this period, the Bakerloo Line not only kept up with the demands of continuous system improvements and unprecedented growth in passenger numbers, but they increased their performance:
Passenger wait times dropped by 37 percent.
On-time schedule operation increased from 94 percent in 2008 to 97.8 percent in 2012.
Delays over fifteen minutes declined by 61 percent.
Customer satisfaction improved to an 83 out of 100.
Beyond the metrics, Bakerloo Line team members said that the culture change has improved union negotiations, senior-leadership communication, and accountability throughout the organization. As manager Dave Proffitt said, “I think we’ve almost grown together, and we are far more open…there is a very high degree of trust within the room. We’ve all done it together, and have been mutually supportive.”
That feeling of mutual support, cooperation, and leadership at all organizational levels has become the Bakerloo Line culture. Ramsay knows that the efforts of his team to deliberately develop a winning culture is key to keeping their organization on track as the turnstiles turn more frequently and train capacity continues to soar.
A Culture That Is Derailed With Bad Leadership
Let’s look at a different kind of culture and the behaviors, language, and results it can produce.
Jan and her sister were in the garden enjoying a cup of coffee, when her sister’s husband, Tom, joined them. As he sat down, he glanced at his phone. “One year, three months, two days, six hours, four minutes, and exactly thirty seconds until I retire.”
“What are you talking about?” Jan asked. Tom was bright, capable, and had years of great work ahead of him. Or so she thought.
“I’ve got an app on my phone that counts down to the moment I retire.”
Jan thought this must be a joke. “You’re not going to retire, Tom,” she said. “With your background, your organization will hire you back as a consultant—and pay you five times as much.”
“No,” Tom said. “You don’t get it. When the countdown ends, I can retire with all my benefits. I’m not working for that organization one second more.”
“Why not?”
“My organization used to be a great place to work,” Tom said. “I loved everything about it; but two years ago, things really changed. We got a new boss, and he told us how things were going to be from now on. Some of us had been around for a few years, so we asked, ‘Do we have any say in this?’ I also remarked, ‘We have appreciated the loyalty we have felt from the organization over the years. Should we continue to expect that?’ And he gave us a look—let’s just say it’s a look I’ve gotten familiar with. The new boss then said, rather curtly, ‘If you want loyalty, get a dog.’ ”
When was Tom’s true retirement date? Despite what his phone said, he hung it up two years ago. That’s when he stopped doing his best work, when he ceased being fully engaged. He’s been physically on the job, he does what’s expected, but nothing more. Tom could have given many more years—perhaps his finest years—but the organization that used to engage his body, mind, spirit, and passion will not benefit from his contribution.
He will give his best to something else.
Could there be a stronger contrast in cultures between the ineffective organization Tom has “retired” from and the highly effective team at the Bakerloo Line?
The Challenge of Human Capital
Four blocks from the White House in Washington, D.C., an Art Deco office stands at the intersection of New York Avenue and 12th Street NW. The majority of the building’s second floor is home to the Partnership for Public Service (PPS). Over a decade ago, Samuel J. Heyman founded this nonprofit, nonpartisan organization to revitalize the United States federal government by transforming how the government works. He wanted to inspire a new generation of people to public service, similar to how John F. Kennedy had inspired him some forty years earlier.
Each year, PPS, with assistance from the global management-consulting firms Deloitte Consulting LLP and Hay Group, compiles and analyzes the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings. The rankings draw from the Office of Personnel Management’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey and provide specific information about employee satisfaction and commitment.
In May 2014, PPS President and CEO Max Stier presented his assessment to the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Programs and the Federal Workforce. Stiers’ comments expressed several causes for concern. “Government-wide, federal employee job satisfaction and commitment dropped for the third year in a row, tumbling three points to a score of 57.8 on a scale of 100. This represents the lowest overall Best Places to Work score since the rankings were first launched in 2003.” Stier contrasted the level of satisfaction and commitment of federal workers to those in the private sector, which improved 0.7 points in 2013 to 70.7, according to the Hay Group. Stier’s testimony provided a litany of issues that impact the development of the federal workforce, including effective leadership, compensation, and performance-management processes, and provided legislative recommendations for Congress focused on the government’s human capital.4
Human capital.
What does that mean? Human capital? Don’t they mean financial capital? Isn’t it financial capital that organizations are concerned about? Why are they worried about human capital? Why is that a top-of-mind issue?
Let’s tackle the financial-capital question first. There is no doubt that finances matter: a vision without the necessary resources to make it happen is just a hallucination. However, as necessary as funding is, it is equally insufficient. Throwing money at a problem doesn’t guarantee a successful outcome, nor does trying to operate like a business guarantee a government organization’s success. Jim Collins said it well: “For a social sector organization, however, performance must be assessed relative to mission, not financial returns. In the social sectors, the critical question is not ‘How much money do we make per dollar of invested capital?’ but ‘How effectively do we deliver on our mission and make a distinctive impact, relative to our resources?’ ”
We have found that public-sector leaders across North America, Asia, Europe, and all corners of the world agree that their top priority is developing employees with the skills, knowledge, and experience to create tremendous value for the organization, its mission, and those it serves—in other words, developing human capital. They know about the dramatic difference between team members on the Bakerloo Line team and employees like Tom. The ultimate mission essential in the public sector belongs to organizations that can get the best contribution possible from the best people they can find. In simple terms, it means inspiring and motivating people to bring the best they can give, to the point where they fight through rush hour on the Bakerloo Line for you!5
It raises the question, “Why is there no outbreak of great cultures in the public sector if so many leaders and employees are aware of both the problem and the opportunity?”
Let’s explore one of the problems: The majority of government workers in the United States are not engaged or are actively disengaged from their work. According to Gallup, it’s 71 percent. That means leaders have failed to motivate and inspire more than 7 out of 10 of their workers. Consider this: In the United States government alone, there are 2.7 million civilian workers. That means that nearly 2 million of them are not engaged in their work.6
“The
