Issue 8
Social media and the public sector
September 2012
APS Human Capital Matters: Social Media and the Public Sector
September 2012, Issue 8
Editor’s note to readers
Welcome to the eighth edition of Human Capital Matters for 2012—the digest for time poor
leaders and practitioners with an interest in human capital and organisational capability. This
edition focuses on social media’s contribution to better delivery of public services through
improved collaboration within the public sector.
Social media is one of the major “trending” topics in the world today. The growth of online
services and communities is a significant focus for all sectors. Broadly defined as “... an online
environment opened for the purposes of mass collaboration where all invited participants can
create, post, rate, enhance, discover, consume, and share content without a direct intermediary”1
it is changing the way both business and government function and operate.
In this issue of Human Capital Matters, we turn our focus to social media from the viewpoint of
how it can improve collaboration within the public sector and thereby enable the delivery of
services more effectively—and not merely as a vehicle for improving communication between
public servants for its own sake (e.g. to discuss issues, express opinions etc.)
The impact of social media on the public sector is ubiquitous; it has even generated a special
issue of the European Journal of ePractice whose editorial by Millard and Carpenter neatly
summarizes the issue. Articles by Kaplan and Haenlein provide a comprehensive overview
including specific advice for developers of social media policies and Stern and Ibarra similarly
offer advice for public sector agencies seeking to understand and deal with social media issues.
Kietzmann et al, then provide an interesting framework for understanding the changing social
media environment experienced by both business and government. Finally, two articles (one by
Howard, the other by Purser) describe the use of social media in a local government setting.
About Human Capital Matters
Human Capital Matters seeks to provide APS leaders and practitioners with easy access to the
issues of contemporary importance in public and private sector human capital and organisational
capability. It has been designed to provide interested readers with a monthly guide to the national
and international ideas that are shaping human capital thinking and practice.
Comments and suggestions welcome
Thank you to those who took the time to provide feedback on earlier editions of Human Capital
Matters. Comments, suggestions or questions regarding this publication are always welcome and
should be addressed to: humancapitalmatters@apsc.gov.au. Readers can also subscribe to the
mailing list through this email address.
1
Anthony J. Bradley & Mark P. McDonald, The Social Organization: How to Use Social Media to Tap the
Collective Genius of Your Customers and Employees, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, Mass., 2011, (p.
219).
2
‘eGovernance & Social Media’, Special issue of ‘European Journal of
ePractice’, No. 16, June/July 2012, 110 pp.
The ‘Editorial’ by Jeremy Millard and Gwendolyn Carpenter (pp. 2–4) summarises the key
arguments of the eight articles in this issue of the journal which deals with social network
practice in a wide spectrum of global civil services. Jeremy Millard is Senior Consultant, Danish
Technological Institute, Centre for Policy and Business Analysis, Copenhagen. Gwendolyn
Carpenter is Chief European Policy Analyst at the Teknologisk Institut, Copenhagen.
The reasons for producing this special issue, and its main theme, are set out in the editorial by
Jeremy Millard and Gwendolyn Carpenter. They argue that the effective use of social media is a
difficult process for private and public sector organisations, but it is a particularly challenging
one for government agencies. One of the reasons for this is the set of difficulties involved in
changing organisational work practices and structures that are generally very entrenched in longestablished public sector bodies. It is also due to the complexity and range of public sector
tasks—as well as having to serve all citizens in a transparent way, public servants are required to
reconcile highly contradictory demands.
The authors conclude nevertheless that governments should employ social media tools given the
demonstrable benefits which accrue from doing so; in an environment in which citizens,
businesses and other organisations themselves increasingly use social media and demand that
government do the same, there seems little choice for public sectors about whether to embrace
social media or not. Indeed, Millard and Carpenter assert that these non-government actors have
begun to use social media to usurp the public sector’s traditional role and challenge the way it
works and the decisions it takes. Fundamentally, social media are challenging governments to
reassess the balance between their control and collaboration functions and structures, thereby
shifting the balance between representative and direct democracy, and complementing rather
than replacing traditional media and communication channels. And this is only the beginning of
the social media revolution.
A summary of each article’s main theme/arguments is set out below.
‘Social Media’s Democratic Paradox: Lessons from Canada’ by J. Roy, pp. 5–16 (by focusing on
Canada—a nation with a high social media participation rate—the author examines the tensions
which arise between control and communications on the one hand, and collaboration and
empowerment on the other).
‘Social Media and the Disciplining of Visibility: Activist Participation and Relations of Power in
Network Societies’ by J. Svensson, pp. 16–29 (the author explores how a group of citizens in
southern Sweden used social media to organise against a local council’s decision to close down a
public bathhouse).
‘Social Media and Civic Engagement: Discussing the Case of Aveiro, Portugal’ by J. C. Mota &
G. Santinha, pp. 29–42 (the article examines how local residents of a Portuguese city employed
social media to reverse a local authority decision to redevelop an important part of the urban area
which had been taken without any community consultation).
‘Online Participation in Croatia: Moving Beyond Citizens’ Cynicism—The Case of the City of
Pula’ by D. Bebic, B. Zenzerovic & M. Vuckovic, pp. 42–58 (the authors discuss how a Croatian
local authority is utilising social media to better engage with citizens in decision-making and
delivering services).
‘Incorporating Social Network Services in eGovernment Solutions: A Case Study’ by K.
Budinoski & V. Trajkovik, pp. 58–71 (with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as the
location for this analysis, the authors consider the potential role of social media in governance,
3
more particularly in increasing social capital, transparency, trust in government, and citizen
inclusion and empowerment).
‘eParticipation and Social Media: A Symbiotic Relationship’ by O. Lacigova, A. Maizite & B.
Cave, pp. 71–77 (the authors chart the evolution of European Union (EU) eParticipation projects
and discuss the uptake of social media within the EU).
‘Towards a Rationalisation of Social Media Exploitation in Government Policy-Making
Processes’ by Y. Charalabidis, R. Kleinfeld & E. Loukis, pp. 77–94 (the article analyses the
‘Padgets’ project, part of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research,
which explores advanced forms of exploiting social media in government for participative policy
making, and which also aims to intensify interaction with citizens in relation to new or existing
public services).
‘eParticipation and Online Social Networks: The Case of the European Institutions’ by E.
Dalakiouridou, E. Tambouris & K. Tarabanis, pp. 94–108 (the authors outline how European
institutions have embraced social media and the networks they support).
Anne E. Howard, ‘Connecting with Communities: How Local Government Is
Using Social Media to Engage with Citizens’, ANZSOG Institute for
Governance at the University of Canberra and the Australian Centre of
Excellence for Local Government, University of Technology, Sydney, August
2012, 69 pp.
This report analyses the approaches to social media being taken by Australia’s local councils
intent on achieving a high level of engagement with their communities. It is based on a national
online survey of 560 councils and representatives of local government organisations conducted
between June 2011 and April 2012. The report is the culmination of a research project initiated
and coordinated by the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG)’s
Innovation and Best Practice Program based at the Australia and New Zealand School of
Government (ANZSOG) Institute for Governance. Complementary research was undertaken for
the ‘Using Social Media in Local Government: 2011 Survey Report’ (June 2012) (see abstract
under Karen Purser below).
The report contains 10 sections. An introduction is followed by Section 2, which provides an
overview of social media and examines some of the terminology surrounding it. Section 3
discusses the key individuals and organisations currently using social media in local government.
The fourth section draws on recent data to assess how Australians are using social media and
why. Section 5 explores how social media supports and extends councils’ current communication
activities. The sixth section analyses the importance of placing social media in a strategic
communication context, and explores how councils are utilising it to this end. Section 7
examines benefits, barriers, adoption and implementation issues for councils wishing to use
social media. The eighth section addresses questions concerning how social media affects
councils’ overall performance. Section 9 focuses on rural, remote and Indigenous councils and
draws on other exploratory work being undertaken by ACELG into community engagement in
rural and remote areas. Finally, Section 10 outlines some strategic ways forward and presents a
number of recommendations for consideration.
The report’s chief finding was that councils which take a strategic approach to social media can
achieve more effective outcomes in engaging with communities and delivering services.
However, the study also found that leadership is critical in taking advantage of this
communications channel in view of the barriers and implementation issues—real and
4
perceived—involved in social media use. Interestingly, the research shows that responses from
citizens to those councils that are using social media are overwhelmingly positive. The survey
revealed six principal trends characterising councils’ approaches to, and use of, social media at
present:
1. A rapidly growing pool of councils of all sizes is using social media with excellent
results.
2. Social media is becoming a popular communication channel for councils in emergency
situations (e.g. the Brisbane City Council’s innovative use of social media during the
flood of January 2011).
3. Many councils remain in the ‘try it and see’ mode—they identified challenges and
barriers which must be resolved before adopting or fully integrating social media into
their processes.
4. Concerns about the risks associated with social media are widespread (e.g. the ability of
staff to use the tools effectively, workload pressures on employees, an increased
recordkeeping burden, fears of litigation).
5. Council employees and elected representatives must address a set of demands which are
different from those generated by traditional communication channels relating, for
instance, to monitoring, response times, frequency rates, tone of conversation, and
authenticity and transparency requirements.
6. Several councils are worried about raising community expectations through social media,
and not being able to meet the community demands it generates.
The report contains recommendations for ACELG to work with partners across the local
government sector to raise awareness and understanding of social media use and application,
deliver programs to build capability among elected councillors and staff, undertake further
research, and establish a national award scheme to foster growth and excellence in social media
experimentation. It also contains case study examples of successful social media practice as well
as tools and resources, including a strategic communications matrix and framework.
Anne E. Howard is a Director of the Canberra-based public policy research and management
consulting firm, Howard Partners.
Andreas M. Kaplan and Michael Haenlein, ‘Users of the World, Unite! The
Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media’, ‘Business Horizons’, Vol. 53,
2010, pp. 59–68.
The authors argue that, although the term ‘Social Media’ is widely coined, understanding of its
precise meaning often remains limited. Accordingly, they seek to better define it by providing a
history of ‘social media’; and to describe how it differs from related concepts such as Web 2.0
and User Generated Content (with both of which it is often confused). They also provide a
classification of social media that groups applications currently subsumed under the generalised
term into more specific categories by characteristic, for example, collaborative projects, blogs,
content communities, social networking sites, virtual game worlds, and virtual social worlds.
Finally, the authors present 10 pieces of advice for organisations intending to implement a social
media strategy. The article also provides a brief history of the term and associated virtual
communication approaches.
The article makes clear the importance of distinguishing between social media—a term first
coined in 2003— and two related concepts frequently used in conjunction with it: Web 2.0, a
term in circulation from 2004 which describes a new way in which software developers and endusers had begun utilising the World Wide Web; and User Generated Content (UGC). For the
5
purposes of their analysis, the authors regard Web 2.0 as the platform for the evolution of social
media—that is, the ‘ideological and technological foundation’—and UGC as ‘the sum of all
ways in which people make use of social media’. More specifically, UGC—a term popular from
2005—is usually applied to describe the various forms of media content that are publicly
available and created by end-users. Using these conceptions and assumptions, the authors define
social media as ‘a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and
technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of User
Generated Content’ (p. 61).
The authors identify six social media approaches and/or vehicles which can be used to varying
degrees to enhance collaboration in the interests of improved service provision or knowledge
transfer. Four in particular could be implemented in order to improve service provision by the
public sector. The first, Collaborative Projects, which enable the joint and simultaneous
creation of content by many end-users, is probably the most democratic manifestation of UGC
(for example, users’ comments on products purchased and services accessed). Blogs, the second
such approach and the earliest form of social media, offer an effective forum for
customers/citizens dissatisfied with private and public sector services or products to express their
criticisms or satisfaction. The third approach, Content Communities, allows organisations to
share media content more effectively between users; these can be an attractive contact channel
for businesses and potentially for even greater numbers of government departments to engage
users of their services. Social Networking, the fourth approach, is almost invariably discussed in
terms of its ability to connect by creating personal information profiles; however, several
companies have already used social networking to conduct ambitious marketing research
exercises—an approach that could be replicated in sections of the public sector with a service
delivery focus to evaluate user satisfaction with service delivery.
Given that social media has a social and a media component, the authors offer advice to those
devising a social media strategy as follows: five points about using media and five points about
the social aspects of the strategy. The authors conclude that ‘Social Media allow firms to engage
in timely and direct end-consumer contact at relatively low cost and higher levels of efficiency
than can be achieved with more traditional communication tools. This makes Social Media not
only relevant for large multinational firms, but also for small and medium sized companies, and
even nonprofit and governmental agencies’ (p. 67).
Andreas M. Kaplan is Professor of Marketing at ESCP Europe, the world’s oldest business
school (est. 1819), which is located in Paris. Michael Haenlein is Associate Professor of
Marketing at the same institution.
Jan H. Kietzmann et al, ‘Social Media ? Get Serious! Understanding the
Functional Building Blocks of Social Media’, ‘Business Horizons’, Vol. 54,
2011, pp. 241–251.
The authors begin by observing that traditionally, consumers used the Internet to simply expend
content: they read it, they watched it, and they used it to purchase goods and services.
Increasingly, however, they are utilising platforms such as content sharing sites, blogs, social
networking, and wikis to create, modify, share and discuss Internet content. This ‘social media
phenomenon’ is becoming increasingly important in shaping organisational capability and
service delivery capacity. However, the authors argue that too many leaders eschew or ignore
this form of media because they don’t understand what it is, the various forms it can take, and
how to engage with it to best effect. In order to address this situation, they present ‘a honeycomb
framework’ of seven functional social media building blocks: 1) identity; 2) conversations; 3)
6
sharing; 4) presence; 5) relationships; 6) reputation; and 7) groups. The authors believe that
utilised individually and together, these seven blocks can help managers make greater sense of
social media and better engage with those purchasing or in receipt of their services.
The first part of the article describes briefly today’s social media landscape. Section 2 explains
how organisational leaders could use the framework to better understand the functional traits of
different social media activities and discusses the fundamental implications that each block
presents to organisations as they seek to understand the engagement needs of their social media
audience. In the third section, the authors explain how the framework can be used to compare
and contrast the functionalities and implications of different social media activities. Finally, in
Section 4, they present four guidelines for how organisations can develop strategies for
monitoring, understanding, and responding to different social media activities.
Figure 1—‘The Honeycomb of Social Media’—on p. 243 of the article sets out for each of the
seven building blocks a succinct description of their ‘Social Media Functionality’ and a
corresponding summary of the ‘Implications of the Functionality’. These include, for example,
the building block ‘Conversations’ (‘the extent to which users communicate with each other’)
and the corresponding ‘Implications’ (‘conversation velocity, and the risks of starting and
joining’). Consideration of such factors is an integral part of effective service provision using
social media by both private and public sector bodies.
The authors provide what they term the ‘4 Cs’ to assist managers in embracing social media: 1)
cognize; 2) congruity; 3) curate; and 4) chase.
1. Cognize An organisation should first recognise and understand its social media
landscape, using the honeycomb framework.
2. Congruity An organisation needs to develop strategies that are congruent with, or suited
to, different social media functionalities (or building blocks) and the goals of the firm.
3. Curate An organisation must act as a curator of social media interactions and content.
4. Chase Although constant searches for information about social media activity and its
potential to improve capability is very time-consuming, organisations must conduct
regular scanning so as to keep their knowledge of trends and information flows up-todate.
The authors conclude that ‘The honeycomb framework provides a valuable tool for evaluating
the changing social media ecology. If used as an ongoing lens, a firm can revisit the assumptions
about a community’s engagement needs, observe how other social media platforms are evolving,
and gauge how competitors are responding’ (p. 250). This is to a large extent also the case in
relation to public sector organisations.
Jan H. Kietzmann teaches in the Segal Graduate School of Business, Simon Fraser University,
Vancouver.
Karen Purser, ‘Using Social Media in Local Government: 2011 Survey
Report’, Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, University of
Technology, Sydney, June 2012, 34 pp.
The report contains the results of a survey conducted jointly by the Australian Centre of
Excellence for Local Government (ACELG) and the University of Canberra over a period of two
weeks in November 2011. It explored the application, adoption and use of social media tools and
techniques in local government across Australia. The survey was designed to capture the views
of local government leaders about the contribution that social media is making, and has the
potential to make, in communicating with residents, ratepayers and other stakeholders, and in
7
improving the planning, organisation, and delivery of local government services. It examines the
benefits, risks and barriers to councils in using social media, and identifies those areas where
social media might better serve the local government sector. The report complements the report
by Anne E. Howard, ‘Connecting with Communities’ (August 2012) (see abstract under Anne E.
Howard above).
The survey was administered electronically to all local councils in Australia over two weeks in
November 2011. A total of 225 councils responded to the survey—metropolitan (34%), regional
(31%), and rural/remote (31%), with a small percentage described as other. The response rate to
the survey was 50%. The main survey findings, and observations about their implications, are set
out below:












Councils displayed a high level of interest in survey findings; in many instances, they are
looking for support and direction to enable them to fully understand the opportunities
offered by social media.
Nevertheless, 43% of respondents (those with responsibility for a council’s social media
activities) did not have a good understanding of social media.
One in six responding councils were planning to use social media, but had not yet begun
to do so, while 14% did not plan to use social media at all.
Although some rural/remote councils responded that social media was irrelevant to them
or their communities, one rural/remote council had found that they were able to
communicate much more effectively with their residents via social media because they
were too geographically dispersed to support a local newspaper.
The majority of councils who responded to the survey were developing (50%) or had in
place (26%) a social media policy of some kind.
Few councils (21%) provided social media training for their staff, and even fewer (9%)
provided social media training for councillors themselves.
Councils were most likely to see value in social media for promoting events, youth
activities and general community engagement.
Fourteen per cent of those councils who were using social media had also found it to be
useful in dealing with controversial issues, addressing public misconceptions and
building positive relationships. A further 10% had found it effective in managing their
response to emergencies.
Also on the subject of emergency management, a key finding of the Queensland Flood
Commission of Inquiry Final Report was that ‘Councils that have not already done so
should consider how social media may be used effectively to provide accurate
information about flood levels and local conditions to residents during a flood event.’
Few councils had in place any formal evaluation processes to measure the effectiveness
of the social media they use.
One quarter of councils believed that social media would specifically assist them to
engage with difficult-to-reach segments of the community, including people with
disability, seniors and poor families. Further, councils realised that social media offered
them an opportunity for real collaboration with communities, and indeed for ‘humanising
the council’ for the community.
Significant barriers to the use of social media by councils included: negative community
feedback as expressed in ‘uncontrolled commentary about council’; a lack of sector-wide
guidelines and education for council staff about how to utilise social media effectively;
and information management and recordkeeping challenges.
Karen Purser is Coordinator of the Women in Local Government Program, Australian Centre of
Excellence for Local Government, University of Technology, Sydney.
8
Spencer Stern and Patrick Ibarra, ‘Digital Government: Creating the Social
Media Game Plan’, in ‘Government Finance Review’ (US), October 2011, pp.
9–14.
This article is based on the premise that effective use of social media is no longer a luxury for the
public sector because government is increasingly at the ‘front and centre’ of what occurs within
society. The authors argue that public sector jurisdictions are turning to social media applications
for four principal reasons:
1. Financial challenges are forcing organisations to reduce costs, improve service delivery
efficiencies, and optimise existing resources.
2. Providing multiple channels allows citizens to exercise greater choice about how they
interact with the public sector.
3. Making records available to citizens enhances transparency and compliance.
4. Taking advantage of new technologies can deliver measurable results.
The authors stress that pursuing a social media strategy effectively, requires an inclusive plan
that spans the whole organisation; too often, they argue, jurisdictions take a scattered, isolated
approach characterised by lack of executive support and poor or sporadic funding.
In order to assist managers grappling with social media challenges, the authors put forward a
five-step ‘game plan’ for establishing soundly-based initiatives. These steps are:
1. Creating and structuring the team.
2. Identifying tangible, measurable goals that are linked to the organisation’s overall
mission and objectives.
3. Developing key policy and acceptable use guidelines.
4. Identifying potential technologies and their related benefits and impacts.
5. Developing a sustainable, repeatable, iterative process.
The authors note the fluidity of the social media environment and recommend that an
organisation’s social media team develop a process that ensures its social media presence
remains relevant. For this purpose, it proposes seven approaches:
1. Manage Incoming Data (develop a process for analysing, reporting, and driving
decisions based on the report data).
2. Refresh Content (decide who will be responsible for ensuring that content remains fresh,
relevant, and topical).
3. Identify Issues (make it clear who will handle any issues regarding executive support,
resources, or budget, and who will monitor the content in order to ensure that both
employees and citizens adhere to guidelines and policies).
4. Determine Metrics (decide which internal and external metrics will be tracked and
reported, keeping in mind that the more information you track, the more confusing and
complex it can become to manage it).
5. Keep It Fresh, But On Target (keep the team fresh by asking new employees and
external stakeholders to share their perspectives).
6. Refresh Policies (periodically review the established social media guidelines so as to
ensure they remain consistent with the organisation’s overall mission and objectives).
7. Avoid Mission Creep (monitor carefully whether an organisation’s social media activity
complies with its overall objectives).
Spencer Stern is the founder and President of Stern Consulting, and Patrick Ibarra owns The
Mejorando Group. Both businesses aim to assist the public sector in improving its employee
performance, organisational effectiveness and use of ICT.
9