A few months ago, at the American Society for Public Administration conference in Washington D.C., the Center for Accountability and Performance had a panel discussion for the recipients of its Emerging Leaders Award.
We’ve been to lots of sessions similar to this one, but the moderator here, Cheriene Floyd, the chief data officer of Miami, asked the panelists a question that was particularly intriguing and that has set us to thinking ever since. She asked (and we’re paraphrasing slightly here): “What did you believe when you started your career, but you don’t believe now?”
We thought about how we would answer the question ourselves. One of the first things that came to our mind was the evolution of our thinking about performance management. Decades ago, based on a zealotry born out of naivete, we believed that when states, counties and cities began to measure results and not just outputs, a new age of well-informed, effective and efficient government was about to dawn. We have fond memories of a series of “Managing for Results” conferences in Austin, led by one of the pioneers in this field, Terrell Blodgett, in which there seemed to be a general consensus that this great new advance in public administration was going to change the world.
But while we’re still enthusiastic advocates of performance management, it’s become increasingly clear that political expediencies tend to overrule even the best-thought-out systems of performance management and measurement. We’ve seen a regular procession of instances in which the evidence based on results points to one conclusion, but if that’s not the answer that will garner votes at election time it’s not the conclusion that ultimately is utilized.
Similarly, it appeared to us in the 1990s that human resources departments were really beginning to buy into the idea of workforce planning. And certainly, some have. But once again, it turns out that planning for the future falls off rapidly when time is extinguished by understaffing and the crises that are brought about by daily pressures, budget angst, political shifts and the external events that make workforce planning all the more necessary.
Here's another one. Back in 2001 we wrote a book called ”Powering Up“ with the exuberant subtitle, “How Public Managers Can Take Control of Information Technology.” At the time, we wrote that “there’s still a hefty cadre of government employees (including even some governors and mayors) who may give lip service to the benefits of IT, but on the whole, would just as soon steer clear of any machine that beeps back at you anytime you make a mistake.”
That was true then, but now the world has moved in the opposite direction. Today, we believe that there’s a widespread notion — shared by elected and appointed officials — that technology is the answer to whatever problem comes up. This kind of thinking has accelerated just in the last couple of years as artificial intelligence yields the promise of a brave new world in which people fear lest their jobs be replaced by AI.
Early on in our careers, we proudly told our friends that one of the glories of state and local government was that it was distinctly nonpartisan. In fact, when we were evaluating the management capacity of the states, and would be asked in a newspaper or radio interview what the party of the governor was, we often had no idea.
Today, of course, with the parties battling for the hearts and minds of Americans, many people’s first identification for a state and its leadership is in terms of red or blue (or sometimes purple). This is a sad turn of events.
Obviously, many if not all of the above answers to Cheriene Floyd’s question have had more to do with the changes in the world than a misunderstanding about the way it ever worked.
The lesson here is that it’s important to keep track of the way things are advancing — or receding — in any of the functions performed by state or local government so that reality continues to coincide with beliefs.
In short, the danger of sticking to your guns is that you can wind up shooting yourself in the foot.
This commentary originally appeared on the authors’ website. Read the original here.
Governing’s opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing’s editors or management.
Related Articles
