Skip to main content

A Hypothesis About Leadership Culture In Government

Here is a hypothesis, see what you think:

  1. Economic survival dictates organizational culture.
  2. Organizational culture dictates expected team behaviors.
  3. Expected team behaviors dictate individual behavior.
  4. The behaviors we carry out dictate our beliefs about what is right and wrong.
  5. And then the feedback loop - we process what they tell us to do, then spit back a modified cultural model as we become leaders ourselves.
In the case of private industry, where competition rules, pleasing the customer is #1 because customers can go anywhere to fulfill their needs.

What seems to be happening in the government now is an increasing realization that we no longer have a monopoly over the services we provide. Rather we are in competition and can be put out of business by other parties who may work faster, better, cheaper. So it is in our economic best interest to become more customer-centric.

The hypothesis would then apply to government 2.0 like this:

1) Economic survival dictates organizational culture - and so in the future we will increasingly seek to do a better job of pleasing the customer, who has choices and can find alternative means of obtaining what we provide.

2) Organizational culture dictates expected team behaviors - customer-centric government will mean that no matter what the policy is, if it's not working to serve the customer then it must be questioned, modified, deleted.

3) Expected team behaviors dictate individual behavior - the more we form teams, committees, task forces, and departments that question policies on the basis of customer-centricity, the more individual staffers will do the same.

4) The behaviors we carry out dictate our beliefs about what is right and wrong - in the not too distant future it will become axiomatic that the customer (whoever that may be) comes first. It will be like, "Of course!" rather than "Oh no, that would be too difficult/costly."

5) And then the feedback loop - we process what they tell us to do, then spit back a modified cultural model as we become leaders ourselves. - Each successive generation will interpret the dictum of economic survival for itself; create a culture accordingly; and the cycle will continue.

But the key difference between Gov 1.0 and Gov 2.0 and successive iterations is that transition from being a monopoly to being a brand among other brands, and trying to distinguish ourselves as the best possible brand among many choices.

This whole thing reminds me of what Henry Ford said about his Model T: "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."

Only worked when the competition was horses.

(Image & quote: Wikipedia; originally posted as a comment on GovLoop)


Enhanced by Zemanta

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

________________
All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …