A few weeks ago, Denmark appointed its first Minister for Implementation, whose sole responsibility will be to realise the agreement on the green tripartite partnership – a huge congratulations!
It is entirely new for the government to establish a dedicated ministry focused on implementing a political agreement. This breakthrough may mark the beginning of what could be called an growth house, that should be established at the political structure’s exit to support policy implementation as Sigge Winter discusses in his book “Entreprenørstaten” (The Entrepreneurial state)
The goal is to ensure that legislation is enacted in everyday life as it truly unfolds, rather than as it appears from Slotsholmen (It serves as the political and administrative center of the country including several important government institutions) or in a spreadsheet.
Between 2003 and 2006, as a researcher at the former Danish National Institute of Social Research (now VIVE), I participated in evaluating a reform in the social welfare sector. This resulted in three extensive and well-executed reports. I can say this confidently because the quality was assured by senior researchers such as Anne Dorthe Hestbæk and Vibeke Nielsen. Since then, I have asked myself: What impact did these reports actually have in the real world?
Although the answer is somewhat disheartening, we identified something crucial, which has now been brought to the forefront with the appointment of the new minister: the effectiveness of reforms largely depends on whether those tasked with bringing them to life at the outermost levels of the organisation can see themselves in and understand the purpose of the reforms – and whether the rest of the system supports this process.
A growth house is essential if we are to create life into the stacks of paper that constitute legislation and its intentions. Life is central to making anything happen. In my own book “Everyday Implementation – sustainable and tangible organisational changes”I explore the growth house metaphor in my chapter on the unique aspects of implementation in the public sector.
I also highlight the importance of maintaining a dual focus, both on the change in the form of new legislation and on the (internal) transition that civil servants must undergo to truly alter their behavior in line with the law’s intentions. The key is to work with three parallel processes: meaning, action and agency and professional and personal engagement – especially if we are to take neuroscience, change management and organisational psychology seriously, all at the same time.
I sincerely hope that we are now witnessing the beginning of a family of implementation ministers in other governmental areas, who will follow the implementation process all the way through the organisation in a sustained manner.
Three key points from my perspective:
- Focus on both reform and reality. Begin by assessing the current reality and examine what needs to change in both the environment and individuals to make the desired behavior easier to achieve.
- Create meaning by involving relevant stakeholders as early as possible – but only within the realm of possibility, i.e. what can realistically be influenced.
- Remember the three T’s: Things Take Time – but also ensure persistence in driving behavioral change, as no real policy change occurs without behavioral change.
