints, and underscore overall social awareness.
Three years ago, my university was chosen to judge for the "Independent Game Festival Student Showcase". As judge, the faculty was responsible for picking one finalist among several hundred games, entered by students around the world. One shocking entry came from a group of students in China. They put the player in the role of a newspaper photographer during the 1930's Japanese massacre in Nanjing, with a mission to capture these atrocities on camera and get the word out. This particular game did not make the final cut; but it did make a large impression on the judges, myself included. I didn't realize it at the time, but this game was my first exposure to a new genre, rapidly gaining popularity and influence: "Activist Gaming"
For example, Darfur is Dying, a game in which the player takes the role of a Sudanese villager, has been played by over 700,000 users. Food Force, released by the World Food Program, has players use food aid in an effort to rebuild countries. The game was downloaded one-million times during the first six weeks. Since none of the Activist Games out right now are a Triple-A title, you can’t pick them up at your local Best Buy. Still, their 'for-download-only' status doesn't prevent them from generating some powerful word of mouth.
Private industry, non-profit organizations, and international organizations are giving money to help develop and distribute this new genre that provides a portal into directly into a younger generation. Video games are Gen-Y's media of choice. Their word of mouth propagation has been so effective that the spread of Activist Gaming has caused a backlash by U.S. enemies. In response to "Hunt for Sadam", an American released game, the Global Islamic Media Front (a radical organization that has ties with al-Qaeda) released a game titled, "Hunt for Bush". According to Dennis McCauley who runs the blog - Gamepolitics.com:
"There is a game design war taking place, at least in the sense that today's games are a mass communications vehicle for reaching young people. The Defense Department distributes 'America's Army' for free as both a recruiting tool and a way to market the image of our armed forces. The game is hugely popular. It's no surprise that Islamic extremists are trying to achieve the same goal and imitate that success."
Articles referenced:
Thoughts or reactions? Please send them to us.
The Branding of "Change Agent" is up for grabs in the UK and US
October 6, 2006
Something must be in the water in Bill and Hillary Clinton's Chappaqua, NY home. Over the last six months, they have both used the term "change agents" in speeches to describe both the US Democratic and UK Labour parties. The latest use was in Manchester UK about a week ago, when Tony Blair asked the former President to speak at the annual Labour Party Conference.
I have been to Labour and Conservative Party conferences in the UK many years ago, as an intern for a political consulting firm. These events are filled with the most loyal of party members, known more for what they do to motivate the party foot soldiers than making hard news or policy shifts. In these settings, colorful language comes out and helps to position partisans- much like product branding. Too often, it is sloganeering that emerges, which is typical of a highly partisan setting. During Clinton's speech, however, he not only offers his prescription for the future of the embattled Labour party, but invokes a powerful idea that Harvard's John Kotter speaks about when it comes to change.
Kotter believes that urgency drives change within any organization. He suggests that 75% of an organization's leadership must be honestly convinced that business as usual is no longer an acceptable plan- only then can lasting change take root. Getting 75% agreement on anything is difficult, and reaching consensus on the need for change is even tougher.
During his speech, Clinton gives a new spin to Kotter's concept around change within an organization. He invoked a recent poll in the the UK’s Guardian newspaper which suggests that 70% of the United Kingdom now believes it is time for change (of leadership and therefore the ruling Labour party). In his always thought provoking way (lest petulant finger pointing in this instance), Clinton suggests to the Labourites that they should not be put off by the poll but embrace it in their strategy. He said:
"You should say: of course it is... It's always time for change in a great and dynamic nation. Do not let anyone ever present to your citizens any future choice... as change versus more of the same. You are the change agents in this great nation. You have been and you will be."
What Clinton really says in his speech is that the powerful branding of a party as a "change agent" is up for grabs in the UK. As someone who has now studied change and change agents for many years, Clinton's advice resonates. His subtle point will be worth some attention in the UK as Gordon Brown will likely take the leadership helm heading into their elections in 2009 (at the latest). Clinton's point is no less relevant for the Republican Party to consider. Analogous to the Labour party, they have been in power for many years, and their opposition will seek to exploit that notion as the US heads into the 2008 Presidential election.
Given that Hillary Clinton may very well run for President in 2008, and the fact that she has invoked the notion of being a change agent to Democratic audiences, it suggests that we may see an up tick in politicians embracing the term "change agent". The phrase is powerful. It is not a slogan, and when embraced well it sits with a powerful positioning in people’s minds. Those who use the term and present a compelling vision for the future may just get the power they seek. Let the battles for owning and living the phrase "change agents" begin. As the Clinton's know, it already has.
Thoughts or reactions? Please send them to us.
Longtime Leaders Learning to Lead - Again
October 4, 2006
It's not often that you find upper-level management in the government acting as 'students' as opposed to the teachers. But in an article I recently read, this is exactly the case. Specifically discussing, "upper-level managers, civil servants and military staff, representing a wide slice of federal agencies ranging from NASA to NOAA to the Navy...commanders, geologists, policy analysts and rocket scientists..." who attended a June session of the Senior Executive Fellows program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. In order to do so, these leaders left strong leadership posts for a least a month, hoping to gain education about how to improve themselves in government, leadership skills, exhibiting better management, and even learning how they themselves operate.
The program is interesting, taught in the style of a normal college course -- with some innovative twists. The course is unique not only because of the instruction and the many forms of media used, which range from, "classes, study groups, guest speakers, movies such as '12 Angry Men', and a heavy reading load." Courses feature readings from an extensive reading list along with classic instruction in historical government examples. Extensive use of case studies helps to buttress an education on leadership, and government forces these senior leaders to view their jobs a bit differently.
Unlike traditional college courses, however, some case studies in this class come from the students themselves. For example, one exercise requires the leaders to form small groups, where they bring a problem or issue from their personal work experience, which the group then studies, dissects, and attempts to solve. The class is encouraged to use both their different learning and mentoring styles to help leverage elements of strong leadership from across the breadth of many government professions.
Whether they are leaders from Gen Y, those with some degree of experience, or seasoned veterans, leaders at any level can benefit from such a course. The sharing of knowledge from other spheres, review and strengthening of basic and advanced leadership tenets, and the intensive focus on new perspectives offers more than a welcome break from a long held daily work routine. To me, the program also shows that becoming a change agent can often involves an aspect of leadership "re-education," even for already upper-level leaders. The proof is in the pudding -- the article shows that after leaving the class, many describe feeling like they are showing elements of leadership common to change agents:
"I'm too junior to be a big decision-maker here in the Pentagon," said one leader, Mark Pyle. "Commanders are a dime a dozen. But I’ve found other ways to influence the decision-makers. I’m more of a coalition builder now."
Another leader, Manny Rodriguez, director of facilities and engineering for the Homeland Security Department's U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program, said,
"My experience was extraordinary. I can't say enough how helpful it was to be in and around other students, and the energy you draw from them. It brought me back to the youthful days of my own curiosity. In a long federal career, the curiosity and the willingness to ask why and how questions gets muted."
Thoughts or reactions? Please send them to us.
Change Agents, Trust and Briefing to OPM
September 29, 2006
On Wednesday morning of this week, I had the pleasure to be a "guest faculty" at the Office of Personnel Management's Contemporary Leadership Issues Seminar at the Eastern Management Development Center in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. The audience was senior leaders (GS14's and 15s) from a wide range of government agencies but more DoD than civilian.
Based on feedback from some previous briefs at Brookings, I changed the flow of the presentation. I began the dialogue early with a question to the group of what is a change agent? As I had met several of the participants at a reception the night before, it seemed easier to establish rapport in starting the conversation. The flow worked much better and I am thankful to my friends at Brookings for giving me the feedback.
I fielded many questions throughout the presentation and had many comments but three things jump out at me from the day:
1) One of the best questions of the session (and since I wrote the paper) asked me to comment on where in the scale of humility to hubris, the change agents fit. Off the top of my head, my reaction was that humility seemed more prominent to me as a character trait than arrogance. I was quick to point out however, that being humble for a change agent does not mean you will shrink from "breaking china" as Charlie Allen said. It is a fine line. It was a great question.
2) A participant, who identified themselves as a Dogged Conceptualizer, asked how they get their high level leadership listen to them. How do they get heard and how can they get their concepts up to the top of the leadership chain; even if it means passing over their current managers. Another great question and one that I did not have a great answer to. Several in the crowd suggested getting the top leader to commit to join up in less formal settings. One even suggested that the golf course can be a place to establish such rapport. I have thought more about the question and I am now determined to ask other Dogged Conceptualizers what they would recommend. Stay tuned.
3) Finally, the theme that emerged through our discussion of the change agent DNA, is the idea that unless the change agent engenders trust in the people who work with them and for them, that they will fail in their role. Trustworthiness was a trait that several of the change agents shared as important. I have now heard this echoed too many times in settings such as this to omit it as an element in the DNA diagram. Thus, I will evolve that part of my presentation based, yet again, on "the wisdom of the crowd."
I look forward to working with OPM again and offer my thanks to David Ost, Kathy Hanson and Kim Kinley at OPM for the kind invitation to speak. For more information about the fine programs that OPM offers please click here.
Thoughts or reactions? Please send them to us.
Keeping an Eye on Big Brother
September 27, 2006
I recently came across an article that discusses making progress in government through public disclosure or embarrassment. It pointed out a website called ExpectMore.gov which exposes how well government programs are performing to the general public. The website provides detailed information on all programs that have taken part in the assessment; including the program’s parent organization and financial breakdowns. Through use of the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), ExpectMore.gov asks some basic, but important questions, and rates various programs according to their response. Some sample questions:
- Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other federal, state, local or private effort?
- Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?
Based on their results, the following snapshot from the website evaluates our government's overall effectiveness:
Number of Programs Assessed - 793
Effective 15%
Moderately Effective 29%
Adequate 28%
Ineffective 4%
Results Not Demonstrated 24%
Not a terribly bleak assessment. 72% of the programs measured by PART are "performing". In other words, they are well managed, hitting goals, and achieving results. The other 28% are "not performing". How this type of public exposure affects Managers, or the organizations they belong too could prove an interesting drama.
Thoughts or reactions? Please send them to us.
