Overcoming the Policy Implementation Gap

Reports from the OECD (2023), SGI (2024), and the Court of Audit (2025) show that policies can be vague, overly ambitious, or lack proper follow-through. However, the real problem goes beyond policy formulation. Well-defined policies also struggle to be executed effectively. The underlying issue is the gap between policy formulation and execution. Even when policies are well-designed, governmental organizations often fail to translate them into measurable, impactful results. This inability to follow through has been an ongoing challenge, and it severely limits progress compared to the private sector, where the pace of execution and innovation is typically much faster.

At Highberg, we call this problem the "Policy Implementation Gap". This gap leads to unnecessary complexity, wasted public funds, and stagnation, especially at a time when governments need to be agile, adaptive, and efficient. When policies are not executed effectively, they fail to deliver their intended benefits, and that failure impacts citizens, taxpayers, and the government’s ability to meet societal needs.

This article will explore the symptoms of the Policy Implementation Gap and discuss solutions that can help governments bridge the gap between policy and action.

There are three primary factors that contribute directly to the Policy Implementation Gap in governmental organizations:

• A culture of risk aversion

• Fragmented governance and unclear responsibilities

• Drainage of talent and competence

Governments are notorious for having a risk-averse culture, which is evident at all levels of the organization. At the leadership level, this is reflected in how public sector leaders are rewarded compared to their counterparts in the private sector. In the private sector, leaders are assessed and rewarded based on growth and achieving targets. Promotion comes with successfully driving results and improving the company. In the public sector, leaders typically do not have similar growth targets. Their focus tends to be on maintaining the status quo, which encourages what we call "accident-free driving", a term borrowed from the insurance industry, where avoiding risk is rewarded.

This mindset discourages leaders from making decisions that could lead to failure, preventing them from taking the necessary next steps. This caution is partly driven by public scrutiny, where any misstep by a government office is amplified on social media and in the press. This overemphasis on safety leads to a culture where innovation and risk-taking are stifled.

This mindset trickles down to the rest of the organization, creating an environment where rules, regulations, and bureaucratic processes are put in place to maintain that sense of safety and control. At the execution level, this creates a significant difference from the private sector, where innovation and experimentation are encouraged.

In the public sector, excessive bureaucracy and stringent rules are created to prevent failure, causing delays and missed opportunities. The overemphasis on compliance and caution leads to outdated systems and poor process management. In such an environment, maintaining the "as-is" state takes precedence over investing in innovation, creating a vicious cycle where resources are spent maintaining outdated systems rather than driving progress.

As a natural consequence of risk aversion and the fear of failure, public sector organizations fragment responsibility. Leaders tend to delegate tasks and decision-making, which makes it difficult to pinpoint accountability and limits progress. This fragmentation results in a complex system where the initiator of a project must align with and report to multiple parties before making any significant progress.

In a web of steering committees, update meetings, and reports, shared accountability leads to inefficiency and confusion, as no one takes full ownership. Rather than pushing initiatives forward, decisions stall while waiting for consensus from multiple parties. Leadership loses direct control over initiatives and relies on updates from delegates, rather than actively steering the organization toward results.

The public sector creates numerous roles with apparent mandates or purposes, such as quartermasters, task forces, and crisis teams, contributing to the confusion in responsibility. While these roles might appear to be decisive, in reality, they contribute to the lack of tangible progress. The focus shifts from results to managing the appearance of action.

When it comes to delivering initiatives, coordination between departments becomes a significant challenge. Internal teams are structured in traditional silos, with each department focusing solely on its own scope of work without adequate collaboration. The lack of cross-departmental coordination creates barriers, especially in projects requiring input from multiple teams. As a result, project managers spend considerable time navigating issues related to capacity, prioritization, and commitment rather than focusing on value delivery and results. Project timelines are extended, and deadlines are missed due to the complexity of coordinating across these silos.

Governments face significant challenges in attracting and retaining talented professionals, especially younger generations. While dynamic work environments and better collaboration in the private sector draw talent away from the public sector, the underlying cause lies in the way governmental organizations operate. The risk-averse culture and the barriers to showing initiative discourage employees from staying motivated or engaged. When individuals face endless regulations, excessive bureaucracy, and fragmented governance, their motivation to keep pushing for change dwindles.

The public sector forces employees into a constant battle against these obstacles, which leads to burnout and a lack of enthusiasm for improving the organization. Eventually, talented professionals face a choice: stay and fight against the bureaucracy or leave for more fulfilling work where their initiative is recognized and rewarded. Those who stay often become demotivated, conforming to the culture that resists innovation. As a result, the organization becomes increasingly filled with individuals who are comfortable or attached to this static environment with little initiative or change.

This drainage of talent is further exacerbated by the public sector’s dependence on external contractors. With fewer internal capabilities and the loss of talent, the government increasingly relies on external expertise, further reinforcing the cycle of talent loss. In the past five years, government spending on external bureaus has doubled, illustrating the growing reliance on outside support, while internal competence continues to erode.

The Policy Implementation Gap is a significant barrier to progress in governmental organizations. The culture of risk aversion leads to fragmented governance, which results in the loss of talent and contributes to inefficiencies, stagnation, and missed opportunities for innovation. To close this gap, governments must redefine their approach to governance, risk, and talent management. Fostering a culture that encourages ownership, rewards innovation, and empowers employees to take initiative is crucial for bridging the gap and ensuring policies are executed effectively.

Breaking the ongoing pattern of ineffective policy implementation requires more than one solution. By adopting best practices from the private sector, governments can address the key symptoms and move toward more effective execution.

The solutions can be divided into two main areas: solutions for the undercurrent and solutions above the surface:

• In the undercurrent, focus must be placed on leadership, behavior, and culture

• Above the surface, governments can tackle siloed work structures, unclear roles and responsibilities, and improve the transition from strategy to execution

To truly close the Policy Implementation Gap, governments must address the deeper behavioral and cultural patterns that persist beneath the surface. This undercurrent, which includes risk-averse leadership, initiative hostility, and the erosion of internal talent, requires deliberate cultural change and human-centered strategies. First of all, leadership must shift from being guardians of the status quo to becoming stewards of progress. This means cultivating courageous leadership, leaders who are willing to make decisions under uncertainty, take calculated risks, and accept that missteps are a natural part of innovation. It also means accountability for people in leadership positions, instead of delegating this to direct reports or across multiple people.

Key activities that are required vary from creating performance systems that reward initiative and learning from failure rather than the “no mistakes” culture. It also requires leading by example: a leader who is seen embracing feedback, adapts to shifting environments and actively stands for his or her vision sets the tone for the rest of the organization. By setting the example, leadership can help shift the organization's risk-averse culture. Through psychological safety, autonomy but also emphasizing the importance of hypothesis-driven innovation and publicly shared learnings, organizations can focus on creativity, initiative and growth.

Inevitably, this will reinvigorate and improve the environment towards a more purpose-driven and appealing one, attracting and empowering talent to start and grow their career in governmental organizations. This should be accompanied with ample opportunities to develop new skills and improve collaboration to encourage cross-functional learning. This will build a competent, driven and proactive population working towards clear goals. By trusting the process, organizations can overcome the hostility towards change and coach their population in becoming better, but it starts with leadership taking the necessary first step forward.

To address siloed operations, many organizations, including those in the public sector, are reevaluating their internal structures and ways of working. While private sector transitions have often leaned on agile frameworks, it is not mandatory for public organizations to walk the same road. Already, a lot of benefit can be gained from broader principles such as alignment on strategic objectives, outcome-driven planning, and clear accountability structures, regardless of the specific methodology used.

One foundational element in improving cross-departmental collaboration is creating alignment around shared objectives. Establishing measurable goals within a target operating model using tools such as: key performance indicators (KPIs), strategic scorecards, or outcome frameworks, helps foster a common understanding of what needs to be achieved. This clarity ensures that all departments work towards the same end goals and allows for effective tracking of whether organizations are achieving their strategy or not.

However, this approach only becomes truly effective when organizations also assess the actual impact of initiatives and policies on these shared objectives. Without such measurement, the link between strategic intent and operational delivery remains speculative. Through structured discussions at both project and strategic levels, an approach referred to as portfolio management, organizations can make evidence-based decisions about which initiatives to prioritize, continue, or discontinue. This promotes coherence in decision-making across silos and enables collaboration, regardless of the specific delivery model in use.

In addition to goal alignment and prioritization, organizations benefit from structured planning processes. Periodic planning sessions (e.g. monthly or quarterly) offer a forum to assess capacity and upcoming initiatives across departments. Rather than isolated coordination efforts, these sessions encourage alignment between demand (upcoming projects and initiatives) and supply (available staff and expertise). The purpose is to create predictability, identify dependencies early, and allow teams to plan accordingly.

To make such a strategy-to-execution system effective, clear governance is essential. This includes well-defined roles, responsibilities, and decision rights. Each strategic target should have a designated owner responsible for delivery, and project leads should articulate clear expectations and success metrics for each initiative. Using both leading and lagging indicators helps focus attention on achieving tangible outcomes, not just managing activities. Aligning responsibilities and clarifying ownership also reduces the need for excessive steering committees, which often arise in environments where accountability is ambiguous. By streamlining governance structures and empowering responsible roles, organizations can enhance performance management, support continuous improvement, and build a culture of accountability and ambition.

The solution to the Policy Implementation Gap lies not in a single intervention but in addressing both the underlying cultural issues and the structural challenges that prevent effective execution. Without reforming the undercurrent, changes above the surface will be short-lived and superficial. Only by combining leadership, cultural change, and improved processes will governments successfully implement their policies and achieve their strategic goals. While the task may seem daunting, the lessons learned from the private sector offer valuable insights into how these changes can be achieved. Leadership must act with urgency, confronting the cultural and structural challenges that have long hindered progress.

If you recognize these issues within your organization, now is the time to take the first step toward meaningful change. Get in touch with Niels Groen or Noah van Kessel.