Every Friday, we take a quick look back at the week and highlight five members or moments that were especially awesome. Here’s who and what rocked it out this week. Also we want to know how or what you think killed it this week on the site so help us out with your comments below.
5. The Most Popular Blog of the Week goes to Kathleen Schafer‘s Looking Like the Leader You Are. The first thing I like about this blog is that it does have some really good advice and looking the part is almost as big as playing the part. Secondly there are great comments in this blog and if you haven’t told us your opinion on beards please chime in as the convo is heating up.
Facts from the State of the Union address and beards. There where three. Non on the floor, three in the balcony. Beard is out. Mustache are also out. Three on the floor, more in the balcony. Clean shaven face for men based on President, Chief of Staff, US supream court, Congress,Marines, Corning, Xerox, etc. – Allen Sheaprd
Personally, I think a beard that is neatly trimmed works well, especially for me. I have 20 years experience, over half of that in procurement, but most people think I’m in my early 30s and not my early 40s. Without a beard I look like I’m in my late 20s and, unfortunately, “experienced” managers immediately assume I’m inexperienced because I look “young”. Certainly not an insurmountable roadblock, but still rather annoying. –Brandon Jubar
4. The Top Forum was Jamie Vogt‘s What Do You Think of Obama’s Announcement to Reorganize the Federal Government? Naturally a lot of us govies watched the SOTU and heard the President talk about reorganization and most of us probably has opinions. Jamie was quick on the draw in creating a place for people to share those opinions.
Having gone through no less than 5 re-orgs in my 30+ year federal career, they were generally time and money pits, with less employees ending up doing more (service delivery, planning, boots on the ground, while mgt and on-the-rise employees get sucked into endless meetings, org chars, econ feasibilities and power-points. – Paul G. Claeyssens
This is one of those things that everyone agrees needs to be done, but no one will ever agree on how to do it. As an old hand, you can see the failure of this project coming. Heels will be dug in and faces will turn blue. This sounds like on of those ideas that goes to a committee for study and stays there. – Ed Albetski
3. Most Active Group was WordPress Club. We here at GovLoop were cranking away on some WrodPress stuff this week but between a post with tips for WordPress beginners and a Free Webinar this was a hot group this week.
2. Quote of the Week goes to Erik J. Akers on Aldo Bello‘s blog “Media Snacking”. To quick sum up the blog it’s about the face that news and media is so accessible today through so many niche channels that you can pick the news you want when you want it. That sounds great but the question that Erik bring up in his comment is how can information that you don’t think you want but you actually need get to you in this system?
1. Finally, Rockstar of the Week goes to Christopher Whitaker. Chris started a new blog series on GovLoop called Gov in the Trenches. When he first wrote about it I was expecting big thing and with his first crosspost from his blog he didn’t disappoint. His “You Can’t Read This” was one of the most popular pieces on the site and brought up value points about how the Government has to serve all citizens regardless of any difference they might bring to the table.
The phrase “media snacking” neatly sums up some similar thoughts, and concerns, I have had regarding how technological changes are affecting the role and capacity of governments to communicate with the public writ large. If the public is increasingly composed of ‘media snackers’–how does this change how information should be shared with the public? Media snacking describes not only that we can have a whole lot of what we want, but that we can exclude what we don’t think we want, making it dificult to provide new information or topics to an audience. Being able to exclude alternative points of view, or topics, limits the ability of consumers to understand or accept that there may be more than one correct solution to a policy problem.