Scott Burns: April 2008 Archives

I've spent nearly 10 years working with public sector organizations and one question comes up over and over again particularly at the more senior levels of government: 

How can we be more _________  (fill in the blank with agile, results-oriented, customer-driven, efficient, or any other adjective out of the MBA vocabulary) like the private sector?

The reason this question makes a lot of sense to anyone coming out of the private sector was best explained by former Secretary of Treasury, Robert Rubin who arrived at the Treasury directly from his leadership role at Goldman Sachs:

"Most people I've known in the private sector are just much too accustomed to linear processes where they're clear decision makers and they make a decision and things more or less then happen.  In government, the decisions you make very often are much less direct in their effect."  - Robert Rubin

Source: Leadership in Government: An Interview with Robert E. Rubin from the McKinsey Quarterly, July 2007

Understanding the difference between public and private sector decision making is fundamental to allowing the tension between public sector best practice and private sector best practice to drive good public sector decisions.

For example, my focus at GovDelivery is on working with our city, county, state, and federal government clients to help adapt best practice communication practices from the private sector into the public sector environment.  In the private sector, communication has a linear and measurable objective which is typically summarized by two words: Get sales. 

We have seen more than 20 innovative companies gain prominence in the private sector by offering different kinds of electronic communication products/platforms.  Where these products excel is in allowing marketers to target distinct groups of customers and potential customers based on demographics, buying behavior, and previous online actions.  In the public sector, this kind of targeting is too time consuming and presents real concerns about discrimination and privacy.  However, by helping our clients understand the benefits of a personalized message, we've worked with them to devise ways to offer the public much more choice in what they receive. 

This doesn't lead to more sales (because our clients generally don't sell anything), but it leads to outstanding and measurable results in other areas such as dramatically more citizens signing up for content updates (what we refer to as "more subscribers") due to higher level of personalization.

There are many more examples of this phenomenon.  What I enjoy about working in the public sector is that there are so many constituencies and considerations that the work we do is complex and often non-linear.  We have to be creative in how we learn from our colleagues operating in the private sector and adapt what they do well (drive towards clear goals) to our more complex environment. 

If you work in government now and this is frustrating to you, you might be one of the people Secretary Rubin was referring to who would be better off in the private sector.  Don't worry though, if you make that leap, we'll be watching what you do and adapting it, as best we can, where we think it can help do the public good.

I hate having to make choices all the time.  As empowering as it should be to have options... they are usually just annoying. 

I think that is why someone invented suits-- business casual is more comfortable, but it takes me an extra 5 minutes to get dressed because I have to make a bunch of choices.  (Quick side note on the benefit of suits: I didn't even know that I was color blind until I started going business casual.)

I spent 3 minutes yesterday trying to pick which kind of apple I was going to buy.  Why does Whole Foods give me 10 different choices of apples?  If they have to do this, could they at least have the "recommended apple" sitting out in a prominent location?

Microsoft has figured out how to make the default count.  That's why they have "fast setup" which requires few choices and "advanced setup" which, in all honesty, I have never used so I don't really know what it does though I imagine it would give me a bunch of annoying options that I don't need.

When I provide input into software and Web design at GovDelivery, I always push for the same approach.  I want clients to know that if they take the path of least resistance, it will probably be the right path.

A recent article in the New Republic titled, "Easy Does It: How to Make Lazy People do the Right Thing" (unfortunately requires a subscription) addresses this opportunity in the public policy context. 

For example, did you know that by allowing employers to make 401K plans opt-out instead of opt-in, the government has been able to greatly improve participation in 401K plans?  Turns out, the average non-saver isn't choosing not to participate in their 401K plan, they are choosing not to fill out any forms.  Make them fill out a form to opt-out of saving, and the same choice (don't fill out any forms) leads to a better outcome (401K participation).

The only thing I reject about this article is the reference to the public as "Lazy."  I don't think I'm lazy, and I don't think you're lazy either, but in this day and age, almost everyone is busy and making choices takes time. 

When you're communicating with the public, it can be scary to recommend something, but you can do the public a favor in your web design and software design by thinking of your "default option" as the "recommended option."

Hopefully, this slight shift in thinking will lead you to put more thought into the default and will raise your design standards so you're not just making it easy to make choices, you're also making it easy for users to succeed without making any choices at all.