L'autoroute électronique offre des possibilités
d'améliorer les communications entre le gouvernement et les
citoyens. Le gouvernement doit cependant s'assurer d'éviter la
création d'une nouvelle race d'élites ayant trop
d'influence sur l'ordre public aux dépens des personnes
privées de cette technologie.
While I am all for improved communications through better
infrastructure -- and believe what you will, the Information Highway has
potential to help Canadians communicate among themselves, and with
others -- it is going to take more than a few Web sites, 486s and news
groups to improve the quality of communications, both in this country and
globally.
While it is true that technology is already making a difference in the
speed and nature of information sharing, it is also true that relatively
few Canadians are yet aboard the I-Way.
For those in the business of speaking with, and listening to, a broad
cross section of society (governments at all levels share this
responsibility), care must be taken not to regard
technology in general, the highway in particular, as the answer to
improving communications with Canadians. A solution,
maybe, but not the solution.
While private citizens or private enterprise may consider the highway
a valid means for providing or procuring information or for selling
a product or cause, governments must be more wary. They must think
of the millions of citizen/taxpayers who have not yet adapted to or
adopted technology as a normal means of communications. Failing that,
governments run the risk of creating a new breed of elites who have
inordinate influence in public policy, at the expense of the
technologically disenfranchised or disinclined.
Looking down the highway, then, the government task is twofold: to
recognize the potential of the Information Highway, and to promote it as a
gateway to enhanced national and global communications; and, to
understand its limitations and not to neglect the millions of Canadians
who still congest the secondary routes and rural routes of Canadian
commerce.
The latter point was powerfully made in a speech presented recently
by Lynn Toupin, who heads up the National Anti-Poverty Organization
(NAPO). Lynn stated:
As every public service in the country undergoes significant changes --
and in some instances, major make-overs -- the I-Way will be an important
information ally but not the only one. The stress must continue to
be placed on a communications mix that attempts to provide every
Canadian with information that is available,
accessible, and affordable.
One of my current responsibilities is to review the 1988 federal
government communications policy and to modernize it in the face of,
among other things, the leaps forward in technology. This has forced
me both to understand technology better (though one of my colleagues
still claims I think a hard drive is "from Ottawa to Peterborough"),
and to take a hard look at why government communications
is so often regarded as ineffectual, and what can be
done to improve it.
There are, of course, many reasons for the low or failing grades that
are often given government communications efforts, and just as many views
on what can be done to improve the function's management and
effectiveness.
Since governments at all levels are federations of departments and
ministries, agencies and commissions, sectors and branches, programs
and initiatives, political staff and public servants, generalizations
are risky. I do, however, have five suggestions for any organization
that sincerely wants to increase its market share in
the areas of communications competence and public credibility:
1. Make internal communications a priority. Surveys consistently
indicate that employee communications within many organizations is
abysmal -- that managers and supervisors abdicate their responsibilities
to keep staff informed about, or involved in, the process of continuing
change that is a hallmark of the 1990s. Good communications begins
within the organization. If employees do not feel a
part (and partner) in an organization's efforts, that organization's
capacity to communicate effectively externally is going to be seriously
tested. Too often, it will fail;
2. Put feet to fire. From the CEO to COO right down through the
organization, put a priority on communications -- in the recruitment
of people, in their training and development, in their ongoing
performance reviews. Have everyone, particularly managers, measured
regularly on their competence in communicating with superiors,
peers, subordinates, and external stakeholders. Recognize and reward
those who "walk the talk", and set goals (and keep them) for those
who don't. When an organization sends out a news release announcing
an appointment, speak of the individual's communications skills as
frequently as organizations now do with academic credentials and
career moves;
3. Change, change, change. Don't think for a moment that what
worked in the 1980s is axiomatically good enough for the 90s. Maybe,
but not likely. We are in the process of a profound paradigm shift
and communications is key to understanding change, and to coping with
it. Focus your organization's best minds (not just the professional
practitioners) on communications. Understand trends, public moods
and expectations, wants and needs, tools and technologies for reaching
others and having others reach you. Don't sit back and wait to be
overwhelmed by change. Be a part of it;
4. Talk with, not to, those you serve and those who serve
you. Whether an organization is private sector or public enterprise,
it serves someone. Consult openly and honestly within
the organization -- there are employees everywhere wanting to improve
organizational performance and efficiency and they often have the
energy, experience and expertise to do it -- and with your stakeholders.
Consultation is not about deciding to do something, then
trying to find a critical mass of support. Consultation is about
open minds and partnerships. It is about building consensus and
collective purpose. Don't demean the function through feigned
interest in what others have to say or to offer; and
5. Be economical in thought, precise in expression. Let's all
adopt the 5W and 1H journalists' approach to communication (who, what,
when, where, why and how) and eliminate the too frequently bureaucratic
penchant for smothering the public with unwanted, unneeded and irrelevant
information. As we move more and more into communications through
technology, the resolve and patience (not to mention, the eyes)
of the recipient will be sorely tested. Just the facts would do quite
nicely.
The most fundamental function of any democracy is communications. In
that context, those of us who have views need to make them known.
Don Rennie, "Recipe for Communicating on the Information Highway,"
Government Information in Canada/Information gouvernementale au
Canada, Vol. 2, no. 2.2 (fall 1995).
<URL:http://www.usask.ca/library/gic/v2n2/rennie/rennie.html>
[2]
Don Rennie was a senior advisor in information policy in the Treasury
Board Secretariat of Canada. We were saddened to learn that Mr. Rennie
died accidentally shortly after contributing this article.
The Information Highway has potential to improve communications between
government and citizen. However, government must be careful to avoid
creation of a new breed of elites who have inordinate influence on public
policy, at the expense of the technologically disenfranchised.
The fact that we have a functional illiteracy rate of about 24 percent
is cause for concern regarding the Information Highway. If we are to
develop a highly accessible system, it will have to be very user-friendly,
and we are also going to have to be a lot more aggressive about solving
the literacy problem in Canada.
Lynn Toupin is no Luddite, nor am I. But the message for governments is
this: help pave and promote the highway; help make it vital and viable
as a communications conduit among Canadians, and with others; but do not
regard it as the panacea for communicating with Canadians, and for
Canadians communicating with their public services.
Notes
[1] May be cited as/On peut citer comme suit: