Small Changes, Big Trends, and Our Personal Roles in the Organizational Health of the Public Sector

In Beyond Performance 2.0: A Proven Approach to Leading Large-Scale Change, Scott Keller and Bill Schaninger argue for paying as much attention to the ongoing health of organizations as to their current levels of performance.

In 2030: How Today’s Biggest Trends Will Collide and Reshape the Future of Everything, Mauro Guillen suggests epochal transformation proceeds slowly. Small changes lead to paradigm shifts, when everything suddenly becomes different. Without explicitly referencing Malcolm Gladwell’s notion of tipping points, he says, “We tend to forget that … small changes are cumulative.” (p. 5)

That can be cause either for optimism or for fear, depending upon the direction of the trends and one’s personal values and perspective. While Guillen cites the "mundanity of excellence," the process can work in reverse.

Just as "high performance is not normally a result of quantum leaps or innate talent but rather comes about because of a series of tiny improvements," poor performance and disastrous results may stem from small changes as well. (p. 134) Indeed, Dietrich Dorner has argued that we "court failure in predictable ways." Moreover, as Miles’ Law posits, in politics and public life where one stands depends upon where one sits. One person’s hope can be another’s fear.

With regard to where we sit in our collective lives, Keller and Schaninger define organizations as “people working together toward a common goal.” (p. 1) In terms of the international standard for strategic plans (ISO 17469-1), what they are referencing is a mission statement. For example, according to our constitution, the purpose of the United States government is “to form a more perfect union …” 

Pursuit of our national mission entails myriad long-term goals and many, many near-term objectives. Depending upon one’s view of the scope of government, the sky’s the limit but the reach circumscribed by our founders was much more limited. They could not have imagined what their effort hath wrought and we can only imagine how they might view the results nearly two-and-a-half centuries into the future.

In any event, according to the authors’ theorem, organizational health depends upon how effectively members work together in pursuit of their shared mission, which in turn supports a still more expansive vision motivated by personal values. For example, with respect to American values, the Declaration of Independence explicitly cites as unalienable rights the pursuit of happiness, together with life and liberty.

In Keller and Schaninger’s view, organizational health is evaluated on five parameters -- accountability, motivation, innovation, coordination, and external orientation. (p. 15) Our record on those metrics is mixed and we clearly have lots of room for improvement. Considering the level of polarization festering in our political system, it is difficult to argue that we are doing a very good job of creating a “more perfect” union. Whereas our Presidents routinely declare that the “state of the union is strong,” its organizational health is far from optimal. Indeed, in the cyberage, the system devised in colonial times to bring us together now seems designed to push us apart.

With respect to the sustainable pursuit of their missions, Guillen observes that organizations cannot be effective unless they sense, interpret, and act on the weak signals from the periphery. (p. 9) Presumably, that thought is encompassed in Keller and Schaninger’s conceptualization of “external orientation”. In terms of politics and bureaucratic governance, implications include openness to the views of others and competition among ideas unbound by artificial constraints imposed by assumptions and mindsets through which our imagination is limited.

While Keller and Schaninger focus on commercial enterprises, they invite voters to imagine the difference if the health of institutions supported by their taxes could readily be seen, along with the impact of changes over time. (p. 46) If and, hopefully, when U.S. federal agencies begin to comply with section 10 of the GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA), taxpayers will not need to use their imagination; they will be able to see literally and graphically the degrees to which programs are and are not working. 

That assumes The Politics Industry is willing to countenance such transparency and accountability, at risk to the basis of its power, i.e., political ignorance. Yet they may not have the final word; the political elite might be outflanked by emerging digital technology. For example, a report by the European Union notes that blockchains shift control away from central elites and redistribute it among users. Systems are made more transparent and Guillen suggests the impact may "reverse centuries of centralization, undo the relationship between citizens and governments, and unravel bureaucracy as we know it." (p. 212)

In the meantime, however, one wonders whether weak signals from the periphery can have much impact in dissonance with the deafening decibels delivered by the political machine, actively embraced by the so-called “mainstream” media and a monolithic academic elite. What matters is not what works but, rather, what glorifies politicians, raises the ire of populist voters, and wins elections. 

In politics, the goal is to divide the opponents and defeat the “weaker” forces. All-or-nothing, winner-take-all outcomes render moot the issues of how many millions of voters may disagree with the marginally majoritarian “popular” vote or how small may be the numerical difference between the majority and the “minority”. As Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter have pointed out, the system is a self-righteously reinforcing, duopolistic echo chamber.

In terms of “weak” signals, the “periphery” composed of the currently out-of-power group may encompass as many as one-half minus one of the entire voting population of the United States. Moreover, the desire to cancel contrarian signals, figuratively if not also physically, seems to be growing, particularly on the left side of the political spectrum. Bearing in mind the long-term impact of the cumulation of “small” changes, that is cause for concern. 

As the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and as Yogi Berra admonished: “If you don’t know where you are going, you’ll end up somewhere else.” Perhaps somewhere similar to China or Venezuela or Cuba, if not necessarily North Korea, where the politically powerful elite decide what’s best for everyone, while paying particular deference to their own self interests in allotting the poverty among the masses.  

Perhaps the best hope of avoiding such fate is that the electorate in the U.S. seems “hopelessly” (in the best possible sense of that term) divided into two political tribes of roughly equal power. In that sense, the "peripheral" signals may be hidden in plain sight, in the shrinking "undecided" middle. However, the long-term trend has decidedly favored bigger, more intrusive government and the left expects demographic changes to shift the balance still further in their direction.

On the other hand, if anything, the results of the 2020 congressional and legislative elections imply the reverse. Despite their lack of political sophistication, which is lorded over them by the elitists, voters may not be ignorant enough to accept the notion of a “free lunch” and may be disinclined to cede even more power to The Politics Industry to “save” them from themselves.

To the degree that may be true, their position is supported by the four “Power Practices” Keller and Schaninger identify as contributing to organizational health:

• personal ownership, 
• role clarity, 
• strategic clarity, and 
• competitive insights. (p. 85)  

The first of those practices is the opposite of centralization of authority and the latter assumes that competition is allowed. Competition is antithetical to monopolistic, politically driven bureaucratic power. To many on the left it is an unfair substitute for the "cooperation" they would prefer to enforce upon everyone else, in terms that they dictate. By contrast, in the authors’ estimation, it is we ourselves who should clarify our own roles in serving the greater good. Attempting to deflect our personal responsibility to others is contrary to the strategic and role clarity required for organizational health. Insisting upon imposing our will on each other is even worse.

Be that as it may, Keller and Schaninger assert that health goals for change efforts are simple, entailing improvements in: 

• strategic clarity, 
• performance transparency, 
• employee involvement, and 
• consequence management. (p. 86)

Strategic clarity requires that the vision, mission, goals, objectives, stakeholders, roles, and performance indicators be explicitly documented and openly shared. Transparency means that performance indicators are routinely gathered and reported in a standard, machine-readable format like Strategy Markup Language (StratML). And consequence management means not only that shortcomings are promptly and forthrightly addressed, through lessons learned and continuous improvement, but also that progress and success are celebrated.  

Indeed, learning from failure is viewed as essential to success and, thus, celebrated as well. That assumes, of course, that failures are not of sufficient scope and scale to threaten the health, if not the very existence of the organization, as only highly powerful centralized authorities are capable of doing.

To facilitate widespread, decentralized engagement, the authors suggest communication tools should enable all participants to self-author their own roles through a guided process. (p. 87) They note the importance of organizational mindsets, which are shared beliefs and assumptions that bias our perceptions and predispose us to act in predictable ways. (p. 103) However, they assert that rapid change can occur at scale if we can name and reframe the prevailing subconscious thought patterns. (p. 103)

For example, they report that an unnamed public sector organization was stunned to learn via a word cloud that its stated values were entirely absent from speeches made by its executives. (p. 107) Their avowed organizational values were merely rhetorical, for the sake of appearance rather than to motivate actual performance. Moreover, those values were not even considered worthy of rhetorical support, literally speaking (i.e., in speeches). What a farce that is, but since bureaucratic leaders are insulated from accountability and captive to The Politics Industry, why should we be surprised?

With respect to accountability, Keller and Schaninger observe that seeing the big picture facilitates understanding of how the pieces fit together, instills greater meaning to each task and generates energy among those working on each of them. (p. 121) The bureaucracy effectively obscures such personalized vision, diminishes motivation, and routinely defeats individual initiative. 

Moreover, as has oft been noted, when everyone is responsible, no one is. Yet, the authors aver, “in self-professed bureaucratic organizations you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who identifies themselves as a bureaucrat or creating the bureaucracy that plagues progress.” (p. 167) That's pretty clear evidence of the validity of the adage.

To overcome such a pervasive, self-serving blind spot, they say, “The key is to establish what employees perceive as a social -- as opposed to market -- exchange …” It is not money that motivates but, rather, the perception of reciprocity and equality. (p. 176) However, seeing the “big picture” also requires broadening our frame of reference by removing the blinders The Politics Industry imposes upon us. 

Moreover, it entails dealing with our “predictably irrational” relationship with fairness. For if our sense of justice and fair play is violated, we will act against our own self-interests, much less the interests of others. (p. 193) Shame on us if we rely upon artificial ignorance (A<I>) to justify such self- as well as other-directed harmful behavior.

Keller and Schaninger suggest that holding leaders accountable involves evaluating both activities as well as impact and ensuring that decisions are well-grounded in facts. (p. 213) However, the same is true of our own actions, particularly to the degree that others may be impacted. We should act with humility, in recognition of our own irrationality, biases, and ignorance of available evidence as well as the near certainty of unforeseen consequences.

To defer accountability to “leaders” is a dereliction of duty. It is also reflective of a self-fulfillingly prophetic mindset that belies belief in the messianic power of The Politics Industry even as we make sport of criticizing it. We know it is doomed to failure but nevertheless prefer not to hold ourselves responsible. That's not a very nice game to play.

As one method to take responsibility for avoiding failure and defeat, the authors cite Aikido, a “soft” martial art in which the goal is not to fight but to diffuse aggression by using the attacker’s energy and flowing with it. (p. 216) Despite our instinct to engage in fight or flight in the face of threat, might we be inculcated with another mindset, one that is less binary and less bound up in the messianic win/lose view of politics?

In pursuit of the vision of America set forth in the Declaration of Independence, Keller and Schaninger argue that meaningful work is the best way to increase overall happiness over the long term. While the left views the “right to work” as a prescription for low wages, to suggest that employers and workers cannot freely enter into agreements of their own accord violated the vision set forth in the Declaration with respect to both liberty and happiness.

In any event, the authors note that Gary Hamel urges modern managers to see themselves as “entrepreneurs of meaning.” (p. 219) Is that not a good mission for all of us, on behalf not only ourselves but others as well? Toward that end, the authors suggest that we ask ourselves what we’d love to contribute before we die and what might be the greatest impacts we can create as individual human beings. (p. 219) Freely exchanging market-based value -- labor (effort) as well as property -- for mutual gain seems like a worthy goal.

While the scope of the world’s problems may leave us in despair, to focus excessively on them is to ignore the difference each of us can make within our own spheres of influence. Guillen suggests the more we attend to opportunities rather than threats the greater our chances of adapting to challenges. (p. 234)

As Keller and Schaninger point out, optimists view negative situations as temporary, specific, and externally caused. That helps them see the facts, identify new possibilities, and act swiftly to pursue them. (p. 220) Moreover, when we set meaningful goals that challenge us, we enter a state of flow requiring our full attention while receiving regular feedback so that we can fine-tune our efforts. (pp. 228 & 229)

To increase prospects for success, Dorner suggests we should convert negative goals into positive ones and seek to maximize efficiency diversity, by pursuing many different possibilities (diversity) for actions that have a high probability of success (efficiency). Bureaucracy and centralization of power make that difficult, if not impossible to do.

Ironically, Keller and Schaninger note the better an organization is performing, the greater the risk its leaders will become complacent about organizational health. (p. 239) 

In the public sphere, success for incumbent politicians means being reelected, as the vast majority of them are. For career bureaucrats, it means seeing their budgets grow regardless of results. Indeed, in the logic of bureaucracy, failure is commonly taken as justification for spending even more money that the government does not have and the economy cannot spare without retarding the growth upon which its health depends.

Taken to its logical extreme in systems in which actions are disconnected from results, that dynamic leads inexorably to broader systemic failure, as each decrement of value is taken as justification for even more of it.

In light of the intractability of bureaucracy, the authors’ assertion that “nothing changes unless people do” takes on special meaning. Whereas they argue that improving organizational performance and health depends upon people doing things differently, bureaucracy entrenches inflexible practices and insulates individuals from accountability and responsibility. As we strive to do things differently, Keller and Schaninger conclude that we must have the courage to work through the “predictably irrational” biases that are part of the human condition. (p. 239)

How are we changing as individuals? In ways that we choose for ourselves? Or are others manipulating our emotions and making decisions for us? Are we capable of overcoming our personal irrationality and biases and, instead, applying logic and evidence to realize the results we desire? Guillen cites a study suggesting that Generation Z, born between the mid-1990s and the 2010s, may be driven by global citizenship rather than the nationalist and nativist thought currently trending around the world. (p. 67) Might that be cause for hope?

What are our common goals? How well might we work together to realize them? Are we capable of focusing on shared goals, rather than personal/tribal differences? Can we overcome the urge to cancel each other? Do we care enough to adopt better, less contentious means of achieving mutual objectives in a less imperfect worldwide union? Unburdened by the mindsets and constraints of the past, how many of us might be willing to embody the small, personal changes that engender big, positive societal trends? What about you?