mounting concerns about the nation’s declining security and economic conditions
Nigerians are fed up with the perpetual underperformance of their leaders, and we are all desperate for real change. This desperation was well conveyed in the last election. On the surface, the last election appeared to have been a contest between three dominant parties. But at the very core, it was a fierce battle between two ideologies: Politics and Performance.
Some may argue that governmental and political organizations differ from the private sector and cannot adhere to the same rules. They may claim that businesses and governments serve different purposes and have distinct structures, with businesses aiming for profit while governments cater to all citizens and respond to various competing interests and political considerations.
Every institution is designed to achieve the result it does. If an organization is failing, it’s because it was designed to fail. In the same way, organizations that go on to achieve remarkable results succeed because they were designed for success. If the new administration truly embraces this purpose, then the path before them is clear. They must then embody it, and communicate it clearly and consistently throughout the entire body of government.
I have closely studied the new government’s high level 16-point agenda and it is evident that the agenda was competently put together. It is holistic, well thought through, and has the potential to transform the country. However, as we all know, potential does not necessarily translate to reality. After effectively unpacking and fleshing out the agenda, the next step is to build structures that can execute the agenda. This is probably the most important, if not the most crucial step in effective governance. In structuring the government, they should ask questions such as: how will we organize to deliver on our mandate so that we can fulfill our purpose?
My design proposition is that the new government intentionally structure to guarantee performance by appointing, for example, two Chiefs of Staff. Chief of Staff A should be responsible for driving the political agenda, and Chief of Staff B should be responsible for driving the performance agenda.Having two Chiefs of Staff is definitely an unconventional approach.
The 16-point agenda will not stand a chance if the government does not structure to execute it. It is as simple as that. This is where the government will need to ensure alignment between its agenda and the different Ministries, Departments, and Agencies of the government. There has to be a clear line of sight between the mandates and activities of the MDAs and the 16-point agenda, and the structure of the government must reflect that.
For each of those roles, there should be a clear definition of success. They should be able to say for this or that role, “this is what success looks like.” The key responsibilities, key accountabilities, key performance areas, key performance indicators, and metrics for success for each role within government must be clearly defined. This is how to drive performance! You must be clear. There must be no ambiguity whatsoever.
because we need to have the right people in government driving performance for our nation to survive and thrive. Unfortunately, the process required to get the right people appointed into key positions in past administrations lacked the required level of rigor and due diligence it deserves. This shouldn’t be the case.
With these surprising choices, Lincoln created a team of rivals and demonstrated his absolute commitment to prioritizing performance over politics. In instances where those entrusted with significant responsibilities betrayed the nation through corruption, he promptly took action to replace them.
Now, to the question of strategies for finding highly skilled people. In the private sector, we employ a strategy called the 6Bs for making people decisions, and the government will benefit significantly from adopting this strategy as well.