Should The Government Hire Eminem?
Wait. Wait, wait.
I’m not advocating for Eminem’s, or anyone’s worldview. I don’t even know Eminem. This is going to be about bringing into public service individuals whose diverse abilities can be used here, even though they wa-a-a-a-y break the mold (as long as they’re not dangerous of course).
Think about it - with all of our talk about diversity, how much of it do we really have? We all know and talk comfortably about the typical categories – which are usually visible – but there is less discussion of what I call “invisible diversity” – creative abilities, ways of learning, personality preferences, and so on.
I call out Eminem because he encapsulates the contradictions one has to deal with when considering diversity. He is talented, opinionated, sings offensive lyrics, has a turbulent personal life, and looks very “different” in general, not to mention angry. When I see his angry face in publicity photos I admit it, I feel a bit afraid. Yet it was his music that finally led me to appreciate rap, which has had a huge influence on American culture.
Hadn’t given much thought to Eminem’s music in awhile…has it already been five years? But the new song with Rihanna, “I Love The Way You Lie,” is his best yet. It may even be one of the best songs I’ve ever heard. True, it’s thanks to Rihanna’s voice, but it’s also because we are getting his very pure artistic vision in the song. The contrast between her angelic voice and his harsh, staccato, microphone-smashing rap, plus the simple but harshly honest lyrics, are unbelievably effective at conveying disturbing subject matter—a codependent relationship that ends up in violence. Here’s an excerpt that doesn’t even do it justice:
The song is even more impactful given that Rihanna has talked about her experience as a survivor of relationship violence – one wonders if she recorded this to reach out to others and help them.
In any case, the question for me is this: If the government were to write a song to raise awareness of domestic abuse and provide information about resources for assistance – would it hit #2 on the Billboard Top 100 the way that this song has?
Who is going to popularize the issue more – us or Eminem/Rihanna?
If it’s not us, then don’t we need creative people like this to write the song on the government’s behalf? They’re the ones who can bring the right passion, intensity, and talent to do it. Their song just knocks you out and takes over the room when you play it. Not everybody may like it, but it has heart and soul and guts.
Of course, I write about communication so my examples are limited to this realm. But outside it, think about how this argument might apply to other subject matter areas, where the agency would benefit from greater diversity than currently exists.
Forget rappers for a minute. How about game designers, tattoo artists, circus clowns, gossip columnists, The Real Housewives of New York/New Jersey/Orange County (and soon DC), contestants on America’s Got Talent, musical bands and singers—one could go on and on. How about bloggers, fine artists, and poets? Put everyone together and mix them up to see what they come up with.
Get out of the usual boxes and come up with something new. Maybe even put these people into subject matter areas they know nothing about, just to see what their comments are. I bet we could learn a lot just by listening to some different perspectives.
Here’s just one specific example that somebody asked me about last week: How can we use MySpace for government outreach? My response is, well, how can’t we use it?
--Create a space on MySpace to get free music donated by popular artists, or artists whose work is in the public domain
--Create agency anthems that educate the public about what we do – it’s so confusing to so many people – and get them onto MySpace and iTunes, too
--Create agency bands that travel the country reaching out to the public, sharing our mission and asking them for feedback, what they want, what we do that doesn’t work.
In short, INTERACT! Be human! That’s it! (I am still thinking about LinkedIn.)
In general, why are we boxing people into series categories like “Program Manager”? We could be dropping all the boxes and hiring skill sets instead. Or simply recruiting for the desire to work for government. There is something to be said for that all by itself.
If we hired more creative people, this might also help us with to rely more on full-time government employees (“insourcing”) and less on vendors to get the work done, an integrative approach that can help build a more holistic agency than one that is divided between varying cultures.
Turning from recruitment to workforce management and retention now: What about the people we already have? What about their creativity and intellectual diversity?
As I attend conferences and interagency events around town, and have gotten to know people in various places, I am struck by how much unbelievable talent we have in the government. But what is so sad is that as soon as these great, quirky, interesting people enter the workplace, they feel like they have to put on a corporate mask and act all serious and zombie-like. No wonder people hate Mondays.
(It’s the same in the private sector too, by the way—perhaps even more so—because offending a client means revenue lost and there is little to stop the employee from getting fired.)
However, times have changed and “zombiness” just isn’t going to work anymore, if it ever did. It doesn’t offer any competitive advantage to have clones in the workplace. We need to be challenging each other, challenging ourselves, to run marathons we haven’t even thought of yet.
Besides, when you turn off your creativity, when you turn off your passion, a part of you dies inside. I read this somewhere and think it’s true: the dead creativity spreads like cancer until you’re really just a walking, talking, breathing mask. Who looks forward to retirement, which is short, until inevitable sickness and then death.
How sad – how ridiculous – how wasteful of a person’s life and of the potential they could have given to society.
Everybody who has ever done anything worthwhile has offended someone. Everyone creative has a jarring point of view. Every new idea destroys the old box and creates a new one. There is no progress without offense. Without passion.
Another example: We’ve all heard the Mel Gibson tapes by now. And seriously – the man needs professional help. Plus he is a danger to himself and those around him, so I’m not saying that the government should hire him. But there is no denying the force of his creativity. Who in this country has not watched “Braveheart” and been shaken by his rallying cry against tyranny? When he yells “F-R-E-E-D-O-M!!!!” it literally cuts me right to the core.
If we are to transform public service for the future, we have to find a way to get to creativity like this. Of course keep dangerous people out. Of course protect our security. But don’t go so far as to lose the creativity we need in the service of blandness. Don’t hush up the brains and the heart and the soul that people have to offer – that they have worked all their lives to build. That is what we need in government and throughout our society.
Obviously there are lots of unusual, creative people who are doing just fine working for the government. But I’ve also had the experience where new thinking was requested, and then immediately rejected on no other basis than that it was freaking scary and fell too far outside the box.
True, there are good reasons why the government should be cautious about “creatives,” even those who are not dangerous. People are depending on us – hundreds of millions of people – to know that the garbage is being collected, the Social Security check has been sent, and the mail is on the truck to be delivered (i.e., that nobody is “going postal”— the reason why that term resonates).
It’s a huge system of trust, and the fear is that if we unleash creativity we will end up with a disregard for the chain of command. Which will quickly devolve into chaos—looting, runs on the banks, etc.
Maybe this fear has some basis, but it is also somewhat irrational. To privilege “yes-people” and shut down the wild/wacky/creative voices who could enhance our agencies is a strategically unwise decision. It shuts down innovation and in doing so, costs money, wastes time, and keeps us focused on orderliness instead of a single-minded pursuit of excellence in our missions.
As the ancient Jewish king Solomon said, there is a time for everything and everything has its place.
Creative people, like everybody, can be obnoxious, offensive, and even out of line at times. But as long as they are not a security risk, I say we “let the freak flags fly” a bit more in D.C.
More PeopleofWalmart.com, a little less Alex P. Keaton.
Once these recruits are in government, let’s keep them here by giving them meaningful work instead of busywork – problems to solve – and then getting out of their way. Even if it’s messy and we have to shake the rules up a bit.
If we trust the creatives, I think we will find that they are more than happy to fall into line when it’s time to. But in the meantime, we’ll have the strength of a workforce that knows when and how to APPROPRIATELY speak up to promote good ideas or prevent potential diasters from occurring.
I’m pretty sure that Eminem isn’t going to quit his day job anytime soon. I just hope that there are others, though, who are creative and who find their way to public service. We should harness that brilliance for the good, keep it within our walls, and save the institutional knowledge before they make the decision to retire.
I’m not advocating for Eminem’s, or anyone’s worldview. I don’t even know Eminem. This is going to be about bringing into public service individuals whose diverse abilities can be used here, even though they wa-a-a-a-y break the mold (as long as they’re not dangerous of course).
Think about it - with all of our talk about diversity, how much of it do we really have? We all know and talk comfortably about the typical categories – which are usually visible – but there is less discussion of what I call “invisible diversity” – creative abilities, ways of learning, personality preferences, and so on.
I call out Eminem because he encapsulates the contradictions one has to deal with when considering diversity. He is talented, opinionated, sings offensive lyrics, has a turbulent personal life, and looks very “different” in general, not to mention angry. When I see his angry face in publicity photos I admit it, I feel a bit afraid. Yet it was his music that finally led me to appreciate rap, which has had a huge influence on American culture.
Hadn’t given much thought to Eminem’s music in awhile…has it already been five years? But the new song with Rihanna, “I Love The Way You Lie,” is his best yet. It may even be one of the best songs I’ve ever heard. True, it’s thanks to Rihanna’s voice, but it’s also because we are getting his very pure artistic vision in the song. The contrast between her angelic voice and his harsh, staccato, microphone-smashing rap, plus the simple but harshly honest lyrics, are unbelievably effective at conveying disturbing subject matter—a codependent relationship that ends up in violence. Here’s an excerpt that doesn’t even do it justice:
“It’s the rage that took over
It controls you both…
…Next time you’ll show restraint
You don’t get another chance
Life is no Nintendo game
But you lied again
Now you get to watch her leave…”
The song is even more impactful given that Rihanna has talked about her experience as a survivor of relationship violence – one wonders if she recorded this to reach out to others and help them.
In any case, the question for me is this: If the government were to write a song to raise awareness of domestic abuse and provide information about resources for assistance – would it hit #2 on the Billboard Top 100 the way that this song has?
Who is going to popularize the issue more – us or Eminem/Rihanna?
If it’s not us, then don’t we need creative people like this to write the song on the government’s behalf? They’re the ones who can bring the right passion, intensity, and talent to do it. Their song just knocks you out and takes over the room when you play it. Not everybody may like it, but it has heart and soul and guts.
Of course, I write about communication so my examples are limited to this realm. But outside it, think about how this argument might apply to other subject matter areas, where the agency would benefit from greater diversity than currently exists.
Forget rappers for a minute. How about game designers, tattoo artists, circus clowns, gossip columnists, The Real Housewives of New York/New Jersey/Orange County (and soon DC), contestants on America’s Got Talent, musical bands and singers—one could go on and on. How about bloggers, fine artists, and poets? Put everyone together and mix them up to see what they come up with.
Get out of the usual boxes and come up with something new. Maybe even put these people into subject matter areas they know nothing about, just to see what their comments are. I bet we could learn a lot just by listening to some different perspectives.
Here’s just one specific example that somebody asked me about last week: How can we use MySpace for government outreach? My response is, well, how can’t we use it?
--Create a space on MySpace to get free music donated by popular artists, or artists whose work is in the public domain
--Create agency anthems that educate the public about what we do – it’s so confusing to so many people – and get them onto MySpace and iTunes, too
--Create agency bands that travel the country reaching out to the public, sharing our mission and asking them for feedback, what they want, what we do that doesn’t work.
In short, INTERACT! Be human! That’s it! (I am still thinking about LinkedIn.)
In general, why are we boxing people into series categories like “Program Manager”? We could be dropping all the boxes and hiring skill sets instead. Or simply recruiting for the desire to work for government. There is something to be said for that all by itself.
If we hired more creative people, this might also help us with to rely more on full-time government employees (“insourcing”) and less on vendors to get the work done, an integrative approach that can help build a more holistic agency than one that is divided between varying cultures.
Turning from recruitment to workforce management and retention now: What about the people we already have? What about their creativity and intellectual diversity?
As I attend conferences and interagency events around town, and have gotten to know people in various places, I am struck by how much unbelievable talent we have in the government. But what is so sad is that as soon as these great, quirky, interesting people enter the workplace, they feel like they have to put on a corporate mask and act all serious and zombie-like. No wonder people hate Mondays.
(It’s the same in the private sector too, by the way—perhaps even more so—because offending a client means revenue lost and there is little to stop the employee from getting fired.)
However, times have changed and “zombiness” just isn’t going to work anymore, if it ever did. It doesn’t offer any competitive advantage to have clones in the workplace. We need to be challenging each other, challenging ourselves, to run marathons we haven’t even thought of yet.
Besides, when you turn off your creativity, when you turn off your passion, a part of you dies inside. I read this somewhere and think it’s true: the dead creativity spreads like cancer until you’re really just a walking, talking, breathing mask. Who looks forward to retirement, which is short, until inevitable sickness and then death.
How sad – how ridiculous – how wasteful of a person’s life and of the potential they could have given to society.
Everybody who has ever done anything worthwhile has offended someone. Everyone creative has a jarring point of view. Every new idea destroys the old box and creates a new one. There is no progress without offense. Without passion.
Another example: We’ve all heard the Mel Gibson tapes by now. And seriously – the man needs professional help. Plus he is a danger to himself and those around him, so I’m not saying that the government should hire him. But there is no denying the force of his creativity. Who in this country has not watched “Braveheart” and been shaken by his rallying cry against tyranny? When he yells “F-R-E-E-D-O-M!!!!” it literally cuts me right to the core.
If we are to transform public service for the future, we have to find a way to get to creativity like this. Of course keep dangerous people out. Of course protect our security. But don’t go so far as to lose the creativity we need in the service of blandness. Don’t hush up the brains and the heart and the soul that people have to offer – that they have worked all their lives to build. That is what we need in government and throughout our society.
Obviously there are lots of unusual, creative people who are doing just fine working for the government. But I’ve also had the experience where new thinking was requested, and then immediately rejected on no other basis than that it was freaking scary and fell too far outside the box.
True, there are good reasons why the government should be cautious about “creatives,” even those who are not dangerous. People are depending on us – hundreds of millions of people – to know that the garbage is being collected, the Social Security check has been sent, and the mail is on the truck to be delivered (i.e., that nobody is “going postal”— the reason why that term resonates).
It’s a huge system of trust, and the fear is that if we unleash creativity we will end up with a disregard for the chain of command. Which will quickly devolve into chaos—looting, runs on the banks, etc.
Maybe this fear has some basis, but it is also somewhat irrational. To privilege “yes-people” and shut down the wild/wacky/creative voices who could enhance our agencies is a strategically unwise decision. It shuts down innovation and in doing so, costs money, wastes time, and keeps us focused on orderliness instead of a single-minded pursuit of excellence in our missions.
As the ancient Jewish king Solomon said, there is a time for everything and everything has its place.
Creative people, like everybody, can be obnoxious, offensive, and even out of line at times. But as long as they are not a security risk, I say we “let the freak flags fly” a bit more in D.C.
More PeopleofWalmart.com, a little less Alex P. Keaton.
Once these recruits are in government, let’s keep them here by giving them meaningful work instead of busywork – problems to solve – and then getting out of their way. Even if it’s messy and we have to shake the rules up a bit.
If we trust the creatives, I think we will find that they are more than happy to fall into line when it’s time to. But in the meantime, we’ll have the strength of a workforce that knows when and how to APPROPRIATELY speak up to promote good ideas or prevent potential diasters from occurring.
I’m pretty sure that Eminem isn’t going to quit his day job anytime soon. I just hope that there are others, though, who are creative and who find their way to public service. We should harness that brilliance for the good, keep it within our walls, and save the institutional knowledge before they make the decision to retire.
Comment
-
Comment by Adriel Hampton on July 22, 2010 at 2:55pm -
Good stuff! Was just totally digging that song over the past couple days, too. Great follow-up from Harlan - "a million of us just like me."
-
Comment by Nina Adrianna on July 22, 2010 at 2:30pm -
Yes! I agree with you, Dannielle. The public service needs a celebrity, a song, jingle, something to make us human and connect with others. A poet would also be good. We have some storytellers, like NickCharney
Sponsor Spotlight
Tools & Resources
© 2012 Created by GovLoop.
You need to be a member of GovLoop - Social Network for Government to add comments!
Join GovLoop - Social Network for Government