Opinion: Ministers Need Freedom

[Sopo]

"Opinion: Ministers Need Freedom"
Sopo
Managing Editor, ENN

Burnout. It's a problem.

Both presidential tickets seek to address it in different ways. I agree that it's a symptom of high expectations and too much work, but I think there's more to it.

We expect presidential candidates to lay out their plans for the term up front, and we expect great detail from them. Ministers are brought in to implement plans, not to create them. By the time the platform is finished, unless part of the drafting process, ministers have little influence over the work they will be doing throughout the term, especially in areas like Culture, Communications, and Interior/Integration/Gameside/Recruiting. Feeling like a cog in the machine versus a leader with agency are two very different things. I'm happier in my real-life job because I feel like my voice is heard, like I have independence and like I am trusted. I am more excited to do my job because I have a stake in the strategic direction and am able to implement the plans that I think will work.

If we want ministers to be excited about their roles and to stay in them, we need to give them more autonomy and freedom to implement their ideas for their ministry. Yes, the president sets the vision and manages these teams, but the platform should set broad parameters and key goals versus a week-by-week outline of activities for each area.

I am a notorious sucker for @Common-Sense Politics's presidential platforms. Light on details and strong on vision and direction, CSP always offers encouragement and inspiration while allowing ministers and advisors to bring their own ideas to the table and contribute to the platform. Getting those folks' buy-in gets their loyalty and excitement to get to work.

Ministers need freedom. If we give it to them, they will be happier, and they won't burn out so fast. So - to the candidates and anyone who may run in the future - consider giving your ministers the tools they need to do their jobs rather than the complete plan to do them. And - to the voting public - give candidates some leeway if they focus more on vision and less on details. I think it will pay off.

 

[PhDre]

. By the time the platform is finished, unless part of the drafting process, ministers have little influence over the work they will be doing throughout the term, especially in areas like Culture, Communications, and Interior/Integration/Gameside/Recruiting. Feeling like a cog in the machine versus a leader with agency are two very different things. I'm happier in my real-life job because I feel like my voice is heard, like I have independence and like I am trusted. I am more excited to do my job because I have a stake in the strategic direction and am able to implement the plans that I think will work.

The dirty secret is that (some / many) good Ministers (imo) demand that freedom and push back on the demands that are placed on them for no other reason than "we have to do this because I promised it in my platform."

Platforms are more useful as a way to see what Presidential Candidates want to do in an ideal world, but when the rubber hits the road most of what is promised does not come to fruition (or should not because it isn't particularly well thought out or informed!), and spending lots of limited resources to check a box for a President's reelection is probably quite disheartening for Ministers and staff. "We did it, because we had to so that President X could get reelected" isn't particularly interesting or fun. If someone comes to me with a platform for what they want to get done in a term, I'll try to help them, but at the same time I'ma do my own thing too.

I am a notorious sucker for @Common-Sense Politics's presidential platforms. Light on details and strong on vision and direction, CSP always offers encouragement and inspiration while allowing ministers and advisors to bring their own ideas to the table and contribute to the platform. Getting those folks' buy-in gets their loyalty and excitement to get to work.

I agree to an extent regarding CSP, but I think what you are describing is leadership skill that more broadly is valuable in NS. CSP had it, and it's something that a lot of our best leaders have in common. Giving people actual responsibility and ownership over their work. One thing that I always liked to do when engaging with staff as a Media Minister was to have one on one conversations with each of my staff members and understand what their passions were - that allowed me to go off and assign work to them that I thought they would actually enjoy doing. As many media members will attest to, the "we have to do this" work is a lot less interesting than the work you actually have interest and passion in. At the same time, there are some topics that we have to cover that aren't particularly fun - you have to manage your resources in a way that gives people as much creative freedom as possible while also ensuring that your core responsibilities are covered.

I have come around to the opinion that the best leaders are the ones that get "buy-in" as you call it - the ability to excite others to dedicate their precious time to an ephemeral browser-based roleplaying game. These are players that when they ask for your help, it's not transactional. They want to elevate your work and passion - or at least they can sell their project to you that way!

 

[Sopo]

the "we have to do this" work

Hard agree - and I think we should be limiting it as much as feasible. This philosophy also applies to staff members too - when we can let them do things they're excited about, they're more likely to want to do it, as you said.

 

[Elio]

I strongly agree with all of this - this is why all Ministerial nominees on our team have had a hand in contributing to the platform, and all of them got to review multiple times along the way and edit/remove anything they disagreed with before publication. Even if I get elected though, and they come to me in two weeks time with a new idea, or a need to change an existing policy, I'm absolutely open to it.

A manifesto is not a stone tablet, carved with runes that will weather the ages, but a living and breathing thing that has to evolve and develop as a Presidency evolves and develops, and we have to be honest both with ourselves and with the citizenry about what we're going to be able to do, and what we're not, or what we're going to have to approach a different way.

As the old saying goes: we campaign in poetry, we govern in prose

 

[JayDee]

I think these are solid arguments, however no size truly fits all. The two most successful presidents of 2023 - Rand and Pland Adanna - employed largely opposing leadership styles. Rand was the one who was largely hands off, giving policy directives and letting his Ministers take initiative. Pland was the opposite, providing constant direction to his platform and regularly checking in to make sure we were staying on task. Neither style was wrong, they both worked incredibly well.

The trick is to use leadership philosophies which work best to your style, rather than trying to replicate how another person does it. Once you get to higher levels though, you also need to be able to recognize and elevate other people's style of leadership. It's not enough for you to be a hands off leader, you need to recognize the people who need hands-on leadership and be able to guide them.

I, for example, do just fine with hands off leadership, just give me a vague idea and I'll run to the Moon with it. Other people don't work like that, they freeze up from the weight of having too many options and directions, they want clear and concise direction with less room for question. That doesn't mean that the latter is bad, I've found those that prefer the latter tend to be much harder worker and more resilient from setbacks.

I saw this while crafting my first campaign as well. Some of the ministers helped out tremendously and helped make a lot of the policies for their ministry, while others weren't as engaged and preferred to work with the direction they're given. The important part is that the ministers have an invested desire to execute their responsibilities and that the president is elevating their work and highlighting individual achievements so people can be recognized for their hard work.