In his latest release, author and Harvard Business school professor Mitchell B Weiss discusses how governments can better adapt to solving some of the worlds biggest problems by thinking like a start-up. Some of the challenges touched upon include an evolution in our approaches to climate change, infrastructure, public education and social services. In an era where a central government is increasingly suffering from a reputation as corrupt and incompetent, as well as being too mired in bureaucracy to create any efficient or lasting change, Mitchell argues that entrepreneurial spirit and savvy are in fact just getting started in the civil service, transforming the public sector's response to big problems at all levels.
We The Possibility: Harnessing Public Entrepreneurship To Solve Our Most Urgent Problems
{{divider}}
In his latest release, author and Harvard Business school professor Mitchell B Weiss discusses how governments can better adapt to solving some of the worlds biggest problems by thinking like a start-up. Some of the challenges touched upon include an evolution in our approaches to climate change, infrastructure, public education and social services.
{{divider}}
In an era where a central government is increasingly suffering from a reputation as corrupt and incompetent, as well as being too mired in bureaucracy to create any efficient or lasting change, Mitchell argues that entrepreneurial spirit and savvy are in fact just getting started in the civil service, transforming the public sector's response to big problems at all levels.
{{divider}}
Weiss argues for a mindset shift from a ‘probability government’ which is overly focused on safe solutions and maintaining the status quo using ‘so-called best practices’, to a ‘possibility government’, relaying that America was founded upon an idea of what might be possible, not what was. Weiss reminds us that ‘we get the government we invent’ and create, and that we can bring about a society that honours the human dignity inherent in us all and extends opportunity to those who’ve been denied it in the past.
{{divider}}
Whereas a ‘probability government’ pursues programmes and services that ‘work’ but achieve middling outcomes, a ‘possibility government’ pursues novel programmes and services that by virtue of their novelty, are only possibly likely to work, which means they probably won’t work. However, Weiss argues that this is what we need more of if we are going to truly solve public problems anywhere, and that if there were ever a time for it, this is it.
{{divider}}
“No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” - Winston Churchill
{{divider}}
Such a mindset shift requires public leadership and management that's willing to boldly imagine new possibilities and to experiment. According to We The Possibility, the steps towards this consist of three basic tenets for this new way of governing:
{{divider}}
- Vision - a government that can imagine and see problems as opportunities, while involving citizens in designing solutions
- Experimentation - a government that can try new things: testing and experimentation as a regular part of problem solving
- Growth - a government that can successfully scale by harnessing platform techniques for innovation and growth
- {{divider}}
Weiss uses inventive modern case studies he has both seen and studied as illustrative examples of such principles in practice, including a US Special Operations Command prototyping of a hover-board for chasing pirates, a heroin hackathon in opioid-ravaged Cincinnati, a series of experiments in Singapore to rein in Covid-19 and many more. At a crucial moment in contemporary history, a time when we are beginning to see many old institutions crumble as new structures emerge to take their place, We The Possibility provides inspiration and a positive model, along with crucial guardrails, to help shape the evolution of government's role in our society for generations to come.
{{divider}}
We have enough foolishness these days in our politics. We have bad ideas that are bad because we disregard the truth. We have bad ideas that are bad because ideology causes us to hold onto them. I see the foolishness in making the case for more bad ideas. But we can tolerate some more bad ideas - in fact we need them - as long as we can, ultimately, figure out a way to pursue the good ones that come alongside. We have enough foolishness these days. But also, not enough.
{{divider}}
It’s no secret that many a public survey consistently shows a declining faith and belief in the central powers that be, with the emergence of Big Tech stepping in to attempt to fill the role. Advances in technology have undoubtedly broadened the horizons of possibility when applied appropriately. However it does also bring with it, a whole new host of challenges and long-term ethical implications. COVID is rapidly catalysing the transition from what was, into what might be, and a focus towards solving public problems by applying design-thinking’s human-centred approach to government in service of its citizens is facilitating the process.
{{divider}}
Such a transition is bound to be messy and imperfect, and one of the central criticisms is currently that we may be trying to solve too many problems with the same digital tools across the board - apps, smart tech and marketplace platforms. But it doesn’t mean that digital tools aren't a powerful piece in the overall toolkit, or that these don’t have the potential to further evolve.
{{divider}}
As the world becomes increasingly polarised and divided, pockets of public entrepreneurship encourage much needed cohesion, common mission and collaboration. Even if the same solutions cannot be precisely replicated in all manner of contexts, the book argues that the real issue when it comes to product development and designing the systems of the future, isn’t thinking in terms of designing for people, but designing with people.
{{divider}}
Weiss highlights inclusive design principles and examples of user-driven innovation such as the idea of ‘desire lines’ to reprogram urban planning around how people naturally move on ‘paths created by human usage’ rather than on the grids designed for them. In fact, one of the most popular pages on the internet - Reddit, is designed exactly in this way. The self-proclaimed ‘front page of the internet’ is curated by users themselves, as they upvote popular content and have almost full reign to co-create the platform in its on-going evolution.
{{divider}}
Another example Weiss uses is the story of St. Paul’s mayor, Melvin Carter, and how he ended late fees at the city's libraries and unfroze 42,000 library cards in the process. The suggestion came from a front-line employee who worked directly with the public affected by a draconian policy most had not thought to question, and resulted in circulation numbers the mayor says ‘redefined’ the library system, and was akin to opening a new branch. This took a more compassionate approach to the community and the penalties they imposed on those who were having difficulty getting items back to the library on time and paying off the resulting fines.
{{divider}}
We The Possibility explores the increasing necessity for a move away from a restrictive bureaucracy that seeks to maintain the status quo, and towards greater possibility, experimentation, iteration and risk - the hallmarks of entrepreneurship. Governments are effectively in charge of running the largest possible business at a state level, yet so few policies seem to support this and end up being wasteful and inert. What is missing is that the most successful companies experiment and innovate, invest in their people, in research and development, and constantly re-evaluate how to best serve people to reinvent themselves. In this sense entrepreneurs both inside and outside of government can tackle problems and help to transform public life.
{{divider}}
Weiss has lived an innovative life of his own, having created the MBA course in public entrepreneurship at Harvard and co-founded the Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics - one of the first big-city innovation offices in the United States. He also helped guide the mayor’s office’s response to the attacks on the Boston Marathon, built Harvard’s Young American Leaders Programme and is an adviser to the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative. One of his key takeaways form his experiences is that it’s essential to be able to try many new things in quick and efficient ways when exploring novel programmes and services.
{{divider}}
While aimed predominantly at politics, Weiss explains that the principles are just as relevant in the C-suite as they are for the foot soldiers on the ground. ‘If we are going to move toward possibility, we have to move together. We are going to need public officials who are willing to take on riskier projects and scale them, but we are also going to need members of the public who are granting them their permission, encouragement, and even co-participation. More specifically, private entrepreneurs, for example in the ‘Gov Tech’ space, have been on the increase. Large numbers of entrepreneurs are self-deploying in this space and will be, and large amounts of capital are being deployed and will be. More companies are finding themselves trying to solve public problems.’
{{divider}}
The book is written as a reference on how that might look like in practice, whether applied to a startup, government, public sector group or larger enterprise. Whereas greater levels of innovation have often been the domain of dedicated think tanks, private business and philanthropic organisations, Weiss argues that this division is not a viable long-term strategy, and that such attitudes and funding must spill out into a systems-wide approach, with the public sector stepping up to become partners who are as entrepreneurial as they can be.
{{divider}}
Weiss believes that latent talent already exists within such structures as the central government, but that they’ve often been told that they should stick to the blueprint and are therefore afraid to experiment and innovate. This is further hindered by the fact that most organisations reward tried and tested solutions over a more imaginative approach, something equally touched upon in Alchemy by Rory Sutherland using the illustration below.
{{divider}}
Further to this, Weiss argues that it’s important not to ‘show up assuming you know everything about the problem and why it hasn’t been fixed’. To have empathy for people who are facing public problems, as well as empathy for public servants already trying to solve these problems. Yes corruption and back-handed deals do seem to take place in higher levels of government across the board, and are completely unacceptable, but there are also a huge array of public workers fighting to improve it in whatever way they can every day, and it is all too easy to criticise all the failings, without appreciating the full complexity and scale.
{{divider}}
Ultimately what the book encompasses is the possibilities and limitations of the human imagination, and the ability of the collective mind to co-create the kind of future we want to live in. Weiss argues for the need to move away from an administrative, scarcity mindset, which is blinding and limiting, seeking to copy and replicate instead of innovate, and towards a recognition that what we conventionally view as ‘solutions’ aren’t actually solutions at all, but just the most common things that are being done.
{{divider}}
If you asked for best practices on what’s being done today to add affordable housing, reduce congestion, thwart climate change, narrow gaping inequalities, etc. you would get a list of very interesting and sometimes helpful practices. And if you, as a public leader, aren’t doing the things on that list, you should. And if you, the public, aren’t demanding them, you should. But the reality is, if you subjected the list to the test of “Will it be enough? Will it solve the problem?” the answer would likely be no. The best is only the best yet, so I think as possibilitists, we must beware best’s siren call.
{{divider}}
Weiss references behaviouralist James March when illustrating his approach - to be impatient with old ideas, and patient with new ideas. And to appreciate that when trialling a new programme or service, it’s hardly ever going to roll out smoothly or perfectly, but that it has to be given a meaningful chance. If that works after some time, it must be scaled, and if not, then there’s a gap to try out something new.
{{divider}}
Nowhere was the application of this more poignant than in his experience of the aftermath of the Boston Marathon Bombings. Heartwarmingly, within a few minutes of it hitting the national news, the mayor was already receiving telephone calls from citizens asking where they could send donations and help. However Weiss was quickly realising that they were going to need to set up a brand-new fund to collect and distribute the donations that were going to start coming in from around the world.
{{divider}}
The norm in such circumstances, was to donate to a local foundation. ‘Best practices was to have an established, trusted organisation collect donations and administer the funds. After the mass shootings in Columbine, Aurora, and Newtown, versions of this process had been put into practice in those locations.’ However when money went into these foundations, it was more often the case that it simply took too long to get back out, and that when it ultimately did get out, it went in too many directions and not to those who most needed it.
{{divider}}
The shootings at Sandy Hook had happened 122 days before the Boston Marathon bombings, and still the major fund collecting donations hadn’t finalised a process for distributing those donations. In Columbine, it took years for donated funds to make it to victims, and even then they received only 58% of what had originally been collected. Upon insisting that in this instance, it was clear that there was a need to set up a new and faster fund, the mayor and Weiss were told that this would not be possible; “So, I had to tell the foundation head that we were going to do it anyway.”
{{divider}}
