The Extent of the Problem
The phrase, “It’s good enough for government work,” has come to illustrate the negative stereotype of public sector workers as ineffective, uncaring, lazy, and inefficient. But is this stereotype accurate? Do American citizens really believe their civil servants are this bad? Unfortunately, recent surveys do not paint a pretty picture of American’s perception of us. A 2010 survey by the The Washington Post found only 51% of Americans believe federal public workers work as hard as their counterparts in the private sector and 52% of Americans believe they are paid too much money (Rein & O’Keefe, 2010).
In 2014, the McKinsey Center for Government surveyed 17,000 individuals across fifteen states and discovered people were more than twice as likely to be satisfied with private enterprise exchanges as with government services. Furthermore, exchanges with essential government services such as public transportation and the DMV had the lowest satisfaction scores (Baig, Dua, & Reifberg, 2014). The latest annual Gallup Poll of Citizen Satisfaction found only 65% of Americans are satisfied with the effectiveness of the U.S. government (McCarthy, 2014).
Through the years, many in academia have questioned whether this negative public opinion is warranted. (Lewis & Frank, 2002; Hammer & Van Tassell, 1983; Van de Walle, 2004; VanRyzin, 2014). In a particularly famous essay, Baldwin (1984) asked “Are We Really Lazy?” referring to public workers. Frank and Lewis (2004) asked if “government employees are working hard or hardly working?” Consistently, their research on the topic has found the negative stereotypes are unfounded. Yet they are pervasive in public perception.
The question then, remains: why does the public feel this way? A more important question is, what are we, as public sector leaders, going to do about it?
The answer is not readily obvious and it certainly won't be easy to overcome negative public perception without creating a cultural change with public organizations. Consequently, I believe the challenge for leaders in the public sector is to change our cultures. We must devise ways to motivate employees, to get them engaged, and to build commitment to the organization's mission. To do this may require some creativity in rewriting our mission statements and dedicated and persevering attempts to change deeply-seated beliefs and values.
What would an experience at the DMV feel like if its mission statement were "We save lives and protect property, and we respect your time and your money doing it"? Isn't that a statement employees could get behind?
Mark Aesch, former manager of the Rochester Public Transit Authority in New York, lead his organization from a $27.7 million deficit, looming layoffs, and rising fares to budget surpluses, lowered fares and some of the highest customer service and ridership rating in the country. One of the ways he did this was through employee engagement and buy-in of the transit authority's new and simplified mission statement:
To get people where they want to go, quickly, easily, and affordably.
Read Mark's story here.
The phrase, “It’s good enough for government work,” has come to illustrate the negative stereotype of public sector workers as ineffective, uncaring, lazy, and inefficient. But is this stereotype accurate? Do American citizens really believe their civil servants are this bad? Unfortunately, recent surveys do not paint a pretty picture of American’s perception of us. A 2010 survey by the The Washington Post found only 51% of Americans believe federal public workers work as hard as their counterparts in the private sector and 52% of Americans believe they are paid too much money (Rein & O’Keefe, 2010).
In 2014, the McKinsey Center for Government surveyed 17,000 individuals across fifteen states and discovered people were more than twice as likely to be satisfied with private enterprise exchanges as with government services. Furthermore, exchanges with essential government services such as public transportation and the DMV had the lowest satisfaction scores (Baig, Dua, & Reifberg, 2014). The latest annual Gallup Poll of Citizen Satisfaction found only 65% of Americans are satisfied with the effectiveness of the U.S. government (McCarthy, 2014).
Government leaders also assert the public sector does not live up to the standard the public
is expecting. In his “Reinventing Government” essay, former Vice-President Al Gore provided a history of the phrase, “good enough for government work,” explaining it previously referred to products and service which were of such high quality they government was willing to use them. Over time, the phrase has devolved into a statement of substandard work and a public mockery of its disdain for government (Gore, 1995).
Through the years, many in academia have questioned whether this negative public opinion is warranted. (Lewis & Frank, 2002; Hammer & Van Tassell, 1983; Van de Walle, 2004; VanRyzin, 2014). In a particularly famous essay, Baldwin (1984) asked “Are We Really Lazy?” referring to public workers. Frank and Lewis (2004) asked if “government employees are working hard or hardly working?” Consistently, their research on the topic has found the negative stereotypes are unfounded. Yet they are pervasive in public perception.
The question then, remains: why does the public feel this way? A more important question is, what are we, as public sector leaders, going to do about it?
Leadership in the Public Sector
I assert the reason for the lackluster and sometimes pitiful performance citizens have come to expect from their public agencies is a function of a general lack of leadership in public sector organizations. There are many reasons for this, but agency culture tops the list.
Leadership is the act of an individual influencing a group of individuals to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2015). The culture of many public sector agencies often stands as a roadblock to the leader's ability to do this. Public agencies generally suffer from goal clarity and mission significance because, unlike their private sector counterparts, they do not have a profit motive as the primary reason for existence. Consequently, it is harder for a government agency to articulate to its employees what is its reason for existence.
Apple proclaims it exists to provide great technology products that are innovative, high
quality, and simple to use. This states everything they do. Equally important, though unstated, is the company exists to make money. Money to pay its employees and money for its shareholders. It is easy for an Apple employee to get behind this goal because it is easy to be engaged with the idea of being associated with a company producing cutting-edge products in great demand by the masses. Feeling that one's job is important has been shown to be an important factor in motivation (Wright, 2007).
But consider a local Department of Motor Vehicles: its job is to maintain a record of vehicle registrations and license plates, to issue said license plates, to collect taxes and fees on those license plates, and to test for and issue driver's licenses. There are multiple goals here, but what is the overarching purpose? Is it to ensure the local government agency receives revenue from its populace for the privilege of owning and operating a vehicle? Is it to keep the whole of the citizenry safe from unlicensed drivers and unregistered vehicles? Is it to provide a means of proving ownership in case of a stolen vehicle? How about insuring every driver has the proper liability insurance in the case of an accident?
I assert the reason for the lackluster and sometimes pitiful performance citizens have come to expect from their public agencies is a function of a general lack of leadership in public sector organizations. There are many reasons for this, but agency culture tops the list.
Leadership is the act of an individual influencing a group of individuals to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2015). The culture of many public sector agencies often stands as a roadblock to the leader's ability to do this. Public agencies generally suffer from goal clarity and mission significance because, unlike their private sector counterparts, they do not have a profit motive as the primary reason for existence. Consequently, it is harder for a government agency to articulate to its employees what is its reason for existence.
Apple proclaims it exists to provide great technology products that are innovative, high
But consider a local Department of Motor Vehicles: its job is to maintain a record of vehicle registrations and license plates, to issue said license plates, to collect taxes and fees on those license plates, and to test for and issue driver's licenses. There are multiple goals here, but what is the overarching purpose? Is it to ensure the local government agency receives revenue from its populace for the privilege of owning and operating a vehicle? Is it to keep the whole of the citizenry safe from unlicensed drivers and unregistered vehicles? Is it to provide a means of proving ownership in case of a stolen vehicle? How about insuring every driver has the proper liability insurance in the case of an accident?
All of these may be good reasons for the existence of the DMV, but which one of these can a new employee embrace as a reason to give 100% effort to the cause? Which one of these makes an employee feel the organization is important and his or her individual efforts are important to the organization's success?
The answer is not readily obvious and it certainly won't be easy to overcome negative public perception without creating a cultural change with public organizations. Consequently, I believe the challenge for leaders in the public sector is to change our cultures. We must devise ways to motivate employees, to get them engaged, and to build commitment to the organization's mission. To do this may require some creativity in rewriting our mission statements and dedicated and persevering attempts to change deeply-seated beliefs and values.
What would an experience at the DMV feel like if its mission statement were "We save lives and protect property, and we respect your time and your money doing it"? Isn't that a statement employees could get behind?
Mark Aesch, former manager of the Rochester Public Transit Authority in New York, lead his organization from a $27.7 million deficit, looming layoffs, and rising fares to budget surpluses, lowered fares and some of the highest customer service and ridership rating in the country. One of the ways he did this was through employee engagement and buy-in of the transit authority's new and simplified mission statement:
To get people where they want to go, quickly, easily, and affordably.
Read Mark's story here.
Comments
Post a Comment