700 words (8 minutes reading time) by Lancing Farrell with ChatGPT

In the best traditions of blogging, I have started recycling some early posts. To add value I have asked ChatGPT to analyse three posts (Post 103 – Classic paper – ‘Managing Government, Governing Management’ by Henry Mintzberg, Post 229 – Coronavirus and local government – time for a new O/S?, and Post 231 – A New City O/S – Stephen Goldsmith and Neil Kleiman) and re-write them as one post.

Mintzberg challenges traditional perspectives on government organization and management, Goldsmith & Kleiman’s book complements Mintzberg by proposing a comprehensive transformation of local government operations. Both identify the need for flexibility and adaptability in addressing the challenges of governance.

Here is the ChatGPT analysis.

Henry Mintzberg’s 1996 paper, “Managing Government, Governing Management,” explores various aspects of local government and challenges some conventional beliefs. Mintzberg covers four key topics:

1. Private, Public, Cooperative, and Non-Owned Organizations: Mintzberg questions the binary distinction between the private and public sectors, advocating for a balanced approach that recognizes strengths in both. He emphasizes the importance of cooperatively-owned organizations (i.e. owned by suppliers, customers or employees) and non-owned organizations (i.e. controlled by a self-selecting Board – e.g. universities), which challenge the traditional private-public divide.
2. Customers, Clients, Citizens, and Subjects: Mintzberg categorizes individuals as customers, clients, citizens, or subjects, based on their interactions with government. He suggests that the type of service provided should correspond to these roles, with customers and clients receiving reciprocal ‘give and take’ services, while citizens and subjects receive services based on rights and obligations (e.g. policing and prisons).
3. The Myths of Management: Mintzberg critiques the prevailing management model, emphasizing three problematic assumptions: that activities can be isolated, that performance can be fully evaluated through objective measures, and that autonomous managers can be solely responsible for performance. He argues that these assumptions are often ill-suited for the public sector because of the integrated nature of public services between elected representatives and the administration – clear and unambiguous policy would be needed so that politicians are not tempted to become involved in implementation.
4. Models for Organizing Government: Mintzberg discusses various models for organizing government, including the machine model, network model, performance-control model, virtual model, and normative-control model. He highlights the importance of choosing the appropriate model based on the specific goals and functions of government, from the ‘rules and standards’ dominated machine-model to the ‘relationship-based’ network-model.

Above all, say many experts, government must become more like business. It is especially this proposition that I wish to contest. If we are to manage government properly, then we must learn to govern management.

Goldsmith and Kleiman’s 2017 book, “A New City O/S,” advocates for a transformation in local government operations, arguing that the existing operating system is outdated and fragmented. They propose a shift toward a more citizen-centric, networked, and outcome-oriented approach. Key points from their perspective include:

• The Need for a New Operating System: Goldsmith and Kleiman argue that local government needs a new operating system to adapt to changing societal needs and expectations. They liken this transformation to updating a computer’s operating system to remain relevant and effective.

A new O/S for local government leverages modern technologies by designing responses around the citizen and the employee that allows government to act in time.

• Challenges of the Current System: They highlight issues in the current local government operating system, such as fragmentation, risk aversion, and a focus on compliance over outcomes. This system often hinders innovation and responsiveness.

• A Pivot Towards Citizen-Centric Services: The authors suggest a pivot from a closed, command-and-control model to an open, citizen-centric approach. They advocate for personalized web-based services and emphasize the importance of solving citizen problems effectively.

• Distributed Governance: Goldsmith and Kleiman envision a new government model characterized by distributed governance. This model involves collaboration with various stakeholders, including residents, contractors, community groups, and institutions. It prioritizes flexibility, responsiveness, and information sharing.

• Measurement and Outcome Focus: The authors stress the importance of shifting from measuring activities to measuring outcomes. They advocate for a focus on problem-solving and outcomes achieved, rather than strict adherence to rules.

• Accountability and Governance Challenges: Goldsmith and Kleiman acknowledge the governance challenges associated with distributed governance, particularly in maintaining clear accountability. They emphasize the need for a common purpose and information symmetry to make this model work effectively.

In summary, Henry Mintzberg’s paper challenges traditional perspectives on government organization and management, advocating for a more nuanced approach that considers the roles of individuals, the myths of management, and various organizational models. Goldsmith and Kleiman’s book complements Mintzberg’s ideas by proposing a comprehensive transformation of local government operations, centered around citizen needs, distributed governance, and outcome-oriented measurement. Both highlight the need for flexibility and adaptability in addressing the evolving challenges of governance.