{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02789400278940028, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002789400278940028, 'mean_word_length': 5.463963963963964, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Changing Big Government Organizations: Easier than Meets the Eye?

The need for government organizations to change how they work is a major theme among practitioners and observers of government, discussed informally and repeated constantly at conferences for practitioners. The need for organizational change is also a preoccupying theme in the business world. But the impetus for change in government is somewhat different. In the private sector, the assumption is that the organization’s current performance is good, but that shifts in the organization’s environment demands changes in what the organization produces or how it produces it. In government, by contrast, the impetus for organizational change is typically that current performance isn’t what it should be. Government isn’t working as well as it should,and organizational change is needed to improve performance. However, changing government organizations, if one listens to speakers at conferences where the topic is discussed, is seen as excruciatingly difficult. Phrases such as "obstacles," "barriers," and "resistance to change" dominate. It is frequently argued that only crisis (often called a "burning platform"), or leaders relentlessly pushing change down the throats of reluctant people within the organization, can provoke change. PLEASE NOTE: The larger study that this paper discusses will be published in a book by The Brookings Institution in early 2005.