Tag: State Government

Strategies for Engaging Governments

Public Policy, Strategy

This post was inspired by Mr. Timothy Richards, who I had the pleasure of studying under while attending the University of Pennsylvania. His graduate-level course, “Strategic Engagement with Governments,” was among my favorite I’ve taken at any academic level.

Government is good

I don’t think Gordon Gecko would ever say it, but even he would have to admit that government and business are inseparable. There are myriad ways that the two intersect, interact, and interject in one another’s day-t0-day operations. Sometimes the relationships are pleasant partnerships meant to solve problems for people in their jurisdictions. Sometimes they are bitter battles between powerful groups who want very different – even opposite – things.

Given that government is a requirement in modern society, one would assume that businesses are investing heavily in the areas where they come in direct contact with these important stakeholders. Reader, they do not. For several years, McKinsey conducted an annual survey among executives to measure how important government involvement was to their business and industry and how well those executives feel their firms perform. What they found was fairly shocking given the conventional wisdom around this topic.

The value of engaging government

In 2013, McKinsey estimated that the value at stake from government intervention for most industries was 30% of earnings, except in banking which could be as much as 50%. This is an enormous figure – in some cases adding up to tens of millions of dollars per employee working in the government relations function. And yet fewer than 30% of executives reported that they had the government relations talent and organizational setup to succeed. Only 20% felt they were successful in influencing government policy that was critical to their business.

In the 2010 study, executives were asked to estimate how government activity in their industry would change over the next few years. Overwhelmingly they reported it would increase or at least stay the same (86%), and 52% felt government would be the stakeholder with the greatest economic impact on the firm. The story was similar as it relates to operating income – executives were mostly in agreement that there would be a change (72%), but split on the whether that would be an increase or decrease. Selected data is shown in the charts below.

Via McKinsey
Via McKinsey

While this study is from 2010, the many experienced, senior government relations officials we heard from in class confirmed it is still the case a decade later. In short, there is a gulf between where business knows it must be and where it currently sits as it relates to government relations work.

Improving government relations

Despite the data being a few years old, it would seem one doesn’t need to say much to convince leadership of the impact of government intervention. But how does one go about improving the function so that this value is not lost? Or ideally, leveraged into growth opportunity for your firm?

Start by understanding the current and likely future states of government intervention

You must map the current ways in which government impacts your business. This can be across several dimensions: government as partner, as customer, as regulator, or as policy maker. Once you understand the relationships, you can begin to evaluate the various touch points using your internal goals, metrics, and strategies.

For example, in class we learned about an American manufacturing firm that, after researching emerging tax credits for renewable energy technologies, made a strategic shift in their business to build out their green technology vertical. This would have been a missed opportunity without deliberate, proactive work by the government relations team.

Prioritize the issues that can be pursued

Using your map, rank your issues that you’ve uncovered by their relative impact on your business (high, medium, low) and the relative effort and/or cost required to influence them (high, medium, low). You can use a simple two-by-two matrix to draw this out visually. Are there obvious winners (High Impact, Low Cost) or losers (High Cost, Low Impact)? Note them as such and move to the “stickier” issues (High Impact, High Cost; etc). Which of these align most strongly with your goals internally? Asking these questions is essential, as you won’t be able to pursue all of the issues at the same time.

Create campaigns around each issue to make a dent

Once you have your top issues identified, you must think strategically about how to influence the relevant government officials and departments. Your government relations and external affairs staff should be able to organize the resources, tasks, and target stakeholders to support your goals. Be sure to build some flexibility into your strategy – tactics will be your saving grace if you experience any friction.

In another example, we learned about a potential production facility that would be built in a Southeast Asian nation by an American multinational firm. The firm planned to get a US Senator from their home state to make a personal call to the leader of the Southeast Asian nation, but when the Senator declined, they instead produced a joint letter signed by all of the Congresspeople from their state. This is an example of achieving the same goal, without following the strategy verbatim.

Conclusion

Government has a constant and likely growing role in every sector of the economy. In Macroeconomics 101, you are taught that government is the biggest consumer and usually the biggest producer in every country. It makes sense that 30% of earnings would be at stake, and likely much, much more indirectly as well. By creating strong processes internally to research, plan, and implement influence campaigns, companies can flip the script and proactively engage government in ways that benefit both parties.

Smarter Government: Why the best strategy for governing fails

Public Policy, Strategy

What is Smarter Government?

Governor Martin O’Malley wrote Smarter Government in collaboration with ESRI in November 2019 as a capstone on his political experience. In it, Mr. O’Malley outlines his career-long pursuit of more effective government through “Stat” programs. He was initially inspired by Jack Maple and his CompStat program in New York City’s Police Department. Eventually, the two would collaborate on what might soon become known as the single most effective strategy to govern a city or state.

CompStat was a revolutionary idea at the time – it was originally known as Charts of the Future and involved sticking colored pins into a paper map to display data on the intersection of crime and police activity. While it was significantly upgraded in terms of technology, the core tenets remained: timely and accurate information or intelligence, rapid deployment of resources, effective tactics, and relentless follow-up. The result was a major shift in the success of the police department to not only solve but also prevent crime by strategically deploying officers and other resources across the city.

Over the first few chapters, Mr. O’Malley tells the story of working with Mr. Maple to bring CompStat to the city of Baltimore when Mr. O’Malley became Mayor. They called the new system “CitiStat.” There are six main elements of the CitiStat strategy for performance management:

  • Performance management and data-driven processes
  • GIS technology
  • Customer service technology (like a 311 call number for city services)
  • Collaborative, informed decision-making
  • Openness and transparency
  • Getting things done by bringing people together regularly (and optimizing the meeting space and project management process)

Mr. O’Malley’s administration made extremely impressive progress during his time in office – both as Mayor of Baltimore and then as Governor of Maryland. He reduced crime and blight, reduced healthcare costs, and quite possibly saved the Chesapeake Bay Watershed from total destruction. His book includes several contributors, but it is obvious from the language and the content that Mr. O’Malley is a true expert in this area. He now teaches the concepts at Universities in the region, and consults on bringing Stat programs to the Federal Government level and beyond.

Why won’t it work in my city?

If there is a “secret sauce” for effective city and state government, why is this not the standard operating procedure for all public administrators? The truth of the matter is performance management in general, and CitiStat in particular, can be controversial and difficult to implement. Not everyone is on board with showing their peers “how” they work, and getting potentially a dozen departments aligned on a schedule and goals is challenging, which creates significant barriers to entry. I believe that it can work anywhere, but it will only work where an administration can manage these three risks.

Leadership

One thing that becomes clear through Mr. O’Malley’s war stories is his indisputable strength as a leader. This is not a boast or exaggeration by someone telling his own story. By highlighting both his wins and losses, Mr. O’Malley reveals much about the thinking behind his actions. His ability to see the opportunity that CitiStat offered, rally his colleagues to the cause, and consistently participate in the process at the appropriate level made the success of his subordinates possible.

You cannot implement one half or one third of CitiStat – you have to dive in head first and stick with it through your time in office. Not all leaders are prepared to take that plunge, but if they can believe in the fundamental value of the system, it can lead to massive successes.

Capacity

Similar to the leader’s capacity, the administration must have sufficient capacity to establish the processes needed to establish CitiStat. They must be the ones to conduct the meetings, measurement, and implementation of improvements to their service area. To be clear: any administration has the ability to choose CitiStat as a framework for performance management, but not all administrations will succeed in its total adoption.

Mr. O’Malley talks about the crucial first few months of an administration. It is here, he says, that you must move confidently and completely towards CitiStat or else you will miss the opportunity entirely. Without the buy-in and quick action taken to make these changes, too many in the administration will have the built in excuse that changing how we work will reduce velocity.

Ego

The final risk is maybe most existential to the CitiStat methodology. For an incoming administration, it is just the last politician’s shiny object. Any executive entering a political office will be most concerned with their priorities and promises from the campaign trail, as well as their own legacy that they must begin to write.

When Mr. O’Malley left Baltimore, his successor did keep CitiStat in place, but without the same zeal. Gradually the interest and urgency eroded, and eventually there were departments going months without the customary bi-weekly meetings. The succeeding Mayor did not view the CitiStat process as their own, and they did not give it the same attention or resources that they lavished on their own projects. Unfortunately, their ego kept them from embracing a strategy that may have helped them achieve exactly what they were setting out to do.

Conclusion

Despite being a very systematic and data-driven approach to management, CitiStat absolutely needs enthusiastic leadership and shared sense of responsibility to carry out. Many cities use data to make decisions, and some might even have transparency across departments. There are many fewer though that perform the rituals associated with CitiStat that cement it as the overarching framework for how governing gets done.

Cities that want to make CitiStat the standard must ensure that there is a process in place that can make it viable with or without strong executive leadership and that make it more durable than a political project would normally need to be. To achieve this, administrators might consider:

  • Establish a cabinet-level position to manage CitiStat.
  • Create administrative policies, or if possible legislation, requiring Departmental CitiStat meetings to take place regularly.
  • Limit the discussion of or praise for CitiStat in public – the more it is associated with one administration or individual, the less durable it becomes!