A government that grows while productivity declines?

I was recently sitting at the table with a public organization that had been working on a transformation program for some time. In the meantime, more people had been hired, more consultation structures had been set up, and more reports had been produced. And yet, there was a prevailing feeling that little had changed regarding what the organization truly wanted to achieve.

Relatable. And I see it often.

The system in which people work is characterized by a complexity that sustains itself.

The difference between two types of complexity

There is complexity that arises because a problem is complex. And there is complexity that arises because an organization has structured itself in a way that makes it difficult to break through. Processes that once served a purpose but have remained in place long after that purpose disappeared. Consultation structures that coordinate the coordination. Reports that are created while no one reads them.

That second type is often unconsciously cultivated.

Figures from the CPB show that labor productivity growth in the Netherlands has been lagging behind the European average for years. More people, more budget, more coordination between organizations that all claim to be pursuing the same goal. But the societal output is not growing proportionally.

Investing more does not help if the system absorbs the investment without structurally improving as a result.

The question that is rarely asked

In many organizations, the discussion is about resources. How much budget, how many FTEs, which department gets priority. Understandable, because resources are measurable.

But the question that is rarely asked is what a euro of expenditure should actually yield. Not in terms of activities or meeting hours, but in terms of real results. How much better does the situation become for the people the organization is there for?

Without that question, cutting costs is just blind slashing. And investing more is pumping money into a system without knowing if it changes anything. The discussion should not be about how much an organization costs, but about what it delivers and how you measure that.

Making sharper choices is uncomfortable

What I see in organizations that are actually moving forward is that they are willing to identify what is not working. They choose what to stop. They let themselves be guided by outcomes rather than efforts.

That might sound obvious. But choosing what to stop means that someone has to let go of something they have poured their energy into for years. And focusing on outcomes means it becomes visible whether it works. That requires a structure that makes it possible: fixed measurement points, a review cycle that asks the question that the daily grind otherwise never asks, and ownership that is explicit rather than assumed.

Expectations versus agreements

That is exactly what a well-implemented OGSM process can ensure. Not as a bureaucratic framework, but as a management tool that ensures an organization knows where it wants to go, can see if it is moving in that direction, and adjusts in time if it is not.

Organizations that structurally improve rarely do so by working harder or investing more in the same things. They do it by being more honest about what works and what doesn't, and by having the willingness to make choices based on that.

We enjoy working with organizations that want to take that question seriously. Even if the conversation still feels a bit daunting to start.

‍