For years, we have wondered why governments fail to deliver the outcomes societies expect of them—until I realized I was asking the wrong question. Now, just to be clear: we’re not talking about vampire governments that suck the nation dry through corruption. We’re talking about governments that genuinely want to get it right… and still, somehow, often fail.
Governments don’t fail. In fact, most governments function exactly as they were designed to: to reduce personal risk, diffuse accountability, and preserve the institution.
If this sounds familiar, it’s only because the world is full of anecdotes that support this argument. Here is an example; in one government, very committed leadership decides, after seeing a sharp decline in the nation’s learning outcomes, that it’s time for a deep reform of the education system. The portfolio is handed to a new minister; young, deeply committed, and entrepreneurial. Tasked with leading the reform, she becomes our Minister of Change.
She works collaboratively with different stakeholders and eventually presents a new (and bold) approach to top leadership and receives the green light. Although the effort begins seriously and a clear roadmap is developed, fragmented authority between local districts, education boards, and federal rules starts pulling in different directions. Schools’ legacy systems make it hard to pivot. Eventually, political turnover hits, the reform’s champions vanish, and the momentum goes with them.
In another government and despite the heavy overspending, the central procurement system has been a persistent pain point for users for years. Our Minister of Change this time – an exceptional leader but without the title – forms a team and lays out a revamped design that not only improves user experience, but will also bring massive savings to the government. In a council meeting where all concerned parties attend, and despite some unease in the room, approval is granted to roll out a pilot. Everything looks great, right? Wrong.
This perfect-on-paper, high-potential design never sees the light. The finance team keeps circling back to the previous investment, technologists note the solution is disconnected from reality, the current infrastructure can’t support it, and scaling may not even be a priority. One or two levels down in the organization, a quiet revolution brews. The implementation goes from revolutionary to reasonable. The transformation is reshaped into a small tweak to the existing system and is labeled “feasible.” And once again, business as usual prevails.
If you sit across from top leadership, chairs or directors general, to discuss their most chronic issues, chances are they will not ask for a new idea, or complain about lack of resources, especially in sophisticated systems and serious governments. Ideas are available in abundance; it is the art of getting things done despite the tangled web of individual behaviours and social dynamics that is at the top of their agenda.
In government, the odds of leading an agile, start-up-like culture are slim. Instead, you are navigating a complex social ecosystem where change-making is not just about tools, methods, or strategies. It is about people, their fears, their habits, and their silent resistance. Yet this human side of change is often overlooked, buried beneath the shiny solutions governments buy and the frameworks consultants deliver every year.
As dark as this sounds, change in government is not impossible. It is, however, an uphill battle fought against largely invisible forces.