importance of critical thinking in governance

Why is Critical Thinking Important in the Public Sector?

In a world full of challenges and decisions that have an impact on our communities, it is crucial to understand the role critical thinking plays in fostering effective communication, governance and enhancement of services.

In this blog post, we will explore the importance of critical thinking in the public sector and uncover how it empowers individuals to navigate problems, promote transparency and foster progress.

• What is the Importance of Critical Thinking?

5 Key Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

• How to Improve Your Critical Thinking Skills | Key Actions

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking can be defined as the ability to make rational and clear, non-bias judgements based on your analysis of available facts, evidence and observations.

Critical thinking is made up of many different components and skills. One common feature is analysis - we cover the key characteristics of a critical thinker below .

Why is Critical Thinking Important?

Critical thinking is an important skill for an individual to possess, especially in the workplace. It gives individuals the ability to effectively diagnose problems and identify possible solutions to them. More specifically, having strong critical thinking skills is helpful because:

1. It Improves Decision-Making

Having critical-thinking skills is essential in all job roles, but especially those which require you to make important decisions every day. For example, management, marketing, finance, and customer service jobs all require decision-making . Leaders should be able to analyse complex data, weigh options, assess risks and make decisions based on objective evidence rather than personal biases.

2. It is Essential in Many Public Sector Professions

Critical thinking is the process behind problem-solving and is the key component to career success. Many jobs require individuals to navigate complex problems where information needs to be analysed to overcome challenges or develop preventative strategies for removing issues. For example, police officers serve their communities by responding effectively to emergencies.

3. It Enhances Problem-Solving

Problems arise constantly in the workplace. When approaching these adversities, it is important that you think critically. This enables several alternative solutions to be produced and to come to a decision that is most beneficial for your organisation.

What defines a critical thinker? Here are 5 characteristics that are common in critical thinkers.

1. Open-minded

Having an open mind helps avoid barriers to critical thinking, such as biases and personal opinions. Being able to challenge your own beliefs and have the willingness to expand your knowledge will help make more well-informed decisions when faced with challenges.

Top tip: Ask “why” questions more often. Expand your knowledge of unknowns by googling, reading books and asking your peers, friends, or family.

2. Observational

Observing is not just simply about looking. Having observational skills allows us to learn more information regarding a situation, and the ability to be able to use this information to in-hand make better decisions.

It also allows you to view things from different perspectives, think outside the box and find alternative solutions to problems.

3. Analytical

The ability to be observant is important, however, the ability to be analytical is essential for informing your key decisions. Analytical thinking consists of using existing information to precisely assess situations, with a focus on cause and effect.

Some analytical skills include:

• Attention to detail
• Research skills
• Data analysis
• Forecasting

4.      Great Communicators

Being a good critical thinker requires good communication skills . The ability to be able to articulate your plans and goals while acknowledging others’ opinions and perspectives is highly important towards achieving the best results.

Critical thinkers excel in active listening . Active listening goes beyond just hearing what is being said. It requires a higher level of engagement; this can come in the form of:

• Asking relevant, open-ended questions to strengthen mutual understanding.
• Being fully present in the conversation
• Practising good eye contact
•  Reflecting on what has been said
• Paying attention to non-verbal cues

5.      Problem-Solvers

Good problem-solving skills are essential when trying to approach challenges. You can solve complex problems by executing a set of techniques to find effective solutions.

Problem-solving comprises four steps:

• Define the problem
• Generate ideas
• Test your ideas
• Take action

Actions You Can Take To Help Improve Your Critical Thinking Skills

While you may think that critical thinking is a skill that comes naturally to some, it is in fact a skill that can be learned, developed, and enhanced over time. With some simple steps and changes in your daily habits, you can gradually learn to become an expert critical thinker.

1. Ask Important Questions

To become a critical thinker, it is important that you are constantly questioning things. This includes questioning assumptions, ideas, decisions or proposals made by senior members of your team, as well as questioning your own personal beliefs.

2. Be Independent in Your Thoughts

While often more heads are better than one, it can be all too easy to be influenced and swayed by other people’s thoughts and opinions. Learning to develop your own individual ideas can offer ‘outside of the box’ ideas that may be beneficial to your team.

3. Evaluate Evidence

Analysing evidence beyond its face value and doing extensive research surrounding a relevant area will directly help you solve the problem at hand, and form an educated solution.

4. Acknowledge Your Personal/Unconcious Biases

When making key decisions, it is important to be able to put any personal biases or opinions aside and try and look at things from a neutral lens.

Focussing on personal biases is called ‘Confirmation Bias’ . It is the instinctive tendency to listen to or respect the data that aligns with our own viewpoints. Subsequently leading us to disregard any information that opposes our own beliefs.

To combat this and to think more critically, you must be able to challenge these pre-existing viewpoints. You can do this by investigating a variety of sources, considering different perspectives and discussing your ideas/opinions with others. Contesting your verdict will give you a well-rounded view of a scenario, and enable you to make fair, justified and impartial decisions.

5. Break Large Issues Up into Smaller Steps

Seeing the bigger picture isn’t always the right way to make well-informed decisions as it can make tasks appear daunting and too big to tackle, leading to stress and anxiety. Breaking issues down into smaller steps can help these challenges become more manageable. For example:

6. Don’t Overcomplicate Issues

Often people search for the most complex answer and overcomplicate issues that have simple solutions. Occam’s Razor is a philosophical theory which says if you have two competing ideas explaining the same phenomenon, you should favour the simpler one.

FYI: Check out our Overcoming Overthinking Training to learn how to develop strategies and gain practical tools to avoid wasting precious time and energy on a single issue.

Continue to Build Your Critical Thinking Skills With Our Courses

Now you know why critical thinking is an essential skill in the workplace, it's time to take action and enhance your skills. Our Confidence & Resilience courses will help you build on essential workplace skills such as:

• Overcoming Overthinking
• Confident Communication and Assertiveness . 
• Confident Communication for Women in the Workplace

Or Maybe You're Looking For Bespoke Team Training? 

All of our training courses can be customised and developed specifically for your team or organisation and presented on-site at your offices, at an off-site suitable location or virtually. Enquire here.

1+ years of content, social media, and email marketing. Endeavouring to bring the latest, expert-led courses to the forefront for public sector professionals looking to develop their skills and learn new ones.

Related posts

8 Ways to Improve Quick Thinking Skills for the Public Sector

How to Write a Critical Summary

5 Top Tips to be an Effective Strategic Thinker

7 Reasons Your Critical Thinking Skills are Vital to Democracy

• 6 July 2023

Becca Melhuish

In a world of misinformation, disinformation , and eroding civil liberties, what’s the special ingredient to keep our democracies safe? Fortunately you don’t need to go far to find it: it’s buried just under your skull! Yes, it’s your brain—and its incredible ability to engage in the practice of critical thinking. Here are 7 important reasons why your critical thinking skills are essential for democracy.

Photo by William Felipe Seccon, Unsplash.

But what exactly is critical thinking ? Contrary to common belief, it doesn’t actually mean constantly criticising and looking for flaws. It’s more about being creative, reflective and adaptable. Most importantly, it’s about evaluating evidence to decide whether it’s accurate and relevant—and weighing up whether there’s sufficient information to even decide at all. Essentially, it’s about knowing how to ask the right questions!

And the good news is, the more we flex our critical thinking muscle—putting it to work in our engagement with decision-making at all levels—the stronger we make our democracies. Every critical thinking workout we put our brains through adds an extra layer of protection to our democratic processes—especially when we act on our thinking to call for positive change. 

As Nadya Melati , social activist and participant in our ongoing Democracy Defenders Accelerator explains in her recent Instagram post :

“The democratic system requires citizens as active participants, who contribute within the process. In order to contribute, participants are assumed to be willing and able to think critically—to be able to make a wise decision. So, an ability to think critically helps the voters think rationally about the benefits and impact of their decision for larger society.”

View this post on Instagram A post shared by Citizen OS Foundation (@citizen_os_foundation)

Inspired by her message, we’ve come up with 7 important reasons your critical thinking skills are exactly what the doctor ordered, if we want to keep our democracies in full health.

1. Weighing up arguments

The nature of discussion and debate in democracy means we’re constantly exposed to a barrage of different arguments and viewpoints, on a whole host of often complex topics. Take the topic of sustainability, for example—an issue which touches all areas of all our lives, but is full of conflicting viewpoints and vested interests trying to push for the solutions that benefit them the most.   

Thinking critically about environmental solutions —and all complex policy topics alike—means we can carefully examine conflicting perspectives, assess the credibility of information presented, and identify biases in both ourselves and others. We can then make decisions based on evidence rather than emotions or uninformed opinions. In a world filled with fallacies and biased viewpoints, critical thinking transforms us into skilled debunkers, capable of unravelling the webs of flawed reasoning. That said, it’s good to recognise that having biases is part of human nature. But while we can never fully avoid them, being aware we all have them is already a big step towards being better critical thinkers.

2. Outing fakes

While social media has brought many benefits to the world of civic engagement, its role in exposing us to a proliferation of mis- and disinformation (often referred to as “fake news”, but that’s a term with its downsides ) and poses a big threat to our democracies. If democracy relies on a well-informed citizenry, but citizens are frequently duped by falsities, lies and conspiracy theories, what then? 

Fortunately, a little critical media and information literacy goes a long way in shielding us from the potential damage. By fact-checking information and scrutinising sources, we can flag up false information, see through misleading campaign materials, and call out propaganda. And by scrutinising candidates’ policies, track records, and campaign promises, we can make sure election candidates don’t compromise with the truth. With our critical thinking hats firmly on, we’re much less likely to be fooled.

Photo by Austin Distel, Unsplash.

3. Building bridges

We’ve all heard about the “ echo chamber ” effect of social media, that’s bringing a growing polarisation of public opinion—with populations being more and more frequently split across two opposing extremes. As social media algorithms expose us predominantly to information that aligns with our own worldview, we lose touch with different perspectives and miss out on meaningful exchanges with other opinions. 

But what can be done about it? By fostering open-mindedness, empathy, and respectful dialogue, critical thinking helps us build bridges of understanding—connecting diverse perspectives to find common ground. As a result, democratic processes are more likely to work for the greater good—with  decisions made benefiting the many, not just the few.

4. Sparking discussions

What we often forget in our day to day lives, is the power of public opinion in a democracy. The attitudes and discourse of the general population lie at the heart of media and politics. And critical thinking plays a huge role in sparking public discussions—prompting us to question the status quo, debate with our peers, and raise our collective voices to call for change in society. 

When public opinion starts to shift, the media picks up on these changes, and brings them into the political spotlight. And initiatives like citizens assemblies and Opinion Festivals—such as the Citizen OS-led Indonesian Opinion Festival —give us more formal channels to turn public discussions into concrete policy change.

Participants of the Democracy Defenders Accelerator (DDA) discussing during the Bootcamp in Estonia. Photo by Meelika Hirmo.

5. Questioning authority

We all know that “power corrupts”, and a crucial role of the citizenry is to keep its elected representatives in check! A population that’s engaged in thinking critically about its government—and not just accepting their words and actions in blind faith—helps keep elected representatives accountable, and working in the interests of the people. With a critical mindset, we’re more likely to spot potential abuses of power, inconsistencies, or breaches of trust by those in office.

What’s more, to bring about progressive change, society needs people willing and able to challenge the social norms set by the authorities or wider society—highlighting social inequalities or injustices, and calling for change. Over the years, critical thinking has fuelled grassroots movements and driven positive change, in areas such as gender equality, civil rights, diversity and inclusion.

6. Protecting freedoms

Around the world, many countries are witnessing a rise in the suppression of civil liberties —with decision-making becoming increasingly autocratic, and civil society being increasingly restricted. A population devoid of critical thinking will have a hard time protecting itself against such threats, and be at risk of gliding down the slippery slope to authoritarianism! 

But all is not lost—fortunately, critical thinkers everywhere are calling out these infringements of our rights, and fighting to keep our democracies safe. With a critical mindset, we can detect threats to democratic principles, such as censorship, voter suppression, or erosion of the right to protest. Critical thinking allows citizens to recognise when their rights are being infringed upon, and take action to protect them.

7. Maintaining trust

Politics can be a messy game, with the potential of deception, broken promises, and mis- and disinformation breeding distrust in institutions and elected representatives. And when distrust runs high, disenchanted citizens can often disengage from the process—losing faith in the system entirely. At times, this can even lead to falling for conspiracy theories, which offer a simpler way of understanding the complexities of the world. 

But in the face of all this, critical thinking allows us to navigate politics with confidence! Rather than becoming disenfranchised or losing faith in the system, critical thinkers hold politicians accountable and steer public debates along evidence-based, well-reasoned lines. And what’s more, we’re able to critically analyse competing narratives and their evidence, to make sure we’re protected from the often alluring appeal of conspiracy theories .

Photo by Anna Oliinyk, Unsplash.

Bonus Track: All-round life improvements

While it’s pretty clear that critical thinking is crucial to democracy, that’s not its only charm! Embracing critical thought in our everyday lives can bring us so many other benefits. For example, it can help us become discerning shoppers—unswayed by slick marketing tactics or greenwashing attempts . By critically evaluating product claims, considering alternatives, and aligning our purchases with our values, we become more conscious consumers. 

It can also help us in weighing up financial decisions, career choices, relationship and family decisions, and much more. By getting into the habit of looking at decisions from all angles, weighing up any assumptions or biases at play , looking out for vested interests, listening attentively and empathising with others points of view, we can navigate life’s decisions more smoothly and effectively. 

So all in all, if there’s one new workout habit to jump on this Summer, it’s got to be getting your critical thinking muscles trained up and ready for whatever life may throw your way!

Level-up your critical thinking with Citizen OS

Looking for a handy tool to think through complex decisions with others? Try our free open-source Citizen OS platform for collective discussions and decision-making. It’s a secure, ad-free tool for groups with differing opinions to engage in meaningful discussions—weighing up pros and cons, backing up arguments with evidence, and voting on the best way forward. 

Got some thoughts to share on the benefits of critical thinking? We’d love to hear from you on our social media channels! Catch us on Instagram , Facebook , Twitter and LinkedIn . 

Becca Melhuish is a social purpose communications professional, running her company, Bajoom Ltd, while on her travels as a flight-free digital nomad. She has a background in environmental and social justice activism, sustainability management and environmental communications. She holds a BA in International Development from the University of Sussex, a PGCert in Behaviour Change Marketing from the University of Brighton, and a Masters in Communications, Media and Creative Industries from Sciences Po, Paris. She has a passion for sustainability, civil society, participatory democracy and the arts, and enjoys putting her design, writing and communications skills to use in supporting causes she cares about. She has been working with the Citizen OS Foundation since 2019.

You may also like

Citizen OS Recognised Among the Best Participation Tools

• 22 April 2024
• Meelika Hirmo

Citizen OS Platform Now Has an Improved Look and Feel

• 18 March 2024

Enrol Now: “Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable Societies” Programme!

• 20 February 2024

General Search

The Importance of Strategic Minds for Effective Governance

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share via Email
• Download PDF

The relationship between governance and strategy in organisations has long been tenuous. CEOs often view governance merely as a regulatory requirement, delegating it to the CFO, auditors and legal experts, with only scripted meetings with the board. Conversely, our experience with directors at INSEAD seminars reveals that boards tend to overlook strategic matters.

However, strategy-making and governance should be strongly linked. The growing complexity of the business environment necessitates a strategic approach to governance. But directors, especially those representing large passive investment funds, are hesitant to delve into strategy due to their fiduciary responsibility. CEOs often fail to establish a collaborative relationship with the board, maintaining a distance that gives them autonomy but impedes strategic thought. They can overcome this divide by developing a shared strategic perspective on the future.

The key to successfully overseeing a company's future and shaping its strategic direction lies in cultivating strategic minds among directors and top management teams. Irrespective of the skills, knowledge and experience directors and senior executives bring to the table, it is essential for them to be skilled strategists. By developing strategic minds, they can serve as effective guardians of a company's future, framing purpose, setting strategic direction and stimulating ambitious strategic intent.

Pekka Ala-Pietilä, one of the key strategic minds behind Nokia’s success in mobile phones in the 1990s, believed that “no one can be a board member without having a real understanding of strategy.” This understanding goes beyond expertise in strategy functions or business leadership roles . What makes a strategic mind is a combination of largely innate traits which enable individuals to see the world differently from most, question things that others don’t recognise or take for granted and make connections between seemingly disparate events and information in a way that allows new opportunities or threats come into focus.

Although there has been limited research on the traits of a strategic mind, our decades of observation and study of strategists, ranging from exceptional to mediocre, have enabled us to identify the following key traits that underpin a strategic mind:

Cognitive flexibility

We interpret the world through the lens of our experience, our surroundings, the prevailing norms and their resulting mental frameworks. Cognitive flexibility is the skill to move beyond this context to recognise, interpret, synthesise and see the significance of things which are cognitively distant, difficult to perceive or unfamiliar – and then discover and explore relatedness and linkages between these distant facts or observations.

Non-linear thinking

Linear or sequential thinking is vital for effective operations – it allows you to get from A to Z via a defined set of steps – but studies have shown that non-linear approaches, such as systems thinking or associative thinking produce more creative outcomes . It is this type of thinking we need in strategic minds. To some extent everyone uses associative thinking, as we intuitively make sense of the world by making an association between the new unfamiliar and our past experience. But people with strategic minds are much more open than most and are able to consciously “free associate” , linking multiple inputs with existing knowledge. They don’t see the world in a simple linear way but as a series of complex interlinking systems in which small changes can result in dramatic effects.

Handling ambiguity Most people are uncomfortable with ambiguity, preferring clarity and a vision of the future in which little change is required as this enables them to retain a sense of control. Not so people with a strategic mind – they have a high tolerance for ambiguity which is found in competing points of view, contradictory inputs and complexity. They understand that ambiguity is a fact and control is illusory and so remain open to multiple hypotheses about the changes they perceive.

Tackling hard problems

Perhaps resulting from their cognitive flexibility, non-linear thinking and openness to ambiguity, people with strategic minds do not shy away from difficult problems or attempt to simplify them. In contrast, most managers avoid hard problems and when they can’t be avoided, resort to “cognitive simplification” , by using a set of heuristics they have learnt over their careers to break down the problems so they can apply existing hypotheses.

Big picture Strategic minds are intuitively more drawn to and influenced by the big picture than isolated events. As such they cultivate a wide set of relationships both inside and outside the company. In a sense they are the modern equivalent of the polymaths of old, seeking out knowledge and understanding across multiple different disciplines and fields.

Consummate questioners As we progress through education and the rungs of corporate hierarchies, we are trained to provide answers, to the extent that questions can be seen as a weakness, singling one out as failing to understand something. While Hal Gregersen’s work on the importance of asking questions has brought the idea of question brainstorming into vogue in the last few years, people with strategic minds have always stood out from the throng of executives armed with ready answers. Led by their enquiring minds they ask questions to broaden their understanding, challenge potential biases and help others see new threats and opportunities.

Mindfulness and sense-making

To the strategic mind, the journey is never complete. There is a strong awareness that ideas and assumptions need to be continually challenged and refined as new knowledge or experience comes into play . But merely being highly perceptive isn’t enough – abstract ideas and perceptions have to be translated into actionable frameworks which make sense to the rest of the organisation. In other words, meaning has to be attached.

Self-awareness It would be unusual to find a person with a truly strategic mind who was also narcissistic or hungry for power. The very essence of having a strategic mind means actively seeking to challenge one’s worldview and assumptions and thus one’s own identity and power – something which is anathema to most managers . It takes a high level of self-awareness to be able to continually and openly question, and potentially undermine, the context within which one operates and not fall victim to the dominant logic of a company. Self-awareness is also critical in getting others on board with new directions or ideas, particularly when dealing with defensive CEOs in successful, mature companies.

By cultivating a strategic mind, directors can become effective custodians of a company's future and drivers of its strategic direction. Embracing these traits enables directors, CEOs and their teams to guide their organisations more creatively and effectively towards success in today’s rapidly evolving business landscape.

This article is adapted from Escaping the Growth Curse: Paths Toward Stronger Strategies , which will be published by Berrett-Koehler Publishers in 2024.

About the author(s)

Yves L. Doz

is an Emeritus Professor of Strategic Management and the Solvay Chaired Professor of Technological Innovation, Emeritus at INSEAD.

Keeley Wilson

is a senior researcher at INSEAD.

About the series

Corporate governance, share this post, view comments.

Michele Gorgodian

29/07/2023, 01.18 am

This article resonates with me from the non-exec (and exec) perspective.  I consider the strategic mindset connects purpose vertically into the future, and interdependencies horizontally across the organisation, stakeholders and beyond.  It embraces opportunity and risk.  The challenge is to hold this context lightly to flex most effectively to the board agenda and those who serve it.

• Log in or register to post comments

Leave a Comment

Please log in or sign up to comment., related reads.

Nokia’s Reinvention Was Emotionally Driven

Q. Huy, T. Vuori

Why Successful Companies Usually Fail

Y. Doz, K. Wilson

The Strategic Decisions That Caused Nokia’s Failure

Our website has a lot of features which will not display correctly without Javascript.

Please enable Javascript in your browser

Here how you can do it: http://enable-javascript.com

Generative Governance: Making Sense of Problems through Critical Inquiry

The diversity of social-emotional and intellectual capacity present at board meetings makes it ever more important for boards to manage their time in an optimal way that enables the organization to determine the best way forward to mission fulfillment.  According to the seminal work by Chait, Ryan and Taylor, Governance as Leadership: Reframing the Work of the Nonprofit Boards , there are three governance modes:  fiduciary governance, strategic governance, and generative governance. If you think about these three modes as rungs on a ladder that reaches to greater heights of critical thinking, then fiduciary is foundational, strategic is intermediate, and generative is advanced. 

BoardSource’s Ten Basic Responsibilities of Nonprofit Boards details the board’s scope of work. Each responsibility is impacted by one of these modes of governance, though the most impactful boards understand and utilize generative governance to anticipate what’s around the corner for their organizations. Generative governance creates the conditions for boards to invent the future in some respects.

It may be easier to see how each mode can be addressed with a question:

Fiduciary:  Problems are meant to be spotted and beg the question: What’s wrong?

Strategic:  Problems are meant to be solved and beg the question: What’s the plan?

Generative:  Problems are meant to be framed and beg the question: What’s the key question?

The way the problem is framed can change the answer. Another way to think about these three modes is that the board’s role is distinct in each. When wearing their fiduciary hat, boards are watchdogs focused on compliance. In the strategic mode, boards are strategists setting goals and mobilizing resources toward execution. The generative mode, in my estimation, is the most creative in that it asks board members to be sense makers, interrogating their current reality in anticipation of future challenges facing the organization.

How does a board begin to govern in generative mode? You probably guessed that the board chair has a role to play in setting the stage. The board chair can champion the need to elevate performance by embracing a new way of thinking. (For greater insights on board culture, read Leadership of the Board Chair in Creating Board Culture .) Modeling the desired behavior by being intentional about agenda setting is one step. The agenda is essentially the playbook for each meeting, and it shouldn’t be filled with only compliance issues. According to Frank Martinelli from the Center for Public Skills Training, a forward-looking agenda recognizes that “today’s problems are a result of yesterday’s solutions.” When a board commits to generative governance, it gets one step closer to solving future challenges. Additionally, the governance committee plays a lead role in ensuring that learning opportunities are available to board members as the board transitions to developing this level of inquiry. Generative governance is a learned behavior that requires practice and intention.

What are the benefits of elevating board discourse to a generative level? Let’s transition from sitcoms to movies. Traditional board meetings can sometimes feel like Groundhog Day , with rote reporting from staff on past events. The emphasis is misplaced on transmitting information and reports rather than envisioning potential responses to future challenges. By contrast, board meetings that leverage generative governance emphasize participation and action. Board members are prepared, engaged in discussions and deliberations, and ready to dive into sense making. Meetings are not an activity, but rather an accomplishment that drives toward outcomes for the organization. The investment in generative governance creates more opportunities for innovation. Since there isn’t a reliance on simplistic yes or no answers, it’s incumbent upon board members to delve to deeper depths in their questioning.

For a riveting read on this topic and how to increase your board’s performance with critical thinking, I suggest The Practitioner’s Guide to Governance as Leadership: Building High-Performing Nonprofit Boards by Cathy A. Trower (Jossey-Bass, 2013). This publication offers case examples, recommendations, and a research framework that articulates the many benefits of embracing generative governance and tangible steps to infuse more meaning into board meetings. A board chair profiled in this book defined generative governances as a

“temporary suspension of all the things we think we know about how we are supposed to think and problem solve...to enter the discussion at an earlier phase and have more philosophical, broader conversations before we discuss a course of action or push for a decision. It’s a more creative process that is not solution oriented, and having a freer conversation with no expectation other than having that great discussion…not seeking to identify how to get from point A to point B, but instead stopping to just think and ponder.”

It’s worth noting that Trower cautions boards not to overuse any one mode, but to “be a three-type board, not a typecast board.” Each mode has value, just like every sitcom needs a Phoebe.

Interested in learning more about resources mentioned in this blog? Check out the BoardSource Store.

Topics: Meetings , Generative Governance

Subscribe Here!

Recent posts.

Privacy Policy     |     Acceptable Use

Why Government Managers Need to Develop Critical Thinking Skills

By asila safi and darrell norman burrell.

Why Are Critical Thinking Skills Important?

Evolving Leadership challenges like succession planning in government, international cultural genocide, and international terrorism have made decision making for all government professionals complex. Today's government manager has to be more thorough, strategic, adaptive, and multiple scenario driven then their predecessors. Even with an experienced manager there is likelihood to mishandle a crisis or leadership decision when the unexpected occurs.

In this context, critical thinking involves learning to apply experience-based and team based problem solving methods to situations. Critical thinking is also about learning to overcome and become self aware of biases, false assumptions, myths, and faulty paradigms that can hamper effective decision making (Bazerman 2005).

What Is Critical Thinking?

In critical thinking managers create multiple solutions to problems by constantly questioning and challenging their strengths, and through an examination thinking and decision making preferences and practices. Thinking is fueled by questions. Questions define variables, state factors, outline tasks, clarify issues, and express problems. Complex questioning drives thought beyond what is superficial. Asking questions forces everyone involved to express and challenge preconceived notions and assumptions. Asking questions forces public managers to look at their sources of information and consider the validity and quality. This kind of in depth questioning and analysis helps assure that the solution will actually solve the problem, not just be the best of mediocre options. Engaging in this process also creates a mechanism of reassessment where if the solution does meet a determined level of satisfaction, the decision makers re-open the process and further research, brainstorm, until the most effective outcome of decision is established (McAuliffe 2005).

Critical thinking is a process of intense reflection which results in the adaptive interpretation and analysis of the evidential, conceptual, or contextual considerations with important decisions. The successful application of these core skills requires that one take into reasoned consideration of the evidence, contexts, theories, and criteria in which problems are solved. The process is more then just making decisions. It is also about the ability to consistently develop better alternatives and make better group decisions even in contentious environments, and sell or defend decisions successfully within any organizational hierarchy (McAuliffe 2005).

Effective critical thinkers engage in comprehensive, flexible thinking, thus enhancing manager's ability to generate good alternatives, design something new, and successfully implement innovative ideas. To be successful, public managers must avoid reasoning fallacies in order to critically examine the best ways to solve perplexing policy problems. When done effectively, critical thinking skills can allow managers to:

•  Develop paths to reasoned judgment when variables in a situation are changing and evolving;
•  Learn to encourage and ensure consideration of many breakthrough or "outside- the-box" ideas;
• Acquire techniques to speed up group decision-making, while still developing multiple solutions.

Critical Thinking Can Be Learned

The American Management Association, http://www.amanet.org/ , offers a course in Critical Thinking skills. The course teaches managers how to:

• Become familiar with different styles of thinking and identify your personal critical thinking preferences;
• Learn how to use critical thinking to challenge assumptions and expand perceptions about situations.

Management Concepts, http://www.mgmtconcepts.com/ , offers a course in Critical Thinking for Professionals. This course is designed to teach managers how to:

• Identify their style and patterns of thinking;
• Adapt their thinking to navigate through unexpected events.

These courses can provide training for government professionals on how to critical thinking skills in leadership decision making. These actions require that managers:

1. Overcome the first notion that there is only one 'right solution' to the organizational quandaries.

2. Eliminate mental blocks in the forms of biases, myths, and false assumptions.

3. Stop and think before acting and making quick decisions without the benefit data and variable evaluation.

4. Focus on the organization's goals and values before taking a major decision by asking if the ideal outcome is in alignment with the mission and values.

5. Write down all the positive and negative factors for and against taking a particular course of action.

6. Get opinions and feedback from others.

7. Make decisions with an understanding the variables and circumstances have the ability to change.

8. Do not make decisions by only looking backwards.

In summary, critical thinking skills can be learned with practice and guidance by changing the actions involved in decision making so that they become part of permanent behavior.

Works Cited

Bazerman, Max (2005), Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ.

Marshall, R., Tucker, M., Thinking for a Living: Education and the Wealth of Nations . New York: Basic Books. 1992.

McAuliffe, Thomas P. (2005), The 90% Solution: A Consistent Approach to Optimal Business Decisions . Authorhouse: Los Angles, CA.

Spitzer, Q., Evans R. (1997), HEADS YOU WIN: How the Best Companies Think. Simon & Schuster: New York, NY.

Asila Safi is a doctoral student at Colorado Technical University. She has a graduate degree in Organizational Management from National Louis University. She works in a leadership position at the General Services Administration. She can be contacted at: [email protected] .

Darrell Burrell is a faculty member with Averett University in Virginia. He has graduate degrees in Human Resources Management, Education, Marketing Management, and Organizational Management. He is also a Presidential Management Fellow in the US Federal Government. http://www.pmf.gov/ . He can be contacted at [email protected] .

Printer-Friendly Version

kielow frank    on Wednesday 04/27/2022 at 08:53 AM

it was very helpful

Advertisement

Governance and Good Governance: A New Framework for Political Analysis

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 12 October 2017
• Volume 11 , pages 1–8, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Yu Keping 1  

146k Accesses

107 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In a time of great change, accelerating globalization and increasing uncertainty, all countries, whether developed or developing, are searching for a new form of governance that is better adapted to the times so as to gain an advantage in economic competitiveness and create substantial and sustainable social growth. As governance theory is becoming the dominant political theory in response to the change, the values backing the discourse and texts consistent with them have helped revise the theory of government in mainstream politics and were agreed upon by global politicians, scholars, officials and entrepreneurs. When we comprehend governance theory based on the practice of public administration in China, it strikes us how theoretically and practically important governance theory is for rebuilding the intellectual system of China’s democratic politics, searching for an institutional platform for good governance, transforming the public policy-making model and getting rid of the practice in public administration in the process of market-oriented development that is inefficient, or even fails in many ways.

Similar content being viewed by others

Multiple Dimensions of Governance

Democratic Governance: A Genealogy

The Applicability of Governance Theory in China: A Novel Approach

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The English word governance derives from Latin and ancient Greek and originally meant control, guidance and manipulation. Its meaning had long overlapped with the word government and was mainly used to refer to administrative and political activities related to national public affairs. However, in the 1990s, it was given a new meaning by western political scientists and economists. Since then, the word has implied much more than it did traditionally and is starkly different from what the word government means. Instead of an exclusively English word, it is in common use among people speaking other major European languages; instead of an exclusively political term, it is widely used in social and economic spheres.

When trying to sum up what was happening in Africa in 1989, the World Bank used the term “crisis in governance” for the first time. Since then, governance as a word has been widely used in political development studies, especially for describing the political status of post-colonial and developing countries. By now, scholars from various countries have come up with five major propositions on governance as theory. They are as follows:

Governance refers to a set of institutions and actors that are drawn from but also beyond the Government. It challenges the authority of the State or the Government in the traditional sense and maintains that the Government is not the only power center of a state. As long as the power exercised by a public or private institution is recognized by the public, it is possible to become a power center at a specific level.

Governance identifies the blurring of boundaries and responsibilities for tackling social and economic issues. It indicates that, in modern society, the State is transferring its once exclusive responsibilities to civil society (i.e., private sector organizations and voluntary groups, which are undertaking more and more responsibilities that were formerly in the hands of the State). As a result, the boundaries between the State and society and between public and private sectors are becoming increasingly blurred, as are definitions of their responsibilities.

Governance identifies the power dependence involved in relationships between institutions involved in collective action. To be specific, every organization devoted to collective action has to depend on other organizations; to achieve its purpose, it has to exchange resources and negotiate a common goal with others, and the outcome of the exchange depends not only on the resources of each actor, but also on the rules of the game and the environment in which the exchange takes place.

Governance emphasizes the importance of autonomous self-governing networks of actors. A self-governing network as such has the authority to issue orders in a certain sphere and work with the Government in this sphere and share its responsibilities for public administration.

Governance recognizes the capacity to get things done without relying on the power of the Government to command or use its authority. In public affairs management, there are other management tools and techniques and the Government has the responsibility to use them to steer and guide public affairs (Stoker 1999 ).

Of all the definitions of governance, the one made by the Commission on Global Governance is one of the most representative and definitive. In a research report titled Our Global Neighborhood issued in 1995, the commission defined governance thus: “governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest.” It has four features: governance is not a set of rules or an activity, but a process; the process of governance is not based on control, but on coordination; it involves both public and private sectors; it is not a formal institution, but continuing interaction. Footnote 1

From the aforementioned definitions of governance, we can see that, essentially, governance means exercising authority to maintain order and meet the needs of the public within a certain range. The purpose of governance is to guide, steer and regulate citizens’ activities through the power of different systems and relations so as to maximize the public interest. In terms of political science, governance refers to the process of political administration, including the normative foundation of political authority, approaches to dealing with political affairs and the management of public resources. It particularly focuses on the role of political authority in maintaining social order and the exercise of administrative power in a defined sphere.

Literally, there seems no great difference between “governance” and “government.” Yet semantically, they are vastly different. To many scholars, a prerequisite for correct understanding of governance is to distinguish it from government. As Jean-Pierre Gaudin said, “Governance has to be distinguished from the traditional concept of government by the State from the very beginning” (Gaudin 1999 ). As a political administration process like government by the State, governance also requires authority and power and ultimately aims to maintain a normal social order. Despite their similarities, there are two fundamental differences between them.

First of all, the most fundamental, or even essential, difference between them is that governance requires authority but, unlike government, this authority does not necessarily come from organs of the Government. However, the authority for government is necessarily the State. The body of government is necessarily the public institutions in a society, while the body of governance can either be a public institution, a private one, or even a cooperation between the two. Governance is the cooperation between a political state and its civil society, the Government and non-governmental organizations, public and private institutions, which can be mandatory or voluntary cooperation. It is mainly characterized by “contracting, rather than supervision; decentralization, rather than centralization; administration by the State, rather than redistribution by the State; management based on market principles, rather than management by administrative departments; cooperation between the State and private sectors, rather than being guided by the State” (Merrien 1999 ). Therefore, governance is a broader concept than government. From modern corporations to colleges and basic-level communities, all of them can do without government by the State, but not without governance, if they are meant to run efficiently and in an orderly manner.

Second, power runs in different directions in management processes. For government by the State, power runs top-down all the time as it exercises the political authority of the Government to implement one-way management on social and public affairs by issuing orders and making and executing policies. By comparison, as an administrative process of interaction between the upper and lower levels, the body of governance manages public affairs through cooperation, negotiation, partnership, establishment of identity and common goals, etc. In essence, governance is cooperation based on market principles, common interest and identity. Its administrative mechanism does not rely on the authority of the Government substantially, but rather, the authority of a collaborative network. Its power is multi-directional and two-way, rather than unidirectional and top-down.

The immediate reason why Western political scientists and management scientists came up with the concept of governance and advocated replacing government is that they saw market failure, as well as state failure, in social resource allocation. Market failure means that it is impossible to bring about Pareto Optimum, a term in economics, by market-based means alone. As the market has innate limitations in restricting monopoly, supplying public goods, restraining extremely selfish behavior by individuals, bringing the anarchic state of production under control, cost accounting, etc., market-based means alone cannot bring about the optimum state of social resource allocation. Likewise, instruments of the State alone, including making plans and issuing orders, cannot do that either, or promote or safeguard the citizens’ political and economic interests ultimately. In view of state and market failure, there has been a “growing fascination with using governance mechanisms as a solution to market failure and/or that in State coordination” (Jessop 1999 ).

Governance can compensate for certain deficiencies of the State and the market in regulation and coordination, but it is never a panacea. State and market can fail in social resource allocation; so can governance. So, a natural challenge facing scholars is how to overcome its failure and make it more effective. In response to the challenge, many scholars and international organizations have come up with a number of concepts, such as meta-governance, sound governance, effective governance and good governance. Among them, the most influential one is “good governance.”

Ever since the State and government came into being, there had been the concept of good government in the English language. However, since the 1990s, good government, which had dominated as a political ideal, has been severely challenged around the world. The challenge to it comes from “good governance.” Since the 1990s, there has been an increasing usage of the concept in English and Chinese political science literature, making it one of the most pervasive terms. What does good governance mean? What are the essential difference between good government and good governance? And what are the elements of good governance? Political scientists are still debating these questions.

In a nutshell, good governance refers to the public administration process that maximizes public interest. One of its essential features is that it is a kind of collaborative management of public life performed by both the State and the citizens and a new relationship between political State and civil society, as well as the optimum state of the two. To sum up all the perspectives on good governance, we can see that it has six essentials:

Legitimacy It refers to the state or quality that social order and authority are voluntarily recognized and obeyed. It has no direct relevance to laws and regulations, and from the legal angle something legal is not necessarily legitimate. Only the authority and orders genuinely recognized by people within a specific group are legitimate in political science. The higher the degree of legitimacy is, the higher the level of good governance will be. The principal approach to achieving and improving legitimacy is to maximize the consensus and political identity shared by citizens. Therefore, good governance requires the relevant administrative bodies and administrators to manage various conflicts of interest among citizens and between them and the State to the maximum so as to obtain the citizens’ maximum consent to and approval of their public administration activities.

Transparency It refers to the publicity of political information. All citizens are entitled to the information on State policies that are related to their own interests, including legislative activities, policy-making, legal provisions, policy enforcement, administrative budget, public expenditure and other relevant political information. Transparency requires that the aforementioned political information be duly communicated to citizens through various media vehicles so that they can participate in public policy-making and supervise the process of public administration in an effective manner. The higher the degree of transparency is, the higher the level of good governance will be.

Accountability Accountability means holding every person accountable for his or her own behavior. In public administration, it refers in particular to the duties related to a certain position or institution and its corresponding obligations. Accountability means that administrators and administrative bodies must fulfill the functions and obligations of the positions they hold. If they fail to fulfill their bounden functions or duties, or if they do so in an inappropriate manner, their conduct constitutes dereliction of duty or lack of accountability. The more accountability the public, especially public officers and administrative bodies have, the higher the level of good governance will be. In this regard, good governance requires the employment of both law and ethics to enhance the accountability of individuals and institutions.

Rule of law Essentially, rule of law means that law is the supreme principle in public political administration that should be observed by all government officials and citizens, who should be all equal before the law. The immediate goal of rule of law is to regulate citizens’ behavior, manage social affairs and maintain a normal order in social life, while its ultimate goal is to protect citizens’ basic political rights, including freedom and equality. In this sense, rule of law is opposite to rule of man as it both regulates citizens’ behavior and restricts the conduct of the State. It is the arch-enemy of political autocracy. Rule of law is a basic requirement of good governance, which would be impossible without a sound legal system, due respect for the law or a social order based on the law.

Responsiveness Responsiveness is closely associated with the aforementioned concept of accountability. In a sense, it is an extension of accountability. Essentially, it means that public administrators and administrative bodies must respond to the demands of citizens in a timely and responsible manner, and that it is forbidden to make delays without cause or leave any issue unresolved without response. When necessary, they should proactively solicit advice from citizens, explain their policies to them and answer their questions on a regular basis. The greater the level of responsiveness is, the higher the level of good governance will be.

Effectiveness It mainly refers to management efficiency. It has two essential meanings: rational administrative structure, scientifically designed administrative procedures and flexible administrative activities; and minimized administrative costs. Ineffective or inefficient administrative activities are out of tune with good governance. The higher the level of good governance is, the higher the effectiveness of administration will be.

Good governance is the active and productive cooperation between the State and citizens, and the key to its success lies in the powers participating in political administration. Only when citizens have sufficient political power to participate in elections, policy-making, administration and supervision can they prompt the State and join hands with it to build public authority and order. Apparently, democracy is the only practical mechanism that can safeguard the fully free and equal political power owned by citizens. Hence, good governance is organically combined with democracy. In an autocratic system, it is possible to have good government when the system is at its best, but it is impossible to have good governance. Good governance can only be achieved in a free and democratic political system, as it cannot emerge without freedom and democracy.

In fact, there were more profound causes why the theory and practice of good governance sprang up in the 1990s. First of all, good governance is more widely applicable than good government in the traditional sense. Good government has the same scope of coverage as the State. In modern society, the State cannot interfere in many areas, from civil organizations like companies, communities, clubs and professional associations to the international community. In contrast, good governance is not subject to the scope of coverage of the State as it is also indispensable to companies, communities, regions, states and the international community. Second, globalization is becoming the dominant feature of our time, which, in fact, has been referred to by many as the “Global Age.” One important feature of globalization is the growing influence of transnational organizations and supranational organizations and the diminishing sovereignty of nation-states and diminishing power of their governments. As the government authority of nation-states in the traditional sense is eroded, good governance is playing an increasingly important role. It is because the international community and the society within a state are still in want of public authority and order, a new kind of public authority and order that can only be achieved through good governance, rather than created by the State in the traditional sense. Finally, good governance is an inevitable consequence of democratization. Democratization is a political feature of our time, as well as an irresistible historical trend. One of its essential significances is that political power is returning from political states to civil societies. Limited government power and the shrinking functions and powers of the State do not necessarily mean vanishing social and public authority, but rather that public authority will be based more on cooperation between the State and citizens.

Immature and essentially ambiguous as it is, governance theory is a breakaway from the traditional dichotomous thinking that has long been dominant in social sciences, i.e., market versus planning, public sector versus private sector, political State versus civil society and nation-state versus international community. It regards effective administration as cooperation between the two; it tries to develop completely new techniques for public affairs management; it emphasizes that administration is cooperation; it argues that legitimate power comes not only from the State, but also from the civil society. The theory also deems governance to be a new practical form of modern democracy. Those are all its contributions of positive significance to political studies. However, there is also a dangerous tendency in Western countries to use the theory to justify some transnationals’ and superpowers’ interference with the internal affairs of other countries and pursuit of international hegemony. Based on the premise that the role of the State and state sovereignty are insignificant and the boundaries of nation-states are blurred, governance theory, especially global governance theory, emphasizes the nature of governance as a transnational and global activity. The danger here is that undermining the important roles of state sovereignty and sovereign government in domestic and international governance might be regarded as a theoretical basis for the superpowers and multinationals to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries and promote their international hegemonic policies. Therefore, we must keep a wary eye on the dangerous tendency of governance theory, especially global governance theory.

See Our Global Neighborhood compiled by Commission on Global Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995 , pp. 2–3.

Commission on Global Governance (ed.). 1995. Our global neighborhood , 2–3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar  

Gaudin, Jean-Pierre. 1999. Modern governance, yesterday and today: Some clarifications to be gained from French government policies. International Social Science Journal 50: 47–56. (Chinese edition) .

Article   Google Scholar  

Jessop, Bob. 1999. The rise of governance and the risks of failure: The case of economic development. International Social Science Journal 50: 29–45. (Chinese edition) .

Merrien, Francois-Xavier. 1999. Governance and modern welfare states. International Social Science Journal 50: 57–67. (Chinese edition) .

Stoker, Gerry. 1999. Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal 50: 17–28. (Chinese edition) .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Government, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu Keping .

Additional information

This article is translated from a Chinese version, which was previously published in Nanjing Social Sciences, 9 (2001).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Keping, Y. Governance and Good Governance: A New Framework for Political Analysis. Fudan J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 11 , 1–8 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-017-0197-4

Download citation

Received : 11 June 2017

Accepted : 14 September 2017

Published : 12 October 2017

Issue Date : March 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-017-0197-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Good governance
• Governance reform
• Public administration
• Political science
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Support TESU
• Request Info

5 Critical Skills Every Leader in Public Service Should Have

Leading is challenging in any environment. Leading in the public sector can be even more so. And when a public service leader holds multiple roles, that environment can become increasingly complicated.

The work of a public servant is never done. But it does need to be done well.

Great work and great leadership often go hand-in-hand. So when it comes to success, good leaders tend to share these five key qualities across the board that make them both competent managers and effective public servants. Which begs the question, do you demonstrate any of these qualities in your everyday work?

1. Good leaders motivate and encourage others.

Public employees are often faced with increased workloads and added stress as a result of declining resources. Government leaders are then tasked with the challenge of motivating and encouraging their staff in this bleak environment. But good leaders can shift employees’ attitudes for the better without promising compensation-driven incentives or leveraging fear. Instead, good leaders create supportive atmospheres and encourage initiative. They invest in their people and foster skill development. And when employees are satisfied in a healthy environment, great results will follow.

2. Good leaders communicate clearly and listen attentively. 

Good leaders must be able to communicate a vision and interact productively with a diverse and ever-changing workforce and citizenry in a way that inspires action. And one of the most powerful ways to inspire action, and conversely, one of the hardest, is to listen. When good leaders listen to the needs and challenges of their communities sincerely, they can respond effectively and bring about the greatest change.  

3. Good leaders are trustworthy.

Trustworthiness is built upon integrity and character. People trust and follow leaders when those leaders exude the types of behaviors they value themselves. Building trust can take time and is no easy task, but it is a valuable effort to make, if sincere. When people trust leaders and value their integrity, they tend to be more open to new ideas and exude a willingness to try.

4. Good leaders think critically. 

Good public governance requires good leaders who are effective decision makers in the policy process. Solving significant issues and affecting the greatest change requires careful consideration and analysis of the evidence before formulating a decision. So having strong analytical, problem solving and critical thinking skills is essential to the job.  

5. Good leaders are resilient.

In the world of public policy and governance, the only constant is change. Budgets get cut. Resources shrink. People come and go. But leaders must be able to respond accordingly and continue to produce results amidst an ever-evolving landscape. Good leaders assume these challenges and develop alternative solutions. They remain positive during difficult times. And most importantly, they encourage confidence in their employees so, they too, will remain effective at the most crucial times.

Are you prepared to lead? Discover how you can enhance your leadership skills and grow as a leader with an online master's degree in Public Service Leadership . 

Written by Thomas Edison State University

Subscribe to the Thomas Edison State University Blog and get the latest updates delivered straight to your inbox.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance Articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About Perspectives on Public Management and Governance
• About the Public Management Research Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, an overview of public management reform, an analytical framework for assessing reform challenges, discussion and conclusions, learning from our mistakes: public management reform and the hope of open government.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Alex Ingrams, Suzanne Piotrowski, Daniel Berliner, Learning from Our Mistakes: Public Management Reform and the Hope of Open Government, Perspectives on Public Management and Governance , Volume 3, Issue 4, December 2020, Pages 257–272, https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaa001

• Permissions Icon Permissions

In public administration today, many new reform ideas mingle, offering new diagnoses of governmental problems and courses of action. But scholars have highlighted reasons why we should doubt the optimistic claims of reformists. A new set of policy tools called “open government” arrived nearly a decade ago, and scholars have not yet explained its origins or prospects as specific approach to management reform. In this article, we address this lacuna. We compare open government with three other historic reforms, and analyze how likely its ideas are to bear fruit. In so doing, we introduce a framework for evaluating risks inherent in any new reform approach. We conclude that the challenges faced by open government are both new and old, but—like all reform approaches—they result from management challenges in reconciling competing interests and values that raise tensions and can lead to unexpected consequences. We argue that these will need careful attention if the open government approach is to have any hope of succeeding.

Public management reform is a powerful concept. If we look back on government institutions from any era, we find instances of movements within the political system seeking to redesign, revamp, or revise existing institutions. In these different times, the leaders charged with managing public affairs upheld particular approaches to change as general organizing principles for how the affairs of state should be conducted ( Kamensky 1996 ; Laegreid 2017 ; Tat‐Kei Ho 2002 ). Pollitt and Bouckaert (2011 , 2) define public management reform as “deliberate changes to the structures and processes of public sector organizations with the objective of getting them (in some sense) to run better.” Principles of organization, which drive the structural and process changes, inspired the major reform approaches of Western twentieth-century public administration. Thus, early United States public administration took inspiration from the harmony of inter-dependent parts in a biological organism ( Barnard 1938 ) or the regulating system of a machine ( Taylor 1947 ). Many predominantly English-speaking countries in the Northern Hemisphere, as well as Australia and New Zealand in the 1980s, were guided by market principles of organization ( Hood 1991 ). The turn of the twenty-first century worldwide saw the arrival of the network as an organizing principle ( McGuire 2002 ). “Open government,” which has risen to prominence rapidly in the early twenty-first century, is a public management reform approach focused on the central organizing principle of openness .

These various reform ideas have, at various times, offered new inspiration for public managers. Reformers adopt new models for present-day economic and political conditions, but, inevitably, public managers face friction and conflict when organization principles and values are put into practice ( Nabatchi 2017 ). For example, a market model, while powerful in many respects, introduces countervailing pressures between the need to compete in global markets and the need to respond to citizen demands for accountability and better services ( Aucoin 1990 ; Aucoin and Heintzman 2000; Bouckaert and Peters 2002 ) or legal constraints ( Bourdeaux and Chikoto 2008 ). Networks are ambiguous about the role of central leadership as they see leadership as key to achieving such reforms while simultaneously seeking to decentralize such authority in new organizational forms ( O’Reilly and Reed 2010 ). Increasing involvement of non-governmental organizations in government also, while helpful in many respects, introduces tensions between the competing influence of different interest groups ( Christensen and Lægreid 2007 ; Vigoda 2002 ). Such tensions account for the challenges movements suffer in delivering their original ideals; they face criticisms from multiple actors, definitions of success come into contention, or the reforms fail in crucial respects or reach implementation impasses in new contexts and conditions ( Dunleavy and Hood 1994 ; Pressman and Wildavsky 1984 ).

The existence of reform tensions does not mean that reforms are doomed to failure, but rather it highlights the challenges of turning abstract reform goals into the often messy process of implementation. The same could be applied to the open government movement, where enthusiastic proclamations about its potential have set expectations high. In the United States, Barack Obama’s presidency was seen by many as the turning point in the fortunes of open government. The ideas of transparency, accountability, and participation bound together by the potential of new digital technologies emerged as a new reform movement in the most powerful country on earth ( Jaeger and Bertot 2010 ). The openness idea also influenced many areas of society from organization and business strategy (e.g., Tapscott and Ticoll 2003 ), media and communications (e.g., Brabham 2010 ), psychology (e.g., Norman, Avolio, and Luthans 2010 ), philosophy of science (e.g., Ince, Hatton, and Graham-Cumming 2012 ), and art (e.g., Fisher-Gewirtzman and Wagner 2003 ). Openness is an inherently attractive concept for reform-minded policymakers and citizens, and advocates of openness as a tool for innovation, entrepreneurialism, better social relationships, and democratic forms of decision making are now omnipresent.

But what is yet to be determined by public administration scholars is whether this fledgling movement represents any serious possibility of avoiding or circumventing any of the implementation tensions that we know from prior reforms to be serious impediments to success. Now is an apt time to begin asking some important questions: Can open government change the public sector for the better where so many other attempts have already tried with limited success? How could open government cope with reform tensions? This article poses these questions in order to explore the ambiguities and risks inherent in public management reforms. Existing scholarly discourse on public management tends to focus on opportunities, but attention to risks can provide public administrators with vital tools to address problems before they become serious ( Bullock, Greer, and O’Toole Jr 2018 ). Drawing on an analytical framework of reform means and reform ends , which we develop by examining the experiences of earlier governmental reformers in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, we investigate how we can learn from earlier reform movements to understand the prospects for new reforms and open government as one, particularly important case. We discuss how reform risks affect the open government movement in the realization of both its means and ends. The article thus both advances our theoretical understanding of public management reform tensions and develops our empirical understanding of open government specifically.

Here we trace a brief history and analysis of prior public management reform movements. Understanding the history of public management reform movements, their growth and decline is key to understanding what is distinctive about how public organizations approach reform today and also understanding what challenges face the open government movement, as they have other movements in the past. We also propose a conceptual framework for evaluating the means and ends of open government reform and describe how it applies to earlier cases of reform. We focus on the three major reform movements of this period that have received the most attention from public administration scholarship: Orthodox Public Administration (OPA), New Public Management (NPM), and New Public Governance (NPG).

In the Introduction above, we referred to the essential concepts—the organizing principles —that transformed public organization structures and processes such as NPM (markets) and NPG (networks). These essential concepts can be analytically expanded in terms of the teleological (the goal- or purpose-related aspects) dimensions of means and ends. “Means” are the tools, instruments, and inputs that help the reform movements to accomplish their objectives. For example, governments can pass laws mandating or regulating the reforms. They can also invest in new types of personnel or technologies. “Ends” are the things that the reforms aim to achieve in terms of governance changes, outcomes, and societal impacts. Often, in public management reforms, the means constitute a “toolbox” of approaches adopted by decision makers, but the ends identify the reforms as something with a cohesive set of purposes. Table 1 summarizes three major phases of public management reform in terms of their means and ends that we elaborate below. These characteristics do not comprehensively describe the movements, but rather convey their most important ideas.

The Means and Ends of Major Public Management Reform Movements

Orthodox Public Administration

Scholars of public management characterize the first phase of modern public administration as “orthodox” or “traditional” public administration (OPA); a phase at the dawn of the twentieth century where scholars tried to apply scientific theories to public administration in order to drive the effectiveness and order of government ( Roberts 2017 ). Simultaneously, in Europe and the United States, a progressive movement sought to extend legal rights such as voting and holding public office to more members of society ( Rosenbloom 1993 ; Stivers 1995 ). Progressives also endeavored to develop massive public infrastructure projects such as the New York Port Authority on principles of scientific public administration. They were meritocratic, focused on serving the interests of the public, and presumed insulated from political interferences ( Doig 2001 ; Rosenbloom 2000 ). Policy-wise, OPA was manifested in large-scale reengineering projects such as the 1939 Reorganization Act in the United States to strengthen and streamline the executive control of government in a more rational way ( Fesler 1987 ).

Throughout these initiatives, OPA favored a machine-like organization of work units designed to process administrative tasks according to legal precepts and rational division of tasks. However, later scholars such as Herbert Simon and Dwight Waldo questioned whether rule-based formulas could really deliver more effective government. Thus, in addition to the effectiveness/legality tension, there was a growing awareness of the tension between effectiveness and rationality. Reform in the approach of OPA was a very concrete type of change with only a limited number of organizational arrangements that could be used to achieve success according to a given set of tasks, resources, and challenges. As a result, critics labeled it elitist, inflexible, and prone to preaching empty platitudes or “proverbs” about wise courses of action ( Simon 1946 ; Waldo 1948 ).

New Public Management

In the 1980s and early 1990s, a new political movement of conservatives in Europe and new democrats in the United States aimed their critique at sluggish, oversized, bureaucratic government. The quest for better government outcomes took on a distinctive new flavor with the rise of NPM. The means of reform in NPM were based on free-market economics and public choice theory. The United Kingdom, under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and the United States, under President Ronald Reagan, were the forerunners of NPM reforms. In Europe, Thatcher was a leading policy entrepreneur in a push to privatize state-run monopolies in energy, utilities, housing, and transport. In the 1990s, U.S. vice president Al Gore led the “Reinventing Government” program. NPM devoted a lot of attention to the role that businesses or nonprofit service providers play in governance. These theories suggested that self-interested actors in a free market with limited interference, entrepreneurial managers, and a customer orientation, could liberate the processes of managing public organizations and result in higher quality and efficiency of service delivery. In fact, higher efficiency was often achieved at the expense of quality of service. Further, highlighting another area of tension, scholars such as Rhodes (1994) have argued that public choice principles have taken decision making and service delivery out of the hands of elected officials and thus diminished public accountability in the long term.

NPM reforms were mostly restricted to the United Kingdom, North America, Scandinavia, and Australasia ( Osborne 2007 ). However, NPM ideas can also be seen in international institutions. For example, in 1989, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) established a Public Management Committee (PUMA) and Secretariat tasked with providing expertise to states and local governments for reforming and streamlining government agencies with the help of public–private partnerships, which highlighted the prominence of management reform policy across the entire European continent. Given this gradual geographic spread and connection to global market forces, NPM tended to become reconfigured to fit different regions and scholars have argued that NPM has actually since splintered into a range of Post-NPM reforms ( Lynn 2006 ; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011 ). This is a characteristic that is increasingly important in the later Post-NPM reforms and open government.

The diversification of NPM defines the most recent phase of public management reform. In this phase, starting from about the year 2000, policymakers increasingly tried to address the efficiency and effectiveness tension by integrating the NPM approach to change with politically and socially oriented reform. Thus, in the early 2000s, NPM became rivaled by another reform perspective focused on the concept of governance called the NPG. NPG takes a broader, more fundamental notion of public actors who are involved in reforming government, creating its ultimate values, and sustaining its ability to change through the means of knowledge sharing and collaboration in intergovernmental and multi-sector partnerships ( Cheung 2005 ). The Post-NPM reforms are diverse and the set of actual cases represented by the term is a less cohesive set of programs compared to NPM. But there are some notable examples. In the United States, the Clinton administration, a strong supporter of NPM reforms began to experiment with greater inter-agency collaboration, while premiers Blair in the United Kingdom and Howard in Australia both produced major reports heralding the potential of joined-up-government and whole-of-government approaches, respectively ( Alford and Hughes 2008 ). In the United Kingdom, the white paper on Modernising Government ( Prime Minister and Minister for the Cabinet Office 1999 ) set out how public services would become more coordinated across public agencies, private sector contracts, and citizens. A notable emphasis in Australia and New Zealand was social policies aimed at community sharing of services that would improve access for disadvantaged groups, particularly indigenous peoples ( Humpage 2005 ).

Post-NPM reform movements aim to address the perceived shortcomings of NPM such as its narrow focus on market principles and managerial control that have arguably led to a thinning of administrative institutions and the hollowing of the state ( Terry 2005 ), as well as to an overly narrow focus on governmental efficiency ( Lynn 2006 ; Welch and Wong 2001 ). In our analysis below, many of these challenges emerge again in the case of open government. Post-NPM programs became more participative and collaborative. Dunleavy et al. (2006) saw the approach of NPM being directly reversed towards re-integration of previous diversification of service domains and more sensitivity to citizen needs rather than efficient service delivery through a new Digital-Era Governance (DEG). Post-NPM indeed moved beyond NPM’s narrow focus on efficiency. However, this focus also changed the type of challenges that networks face in delivering better services or policy problem solving as higher participation and legitimacy can erode public management effectiveness ( Provan and Milward 2001 ; Provan and Lemaire 2012 ).

We now turn towards investigating how and why reforms experience inherent tensions and obstacles that lead them into implementation difficulties and even to failure. We have seen how the legalistic approach of OPA had a strong means in terms of how public servants engineer government, but suffered from lack of transparency and flexibility. We have also seen how NPM used means of greater private sector partnerships but that it has struggled with realizing its stipulated goals such as efficiency and higher quality services. Post-NPM embraces collaboration as a means of governmental change, but, by the same token, is beset by implementation challenges and political conflicts of values among different organizations.

We conjecture that these challenges are distinct to each movement, but that they can also be generally explained using a framework of the specific means-ends characteristics and the organizational settings and structures used for realizing reform. We represent this framework using two key dimensions in figure 1 .

Dimensions of Public Management Reform Challenges and Associated Risks.

Along the horizontal axis are the means and ends dimensions of reform. Along the vertical axis are two fundamental organizational dimensions involved in managing reforms: (1) internal relationships in terms of managing staff, training, division of tasks, relationships with other departments or teams; (2) external relationships in terms of managing relationships with other organizations (businesses or civil society groups), citizens, or other states. The means of achieving reform can hypothetically go wrong through internal implementation problems or structural barriers in the external political and institutional environment. The ends can suffer from lack of achievement due to low compliance, low performance or internal contradictions that are externally shown in political conflicts where one political group upholds one type of end value and another group upholds another. Thus, within the analytical lens of figure 1 , reform movements can encounter challenges in any one of four main ways, which we expand upon here. While prior scholarship does not often take a systematic approach to understanding the origins of these diverse reform challenges a priori, we find that many of the concepts emerging from the framework have been noticed before. We, therefore, make many connections with these literatures where possible.

Implementation Problems

We see four different types of potential implementation problems: (1) design-reality gaps, (2) insufficient resources, (3) cross-country relevance, and (4) political influence. The following section explains each of these in more detail.

Design-Reality Gaps

The success of public management reforms is related to the ability of reformers to design and implement changes that reflect the initial visions of the reform. But problems can occur in reforms when clear discrepancies begin to emerge between policy design and the reality of its implementation. According to Baier, March, and Saetren (1986) , as this gap widens so too does the probability increase that reform will fail. Given the difficulty of comprehensively measuring the wide impacts of reforms and the disagreements on the meaning of “success” in the eyes of different stakeholders, design-reality gaps are difficult to avoid, and scholars continue to debate whether prior reforms achieved their original objectives (e.g., Hammerschmid et al. 2019 ).

Insufficient Resources

In many countries where reforms are introduced, governments encounter the reality of resource shortages and adequate public infrastructure even to effectively deliver the necessary public goods such as education, public transportation, and defence. OPA during a time of expanding public services relied heavily on financial resources to implement new programs with new staff and technologies. NPM reforms also involved huge investments in structural readjustment programs that encourage increasing reliance on global economic markets and privatization. According to some authors such as Pollitt and Dan (2011) , NPM also led to the “hollowing” of state institutions through private sector partnerships, has made cost control difficult, and resulted in highly complex governance structures. Post-NPM reformers in many countries inherit these hollowed-out governance institutions and must seek to implement new policies where there are internal challenges, such as reform shortages that continue to be experienced in the wake of the global credit crunch in 2008.

Cross-Country Relevance

In order to take root across different governmental systems, new reforms must get copied and diffused in what institutionalist scholars have called memetic isomorphism (e.g., Frumkin and Galaskiewicz 2004 ). Adoption of reforms may also diffuse due to normative or coercive pressures. Regardless of the form of institutional diffusion of reform, the process of diffusion is likely to encounter external challenges. Managers may not have the right skills to translate reform ideas from an original context into a new context ( Kettl 2000 ). The ability of local or country governments to adopt a public management reform depends on many environmental factors shaping policy transfer, such as the government’s connection to local networks, leadership attitude, institutional receptivity to change, and the type of service area concerned ( Cole and Jones 2005 ). For this reason, even globally successful reforms such as NPM were implemented in a more fragmented or contextually nuanced way than we might expect despite its nominal adoption by many governments ( Osborne 2007 ).

Political Influence

Problems of implementation may also open the door to a different challenge for reforms: politics. Every country has a unique type of balance among politicians, bureaucrats, and civil society that creates politicization ( Moon and Ingraham 1998 ). Because different political groups may favor one specific side of a values tension over another (for example, say favoring of efficiency over transparency in NPM reforms), it makes it highly likely that political influences favoring a particular set of public values will drive the reform agenda ( Durant 2008 ). Furthermore, if the balance of political groups is strong, reforms may endure a compromise of values that leads to implementation ultimately being unworkable. Historically, reform movements have always been linked with political favoritism. NPM was initially promoted by conservative governments, whereas Post-NPM was put into practice by left-leaning governments such as Tony Blair’s New Labour.

Goal Ambiguity

We see three different types of challenges associated with goal ambiguity: (1) inherent value ambiguities, (2) inter-organizational complexity, and (3) inter-departmental discrepancies.

Inherent Value Conflicts and Ambiguities

Reforms can also have internal disagreements or conflicts among its repertoire of reform principles. This kind of tension is inevitable because reforms seek to accomplish multiple things at the same time that may not be able to co-exist comfortably or even at all. Indeed, government is an inherently difficult process that involves trying to balance features such as authority and autonomy that are intrinsically in tension and can undermine managerial effectiveness ( Rainey and Jung 2014 ). Research on public value conflicts has found that specific values repeatedly come into conflict with one another because of their inherent characteristics. De Graaf, Huberts, and Smulders (2016) say that these conflicts occur across three main categories: proper governance (integrity, equality, and lawfulness), performing governance (effectiveness and efficiency), and responsive governance (participation, transparency, legitimacy, and accountability). As Mark Moore (1995) has convincingly explained, public management strategy is largely a matter of finding balances among these values as they cannot all be extended simultaneously.

Inter-Organizational Complexity

Tensions are not only inherent in the kinds of values chosen by reformers but are also a product of organizational tension that occurs in modern styles of governance that rely on inter-organizational collaboration. March and Olsen (1976) characterized public organizations as complex amalgamations of technologies, goals, and values, that can be led in unexpected directions by the organizational environment. Such complexity has certainly affected NPM, which tried to manage complex relationships in private–public partnerships. Post-NPM reformers are torn between implementing organizational changes that reflect administrative modernization through better technological efficiency and greater participation from citizens ( Nalbandian 2005 ). Evidence suggests that public management reform movements that give more priority to informal institutional arrangements, such as the way informal networks are treated in Post-NPM, can struggle to implement reforms and administrative tools such as regulations, fines, and incentives ( Bruijn and Dicke 2006 ).

Inter-Departmental Discrepancies

Aside from the external organizational environment, tensions can also exist internally between different governmental departments or agencies representing different policy focuses. Effective implementation of reforms requires decision makers to make choices about how to balance and synthesize these departmental interests ( Moulton 2009 ; Nalbandian 2005 ; Pandey et al. 2016 ). In fact, Post-NPM focused deliberately on addressing departmental silos in government. This may affect not just policy areas but different parts of the policy implementation process in the same policy area. For example, information-intense phases of a project shape the value of accountability, whereas phases involving collaboration with external advisors or legal and financial complexity affect the value of understanding ( Reynaers 2014 ).

Structural Barriers

We see three different types of structural barriers: (1) institutional large forces, (2) the influence of global powers, and (3) economic and technological barriers.

Institutional Large Forces

Strong structural change is hard to achieve even if new leaders of new reforms claim that fundamental changes are underway. That is, despite changes in government rhetoric and attention-grabbing policy initiatives, the old powers and habits of institutions and groups stay in charge as the most significant external drivers of the reforms. Reform possibilities undergo a process of screening by administrative traditions consisting of institutional structures as well as cultural ideas about how government and administration should look ( Bach et al. 2017 ; Christensen and Lægreid 2001 ). According to Borrás and Radaelli (2011) , reforms are driven by “strategic and long-term institutional arrangements” (p. 463).

The Influence of Global Powers

Country and local level processes are intertwined with the large-scale processes of change ( Bevir, Rhodes, and Weller 2003 ; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011 ). Domestic reform trends are in constant tension with international processes, even when the global picture suggests a dominant process of adoption and integration. While there are country and local level factors that shape the particular form that reforms will take, large-scale changes in the economic and political environment exert pressure on governments to reform, as well as shaping the timing and the depth of the changes. Intergovernmental organizations such as the OECD and international multilateral organizations such as the World Bank have adopted their own views of reforms. They use sticks and carrots to direct countries in a certain reform direction, just as they did for global structural readjustment reforms that were part of the NPM approach. While such influences ostensibly have the objective of creating better governance systems, they are sometimes criticized for being heavy-handed and creating country path dependency, which might frustrate the emergence of locally grown reforms ( Häikiö 2010 ; Manoharan and Ingrams 2018 ).

Economic and Technological Barriers

Additionally, large-scale global processes involving technological developments and economic shifts can influence the shape of reform ( Charles, de Jong, and Ryan 2011 ). Through mimetic processes of learning and technology sharing between countries, reform movements can diffuse across whole regions ( DiMaggio and Powell 1991 ). NPM reforms were supported by computer technologies that made storage and sorting of performance information increasingly feasible ( Dunleavy et al. 2006 ; Ingrams 2017 ), whereas networks of NPG were enabled by the development of the Internet ( Castells 2001 ). Economic changes also affect how open countries are with each other in terms of trading goods and information. So inter-governmental processes between countries, even across entire global regions, can be significantly influenced by economic fortune and technology change.

Political Conflicts

We see three different types of political conflicts: (1) institutional crises, (2) faddism and short-termism, and (3) competing policy actors.

Institutional Crises

According to Boin and t’Hart (2003) , the low potential for real change in public management reforms derives from the fact that reforms are not fundamentally driven by a rational-instrumental vision of change, but rather are pushed from behind by political or economic crises. That is, decision makers drive reforms not for the novelty or potential impact of a reform per se, but rather for the need to manage systems that no longer function. While new reforms may solve a particular crisis, they only patch-up a crisis in the short term and are not designed to address future problems in a sustainable way. Thus, when NPM emerged as a novel reform approach, it was primarily seen as a solution for the poorly functioning and bureaucratic approach of OPA ( Hood 1991 ; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011 ; Randma-Liiv 2008 ).

Faddism and Short-Termism

Critics of reforms have argued that despite the claims of reform champions, upon closer inspection, the originality of new reform ideas is often unclear ( Lynn 2001 ). Politicians are driven by the electoral cycle and the rewards that come from giving lip service to popular ideas that might deliver impressive results in the short-term. Inevitably, new reforms will require difficult—sometimes politically costly—decisions to be made. If supporters cannot strike bargains to bridge this transition between short- and long-term benefits, the reforms are likely to lose steam and falter ( Hood 2002 ).

Competing Policy Actors

In policy-making theory, the competition of policy actors and the shifting normative context of reforms was explained by the multiple streams theory of Kingdon (1984) . The multiple streams approach to policy change involves multiple and shifting actors and technology management challenges that converge to shape new policy goals and preferences. Occasional shifts to new models of reform are called policy windows because, at these sporadic moments, the multiple streams have come together in the right combination of unsolved external problems, pressure for change, and the means to achieve change. The shifting character of policy windows underlines the seeming fate of many public management reforms as short-lived trends rather than rationally conceived plans with long-term potential ( Zahariadis 2008 ).

An Ex-Ante Evaluation of Open Government Reform

As discussed above, our analytical framework of reform challenges contains a total of 13 possible kinds of obstacle in public management reform. To examine how useful this framework is as a general analytical tool to assess the potential of a new reform, we next introduce the central theories and works of scholarship behind the open government idea and apply the framework to the open government reform movement.

What is Open Government?

Openness in government is not an entirely new idea, but what makes it new in the open government approach to reform is its status as the sole focus of reform. Earlier reforms were interested in government transparency and collaboration. In fact, openness in government has deep roots in Western concepts of government. In the eighteenth century, the political philosophies of prominent liberals Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill gave access to public information and deliberation central roles in democratic society ( Hood 2007 ). After the respective 1765 and 1789 United States and French revolutions, these governments recognized the legitimate stake that broad members of society had to participate and influence the conduct of public affairs. This was especially prominent in the self-government ideals of American revolutionaries. Governments in both North America and Europe around this time started to recognize this in new policies such as the printing of internal government information in newspapers and systematically organizing information stored by public agencies ( Jaeger and Bertot 2010 ). At the turn of the twentieth century, the scholar, and soon-to-be US president, Woodrow Wilson writing in his book “The Study of Administration” argued that government needed to be open to public examination to prevent corruption and the abuse of power.

Principles of openness went on to become core components of modern government. In the mid-twentieth century, access to information became enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and supported in the freedom of information laws adopted by most countries. Intergovernmental institutions such as the OECD, the World Bank, and the Open Government Partnership (OGP) have taken these principles still further in promoting open government initiatives. As these global policy endeavors for greater openness have grown, so too has the attention from public administration scholars.

In the twenty-first century, scholars have given open government the status of a unique public management reform approach. Table 2 summarizes ten of the most highly cited of these works of open government. To develop our framework, we have identified the main concepts of reform means and ends for each work. To elaborate even further, we also detail the types of implementation focus in each article with policy output examples. Our discussion below the table expands on its content. In discussing the literatures in the table, we have decided to bring in other less-well-known scholarly works on open government and to center the discussion on five key means-outputs-ends themes. These themes provide an elegant way to discuss the table but are not meant to be a comprehensive analysis of all open government literature. Thus, while we draw mainly on the works from table 2 , we also extend the analysis to discussion of other authors who have entered the debate on open government.

The Means, Ends, and Some Examples of Policy Outputs in Open Government Management Reform

Theme 1: Informational and Communicative Policies for Better Governance

Timely and quality information sharing as a means to transparency in public organizations has intuitive appeal and scholars have long identified it as one of the ways to achieve ends of better democracy, economic growth, and good governance ( Harrison and Sayogo 2014 ; Ingrams 2017 ; Lathrop and Ruma 2010 ; McDermott 2010 ). Pooling the types of information accessed by actors from different sectors or organizations can make decision making in government more efficient and effective. This is a communicative aspect of transparency (sometimes called “information symmetry”) that has end benefits for encouraging healthier economic markets where competition can flourish ( Wirtz and Birkmeyer 2015 ). Politically speaking, this also means that transparency makes it difficult for public officials to hide, which has benefits for tackling corruption.

Theme 2: Transparency and Privacy to Improve Trust

The importance of transparency in open government is highlighted by the focus on policy outputs of information regulation. Government information access has historically been associated with a raft of specific legal reforms that make government perform more honestly and effectively ( Coglianese 2009 ). According to McDermott (2010) , the most important area of transparency laws is freedom of information acts (FOIAs). Governments adopt FOI laws with the rationale that strict standards and better enforcement of the public access to information is more likely to expose and reduce corruption and raise public trust in government ( Coglianese 2009 ; Cordis and Warren 2014 ). Anti-corruption initiatives focus on specific areas of public organizations where corruption is likely to be deterred by data monitoring, such as for job descriptions and salaries of public officials ( Bowman and Stevens 2013 ).

On the other side of the transparency-trust coin are policies that are designed to actually protect people’s identities and privacy from too much transparency. These laws aim to protect the right to personal privacy while simultaneously supporting openness ( Hardy and Maurushat 2017 ; Ingrams 2017 ). If there is a reasonable degree of privacy given to internal decision making, it is argued, a more trustworthy climate will prevail and leaders will be better prepared to seek and manage information needed to make important decisions ( Coglianese 2009 ).

Theme 3: Participation, Collaborative Governance, and Policy-Making Processes

Open government reforms use the method of better access to information, but there is also a focus on the means available to engage with citizens through participation ( Evans and Campos 2013 ; Grimmelikhuijsen and Feeney 2017 ; Meijer, Curtin, and Hillebrandt 2012 ). In Meijer, Curtin, and Hillebrandt’s (2012) terminology, open government has a voice as well as a vision component. Thus, open government policymakers practice openness not only in terms of information openness, but also as dynamic, relational openness in the way that public organizations interact with citizens. Participation is particularly focused on individual citizens. But participation can also occur at a more organizational level through engagement with nonprofit or private sector organizations or between agencies ( Evans and Campos 2013 ; Piotrowski 2017 ). Nonprofits and high-tech businesses that specialize in data management and Web 2.0 technologies are needed in open government reform to support the information chain that turns masses of information into applicable knowledge for better policies ( Gonzalez-Zapata and Heeks 2015 ).

Theme 4: Public Accountability, Justice, and Fairness

Public accountability “involves the means by which public agencies and their workers manage the diverse expectations generated within and outside the organization” ( Romzek and Dubnick 1987 , p.228). While today public accountability is applied to all areas of government action, it retains that original sense of answerability ( Schedler 1999 ), both as a statutory system that supports the process of regularly rendering account, but also as in the sense of accessibility. Answerability can be vertically achieved through political elections or horizontally through “state agencies that are legally empowered—and factually willing and able—to take actions ranging from routine oversight to criminal sanctions or impeachment in relation to possibly unlawful actions or omissions by other agents or agencies of the state” ( O’Donnell 1998 , 117). By holding leaders accountable, it is argued by open government supporters that a key end of democratic government will be served by open government: namely, justice ( Coglianese 2009 ). For open government, digitalization of information is a critical means for such justice. The aim of new digital forms of accountability to increase interaction between internal and external stakeholders rather than increasing bureaucratic reporting as traditional models of accountability aimed to do ( Schillemans, Van Twist, and Van Hommerig 2013 ). For example, online notice and comment policies and spending transparency help accountability ( Shkabatur 2012 ).

Theme 5: Transparency and E-government Efficiency

Some scholars argue that open government is a type of electronic transparency initiative that has grown out of the global e-government reforms of the 1990s (e.g., Abu-Shanab 2015 ; Hansson, Belkacem, and Ekenberg 2015 ). In the modern era, a type of technology-aided transparency called “computer-mediated transparency” emerged ( Evans and Campos 2013 ; Meijer 2009 ; Welch and Wong 2001 ). Indeed, the focus on transparency during the Obama administration was even further driven by applications of new digital technologies such as social media, wikis, application programming interfaces (APIs), and open data ( Jaeger and Bertot 2010 ; McDermott 2010 ). Today, the aforementioned open government methods of transparency, public participation, and accountability all rely on innovative use of technology in one way or another. Another important policy area for efficiency is open data. Open data initiatives, by pooling data from diverse sources and giving access to a range of organizations to re-use the data has become one important way of facilitating collaboration and even achieving economic ends such as innovation. These organizations are the suppliers of the technologies and, therefore, also can be supported through partnerships or capacity building to facilitate these technology innovation process. Rather than innovation being internally generated, public data makes it possible for the market to produce innovation collaboratively with government ( Janssen and Estevez 2013 ).

Applying the Framework

From the discussion above, we can see the main means/ends relationships of open government and the policy ideas that form a loose repertoire of new programs and norms that we refer to collectively as the open government reform movement. Through the five themes, we show that the open government approach has various interrelated strands. However, open government scholars are clear that open government reform has an identifiable set of organizational principles and policies on how public management should operate. Below, we explore how theoretically consistent and plausible these principles and policies are. In order to provide concrete cases to demonstrate our points, in some places we have also used empirical material on open government programs found in the OGP’s database (the OGP Explorer) of thousands of programs undertaken since 2011. As far as we know, this is the most comprehensive database of open government programs and an ideal place to find real-world illustrations for our conceptual arguments.

Evidence suggests that across a wide range of problems, a large number of open government programs in the OGP fail to be completed as they were originally promised by optimistic politicians ( Piotrowski 2017 ). Given the oft-cited characterization of open government goals such as participation and transparency being subjective and ambiguous (e.g., Yu and Robinson 2011 ), the risk of design-reality gaps appears particularly acute for open government reform. But the challenge of design-reality gaps in open government may stretch further. Even if open government policies are not clear instances of implementation failure, the outputs and ends of such reforms may simply be hard to evaluate because an abstract idea like “openness” is hard to detect and measure ( Ingrams 2017 ).

All reforms require new programs and skills for personnel. Open government may not succumb to the risk of adequate government investment as, like many Post-NPM movements, it has emerged in a context of crisis in public finances in many countries. Indeed, open government is designed to reduce government spending by outsourcing tasks to citizens and civil society organizations ( Catlaw and Sandberg 2014 ), so, to a certain extent, it may escape some of the dependency on resources for its success. The enthusiastic implementation of open government programs by low-income OGP countries such as Bangladesh or Mongolia is also testament to the fact that low resources are not a major barrier to implementation.

There are currently 78 member countries in the OGP. This spread suggests the OGP has been relatively successful in terms of its cross-country relevance. Due perhaps to political culture and historical traditions and institutions, many countries have chosen deliberately not to join the OGP and others such as Tanzania slipped significantly in their obligations and ultimately withdrew. But, overall, the diversity of the countries in the OGP is high. There is evidence that NPM and Post-NPM reforms have had a global reach too in places such as China that are politically and culturally very distinct from the Western countries where the reforms originated, but the OGP has lent the force of a multinational organization of diverse countries to cross-country relevance in a new way.

Research is lacking on the politics of open government ( Ruijer et al. 2019 ). However, open government appears to offer reform ideas that can appeal to a broader political spectrum as scholars have noted support from both groups on the right (e.g., Catlaw and Sandberg 2014 ) and left (e.g., Berliner, Ingrams, and Piotrowski 2018 ). On the other hand, open government can lead to political volatility ( Worthy 2015 ). Under the right conditions, politicians compete to implement openness reforms ( Berliner 2014 ), but they also can use reforms as a smokescreen ( Ingrams 2019 ). Political influence may, therefore, prove to be a particularly complicated and intractable challenge for open government.

In a critique called “The New Ambiguity of Open Government,” Yu and Robinson (2011) argued that the open government movement had “blurred the distinction between the technologies of open data and the politics of open government” to the point that “the term ‘open government’ has become too vague to be a useful label.” Others echoed this point. According to Francoli and Clarke (2014 , 248), “when discussing open government, scholars and practitioners alike lack definitional clarity.” Sandoval-Almazan and Gil-Garcia (2016 , 171) noted “the lack of clarity about the concept of open government,” and the fact that “there is no consensus about open government’s functions and goals.” Chatwin and Arku (2017 , 53) wrote that “whether the ambiguity was intentional or not, scholars and practitioners align in their concern that the current lack of definitional clarity for open government presents challenges to developing robust action plans and evaluations of their impact.”

Open government, by aiming to collaborate more with non-governmental organizations, multiplies the likelihood of tensions resulting from organizational hybrids, like Post-NPM. Carothers and Brechenmacher (2014 , 2), writing about the incorporation of accountability, transparency, participation, and inclusion as a “new development consensus,” note that this consensus bridges “three distinct practitioner communities that emerged from this new direction—those focusing on governance, on democracy, and on human rights.” However, “consensus remains elusive… Democracy and human rights practitioners generally embrace an explicitly political understanding of the four concepts and fear technocratic or purely instrumentalist approaches. Governance specialists often follow a narrower approach, applying the core principles primarily to the quest for greater public sector effectiveness.”

Open government has a whole range of different policy areas and is likely to suffer tensions between the different agencies responsible for each area. This may affect not just policy areas but different parts of the policy implementation process in the same policy area. For example, it has been argued that information-intense phases of a project shape the value of accountability , whereas phases involving collaboration with external advisors or legal and financial complexity affect the value of understanding ( Reynaers 2014 ). On the other hand, open government also potentially offers a way to escape inter-departmental discrepancies by developing some of its hallmark technology solutions such as shared software platforms and open data ecosystems ( McDermott 2010 ).

It has been argued that NPM, Post-NPM, and open government are not different movements but actually part of a single political movement driven by neoliberal ideology ( Bates 2014 ). This is an interesting claim, and it hints at the broader challenge to open government of large forces. While open government poses several new reform ideas on paper, logics of administrative change may still be in place that hide all the old faults of the earlier reform approaches rather than representing fresh change. However, in other ways, open government appears to offer new means to escape this problem. Open government’s model of collaboration with citizens and civil society necessarily introduces opportunities for new actors to influence the political agenda and seems to open up genuine possibilities for new directions. In fact, unlike earlier reform movements, open government is explicitly designed to be influenced by a broad array of new actors many of who would be considered traditionally marginal actors ( Berliner, Ingrams, and Piotrowski 2018 ; van Zyl 2014 ).

Open government reforms also are driven by global political powers. Intergovernmental organizations such as the OECD and international multilateral organizations such as the World Bank have adopted their own views of open government reforms ( Ubaldi 2013 ). They use sticks and carrots to direct countries in a certain reform direction just as they did for global structural readjustment reforms that were part of the NPM approach. While such influences ostensibly have the objective of creating better governance systems, they might be too prescriptive and heavy handed. This could create path dependency and prevent the emergence of locally grown open government reforms.

More so than earlier reforms, open government reforms are heavily dependent on technological innovations. Esmark (2016) has argued that technology is a key driver of contemporary reforms and is an important part of their success. Technology dependency would appear to be a strike against the sustainability of open government in the context of economically undeveloped countries. It may also be that technology creates new structural challenges for developed countries too ( Lodge and Wegrich 2015 ; Worthy 2015 ). The success of the OGP in developing countries suggests that open government can make inroads into developing countries. However, like earlier reforms, technology dependency may make it difficult for open government to become a success in all countries.

As we mentioned above, it has been claimed by some that open government is a technology inspired re-interpretation of NPM ideas of market liberalism ( Bates 2014 ; Catlaw and Sandberg 2014 ). In response to institutional crises of government resulting from economic and political shifts, governments may not be able to carefully consider the best reform approaches but rather engage in quick fixes. Despite the democratic idealism of open government and its stated aims to design a future of rational government-citizen relationships, it may be a knee-jerk reaction to the decline of public trust in government and the broadening of public interrogation and criticism of government performance ( Green 2010 ).

Open government reformers claim that their model of change has the ability to bring about fundamental changes to performance of the public sector. Open government as a well-articulated reform movement was first launched by Barack Obama who is no longer in office. And yet, the continued growth of the OGP since that time suggests that the movement has potential for greater longevity. Further, we have already seen how the essential ideas of public information access and citizen involvement in government have a much older pedigree in public administration, which may suggest that open government reform has a more fundamental foundation in public management systems.

While open government reforms are gaining huge attention from policymakers around the world, they are not the only voice competing for influence in the marketplace of public policy. Open government may be exerting strong sway on the public policy market place precisely because actors from open data, anti-corruption, tech innovation, and democratic participation have all taken an interest simultaneously. This characteristic may herald longevity for open government so long as it can maintain this diverse coalition of advocates. However, in earlier work ( Berliner, Ingrams, and Piotrowski 2018 ), we noted that a strong value divide can be seen clearly across the advocacy camps behind the open government movements; on the one hand, a camp focusing on open data, private innovation, and efficiency, and, on the other hand, a camp focusing on the democratic need for information and participation to support public debate and freedom of expression.

Table 3 summarizes the main findings of discussion above in terms of how public management reform tensions affect open government in comparison to earlier reforms. The four main analytical categories of reform challenges are applied from figure 1 . The consequences of these challenges are listed for open government in terms of new ways that the open government approach may solve or succumb to risks.

Risks Facing the Open Government Approach to Public Management Reform

In this article, we have developed a comprehensive analytical lens for assessing the risk areas of public management reform, compared public management reform approaches, and used the framework to explore ex-ante a number of challenges that the open government model of reform may face due to inherent instrumental and normative challenges at an internal and external level. Part of the value of this analysis is that this framework has been used to explore previously unexplored territory in the case of open government reform, but the framework could equally be applied to other Post-NPM reform approaches.

Our approach has taken a deliberately risk-focused approach to public management reform. Governments can sometimes be too eager to embrace the latest reform trends. Evidence also suggests that frequent reforms can exhaust and harm governments ( Wynen, Verhoest, and Kleizen 2019 ). However, we do not wish to suggest that it is all bad news with open government. It is apparent that there are both new opportunities to escape the challenges of reform as well as new types of risks that open government reformers face. This remains true of other reform movements. NPM was situated largely in predominantly English-speaking, economically advanced countries, though there are signs that it has been able to adapt to different regions ( Christensen and Fan 2018 ; Kaboolian 1998 ; McLaughlin et al. 2002 ). Open government goes further than NPM in this respect as it claims to have a universal appeal of people-oriented government, integrity, and transparency supported by the global Internet. It is too early to know whether this promise can be born out, but evidence of the actual geographic spread of initiatives such as the OGP suggests that the open government model of change does have broad geographic currency. On the other hand, we would stress that this comes with a risk: global relevance raises implementation challenges and also an intrinsic challenge of reconciling competing public values where different government interpret open government in different ways or value one aspect such as efficiency over another such as accountability. Open government does boast a kind of light-touch flexibility of approach emphasizing processes and relationships rather than specific institutional arrangements, and this approach might offer a kind of chameleon-like ability to mutate and evolve to meet different political and cultural conditions.

The open government approach is particularly puzzling when we look at structural barriers. On the one hand, the chameleon-like attribute of open government is enhanced, but its dependence on external supporters can pull implementation in a variety of different directions at once. We have noted the conflict between open data and freedom of information advocates being a particularly sensitive area, but there are potentially many others. A further area of tension lies in the realization of reform ends at both internal and external levels. Earlier reform approaches have suffered from problems of competing values such as lawfulness and effectiveness in OPA or efficiency and fairness in NPM. Open government seems equally likely to succumb to these problems given its attempts to support both efficiency and innovation on the one hand (economic values) and transparency and accountability on the other hand (political values). In sum, there are a number of fundamental challenges faced by open governance.

We cannot predict the level of success that open government is going to enjoy. Our understanding of earlier reform approaches certainly gives us pause, though it can also provide some entry points for further policy endeavors and scholarly discussion on the topic. In open government, there are plausible opportunities such as geographic adaptability, less dependence on central government, and involvement of new political actors to escape from historic tensions and barriers in public management reform. Given the diversity of open government approaches, another key puzzle in the debate of open government’s prospects is its ability to provide coherency as a distinct and specific reform approach rather than simply being a useful toolbox of bespoke policies and programs available to governments among a raft of other possible Post-NPM policy priorities. Prior reform movements took some time before gaining this kind of definitive identity ( Hood 1991 ). Indeed, Post-NPM movements, in general, remain quite politically and conceptually amorphous ( Esmark 2016 ). The goal of the present article is to give distinctiveness to what the open government reform movement stands for and to assess its potential for success. But, whether or not open government does gain further distinctiveness needs to be determined in future by global country surveys.

These characteristics of open government merit more focus from scholars and practitioners, but so too do new kinds of risks that we have not really seen before. Some of these risks—such as conflicts of ends and means values and structural barriers of economics and technology—have been with us in prior reform movements and governments may be better prepared to address them. Other risks—such as ambiguous ends, wide design-reality gaps, and increased political conflict—will require new forms of risk management and preparedness by policymakers.

This research was partially funded through a grant from the Pratt Bequest Fund at Rutgers Law School.

Abu-Shanab , Emad A . 2015 . Reengineering the open government concept: An empirical support for a proposed model . Government Information Quarterly 32 ( 4 ): 453 – 63 .

Google Scholar

Alford , John , and Owen Hughes .   2008 . Public value pragmatism as the next phase of public management . The American Review of Public Administration 38 ( 2 ): 130 – 48 .

Aucoin , Peter . 1990 . Administrative reform in public management: Paradigms, principles, paradoxes and pendulums . Governance 3 ( 2 ): 115 – 37 .

Bach , Tobias , Sandra van Thiel , Gerhard Hammerschmid , and Reto Steiner .   2017 . Administrative tradition and management reforms: A comparison of agency chief executive accountability in four Continental Rechtsstaat countries . Public Management Review 19 ( 6 ): 765 – 84 .

Baier , Vicki Eaton , James G. March , and Harald Saetren .   1986 . Implementation and ambiguity . Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies 2 ( 3–4 ): 197 – 212 .

Barnard , Chester I . 1938 . The Functions of the Executive . Cambridge, MA : Harvard Univ. Press .

Google Preview

Bates , Jo . 2014 . The strategic importance of information policy for the contemporary neoliberal state: The case of Open Government Data in the United Kingdom . Government Information Quarterly 31 ( 3 ): 388 – 95 .

Berliner , D . 2014 . The political origins of transparency . The journal of Politics 76 ( 2 ): 479 – 91 .

Berliner , Dan , Alex Ingrams , and Suzanne J. Piotrowski .   2018 . The future of FOIA in an open government agenda for freedom of information policy and implementation . Vill. L. Rev. 63 : 867 .

Bevir , Mark , Rod AW Rhodes , and Patrick Weller .   2003 . Traditions of governance: Interpreting the changing role of the public sector . Public Administration 81 ( 1 ): 1 – 17 .

Boin , Arjen , and Paul t’Hart .   2003 . Public leadership in times of crisis: Mission impossible? . Public Administration Review 63 ( 5 ): 544 – 53 .

Borrás , Susana , and Claudio M. Radaelli .   2011 . The politics of governance architectures: Creation, change and effects of the EU Lisbon Strategy . Journal of European Public Policy 18 ( 4 ): 463 – 84 .

Bouckaert , Geert , and B. Guy Peters .   2002 . Performance measurement and management: The Achilles’ heel in administrative modernization . Public Performance & Management Review 25 ( 4 ): 359 – 62 .

Bourdeaux , Carolyn , and Grace Chikoto .   2008 . Legislative influences on performance management reform . Public Administration Review 68 ( 2 ): 253 – 65 .

Bowman , James S. , and Kelly A. Stevens .   2013 . Public pay disclosure in state government: An ethical analysis . The American Review of Public Administration 43 ( 4 ): 476 – 92 .

Brabham , Daren C . 2010 . Moving the crowd at Threadless: Motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application . Information Communication & Society 13 ( 8 ): 1122 – 45 .

De Bruijn , Hans , and Willemijn Dicke .   2006 . Strategies for safeguarding public values in liberalized utility sectors . Public Administration 84 ( 3 ): 717 – 35 .

Bullock , Justin B. , Robert A. Greer , and Laurence J. O’Toole Jr.   2018 . Managing risks in public organizations: A conceptual foundation and research agenda . Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 2 ( 1 ): 75 – 87 .

Carothers , Thomas , and Saskia Brechenmacher .   2014 . Accountability, transparency, participation, and inclusion: A new development consensus? . Washington, DC : Carnegie Endowment for International Peace .

Castells , Manuel . 2002 . The Internet galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business, and society . Oxford, NY : Oxford Univ. Press .

Catlaw , Thomas J. , and Billie Sandberg .   2014 . “Dangerous government” info-liberalism, active citizenship, and the open government directive . Administration & Society 46 ( 3 ): 223 – 54 .

Charles , Michael B. , W. Martin de Jong , and Neal Ryan .   2011 . Public values in Western Europe: A temporal perspective . The American Review of Public Administration 41 ( 1 ): 75 – 91 .

Chatwin , Merlin , and Godwin Arku .   2017 . Beyond ambiguity: Conceptualizing open government through a human systems framework . eJournal of eDemocracy & Open Government 9 ( 1 ): 52–78.

Cheung , Anthony B . 2005 . The politics of administrative reforms in Asia: Paradigms and legacies, paths and diversities . Governance 18 ( 2 ): 257 – 82 .

Christensen , Tom , and Yongmao Fan .   2018 . Post-New Public Management: A new administrative paradigm for China? . International Review of Administrative Sciences 84 ( 2 ): 389 – 404 .

Christensen , Tom , and Per Lægreid.   2001 . New public management: The effects of contractualism and devolution on political control . Public Management Review 3 ( 1 ): 73 – 94 .

Christensen , Tom , and Per Lægreid .   2007 . The whole‐of‐government approach to public sector reform . Public Administration Review 67 ( 6 ): 1059 – 66 .

Coglianese , Cary . 2009 . The transparency president? The Obama administration and open government . Governance 22 ( 4 ): 529 – 44 .

Cole , Alistair , and Glyn Jones . 2005 . Reshaping the state: Administrative reform and new public management in France . Governance 18 ( 4 ): 567 – 88 .

Cordis , Adriana S. , and Patrick L. Warren .   2014 . Sunshine as disinfectant: The effect of state Freedom of Information Act laws on public corruption . Journal of Public Economics 115 : 18 – 36 .

De Graaf , Gjalt , Leo Huberts , and Remco Smulders .   2016 . Coping with public value conflicts . Administration & Society 48 ( 9 ): 1101 – 27 .

DiMaggio , Paul J. , and Walter Powell .   1991 . The new institutionalism in organizational analysis . Chicago, IL : Univ. of Chicago Press .

Doig , J. W . 2001 . Empire on the Hudson: Entrepreneurial vision and political power at the Port of New York Authority . New York, NY : Columbia Univ. Press .

Dunleavy , Patrick , and Christopher Hood .   1994 . From old public administration to new public management . Public Money & Management 14 ( 3 ): 9 – 16 .

Dunleavy , Patrick , Helen Margetts , Simon Bastow , and Jane Tinkler .   2006 . New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 ( 3 ): 467 – 94 .

Durant , Robert F . 2008 . Sharpening a knife cleverly: Organizational change, policy paradox, and the “weaponizing” of administrative reforms . Public Administration Review 68 ( 2 ): 282 – 94 .

Esmark , Anders . 2016 . Maybe it is time to rediscover technocracy? An old framework for a new analysis of administrative reforms in the governance era . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 27 ( 3 ): 501 – 16 .

Evans , Angela M. , and Adriana Campos .   2013 . Open government initiatives: Challenges of citizen participation . Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 32 ( 1 ): 172 – 85 .

Fesler , James W . 1987 . The Brownlow Committee fifty years later . Public Administration Review 47 ( 4 ): 291 – 6 .

Fisher-Gewirtzman , Dafna , and Israel A. Wagner .   2003 . Spatial openness as a practical metric for evaluating built-up environments . Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30 ( 1 ): 37 – 49 .

Francoli , Mary , and Amanda Clarke .   2014 . What’s in a name? A comparison of ‘open government’definitions across seven Open Government Partnership members . Journal of eDemocracy 6 ( 1 ): 248 – 66 .

Frumkin , Peter , and Joseph Galaskiewicz .   2004 . Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14 ( 3 ): 283 – 307 .

Gonzalez-Zapata , Felipe , and Richard Heeks .   2015 . The multiple meanings of open government data: Understanding different stakeholders and their perspectives . Government Information Quarterly 32 ( 4 ): 441 – 52 .

Green , Jeffrey E . 2010 . The eyes of the people: Democracy in an age of spectatorship. Oxford, NY : Oxford Univ. Press .

Grimmelikhuijsen , Stephan G. , and Mary K. Feeney .   2017 . Developing and testing an integrative framework for open government adoption in local governments . Public Administration Review 77 ( 4 ): 579 – 90 .

Häikiö , Lissa . 2010 . The diversity of citizenship and democracy in local public management reform . Public Management Review 12 ( 3 ): 363 – 84 .

Hammerschmid , Gerhard , Steven Van de Walle , Rhys Andrews , and Ahmed Mohammed Sayed Mostafa .   2019 . New public management reforms in Europe and their effects: Findings from a 20-country top executive survey . International Review of Administrative Sciences 85 ( 3 ): 399 – 418 .

Hansson , Karin , Kheira Belkacem , and Love Ekenberg .   2015 . Open government and democracy: A research review . Social Science Computer Review 33 ( 5 ): 540 – 55 .

Hardy , Keiren , and Alana Maurushat .   2017 . Opening up government data for Big Data analysis and public benefit . Computer Law & Security Review 33 ( 1 ): 30 – 7 .

Harrison , Teresa M. , and Djoko Sigit Sayogo .   2014 . Transparency, participation, and accountability practices in open government: A comparative study . Government Information Quarterly 31 ( 4 ): 513 – 25 .

Hood , Christopher . 1991 . A public management for all seasons? . Public Administration 69 ( 1 ): 3 – 19 .

Hood , C . 2002 . Control, bargains, and cheating: The politics of public-service reform . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12 ( 3 ): 309 – 32 .

Hood , Christopher . 2007 . What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance? . Public Management Review 9 ( 2 ): 191 – 210 .

Humpage , Louise . 2005 . Experimenting with a ‘whole of government’approach: Indigenous capacity building in New Zealand and Australia . Policy Studies 26 ( 1 ): 47 – 66 .

Ince , Darrel C. , Leslie Hatton , and John Graham-Cumming .   2012 . The case for open computer programs . Nature 482 ( 7386 ): 485 .

Ingrams , Alex . 2017 . The legal‐normative conditions of police transparency: A configurational approach to open data adoption using qualitative comparative analysis . Public Administration 95 ( 2 ): 527 – 45 .

———. 2019 . Administrative Reform and the Quest for Openness: A Popperian Review of Open Government . Administration & Society 52 (2): 319–40.

Jaeger , Paul T. , and John C. Bertot .   2010 . Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information . Government Information Quarterly 27 ( 4 ): 371 – 6 .

Janssen , Marijn , Yannis Charalabidis , and Anneke Zuiderwijk .   2012 . Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government . Information Systems Management 29 ( 4 ): 258 – 68 .

Janssen , Marijn , and Elsa Estevez .   2013 . Lean government and platform-based governance—Doing more with less . Government Information Quarterly 30 : S1 – 8 .

Kaboolian , Linda . 1998 . The New Public Management: Challenging the boundaries of the management vs. administration debate . Public Administration Review 58 ( 3 ): 189 – 93 .

Kamensky , John. M . 1996 . Role of the “reinventing government” movement in federal management reform . Public Administration Review 56 ( 3 ): 247 – 55 .

Kettl , Donald F . 2000 . The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of government . Public Administration Review 60 ( 6 ): 488 – 97 .

Kingdon , John . 1984 . Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies . Boston, MA : Little, Brown and Company .

Laegreid , Per . 2017 . Transcending new public management: The transformation of public sector reforms . London, UK : Routledge .

Lathrop , Daniel , and Laurel Ruma .   2010 . Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice . Washington, DC : O’Reilly Media, Inc .

Lodge , Martin , and Kai Wegrich .   2015 . Crowdsourcing and regulatory reviews: A new way of challenging red tape in B ritish government? . Regulation & Governance 9 ( 1 ): 30 – 46 .

Lynn , Laurence E. Jr . 2001 . The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm: What traditional public administration really stood for . Public Administration Review 61 ( 2 ): 144 – 60 .

———. 2006 . Public management: Old and New . London, UK : Routledge .

Manoharan , Aroon , and Alex Ingrams .   2018 . Conceptualizing e-government from local government perspectives . State and Local Government Review 50 ( 1 ): 56 – 66 .

March , James G. , and Johan P. Olsen .   1976 . Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations . Bergen, Norway : Universitetsforlaget .

McDermott , Patrice . 2010 . Building open government . Government Information Quarterly 27 ( 4 ): 401 – 13 .

McGuire , Michael . 2002 . Managing networks: Propositions on what managers do and why they do it . Public Administration Review 62 ( 5 ): 599 – 609 .

McLaughlin , Kate , Stephen P. Osborne , and Ewan Ferlie , eds. 2002 . New public management: Current trends and future prospects . Washington, DC : Psychology Press .

Meijer , Albert . 2009 . Understanding modern transparency . International Review of Administrative Sciences 75 ( 2 ): 255 – 69 .

Meijer , Albert. J. , Diedre Curtin , and Maarten Hillebrandt .   2012 . Open government: Connecting vision and voice . International Review of Administrative Sciences 78 ( 1 ): 10 – 29 .

Moon , M. J. , and Patricia Ingraham .   1998 . Shaping administrative reform and governance: an examination of the political nexus triads in three Asian countries . Governance 11 ( 1 ): 77 – 100 .

Moore , Mark . 1995 . Creating public value: Strategic management in government . Cambridge, MA : Harvard Univ. Press .

Moulton , Stephanie . 2009 . Putting together the publicness puzzle: A framework for realized publicness . Public Administration Review 69 ( 5 ): 889 – 900 .

Nabatchi , Tina . 2017 . Public values frames in administration and governance . Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 1 ( 1 ): 59 – 72 .

Nalbandian , John . 2005 . Professionals and the conflicting forces of administrative modernization and civic engagement . The American Review of Public Administration 35 ( 4 ): 311 – 26 .

Norman , Steven M. , Bruce J. Avolio , and Fred Luthans .   2010 . The impact of positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness . The Leadership Quarterly 21 ( 3 ): 350 – 64 .

O’Donnell , Guillermo . 1998 . Horizontal accountability in new democracies . Journal of Democracy 9 (3): 112–26.

O’Reilly , Dermot , and Mike Reed .   2010 . ‘Leaderism’: An evolution of managerialism in UK public service reform . Public Administration 88 ( 4 ): 960 – 78 .

Osborne , Stephen . 2007 . The new public governance? Public Management Review 8 ( 3 ): 377 – 87 .

Pandey , Sanjay K. , Randall S. Davis , Sheela Pandey , and Shuyang Peng .   2016 . Transformational leadership and the use of normative public values: Can employees be inspired to serve larger public purposes? . Public Administration 94 ( 1 ): 204 – 22 .

Piotrowski , Suzanne J . 2017 . The “open government reform” movement: The case of the Open Government Partnership and US transparency policies . The American Review of Public Administration 47 ( 2 ): 155 – 71 .

Piotrowski , Suzanne , David Rosenbloom , Sinah Kang , and Alex Ingrams .   2018 . Levels of value integration in federal agencies’ mission and value statements: Is open government a performance target of US federal agencies? . Public Administration Review 78 (5): 705–16.

Pollitt , Christopher , and Geert Bouckaert .   2011 . Continuity and change in public policy and management . London, UK : Edward Elgar Publishing .

Pollitt , Christopher , and Sorin Dan .   2011 . The impacts of the New Public Management in Europe: A meta-analysis . Brussels, Belgium : European Commission .

Pressman , Jeffrey L. , and Aron Wildavsky .   1984 . Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; Or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all . Berkeley, CA : Univ. of California Press .

Prime Minister and Minister for the Cabinet Office . 1999 . Modernising government . London, UK : Stationary Office .

Provan , Keith G. , and Robin H. Lemaire .   2012 . Core concepts and key ideas for understanding public sector organizational networks: Using research to inform scholarship and practice . Public Administration Review 72 ( 5 ): 638 – 48 .

Provan , Keith G. , and H. Brinton Milward .   2001 . Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public‐sector organizational networks . Public Administration Review 61 ( 4 ): 414 – 23 .

Rainey , Hal G. , and Chan Su Jung .   2014 . A conceptual framework for analysis of goal ambiguity in public organizations . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25 ( 1 ): 71 – 99 .

Randma-Liiv , Tiina . 2008 . New public management versus neo-Weberian state in Central and Eastern Europe . The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy 1 ( 2 ): 69 – 81 .

Reynaers , Anne-Marie . 2014 . Public values in public–private partnerships . Public Administration Review 74 ( 1 ): 41 – 50 .

Rhodes , Rod A . 1994 . The hollowing out of the state: The changing nature of the public service in Britain . The Political Quarterly 65 ( 2 ): 138 – 51 .

Roberts , Alasdair . 2017 . The aims of public administration: Reviving the classical view . Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 1 ( 1 ): 73 – 85 .

Romzek , Barbara S. and Melvin J. Dubnick .   1987 . Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the Challenger tragedy . Public Administration Review 47 ( 3 ): 227 – 38 .

Rosenbloom , David H . 1993 . Prescriptive public administrative theory as a product of political dominance . Administrative Theory & Praxis 15 ( 2 ): 1 – 10 .

———. 2000 . Retrofitting the administrative state to the constitution: Congress and the judiciary’s twentieth‐century progress . Public Administration Review 60 ( 1 ): 39 – 46 .

Ruijer , E. , F. Détienne , M. Baker , J. Groff , and A. J. Meijer .   2019 . The politics of open government data: Understanding organizational responses to pressure for more transparency . The American Review of Public Administration doi: 10.1177/0275074019888065 .

Sandoval-Almazan , Rodrigo , and J. Ramon Gil-Garcia .   2016 . Toward an integrative assessment of open government: Proposing conceptual lenses and practical components . Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 26 ( 1 – 2 ): 170 – 92 .

Schedler , Andreas . 1999 . Conceptualizing accountability. In The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies , eds. Andreas Schedler , Larry Jay Diamond , and Marc F. Plattner , 13–52. Boulder, CO : Lynne Rienner Publishers .

Schillemans , Thomas , Mark Van Twist , and Iris Vanhommerig .   2013 . Innovations in accountability: Learning through interactive, dynamic, and citizen-initiated forms of accountability . Public Performance & Management Review 36 ( 3 ): 407 – 35 .

Shkabatur , Jennifer . 2012 . Transparency with (out) accountability: Open government in the United States . Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 31 : 79 .

Simon , Herbert A . 1946 . The proverbs of administration . Public Administration Review 6 ( 1 ): 53 – 67 .

Stivers , Camilla . 1995 . Settlement women and bureau men: Constructing a usable past for public administration . Public Administration Review 55 ( 6 ): 522 .

Tapscott , Don , and David Ticoll .   2003 . The naked corporation: How the age of transparency will revolutionize business . New York, NY : Simon and Schuster .

Tat‐Kei Ho , Alfred . 2002 . Reinventing local governments and the e‐government initiative . Public Administration Review 62 ( 4 ): 434 – 44 .

Taylor , Frederick . 1947 . The principles of scientific management . New York, NY : Harper and Brothers .

Terry , Larry D . 2005 . The thinning of administrative institutions in the hollow state . Administration & Society 37 ( 4 ): 426 – 44 .

Ubaldi , Barbara . 2013 . Open government data: towards empirical analysis of open government data initiatives (OECD Working Papers on Public Governance No. 22) . OECD . doi: 10.1787/5k46bj4f03s7-en

Vigoda , Eran . 2002 . From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration . Public Administration Review 62 ( 5 ): 527 – 40 .

Waldo , Dwight . 1948 . The administrative state: A study of the political theory of American public administration . New York : Ronald Press Company .

Welch , Eric W. , and Wilson Wong .   2001 . Effects of global pressures on public bureaucracy: Modeling a new theoretical framework . Administration & Society 33 ( 4 ): 371 – 402 .

Wirtz , Bernd W. , and Steven Birkmeyer .   2015 . Open government: Origin, development, and conceptual perspectives . International Journal of Public Administration 38 ( 5 ): 381 – 96 .

Worthy , Ben . 2015 . The impact of open data in the UK: Complex, unpredictable, and political . Public Administration 93 ( 3 ): 788 – 5 .

Wynen , Jan , Koen Verhoest , and Bjorn Kleizen .   2019 . Are public organizations suffering from repetitive change injury? A panel study of the damaging effect of intense reform sequences . Governance 32 ( 4 ): 695 – 713 .

Yu , Harlan , and David G. Robinson .   2011 . The new ambiguity of open government . UCLA L. Rev. Discourse 59 : 178 .

Zahariadis , Nikolaos . 2008 . Ambiguity and choice in European public policy . Journal of European Public Policy 15 ( 4 ): 514 – 30 .

van Zyl , Albert . 2014 . How civil society organizations close the gap between transparency and accountability . Governance 27 ( 2 ): 347 – 56 .

Email alerts

• Recommend to Your Librarian

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2398-4929
• Print ISSN 2398-4910
• Copyright © 2024 Public Management Research Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

+44 7967 085 561

What is governance and why is it important.

What is Governance?

Governance is the leadership of decision-making, culture, controls and accountability from the boardroom and throughout the organisation to get consistently great outcomes.

Governance – A dry topic?

We often hear potential new clients talking about governance being ‘a dry topic’ – far from it!  Thirty years ago The Cadbury Report defined it as ‘the system by which companies are directed and controlled’.  In the 21 st century, it’s recognised that governance is equally important in the public and charity sectors as in business, and also that there’s much more to it than a system.

If we were to only focus on the laws, regulations, structures and rules, maybe governance would be a little dry but, at Leading Governance, we believe governance is really about happy, capable people delivering great outcomes and making the world a better place!  So what’s not to love about that?!  Bob Garratt wrote that brilliant book ‘The Fish Rots from the Head’.  We agree with that title, and we also believe that effective boardroom leadership is essential for great outcomes to be delivered. 

For an organisation to work really well, we need our board to be really clear about the vision and core values , to ensure everyone in the organisation understands those, and for everyone to get regular feedback on how they are leading by example (including the Chair of the Board )!  That’s how a culture of success is developed.

We like to focus our attention on the people that need to set the tone in the boardroom, to support and enable everyone else in the organisation to do a great job, and to enjoy doing it.  If you’re new to being a Board Member, you might want to check these fundamentals for your organisation:

• Board effectiveness
• Boardroom dynamics and culture
• Engagement with stakeholders

How is the organisation set up, and what is its legal constitution?  If it’s a company, all Board Members need to understand their legal duties as company directors.  If it’s a charity, they need to be aware of charity law, and their duties as trustees, including ensuring that all of the activities are for public benefit.  Who makes what decisions?  There are some decisions that the members need to make in a General Meeting.  Most decisions, about the strategy and business plan, budget and financial arrangements, management structure etc, are made by the Board. 

The Board should clearly set out what tasks and decisions it delegates to any of its committees, to the Chief Executive / Managing Director, and onwards to others (remembering that they, as Board Members, are ultimately responsible).  Everyone should understand accountability – to whom they are accountable, and for what.  There should always be some kind of proportionate Internal Audit in place to check that the necessary controls are in place and are working.  Checks and balances are key to giving the Board assurance that all is as it should be.

Board Effectiveness

While it may sound obvious, the first step in building Board effectiveness is getting the ‘right people’ into the boardroom!  Board members need to have the right mindset, competencies and behaviours to enable them to really add value.  The constitution document for the organisation may dictate a minimum and maximum number of Board Members that must be in place. 

It’s essential for the Board to use the Skills Audit process at least annually to highlight the kind of people that need to be recruited to drive performance.  As Jim Collins said in his wonderful book ‘Good to Great’ ‘Get the right people onto the bus, and the wrong people off the bus’!  Sometimes we find that Boards are too polite to do that!

Board members need to really understand their role, and work hard on being an effective individual and also an effective team member, willing and able to engage in the collective responsibility that goes with the task.  They need to be proactive in setting strategy, overseeing performance, and managing risk.

The leadership of a great Chair of the Board should ensure that Board meetings are focused on the topics that really matter, rather than just ticking a box for having a meeting.  There will be appropriate balance on both sides of the governance task – conformance (ensuring that everything in the organisation is safe, legal, and following the rules) and performance (having a clear vision for the future of the organisation, and an agreed strategy and core values to get there.

Boardroom Dynamics and Culture

Whether we’re always aware of it or not, there are group dynamics at play in our boardrooms every time we meet.  Board members need to consider the behaviours and emotions that can make or break trusting relationships and a healthy boardroom culture.  The impacts of diversity in leadership styles, followership styles and mindsets shouldn’t be underestimated, and it’s important to be open above the helpful and unhelpful dynamics at work.  We find that mindfulness and humour can help us deal with issues around power relationships, egos and narcissism.  The Chief Executive’s relationship with the Chair of the Board is a key element in building trust, and they should work together to improve energy flow in the boardroom.

Boardroom culture needs to be collaborative, open, honest, respectful, and action-focused.  The Board has to set the tone on ethics and culture for the rest of the organisation.  If the senior managers are seen to lie, steal, bend the rules, or allow unhelpful conflict or bullying to create discomfort, they will find it difficult to attract and retain the best staff for the organisation.  We recommend that every Board should pro-actively assess culture , both in the boardroom and across the organisation, and continually influence it to further improve.  Their own behaviours will be closely observed by others, so it’s vital for them to lead by example.

Engagement with Stakeholders

All Board members need to know who will hold them accountable.  There may be legal and regulatory stakeholders (eg) Companies House, the Charity Commission, shareholders or members.  There will also be a broader range of other important stakeholders (eg) customers, staff, partner organisations.  Really effective Boards will, at least annually, reflect on who their key stakeholders are, and they will engage in a process of stakeholder mapping , to agree the communications needed with each of those groups.  They will then ensure that the necessary communications happen, and that feedback from stakeholders is actively sought and learned from.

So in our view, governance is about having the right people in the boardroom, doing the right thinking, having the right conversations (even when they are difficult ones), receiving the right information , so that they make the right decisions to develop a fabulous culture that attracts and retains the best people to make great things happen!

Our purpose in Leading Governance is to support Boards to make all of that happen – please get in touch if you feel we can be useful to you and your colleagues.

Some useful reading –

• The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Governance
• Corporate Governance: Principles, Policies, and Practices
• Corporate Governance and Accountability
• Corporate Governance: Law, Regulation and Theory

Did you know?

You can join the Leading Governance website as a member? Members get access to thousands of pounds worth of essential Governance materials to build their own Governance Manuals, from Sample Board Agendas to Board Member Review templates and much more! Click here to see more about Membership and join our community.

See more of our recent blog posts below!

Sample Policy on Board Only meetings

Annual review process – what you need to know, if you’re leading from the boardroom – tell everyone, imposter syndrome, why is it important for a board to stay in its role, join the leading governance website today.

Becoming a member of the Leading Governance website provides access to all of the practical guidance documents, tools and templates we have developed over the years in one easily accessed ‘One Stop Shop’ for governance materials.

Click below to learn more.

Do you need support or training for your board? Leading Governance specialises in Governance Reviews and Board Development. Get in touch here for a call back.

Recent Posts

You can join the Leading Governance website as a member? 

Members get access to exclusive governance content to help run their boards. Click below to read more about it and book a free consultation about our website membership.

See some of our recent posts

Kids Company

Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA)

Get updates and stay connected -subscribe to our newsletter.

Email Address*

The Leading Governance model is an innovative framework to help your organisation focus on getting the right people, doing the right things, using the right tools, to get the right results.

Contact Information

• Phone: +44 7967 085 561
• Mail: [email protected]

EXPLORE OUR Posts

The ashley foundation – case study, northern ireland events company (niec) – case study.

© 2023 Leading Governance Ltd Registered in NI, Company No. NI620111

You can join the Leading Governance website as a member and get access to thousands of pounds worth of Governance resources, right at your finger tips.

Click here to learn more!

• +46 70 873 83 81

The Role of Ethics in Corporate Governance [+ Case Study]

Welcome to our comprehensive guide on the crucial role of  ethics in corporate governance . In the dynamic and complex landscape of business, ethics play a pivotal role in governing operations and ensuring the integrity and trustworthiness of organizations.

When it comes to corporate governance, ethics encompass the principles and values that guide decision-making processes and practices. It is imperative to understand the place of  ethics in corporate governance  and the significant impact they have on the overall success and reputation of businesses.

In this article, we will explore the  importance of ethics in corporate governance  and its profound influence on transparency, accountability, finance, banking, accounting, and even the global business environment. We will also discuss the role of a  code of ethics in corporate governance  and strategies for addressing ethics violations.

By delving into these topics, we aim to provide you with valuable insights into the integration of ethics into corporate decision-making processes and maintaining the highest standards of integrity in today’s business landscape.

Understanding Corporate Governance and Ethics

Ethics in corporate governance refers to the system of moral principles and values that guides the behavior of an organization and its decision-making processes.

It encompasses the responsibilities of organizational leaders to make choices that are not only legal but also right in terms of societal and stakeholder expectations

The Relationship Between Corporate Governance and Ethics

In business, corporate governance serves as a set of principles that guides the behavior and actions of individuals involved in the decision-making processes.

It involves establishing structures, policies, and procedures that promote ethical conduct and protect the interests of stakeholders.

The role of ethics in corporate governance  is fundamental, as it dictates the moral compass by which organizations operate. Ethical considerations provide the foundation for responsible decision-making, fostering an environment of integrity, trust, and transparency. 

Corporate governance and ethics in business  are inseparable, as they ensure that organizations are not only focused on maximizing profits but also on creating long-term value for all stakeholders.

How to Integrate Ethics into Corporate Governance

Integrating ethics into corporate governance requires a comprehensive approach that encompasses all levels of an organization.

Ethical guidelines and codes of conduct must be established to outline the expected behavior of individuals within the company.

Regular training and communication initiatives are also vital to promote ethical awareness and understanding.

Achieving effective  corporate governance in ethics  requires accountability and oversight mechanisms to ensure compliance with ethical standards.

Boards of directors play a crucial role in upholding ethical principles, setting the tone from the top and overseeing the implementation of ethical practices throughout the organization.

The Benefits of Ethical Corporate Governance

When ethics and corporate governance align, organizations experience numerous benefits. Not only does ethical corporate governance promote public trust and reputation, but it also attracts and retains top talent by creating a positive organizational culture.

Moreover, ethical decision-making contributes to sustainable growth, as companies that prioritize ethical practices are more likely to maintain long-term success and weather crises.

By prioritizing  the role of ethics in corporate governance  and integrating ethical considerations into decision-making processes, businesses can demonstrate their commitment to responsible conduct, build stakeholder trust, and contribute to a more sustainable and ethical business environment.

Ethical behavior guides decision-making processes, ensuring that actions align with organizational values and principles.

 It creates a framework for responsible conduct, protecting against fraudulent practices and unethical behavior that could harm the company and its stakeholders.

Organizations that prioritize  business ethics in corporate governance  gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

By embracing and promoting ethical behavior, companies demonstrate their commitment to doing business in a responsible and sustainable manner, positively influencing public perception and attracting like-minded stakeholders.

“Business ethics is not a mere buzzword – it is the foundation of a strong corporate governance framework that ensures long-term success and a positive impact on society.”

Overall, the  importance of business ethics in corporate governance  is undeniable. It goes beyond legal compliance and encompasses fostering a culture of integrity and ethical behavior throughout the organization. 

By embracing and prioritizing business ethics, companies can build trust, improve stakeholder relationships, and enhance their long-term sustainability in a dynamic and competitive business environment.

The Role of Ethics in Ensuring Transparency and Accountability

Transparency and accountability are crucial elements of effective corporate governance. They promote trust, integrity, and responsible decision-making within organizations. Adopting ethical practices plays a vital role in safeguarding these principles and ensuring that businesses operate ethically and responsibly.

Ethics serve as a guiding framework for corporate governance, helping organizations establish transparent communication channels and accountability mechanisms.

By adhering to ethical standards, companies can maintain open lines of communication with stakeholders, providing them with accurate and timely information about the organization’s performance, goals, and values.

Ethical practices also contribute to accountability within corporate governance. When ethical guidelines are firmly ingrained in an organization’s culture, employees are more likely to take personal responsibility for their actions and decisions.

Ethical conduct establishes clear expectations and norms for behavior, encouraging individuals to act in an accountable manner.

The Limitations of Corporate Governance in Incorporating Ethical Values

While corporate governance plays a central role in shaping an organization’s ethical practices, it is not without limitations.

Corporate governance frameworks often prioritize financial performance and shareholder value, sometimes neglecting the broader ethical implications of business decisions. This narrow focus can create a gap between corporate governance practices and ethical considerations.

Want to learn what are the priorities of your governance board, we recommend you to consider a corporate governance software to conduct board evaluation.

Gain valuable insights into your board’s effectiveness and structure,  tailored to your needs. Track your progress effortlessly and empower your board to achieve its full potential.

Another limitation is the potential for conflicts of interest. In some cases, corporate governance structures may be influenced by individuals with their own personal agendas, which can compromise ethical decision-making processes.

It is crucial for organizations to establish checks and balances to mitigate these conflicts and ensure that the interests of all stakeholders are prioritized.

Ethics in Finance and Corporate Governance

When it comes to corporate governance, the integration of ethics and finance is crucial for the long-term success of an organization. 

Ethics in finance and corporate governance  refer to the principles and standards that guide financial decision-making while ensuring accountability and transparency.

However, the neglect of ethical considerations in financial decision-making can lead to significant challenges for investors and stakeholders.

One of the main problems that investors face in corporate governance and ethics is the potential for unethical behavior within financial institutions.

The lack of ethical guidelines and oversight can result in actions that prioritize short-term gains over long-term value creation.

This can include misleading financial reporting, insider trading, and excessive risk-taking, all of which can detrimentally impact investors’ interests.

Additionally, the absence of  ethics in finance and corporate governance  can erode trust between investors and companies.

When ethical considerations are disregarded, investors may question the integrity of the decision-making process and hesitate to invest their capital. 

This lack of trust can have far-reaching consequences, including reduced market confidence and limited access to capital.

To address these challenges, it is essential for organizations to prioritize  ethics in finance and corporate governance . 

This can be achieved by adopting robust ethical frameworks, implementing effective internal controls, and promoting a culture of accountability and transparency. 

By integrating ethics into financial decision-making processes, companies can safeguard investor interests, build trust, and enhance long-term value creation.

By addressing these challenges and placing ethics at the forefront of finance and corporate governance, organizations can inspire investor confidence, attract capital, and contribute to the overall integrity and sustainability of the business ecosystem.

Ethics and Corporate Governance in the Banking Industry

When it comes to ethics and corporate governance, the banking industry faces unique challenges that require careful consideration and adherence to ethical standards.

As banks play a crucial role in the economy by managing financial transactions and providing essential services, maintaining ethical practices is of utmost importance to ensure trust, integrity, and stability in the financial system.

The Ethical Challenges in the Banking Industry

The banking industry operates in a complex environment with various stakeholders, including customers, employees, shareholders, and regulatory bodies. This complexity gives rise to several ethical challenges that banks must navigate:

• Conflicts of interest:  Banks often face conflicts of interest when dealing with clients, shareholders, and their own financial interests. Managing these conflicts ethically is vital to avoid compromising the interests of stakeholders.
• Transparency and accountability:  Banks must strive to maintain transparency and accountability in their operations and reporting practices. Ethical behavior ensures that all stakeholders have access to accurate and timely information.
• Risk management:  Ethical considerations play a significant role in risk management within the banking industry. Banks must balance the pursuit of profit with the responsibility to manage risks ethically and safeguard the financial well-being of their customers and investors.

Maintaining Ethical Standards

To address these ethical challenges, banks need to establish robust corporate governance frameworks that prioritize ethics and integrity. This includes:

• Developing a strong ethical culture:  Banks must foster an ethical culture throughout their organization, starting from the top leadership down to every employee. Clear ethical guidelines and regular training programs are essential to promote ethical behavior.
• Implementing effective risk management:  Banks should have comprehensive risk management systems in place that identify, assess, and mitigate potential ethical risks. This ensures that ethical considerations are integrated into decision-making processes.
• Engaging stakeholders:  Banks should actively engage with stakeholders to understand their expectations and concerns. This includes maintaining open lines of communication and soliciting feedback to address governance issues effectively.

Case Study: Wells Fargo’s Ethical Crisis

In 2016, Wells Fargo was embroiled in one of the most significant ethical crises in the banking industry when it was revealed that employees had opened millions of unauthorized customer accounts.

This unethical practice was driven by an aggressive sales culture that incentivized employees to meet unrealistic sales targets, often at the expense of customer interests.

As a result, employees created fake email addresses and forged customer signatures to set up new accounts and generate fees.

The scandal came to light through a series of investigations that unveiled systemic failures in corporate governance, including a lack of oversight from senior management and inadequate internal controls.

This failure not only breached ethical standards but also violated legal frameworks, leading to fines and penalties for Wells Fargo.

The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), along with other regulatory bodies, fined the bank $185 million, reflecting the severity of the misconduct.

Following the crisis, Wells Fargo took several remedial actions to restore its reputation and realign its operations with ethical standards.

This included overhauling its sales practices, eliminating sales goals for retail bankers, and implementing a new system for whistleblowers to report unethical activities safely.

The bank also made changes at the executive level, signaling a commitment to ethical reform by appointing new leadership and enhancing board oversight.

Despite these efforts, the scandal had far-reaching consequences, damaging customer trust and leading to a broader industry-wide examination of sales practices in banking.

The Wells Fargo case serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of ethics in corporate governance. It underscores the need for organizations to foster a culture of integrity and transparency and to establish robust mechanisms that prevent, detect, and address ethical violations effectively.

The Code of Ethics in Corporate Governance

Corporate governance is essential for maintaining integrity and ethical standards within organizations. A crucial component of corporate governance is the establishment and implementation of a  code of ethics . 

This code serves as a guiding framework that outlines the expected behaviors and principles that all employees and stakeholders should adhere to.

A well-developed  code of ethics in corporate governance  helps foster a culture of transparency, trust, and accountability. It provides employees with clear guidelines and expectations, ensuring that ethical decision-making is prioritized in all aspects of business operations.

Some key elements typically addressed in a  code of ethics in corporate governance  include:

• Integrity and honesty: Upholding high ethical standards and acting with honesty and integrity in all business interactions and transactions.
• Conflicts of interest: Recognizing and managing conflicts of interest to ensure that personal interests do not compromise professional judgment.
• Compliance with laws and regulations: Adhering to all applicable laws, regulations, and industry standards.
• Fair competition: Engaging in fair competition and avoiding practices that could result in antitrust violations.
• Confidentiality: Respecting and safeguarding confidential information, both internally and externally.
• Respect and diversity: Treating all individuals with respect, valuing diversity, and promoting an inclusive work environment.

“A code of ethics is not just a piece of paper; it sets the tone for the entire organization and shapes its culture.”

Having a well-communicated and regularly reinforced code of ethics is essential for maintaining trust and credibility among stakeholders, including employees, customers, investors, and the wider community.

It demonstrates a commitment to ethical conduct and helps organizations navigate complex ethical dilemmas.

Corporate Governance Ethics in the Global Business Environment

In the increasingly interconnected and complex global business environment, the ethical practices of corporations play a crucial role in maintaining effective corporate governance.

With multinational companies operating in diverse cultural and regulatory contexts, the integration of ethics into corporate governance becomes paramount for long-term success and sustainability.

When multinational corporations prioritize corporate governance ethics in their global operations, they demonstrate their commitment to responsible and ethical decision-making.

By adhering to high ethical standards, these companies foster trust among stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and customers.

One of the key challenges that organizations face in promoting corporate governance ethics in a global business environment is navigating the differences in cultural values and legal frameworks.

What may be considered ethically acceptable in one country may be viewed as unethical in another. Therefore, multinational corporations must be mindful of the cultural nuances and legal requirements of the countries in which they operate.

Furthermore, multinational corporations must prioritize ethical behavior not only within their own operations but also among their suppliers, partners, and stakeholders throughout the global supply chain.

This commitment to ethical practices in the global business environment helps prevent unethical practices such as corruption, human rights abuses, and environmental degradation.

To emphasize the importance of corporate governance ethics in the global business environment, the following table highlights the key factors and their impact:

By prioritizing corporate governance ethics in the global business environment, multinational corporations can contribute to the development of sustainable and resilient economies that benefit both societies and shareholders.

Addressing Ethics Violations in Corporate Governance

When ethics violations occur in corporate governance, the consequences can be far-reaching, impacting not only the reputation of the company but also its stakeholders and the overall integrity of the business ecosystem.

It is crucial for organizations to address and rectify such violations promptly to restore trust and maintain ethical standards.

Effective strategies for addressing  ethics violations in corporate governance  involve a multi-faceted approach that encompasses prevention, detection, investigation, and remediation.

The following steps can help organizations navigate the challenges posed by ethics violations:

• Develop and enforce a robust code of ethics:  A well-defined and comprehensive code of ethics serves as a guiding framework for ethical behavior and decision-making. Organizations should clearly communicate their expectations and ensure compliance through regular training, monitoring, and enforcement mechanisms.
• Establish an independent and effective ethics reporting mechanism:  Whistleblower hotlines and reporting systems provide avenues for employees and stakeholders to report potential ethics violations confidentially and without fear of retaliation. These channels should be readily accessible and supported by a culture that encourages ethical reporting.
• Conduct thorough investigations and implement appropriate disciplinary actions:  When ethical misconduct is reported, organizations must conduct timely and impartial investigations. This process should be carried out by an independent team or external experts. If violations are substantiated, appropriate disciplinary actions, such as employee reprimands, suspensions, or terminations, should be taken to reinforce the seriousness of ethical breaches.
• Strengthen internal controls and risk management systems:  Robust internal controls and risk management frameworks help identify and mitigate the potential for ethics violations. These mechanisms should encompass regular audits, risk assessments, and compliance monitoring to ensure adherence to ethical guidelines.
• Cultivate a strong ethical culture:  A culture of ethics starts at the top with leaders who demonstrate and prioritize ethical behavior. Organizations should promote ethical values and integrity through training, communication, recognition of ethical conduct, and aligning performance evaluations with ethical standards.

By proactively addressing  ethics violations in corporate governance , organizations can foster a culture of trust, accountability, and transparency. This, in turn, enhances stakeholder confidence , protects reputations, and contributes to sustainable business success.

“Ethics is not just about avoiding wrongdoing; it’s about doing what is right, even when no one is watching.”—Aldo Leopold

The Triple Bottom Line: Ethics and Corporate Governance

Corporate governance is not solely concerned with financial performance and shareholder value. In recent years, a broader perspective called the triple bottom line has emerged, emphasizing the interconnection between social, environmental, and financial sustainability. 

In this context, ethics in corporate governance play a crucial role in ensuring responsible and sustainable business practices.

When we examine the triple bottom line, we can see how ethics weave into each dimension:

• Social sustainability:  Ethics in corporate governance drive organizations to consider the well-being of their employees, customers, and communities. It includes fair labor practices, diversity and inclusion, and responsible marketing. By prioritizing social sustainability , companies build trust and foster positive relationships with their stakeholders.
• Environmental sustainability:  Ethics in corporate governance involve responsible resource management, waste reduction, and minimizing the organization’s ecological footprint. By integrating environmental ethics into decision-making processes, companies contribute to a sustainable and resilient future, mitigating the negative impact of their operations on the environment.
• Financial sustainability:  Ethical considerations in corporate governance play a vital role in long-term financial success. By practicing transparency, accountability, and integrity, companies maintain the trust and confidence of investors, attract sustainable capital, and foster long-term profitability.

Measures that include corporate ethics and governance ensure that organizations navigate the complexities of the triple bottom line effectively. By embedding ethics into the governance framework, companies can align their values with their business strategies and enhance overall sustainability.

What is the place of ethics in corporate governance?

Ethics play a crucial role in corporate governance by guiding decision-making processes and ensuring the integrity and trustworthiness of business operations.

What is the role of ethics in corporate governance?

Ethics influence the practices and processes of corporate governance, helping to establish transparency, accountability, and responsible behavior within organizations.

Why is ethics important in corporate governance?

Upholding business ethics in corporate governance is essential for maintaining a positive reputation, fostering stakeholder trust, and achieving long-term organizational success.

What is the relationship between ethics, finance, and corporate governance?

Ethical considerations are crucial in financial decision-making within corporate governance. Overlooking ethics can lead to problems such as conflicts of interest, insider trading, and unethical financial practices.

How are ethics integrated into corporate governance in the global business environment?

In a global business context, ethics in corporate governance are vital for multinational corporations to navigate diverse cultural norms, regulatory frameworks, and stakeholder expectations.

How should ethics violations in corporate governance be addressed?

Ethics violations in corporate governance should be taken seriously and addressed through effective policies, mechanisms for reporting misconduct, and appropriate consequences for wrongdoing.

In summary, ethics play a vital role in corporate governance, ensuring integrity, transparency, and accountability within organizations. Upholding business ethics is essential for building trust among stakeholders and maintaining a positive reputation.

Integrating ethics into decision-making processes is a corporate governance best practice that fosters responsible and sustainable business practices. It promotes a culture of professionalism, fairness, and respect, which ultimately contributes to the overall success of an organization.

By recognizing the  importance of ethics in corporate governance , businesses can navigate the complexities of the global business environment while upholding ethical standards.

Norman Marks on Governance, Risk Management, and Internal Audit

• Management’s Guide to SOX – 5th Edition
• Norman’s Books
• About Norman
• The GAIT Methodology
• Books I Recommend

The importance of critical thinking

Yesterday, I recorded a 15-minute video on whether we are doing our work without thinking.

Today, I am writing about whether leaders of the organization are making decisions without exercising their critical facilities – i.e., not thinking effectively.

Board Intelligence has shared an excellent article, How to turn critical thinking into a business superpower .

Please read it and think about what it says.

• Have you mastered the art of critical thinking?
• Do your leaders and decision-makers practice it?
• Is there an unacceptable risk that decisions are made without effective thinking?

Here are a few excerpts, but please read the entire article.

Moving fast without thinking smartly, however, is a recipe for breaking things — as many corporate scandals and failures, from WeWork’s collapse to Boeing’s ongoing problems with the 737 MAX, have highlighted. In contrast, the world’s most enduringly successful companies have shown us that the secret to winning in the long term is great thinking — and lots of it. You can’t move fast, and in the right direction, if you don’t think first. Critical thinking helps you spot risks and opportunities early. It helps you to understand problems properly before you start trying to solve them. It leads you to insights that might otherwise remain buried. It helps you build more robust plans, preventing costly missteps. And it relieves bottlenecks by giving leaders the confidence to empower decision-making closer to the front line. In sum, deep thinking doesn’t slow you down, it speeds you up.

Just 14% of the business leaders who took our  Agility Friction Test  think their organisation moves fast and finds it easy to get things done, and 88% say they don’t have the quality of thinking they need or would like throughout their organisation.

Albert Einstein was onto something when he (allegedly) uttered this now-famous line: “If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes working out the question at the heart of it. Once I knew the question, I’d only need five minutes to solve the problem.” He recognised,  as had Socrates before him , that questions are powerful. They are the spark and fuel of critical thinking. They unlock our ability to reason, understand, and create. They sharpen our decisions, plans, and ideas. And they’re as vital to businesses as they are to academics. To succeed, businesses need a culture of questioning, which means everyone, at every level, asking and answering questions all the time. The problem is that we’re not as good at it as we think we are.

The author tells shares three principles from their book:

• Tackle the tough questions . The questions that add most value to your thinking are the ones that cut through the noise and get you to the crux of what matters faster.

Unfortunately, they’re often the questions we’d rather shy away from — the tough ones that are difficult to answer, surface uncomfortable truths, or trigger more questions. Or they’re the questions that are so simple and blindingly obvious that we neglect to ask them, because we assume we already know the answer or because we don’t want to look stupid by admitting we don’t. Like “What happened?”, “Why?”, and “What other options have you considered?”

• Leave no stone unturned . To avoid creating blind spots or making judgements built on flawed foundations, you need to find and plug the gaps in your thinking.

So, take a step back and cast your eye over the questions you plan to tackle. Map them out visually, write them down, or talk them through with someone.

Getting the questions out of your head makes it easier to understand how they fit together and what you might be missing. For example, you might have looked at the opportunities but forgotten to think about the risks. You might have thought about the internal implications of your plan but not considered the external context.

• Charge thinking with insight . With so much information at our fingertips, finding the insight buried within it can feel like searching for a needle in a haystack. But find it we must. Because it’s insight, and not information, that acts as the foundation for great plans and ideas.

So, challenge yourself to draw meaning from the information in front of you by asking “So what?” and “What needs to be done differently as a result?”

Asking these two simple questions will help you draw this meaning out, so you can charge your thinking with actionable insight.

I think this is critically important (puns intended).

• Take the time to think. Don’t get so busy you feel you can’t. Make the time. Some deliberately block time on their daily schedule to think.
• What am I/we trying achieve and why?
• What will happen if we do nothing? What are the risks and opportunities, and the range of likelihoods of each?
• Make sure you are gathering all the information you need, given constraints about the timeliness of decisions you have to make.
• Listen actively and carefully, especially to the body language of others. Hear what is not said!
• Don’t shy away from unpleasant conclusions.
• Challenge your own thinking.
• Recognize and set aside your own biases – in fact, seek out others to give you insight into them.
• Put to one side your assumptions, or at least challenge them before they make an ass out of you.
• Understand your own weaknesses (such as inexperience in a field, or lack of knowledge) and seek the assistance of others with those strengths to help you think through the issues. In fact, recognize the limits to your knowledge and the great extent of your ignorance .
• Obtain the criticism of others and listen thoughtfully and actively to them.
• What will happen under each decision option, both good and bad with the range of likelihoods?
• Engage the right people to help understand that big picture and assess the options.

What do you think? Think about it.

Share this:

Is IA auditing on ‘muscle memory’? Although I have been retired for over 20 years, I have followed developments in IA closely and the evidence points to a ‘Yes’ answer. Searches on my website (internalaudit.biz) often include ‘Audit Universe’ while checklists on LinkedIn are gobbled up. The new GIAS standards are hardly revolutionary. I don’t think IA has moved on since the 1970’s. I believe many departments are still using cyclical audit plans covering one year with audits based on the files from the last audit, updated as necessary (hopefully). I stand to be corrected.

Let me be controversial and be challenged that I’m 20 years out-of-date.

Because it’s easy. Budgets are easy to set, no danger of overruns due to unexpected issues or audits having not been done before. Reviews of working papers are easy and training is simplified because the previous file can be followed. Staff are not challenged by having to audit new areas.

It avoids confrontation with management. They know what IA does. There’s a nice cosy relationship. No nasty surprises because IA has audited controls over new ‘enterprise’ risks. For example, how many IA departments have looked at the processes supporting executive decisions?

IA doesn’t have staff of sufficient calibre (your point).

But I don’t agree with your comments about follow-ups being unnecessary. Indeed, you have justified them because they show whether IA’s recommendations have been effective. There is also the risk that management may simply have said yes to all the recommendations, with the intention of doing nothing about them.

Well said. David, would you do follow-ups if you kept finding that management was following through? If you keep finding delays, etc, look in the mirror first.

The extent of the follow-ups would depend on the recommendations and my confidence in the management’s ability to implement them. The work might therefore range from another audit (that would be if very serious weaknesses had been found) to a phone call or short face-to-face meeting, primarily aimed at keeping good relations with the managers involved and showing that we care about the work we do. As you say, failures to implement recommendations may point a failure on IA’s part.

I believe somebody suggested “risk-based follow-up”, with which I might agree. It infers that follow-up should not be mandatory, only where the risk of failing to complete an action item is both significant and likely.

Then we are in agreement – since I would say that a ‘risk-based follow-up’ where it was decided that no audit work was necessary, was a ‘Follow-up’ and therefore complied with the standards. I would still prefer a brief ‘chat’ about the audit recommendations with the management just to maintain relationships.

• No trackbacks yet.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

Sign me up!

• How has internal audit progressed over the last twenty years?
• Does internal audit have the budget it needs? If not, why not?
• A new movie and book try to shed light on homelessness
• How useful is the updated IIA guidance on auditing risk management? Is there a better way?
• Important survey results for internal audit, boards, and management

There is a separate tab where you can see Norman's published books, including:

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• Sustainability and ESG strategy and leadership

This ESG strategy and management guide explains what ESG involves and how it can benefit companies. You'll also find guidance on creating an ESG strategy and measuring a company's performance on ESG issues, plus information on frameworks for ESG reporting and software that can help manage ESG initiatives. Throughout the guide, hyperlinks point to related articles that cover those topics and others in more depth.

What is esg data examples, uses, issues, as more companies are judged on their sustainability profile, esg data has become critical. learn what it is -- including examples -- and why it’s important..

• Mary K. Pratt

In the sustainability realm -- as in other areas of business -- data is key to gaining a competitive edge.

More stakeholders are demanding that companies focus on environmental, social and governance (ESG) efforts . Data provides raw material that IT, sustainability and business leaders can use to benchmark their company's practices and assess risks. ESG data also forms the basis for strategic decisions and improvements. And critically, ESG data helps to prove that a company has sustainable, fair and ethical practices to legislators, supply chain partners, consumers and employees.

This data is particularly important today as investors increasingly turn to ESG data providers -- companies that focus on gathering and analyzing companies' sustainability and related practices -- to help make decisions about where their money should go.

However, the ESG landscape is complex, and that extends to the concept of data. This article provides a primer to dispel some confusion. It covers the following areas:

• What ESG data is, with examples.
• What data companies gather.
• How ESG data is used.
• An overview of ESG scores.
• Challenges with collecting and reporting ESG data.
• The IT leader's role in gathering and reporting ESG data.

What is ESG data?

At its simplest, ESG data refers to information that organizations could collect under the header of environmental, social and governance activities.

This article is part of

ESG strategy and management: Complete guide for businesses

• Which also includes:
• 5 ESG benefits for businesses
• 8 top ESG reporting frameworks explained and compared
• 18 sustainability management software providers to consider

Environmental data

The "E" in ESG covers how a company uses natural resources and what impact it has on the environment. Examples of environmental data include:

• Energy use.
• Greenhouse gas emissions.
• Biodiversity impacts.
• Pollution levels.
• Amount of waste sent to landfill.

Data on carbon emissions is one of the most important in this category. More organizations are tracking and reporting on their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to meet regulatory requirements, to inform their own sustainability decisions or to share with stakeholders, such as business partners and customers.

However, some organizations might need to get more granular by measuring their energy use in more detail. For instance, some might want to calculate how much of their energy comes from renewable resources so they can tell whether they're meeting self-imposed milestones on their journey to become carbon neutral. Similarly, organizations might want to collect and record data on how much water they use, the volume of raw materials they consume, how much waste they produce, and how much waste can be recycled.

Social data

The "S" of ESG focuses on the fair and just treatment of people , both inside the company and as part of business operations. It too includes a wide range of data companies could collect. Examples of social data include:

• Diversity statistics.
• Workplace safety issues.
• Substandard wage levels.
• Product quality problems.
• Community engagement efforts.
• Dollars contributed to nonprofits.

Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) data is a prime example of the social component of ESG. Many organizations collect data about employees' race, gender and age to help understand the fairness of their employment practices, help establish DEI program strategies and track those programs' progress. Some of that data collection might be for regulatory requirements, while some might be for internal scoring. More organizations are going further, for example, gathering data on compensation figures and personnel employment histories for all workers, so they can determine whether the organization has equitable pay across gender and racial lines.

Supply chains are becoming an important area of focus for the "S" of ESG. Their out-of-sight, out-of-mind complexity makes injustices, working conditions and other negative impacts easy to overlook. In response, more organizations are working to gain greater visibility into their supply chains to verify that their suppliers uphold human rights, don't use forced labor and aren't violating specific labor-related standards. Some companies are even mandated to gather supplier-related information by regulations such as Germany's Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (SCDDA), in effect since January 2023.

Governance data

The "G" in ESG covers the frameworks and decision-making processes that control a company and its resulting operations. Data that falls under the governance umbrella includes the following:

• Board diversity profile.
• Shareholder rights.
• Political activities and affiliations.

One important area of governance data is a company's board composition in terms of gender, ethnicity, age and experience. Executive compensation and political donations are also critical data points. Other factors include business integrity and anti-corruption practices; corporate leadership's approach to strategy, decision making and compliance; and the company's competitive practices.

As compared with environmental and social factors, many organizations have a longer history of tracking and measuring their governance programs -- and thus gathering governance data -- than they do their environmental and social impact. The data gathered to report on the governance function focuses on accountability, assurance, efficiency, fairness, leadership, responsibility and transparency -- basically measuring how justly corporate leadership and boards discharge their duties.

Qualitative vs. quantitative ESG data

In all three areas, both quantitative and qualitative data play a role. Quantitative data is concrete, numbers-based and measurable, while qualitative data describes and interprets.

For example, quantitative data can describe the organization's carbon emissions, whereas the qualitative data can provide context for why emissions have gone up or down. In the governance arena, the corporate board's gender makeup and board member compensation are examples of quantitative data. The perceived adequacy of corruption controls, which relies on stakeholder perception and description, is a type of qualitative data. An example of quantitative data in the social arena is the number of data breaches, while qualitative data in this area would be storytelling around the low number of women in leadership at the company or why the demographic composition at a company is homogenous.

Due to the complexity of many issues covered by ESG, there is currently an overreliance on qualitative data, which can make comparisons and progress tracking difficult.

Data interdependency

Much of the data related to ESG issues crosses multiple areas. For example, pollution affects people and is an issue that's impossible to separate from the ethics of a company. Animal welfare is another area of ESG risk with multiple sustainability impacts, and it is getting more attention as companies come under fire for cruel and polluting practices.

What ESG data do companies gather?

Not all possible ESG data points are relevant or important to an individual organization. That's why organizations must determine what data is required or otherwise important to gather and report.

Organizations narrow that potential selection by undertaking an ESG materiality assessment. This process identifies which environmental, social and governance factors are most relevant to its success and which activities and results to measure and track. The objective of a materiality assessment is to identify what data is needed -- and therefore material -- to the organization so that the organization can inform stakeholders, meet regulatory requirements and measure progress toward ESG goals. Numerous frameworks exist to guide organizations through a materiality assessment and help them identify what data to collect in each of the three ESG categories based on their industries, goals and legal needs.

More companies are choosing to hire an external entity to conduct an ESG audit as part of this process. An ESG audit is an assessment of a company's environmental, social and governance risks, which is most commonly used to verify data in ESG reporting but can be part of the materiality assessment stage.

How is ESG data used?

Organizations use ESG data to set, track and measure their ESG-related initiatives and to create reports that investors, business partners, lawmakers and analysts can use to assess an organization's impact, risk and compliance. An organization can also demonstrate to employees and consumers its commitment to corporate social responsibility .

Regulatory requirements sit at the top of the list of possible uses, as organizations have no choice but to report on certain ESG factors as required by law. Moreover, the number of regulatory reporting requirements are growing. The most notable new addition is the European Union's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which in 2024 started its phased-in implementation.

Organizations collect ESG data for reasons beyond regulatory reporting requirements, however. Many gather, analyze and report such data to do the following:

• Inform their executives on the status of their environmental, social and governance programs so they can determine whether they're meeting expectations or goals.
• Share with their business partners and suppliers, who might need it for their own regulatory reports or to meet their own ESG-related goals.
• Share with other stakeholders, such as employees, customers and investors, who are increasingly seeking such information to decide with whom they want to do business. For example, ESG investing is a category of investing that uses ESG metrics in addition to more traditional metrics to determine which companies to put money into.
• Identify areas of success in their ESG efforts that could differentiate them from competitors.

The growing stakeholder interest in an organization's ESG performance has given rise to ESG scores .

Consulting groups and nonprofit organizations as well as financial and investment firms are among the institutions that issue ESG scores. These entities use an organization's ESG data to rate the organization's efforts against a set scoring system, thereby allowing an organization to be benchmarked against the system and the other organizations being scored.

Well-known ESG score providers include the following:

• Fitch Ratings.
• S&P Global.
• Sustainalytics.

Challenges with collecting, reporting ESG data

Despite the growing number of demands for ESG-related data, many organizations struggle to collect, understand and report on all their environmental, social and governance efforts.

There are myriad reasons for their challenges. Here are just a few:

• Executives often still struggle to identify what data points are most important to them and their stakeholders, as lawmakers and government agencies continue to pass new regulations and other organizations continually update the data points they're seeking from organizations.
• Some data is outside the direct control of a company, making it difficult to capture correct information. Such is the case with Scope 3 emissions, i.e., all the indirect emissions that aren't included in the narrower indirect emissions of Scope 2, which relate to purchased energy.
• Frameworks and models for assessing emissions, energy and other data can be inexact, in conflict with one another and more. Or frameworks simply don't exist for nuanced issues such as around social factors.
• Extracting and collating the needed data from the various sources where the data is generated and stored, as the data points typically reside in different formats in different applications.

The IT leader's role in gathering, reporting ESG data

IT leaders and their teams have a critical role to play in their organization's ESG efforts, both in terms of enterprise technology sustainability and in terms of the organization as a whole.

CIOs and other relevant IT leaders should collaborate with their executive colleagues to set the organization's ESG priorities and goals and then run their IT departments in ways that align with those. For example, if an organization sets aggressive goals to cut its GHG emissions, the CIO should ensure they are using green computing principles. IT leaders should work with their teams and software providers to ensure that the IT infrastructure -- including on-premises data centers and cloud services -- uses renewable energy where possible and limit emissions and environmental impact. Carbon accounting software is likely to be involved in this effort.

IT leaders must also partner with their executive colleagues to identify what data the organization needs to gather , monitor, and report on as part of its ESG efforts. They also need to create the data pipelines that deliver the needed data and then ensure that delivered data is accurate, timely and well secured.

IT leaders will also be key in selecting and deploying the ESG software that can best enable their executive colleagues to analyze and understand the data as well as report the needed data and analysis to stakeholders.

Mary K. Pratt is an award-winning freelance journalist with a focus on covering enterprise IT and cybersecurity management.

Dig Deeper on Sustainability and ESG strategy and leadership

13 key ESG and sustainability trends, ideas for companies

green IT (green information technology)

ESG audit vs. green IT audit: How are they different?

Compare ESG tools from AWS, Azure and Google Cloud

The next U.S. president will set the tone on tech issues such as AI regulation, data privacy and climate tech. This guide breaks ...

A challenge companies are facing while preparing for compliance with climate risk reporting rules is a lack of consistency among ...

Key leadership decisions like poor architecture to rushed processes can lead to technical debt that will affect a company ...

Early evidence suggests AI is reducing the need for some workers, such as those in customer service, and concern about AI's ...

Kamala Harris, backed by Silicon Valley VCs, might overlook H-1B concerns like Hillary Clinton did in 2016, which could affect ...

Workday, the first SaaS provider in the Salesforce Zero Copy Partner Network, will integrate data with Salesforce, allowing ...

New capabilities in AI technology hold promise for manufacturers, but companies should proceed carefully until issues such as ...

A 3PL with experience working with supply chain partners and expertise in returns can help simplify a company's operations. Learn...

Neglecting enterprise asset management can lead to higher equipment costs and delayed operations. Learn more about EAM software ...

Broadcom shutters the VMware IT Academy and Academic Software Licensing programs on Aug. 15, leaving universities and trade ...

Nutanix and Dell are expanding their partnership with a new appliance out now and a new HCI model that melds Dell PowerFlex with ...

Tests off coastlines around the world are measuring the feasibility of underwater data centers. With proper maintenance and ...

To keep corporate and user data safe, IT must continuously ensure mobile app security. Mobile application security audits are a ...

Dell continues to cut its workforce to become 'leaner,' as it repositions for changes in the enterprise PC market that are ...

Tap to Pay makes it possible to accept customer payments from an iPhone with no additional hardware. Find out the best use cases ...

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The Strongest U.S. Healthcare Organizations Invest in Social Capital

• Thomas H. Lee
• Nell Buhlman

The value created when teams work well together is a self-sustaining resource built on mutual respect.

Social capital —the value gained when people work well together — is just as, if not more, important than human or financial capital. At a time, when financial and human capital are in short supply, it is critical that healthcare leaders focus on building social capital to improve performance and gain competitive advantage. This article explains what it takes to build social capital and how to measure it.

Being in the business of providing care means spending a lot of time thinking about the human element of the work. After all, people are at the heart of everything that matters most in healthcare — both those receiving care and those working to provide it. That’s human capital.

• Thomas H. Lee , MD, is the chief medical officer of PG Forsta, a leading provider of experience measurement, data analytics, and insights that help companies in complex industries better understand and better serve their stakeholders. He is a practicing internist and a professor (part time) of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a professor of health policy and management at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
• Nell Buhlman is the chief administrative officer and head of strategy at PG Forsta, a leading provider of experience measurement, data analytics, and insights that help companies in complex industries better understand and better serve their stakeholders. She is also a member of Lifepoint Health’s board of directors.

Partner Center

Curiosity Unleashed: The Missing Ingredient In Business Education

Curious Dog

Curiosity lies at the heart of all meaningful learning, particularly in business education. Educators witness firsthand how curiosity drives not only academic success but also the capacity to thrive in the constantly evolving world of business. Dr. Diane Hamilton , in her newly released book Curiosity Unleashed , explores the critical role that curiosity plays in shaping future business leaders.

Dr. Hamilton believes that in higher education, fostering curiosity is not just about encouraging students to ask questions. It is about empowering young minds to look beyond the obvious and confront the obstacles that hold organizations back. These insights resonate deeply in a world where the status quo often suppresses innovation. For leaders to emerge, they must possess the ability to question, explore, and challenge conventional thinking.

When engaging with students on the importance of curiosity, the focus is on asking the right questions—those that lead to deeper understanding and informed decision-making. Curiosity is not simply about gathering information; it is about delving into issues, examining them from various angles, and remaining open to new perspectives. This approach to thinking is directly tied to critical thinking, which Dr. Hamilton describes as a key benefit of cultivating curiosity in students. Ultimately, curiosity drives critical thinking and equips students to challenge the assumptions that often stifle innovation.

The connection between curiosity and critical thinking is clear. Critical thinking involves assessing situations, identifying opportunities, and solving problems in creative ways. These abilities are nurtured by a curious mindset. When students are curious, they become more engaged, which in turn fosters innovation. Dr. Hamilton discusses how business courses grounded in curiosity help students bridge the gap between theory and practice, enabling them to address real-world problems that organizations frequently struggle to solve.

In business education, fostering curiosity should be a top priority. Diane mentions that too often, the focus is placed on teaching the "what" and "how," while neglecting the importance of the "why." Students need to learn to question assumptions, remain open to new ideas, and explore possibilities beyond the obvious. This is not just about preparing them for exams; it is about equipping them to handle the complex challenges they will encounter in their careers. The true value of curiosity in the classroom lies in its ability to break down the barriers of fear and complacency, paving the way for bold, innovative thinking.

Obese Cat Series

To effectively cultivate curiosity, educators must be aware of the factors that inhibit it. Whether it is fear of failure, rigid thinking, or a lack of exposure to diverse ideas, these barriers can stifle the very curiosity that needs to be encouraged. Dr. Hamilton underscores the importance of creating environments where students feel safe to ask questions, make mistakes, and explore new ideas without fear of judgment. This kind of environment is essential for developing not only better students but also better leaders.

Curiosity in business education does more than enhance learning—it aligns with what organizations need most: critical thinkers who can break free from the status quo and drive meaningful change. Curiosity does not just improve the classroom experience; it cultivates the skills that are essential for success in the business world.

The value of curiosity in business education extends beyond the classroom. It is a lifelong skill that will benefit students in both their careers and personal lives. By fostering curiosity, educators are not only teaching students to think critically; they are also encouraging innovation, engagement, and success in whatever paths the students choose to pursue. This is the true value of curiosity, and it is why it should be at the center of everything done in business education.

• Fact sheets
• Facts in pictures
• Publications
• Questions and answers
• Tools and toolkits
• Endometriosis
• Excessive heat
• Mental disorders
• Polycystic ovary syndrome
• All countries
• Eastern Mediterranean
• South-East Asia
• Western Pacific
• Data by country
• Country presence 
• Country strengthening 
• Country cooperation strategies 
• News releases
• Feature stories
• Press conferences
• Commentaries
• Photo library
• Afghanistan
• Cholera 
• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
• Greater Horn of Africa
• Israel and occupied Palestinian territory
• Disease Outbreak News
• Situation reports
• Weekly Epidemiological Record
• Surveillance
• Health emergency appeal
• International Health Regulations
• Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee
• Classifications
• Data collections
• Global Health Estimates
• Mortality Database
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Health Inequality Monitor
• Global Progress
• World Health Statistics
• Partnerships
• Committees and advisory groups
• Collaborating centres
• Technical teams
• Organizational structure
• Initiatives
• General Programme of Work
• WHO Academy
• Investment in WHO
• WHO Foundation
• External audit
• Financial statements
• Internal audit and investigations 
• Programme Budget
• Results reports
• Governing bodies
• World Health Assembly
• Executive Board
• Member States Portal

WHO offers new online course on building resilient health systems

In 2022, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced a new online course aimed at strengthening health systems resilience in the face of public health challenges. The course – available through OpenWHO – addresses both acute shocks, such as infectious disease outbreaks and environmental disasters, and chronic stressors like non-communicable diseases and antimicrobial resistance.

Course overview

As demonstrated by the COVID-19 pandemic, health systems worldwide are under constant pressure from a range of public health threats, both acute and chronic. These challenges can severely impact the delivery of essential health services, leading to setbacks in achieving universal health coverage (UHC) and health security goals. WHO emphasizes the need for a renewed focus on building resilience by addressing critical vulnerabilities within health systems – before, during and after a shock event.

This course targets decision-makers in public health policy and health service managers at national, subnational and community levels. It promotes an integrated approach and actions to enhance health systems resilience across policymaking, planning, service delivery and monitoring and evaluation.

Course structure and certification

The course, which takes approximately five hours to complete, is divided into four modules:

• Introduction to health systems resilience covers the definition, importance and key attributes of health systems resilience;
• Building health system resilience before shock events focuses on governance, intersectoral coordination and continuity planning;
• Health systems resilience during shock events discusses maintaining essential health services and integrating resilience into incident management systems; and
• Health systems recovery and building resilience outlines steps for recovery and the importance of post-event evaluations.

Each module has short learning sessions with exercises, case scenarios, discussion points and quizzes. Participants who score at least 80% will receive a Record of Achievement certificate, while those who complete 80% of the course material will earn a Confirmation of Participation certificate. Additionally, a digital Open Badge is available for those who achieve a Record of Achievement.

Since the offline course materials were adapted for virtual learning and published on OpenWHO in 2022, there have been 6870 enrollments – a testament to the growing need for WHO’s support in this area.

This dedicated training package is part of WHO’s programme of work on health systems resilience and essential public health functions which is supported by the UHC Partnership as well as by other partners including the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) of the United Kingdom.

Learning outcomes

By the end of the course, participants will be able to:

• incorporate resilience attributes into health policies and plans
• apply integrated approaches to building health systems resilience
• advocate for the implementation of key resilience requirements.

For more information and to enrol in the course, visit the course webpage .

About OpenWHO

OpenWHO , launched in 2017 by the Learning and Capacity Development Unit in the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, is a free open-access online learning platform covering a wide a variety of public health topics. It offers self-paced, multilingual courses based on WHO’s guidance and designed for frontline responders, health workers, policymakers and anyone interested in public health. The platform provides low-bandwidth, adaptable and translatable resources. It also offers CPD-accredited courses for ongoing professional development.

For more information, visit the publications , newsletters and FAQ section of the website. Join OpenWHO today to access high-quality learning programs and make a difference in public health.

OpenWHO platform

Building health system resilience to public health challenges: guidance for implementation in countries

WHO Special Programme on Primary Health Care