Excellence is not an aspiration. Excellence is what you do in the next five minutes. ‒ TOM PETERS
The search for excellence in public management is elusive. Decades of reform point to four enduring dilemmas:
- Reforms focus on changing rules and behaviour by design rather than on changing practices during implementation;
- Reforms rely on brokering the politics of special interests rather than on serving greater interests for lasting results;
- Reforms that work in one place do not always work the same way in another place; and
- Reforms have a long results chain, where a weak link anywhere can undermine implementation.
Reform must be implemented with agility, learning on the go, and sharing knowledge about what works and does not work in practice. Implementation is iterative and rolls out in concurrent phases that: (1) moderate the political-administrative interface to mitigate political influence over management; (2) test innovative structures and technologies to deliver quality services; and (3) adapt management processes and practices to continuously improve service delivery.
Benchmarking attempts to answer important questions in public management: Why do so many reforms disappoint or fail? Why do some reforms mark an entire generation? What are the critical success factors? What matters more—context or leadership? Which is more reliable—best practice or best fit?
What works well, where, and why?
There is no general theory governing the choice of public sector reforms. Good governance is a necessary but insufficient precondition. Experience points to an ongoing, bottom-up, case-by-case approach to performance management. There is no substitute for critical thinking to prevent the dire consequences of poor implementation.
Context. Reform is asymmetrical, with “different approaches for different realities”. It is important to know why existing arrangements do not work in a setting before launching new measures. Shared vision starts with agreement on common goals. Articulating hard budget constraints, core issues, and expected results sharpens strategic focus.
Leadership. Champions must emerge at all levels to sustain progress in reform initiatives. Political leaders assuage public concerns and advance projects consistent with government priorities. Public service leaders ensure continuity and attention to detail. Continuously massaging political-administrative relations enables reforms to thrive and survive.
Structure. Central oversight bodies are clearinghouses that connect people interested in reform with sources of ideas and expertise. Virtual organizations answer the question of how to muster adequate resources to accomplish significant projects when time, talent, and money are lacking. Communities of practice help disseminate knowledge, share learning, and build commitment.
Innovation. Threshold tests justify why any option might be a useful way forward in a setting. Reform designs rely on systems that inform the equilibrium between institutional autonomy and accountability. Mainstreaming proven reforms in government systems and management practices multiplies impact. Recognition and awards are instrumental in motivating practitioners to innovate.
Learning. Governments exchange experiences and good practices to improve the prospects of “getting service delivery right”. Balanced scorecards measure dimensions that reflect citizen needs and stakeholder interests. Tending to the preconditions for reform facilitates learning, adjustment, and transition that minimize the risk of creating havoc elsewhere in the system.
Capacity. Practitioners are challenged in scoping reforms, sharing good practices, and accessing support groups. There is an immediate need to build capacity to respond to accrued demand for systematic review and international cooperation. Institutionalization rather than restructuring is a more realistic strategy for capacity development.
Implications for managers
Canada has perhaps the most decentralized system of government in the world. Policy, programming, and service delivery are designed horizontally to manage this reality. A moderate tradition of incremental reform features four interrelated streams: (1) modernizing management practices; (2) deficit reduction; (3) people management; and (4) transparency and reporting. Taking a thematic view of parallel initiatives synergizes relationships, reforms, and results.
Public managers have a reputation for healthy curiosity, self-examination, reciprocal learning, and pragmatism. Projects encumbered by “too much study and not enough action” benefit from clear direction, political support, and stakeholder consultation. Common sense and initiative prevail when all else fails.
The next ten articles in this series take a deep dive into trajectories, lessons, and examples of good public management practice.
