Discernment is a decision-making tool often neglected but essential for local government (LG) officials when navigating the challenging world of information exchange with the public. Defined by Merriam-Webster as “the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure,” this learned quality equips LG officials with the perceptive ability to understand dynamics, behaviors and anticipated reactions when interacting with the public’s unpredictable perceptions of transparency.

In this social media age, interest in information transparency brings us to a point where a complete exchange of government information is expected (Köseoğlu & Tuncer, 2016). Of course, who would argue that this is negative? Yet, is there value in examining whether the indiscriminate and unguided delivery of information via social mediums leads to the effective transfer of new information to the public? And perhaps a more important question, will it lead to increased public trust? In this article, both questions are answered with a yes. However, as this article suggests, this yes is dependent on the strength of discernment and decision-making practices used in developing and adhering to information delivery guidelines (IDG).

While it is acknowledged that openness is vital to good government, this openness cannot be separated from discerning guidelines, specifically when exchanging government information with the public via social media. As such, LGs must question whether social media is an effective form of information transfer. If LGs choose to utilize social media as an information delivery medium, they should create IDG to build trust and increase transparency with their citizens.

Potential problems when using social media

Considering that social media is a primary means of LG information distribution, there is concern that too much focus is placed on the technical perspective and too little on policies ensuring proper practice (Stamati, Papadopoulos, & Anagnostopoulos, 2015). The reality that Web 2.0 and the social media age have brought new and efficient ways to obtain information is undoubtedly exciting. Yet, this recent age is still in its infancy and with it, awareness of the need for social media policies and guidelines is relatively new.

Another problem worth noting is when LGs assume that simple information exchange, by itself, automatically results in an open and transparent citizen/government interaction. Consider an all-too-common example with a modeled illustration found in Figure 1 (Daugherty, J. & Schriefer, M., 2021). A citizen posts a question on a civic social media site (Phase 1 of Figure 1). Then, a well-meaning public official answers the citizen with what was intended as a courteous tone but lacked situational awareness of various dynamics or the appropriate tools (Phases 2 and 3 of Figure 1). Soon after, the site is ablaze with anger-ridden posts accusing the official of condescension. Of course, officials cannot control everything. However, consider the public relations impact that the negative posts had on the local constituents (Phase 4 of Figure 1). Could it have been prevented? Perhaps, and maybe not. Yet, this example demonstrates how one should be mindful of how the simple delivery of information with good intentions can still provoke negative interactions.

The public depends on LGs to make decisions and provide services in a democratic and utilitarian manner. Therefore, due to its proximity and accessibility to citizens, LGs have a tremendous opportunity to provide a context wherein information exchange is dynamic and immediately felt by the public (Hendrix, 2019). When considered within the virtual realm, this context needs additional ingredients and safeguards to ensure an effective and democratic information exchange occurs. Failure to properly exchange information can result in posting inappropriate content, handling public comments unprofessionally, and publishing redundant or inaccurate information (Köseoğlu & Tuncer, 2016). The difficulty for LGs lies in the perception that a narrow margin for error exists once the relationship with social media begins — thus, the need for guidelines.

Consider also that LGs have not fully recognized the degree to which argumentation in online media exchanges has the power to change the public’s prior position to one the local officials are attempting to influence (Dekker & Bekkers, 2015). Put another way, before engaging in full-scale public information delivery, LGs should understand that doing so via social media can be complex and result in varying levels of difficulty when attempting to influence the public’s opinion. An assumption exists that the more the public knows via social mediums, the more positive the public perceives government. Significant research contests the validation of this assumption (Porumbescu, 2016). Succinctly, a battle exists between new information dissemination and the public’s current knowledge.

Understanding public’s current knowledge

LGs engaging in information exchange without awareness of the public’s current level of trust do so to its potential detriment. Presumably, a primary reason that LGs share information is to influence the public’s current understanding, otherwise known as current knowledge. While officials may never know the exact state of individual member’s understanding, they can at least be mindful of the aggregate level of public confidence.

The public’s existing level of distrust is the current knowledge that officials must overcome. Moreover, research reveals that exercising discernment in information exchange policy garners public trust (Porumbescu, 2016). Any new knowledge or action that citizens are asked to embrace will fail to transfer unless that policy recognizes the current knowledge’s challenges.

Delivering new knowledge

Once current knowledge is understood, LGs can explore how to deliver new knowledge. For LGs, new knowledge is defined as the citizen’s acceptance of information that results in an increased level of trust. The official’s challenge is to disseminate information in a manner that aptly addresses citizens’ general concerns. Failing to address those concerns, they become obstacles to receiving and retaining new knowledge (Ambrose et al., 2010).

Discerning public’s need for caring response

Having argued the value of IDG in information delivery policies, LGs are advised to mindfully discern the public’s information needs amid obscuring perceptions. While it may be intuitively known, LGs also need to discern their citizens’ dynamic expectations, aspirations and perceived rights. Understanding that the public has general psychological needs, attention is now given to specific IDG criteria considerations.

Using discerning questions to understand public’s need

As is widely known, Facebook, Instagram and X — formerly known as Twitter — are among the top social media platforms (Ahmad, 2019). Across the globe, the public increasingly relies on these platforms as the primary source of their information feed. As such, LGs that fail to respond by positioning themselves to offer this feed find themselves underdelivering helpful information.

When officials become aware of an information need, the advisable first step is to ask questions that decipher the actual need (Phase 1 of Figure 1). As such, best-practice IDG should include jurisdiction-specific initial questions. For example, the following discerning questions may help gain clarity regarding an information need:

•        What information is actually requested?

•        What might be reasonably inferred that they are requesting?

•        What tone and word choice are used, and what do they signal?

•        Are there recent events that might cause a constituent increased sensitivity?

•        Is the information delivery courteous in both intent and performance?

•        Should requests for more information be delivered in the same medium?

•        Is there specific knowledge of the public that could influence how the information is delivered?

The purpose of these questions focuses on fulfilling both the letter and the spirit of the request. Jurisdiction-specific questions should discourage tunnel-vision responses and encourage fuller awareness. Officials responding to requests with mindfulness increase the likelihood of effective information delivery. Use of discernment, as discussed earlier, is significant considering that effective information delivery is instrumental in the public’s perception of transparency.

Responding to public’s need using discernment tools

Due to obscured public perceptions, sending information through social mediums without regard to effective IDG may place a government agency in a suboptimal predicament. Ideally, LGs should interact in a meaningful and effective manner within the particular guidelines for each social media platform, thus building a foundation of trust through which a government can diffuse rumors and respond to requests (Wukich & Mergel, 2016). This consideration emphasizes the need to ensure that social media interactions are adequately monitored, misinformation and rumors are appropriately addressed, and all requests receive a specific response. To accomplish this, LGs should consider their human resource ability, time, and professionalism when designing IDG. The ideal support for the LG is the addition of discernment tools in its IDG. It is with this pairing that discernment tools and IDG reach their optimum value.

Certainly, there is sincere motivation to provide constituents with clear and appropriate information delivery with most public officials. However, sometimes information delivery, even with genuine motives, still misses the mark. When officials pause and consider available response tools, they increase the likelihood of satisfying the public’s request. Consider four (4) broad-based discernment tools (Phase 3 of Figure 1) officials should consider before delivering information.

This is part one of “Social media guidelines: How discernment aids local government transparency.” The second part will run in the December issue of The Municipal.

About the Columnist

Jordan Daugherty, administrator at the village of Whitehouse in Northwest Ohio, works in the town where he grew up. Conscientious of the trajectory of government at large, he particularly focuses on the need for local governments to transform into bodies deserving public trust. His 17 years of working in municipal leadership have given him a vision for guiding local government from a mindset of unimaginative toward progression. Daugherty received his doctorate in organization development and change (D.ODC) from Bowling Green State University and is a Certified Public Accountant (retired). He also sits on the board of the Northwest Ohio Advanced Energy Special Improvement District. While he ardently works to cause efficient and effective organizational change, his ultimate passion is his gracious wife and 12 children. Daugherty can be reached at jdaugherty@whitehouseoh.gov.

References

Amad, Irfan. (2019, January 1). The most popular social media platforms of 2019. Digital Information World. Retrieved from https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/01/most-popular-global-social-networks-apps-infographic.html

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Daugherty, J. & Schriefer, M. (2021). Model of Four Phases to Ensuring Effective Information Delivery Via Social Media [Figure].

Dekker, R., & Bekkers, V. (2015). The contingency of governments’ responsiveness to the virtual public sphere: A systematic literature review and meta-synthesis. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 496-505. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.007

Hendrix, M. (2019, March 4). The case for local government. Retrieved from https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2019/03/04/the_case_for_local_government_111089.html

Köseoğlu, Ö., & Tuncer, A. (2016). Designing social media policy for local governments: opportunities and challenges. Public Administration and Information Technology, 15, 23-35. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.24.2.225

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Discernment. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved April 20, 2021, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discernment

Porumbescu, G.A., (2016). Comparing the effects of e-government and social media use on trust in government. Public Management Review, 18(9), 1308-1334. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1100751

Stamati, T., Papadopoulos, T., & Anagnostopoulos, D. (2015). Social media for openness and accountability in public sector: Cases in the Greek context. Government Information Quarterly, 32(1), 12-29. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.11.004

Wukich, C., Mergel, I., (2016). Reusing social media information in government. Government Information Quarterly 33, 305-312. Retrieved from http:dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.01.011

Next Article: Connecticut airport completes $2.5 million taxiway rehabilitation despite setbacks