I was talking about good governance with an elected official, a member of a city council. “What do you do to encourage good governance?” I asked him.

“I ask people what’s going on. I ask employees at all different levels how they’re doing. That’s how I find out which departments are well managed, and which are not.”

“Really?” I asked.  “Is that how you spend your time?”

“I think that’s why the people elected me – to find out what’s going on.” He said the city charter permitted him to “get whatever information he wanted from whomever he wanted.” He could call a parks employee, ask why the grass hadn’t been watered, and expect the employee to tell him.

“Who would let the city manager know?” I asked.

“It’s not my job to tell the city manager,” said he said. “I assume the employee will tell him.”

“But couldn’t that lead to chaos?” I asked.

“I don’t know.”

“What about determining the overall direction of the city, and setting long-term policy, and setting performance goals for the city. Isn’t that the city council’s role?”

“We don’t have performance measures,” he replied.

“Well, that explains a lot.” I smiled. “Listen, you have no formal feedback mechanisms. So you’ve had to go out and invent your own. I can understand that.”

He nodded. “Do you know how I measure whether the streets are being cleaned? I put a newspaper in the gutter and then check a day later to see if it is still there.”

Imagine what would happen, I said, if the city council did define performance measures. “Then you could focus on measuring performance, not as individuals inventing your own measures, but using agreed-upon measures. That would create alignment at the top – and lead to a clear understanding of everyone’s role.”

The city councilman grinned. “That would be a good trick.” He said his goodbyes and left.

Yes, I thought to myself. It is a good trick.

Read Related Blog: “Good Governance Development“

What makes good people be bad partners? Over the past month I’ve witnessed the dissolution of a law firm’s 15-year partnership. It began when one of the senior partners filed for divorce. The timing was unfortunate. It came just weeks before two high-powered associates were scheduled to buy shares. A buy-in signals the value of the stock. Fearing the repercussions, the senior partner (the one with the looming divorce) announced he wanted to put the deal on hold. “We have to wait,” he told his colleagues. Secretly, he was holding out for more money.

Fast forward two months. Five partners split away, forming a new firm, taking several associates with them, including the two who were scheduled for the buy-in. The senior partner became one of four shareholders in the firm. Three months later, the firm filed for bankruptcy, citing an excess of debt and an inability to draw in new investors.

Could this have been prevented? Of course. With the appropriate governance mechanisms, the firm could have put in place systems to deal with conflicts such as these. It requires trust to build those types of systems – and a desire to make those decisions long before trouble occurs. Most important, everyone needs to assume responsibility. In this case, they hadn’t. And that made all the difference.

Next blog post: Our Change Management Model