## Notes from 05 May 2025 [[2025-05-04|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2025-05-06|Next note →]] [Robyn Bennett](https://www.linkedin.com/in/robyn-bennett-02/) suggested [Annika Naschitzki](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7323208130387988480/)'s article "[Death by a thousand paper cuts](https://fishhooks.substack.com/p/death-by-a-thousand-paper-cuts?r=4d5zo7)," which makes a compelling argument: surface-level reforms (changing department names, shifting reporting lines, or renaming roles) have virtually no real impact. It's like claiming you've renovated a house by merely rearranging the furniture. Without addressing how people actually work, what tools they use, and how decisions get made, you're simply applying a fresh coat of paint on a crumbling foundation. **Substance over Structure** Naschitzki's analysis highlights that effective reform addresses substance (changing tools, processes, policies, and work practices), not just structure. Success requires integrating changes across multiple dimensions like IT, policy, and operations simultaneously. Technology is a key enabler; reforms often fail by ignoring legacy systems, whereas tech transformation can be essential for real change. Lasting reform demands sustained commitment (leadership, funding, phasing), as the hidden costs of constant, minor restructuring (in morale, productivity, and fees) often exceed those of a well-planned, ambitious transformation. The apparent tension between advocating for large-scale transformation and iterative reform can be understood through a thesis-antithesis-synthesis lens. The thesis, exemplified by [IR's](https://www.ird.govt.nz/) comprehensive overhaul, posits that meaningful change requires ambitious vision and significant resources. The antithesis champions smaller, iterative steps for their adaptability and learning potential. The synthesis argues these aren't contradictory but complementary: effective reform often requires **_iteration guided by an ambitious vision_**. ^audacious-vision This means establishing a clear guiding point (let's call it the '̶n̶o̶r̶t̶h̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶r̶'̶ _southern cross_, suitable for us navigating the Southern Hemisphere!) through the large-scale transformation plan, defining the destination and securing commitment. The iterative approach then serves as the navigation strategy, using pilots and phased rollouts to test aspects of the vision, learn from practice, adjust, and scale successes. Iteration without this guiding vision risks aimless tinkering; a grand vision without iterative implementation often fails to materialize. This balanced approach requires both the ambition for significant change and the practical wisdom to learn and adapt en route. **Leading and implementing change** By coincidence, [Philippe Silberzahn](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7325029186467684352/) just published a [interesting piece](https://philippesilberzahneng.com/2025/05/05/stuck-in-their-projects-why-leaders-should-learn-about-politics/) addressing precisely this leadership dimension of reform. While Naschitzki gives us the "what" of effective reform, Silberzahn offers insight into the "how": specifically, how leaders can exercise genuine influence even in environments resistant to change. His analysis of political savvy in organizational contexts provides the missing piece in many reform discussions that focus solely on structures and systems while ignoring the human dynamics of change. Reform isn't just about structural design. It requires leaders who can navigate complex political environments and drive change from within existing systems. In this sense, effective reform leaders: - **Master the rules of the game**. They understand organizational mechanisms, decision-making processes, and key stakeholders rather than relying solely on the power of their ideas. - **Invest in relationships**. They recognize that organizational barriers are often human rather than structural, taking time to understand individual motivations and build necessary coalitions. - **Balance principle with pragmatism**. They know when to compromise and how to advance change incrementally without losing sight of larger goals. - **Demonstrate strategic timing**. They develop an intuitive sense of when to push forward and when to consolidate gains. - **Cultivate influence beyond formal authority**. They build support networks and inspire action through persuasion rather than decree. At the end of the day, reshuffling boxes on a slide deck accomplishes nothing without real resources behind it: the right people, services, materials, and [[Executive Decisiveness|leaders empowered to make tough choices]]. These leaders translate ambitious visions into new working practices, concrete policies and better systems. However, sustaining political support for transformation has become increasingly difficult, creating a fundamental dilemma: wait for perfect consensus that may never materialize, or risk reforms being undone with each change in administration? This challenge calls for what we could term "**_reality-shaping implementation_**": advancing feasible reforms that change material conditions and create new facts on the ground. This approach doesn't bypass democratic processes; rather, it recognizes that implementing even partial reforms alters the context for future negotiations. Once certain systems, processes, or structures are established, they create their own constituencies and momentum. Future leaders often find it more practical to build upon existing reforms than to dismantle them entirely (path dependency!). Sometimes the most effective way to build consensus isn't endless debate but demonstrating concrete benefits through implementation. Success creates its own legitimacy. Meaningful public service reform ultimately requires integrating multiple perspectives: the ambitious vision and resources of large-scale transformation, the adaptability of iterative approaches, the substance-focused changes Naschitzki advocates, and the politically astute leadership Silberzahn describes. By balancing these elements, we can transcend the futility of endless restructuring toward reforms that genuinely transform how public services operate and deliver value to citizens.