Reinventing Government
I recently finished Osbourne and Gaebler's bestseller, Reinventing Government. Just an outstanding book, particularly invigorating for those of us who haven't given up on government but rather want to see it do better. I wanted to jot down a few comments about each of the ten principles the book espouses to make government better:
Catalytic -- i.e. government steering rather than rowing. This takes administrators who are about getting the job done and who aren't threatened by the fact that they might not be the best people/agencies to do the doing.
Community-owned -- i.e. government facilitating public involvement rather than doing it all for us. This has its limits -- I like that NYC in the early 1990's said no to community policing and took back the streets -- but in general, we Americans want to do our part, so far be it for the government to squelch that spirit.
Competitive -- i.e. using competition to force innovation. Monopolies are insidious in government, because what happens is that people become self-protective of their jobs and their agencies, rather than putting it all on the line on behalf of their customers, the general public.
Mission-driven -- i.e. defined by what purpose you're trying to accomplish, not what function your agency provides. See above re: getting folks to give up their role and their security to pursue a greater end, but you have to can whatever you don't have the money, mission, manpower, and motive for.
Results-oriented -- i.e. measuring outcomes and not inputs. Outcomes are messier than inputs to document, but absent the free market mechanisms businesses have (i.e. customers vote with their dollars to tell you which products are good and which are bad), you have to take the time to figure out whether you did right by your citizens or not.
Customer-drivern -- i.e. serving the public and not your own agency. Sense a theme here? -- the nature of bureaucracies is to self-preserve, but the business world will tell you the surest way to stay in the game is to take care of your customer.
Enterprising -- i.e. earning rather than spending money. Easier said than done, but everyone has to be a revenue-producer in some way, or else you have to question whether you should be doing that activity.
Anticipatory -- i.e. prevention rather than cure. The hard part about this is that cure is more immediate and makes you look good, while prevention takes longer and you might not be the one to get the accolades for your far-sightedness.
Decentralized -- i.e. working across lines rather than further drawing them. Bureaucracies are all about drawing lines, but the problems they tackle -- from terrorism to bird flu to hurricanes -- require much more fluidity, collaboration, and speed.
Market-oriented -- i.e. responding to the market rather than simply going with the program(s). See above re: solutions to complex problems don't always fit neatly into our existing program buckets, so we have to have our ear to what's coming and have the nimbleness to respond creatively.
The book is neither pie in the sky nor embittered about transforming government. It quotes an equal amount of positive and negative examples. And it's a great guidebook for people at all levels of government to put to use. It was written in the early 1990's but I have a feeling its principles will stand the test of time. One hopes that a future revision of the book has plentiful positive examples since its original publication.
Catalytic -- i.e. government steering rather than rowing. This takes administrators who are about getting the job done and who aren't threatened by the fact that they might not be the best people/agencies to do the doing.
Community-owned -- i.e. government facilitating public involvement rather than doing it all for us. This has its limits -- I like that NYC in the early 1990's said no to community policing and took back the streets -- but in general, we Americans want to do our part, so far be it for the government to squelch that spirit.
Competitive -- i.e. using competition to force innovation. Monopolies are insidious in government, because what happens is that people become self-protective of their jobs and their agencies, rather than putting it all on the line on behalf of their customers, the general public.
Mission-driven -- i.e. defined by what purpose you're trying to accomplish, not what function your agency provides. See above re: getting folks to give up their role and their security to pursue a greater end, but you have to can whatever you don't have the money, mission, manpower, and motive for.
Results-oriented -- i.e. measuring outcomes and not inputs. Outcomes are messier than inputs to document, but absent the free market mechanisms businesses have (i.e. customers vote with their dollars to tell you which products are good and which are bad), you have to take the time to figure out whether you did right by your citizens or not.
Customer-drivern -- i.e. serving the public and not your own agency. Sense a theme here? -- the nature of bureaucracies is to self-preserve, but the business world will tell you the surest way to stay in the game is to take care of your customer.
Enterprising -- i.e. earning rather than spending money. Easier said than done, but everyone has to be a revenue-producer in some way, or else you have to question whether you should be doing that activity.
Anticipatory -- i.e. prevention rather than cure. The hard part about this is that cure is more immediate and makes you look good, while prevention takes longer and you might not be the one to get the accolades for your far-sightedness.
Decentralized -- i.e. working across lines rather than further drawing them. Bureaucracies are all about drawing lines, but the problems they tackle -- from terrorism to bird flu to hurricanes -- require much more fluidity, collaboration, and speed.
Market-oriented -- i.e. responding to the market rather than simply going with the program(s). See above re: solutions to complex problems don't always fit neatly into our existing program buckets, so we have to have our ear to what's coming and have the nimbleness to respond creatively.
The book is neither pie in the sky nor embittered about transforming government. It quotes an equal amount of positive and negative examples. And it's a great guidebook for people at all levels of government to put to use. It was written in the early 1990's but I have a feeling its principles will stand the test of time. One hopes that a future revision of the book has plentiful positive examples since its original publication.
Comments