Monthly Archives: May 2013

“Held up in a . . . well-lit room”

Posted on May 31, 2013 | Leave a comment

Brahms. Violin Concerto. One of the enduring musical themes of my federal service. The Brahms concerto is the accompaniment to many of the long walks I take in Fedland. Listened to it often while working for the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) during the 1980s, too. Obviously not while I was doing disclosure review on the Nixon tapes. (I like many of the same Romantic classical composers Nixon liked.) But while I was working on the Datapoint word processor, correcting Nixon Tape Subject Logs.

By the late 1980s, we NARA Nixon Presidential Materials Project archivists had developed an inchoate sense of possible trouble coming in the years to come. We didn’t know all that lay ahead, of course. To this day, I find the Brahms good music to listen to as I think things through in Washington. It’s playing this morning at home as I’m writing this post.

Fedland can be a complicated place to work. Walking is a two-fer for me, exercise and a way to get away from the office at lunch time and assess things or after work to think things through in the evening.

On Thursday @archivesnext tweeted a link to a beautiful speech about the archival mission at a recent meeting of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Archives Conference (“It’s What We Do That Counts.”) My first instinct was to join others in focusing on the beauty of the description of the value of archivists. But Washington got in the way.

Archives have similarities and differences among them. Collections development plays a critical role in some repositories while others depend on statutory records management to acquire the bulk of their holdings. Some creators of records work quietly out of the limelight. Others feel its glare. So I tweeted “lovely but little help 2 historians in Fedland<–critical lifecycle decisions r made in RM by executivs @ ‘digital fireplace.'”

The challenges faced by federal officials interest me greatly and not just because I’ve been working among them for 40 years. You learn so much about human beings by seeing how they handle difficult decisions and crises.

Where do we learn when to stand on principle, when to say “no,” and when to “go along to get along?” As with leadership, these are not lessons you learn in the classroom. And for many reasons, not all of which can be known, not everyone learns the same lessons. Part of the answer lies in innate qualities inside different people and the various life experiences they go through.

Sometimes, as former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates observed, you have to stand alone in the crowd and say, “No, that is not where we need to go, this is the way.” He relates this ability to having vision, to being able to look beyond one’s shoelaces and seeing what others can’t. But it goes beyond lack of vision or groupthink. The go along to get along tendencies (reinforced by systems of reward and recognition) in many bureaucratic organizations can weigh down initiatives by limiting chances for success. And most complicated of all, people may see themselves differently in the scenarios Gates describes than others see them.

I first learned of Gates’s speech when the Big Dude, aka AOTUS David S. Ferriero, wrote about it in June 2011. I actually read David’s post on the Shuttle riding back from Archives 2 on June 6, the day I first met then NARA Nixon Presidential Library director Tim Naftali. An inspirational blog post by the Big Dude, one I re-read from time to time. My comment upon reading the post and the pingback to the post I wrote about my visit to Archives 2 are under David’s June 2011 post at AOTUS blog.

Gates believes leadership lessons start early on. I think he’s right. People learn them even before they realize they are learning them. You see the process in Social Media sometimes–the person who goes the other way and points out a different take on an issue in the belief that it is okay to “think different” when so many are tweeting “cool!”

When I look for who says “no,” I don’t mean the negativity that sometimes leads some Twitter feeds to seem like “the complaint channel.” I mean people whose experiences or perspectives differ from those of others. And who know how to convey how they see things without being unpleasant or offensive. If you’re working in a knowledge and solution seeking organization, those are the people you want as part of the team. Or at least I do!

Saying no can be incredibly difficult. There is added pressure in venues where people are second guessed or their actions held up to scrutiny, in real time and retrospectively, more than others are.

In a column in Friday’s WaPo about former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, Garrett Graff, editor of Washingtonian magazine, writes about how he has handled difficult challenges in public service. Comey has described moments when he stood on principle as facing an oncoming freight train. In linking to video of Comey’s 2007 testimony about one such moment Thursday, Paul Kane called it the most riveting 20 minutes of hearing video in Washington.

Graff writes about a speech that Comey gave in 2006 in which he said, “It is extraordinarily difficult to be the attorney standing in front of the freight train.” Yet he saw it as his obligation. Graff refers to Comey’s “moral compass.” He explains, “Comey argued that officials must see the broader picture: The United States is a nation of laws. All government officials take the same oath, he said, promising allegiance not to the president, the party in power or even the American people — but to protect and defend the Constitution.”

Decisions such as the one Comey made are extremely tough, even more so than Gates conveyed in his thoughtful speech at the Naval Academy in 2011. What Graff quotes from Comey below reminds me of some of the insights shared at the National Archives in October by 2011 by retired government officials and historians describing the events of the Berlin Crisis 1961. Learning about decision making at senior levels depends on a mix of what is in the records and what officials share about their perspectives on those events later. Some are more reflective and self aware than others, of course.

You don’t know what you don’t know as you have to decide what you should do. And you don’t know how things will turn out. Comey laid this out clearly as it applies to hindsight and what he sees as officials’ responsibilities while events unfold.

“We know that our actions, and those of the agencies we support, will be held up in a quiet, dignified, well-lit room, where they can be viewed with the perfect, and brutally unfair, vision of hindsight. We know they will be reviewed in hearing rooms or courtrooms where it is impossible to capture even a piece of the urgency and exigency felt during a crisis,” he said. “ ‘No’ must be spoken into a storm of crisis, with loud voices all around, with lives hanging in the balance. . . .”

Comey focused on investigations. K. C. Johnson has observed that fewer historians study and write about presidential level and governmental leadership and management now than in the past. (I very much enjoyed his preso at a historians forum and chatting with him last year.) But many still come to well-lit rooms in NARA’s facilities to examine the records that reveal some of how government works. In the future, more of that light will shine from screens as more records go online.

I am passionate about the mission of the National Archives for many reasons, and not just my past experiences which included testifying under unexpectedly challenging circumstances in the Nixon tapes litigation in 1992 as a federal witness. But also because I have such deep respect for NARA and for the many good people who work there quietly behind the scenes, outside the spotlight. The Big Dude described that mission last year when he said “There’s no filter here. It’s the high points and the low points of our government history. We only try to provide context whereby we can encourage the public to discover the past for themselves.” David gets it, of course, as do many members of the NARA team who work for him.

What about others? The spotlight from those I follow in my Twitter feed is on digitization and sharing information and data. (This weekend civic hacking will be a theme in that feed, I can bet on that.) All good. But so much goes on behind the scenes at archival institutions before members of the public gain access to information shared via Social Media and web portals. For starters, the right information has to be saved for transfer in to the holdings for researchers to study.

For agencies such as NARA, that means scheduling records and providing guidance for their management. Complicated these days when records are a mix of paper and electronic. And when people at the end of the life cycle of records — the researchers — largely have not yet seen the impact of policy decisions on how long federal agencies should hold title to records before transferring to NARA. And how e-records should be taken in (ingested). To say nothing of environmental factors, including what may contribute to a chilling effect or lead to caution in putting thoughts in writing or preservation by those who create and receive records.

Archival institutions don’t do data dumps, of course. Do the executives who write email and create electronic records in the federal agencies and departments all understand that? No, of course not. They are busy doing “the work of government.” There are many reasons why they are many steps removed from the researchers who one day, among the ones with the best intentions and goals, at least (intent and motivations vary) will turn to NARA to understand what happened and why. Not all researchers think about what happens before they see the records they examine, of course.

Depending on the type of information in them and the pertinent statutes, records require screening and disclosure review before they become available to the public. National security classified documents require equity holder review under conditions few who haven’t done it appreciate fully. NARA’s Chief Operating Officer, Jay Bosanko, was right when he called that work “noble” in 2012. Some of the results are visible in public presentations and conferences held at Archives 1 and Archives 2.

Archives professionals at NARA’s headquarters and field facilities and the Presidential Libraries work quietly behind the scenes to process records. My favorite Social Media output from NARA includes products which provide insights in to some of that. I’d like to see more thought given to why such explanations are helpful in Fedland but understand that NARA has multiple goals to meet in what it does. My take on strategy and communications sometimes matches NARA’s, sometimes not. But I admire its overall goal of improving civic literacy. That comes through vividly in its public programing, exhibits, and physical and virtual presentations.

I enjoy talking to Ferriero and reading his AOTUS blog. I often link to David’s posts here at my own blog. In 2011, I praised Arian Ravanbakhsh’s post at Records Express about the scheduling of court records. It stood out for me as unusual in NARA’s Social Media output. I’m glad I got to tell Arian (pictured above) and David that I liked it in November 2011 at NARA’s Social Media fair. The National Declassification Center blog has included good essays on processes and procedures as well as on records in NARA’s collections. The beautiful essay preservation technician Michael Pierce wrote for Memorial Day is both poignant and informative. There are many “unsung heroes” at NARA, and not just in St. Louis!

Comey argues that federal officials need to see the broader picture. The more senior in rank a person is, the more he or she needs to have the ability to get the balance right on big picture perspective, how roles within an organization match up, and overall guidance on operational details handled by subordinates. The best officials never lose sight of stewardship obligations. Not just their own, but also how their team members handle objectives and assignments. Some of Comey’s values come through in his testimony and the quoted speech.

Historians are trained to think in very long arcs. That and thinking in terms of stewardship have helped me in going through challenging times in Fedland. So, too, Tim Naftali, who has advised young federal archives professionals to think in terms of the Constitution.

Not only am I committed to the processes that make up NARA’s mission, I have a deep desire to have the story of public service captured at its richest, most nuanced, and, at times, unexpected. For me, that is an important component of civic literacy. Yes, I read the Interwebs. I understand the complicated tangle of aproaches and motivations that are in the mix among those who write about what we do in Washington. That I know not everyone is an empiricist or a knowledge seeker doesn’t mean I don’t want the records saved. But it isn’t just up to people like me with my history and NARA background.

To what extent does knowledge that what officials do will be held up to scrutiny affect the records of government? For most people on the outside, the answers are unclear. Not only that, the question is not even on most outsiders’ radar screens. I see that in some of the writing about transparency and Open Gov in the news articles for which links sometimes appear on the Archives & Archivists Listserv and on Recmgmt-L. Most of those links draw no comments. Perhaps it has something to do with Return on Investment or cost benefit analysis but I don’t know. Little transparency on the question of why perspectives often are so narrow and conversations never started or cramped and limited in most archival and records management forums.

Inside Fedland, how things look depends on where you stand. The well-lit room can be a complicating factor. Getting people to admit it or address that is not easy. Can I get away with writing here what I once used to post on the A&A Listserv? Sure. For better or worse, every step in the handling of records depends on actions by and choices made by human beings. Some aspects of civic literacy depends on choices made along that life cycle. From the decision to put something down in writing or not to the steps NARA takes with the records designated as permanently valuable.

For some in Fedland, it’s a matter of checking off steps in a process, of saying “we have boxes, cardboard and electronic,” totalling the numbers of those boxes, and saying, “done!” or “success!” And that’s as far as it goes, tada, career benefits accrued. For others (yes, I know former NARA managers who work records management issues as contractors), there’s more to it than that. However, the increasing reliance in Fedland on contractors can be a complication in some situations. No, you won’t see that discussed on Recmgmt-L, either.

Yet the Fedland experience is so rich, so revelatory of how men and women act and what goes in to public service, not just in the “storm of crisis” but in policy making and the business of government. Whether the right records are saved depends in part on how much of that the players are willing to expose to history’s spotlight.

Some day, historians will learn more about James Comey’s journey. How much depends on decisions made in the handling of Federal Records Act and Presidential Records Act materials created while Allen Weinstein was AOTUS. For me, as a Fed, the values Comey expressed in the speech Graff quoted and Gates in his speech a few years later are immensely attractive. Both understood the concept of stewardship. But as some of the people I know among all ranks at NARA remind me as they go to Archives 1 and Archives 2 each day, so do many others who work largely outside the spotlight, on the difficult but exciting archival mission.

Leave a comment

Posted in U.S. History

“Use your authority over others constructively”

Posted on May 27, 2013 | 2 comments

On Sunday, I socialized with some of my 92 year old Mother’s friends. They smiled to hear me describe how I proudly wore a Haapsalu shawl she knit for me during the 1970s to a recent event at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). You glimpse it in images of my guest Tim Mulligan and me in a stop action video of the event. I lack the skills to make such a shawl and cherish my Mom for the amazing things she has done and still is able to do.

How people react to the very old–whether they marginalize them or think of how they themselves, if lucky, will live on past retirement age, depends on the individual. Because I had spent the day with Mom and the elderly, I shook my head yesterday when I read a post, “Technical Literacy: Can Everyone Learn to Code?” Yes, I’m about to question the wrong links, as I often do in my Social Media use. I know the cool kid thing to do would be to praise the young man in my Twitter feed. But I praised on Twitter others who used their knowledge and authority more constructively, instead.

Technical skills are important to job seekers, for economic reasons, and for progress. But to write about “everyone” learning to code is silly, shortsighted, and written from the privileged viewpoint of someone who believes there are endless opportunities ahead for all people. People such as my 92 year old Mom, long out of the job market, and facing the inevitable decline of the very old, don’t fit in to that privileged view.

The author seemed to have a moment when he realized that when he wrote, “Perhaps it’s cruel, or naive, to recommend that everyone, all 7.086 billion of us, learn to code when expensive schooling and the thousands of hours required are just unavailable to most of us.” (Yes, he linked to the “world population.”) But he went on from there to jump on the predictable bandwagon, with nary a moment to refine his appeal from “everyone” to who would benefit from and contribute in the workplace from learning to code. Does that mean someone such as my Mom, who obviously will never learn to code–she doesn’t know how to use a computer–is a failure? Of course not!

A thoughtful Twitter exchange last week with @sally_j about who still snail mails prints of photos in this day and age reminded me that not everyone is insular. I love those comfortable convos on Twitter, where someone says this, I say that, and we talk it over. We chatted about a Lifehacker article in which a writer wrote, “everyone is on Facebook” and asked why anyone still prints photos. I loved the way @sally_j chatted about the spectrum of photo users (I mentioned Mom) and she closed out the convo by saying, “coolio.” In the 1950s, it would have been “cool, daddy-o,” ha. Progress, I like it!

Better to focus on thoughtful tweeters such as @sally_j than on the misjudgment of well meaning people such as the HuffPo blogger who don’t know how to advocate beyond a small group. He meant well, there is a good case to be made for learning to code and I’ve seen others make that case well, just in 140 characters on Twitter. (Follow @digiphile to see some good examples!) But not everyone can look beyond their shoelaces. You can wish people would do better but whether they can or not is up to them, not you.

Why do I mention shoelaces? I re-read today at a Department of Defense website a Memorial Day speech that then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gave in 2011. He told graduates at the Naval Academy that

“great leaders must have vision – the ability to get your eyes off your shoelaces at every level of rank and responsibility, and see beyond the day-to-day tasks and problems. To be able to look beyond tomorrow and discern a world of possibilities and potential. How do you take any outfit to a higher level of excellence? You must see what others do not or cannot, and then be prepared to act on your vision.”

Gates spoke of courage and of avoiding groupthink.

“A further quality of leadership is courage: not just the physical courage of the seas, of the skies and of the trenches, but moral courage. The courage to chart a new course; the courage to do what is right and not just what is popular; the courage to stand alone; the courage to act; the courage as a military officer to “speak truth to power.”

In most academic curricula today, and in most business, government, and military training programs, there is great emphasis on team-building, on working together, on building consensus, on group dynamics. You have learned a lot about that. But, for everyone who would become a leader, the time will inevitably come when you must stand alone. When alone you must say, “This is wrong” or “I disagree with all of you and, because I have the responsibility, this is what we will do.” Don’t kid yourself – that takes real courage.”

What Gates told the Naval Academy graduates has relevance beyond the armed forces.

“I want each of you to take that lesson of adaptability, of responding to setbacks by improving yourself and your institution, and that example of success, with you as you go forward into the Navy and the Marine Corps you will someday lead.

The qualities of leadership I have described this morning do not suddenly emerge fully developed overnight or as a revelation after you have assumed important responsibilities. These qualities have their roots in the small decisions you have made here at the Academy and will make early in your career and must be strengthened all along the way to allow you to resist the temptation of self before service.”

Yes, coding is an important skill to learn. So is the ability to broaden one’s vision and appeal to others in a way that “that transforms all who feel its warmth.” The young man writing at HuffPo is an advocate; the much older, experienced Gates a leader. Some advocates whose words we read today will become leaders over time. Others, regardless of position, will remain stuck in neutral, spinning their wheels in advocacy but not making progress.

At “my beloved NARA” I saw a beautiful sign of progress today in a post shared via Social Media at Prologue blog. Preservation technician Michael Pierce wrote of his work with veterans’ records at the St. Louis National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). He focused on the records of U.S. servicemen who fought in the Korean War. People such as Pierce work behind the scenes, their contributions to the agency not always noted by outsiders. A recent letter from the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command thanked the director of the NPRC for work that led to the identification of the remains of Korean war casualties.

Pierce wrote in his Memorial Day post that

“Some of the names listed were the names of young men whose records I had processed.

Sometimes, I take a quick look at the ages of the men and women whose records I am working on. I realize that most of them are less than half my age. I’ve had a good life so far. Sometimes, their lives ended just when it should have been beginning. Occasionally, I shed a tear.

I know I’m supposed to be primarily concerned with preserving the paper, guarding against the further loss of information on these documents. Still, my sense of humanity creeps in on occasion.”

A post from the heart. I liked it so much because it was human on so many levels.

The preservation technician at St. Louis isn’t an official leader at NARA, he doesn’t occupy what insiders call a “Red Box” position. But the Big Dude, aka AOTUS David S. Ferriero, was right early in his tenure when he said that anyone can lead. (David, too, has written about the same speech by Gates.) It speaks well of Ferriero’s NARA that links to Pierce’s post were re-tweeted spontaneously not just by me but others in the crowd (and by Chief Records Officer Paul Wester–thank you for that, Paul!) on Memorial Day.

Not everyone will live in to their 90s, as some members of the World War II generation, including my war refugee Mother have done. She’s still with me, to tell stories of turmoil, hardship, and hope. In every era, some lives are cut short due to war and for other reasons. Pierce ended his blog post with a poignant reminder of this, writing,

“Historians are encouraged to look at events objectively, to keep a bit of mental distance from the subject they’re studying. I can do that when I’m on the job until I consider that I’m performing a task that allows these documents to come alive and speak for those who may no longer be with us.

It’s why I do what I do.”

Gates quoted Theodore Roosevelt in his Memorial Day speech in 2011. “In the long run, [our society’s] success or failure will be conditioned upon the way in which the average man, the average woman, does his or her duty.” He said leaders have even greater responsibilities.

“Self-confidence is still another quality of leadership. Not the chest-thumping, strutting egotism we see and read about all the time. Rather, it is the quiet self-assurance that allows a leader to give others both real responsibility and real credit for success. The ability to stand in the shadow and let others receive attention and accolades.”

Gates acknowledged that some of what he believes about character and integrity and leadership might sound quaint in this day and age. I sometimes find it a challenge to explain on Twitter or Facebook why I admire people who serve their country well in civilian and military service, both. Pierce’s blog post brought both elements together. Leading from within the ranks. An anomaly in a celebrity chasing age that seems to reward attraction to the shiny? Or hope for the future? Time will tell. You can laugh at me (I don’t mind!) but reading it gave me hope for sustainable Transformation at NARA.

2 Comments

Posted in NARA, U.S. History

Jeopardy and the luck of the draw

Posted on May 22, 2013 | Leave a comment

When you are inside a federal agency such as the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), you never know who is going to walk in the door. NARA screens who gets a job on its staff to some degree, although hiring people goes the way it always has and will. That is to say, the job candidate selection process involves a leap of faith by both sides as regards the match up.

Who else walks in when the doors of an archival institution open to the public? The luck of the draw. No match ups. So you get the full range of people. Humankind, on display. And these days, not just in the physical world. Sometimes on display in the virtual world, as well. Infinite diversity.

Yesterday, the luck of the draw worked well for me in the National Archives building in Washington. I’m actually not thinking of the usual nice conversations, although I enjoyed exchanging greetings with the Big Dude, aka AOTUS David S. Ferriero. And chatting with public affairs director Chris Isleib. And saying hi to other NARA friends.

I even got to cheer on in my mind a former colleague in one of the video clips shown at Archives 1 yesterday–Pat Anderson, a friend from the days we worked together on the Nixon Presidential Materials Project in the 1970s, spoke about polar archives holdings. Pat is pictured with National Archives colleagues at the White House in a post I put up in 2011 about leadership (“Character Matters More.”)

Where I really got lucky was in who walked in to the McGowan Theater from among the public. Two groups of middle school students with teachers. Two of the social studies teachers and a man on his lunch break were chosen to be contestants in a game of “Archives Jeopardy.” There was a preview of it in an interview with Ferriero, in a short talk on Federal News Radio (the clip is here). David explained how the NARA public programs team works. (A very impressive part of an agency with diverse units that support the larger mission.) And at the end you get to hear questions — strike that, answers, then questions! — Archives style.

The news website stated in its blurb for the interview, “Tuesday the National Archives will play a game.” And indeed it did! As host for “Archives Jeopardy,” David read out the rules as the game got started. He told the audience members they would have to be quiet while the game was in process. That is to say, they could not yell out answers to the contestants. But total quiet? Nah. Nobody expected that and I loved that they were not! The cheers and applause made the experience all the more fun.

Educating people about NARA and about U.S. history is much more enjoyable for me to see these days than it was back in the days when I worked at the agency. It was a different age and things were much more low key. Events such as “Archives Jeopardy” are the result of smart thinking and excellent work by the team. I loved seeing the great payoff.

I really like seeing the fun side of public engagement in an agency undergoing Transformation. Not everything is fun, of course. As I looked at the visitor brochures available throughout the exhibits side, I thought about the man who wrote a letter of complaint to the Washington Post last year. I didn’t admire what I saw from him (he complained about not seeing brochures that actually were plentiful) but NARA handled it well.

Some of the most interesting threads in archival forums over the years have been the ones where people put up cries for help on how to deal with “problems.” Museum visitors, researchers, donors. Relations are enjoyable for all sides some times, at other times, not so much. Some of those threads remain vivid for me.

A thread about a researcher who reportedly tried to throw her weight around by intimidating staff with her VIP connections (to a Dean at the university) drew an unusual number of comments on the Archives & Archivists Listserv ten years ago. Proclaiming specialness, whether as a researcher, a donor, or a visitor to an event, and asking to be treated as a VIP, just tells staff, “I don’t respect your boss.” Not the way to go as a researcher — hurts the Dean figure with colleagues as much as anyone else — but not everyone has good judgment.

You could just feel the “been there” quality in some of the comments in 2003 as people talked about how to handle researchers. The conversation was so vivid, I later used it on the Listserv to try to draw people out on other issues. I wrote in a Listserv message in 2005 that “If you search for the terms “French” AND “map” AND “professional moral support needed” in the List archives, you will find the discussion from 2003 in which [an archivist] sought our support when confronted with an angry and connected researcher.”

Some archival experiences are more relatable than others. Her dilemma caught my eye and that of many others in her plea for “professional moral support.” The extent to which managers “have your back” on the line varies greatly depending on a number of complex elements. And, let’s face it, on institutional culture. Sometimes, in the Old NARA, managers didn’t get that balance of developing appropriate procedures and processes, supporting line staff who had to implement them, and providing reasonable customer service right. That’s why David Ferriero has been working to chanage the culture since he took charge of NARA in November 2009.

Even more so than in 2003, when most of us still only engaged on Listservs, and didn’t yet have Twitter and blogs and Tumblrs, the virtual world captures archival and management challenges in its electronic footprints. I thought about that as I looked back recently at what you learn in the classroom and what you learn on the job as an archivist. And as you rise in rank. Management skills really matter! David Brooks recently discussed what database analysis of word choices tells us about values and priorities. But some things are unsaid, the behaviors are modeled more so than spelled out.

Yesterday, in searching for something else on archival issues, I stumbled on a message my late sister, Eva, had posted on the Archives & Archivists Listserv in 1998. She was a Supervisory Archivist in the Declassification unit at NARA. One of the people she supervised was Jay Bosanko, whom David Ferriero named Executive for Agency Services in 2011 and Chief Operating Officer in 2012.

What caught my eye was Eva’s gentle admonition in 1998 to a NARA official in a regional office who had posted in the forum. He no longer works at NARA.

I looked to see what the former official had posted. An official who identified himself as Director, NARA – Anchorage, posted on the Listserv in 1998 on a thread on the agency’s hiring practices. He joined the discussion by saying, “Well, I’m sick of this.” And observed,

“As I read this e-mail, most of it boils down to a number of people whining
because they a. don’t meet the very modest standards and b. NARA
won’t treat them as special and make exceptions. In amidst all the
wonderful things a college experience is nice for, its fundamental
purpose is to prepare the attendee for the world of earning a living.
You acquire skills there. You have years to do it. If you freely
elect to acquire skills different from what NARA has required for
decades, why should the agency hire you?”

Eva wasn’t a director at NARA. The highest rank she ever held in the agency was Supervisory Archivist. She had good values and common sense. I know from talking to her that she believed in equitable treatment, pushing her for “special treatment” didn’t work when she oversaw the operation of the Classified Research Room at Archives 2. Sandy Berger would not have gotten away with what he did in that setting, ha! But she understood that when it comes to attracting talent, calling people whiners is not the way to go.

I liked the inclusive and forward thinking way my sister responded on the Listserv in 1998 in a posting she called “Re: NARA hiring – Elitism or Whining?”

“As a NARA employee, it has been interesting reading the recent “NARA hiring” thread with comments about American history requirements and qualifications. Valid points have been made on various sides of this issue. Recent postings make me wonder, however, whether it is in the best interest of NARA to have its officials characterize those who have not been hired as “whining.” It is not in NARA’s best interest to appear overly elitist or condescending. This can alienate those who might be willing and enthusiastic about applying for current or future jobs with the agency.”

Eva concluded her note by writing, “NARA needs to continue to improve its
efforts to provide more opportunities for internal promotion of competent staff as well as being receptive to enthusiastic outsiders wishing to join the agency staff.” I smiled to see words she had typed on a computer at Archives 2 so long ago. And thought, “You go, girl!”

And then I thought, how would Eva have fit in to the New NARA that David Ferriero heads? An agency looking to bring in fresh talent but also seeking to provide greater opportunities for tapping in to knowledge internally, as well as externally. NARA has changed tremendously for the better since 1998. I don’t know about you, but I think Jay Bosanko’s former boss, which Eva once was, would fit in well indeed!

Leave a comment

Posted in Fun, NARA, Workplace issues

Misbehavior ideology

Posted on May 19, 2013 | 4 comments

Rebecca IMG-20130405-00539 In April, I went out to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in College Park and cheered on Rebecca Goldman as she taught us about digitization efforts at LaSalle University at the annual conference for the Society for History in the Federal Government. Last week, I went to Archives 2 again and hung out with my NARA peeps to mark 40 years in federal service working with archives, records, history. The past, the present, and the future. So very wow.

I’ve been thinking about the past. And the present at NARA. And the future of the archives profession. About history. Records. Washington. About the advice graduates hear at commencement ceremonies. And about how the Big Dude, aka AOTUS David S. Ferriero, stands out among so-called “bureaucrats” in Fedland with his talk about comfort zones, positive and negative feedback, continual learning, empathy, and “yes until no.” Having gotten to know him, I can see that David is the real deal.

I studied how others used Social Media before I started blogging. I used to work at the National Archives. I depend on it. So I examined NARA’s blogs. Even after I got to know the Big Dude, I’ve felt free to blog here about his agency’s use of Social Media and his change efforts. As I said here in November 2011, NARA’s Transformation effort is “a work in progress.” That’s actually a quote from David.

And I studied how bloggers outside Fedland handled Social Media. Archivesnext. Derangement and Description. You Ought to Be Ashamed. I was impressed by a post Rebecca wrote in 2010 about how “It Gets Better (In the Archives).” I also learned from others I follow on Twitter, including @anarchivist. I could spend the rest of this post listing the people I’ve learned from. But this isn’t a laundry list post and I’m not here to check off boxes.

Yes, it gets better in the archives. Often. But it always doesn’t get easier. I struggle constantly with the chaos in a life dependent on information and knowledge, archives and records, even as I embrace the most positive parts of it. How do you spend capital? On yourself? On others? What happens when you fail? Do you have to look at it as throwing away capital? Or was it still well spent?

I’m a liberal arts major. But I like the way a former software engineer stood up for geeks in her review of Evgeny Morozov’s To Save Everything, Click Here. Good for her. In her review, Ellen Ullman wrote

“The overall tenor of the book is an argument between Morozov and his ideological enemies: those he sees as the arch champions of Internet-centrism. Foremost among them are the legal scholar Lawrence Lessig (demeaned so often you feel sorry for him), the author Clay Shirky, the technophile Kevin Kelly and the journalist Gary Wolf. Morozov calls his opponents “geeks.” To which I responded with my most plentiful marginal note: “not a geek.” Author: not a geek. Pundit: not a geek. Scholar: not a geek. Journalist: not a geek.

I must rescue ‘geek’ from Morozov’s rhetorical clutches. The designation belongs to the programmers, engineers and computer scientists who built and are still building the Internet. Geek forums are full of lively debates, down to the ways specific network protocols affect economic and social structures. Morozov seems unaware of these forums or has chosen to ignore them.”

I don’t fit in with the Morozovs or the Lessings. As in so many things, I’m somewhere in between. But I like the concept of “rescue.” And you know I like the call for nuance!

A new Star Trek movie just opened. I loved Star Trek’s vibe when I watched it in syndication in 1971. That’s over 40 years ago. Transparency. I promised Kate Theimer on Twitter last week during the convo about Tribbles and Star Trek that I would remove the redaction in the photo of myself from 1971 I previously used here.

Done. You see the pic from 42 years ago below at left. Unredacted records don’t lie. (Hold that thought.) I’m not just wearing yellow velour like Captain Kirk. I was posing for a photo my twin sis took in ’71 with Star Trek type props! Outed. I’ve always been a dreamer. Still am at 62. I’m a passionate supporter of the National Archives. But I have to guard against being ideological about it. Look at me last week. I’m in uniform. How many times have you seen the blue nails, the NARA tie, in recent photos of me? Often! But I need them. They’re talismans for me in Fedland.

Infinite Diversity, Infinite Combinations! Diversity leads to richness. Exclusion, conformity? Blandness. I liked Ullman’s review of Morozov’s book. I don’t have to be a technologist to say don’t put down geeks just because they work in fields other than mine. And you don’t have to be a humanist, as I am, to say, don’t count us out. As I said in a FB convo Sunday night, “don’t ever beat yourself up! We all matter.”

I’ve never understood the archivists vs. librarians arguments on (don’t laugh, some of us hang out in diverse places) Listservs, at blogs, IRL. David Ferriero is right. He doesn’t see the difference. I get that. Yet I’m as proud as anyone of what I’ve learned in the classroom and on the job.

Do I worry that an age in which many of my readers have embraced social networking that use of tech tools can become cramped with ideology? Yes. Especially in Washington, where there are so many obligations and hidden pressures. But there are things we can affect, even from within Fedland. That’s why my blog has the throughlines it does.

Embrace what we have in common. Support each other. Across those generations that (hello don’t have to) collide. Across knowledge and “skill sets.” We’re all just people who know a little this and that. When we reach out to partner, we become stronger, wiser. But none of us ever will be perfect. It doesn’t work that way.

We need to stop being so scared of each other. Enough already. I’ve been thinking about that since I marked 40 years in Federal service with my fabulous visit out to Archives 2 in College Park. My home away from home in Washington. The one I never wanted to leave as a runaway.

My specialty as an archivist with the Nixon Presidential Materials Project at NARA was “abuse of governmental power.” Nixon. Watergate. Enemies lists. We young archivists did what the law required and discovered the truth in archival records. And got knifed for it in Washington in 1992. My world will never be the same! When I testified truthfully in a court case about the Nixon tapes I knew I was shutting the door to my ever returning to work at NARA. I feel wistful about that still, at times. But I’d do the same thing over again.

Much has changed since I started work at NARA in 1976. For nearly 20 years after my testimony in a case in which Richard Nixon was an Intervenor during the Bush administration, I felt unwelcome at the agency–officially at the highest ranks. My friends in mid-level positions and on the line welcomed me warmly, of course. Since May 2011, thanks to Ferriero, I’ve felt welcome again at NARA, able to integrate the unofficial with the official. I’m grateful for that. But I don’t know all the unwritten rules. I never will.

There are many pieces to the puzzle. Some fit clearly, others less so. Sunday I tried reaching out to a NARA official — not Ferriero — via Social Media. (It’s what Charlene Li has encouraged us to do.) Was it a mistake? Perhaps. I don’t want to repeat it if it was. So I won’t try it again. Not because I can’t afford it. But because the official might not. I have to look at it from that perspective. That I won’t try again doesn’t mean I know whether NARA learned anything from my outreach or not. Evgeny Morozov may be a polemicist but he is right to point out that Transparency has its limitations. And so it should.

In an effort to understand the news, both the same old same old and as it reflects a changing world, I also read widely on Sunday between doing my gardening chores. Ullman’s review of Morozov’s To Save Everything, Click Here that I mentioned above. Dorothea Salo’s s peech to a graduating class of the School of Library and Information Science at the University of Wisconsin (“We Aim to Misbehave”). And because the agency is in the news, Rick Barry’s old article about Shelly Davis, one time federal historian (the same position I am at another agency) at the Internal Revenue Service (“Thinking about accountability, recordkeeping and Shelley Davis’ Unbridled Power : a commentary.”)

Dorothea Salo makes an impassioned case to library school graduates for fighting battles on behalf of the profession. I can relate to the vision, I’ve fought plenty of battles myself. Heck, I’m still doing it now. But the examples she gives are predictable. I knew as soon as I saw a link posted with “misbehave” in the title whom and what she would name and describe. And she hit each and every mark, just as I expected.

I don’t know why Salo says, “Archivists, think you’re safe in the arms of the past?” We never have claimed we are. That’s a strawman argument. And the example she gives? Access to oral history interviews at Boston College. A private sector entity up against governmental forces. That doesn’t begin to capture the type of quiet battles we archivists and historians fight behind the scenes inside and outside Washington. Without cheerleaders, applause, or publicity.

Sunday night I thought to myself, “why can’t we open things up more for broader discussion?” And then I shook my head and told myself, “You keep asking for the moon!” But then I thought of what @Archivesnext always tweets to me, “Be the change!” And what @derangedescribe tweeted to me Sunday evening, “haters gonna hate, etc.” And how both of them and @meau inspired me to start a blog in 2010. And I looked at my JFK mug, bought at the National Archives MyShop, and read the quote, “One person can make a difference and everyone should try.”

I’m not that person. I try. But a successful leader in change? No. I am way too off message and untamed. Washington has rules, written and unwritten. Codes, standards, regulations, hierarchies. Agendas that are not spelled out. Chaotic collaboration and feedback is going to discomfit many of its officials although there are notable exceptions.

My Twitter feed is all wrong, messy, chaotic, supportive of the wrong people, challenging to the wrong people, bold at times, scared at others. Tell me the Internet should go dark, as Alexander Howard (whose feed I like) did the morning the news broke about Aaron Swartz’s suicide and I’m liable to tweet that nonconformity itself can become conforming.

And that free expression is complicated, man. And point to Vietnam war analogies. And then delete all my tweets for the day because who the heck could possibly understand them. I may be 62, but there are times I feel comfortable and others when I feel intensely out of place, as much as any teenager. I’m way, way out there, coloring outside the lines.

Intuition. Heart. We need more of that and less by-the-books stuff. Creativity depends on freehand drawing, not painting by numbers. And most of all, lordy, we need to stop worrying so much about control! Obtaining and keeping it over others. Letting others control us.

Life is short. Even in Washington, there still is room for fun. I smiled at David Ferriero and Deputy Archivist Deb Wall taking part in a blindfolded bacon taste test at the Canadian Embassy last week along with other officials. And I grinned at how a friend posted on Facebook about how much fun that event was. A follow up to prior events, such as the doughnut taste test NARA hosted for its employees and Canadian officials last June. Whimsy! We need it in Washington.

And sometimes, yes, we even need to misbehave. But whether we do and how we do it should not and cannot be prescribed. Sometimes, you feel you have to fight battles on archival issues. But from where I stand, it has to be done without ethical shortcuts.

The decision to “misbehave” depends on so many things. Our rank. Our interpretation of our obligations. On what we can and cannot disclose. I blogged in 2011 about how hard it is to fight archival battles from inside the government while being beaten up. I explained in “Holding Your Head High” that sometimes you have to take the beating in silence when, as I do, you believe you never should leak or disclose unreleased records outside the government. As recently as this past fall, a retired academic told me leaking government documents was acceptable in advocacy. I replied, “No, it is not for me.”

After I read Salo’s speech, I thought, “I see what you mean on some of this. But don’t turn misbehavior into ideology.” This is a fascinating time for me to study as a historian. Not just the what but also the how. There is so much information, data, and knowledge out there. And so many mechanisms for gathering and sharing it. But so many people are huddled together, sheltering in place.

The web post with incorrect historical analogies that someone links to without Googling to check what really happened during a presidential administration. The hyperventilation on Facebook or Twitter over “breaking news” that a simple search on sites with more credibility shows to be a misrepresentation of what occurred. The carefully drawn boundaries around intellectual regions you can’t enter without a passport, despite the deceptive appearance of open borders.

Where might the Internal Revenue Service be now, if its federal historian position had been strengthened and sustained as a result of Shelly Davis’s outreach to NARA during John Carlin’s tenure as AOTUS? And where would she be now, if she were fighting to save IRS records in 2013 rather than the mid-1990s? Would NARA seek her input on Open Gov via IdeaScale? Or use tools that would enable it to understand what was going on within her agency’s unique culture? Or quietly tell officials that the situation she was worried about was more complicated than she described (as Rick Barry reported in another article)? And do what the risk averse, closed off NARA of old did, hope things would die down?

Ellen Ullman writes in her review of Morozov’s book

“He derides an ideology he calls ’Internet-centrism,’ which defines the network not as a tool created by fallible human beings but as a creed to live by. The chief promoters of this ideology have projected upon the Internet certain values they imagine to be intrinsic, among them the imperatives to be open and transparent and efficient and digitally “social”; to believe that knowledge is created through data collection and algorithmic analysis; to believe that the minute quantification of existence is the path to self-awareness.

In this Internet-centric view, the Net stands outside of history. It has brought us to an epochal moment — the culmination of all human invention. We therefore should live in accordance with its values. The Internet is a human creation; ‘the Internet’ is a god to obey.”

I’ve been arguing for over a year at my blog that not all questions can be resolved out in the open. And that you have to use Social Media tools with care and not oversell their use. (Asking a Shelly Davis to provide input to NARA on IdeaScale would not have worked!)

While I call for discernment and nuance, simply asking that the right tools be selected with care, Morozov takes a more robust approach. The bludgeon doesn’t work on me. I gulped when I read this part of the review, because no one is “relentlessly right!” We’re just people, yapping.

“The argument is forceful and passionate, but its polemical tone is wearying. Morozov seems not to trust the judgment of his audience. He is right, but relentlessly right, as if none but fools could possibly disagree with him.

But just as you are about to tune out — more wine, please — you realize that Morozov is taking up the cause of human values against those of the machine, and you feel compelled to sit up and listen. He dares to see the Internet’s fundamental credo of openness as a tyranny. He suggests that access to some information should be restricted, which in the Net-world is a sin second only to murder. He decries the ideology of ‘transparency,’ reminding us that no human relationship can survive without innuendo, mystery, even lying. He exposes the damage of ‘truthfulness’ indexes that troll the Internet for beliefs expressed by public figures, punishing anyone with the audacity to let his thoughts evolve over time. He warns against ‘solutionism,’ with which ‘problems’ are identified according to Internet ‘values’ (efficiency is good; politics is messy; make politics efficient).”

Ideology. Like an invasive vine in a garden it can choke off what should be beautiful. In a library. In an archives. In Washington. In Fedland. Even at my beloved NARA. Go out there and pull it out! And plant something better. Beauty for us to see. And herbs for us to use in the kitchen. Appeal to our senses and our hearts, not just our heads! We can handle it. Can you?

4 Comments

Posted in archival issues, Workplace issues

Taking the (NARA Shuttle) 5th

Posted on May 17, 2013 | Leave a comment

On Wednesday, when I got on the Shuttle bus that runs between Archives 1 downtown and Archives 2 in College Park, I saw the Big Dude, aka AOTUS David S. Ferriero, sitting in one of the seats. But I wasn’t surprised. He may be the head of the agency, but when possible, he takes the Shuttle. Just like us. David and I chatted briefly about this and that when I got on the bus. One of several nice conversations I had with various people Wednesday. Then I settled down in a nearby seat to read on the journey back to Washington. I had my pink iPod with me, but I didn’t put on my headphones.

Whenever I get on the Archives Shuttle bus, I think of the 5th. Beethoven’s Fifth. With John Eliot Gardiner conducting. And I think of Glenwood Cemetery on Lincoln Road in DC. I had never heard of it until my twin sister, Eva, then a supervisory archivist with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), was named the coordinator for the move of all civil national security classified records from Archives 1 to the then newly opened Archives 2.

Eva’s own office still was in the iconic John Russell Pope building at 7th and Pennsylvania Avenue then, of course. As she handled move coordinator duties, she rode the newly established Archives Shuttle route between the old and new NARA buildings and listened to Beethoven on her (don’t laugh, it was the mid-1990s) Sony Discman. (After the move was complete and her unit, Declass, established in Archives 2, she switched to commuting to work on public transportation.)

Once, while Eva still was working in A1, she played the Fifth for me and said at different parts of the music, “this is when the bus passes Glenwood Cemetery,” “this is when it turns on to,” etc. She had it all in sync in her mind!

Of course I listened to it Wednesday evening as I thought about Eva and A2! And am listening to it as I write this post.

Why was I out at A2? To see friends. To socialize. Yes, I took some personal time off of work in Fedland to go out to College Park. Talked to people in the lobby, in the hallways of A2, and in the cafeteria. And I had a fun lunch at R. J. Bentley’s, where Eva had enjoyed so many outings with Declass friends in the 1990s. But whereas she had to hand the 35 mm camera to someone else in order to be in a photo herself, as at left below, all I had to do is hold out my iPhone to snap the photo with Neil Carmichael at the right. As with the Discman and iPod on the Shuttle, a reminder of how quickly technology evolves!

Wednesday’s outing gave me a break because it enabled me to connect with people who speak my language and share some of my values. Issues relating to records, archives and history can be difficult to understand from outside. I admire people who are willing to spend capital to advocate on behalf of us. One of them, Judge Royce Lamberth, keynoted an American Society of Access Professionals (ASAP) awards ceremony on May 13. Ferriero described at his blog how an office and a board associated with NARA received awards.

I smiled at the quote from Voltaire in the AOTUS blog post about the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) and the Public Interest Declassification Board: ” ‘Appreciation is a wonderful thing: it makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well.’” You know I thought of Eva and her generous spirit!

OGIS and the PIDB both work on incredibly complex issues. The results of their work come from smart, dedicated people working through super tough challenges. I admire people with the type of ethos the best of them display. As Ferriero said in quoting the President’s public service week proclamation at the recent Archivist’s Awards Ceremony, “Our dedicated employees are committed to a cause greater than personal ambition, and each day, they tackle many of our most urgent challenges.” Of all the people in Fedland, the ones I admire most are some I know at NARA. I understand what motivates them and establishes bonds among them.

One of my favorite NARA bloggers, Carrie McGuire (pictured at ASAP’s annual conference in December along with Don McIlwain of the National Declassification Center), also put up a post, “Celebrating Our Successes.” I had the pleasure last fall of meeting her at an OGIS Brown Bag Lunch presentation and telling her how I admired her blogging vibe. OGIS blog has heart!

I really liked the way Carrie summarized Judge Lamberth’s comments as she described Monday’s ASAP event.

“Judge Lamberth shared several observations accumulated from years of working with FOIA.

“I think judges are too likely to give total deference to Exemption 1 claims,” said Judge Lamberth of the exemption which protects classified information from release. FOIA’s 20-working-day time limit for agencies to respond to request “is pretty unworkable,” he said.
Requesters should have a little understanding when it comes to agency FOIA operations. “The government doesn’t have infinite resources—many requesters don’t get that,” he said. “Requesters need to be more realistic about what they can expect.”
Government employees are “promoting democracy by providing the public with a right to know.”

There were lots of nodding heads in the room as Judge Lamberth spoke.”

And among readers such as I, as well. It is not just in Freedom of Information Act processing that the federal government lacks resources. Rarely do outsiders consider what goes in to the results they expect or demand in terms of money, time, staffing. But as I was reminded by the Archivist’s Awards Ceremony last week, and again on Wednesday as I journeyed between Archives 1 and Archives 2, there are so many good people working very hard to do the best they can under difficult circumstances. There is so much richness and reward in knowing them and listening to and talking to them. What better way to celebrate 40 years in federal service, than the way I spent the day on Wednesday. I am so lucky I could do that!

Leave a comment

Posted in Fun, NARA

The usual place, in your place

Posted on May 13, 2013 | Leave a comment

My usual place? I’d rather choose it than be assigned a place by someone. Yes, I’m an Untamed Bureaucrat!

Ever since I learned of his death last Sunday, I’ve been thinking about Earl (Mac) McDonald, a photographer who worked at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Mac is shown sitting next to my friend, Neil Carmichael, a division director in NARA’s National Declassification Center, in a photo I took in October 2011 at Archives 1.

Mac and I were friends and I’ll miss him very much. I mentioned him in several of my blog posts, including one in December 2012 where I described people I wanted to thank at year’s end. Bruce Guthrie sent me the photo below last week, noting that the October 2012 picture was the last one he took of Mac at NARA. The other one is from last February. Mac tolerated some of my antics very well! But when it came to making the other laugh, he was the winner.

In 2012, I usually sat in one of two places for daytime or evening events in the McGowan Theater at NARA. Not assigned places, of course. Ones I chose. Depending on whether I knew I might have to leave a little early, I sat on the aisle or in the middle of the second row. The middle spot enabled me to chat with Mac, as it was the best spot for him to take photographs.

At one event late in 2012, Mac and I ended up sitting together on the aisle for some reason. I had gotten there extra early and the theater filled up slowly. I later wondered what members of the public thought, to see someone sitting near the front laughing repeatedly. Mac was telling me some wonderful stories about his experiences. Oh how my laughter rang through the theater! Mac had such an interesting career, 20 years in the U.S. Navy, as a Corpsman and as a photographer, and over 20 years at NARA. You see him below last June, chatting with my good friend, historian-archivist Tim Mulligan.

The public affairs director of the National Archives, Chris Isleib, caught some of the Mac I knew and cherished in the comment he put up Saturday at the guest book under his obituary:

“What a crusty, funny, opinionated, talented, irreverant, awesome, colorful guy Mac McDonald was. What a kick it was to work with him – even in the quiet buttoned-down world of the Archives, he was old-school Navy all the way. He left us too soon, and I miss him. Fair winds.”

I had some great conversations with Mac about record keeping as it pertains to photographic work at NARA. Photographers contribute to so many federal agencies but don’t get much attention in public. I’ve long looked out for Mac’s name in photo credits. I smile with appreciation each time I see his credit line under a NARA photo, in third parties’ use of news photos or in the Archivesnews Flickr feed.

Mac’s death was one of many reasons that I found myself thinking about staff contributions over the weekend. And about my late sister, Eva, a supervisory archivist and team leader in NARA’s declassification division. She knew how to bring out the best in people. In everyone–not just the cool kids in her unit!

My reactions to workplace issues are colored by many elements, including the isolation of my archival cohort. Not only did we mostly work on processing the Nixon tapes in near sequestration but there was physical separation from the National Archives’ headquarters, as well. For my first 5 years, I worked at 7th and Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington in what we now call Archives 1. But NARA’s Nixon Presidential Materials Project moved to annex space in Alexandria, Virginia, in 1982, remaining there until 1993. In part because I took public transportation to work, I really felt the isolation. But there was more to it than that.

In the days before Social Media, we really felt remote at times from the agency for which we worked. You just know that had it been available, I would have been a big user of internal communications methods such as the collaborative network in place at the National Archives now. Not for all my communications–some things are best said face to face! And presidential libraries issues are tricky. But for some, definitely.

Social Media provides wonderful tools for NARA to reach out to the public and also to educate people about its mission and values. Developments in social networking move so fast, only a few months after I attended it, I realized NARA should not follow up on the Social Media Fair it did in 2011. I enjoyed it, calling my appreciative blog post “Social Media Revolution: Let’s Connect (Wow!).” But by 2012, it would have seemed old hat to do a second Fair! I explained why in a post (“Props to Good Peeps”) last August that featured Meredith Doviak and Sam Anthony of NARA and journalist Alexander Howard.

Whether we have official duties or simply use social networking, we’re learning about social media use in part through trial and error. Many of us have moved on to the “what lessons have we learned, how do we improve this” phase now and left behind the “hey, here are new tools, everybody” phase. The experts haven’t caught up to what people such as I am interested in, thoughtful analysis of messages and metamessages and, oh yeah, what can trigger unintended consequences.

The immediacy of Social Media, the unvetted output, the lack of filters in “disclosure review” (to use an archival phrase), how it fits in with change management, these all are questions we’re working out–in public. I thought about that as I Googled around for articles and books on change management this weekend. I couldn’t find what I sought, discussion of the deep impact of openness and lessening of message discipline.

Managers and executives have new tools for communications but they should be used wisely. It is not like the old days (and a good thing, too, in many ways). But there are new challenges. When representatives of organizations speak in public, they’re not reading words heard only in one room, off of a script that is filed away back in the office after the event. This is the age of UStream, You Tube, Prezi, blogging, Twitter.

The subjects of presentations about a workplace can study the messages and metamessages in real or near real time. Discussing change is tricky when you’re talking about human beings who know what you are saying about them. And who may be listening out for tone as well as substance. They’re still depending on the very managers who speak in public. Acting as an effective manager is very different from being a social scientist or historian discussing case studies involving people who, one way or another, no longer are around. Most books about technology and management haven’t caught up to this yet due to natural time lags in how things work and what is published by “experts.”

Some of my Twitter feed depresses me at times. But there’s a lot that makes me smile, as well. I love the diversity, the ability to connect with so many people. For those who are into generational labels (I’m not), I mostly follow Millennials and Gen X Tweeters. I love so much of what I’m seeing and learning!

I have a broad or narrow focus depending on which feed I look at. I study NARA closely, even with intensity. I depend on it. And I cherish my connections to it. But I struggle with balancing the “do as we say” against some of the “do as we do” on issues such as “message discipline” in Fedland.

My own Twitter feed is a bit quirky. Sometimes I’m really chatty. At times, I put up cryptic comments which I later delete. I’m probably reflecting some of the isolation of my present job in Fedland and my past experiences at NARA in some of my reactions. We all bring our own baggage to these experiences!

Last week I saw some griping in my feed about a cover story in TIME on Millennials. I could relate to the griping, I’m so very leery of stereotypes. Most of the people commenting had only seen the preview of Joe Klein’s TIME article as they don’t subscribe to the print edition as I do. What you can see online points to the hazards of sneak peek previews, the opening of the article:

“I am about to do what old people have done throughout history: call those younger than me lazy, entitled, selfish and shallow. But I have studies! I have statistics! I have quotes from respected academics! Unlike my parents, my grandparents and my great-grandparents, I have proof.

Here’s the cold, hard data: The incidence of narcissistic personality disorder is nearly three times as high for people in their 20s as for the generation that’s now 65 or older, according to the National Institutes of Health; 58% more college students scored higher on a narcissism scale in…”

I read that online and cringed. Having been labeled in public myself during the so-called “Nixon wars” for my work as a NARA employee, I am leery of people being labeled or put in boxes. Did Klein think of what the exaggerations and reductionism in the preview pane for non-subscriber access would display when he chose to start out his article by pointing to impressions of Millennials as narcissistic and self-involved? I don’t know. Did he think about how that might turn off some readers who otherwise might give his views consideration? I don’t know that, either!

If you read Klein’s article, you can see he actually points to positive as well as negative perceptions of Millennials. He didn’t just write about “narcissism” and “low empathy.” However, I was disappointed overall. I found his article relied too much on generalities for my taste. Still, I nodded as I saw him write, “Millennials are more accepting of differences, not just among gays, minorities, women, but everyone.” That may be the case for many of them.

Comfort in recognizing and moving between different cultures and subcultures is a useful attribute to bring to the workplace. Klein believes that the old “us versus them” framing used by some members of past generations in advocacy or communications or even in management will have less resonance with Millennials. Progress! As someone with bridge building tendencies, I sometimes struggle when I see Manichean framing. I’m just not a black and white person, I see so much gray! I hope to see more of it–along with color!–in the workplace of the future.

People are individual, whether they are Baby Boomers, Gen X, or Millennials. In terms of management and communications, it is so important to keep that in mind. In February and April, I expressed dismay at my blog about a blogger’s account of a NARA presentation. I disliked the way a public presentation about NARA’s Transformation effort resulted in the use of a GIF of a petulant child to depict purported fear of or resistance to change at the agency.

If you don’t like the employees in your care, you can’t manage, lead or inspire. That’s pretty basic. My sister Eva put in the extra time and thought to bring out the best in subordinates because she fundamentally liked people! She was smart, thoughtful, and kind. And she left an impact on the division in which she worked. I’m so very proud of the subordinates who’ve risen in rank in the decade since she died.

One of the reasons I so dislike Matt Stempeck’s MIT blog post about the February appearance by two NARA officials (Pam Wright and Bill Mayer) is the way Google image search now associates that GIF of an “upset” employee with searches for AOTUS David S. Ferriero. (Yes, I know–these things are affected by filters and algorithms!)

When I search for “David Ferriero” in Google Images, as I recently did in searching for a photo Mac had taken of AOTUS, I see this among the results. Yes, the graphic of the “upset” child comes up in a search simply for David Ferriero. Whoa. Is that how NARA’s senior leadership views the agency’s employees, no matter where they are on the spectrum of accepting change? Of course not. Definitely not David Ferriero! But the image was used in describing the agency’s Transformation and shows up associated with the agency head’s name as a result.

I’ve seen so many insights, thoughtful comments and kindness in my Twitter feed, in emails I’ve gotten as a result of my blog and listserv posts, and in face to face contacts with Millennials. I don’t know Matt Stempeck. I wasn’t there at MIT so I don’t know why the young blogger used a vibe of disrespect towards NARA’s employees after hearing the presentation by Wright and Mayer. Did it stem from his filtering of what he heard? Or did he pick up that vibe from the presentations, intended or not? I have no way to tell. I’ve only seen the Prezi and the account at the blog.

Should I conclude from that one incident at MIT that Millennials are low empathy? Heck no! It’s one blog post. I’d have to look through the blogger’s overall Social Media output to see how he customarily handles issues related to management and workplace change.

I can tell you what I’d like to see more of in NARA’s discussions of Social Media. What Millennials relate to (and I, as a Baby Boomer, too, believe it or not)–diversity. For me, there’s some cognitive dissonance at NARA right now as it makes its way through how to use new technological tools. As I explained in “Would a Young Ferriero Succeed at NARA Now?” the agency says it values multiple voices and openness but perhaps unintentionally signals that it wants conformity in use of technology.

By diversity I mean acceptance of the idea that we’re all a little different. And that being different is okay. Discernment in dealing with cultures and subcultures. Many of us are out there on Twitter, doing just that, instinctively, every day.

Many of NARA’s own employees are applying discernment and fine tuning how they interact with each other daily. I see that in talking to NARA managers and executives I know, especially ones who work in or were associated with Agency Services. And y’all know I’m a fan of the Big Dude aka AOTUS David Ferriero.

Continual learning. It works! I’d like to see a more relaxed approach by its officials to NARA’s discussions of technology that puts the comfort zones on display. Walking the same way you talk–it works.

So what about the griping I heard on Twitter? It was justified. But what people who never read Klein’s article missed out on is what he said in the second half. Well beyond the preview pane. Klein wrote that it is his impression that Millennials are nice. Yes, nice. And that they are optimistic and think in terms of the future. I say, “Good, we need that. That means it is going to be exciting to watch the most talented people among Millennials rise in the workplace.” We need change. I’ve seen too much use of “us versus them” tactics and putting people in to boxes during my 40 years federal service.

I’m a liberal arts major. So I’m out of my field a bit here. But what the heck. I’m not risk averse. Ditch the zero sum games. Subtraction doesn’t work. Addition does. You know what? Don’t focus so much on “bottom lines.” We’re long overdue for some “Really New, New Math!”

Leave a comment

Posted in NARA, Workplace issues

Would a young Ferriero succeed at NARA now?

Posted on May 8, 2013 | 2 comments

That the title of my blog post feels so subversive yet I know that it is not high risk for me is exactly why I am asking the question. I’m marking 40 years in federal service this month, 14 of which were spent at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). As I’ve risen in rank in the civil service, I’ve dealt more and more with senior executives and agency heads as well as people at my own level and below. I’ve come to view the “tone at the top” as a critical factor in shaping an agency’s values. That is one of many reasons I focus on the Big Dude, aka AOTUS David S. Ferriero, and his subordinate executives as I study NARA. As I’ve increasingly used the term sui generis about him, I’ve come to understand that a lot gets in the way in translating that tone.

Two years ago, on May 14, 2011, I put up a post, “The Big Dude broke out of captivity.” That was when he reached out to me and enabled me to connect again with the agency at which I once worked. That still is how I view David Ferriero, whom I have come to know, respect and admire. But he also is the head of a federal agency. Which means he is in charge of a bureaucracy. So I have to ask, “Would a young David Ferriero succeed at NARA now?”

Recently, I’ve found myself thinking, “why do I link so often to interviews David gave when he worked in executive and managerial positions in libraries outside Washington? And why don’t I see the insights he displays in those interviews in comments made and public actions by his subordinate executives at the agency he now heads, NARA?”

I’m thinking especially of two quotes from a Q&A Ferriero did in 2008 while he was director of the New York Public Libraries. One showed recognition of how different employees are in what motivates them: “recognition is individual-driven; each person has different needs for recognition. For some, public recognition is important, but for another person it might be something as simple as an email.”

The other identified elements he looks for in leaders: “There is a set of interpersonal skills a person has to have to be a good leader, and they can’t really be taught, but after all these years I can tell pretty quickly if someone has them. I look for an individual who truly cares about people, who has good listening skills, who has empathy and is able to understand what people are going through and is genuinely sensitive to the situation. Directness and honesty. And of course, the ability to make decisions.”

What I focused on in the two quotes are two elements, one demonstrated, one enumerated. Discernment. And empathy.

There are many reasons why I can’t say whether a young Ferriero would succeed at NARA now. For starters, there is the question, “How does ‘yes until no’ match up against ‘Strategy and Communications?'” And then there is the question of how members of the management team describe Transformation. No, I’m not getting in to that preso from February at MIT that so dismayed me. I’ve yapped about that already. I’m thinking generally of the messages and metamessages in presentations in the physical and virtual worlds.

I see a surprising underlying push for conformity in some of NARA’s messaging. Not from David but from others. A push to use designated tools for communications, rather than picking and choosing what works best in each situation. I’ve seen that internally and externally, sometimes to pretty sobering effect. It makes it seem as if the ability to tout the utility of certain new mechanisms for collaboration inside and receiving public input outweighs the quality of what is captured in terms of knowledge and information.

NARA needs to embrace technology as one source of many tools it can master and use. Yes, I say that even having a sophisticated understanding of its Open Government obligations. Not to treat it as something tyrannical that you must use or end up in the Gulag, as one employee put it. That is not Ferriero’s message. David is not a Gulag kind of guy.

Some of the cognitive dissonance NARA is creating right now derives from the fact that it has had to make up for ground lost during earlier administrations. The agency was slow to recognize at the senior levels the importance of electronic records issues in the early 1990s. And it was not tech forward in terms of embracing the use of new tools to do its work. Or, even more important, to understand how its diverse customers were changing in how they did research and sought information and knowledge.

I understand why NARA needs to position itself to be “Out in Front,” especially on technological matters. But the reality is, NARA still continues quietly to use face to face conversations to sort through some issues. I should know. I’ve talked in Archives 1 and Archives 2 with various officials about matters I never would put in writing, anywhere. Much less try to reduce to IdeaScale.

That NARA has a long way to go in being truly comfortable in discussing engagement shows in the fact that saying “fill in this online survey” sounds as if it will be rewarded. Saying in public that there is no one right way to communicate with the agency– that a telephone call or face to face meeting not only is acceptable but might be desirable in certain circumstances — has come to feel subversive. A sense of urgency in moving forward–and there is a genuine reason for urgency–shouldn’t stop anyone from thinking through what works best.

What seems to be missing below the agency head level at NARA among those with the biggest public microphones is someone with the sensibilities of a Timothy Burke. Who understands the complexity of unraveling digital humanities issues and isn’t afraid to look at how the humane and anti-humane interact. Including having the courage to spell out qualities of the humane, such as incompleteness (humans and humane knowledge are subject to interpretation).

And slow, that is, artisanal. Burke points out that “At the very bottom of most of our algorithmic culture now is hand-produced content, slow-culture interpretation.”

And illegible. “A permanent, necessary suspicion baked into our knowledge about all political and social projects that require a human subject to be firmly legible and compliant to the needs of governance in order to succeed in their operations.”

Playful, pleasurable, extravagant. “Every humanistic work or analysis should produce an excess of perspectives, a variety of interpretations, that it should dance away from pinning culture to the social, to the functional, to the concrete.”

Has recognition of ambiguity and contingency and, yes, illegibility, been lost as perceived rewarded behaviors at NARA in the urgency to catch up on technological issues? I hope not. Because there are real people and real issues involved. That NARA still has a pretty conservative and risk averse culture amplifies the gap between stated and perceived rewards. Yet the agency head seeks open communications and problem solving from employees of all ranks.

For all the effort that goes in to strategic communications, there is something missing. To me, Ferrerio’s authentic voice does not come through except in some of the blog posts he writes. (I’m focusing here on NARA’s website, not on face to face conversations I have with David and other officials.) The Big Dude is not captive nor does he demand it (yes until no is real except in areas where message discipline is necessary.) But there is a strange sense of captivity, self-imposed to “get ahead,” or simply deriving from insularity or other environmental factors, in some of NARA’s messaging below the agency head level.

When I worked at NARA from 1976 to 1990, it had a Career Intern Development System (CIDS) program. CIDS was a two year program in which you did a little classroom study and a lot of hands on work. Advancing in grade required new archivists to do rotational details through various mission and mission support units at the National Archives.

Rotating through units had multiple benefits. You learned how different components contributed to the enterprise. And you were exposed to the subtle cultural differences in various offices. And yes, you learned about what fit you and what did not. We young archivists valued information and knowledge sharing but we didn’t have the wonderful technological tools available now. The Internal Collaboration Network (ICN) in use now at NARA is just one of them.

People have different comfort zones for communication. I love how astute one of the newer members of the NARA team, Ashley Stevens, is about that in discussing change at her blog! Some issues are best discussed face to face, others lend themselves to networking virtually. And some things, you learn by seeing people do them in the physical world. Effective leaders know this. Management by walking around–you do it IRL and online, both. I know how the real life part works but I’m still learning about the virtual world.

The Big Dude reminded readers in a thoughtful new post at AOTUS blog, that you learn best if you understand the obstacles that can shield information. That includes algorithms and filters in the online searches you do. David explained in “You Are What You Search” that

“Eli Pariser in his book, The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You, describes the result as ‘invisible autopropaganda-indoctrinating us with our own ideas, amplifying our desires for things that are familiar and leaving us oblivious to the dangers lurking in the dark territory of the unknown.’ A space outside our own comfort zone where there is less room for those chance encounters that bring insight and learning.

Cass Sunstein, in his book, Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge, describes the problem as information cocoons-‘communications universes in which we hear only what we choose and only what comforts and pleases us.’ Where we choose to get our information, what we choose to read or listen to, and the avoidance of those channels that are outside our own comfort zone. As Pariser reminds us, ‘Creativity is often sparked by the collision of ideas from difference disciplines and cultures.’”

In addition to filters that affect online searching, I would add that people sometimes apply filters simply by virtue of having limited time or narrow vision. I shook my head earlier this year when I saw a journalist tweet advice to people working on cutting edge issues. He told them to use their Twitter feeds to pound out links about their functions. But a hard sell doesn’t always work. I thought “Better to be humble and do the hard work of demonstrating that you want to help others in the overall enterprise. It can’t seem as if you believe your function is cooler than that of those around you. You’re there to serve them!”

People don’t accept new ways of doing things through propaganda and indoctrination. If you want to get buy-in, declaring the awesomeness of what you’re working on won’t do it. That can become irritating. Or make you look shallow. Immersion in a field of expertise matters. But you also need to step out of your comfort zone and learn about cultures and sub-cultures by observation and interaction with the widest possible group possible. That includes in the physical workplace.

Effective leaders understand that to achieve improvement and meaningful change, you need to tap in to what the most knowledgeable people have learned. Learned on the job. Learned through formal training. Learned by interacting with each other. From life experiences. Learning and engagement require thinking both in horizontal terms and vertical terms.

Fieldwork is important–you can learn a lot from going outside and talking to people outside your institution about how they solve problems. But you need to keep in mind that you’re dipping in to other organizations without deep immersion in their cultures. And that you lack the means to verify some of what you are being told. And of course, the people part matters as much as the technological tools used.

Meaningful change often takes time. Under pressure to produce results, executives sometimes turn to shortcuts. I smiled and nodded recently when I heard a speaker describe how he and his team patiently had to explain to consultants how their jobs worked. Young college graduates with no experience in using libraries who parachuted in to–wait for it–advise librarians on how to do their job better.

I laughed ruefully as I listened to the presentation. I once debated with a friend how someone he knew with a newly minted MBA could offer meaningful advice as a consultant. What was she drawing on as a newbie consultant, beyond theory and classroom study? He laughed and said, “She’s bossy, she enjoys going in and telling others what to do.”

Being bossy, acting like a control freak? All too tempting. Listening and learning and knowing when to step back? Much harder! But worth trying to do. The young woman my friend described eventually left consulting altogether.

In some ways, my CIDS experiences have lasted much longer than the two years I spent in the program in 1978 and 1979. Even after I left NARA employ in 1990, I have learned so much from interacting with officials of various ranks. One of the most exciting success stories for me at NARA has centered in the unit in which my late sister Eva once worked, Declass. She is shown below with some of her colleagues in 1994 at a holiday luncheon I also attended. I started learning about Declass and its culture from the time Eva started her job there in 1983. That learning continues to this day.

That Declass gets so little attention in NARA’s public relations output actually gives me hope that Transformation may make genuine inroads in the agency. That doesn’t make sense in some ways. Indeed, it points to insularity among NARA’s users of Social Media. But the lack of self promotion captures the spirit of the unit in which Eva, who took pleasure in others’ accomplishments as if they were her own, once worked.

Yesterday, the Indexing and Declassification Review Division of NARA’s National Declassification Center (NDC) received acknowledgement in the agency’s annual awards ceremony. That is by far the best news I’ve been able to share from NARA this year! Yes, much more so than my delight in going to receptions at Archives 1, ha. You see the Division Director, Neil Carmichael, in McGowan Theater at the NARA Berlin Crisis 1961 Conference he coordinated in October 2011.

There’s a reason why I called the photo of Neil the Strong Side of the House! I greatly admire the way NDC officials and staff rolled up their sleeves and quietly worked, without focusing on brag points, on how to meet a mandated deadline for national security declassification of the records backlog held at NARA. The team took a fresh look at processes and procedures and reworked how they handled their assignments. The resulting increase in productivity truly is laudable.

Declass has always had a relatively low key, let’s get it done culture. I like that. Many NARA functional units have a Social Media presence, including the NDC. Few of its officials tweet. I understand why. Declaring awesomeness never has been the Declass vibe, even among its younger employees. I find that so refreshing!

Except in my Twitter feed and blog (the photo of me with Neil and NARA FOIA Officer Joe Scanlon dates from a visit I made to Archives 2 in December), when I give it shoutouts, you don’t see much mention of NDC. Some of that stems from the type of work it does. Some from the way its best officials approach leadership. (“My men first, always. Me last, always.”) Some from reasons I can’t quite figure out.

Carmichael and his colleages are unlikely to meet the mandated declassification backlog reduction deadline for various reasons. But for what it is worth, the qualities I most admire in the best officials who now work in NDC or once did, before moving on–dedication, mission orientation, low key attitude, self effacing vibe, refusal to take themselves too seriously, and great sense of humor–give me hope for NARA’s future.

And there is my answer to the question, “Would a young David Ferriero succeed at NARA now?” If he were a up and coming line archivist in some NDC units, yeah, I think he would. Elsewhere? I can’t say for sure. That Indexing and Declassification Review won the plaudits it did at yesterday’s NARA awards ceremony makes me think Ferriero’s Transformation vision might work — in its true essence. But if I truly am subversive in writing this blog post the way I did, meaningful change won’t occur at NARA.

Comfort zones. Easy to shrink. Hard to expand. IRL as well as online. The models are there. But only if you keep your eyes and ears and mind open to them.

2 Comments

Posted in NARA, Workplace issues

Tagged David S. Ferriero, Neil C. Carmichael, The Big Dude

Monthly Archives: May 2013

“Held up in a . . . well-lit room”

“Use your authority over others constructively”

Jeopardy and the luck of the draw

Misbehavior ideology

Taking the (NARA Shuttle) 5th

The usual place, in your place

Would a young Ferriero succeed at NARA now?

Recent Posts

Email Subscription

Why Archives Matter

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Archives

May 2013
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Apr				Jun »
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31