Persuation, transmutation and opengov

The big challenge now, is to have managers and officials of government institutions to sit down with citizens. Some are so locked into their way of thinking that there is no space at all for new ideas.

I believe that the challenge is more than a matter of persuasion.

Current government leaders, they might be giants in intellect on one side, but they behave like children on the other side, attaching greater value to baubles of power, wealth, office or public applause, than to principles of harmony and collaboration. The minds at the top generally lack insight to make the right use of collective intelligence. Trying to persuade them might not be enough to grant them an insightful vision, and the qualities and skills that should go with it.

There has been no period in the whole of history so full of surprises and, at the same time, so filled with man-caused calamities as the current century. I continue to hope that Man will change. And this includes individuals working for governements.

I am increasingly convinced that progress must be accompanied by a growth of the mind. We have reached a tipping point: what has shaped power beforehand, should no longer apply. In this sense, I see the challenge as not being one of persuasion, but of transmutation.

Where are the current challenges to open government?

This post is an answer John F Moore's questions, from Government in the Lab,

'What is the biggest challenge to open government success?
Is open government progressing as you expected?
Where are the current challenges?'

No, open government isn't progressing as much as I would like to. To such an extent that I worry if it isn't just any fad.

There are several factors that hinder the development of this new trend in public management. A couple of months ago, Kieran Harrop, from British Colombia, wrote a post about 'Risk Aversion', being one of the greatest risks. I quite agree with him. 'Risk aversion and fear of the unknown thwarts public institutions from realizing the benefits of open government.' She Kieran's post: http://govinthelab.com/open-government-risk-aversion-one-of-government%E2%80%99s-greatest-risks/

Mark Garriga from Spain speaks of 'integrity' in his Edgeryders mission report, Desde Web Analytics hasta OpenData // From WebAnalytics to OpenData http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int/share-your-ryde/mission_case/desde-web-analytics-hasta-opendata-webanalytics-opendata

In order to have more integrity, we need to define new model of leadership based on a new model of 'luminous' Human being. Communities of philosophers, like Michel Filippi from France, can help us to define these new models.

There are still mountains of work to do. Fear is our greatest enemy. Poverty is another (lack of contracts and jobs in this area).

There are people who have visions of open government. There are people who dream of that, and continue to hope that open government will become a main trend of public management. Gather them into collaborative teams, highlight their visions, and create a maximum of leaders. I believe that this is one way to drive change. http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int/shine-some-light/mission_case/how-can-we-drive-change

Help each opengov activist to define his/her vision. This is what I can help to do right now, via Edgeryders.

I wish I had clearer answers. But that's all I see for now. Each month, by talking to people from my network and sharing with them about these issues, the path becomes clearer in my mind.

A comprehensive strategy, I do not know if this is too ambitious. We often criticize the lack of vision of political leaders. John, you often talk about 'fearless leaders'. Do these leaders exist? Who are they? Where are they? Someone, somewhere, has to develop a global vision of open government, and share it with the highest spheres of power. Is there an institution to fund these efforts? I believe that as a community, we can succeed in defining visions, and bring all of these visions into a bigger scope, all-encompassing vision.

When I get to see things very clearly in my mind, at this precise point of space and time, the seed of intention gets planted in my soul, and the order for materialization of my thoughts is placed. I do not know how it happens. I just need to believe. This is how the human mind works, through visualisation, intent, and hope. We are creators. Citizens, they should be co-creators with their government. I know it would be a good thing. How to materialize it? I am still looking for answers...

ALL HANDS ON DECK! Call to action: Edgeryders

Do you know that on LinkedIn, some Francophones have a discussion about open government issues?

There is no shadow of an open government to the horizon, but these issues are floating around in people's minds, and are discussed here and there.

What can we do now?

Yesterday, Thanh Xuan T. wrote:

(translation) "How the French government, and even the European governments, operate prevents the application of open government, and also the fear of losing a little more power (both legislative and executive) and overall control over the people. Democracy often goes backwards, or serves some obscure purposes, only to result in more control and censorship "discreetly" practiced by the government. Regarding the question of political will: it is obvious that this type of "management" far exceeds the ability of our political leaders, who more consistently care about maintaining their elected mandate, than have a genuine interest in citizens and their nation. Therefore, open government becomes a paradox: a rather unpopular democratic method, not welcomed by officials, even in the land of liberty (especially by the current ruling party)." (Ref. Is France to soon have an open government policy?

Last week, at Edgeryders, it was discussed, with philosopher Michel Filippi, how to go about defining models of leadership and open government. I explained yesterday (see this post) that we covered risk aversion and locking processes.

Edgeryders is a bridge between government authorities and citizens: what a great opportunity to help them understand what are our concerns! Government officials are listening, via this platform. Let's speak up!

The time has come for citizens from European countries - and other nations - to mobilize in an unprecedented move. Students, open government apostles, culture hackers, worldview hitchhikers, open scholars, geeks, artists, scientists, philosophers, thought leaders, change agents, social alchemists, activists, advocates, communicators, lobbyists, writers, thinkers, visionaries, etc., people from all spheres of society, ALL HANDS ON DECK! Let's gather at Edgeryders!

1) Sign up on the platform http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int/

2) Upload your (real) pic

3) Complete your profile

4) Do the 'Share your ryde' mission (TELL YOUR STORY. What matters to you? Do you care about open government? Why?)

Here are examples of cool stories: do you know the Kyopol system? (mission by pedro.prieto-martin); Michel Filippi's mission; Neal Gorenflo's mission; Lyne Robichaud's mission, including discussions with philosopher Michel Filippi.

And soon, we'll start doing small packets of research together, we'll play Edgeryders missions and campaigns. Stay tuned.

Risk aversion, locking processes, and leadership models

This year, in spite of myself, I became familiar with the "risk aversion" concept. I found out, the tough way, that government officials and managers deploy torrents of creativity to say NO.

According to Kieran Harrop, Director, Business Engagement, Strategic Initiatives, Government of British Colombia (a Canadian province), "open government risk aversion is one of government's greatest risks".

A quick environmental scan reveals that the majority of governments in Canada (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal), and indeed the world, are resisting the movement to open government, wrote Kieran Harrop at Government in the Lab.

Last week, at Edgeryders, a discussion about open government models with experimental philosopher Michel Filippi opened the door to explore behaviors and factors that lead individuals (such as government officials and managers) in a locking process. In French, Michel Filippi calls it «verrouillage».

"Someone who does not change its mode of action should first be referred by a model. Here, for example, one could refer to the "cognitive locking process". Cognitive scientists have shown that when a player is locked into a spot, nothing external to the situation can enter its cognitive system. Therefore, a government officer that does not change his leadership style could be locked onto a task. Now, if we agree, this model has taught us something more about the situation described, than what was known previously. This is an example of beginning of exploration that could be undertaken (at Edgeryders).

By starting to collect information on what is "irritating", we draw the first step of a design process. We can ask ourselves: What do I know about this particular object that I have designated as "irritating"? Then, we can go one step further by asking what knowledge irritants have, what they are, how are they used, on which "objects", etc. When we increase the creation of knowledge, we have an early model", explained Michel Filippi.

We hear more and more, that government institution have become largely irrelevant and increasingly impotent. I came to think that it is not sufficient for government officials and managers to understand the benefits of open government. They must also change their leadership model. How can there be transparency if corruption is slyly deeply infiltrated in a government, or if a culture of silence weighs on all shoulders? How can we claim to participation, if the government people are not listening, are disconnected from themselves and from citizens? How can we hope to cooperate when some officials are so arrogant and condescending, have the angry switch permanently on, that they make us want to escape by running in the opposite direction? It's hard to get away from a certain rage-against-the-darkness feeling. Government institutions are caught in a spiral, the more degraded they becomes, the harder it is to rally people to its defence.

Another problem is that MPs often end up with a job with no meaningful responsibilities. If there can be a way to treat MPs as somebodies, they will no longer be content to be nobodies. And they might in turn treat citizens as somebodies. If citizens are appreciated and respected, it could lead to a constructive climate of collaboration, in an open government model.

There are brave attempts to reverse these dynamics, but it is not enough. I am afraid it will take much more than that. Various reforms depend on people in the higher spheres being willing to buck the status quo. Can we come across the sort of officials likely to rock the boat, challenge "locking processes", and propose new leadership models?

Can Edgeryders participants explore together, and gather information about risk aversion and locking processes? I believe they can!