The case for shrinking the government

This article is written by Jordan Bridger, CEO at Nudge Culture.

• The problem: Governments can be too bloated.
• Why it matters: Public spending matters, and trust can be diminished.
• The solution: A decentralised approach to government increases trust.

One of the most important, under-discussed issues that is prevalent within public service is the role of government and how the processes that currently oversee the life of the public servant can be inadvertently stifled. This can be easily seen in the area of decision-making.

Decisions tend to go through a hierarchical chain of command. Some of the subtle issues that emerge from this are that those who help make the final decision might have no direct experience in the context that they are overseeing. This unintentionally undermines the inherent value of first-person perspectives.

In this regard, a better government model would be to adopt a more distributed, decentralised, functional approach where decisions are not reliant upon time-consuming bureaucratic processes that could slow down time-sensitive decisions that demand instantaneous outcomes.

If the government adopts a radical approach and implements a strengths-based approach, this would then ensure that individuals and groups embrace the responsibility of self-development.

The case for distribution

A more decentralised approach to government means there is more trust in the hands of public servants. Rather than the natural and trained skills being syphoned by the status quo bias, they are magnified and have the potential to create a more coherent system where those on the ground work together more efficiently. The radical decentralisation of power assumes that public servants are valued for what they have to bring to the table.

In identity psychology research, it has been shown that people tend to make choices out of how they define themselves in each context. It's referred to as Identity Behavior Theory (IBT). The central thesis is that people don't make decisions outside of how their context frames their identity. In this sense, an element of critical thinking is limited to the confines of the proverbial space each person inhabits.

"[Behavioural enaction](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.679490/full#:~:text=Identity%20Behavior%20Theory%20(IBT) comprises behavioural intention and behavioural action, and, as part of IBT, is assessed along with identity, attitudes, and resilience, the latter of which comprises personal strength (e.g. emotion regulation and self-esteem) and support (e.g. having positive role models). IBT is assumed to be a general model to explain enacted behaviour but on the other hand, it is viewed as a specialised strengths-based action model to promote enacted behaviour among minorities and the historically oppressed."

Decentralising government does not undermine government, but amplifies the innate values of each organisation and the people that comprise it.

Be radical

If the government adopts a radical approach and implements a strengths-based approach, this would then ensure that individuals and groups embrace the responsibility of self-development which would also enhance the contexts each public servant works in. The IBT model is better understood as a nexus of interactive components that promote a culture of self-identified responsible actions that each one takes to help the greater cause.

There is a tendency to interpret heterogenous asymmetry as chaos. But, if each public service were to see itself as a standalone entity then building intentional community connections would be derived from harmonious voluntary motivation rather than legislative pressure. Research shows that we make more compassionate decisions when driven by standards that align with the organisations we are working for, rather than being overlooked or guided. When we feel free, we freely give. The hiring process then should change to mirror this by interviewing for strengths rather than a historical resume.

Strengths-based hiring can be part of an overall assessment whereby the incoming employee shows their values that effortlessly can implement into the overall purposes of the organisation. In this sense, the progress of an organisation is part of an integrated whole where the employee can also share in the power and decision-making of the company's values, rather than entering into a predetermined closed system that they must force themselves to fit into.

Give each employee a voice

This is a model that distinctly honours the voice of each public servant and the individual contributions they can give to enhance the overall goals of the government or organisations they call home. Decentralising government does not undermine government, but amplifies the innate values of each organisation and the people that comprise it. It seeks to build a vascular network of trust where each agency relies more on its context rather than a system of politically restrictive legislation. It enhances the opportunity for more unconventional relationships in how each organisation builds its ties with the community, the general public, and other like organisations and allows creative space to explore democratic representation amongst its geographic population (which the centralised government is not always aware of).

In the last 20 years, the topic of representation has become a very important conversation piece across many areas of society, including in the area of public service. The government is not omnipresent–in that is already the answer we seek to find a solution. Each public service organisation can still operate as an agent of the government, however, can also be its own microcosm.

In this regard, one of its many valuable roles is to ensure that the underrepresented are part of the overall conversation. Many people are silenced in centralised government due to the heavy-handed reliance on structure and guided biases.

Time to take action

There is a strong tendency across the world to amalgamate political jurisdictions, especially local governments. The merger of jurisdictions entails the integration of local interests, and former jurisdictions have to struggle to secure political representation and specific area interests in the new amalgamated jurisdiction.

Localising responsibility to public servants puts the general responsibility in the hands of the organisations as well as opening up space to explore a more interactive model where the organisations can equally decentralise their access directly into the hands of those who have the needs of each organisation. What this then looks like is that access to services is more like a concentric circle rather than a top-down model but with a focus on personal responsibility–which also diminishes bureaucracy.

Rather than the government strictly guiding processes, in this new interactive model a truly democratic approach is embraced in the name of celebrating a participatory model where people and employees are valued for what they instinctively bring to the table which can help optimise the ongoing space of the public services.

Connect with the author on Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn or Snapchat: @jordanbridger58

👋 You can create a post like this one! Share your thoughts with a community of public servants. Learn more

(Image Credit: Unsplash)