I communicated with a GovLoop member about his biggest challenge at work, and he cited that dropping what isn't working and trying a new strategy is getting his agency down. Do you see this resistance at work too? Sometimes it is just so comfortable to stay with the status quo that change never happens even when it's needed.
Is this what's going on at the federal level with the rise of committees and task forces? To what extent are they made to reassure the public that problems are being addressed versus actually solve our problems?
I think team work is the binding factor in making these changes. For me, I want to feel comfortable when I am in the loop on changes at work. When my manager involves me with the change, I feel comfortable and integrated -- 'in this together' kind of mentality.
For government, I am excited about new committes and tasks forces. I feel such a lack of information from government directly...instead I seek information from resources that aren't exactly unbias and can contain untrue information (websites, news stations, etc).
I feel and hope that these new committies and task forces will focus on reeling the everyday citizen in, to educate and excite him/her about being involved in change; team work! Citizens need regular updates (from the government) about what is going on in their goverment, locally and nationally, to feel at ease with problem solving/change. They need to feel connected, involved and informed. As a citizen, I'd like more information directly from my local and national government so I can feel more comfortable about the problems that are being addressed...and from there I can choose to involve myself to solve these problems.
In all aspects of life it seems more comfortable to stick with the status quo than to try to implement any sort of change. People don't like change, particularly if they don't see any short term benefit from such change, or if the current behavior/policy benefits them in some positive way. I think committees and task forces are a good idea, but they can turn out to be just what you mention - simply a reassurance to the public, especially if those who are supposed to make decisions cannot come to any sort of consensus (Super Committee, anyone?)