Last Thursday the Social Media Club and FutureGov teamed up at Canada House to deliver a conference called Global networks, local action: transforming communities with social media. Below are a few observations on the conference and the wider public sector.

Political apathy and distrust of political institutions are at an all time high. Since the dubious legality of the Iraq war and more recently the bank bailout and unfolding expenses scandal the British public feel unrepresented. Voting once every 4 to 5 years no longer satisfies our participatory needs and a sense of being subjected to policy rather than being considered or consulted during its formulation prevails.

Presently other than PR directed efforts toward citizen 'involvement' through focus groups and civil society groups there has been little effort towards establishing government/citizenry collaboration in policy development. What is needed both to restore trust and create effective policy is a collaboration which informs the policy outcome rather that just legitimize it. 

During the conference a number of speakers  expressed a desire to engage in dialogue with the public through social media whilst others explained how their organizations were using social tools. Sadly it seemed that  social tools in the public sector are being used only to serve the same function as the focus group. I appreciate that every public service providers needs legitimacy but by using social tools effectively this is constructed. Legitimacy is not implicit in any process other than that which embraces transparency and the broadest possible public involvement. One need only look as far as the recent MP expenses scandal to see how a crisis of legitimacy can erupt from a lack of transparency and as far as the Lisbon Treaty and the resulting dissatisfaction from the absence of a referendum for examples of the public's appetite for direct influence and the negative impact to legitimacy caused by its negation. 

The extent to which a cultural shift within the public sector is needed became apparent when (digital natives and web 2.0 enlightened turn away now) Facebook was suggested as one of the main mechanisms through which ministers have interacted with the public and brought them into the policy creation process. When asked to what degree this public input had effected the policy outcome the unsurprising answer was that it hadn't. Social tools rather than liberating the policy process from the shackles of 20th century command and control management are in fact being used to consolidate it to the detriment of service quality and public satisfaction. 

Faced with a self imposed crises of legitimacy the public sector now has, to my mind, two choices. Either adopt  through vision social tools  and flexible communication channels with the public that genuinely effect outcomes or five years down the line be forced to. 

Some have argued that a change of government will bring about a change of public sector ethos but with the civil service restricted by an inherently conservative and risk averse middle management culture only a revolutionary revision of working practices will create change. The public sector isn't known for its innovation nor for its ability to adapt the best example of which was the disastrous nationalization of public services and industry by the USSR. Admittedly the state of the public sector in Britain is far from the catastrophic conditions found in the USSR but it is still nevertheless far from what it could be. 

By embracing openness and by looking for leadership not in the higher echelons of the civil service hierarchy but in forward thinking third sector organizations like Compass or the London Borough of Barnet the public sector can become an efficient service provider rather than the butt of many jokes and endless negative publicity. With implementing social tools the public sector can tap wider sources of information, help monitor current policies and more than the symbolic focus group demonstrate an actual commitment to developing public centred policy.

Change is coming in the shape of economic constraining circumstances and how the public sector manages this crises will determine the future of public services. By continuing to deny or appropriately use social tools in the policy process at a time when the public demands them and the barrier to technical entry, thanks to open source, are virtually nil then much like the USSR the public sector will remain a relic of the past. If the public sector doesn't demonstrate a degree of flexibility it only serves to strengthen the arguments of its opponents who would see public services totally privatized. A result that would neither satisfy the organizational need for efficiency nor the publics needs for appropriate services.  

In retrospect if there is one question I should have asked at the conference it would be, what are you scared of? Isn't being constantly mediocre at your job worse than the slight chance you are wrong about social media? Aren't the rewards to be reaped from being right far superior to the fall out from being wrong? If you are wrong you can go back to being mediocre at your job.

If this blog serves as anything let it serve as the motivation necessary to those in the public sector who don't quite get it. Guys please, the world is changing. Change with it.

It might seem precarious to have a brain that plunges randomly into periods of instability, but the disorder is actually essential to the brain's ability to transmit information and solve problems. "Lying at the critical point allows the brain to rapidly adapt to new circumstances," says Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg from the Central Institute of Mental Health in Mannheim, Germany. Disorder is essential to the brain's ability to transmit information and solve problems.

• How quickly can an idea to innovate or incrementally improve any aspect of business - small or large - be embraced, evaluated and even executed - exactly when the fire under its reasoning is hot? 
• How can this evaluation happen without any dampening?
• How do you change the rules about how you work so that you can achieve the desired outcome from your avalanche? Remember the power laws for the sand experiment above had avalanches of all different sizes possible.
• How can this evaluation become amplified through participation, rather than lost in a mess of people and attitudes?
• How can an idea, comment, innocent question or a spark be directed straight to whom/where it belongs - without friction? In this context, social software tells us to "enable" a network of people and throw out the friction.
• What opportunity do innovation managers have to provide tools for employees to self-organise and execute on their convictions - by incubating an idea? Think about what doing work means - and what doing research means. Ideas let an employee step away and produce their avalanche. What fosters this spirit and makes it natural?