A vision to make government more...
Why do some leaders succeed in moving bureaucracy forward while others can't affect change?
Sectors
Health 
Security 
Finance 
Research
Regulation
We've come to 2 overall conclusions:
It’s more important to be a good manager than to be good at change in particular
While both successful leaders and those who were not successful used traditional change management techniques, the leaders who successfully led a change in government were most prominently distinguished by their use of good general management techniques that are not uniquely suited to initiating or carrying through change.  These general management techniques include, for example, using a strategy planning process, using performance measures.
It seems to be no accident that successful leaders achieve their goals
The successful leaders we studied generally used similar techniques, and those techniques fell within their discretion and control.  In contrast, leaders who did not achieve their goals, and those who did not attempt ambitious change, tended not to use the same techniques.
Get your copy.
Seventy five percent of the successful agencies and leaders used a strategic planning process, while just one in nine (eleven percent) of our control group did so.
Successful leaders worked hard to inform interest groups and get their support.  They worked with a range of relevant external stakeholders - customers, suppliers, labor, and engaged potential opponents.
Use a strategy planning process - but  remember a fancy plan isn’t the point.
Use performance measures.
Build relationships proactively with interest groups.
Consider reorganizing the agency if that will better enable you to make the changes you seek.
The study also found several mistakes leaders made...
Do you have leadership approval? 

Do research and substantial data determine your strategic goals? 

Are leaders engaged within the strategic planning process?

Does leadership balance their time between internal and external matters? 

Do you set performance measures to help guide your gov 2.0 initiative?
Four take-aways to write down or tweet:
“Never before in history has innovation offered promise of so much to so many in so short a time.” – Bill Gates
“To sustain this trust, we must remain agile and adaptive, seeking innovative solutions to shape our future.” – Air Force Surgeon Gen. Green
"In the broader battle for hearts and minds abroad, we have to be as good at listening to others as we are at telling them our story." – Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
participatory
transparent
collaborative
...and less
Change is hard.
Going from closed to open doesn’t happen overnight and it doesn’t happen by magic. There are challenges. #g2s @BoozAllen
Changing leaders/administration
Resistance to change among employees
Lack of commitment from leadership
Command and control leadership vs. collaborative generations
Don't take on the world. Fewer goals equals greater success.
Set realistic performance measures to achieve goals.
Collaborate with and encourage your employees and stakeholders to participate.
Brand your change, manage the brand, and give your stakeholders a reason to advocate for change.
Do you have what it takes to change government?
This @BoozAllen #g2s presentation was created with Prezi. Share & download it at: http://bit.ly/ajacci
Successful leaders actually reported spending slightly less time (about ten percent less) on the job than unsuccessful leaders.  The successful leaders simply spent their time more effectively.  For example, successful leaders worked proactively with Congress and stakeholders to set the agenda, present and justify their strategy… it may turn out that this requires much less time than reacting defensively down the line.
Unsuccessful leaders in our study set strategy quickly, and neglected to gather necessary data on customer needs, stakeholder expectations, and employee ideas about what can be implemented.
Don’t expect that spending more time and energy is enough to produce better results.
Don’t be in such a hurry to set your strategy that you neglect to gather information.
One page summary

Study findings

Harvard University working paper (submitted to a peer reviewed academic journal)

Detailed report
flickr: armendkrasniqi
flickr: pathawks
flickr: Cellular Immunity
flickr: somemixedstuff
flickr: sharif
Four differentiators emerge for successfully affecting ambitious change in federal agencies
#g2s
To answer this question, Booz Allen partnered with Steven Kelman from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government to conduct a rigorous examination of management approaches within government.
Three quarters of the successful leaders reorganized their agencies – compared to just one of nine in the control group.
Most of the successful agency leaders used performance measures to move their agenda forward, while most in the control group did not.  Some agency leaders used performance measures from third-party organizations.
We studied 11 leaders who sought to implement ambitious change at cabinet and sub-cabinet level U.S. federal agencies.
The leaders were nominated by members of the National Academy for Public Administration and fellows of the Council for Excellence in Government

Each leader was nominated for having succeeded (eight), or for having “met significant challenges” (three) in carrying out the change they sought to make

To create a larger control group, we also interviewed six “counterparts” who led the same agency as a successful leader, except during the previous or subsequent administration

Evidence was gathered and analyzed by Booz Allen in collaboration with Harvard Kennedy School Professor of Public Management Steve Kelman
We conducted more than 300 interviews with federal agency leaders and their employees, career executives, congressional staff, unions, media, customers, and interest groups. We also reviewed strategic plans, congressional testimony, budget requests, and GAO reports.
Modernize agency structure, process, image 
Transform agency mission
Integrate management
Consolidate, collaborate with other agencies 
Coordinate field offices
Implement a new nation-wide benefit, and improve associated existing services
Obtain new resources (money, staff, materials)
Institute pay bands
Administrations
Clinton 1993-2001
Bush 2001-2009
The studied agencies varied in budget, size, sector, and strategic goals.
2,500 to 200,000
U.S. President
Cabinet Secretary
Sample strategic goals
flickr: chuckyeager
flickr: edschipul
Do you have what it takes to change government?
Worst form of government waste = critically needed program that is never implemented, or fails to meet goals #g2s @BoozAllen
@BoozAllen and @Kennedy_School's Prof. Steve Kelman teamed up to study management in #gov #g2s
Conducted 300+ interviews with #federal leaders and their staff, congressional staff, unions, media, customers, and interest groups #g2s