A good rule of thumb in a major change effort is: Never underestimate the magnitude of the forces that reinforce complacency and that help maintain the status quo (Kotter, 1996, p. 42).

At the outset I want to emphasize that it is not the intent of this article to minimize in any way the work carried out by the MAP Commission. This article is about change and the leadership of change, about the nature, culture and climate of government in South Carolina that seems to keep us from achieving greatness, and a search for some “timeless principles” or concepts that could help us make the transition from good government to great government.

The MAP Commission Report: Déjà vu?
In his cover letter presenting the Report of the Governor’s Commission on Management, Accountability and Performance, Commission chairman Ken Wingate states that the mission of the MAP Commission was to “examine South Carolina’s government and suggest proven ways to provide services in a more business-like fashion.” He notes that the Commission was not prepared for what they found.

Despite the heroic efforts of hard-working state employees, the citizens are poorly served by a system we found to be in unbelievable condition. That condition can be described in dire terms: grossly fragmented and inefficient. Laden with layers of duplication. Byzantine in the delivery of certain services. Multiple information technology and communications systems that do not interface. Financial systems and operating systems that make no sense…and sadly, constituent service is frequently stifled by complicated, arcane and redundant procedures. (MAP Commission Report cover letter from Ken Wingate, September 30, 2003).

Chairman Wingate goes on to say that “if we are to raise the bar for our state government, we must reduce costs, increase accountability, eliminate duplication of effort, improve the effectiveness of programs and services, focus on outcomes and results, and meet the needs of our consumers.”

If all of this sounds familiar to those of us who have dedicated our professional careers to public service in South Carolina, it should. We have heard these findings and calls for reform many times before. The MAP Commission report itself notes that “dozens of previous studies have been conducted and have…documented serious and systemic problems with state government, yet they have largely gone unheeded” (MAP Commission Report, Executive Summary, p. 1).

Aside from the many previous studies and change efforts, South Carolina has also implemented, with varying degrees of success, numerous management practices adapted from business such as TQM, the formation of a State Government Quality Network, increased emphasis on organizational strategic planning, the use of performance measures, an agency accountability reporting requirement, and the Baldrige Quality Program, to name some recent efforts. In spite of these initiatives the MAP Commission finds that “state government is, in many senses, broken, and is in need of repair” (Map Commission Report, Executive Summary, p. 2).

Challenging Some Assumptions
Given our history it is easy to understand why many might look at the MAP Commission recommendations and Governor Sanford’s efforts to change the way state government operates with some skepticism. Maybe we need to try something different this time. Perhaps we should start by questioning some assumptions.

First, while the MAP Commission has pointed out numerous ways we can and should make government better, it is important to remind ourselves that government is not hopelessly broken. In general we have a good government but not a great one. For the most part it functions in a careful, deliberate, regulated, bureaucratic manner—just like it is designed to. Obviously this looks like inefficiency to some, but such inefficiencies are a trade off government makes in pursuit of higher values such as fairness, openness, and accountability. And for those who may disagree with what government does or does not do, and/or who may not have the benefit of factual information about the complex issues government deals with, it might look more ineffective than it really is. MAP Commission Chairman Wingate acknowledges that they found “bright spots” in their study including a “corps of state employees who are capable and dedicated public servants.” It is because of these dedicated and skilled public servants that our government does what it does as well as it does it, in spite of bureaucratic systems, arcane procedures, outdated technology, and the Byzantine organizational structures they have to work with.

Second, we should challenge the assumption that “running government more like a business” is the solution. Without getting into an academic exploration of the fundamental differences between government and business, this statement assumes that the private sector has this all figured out. Businesses somehow know how to deliver their goods and services efficiently and effectively while retaining focus on customer service. And somehow they understand how to be accountable to their multiple stakeholders. Clearly anyone who has had any dealings with businesses, large or small, and who follows the news would know that this is a false assumption. Enron comes to mind. Of course some businesses are very well organized, led and managed. Some provide great products and exceptional customer service. But many more do not. And for those who keep saying, “If I ran my business the way they run government, I would go bankrupt,” suffice it to say that many businesses do go bankrupt. Furthermore, if they were burdened with the arcane and Byzantine regulations, systems and procedures that government has to work under, many more would go bankrupt. We must not forget that government is among the most, if not the most, heavily regulated activities in the United States.

In his recent keynote address to the International City/County Management Association, Bank of America Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer James H. Hance, Jr., said:

I have been struck time and again at just how much we bankers have in common with those of you in public service. Just consider the similarities in the environments in which we operate. Everything we do is scrutinized by the public eye. We are all under enormous pressure to do more with less and to constantly improve our enterprises. We serve multiple constituencies. We seek to navigate the same uncertain economy. We have competition from all sides, near and far. We share a demanding customer base, yet we must work through arcane and often outdated restrictions to reach our goals. In fact, having thought about it, I think your jobs are harder than most of those at most companies because of the restrictions and limitations that come with operating in the public sector. And that is really saying something coming from someone who operates in the most heavily regulated business in the world. (Keynote speech to the International City/County Management Association conference, Charlotte, North Carolina, September 21, 2003).

I do not object to efforts to operate government in a business-like fashion where that is appropriate. But it seems to me that calling for government to emulate business reflects a quick-fix mentality and it takes our attention away from more challenging underlying issues that keep us from making successful, large-scale changes in the way our government operates. It is not simply running our government in a “more business-like fashion” that we should strive for. We should strive for greatness.

Going From Good to Great: In Search of Timeless Principles
In their book Built to Last (2002), authors Jim Collins and Jerry Porras document the findings of a six-year research study conducted at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business. They set out to discover how a set of successful companies differed from a carefully selected set of comparison companies. The successful companies they selected were the best of the best in their industries based on a number of factors including extraordinary long-term performance on the stock market in contrast to the comparison companies. And beyond that, the successful companies had “woven themselves into the very fabric of society” (Collins and Porras, 2002, p. 4). Think about the impact of IBM, 3M, Boeing, Hewlett-Packard, and Johnson & Johnson on our world, for example.

In their effort to find out what made truly exceptional companies different from other companies, they “set out to discover the timeless management principles that have consistently distinguished outstanding companies” (Collins and Porras, 2002, p. xxiii). And they found that many of today’s management fads and buzzwords (empowerment, continuous improvement, TQM, common vision, shared values, etc.) were not only not new ideas (they are simply repackaged ideas), the use of these practices did not distinguish great companies from the comparison companies.

This was reinforced in a subsequent five-year study of 11 companies by Jim Collins that is documented in his book Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t (2001). It is not that these business-oriented management practices are not useful, or that they are not necessary. It is just that they are not, in and of themselves, sufficient. This is consistent with my own experience as a manager and management trainer. I have spent much of my career conducting training programs on management and leadership skills, processes and practices. And like most of us in this business, I have seen countless workshop participants react with more than a little skepticism about new approaches and techniques for improving their practice and their organizations because their experience tells them that these ideas won’t work back home in an unsupportive and change-resistant organizational culture. And all too often the participants are right.

So what is wrong? Why is it that our government has not achieved greatness even though numerous studies have documented the problems and suggested solutions? Why have all the previous studies gone largely unheeded? Is our government, by its very nature and design, hopelessly resistant to change? I found some possible answers to these questions in my reading of the book Good to Great mentioned above.

Good to Great
As noted, the book is based on a five-year study of 11 companies that were able to go from good stock market performance to great stock market performance, in contrast to comparison companies in the same industries, and to sustain that great performance for 15 years or more. Collins and his study team set out to determine what, if anything, distinguished the good-to-great companies from the comparison group. And their findings surprised them in a number of ways..

Collins was most surprised about what the study did not find. Indeed it challenges much of the conventional wisdom about how to run a business, and by extension how to run a government.

• Celebrity CEOs brought in from outside were negatively correlated with taking a company from good to great. Virtually all the great companies found their CEOs from within their own ranks.
• There was no systematic pattern linking specific forms of executive compensation to the process of going from good to great.
• Strategy per se did not separate good-to-great companies from the rest. There was no evidence that good-to-great companies spent more time on strategic planning than the other companies.
• Good-to-great companies did not focus principally on what to do to become great; they focused equally on what not to do and what to stop doing.
• Technology and technology-driven change has virtually nothing to do with igniting a transformation from good to great. The study found that technology can accelerate a transformation, but it did not cause a transformation.
• Mergers and acquisitions play virtually no role in igniting a transformation from good to great. Putting two mediocre companies (or agencies) together never makes a great company.
• Good-to-great companies paid scant attention to managing change, motivating people, or creating alignment. Under the right conditions, the problems of commitment, alignment, motivation, and change largely melt away. This is consistent with numerous studies of workplace motivation. Most of us strive for excellence and derive satisfaction from membership in great and enduring organizations that have important purposes and that make significant contributions to society. Those who are fortunate enough to work for great organizations do not need to be motivated.
• The good-to-great companies had no name, tag line, launch event, or program signifying their transformation. Indeed some reported being unaware of the magnitude of the transformation at the time. Only later, in retrospect, did it become clear. They produced a revolutionary leap in results, but not by a revolutionary process.
• The good-to-great companies were not in great industries. Greatness was not a function of circumstance. Greatness, it turned out, was largely a matter of conscious choice.

Some Implications for Government
The study identified a number of concepts that were present in “100 percent of the good-to-great companies and in less than 30 percent of the comparison companies.” I will explore each of these concepts briefly from the perspective of their possible application in government in South Carolina.

Level Five Leadership
The study found that companies that recruited “star” CEOs may have performed better during their tenure, but did not sustain this performance after they left the company. Star CEOs were typically much more interested in the perks and trappings of office, pay packages, stock options, airplanes, limousines, country club memberships, and perhaps writing books about their success than they were about building great companies..

By contrast, level five leaders were described as having a combination of personal humility and professional will. They were passionate and driven, but it was for the company and what it stands for rather than their personal success. They were relentless in the pursuit of tangible results and achievement.

This could apply equally to government. In terms of elected leaders, it would seem to reinforce the frequent call for more statesmen and fewer career politicians. We need elected officials whose primary interest is in building great cities, great counties, great schools, and a great state—not reelection.

As for our appointed leaders—city and county managers, state agency directors, school superintendents—the message is the same. We need leaders with a servant leadership attitude. They are servants first and leaders second. It is not about credit, ego, publicity, or keeping their job. It has to be about building great organizations. We clearly need more emphasis on developing such leaders within our governmental organizations through training and mentoring programs and succession planning efforts.

First Who…Then What
Leaders of good-to-great companies did not begin by setting a new vision and strategy. First they got the right people in the organization, and the wrong people out of the organization. They focused on building a superior executive team. Once they got the right people, they then figured out where to go. Indeed the great companies refused to fill a position until they found the right person in terms of skill and experience and in terms of fit with the culture, core values and purpose of the organization.

With our move to “cabinet” government, we now see key leadership positions in agencies filled by political appointees. Experience, expertise and professional training can become secondary to compatibility or compliance with whatever the current administration’s political values and philosophy of government may be. We simply cannot hope to build and sustain great organizations when they are pushed and pulled in different directions every four or eight years by leaders brought in from the outside to reverse what they perceive to be the failed efforts of their predecessors.

Complicating this is the reality that state and local government is losing its stock of the “right people” in alarming numbers—in part because the baby-boomer generation is reaching retirement age, but also in part due to the increasing level of dissatisfaction expressed by public servants about the increasingly negative political environment in which they work. Over the next five years a considerable number of our highly experienced, talented public servants will be retiring. Many are taking advantage of early retirement opportunities. The Teacher and Employee Retention Incentive (TERI) program adds to this problem in another way because managers do not have the option of using this as an incentive to keep only the best and brightest. Given that many governmental agencies have not implemented succession planning and leadership development efforts, this has to be regarded as one of our government’s most critical issues and one of its biggest obstacles to greatness.

Confronting the Brutal Facts
Great companies were distinguished by their ability to confront honestly the brutal facts about their current environment and situation. They managed to create a culture where people could be heard. They asked questions, engaged in dialogue and debate, analyzed failures without blame, and kept in touch with their environment.

And along with the ability to confront the brutal facts of their current reality, they maintained an absolute belief that they could and would prevail in the end. They believed they were great.

We are confronted on a daily basis by various reports of the brutal facts about South Carolina’s poor performance on any number of socio-economic indicators. The problem is that this information is all too often presented in a negative manner by placing blame on government for its failures. In addition, we are constantly telling ourselves that we are “a poor state” with few alternatives other than awaiting an improved economy. I would suggest that one thing we cannot afford is to continue thinking and acting like we are poor if we want to be great.

Indeed some have referred to this as a culture of “learned helplessness.” Any discussion of options or opportunities to improve is met with defensiveness and a recitation of barriers to change—some real, and some perceived. If we are to be a great state with great government, we need to have an abiding faith that we can be.

And we also have to confront the brutal fact that great government may not be a goal shared by all of our leaders. It would appear that what some want is simply small government, or perhaps the phrase “minimally adequate” government describes it best. We continue to use short-term, quick fix strategies like across-the-board reductions in response to decreasing revenues rather than making strategic budgeting decisions and investments based on a statewide vision and long-term goals. This has the effect of weakening the entire enterprise. It punishes our best agencies and minimizes the pressure to make changes in less effective agencies. It virtually assures that we will continue to have a government that is viewed as ineffective and inefficient. It drives away our best and brightest public servants. It does an even greater disservice to those people and purposes government seeks to serve. Greatness does not seem to be the goal of leaders who allow this to happen. Perhaps this is because they see government as the problem, not part of a solution. They simply cannot see any return on an investment in government, so that investment has to be minimized. Imagine the impact of such leadership on a private sector business enterprise.

The Hedgehog Concept
This is a curiously named but powerful concept that Collins illustrates with a Venn diagram composed of three intersecting circles to illustrate how the great companies make critical strategic decisions. The first circle is labeled “What are you deeply passionate about?” The second circle is labeled “What can you be best in the world at?” The third circle is labeled “What drives your economic engine?” Collins points out that the Hedgehog Concept is not a goal, plan, or intention to be the best. Rather it is an understanding of what you can be the best at—and what you cannot be best at. (Note: You will just have to read the book to see why Collin’s uses the hedgehog reference.)

The great companies did not try to get staff to be passionate about what they were doing as an organization. Rather, they took the approach of only doing things they were passionate about. Thinking about this in terms of government, it suggests a need to take a serious look at our mission, purpose, values, and programmatic activities. What is our purpose? What are those things that we are passionate about in South Carolina? Are we really passionate about having a better educated population, developing a more skilled workforce, creating more and better jobs, preserving our environment and quality of life, improving healthcare, and reducing crime? These are among the usual ends or purposes that government seeks to achieve, and arguably, areas that government can be best at.

Discovering what drives our economic engine is perhaps somewhat easier to understand in business than government. But it can still be a useful concept. One can readily see, for example, how it might be applied by the Department of Commerce, or by those units of government that are run as an enterprise. For social agencies we need to consider substituting outcome measures for purely economic ones (inputs and outputs), but even here we can look at the long-term economic benefits to the state that could accrue from making investments in prevention as opposed to remediation. Governmental activities are profitable to the extent that they achieve meaningful outcomes that move the state toward its vision for the future.

The study found that great companies focused their resources on the activities that fell in the area of overlap of the three circles. They only did what they were passionate about, that they could be best in the world at, and that drove their economic engine. They did not do things that did not meet these criteria. Given our current economic climate, this concept could prove to be extremely useful in developing a business case for what government should do and what it should not do. Building and sustaining the coalition of stakeholders (citizens, agency representatives, legislative leaders, etc.) required to make and implement such decisions is among the biggest leadership challenges facing our state. Such leadership is fundamental to our ability to make the transition to greatness.

A Culture of Discipline
The great companies in the study were characterized by disciplined people, disciplined thought, and disciplined action. They had, first and foremost, the discipline to stay within the three circles as described above. While there was great discipline, this does not imply a rigid system run by a strict disciplinarian. It requires that people have the discipline to adhere to a consistent system, but it allows them freedom and responsibility within the framework of that system. As government, like business, seeks to remove non-value adding layers of bureaucratic oversight, it is critical that we have a culture of discipline in place. The study found that bureaucratic cultures arise to compensate for incompetence and a lack of discipline. In part, this relates back to the concept of getting the right people in the organization.

Beyond that, changing the organizational culture of government will be particularly difficult given the lack of trust and teamwork within and among the various branches and levels of government. As noted above, some of the bureaucratic policies and procedures that make government inefficient are in keeping with our value for fairness and accountability. But all too much of our bureaucracy has grown up over the years in an ad-hoc manner, layer upon layer, in response to our lack of trust for one another. While this lack of trust is occasionally reinforced by well-documented breeches of ethics by public officials, perhaps much more of it is a result of the constant criticism of government by those outside it and, more troubling, by those inside it. This gets particularly virulent at election time. We do not have a culture of discipline and excellence. We have a culture of blame and finger-pointing going under the guise of accountability, reform and “that’s just politics.” Indeed this behavior reflects the lack of “Level Five” leadership described above. Are those who aspire to achieve and retain public office by criticizing government really interested in building a great government and a great state, or are they more interested in their own future and ego needs? We are an enterprise that is all too often at war with itself, and that is not a path to greatness.

Technology Accelerators
The study found that the great companies thought about technology differently than the comparison companies. They adapt to changes in technology over time. They didn’t implement the latest technology just for the sake of being state-of-the-art or out of fear of being left behind. The great companies understand that “mediocrity results first and foremost from management failure, not technological failure” (Collins, 2001, p. 156).
Similarly, the MAP Commission report states that “technology must support the business objectives of South Carolina government, not drive them” (MAP Commission Report, p. 89).

The Flywheel and the Doom Loop
The study found that those companies that launch dramatic program changes and restructurings will almost certainly fail to make the leap from good to great. No matter how dramatic the end result, the good-to-great transformations never happened in one fell swoop. There was no single defining action, no grand program, no killer innovation, no solitary lucky break and no miracle moment. Rather, the process resembled relentlessly pushing a giant heavy flywheel in one direction, turn upon turn, building momentum until a point of breakthrough and beyond.

This stands in stark contrast to the government environment with its constant changes in direction, leadership, philosophy about the mission and scope of government, and the endless calls for reform.

In his book Leading Change, John Kotter finds that most change efforts have disappointing results.

These efforts have gone under many banners: total quality management, reengineering, right sizing, restructuring, cultural change, and turn around. But, in most every case, the basic goal has been the same: to make fundamental changes in how business is conducted in order to help cope with a new, more challenging business environment. A few of these corporate change efforts have been very successful. A few have been utter failures. Most fall somewhere in between, with a distinct tilt toward the lower end of the scale. (Kotter, 1996, p. 75).

As noted above, those of us who have worked in government for any length of time have been through the change cycle numerous times. A change process is typically introduced with considerable fanfare, followed by the challenges, and usually additional work, of implementing the changes, invariably ending in something less than the advertised results. And then the cycle starts all over again. This is what Collin’s means by the “doom loop.”

Conclusions
I would encourage anyone interested in governmental reform to read Kotter’s Leading Change (1996) which details the challenges inherent in change and provides a road map for the design and leadership of successful change processes. I would also encourage reading Good to Great (2001) and Built to Last (2002). These studies may encourage us to look beyond the quick fix and identify the basic fundamentals required for any enterprise to achieve long-term success and greatness. In terms of their application to government in South Carolina, these basics include:

• Servant leaders who are genuinely concerned with South Carolina’s future rather than their own.
• Getting and keeping the right people working in government (dedicated, skilled, talented, innovative public servants).
• A positive attitude and unwavering belief that we are a great state and that by working together (all parties, all branches, all levels of government, in partnership with other sectors) we can overcome any obstacles we may face.
• The will and courage to make the hard choices and investments required to focus the mission of government on those programs that can move us toward those things we are passionate about (a statewide vision and goals for education, economic development, public safety, health, and the environment for example); that we can do better than anyone else (eliminating or privatizing the rest); and that drive our economic engine (thought of in terms of return on investment).
• Appropriate investments in technology to facilitate the achievement of our statewide goals.
• Patience, persistence and a long-term view that will enable us to pursue our statewide vision consistently in a manner that transcends changes in administration.

Unless we can successfully address fundamental issues such as these, and unless we have a well designed plan to implement change, the MAP Commission report will most likely take its place alongside all the other studies on a dusty shelf somewhere deep in the bureaucratic bowels of the minimally adequate government of a poor state. And that is an outcome we really cannot afford.

References
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
Collins, J. and Porras, J. (2002). Build to last: Some successful habits of visionary companies. New York, NY: Harper Business Essentials.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hance, J. (2003, September 21). Keynote speech to the International City/County Management Association Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Report of the Governor’s Commission on Management, Accountability and Performance, (2003, September). The State of South Carolina. Retrieved October 6, 2003, from http://www.mapcommission.sc.gov/pdf/MAP%20Report.pdf.

About the Author
Edwin C. Thomas is the director of the Governmental Research and Service Unit at the University of South Carolina’s Institute for Public Service and Policy Research. Mr. Thomas has been engaged in public service and public administration for three decades. He received his Bachelor of Science, Master of Education and Master of Public Administration degrees from the University of South Carolina. He can be reached at thomasec@gwm.sc.edu.