An overview of systemic issues in government communications of post-Maidan Ukraine by UCMC

1. Gov.Comms.Ua
Audit Findings
UCMC StratComms OVP taskforce  UCMC  31.08.2015
Part of ‘Reform of Government Communications’ project (Stage 1)
With support from the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine

2. 1
Content
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................2
WHY. VISION. 7 GOALS ....................................................................................................................................2
WHAT. 7 PROBLEMS........................................................................................................................................3
PROBLEM #1: GOV COMMS AS A TECHNICAL SECONDARY FUNCTION .........................................................................3
PROBLEM #2: GOV COMMS CAN’T BE STRONG IN A WEAK PUBLIC SERVICE..................................................................5
PROBLEM #3: GOV COMMS OFTEN PERFORMED BY TWO POLARIZED TEAMS WITH LITTLE COOPERATION...........................5
PROBLEM #4: GOV COMMS TREATED AS A POLITICAL SHIELD, NOT A TOOL FOR POSITIVE CHANGE....................................7
PROBLEM #5: GOV COMMS MEASURED IN OUTPUT, NOT OUTCOME..........................................................................7
PROBLEM #6: GOV COMMS LACK ONE VOICE........................................................................................................8
PROBLEM #7: GOV COMMS LACK ENERGY............................................................................................................9
ANNEXES .......................................................................................................................................................10
QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................................................................................................10
QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................11
TOP-PRIORITY FUNCTIONS & AREAS .............................................................................................................11
LEAST EFFICIENT FUNCTIONS & AREAS ..........................................................................................................12

3. 2
INTRODUCTION
This paper seeks to assess the most important needs for improving the quality of government communications
in Ukraine. The research looks at systemic issues which are common for communications practices of many
government agencies in Ukraine, without detailing individual agency-specific needs and objectives. The latter
could be a subject for next stages of reform, once common government communications standards are in
place.
Under the heading “government communications” we imply the respective functions of the state authorities in
Ukraine, including:
 The Head of State (President)
 The executive branch (the Head of Government (Prime Minister), the Cabinet of Ministers, regional
state administrations)
 The legislative branch (the parliament)
 The judiciary branch (the courts)
This document aims to prepare the ground for an action plan which is to be implemented under the ‘Reform of
Government Communications’ project (Stage 2). However, many objectives span beyond the framework and
scope of the project and cannot be realized under the present mandate.
This paper also refers to the research conducted by the ’21 November` Analytical Platform, further elaborating
a number of issues stressed in this report.
The recommendations listed below will be partly implemented under the ‘Reform of Government
Communications’ project (Stage 2) in the following areas:
 Institutional capacity building (formal guidelines, instructions, templates, procedures etc.)
 HR capacity building (competency model and performance metrics, professional development,
coaching etc.)
The paper provides an umbrella approach to the following issues:
Why: vision Why are Gov Comms vital for Ukraine today?
What’s the demand from the state and the public?
What: problems What’s wrong with Gov Comms in Ukraine?
What specifically is underperforming?
Who1: people Who should work in Gov Comms in Ukraine?
What HR approaches should be applied?
WHY. VISION. 7 GOALS
Ukraine today is undergoing a crucial turning point in its history. The choices the state makes and the changes
it implements are not just important, they are decisive for Ukraine’s existence and development as a state.
Unlike in stable mature democracies, it is not enough for Ukraine’s government today to simply communicate
with the public. Government has to lead the public in a certain direction, to take responsibility with hard
choices and have the courage to advocate for them, to fight on two frontlines and ultimately, to transform
minds and shape history. This is a time when government decision-makers have not to just listen to public
opinion – they must be bold enough to change it. In addition to traditional PR tools, this takes leadership and
courage.
1
The ‘Who’ component will be analyzed further in a separate paper due in November 2015

4. 3
Thus, the demands placed on government communications in Ukraine today are very high. They include the
following:
1. Stay united, act and speak on behalf of the state as a whole, share common
challenges, causes and vision
2. Explain the essence of changes by talking to people and addressing their fears,
doubts and questions
3. Advocate changes by persuasion and taking personal responsibility
4. Engage ambassadors among stakeholders by dialogue, inclusivity and cooperation
5. Lead by example, acknowledge mistakes and stay committed to the vision and big
goal
6. 6. Drive change at a grassroots level
7. 7. Maintain high professional and ethical standards
The challenges above are not the regular functions of respective structural units and employees engaged in
delivering communications functions in government agencies in Ukraine, due to a number of reasons. The next
chapter looks at these issues more closely.
WHAT. 7 PROBLEMS
Problem #1: Gov Comms as a technical secondary function
Government communications in Ukraine are predominantly reduced to the function of informing the public
about the ongoing activities of a specific government agency. Usually the formula behind government
communications in Ukraine is the following:
‘Proactive’ Reactive
1. The agency leadership takes a certain action
which is considered an information occasion
(holds an official meeting, signs some regulation
etc.)
1. The press-service receives a media request (usually,
official formal request is mandatory)
2. The press-service covers the ‘information
occasion’ by means of a press release/ news item
published on the agency web-site (+ optionally,
Facebook)
2. The press-service organizes a formal process of
gathering relevant information from structural units
and passes the information to the mass media
3. All mentions of the government agency in mass media are monitored and compiled in a press report on a
regular basis
According to the research conducted, the above-mentioned functions have traditionally been regarded as core
functions of a government press-service, with a number of adjacent secondary functions which are often
disproportionately swollen – mostly, reporting, publishing intra-agency news outlets and administering web-
sites etc.

5. 4
Press-services’ staffs are overwhelmed with redundant and pointless functions, which are a burden passed on
from an outdated and over-regulated bureaucratic system.
The proportion between the ‘core’ and ‘secondary’ functions varies from 70/30 to 50/50, but altogether the
‘traditional’ functions listed above amount to nearly 100% (80% at least) of the overall time and resources
structure of an average press-service. The situation might differ in the structural unit called ‘communications
department’, which is de-jure entrusted with more strategic and comprehensive powers.
The dilemma of urgency vs. importance is usually in favor of the first. Employees at senior positions (de facto
heads of comms) often acknowledge that they spend too much time on high-urgency and low-importance
issues, instead of concentrating on high-importance tasks. The desired model would shift this ratio from
70%/30% to the opposite of 30%/70%.
1. The dilemma of urgency vs. importance
Time management with setting proper priorities is poor because of:
 the amount of paperwork, redundant approvals etc.
 the proportion of urgent ad hoc issues and impromptu crisis communications
For some agencies, the time spent in getting all sorts of formal approvals amounts to 30% of the whole average
working day of a press-service employee.
Overall, the perception of government communications as a purely technical function needed to accompany
the daily operations of an agency is at the core of their low efficiency in Ukraine. This perception negatively
affects the role and mandate given to the respective units and employees in the organization – both vertically
(by the leadership) and horizontally (by other structural units). This attitude also shapes the self-perception of
employees performing the communications functions.
High Urgency Low Urgency
High Importance Low Importance
Current
Model
High Urgency Low Urgency
High Importance Low Importance
Desired
Model
“In the ministry, we are treated as ‘journalists’, they even call us this way. They
believe we are there just to keep bothering them with our endless information
requests, and that’s it”
- A head of comms

6. 5
Problem #2: Gov Comms can’t be strong in a weak public service
Government communications in Ukraine are largely dysfunctional because of the endemic deficiencies of the
civil service and public administration overall. Thus, comprehensive government communications reform is
only possible along with overall public administration reform.
HR issues are hugely affected by outdated civil service culture and practices. Sometimes the new leadership
also treats communications in a process-oriented way – to fit into the established framework and stick to the
‘good old’ rules (“write a press-release”/ “have a press-conference”), with goal-driven energy lost in daily
bureaucratic routine.
Needless to say, press-services or communications departments are fully integrated into the regular
bureaucratic framework of a government agency, subject to the common legislative and regulative norms of
public administration in Ukraine. This would be fine in a situation when Ukraine’s overall public administration
system has been successfully modernized. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Archaic, cumbersome, inert and
weak institutions undermine the capabilities and potential of ‘change agents’ who – individually or collectively
– cannot bring sustainable transformations to the way the system has worked for decades.
Problem #3: Gov Comms often performed by two polarized teams with little cooperation
In this bureaucratic scenario, to achieve immediate goals and bring ‘quick wins’, individual government
communicators have learnt to flexibly bypass certain barriers and evade restrictions. Usually, this is the case for
so-called temporary advisers brought on board by new leadership when it comes to power. Positive sides of
the professionalism, enthusiasm and motivation brought in by this group of communicators are hard to
underestimate. However, there are negative sides to it as well. The situation in broad terms is outlined below:
Criteria ‘old’ teams of civil servants temporary teams of advisers
Competences
& motivation
Unqualified and poorly motivated staff Qualified and motivated staff, however totally
lacking understanding of civil service norms
and specifics
Efficiency Staff works to maintain the archaic
bureaucratic system, low efficiency in PR
functions
High efficiency in PR, often with personal PR of
the new leadership dominating over
‘institutional’ gov comms
Sustainability Old formal practices are being replicated,
however no proper induction exists
No sustainability and continuity of practices
and achievements left behind – no incentives
to build legacy and successors. Newcomers
start from scratch, with ambitious goals and
little sustainable output
Cooperation ‘Wait-and-see’ position ranging from low
cooperation to sabotage
Opposition, tension between ‘old’ and ‘new’
teams, often ignoring
Political
influences
Usually work as mid-level employees
whose management changes with changes
in political leadership. They are used to
adapting to any political vectors, expecting
no major changes from short-term tenures
Little demarcation between state/government
and political communications: No institutional
memory – new teams are attached to new
leadership, coming and leaving in cycles.

7. 6
The balance of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the current post-Revolution approach is
outlined in the SWOT analysis below.
2. . SWOT analysis of current 'old vs. new' comms teams set-up
1. High motivation and
competences of temporary staff
2. Personal loyalty & commitment
of temporary staff to Gov. Agency
leaders, Agency goals are shared
3. High trust from Agency leaders
and teamwork with temporary
staff
4. Freedom and initiative
encouraged as corporate values
1. Alienation between the two
'parallel realities' - teams,
practices, processes which do not
align, leading to doubling of
functions, 'manual management',
extra efforts to solve minor
bureaucratic issues
2. Institutional framework , due to
its obsolete and over-regulated
nature, is sometimes de-facto fully
neglected, occasionally leading to
grave mistakes and undermining
principles of the rule of law
3. No sustainability ensured
Strengths
Weaknesses
1. Integrate 'temporary' advisers
into the modernized civil service
system
2. Upgrade competencies of
selected 'teachable' and motivated
old staff
3. Standardize rules, KPIs etc. for
all gov comms to create an
efficient working environment and
a 'fair game' for all
4. Create a pool of potential gov
comms staff among students
through 'early talent' development
programs
1. Dragging out fundamental
public administration reform will
lead to low-impact 'cosmetic'
changes, with a brain drain of
professionals to business and
politics
2. Focus on quick wins and minor
facelifts in the eyes of donors or
political leadership will not bring
any sustainable change and detract
resources from truly important
state and social priorities
3. Inertia of the system and lack of
political will and responsible
leadership can further demotivate
'new' teams, and nurture the
scepticism of 'old' teams
Opportunities
Threats

8. 7
Problem #4: Gov Comms treated as a political shield, not a tool for positive change
One of the KPIs press-services have traditionaly stuck to in Ukraine is ‘no negative coverage’. This approach is
often shared by both old and new communicators and perpetuated by political leaders who fear criticism. Fear
of ‘saying something wrong’ negatively affects or even ruins the speaking potential of regular public servants
whose positions and expertise allow them to be official spokespersons of a government agency. Unlike
independent commentators, civil servants are restricted by formal and informal boundaries, lack of awareness
of the official stance of the agency or government as a whole on certain issues in the turbulent and
hyperdynamic political environment. This results in lack of public speakers in the government, especially those
mid-level managers who can provide industry- or issue-specific content demanded by the general public and
professional groups. This type of content is outrun by excessive politically flavoured hot news, which do not
contribute to strategic Gov Comms goals and expectations of the public listed at the beginning of the paper.
There is a common practice to evaluate the tone of individual publications and track dynamics of the positive-
vs.-negative ratio over some period. Traditionally, political and government leaders pay a lot attention to
negative publications – they are being tracked, analyzed and calculated over time. This is usually conducted in a
simplistic manner: the more positive coverage in each point in time, the better, while negative coverage should
be close to zero.
However, it is common knowledge that real change meets resistance, and committed reformers face criticism,
lack of support and understanding at the first stages of reform. This is a challenge to overcome, not to avoid or
escape. Thus, strategic comms planning should take the ‘ups’ and ‘downs’ of public opinion into account, and
courage is needed to ride out negative downturns before they gradually evolve into public support.
Unfortunately, often the fear of bad news and poor media coverage today curb the initiative and guts needed
to build a better tomorrow. For the specific historic situation Ukraine is now in, proactive and compelling
communications from the government as the core change agent are crucial. Fear is destructive for driving
change.
Problem #5: Gov Comms measured in output, not outcome
As mentioned above, there is little understanding in Ukraine why and for what the government communicates.
Is it to show it has control over the situation, or demonstrate progress, or talk to people, or drive change?
Often it looks more like reminding people ‘we are here doing something’. The reduced and distorted comms
function of ‘showing presence’ negatively affects the way communications are planned, executed and,
consequently, efficiency is measured.
Lack of clear and goal-driven KPIs has been stressed as an issue of paramount importance by virtually all
government communicators as part of the research.
This is the case for both institutional and individual levels of evaluating success and measuring performance.
Currently, the common practice is to measure output, not outcomes of communications. Some of the typical
quantitative indicators include:
 the number of press-releases issued per month
 the number of media attending a press-event
 the number of interviews, comments, TV shows and other speaking opportunities for the
management

9. 8
 the number of web-site/ social media updates
 the number of negative media items (the opposite indicator)
Although contemporary PR and analytical tools allow looking more in-depth into such indicators as
trustworthiness of an institution, change in attitude or even change in behavior as outcomes of
communications, in Ukraine it is still common to measure output only.
Consequently, the evaluation or success criteria shape the whole working process in a certain direction. If an
output-based approach is chosen, all the communications stages and levels are built accordingly.
Communications Stages
 Planning
 Implementation
 Analysis
Communications Level
 Strategic
 Operational
 Tactical
Stages
Level
Planning Implementation Analysis Total Score
Strategic 1 2 1 4
Operational 2 3 3 8
Tactical 3 4 4 11
Total Score 6 9 8
3. As-is assessment of the efficiency of communications at different levels and stages
In the matrix above, all components have been evaluated from 1 to 5 (1 is the lowest score, 5 is the highest
score), which gives an ‘as-is’ overview of their proficiency. Say, tactical level is most proficient overall, while
planning is the least proficient stage of communications overall. Strategic planning and analysis are the most
underperforming functions. Tactical implementation and analysis are the best performing functions.
For the strategic level of communications, the problem is not just about a lack of specific standards and
guidelines. The challenge is to introduce strategic thinking behind operational and tactical activities, to link
everyday ongoing practices to a broader picture and a bigger goal. Today, even if strategic planning is in place,
it is often left aside, sacrificed to burning issues and urgent priorities.
On the contrary, government communicators seek to gain a more proactive role in shaping the media agenda,
impacting government decisions and leading the public discourse.
Problem #6: Gov Comms lack one voice
By ‘one voice’ we imply syncing messages at the level of:
 the state
 the government
 an agency

10. 9
There are both institutional and political sides to the problem of lack of unity in key messages and positions
delivered by the state. With lack of differentiation between political and state comms, government agencies
tend to deliver politically-biased content, or, even worse, unleash political debates and bring media attention
to personal conflicts. Obviously, this approach detracts from the image of the state as a consolidated power
that leads the country in the right direction. As far as on the political side, it is up to the government leaders to
agree upon certain positions, the role of press services is secondary – they advocate the cause and position of
their immediate management, sometimes compromising the interests and image of the state overall.
On the other hand, the rigid top-down hierarchy and decision-making in the government, as well lack of
horizontal ties and bottom-up initiative, lead to decisions ‘from the top’ that are not shared or even
understood by the management below. Ultimately the latter are to explain the decision to public, which is
clearly inefficient in the case when there’s no buy-in from the speakers.
On the institutional side, there is a weak coordination model in place, which is a matter of setting proper
procedures, information flows, internal communications etc. both inter- and intra-agency.
However, political and decision-making factors are of paramount importance for fostering ‘one-voice’ comms,
while coordination as a technical tool is needed to back them up.
Problem #7: Gov Comms lack energy
Ultimately, with all the above-mentioned obstacles and lack of proper systems and standards in place, the state
still occasionally manages to deliver a compelling message, challenge stereotypes and change mind-sets.
Although this is rather an exception, than a common practice, it is worth looking at. There is little surprise that
people, who truly believe in the cause they advocate, can achieve better results than formal executives.
Obviously, communications are a field where individual energy matters a lot. If people are empowered to bring
change, if their creative energy has an impact, if decisions are part of teamwork, if they share some corporate
identity with the government agency they are part of, they can be efficient despite all the obstacles.
Thus, shifting the paradigm of government communicators from passive copywriters to change drivers is
essential as a ‘soft’ strategic tool along with ‘hard’ organizational and institutional reforms.
“Sometimes I feel like I cannot change anything, like it is a wall I cannot shift. But
minor victories make me feel empowered. If I can produce small wins, bigger
successes are sure to follow. ”
- A head of comms
“It is so painful to see your government partner waging an information war against
your agency”
- A head of comms

11. 10
ANNEXES
Questionnaire
How do you evaluate the importance (weight assignment) and the current
efficiency of the following:
Strategic level of communications overall:
Strategic vision and planning
Consensus and coherence in key messages (one voice policy):
At the level of official agency spokespersons
At the level of press-service and comms department
At the level of agency overall
At the level of government overall
Managing information threats and issues (analysis, alerts)
Crisis comms capabilities
Key messages development and delivery
Comms evaluation system (KPIs) overall:
Quantitative indicators
Qualitative indicators
Media monitoring
Social media monitoring
System of comms coordination and cooperation overall:
Inter-agency coordination & cooperation in the following:
In situation analysis
In developing key messages and other content
In crisis comms
In joint media events
In joint events for experts and other stakeholders
Intra-agency coordination
Operational/tactical implementation overall:
Efficiency of media mix overall:
National media:
Information agencies
Business print/ online
General audience large-circulation print (Segodnya, Fakty etc.)
TV
Radio
Industry media
Regional media
International media
Efficiency of comms tools and channels overall:
Press-briefings
Round tables
Off-record events
Press-releases
Response to media requests (comments, information notes)
Interviews
Op-eds
Infographics
Initiating feature stories, reviews etc.
Social media

12. 11
Engaging 3
rd
party endorsers and advocates (experts, bloggers etc.)
Official web-site
Efficiency of proportion between proactive and reactive comms
Questionnaire Summary
Top-priority Functions & Areas
When rating the importance of functions/areas, the highest scores were given to:
 Strategic level of communications overall
 Crisis comms capabilities
 Inter-agency cooperation needed for crisis comms
 The system of KPIs
 Media relations with TV
 Efficient media mix, as well as mix of comms channels ad tools
4. Top-Priority Functions & Areas
Among the functions/ areas which are considered most important, the lowest efficiency is observed in
the following:
 Strategic level of comms overall
 Inter-agency cooperation needed for crisis comms
 The system of KPIs
5 The Least Efficient Top-Priority Functions & Areas (highlighted in red)
Strategic comms:
Strategic level of
communications
overall
Crisis comms:
Agency capabilities
Inter-agency
cooperation needed
for crisis comms
Evaluation:
Comms evaluation
system (KPIs) overall
Implementation:
Efficient media mix, as
well as mix of comms
channels ad tools
Media relations with
TV
Strategic comms:
Strategic level of
communications
overall
Crisis comms:
Agency capabilities
Inter-agency
cooperation needed
for crisis comms
Evaluation:
Comms evaluation
system (KPIs) overall
Implementation:
Efficient media mix, as
well as mix of comms
channels ad tools
Media relations with
TV

13. 12
Least Efficient Functions & Areas
The research shows that the functions & areas with the lowest efficiency are:
 One voice policy (coherence of messages) at the government level
 Media relations with international media
These functions & areas were characterized as ‘totally inefficient’.
6. The Least Efficient Functions & Areas
Also, there’s little satisfaction with the efficiency of the following functions & areas:
 Managing information threats and issues (analysis, alerts)
 Media and social media monitoring
 Inter-agency coordination & cooperation in situation analysis, as well as developing key messages and
other content
 Media relations with general audience large-circulation print (Segodnya, Fakty etc.)
These functions & areas were characterized as ‘rather inefficient’.
7. Functions & Areas Characterized as 'Rather Inefficient'
The highest score for efficiency was given to the following functions/ areas:
 One voice policy (coherence of messages) at the agency level
 Media relations with news agencies and industry media
8. Functions & Areas Characterized as 'Very Efficient'
OVP:
One voice policy
(coherence of messages)
at the government level
Implementation:
Media relations with
international media
Strategic comms:
Strategic level of comms
overall
Strategic vision and
planning
Managing information
threats and issues
(analysis, alerts)
OVP:
Inter-agency coordination &
cooperation in situation analysis
Inter-agency coordination &
cooperation in developing key
messages and other content
Evaluation:
Media and
social media
monitoring
Implementation:
Media relations with general
audience large-circulation
print (Segodnya, Fakty etc.)
OVP:
One voice policy
(coherence of messages)
at the agency level
Implementation:
Media relations with news
agencies and industry
media