public digitalThe public digital logo

PD Newsletter #33: Strategy, sabotage and scribbling

I’m Andrew Greenway, a partner in Public Digital. Emma has given me newsletter control this week.

I’m interested in why organisations and people behave the odd ways they do, especially in government. The answer is usually some strange alchemy of psychology, history and language. This edition is a collection of things that helped me make some sense of it.

My own reckons on UK civil service’s future were published last week as part of Nesta’s ‘Radical Visions’ collection - let me know what you think about them on Twitter.

Andrew
@ad_greenway

🚀 Forwarded this email? Sign-up.

Nudging and bluffing

The technology hype cycle is well known, but the strategy hype cycle doesn’t get talked about as much. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, 'deliverology' was flavour of the month in government. At the time GDS was starting to get going in the UK, it was behavioural economics, or nudging.

In 2012, GDS worked with the Nudge Unit to run one of the UK’s largest ever randomised control trials, testing the effectiveness of different messages encouraging organ donor registration. Unfortunately, there seems to have been few joint projects between the disciplines since, in the UK or elsewhere.

🚗 A bit like digital service design, nudging isn’t intrinsically good, bad, effective or ineffective; it depends whose hands the tools are in. This 2015 NYT article by Richard Thaler is good on the moral balance. The other similarity is that however clever officials may think they are being, people will always outsmart government to do their own thing. Greek petrol stations sell dummy fasteners so you can drive without a seat belt with no annoying alarm. Nudge your way around that level of commitment to breaking the rules.

One strategy that never seems to go out of fashion is bluffing. The only counter-strategy to that is to know your enemy. This excellent academic paper on ‘Bullshitters: who are they and what do we know about their lives?’ is a must read.

Bluffing at its worst is one sophisticated form of an internal sabotage technique. The CIA’s simple sabotage field manual from 1944 includes most of the rest. I like a manual, and this is one of the best. ‘Disruptor’ is a badge of honour for those doing it in a conscious, creative way. But there are plenty of unwitting, destructive disruptors out there.

Blind spots

Even when they are not actively trying to sabotage themselves, large organisations have an amazing capacity for self-harm.

For example, at the time the CIA manual was finished, the UK government arguably led the world in computing. Over the next 30 years, it squandered that position. One major reason it did so, according to this excellent book by Marie Hicks, is that it systematically discriminated against its most qualified workers: women. Uncomfortable, frustrating reading.

🙈 As well as missing out on groups of talent, governments have a habit of developing blind spots for data. Missing Numbers, by Anna Powell Smith, is an excellent project about the data that the government should collect and measure, but doesn't.

And once you’ve failed on the people and the numbers, it should be no surprise when your organisation’s projects follow. Denial and a ‘good news culture’ tends to be a first symptom of this. Bruce Webster’s concept of the ‘thermocline of truth’ - “ a line across the organisational chart that represents a barrier to accurate information regarding the project’s progress,” neatly explains the weird duality of failing projects. Those below this level tend to know how well the project is actually going; those above it tend to have a more optimistic (if unrealistic) view.

I didn't have time to write a short newsletter...


...so I wrote a long one. In big organisations, where everyone is too busy all the time, many crimes are committed against good writing. This 2016 Harvard Business Review article illustrates some of the pain. People spend an average of 25.5 hours per week reading for work, and 81% agree that poorly written material wastes their time. Josh Bernoff reckons bad writing costs US businesses $400 billion a year.

✒️ George Orwell probably wrote the definitive guide on political language (though not everyone is a fan). This was published six years after Winston Churchill wrote to his officials complaining that verbosity was harming the war effort. He knew bad writing is more than just a nuisance. It can be an existential risk: fuzzy writing conceals fuzzy thinking.

I’m not sure teaching people to be better writers will fix this problem. In places where writers are king, a document or slide deck may be the only artefact everyone can participate in. Where organisations employ and empower a different mix of skills, strategy can look quite different - open models, or games, for example.

🚀 Speaking of games, here’s the lead designer of Alpha Centauri, a strategy title described by some as the best of all time, talking about how he learned that public beta testing was a good thing. In 1999.

News from Public Digital

🌍
Many of us are on the road this week and next - Mike's in Colombia, Ben will be in Peru, and I'm off to Victoria to see our friends in British Columbia.

🐨
Look out for an interview with Mike being published in the Australian Financial Review soon, talking about how Australia's efforts on digital government are shaping up.