Hello all!
As mentioned in my previous post, I did my placement in the public sector at the Department of Water.
One afternoon whilst travelling in the elevator a colleague of mine vexed her frustration at the rings and hoops required to jump through in order to get things approved. At the time I had a quiet laugh and went on to enjoy my terriaki chicken at the local Japanese.
However, the horrible truth about department bureaucracy dawned on me a few weeks later, and I soon became aware of the pain that poor lady was going through that previous afternoon.
My task was to create a leaflet for distribution to homes and councils about ways to save water around the home. To aid the process I had a collection of leaflets created by the Town of Cottelsoe with Department of Water funding. As part of the deal the department was allowed to re badge any of the content for their own purpose.
After collecting what I deemed to be the most relevant information from the Cottesloe leaflets I drafted the proposed Water Department version. I sent this to my supervisor who gave it the thumbs up and put it in the pipeline.
It is at this point that I became aware of the bureaucracy.
I remind you that this is already approved content.
Whilst being reviewed by the water recycling sub-section a lady highlights to us that vegetables do not lose more vitamins in a greater volume of water and thus our point about using less water when cooking is invalid.
The lady then refused two quite appropriate comments suggested by my supervisor before finally agreeing to a banal comment about using less water when cooking.
In the end the process of checking already approved content took longer than it did for me to draft the leaflet. It is no wonder many of the communications staff are always disrupted, continuously interrupted by emails regarding approval.
I understand that official documents must be verified, but when already approved content is snagged due to pointless corrections I begin to feel that comms staff should command more control over what is published.
Did any one else experience any elements of bureaucracy? I could imaging this could happen in the consultancy field as well.
Cheers
Alasdair
2 comments:
Hi Alistair,
I completely agree with your comments about getting sign offs on projects.
There was a lengthy sign off process at my placement organisation. I also found this process very frustrating, I just couldn't understand why it took so long and why so many people had to have their say on approved content.
I later realised that this because everything published has to be absolutely 100% fact checked and correct because people will call or email demanding corrections if it's not.
This happened to us, when Fiona Woods read an article on burns published in one of our member magazines and asked for a correction in the next issue. Although the information used in the article was pulled from government articles, it was out of date.
For that reason, it is important to clarify and ensure that all facts are correct no matter how frustrating it is even if it has already been approved.
After all, our managers are experts in communication and not facts on burns or water.
So getting a second opinion has its uses.
- Liz
Hi there!
As I was also undertaking a placement within the government (Department for Communities), all my work had to go through a long approval process, too. I can understand your frustration in having your work repeatedly checked, particularly when you're using pre-approved content.
I think Lizw has a point though - that the information has to be "100% fact checked and correct". Otherwise it will reflect badly on the organisation, which can contribute to bad public relations.
There can also be merit in checking things like grammar and spelling to the same degree. One thing that I learned from my placement was that the processes of an organisation often require you to be really thorough, whether when writing for publications or when co-ordinating events.
I also got the impression that approvals may be more enforced in public relations for the government than in smaller organisations, as the Minister and the Department’s reputations are at stake.
A colleague with whom I was catching a bus on my first day told me not to be discouraged if I get red corrections all over my work. He said it’s just the way writing for the government works; things have to get approved and then approved again by the next person up the chain.
He also said that the best advice he could give me was to try and write in a similar style as the Director or Executive Director. While writing for the government needs to adhere to a style guide, corrections are often also based on personal writing styles and preferences of those in managerial public relations positions. Each piece may then read as if it were written by the same person and ultimately create consistency in brand image.
So while it can be annoying to have to get your work constantly approved, it might help to think of the long approvals process as simply a public relations policy, rather than an implication of mistrust in the correctness of your work. I guess the policy is there to protect the organisation’s image just in case things were to slip through.
I enjoyed reading your post.
-Alana
Curtin University, Bentley
(Note to author bloggers: Please excuse this late submission as I am still recovering from being sick and have had problems accessing my account).
Post a Comment