A NORMATIVE APPROACH TO THE DESIGN OF ANY GOVERNMENT

B. GEO-POLITICAL CONTEXT:
F. EXTERNALITIES, REGIONS, PRESSURES, EVENTS, E.

Cl ense ion. Dec ecad ce

rom

vs s. C efea Inco
G. ERA VALUES I. f acts DISRUPTIONS, SECURITY & CONTINGENCIES

ari
.C o
S us it. D n
v
ck p

vs

ty of D Com it. F ence

on nce ism pet
ba Im COMPETING FORCES BEYOND OUR ‘CONTROL’ vs. TERROR vs. DIPLOMACY
ed s m

. D vs .

of
f
Fe Etho gra
& ZEITGEIST vs. MULTI-DISCIPLINARY STUDY vs. COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS vs. DISASTERS

Pu ct ce .
E. Dia

rp ion nc
vs. WAR vs. INTELLIGENCE vs. FUTURE-SENSORS vs. META-THINKING vs. DEBATE

ire pla ate .

os
e&
vs. SPIN vs. MISDIRECTION vs. SCENARIOS vs. IMAGINATION vs. PATTERN RECOGNITION

.
m

e
REASON vs. EMOTION vs. PROGRESS vs. MEDIATION vs. RECONCILIATION vs. RESTRAINT
MOTIVATIONS, ISSUES,

vs. STORIES vs. ICONS vs. INHERITANCE vs. STEADY AS WE GO

e
PUBLIC OPINION vs. SOCIAL CONTEXT vs. PRESSURE GROUPS
vs. CONFLICT vs. DIVERSION vs. CONTAMINATION vs. DEGRADATION vs. REPRESSION :

A. POLITICAL, PHILOSOPHICAL

y.
vs. PLURALISM vs. SCHOLARSHIP vs. DOCTRINE vs. VISION
CHALLENGES,

vs.
NEW THINKING, CIRCUMSTANCES, REALITIES, PARADIGMS,
C

(IDENTIFY BASIS & ORIGIN OF LEGITIMACY, RELATIONSHIPS,

DRIVES, CONTEXTS, CHANGE CO PA RE RO G

vs. THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENS vs. ONE MORE HEAVE…

& LEADERSHIP PARADIGMS
DILEMMAS,

INSTITUTIONAL, HISTORICAL
R G W O

MONARCHY vs. REPUBLIC vs. AUTOCRACY vs. CIVIL WAR

JUNTA
U

& OPERATIONAL PATHWAYS

W
& LEARNING PROCESSES A RT LIA IM N D

Y
INFLUENCES, DESIRES, R ,

vs. ANARCHY vs. DICTATORSHIP vs. TYRANNY vs. ??

vs. LO C ME E, -ST

ER D O E Y S
G

AUTHORITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, EFFECTIVENESS,

CONCERNS, MOODS, R RO NT LO AT

IS S F K T R
PAST DRIVERS OF

O LA

V AN NG RO AR TE
D N , R E
B

TE
IDEOLOGY, CULTURE, , G IE M D

vs. OCHLOCRACY vs. THEOCRACY, vs. KLEPTOCRACY

C. CONSTITUTIONAL,
ANGST, RESENTMENTS.

A TR IVI R B P NIS

S UC RC RS
A S, IL S
HATRED, FAITH, BELIEF
U
R ND WS

a , SW ER ES

EMPOWERMENT & ONGOING REFORM)

N
G HO ITI

A
R E G I
D W IN M
B1.

AR S
M
A or

R
R

PO U ET
E. MANAGING O A M DE

ST
LE R

IN
O

L
OUR CHOSEN
Services

B
Governing S^ IE

A
R
b

C
WAY OF LIFE S
A1.
system.... PURPOSE ETHOS ®
C1. STATUS QUO

D
vs. ETHICS vs. Ethos Management ® vs. PRECEDENT vs.
Positioning

RELEVANCE 1. Ethos® Audit INNOVATION

C EX 2. Ethos Contract®
O CE

“S M
PT HO 3. Ethos Reflex®

Y
IV IN
IO W d

C LI ITY CY IQU ION E

IDEAS, POLICIES,
Y PE

A R N L S IC
ER
NA W

c
LI E D D1. POLICY

Q EG CIE . C AS RV
ST T

D DM
DRIVERS, STRUCTURES, O

ST Y v vs ES
S M IF
F FE FORMATION &

s P E
F (

IN FF L v s. L S
EM IN
Corporate

US R EXECUTION
STANDARDS, NORMS, TR OR

S vs s. .
vs -

. E IL T v VI
EL
C "RULES"
N AD E
G
.T
PRINCIPLES,

vs . W RI CI
ET E S HE
PA W -O , IDS

.
vs ME AL
M
BEHAVIOURS, EGOS,
TI K S, AS "
R R F O F
E )

. R
vs UT

T I

O T
TIPPING POINTS.

&
E SS ,
,

E
N

U
H. EVOLUTIONARY D. OPTION GENERATION, PRIORITIES,
om

IMPERATIVES
Copyright © Norman Strauss 2004, 5, 6, 7
TEL. 020 8744 9944
EMAIL NS@C-P-S.CO.UK
c
ba Im
ed s m
. fr ts
k I p ac ADAPTATION & DECISION-MAKING :
Fe Etho gra KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, COMPETENCES vs. STRATEGIC BANDWIDTH vs. OUT OF BOUNDS
E. Dia vs. MOULD-BREAKING ORIGINALITY vs. RECEIVED WISDOM & PRACTICES vs. GURUS
F. vs. SECRECY vs. CLOSED SYSTEMS vs. BUREAUCRACY vs. OPERATING CULTURES
vs. OPENNESS vs. JUDGEMENT vs. CHALLENGES vs. CONFIDENCE vs. TURBULENCE
vs. PRAY vs. SEAT of the PANTS vs. HAVE A GO vs. TRY THIS vs. NO WAY vs. SPIN A COIN
vs. TRUST ME vs. IT WORKED FOR THEM (COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS) vs. EXPERIENCE
 E. THE MULTIPLE ETHOS IMPACTS…
E. ETHOS® AFFECTS OUR HISTORY & WAY OF LIFE
Our myths, civic pride, morale, heritage, symbols & traditions vs. our openness and willingness to change.

ETHOS® BOTH IMPACTS ON & IS REFLECTED BY:

RULERS, CITIZENS, CIVILITY, CULTURE, MEDIA, MINDSET, SOCIETY & WELL-BEING.
CONSTITUTIONAL EMPOWERMENT® SETS THE LIMITS OF THE NATION’S ETHOS
E1. PAST - Who we were; how we lived; what we believed; our collective memories, feelings and behaviour.
a) Our justice, freedoms, fairness, character, customs, citizenship, temperament, passions, vanity and habits. 1. Government involves a variety of roles^ & complex networks.
b) Which foci / urges for discipline, restraint, tolerance, cohesion vs. anxiety, withdrawal, unrest, breakdown, conflict? 2. Ethos is the ultimate variety reducer - Stafford Beer.
c) What we accepted vs. really felt vs. desired vs. wanted vs. needed vs. prayed/hoped for vs. found amusing. 3. Government is Ethos Management® - Norman Strauss.
d) Which past horde, swarm, intruders or invaders last altered Our Way Of Life? How well / badly did we respond? (The act of making sense of variety by resolving complexity, aligning
e) What we disliked intensely; our sticking points; when / why we last revolted ; our unmet needs; our cravings. policies & ensuring/creating the IDENTITY – of meaning, inclusion,
E2. PRESENT – How we are governed; what we’re like – our nature; what we do well; what we’re bad at. role integration, absorption, unity, values, belonging and cohesion --
f) What ‘National Interest’ guides our nature, situation appraisal, option generation, priorities & decision-making? which underpins our way of life and embodies what we stand for.)
g) How do we see the world? Do we know enough about it to think rationally? How do we empathize with / judge it? 4. Good Government is a good enactment of a Good Governing
h) Where our nation's brain, mind, morals, conscience, heart, soul, spirit, genius & potential for greatness are. System; namely, good Ethos Management® - ideally judged by
i) How we live, work, relax, learn, reflect, get energised, strengthen our resolve, participate, change our mind. the governed to be just, trustworthy and have INTEGRITY.
j) How do we deal with mistakes? Who do we confess ‘what’ to? Where/when can we admit that we are wrong? 5. The INTEGRITY and KNOWLEDGE of the Civil Service
k) Our motivation & state of mind. What we stand for, think, aspire to, expect, understand, tolerate, fear & value. cannot be divorced from a Good Governing System. Therefore
l) What stirs us to act? Who / what / why / when we trust / believe / care / commit / follow / contribute / desert. it should not – as an aligned Ethos Management® Sub-System -
E3. FUTURE – Are we OK? What we could / should become – our Options, Potential, Purpose & Role. be neutral; and thus be separated from the whole.
m) Why we did / do / don’t / will matter in the world / region / theatre of interest / policy domain / social group. 6. So there must be “ competent, freely competing Civil Service”
n) What affects us; which opportunity / destiny / identity / belief system / convictions or value system beckons? Sub-Systems, arguing their separate points of view, which
o) What are the expected driving forces for adaptation vs. rigidity? How do / will / ought we manage them? collectively embed Neutrality with INTEGRITY - i.e. cover the
p) How should major disagreements be best surfaced? Who will try to suppress or resolve them? How? field thoroughly from all perspectives, to stay in tune.
q) Where we are going - our nation's role, missions, journey, compass, navigators, progress, scope, pride, spirit. 7. All competing parties need more help to do this well.
r) Which signs of repression, contamination or progress in politics, society or its organs of government matter? 8. Pressure groups etc. have limited, biased resources.
s) Are we - & / or our Leaders - in Decline, Denial, Transactional, Transitional or Transformational Mode?
9. My NET* is one option to provide a “ freely competing Civil
t) Will we set any new standards; form / join / mediate / lead / grow / reform / disrupt or leave any networks?
Service” resource. Others should be sought.
u) Will there be major change? Has it been tested? Is it avoidable? Is it reversible? Is it sustainable? ^ E.g. Apostle; Agnostic; Heretic; Catalyst; Enzyme; Energiser; Beast; Scholar; Jester; Sage;...
v) Are we a spent force; or will Our Way Of Life still be or become admired, desirable, improving or secure? * See Guardian 20 Jan 1984
w) Will it respect human dignity, tolerate diversity, let us grow & embrace universal values; or clash with others?

k
rom
I. f acts
I. ....is this good government? Does it feel good?
c p
ba Im Copyright © Norman Strauss 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
ed s m
F. Fe Etho gra
E. Dia normativegov62, 11052007
TEL. 020 8744 9944
EMAIL NS@C-P-S.CO.UK
8 December 2021
 REALLY PUBLIC SERVICE 5 DIAGRAM NOTES Friday, 11 May 2007
Copyright © Norman Strauss 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 TEL. 020 8744 9944 EMAIL NS@C-P-S.CO.UK
I have tried to show in my diagrams what a normative model of any good government – a good governing system -
has to do. In the process of designing this model, five major conclusions emerged:
1) Everybody uses the same model – to progress, compromise or regress - with due alterations for national terms and the present point any nation
has reached on its historical pathway. (See major Circle headings for A. B. C. D.) So neither regime change, nor elections alone, guarantees any
particular resulting system, behaviour changes, revision of principles, review of beliefs or prevention of tyranny – as events demonstrate.
2) Ethos is the overarching concept to describe the nature of a society and the accepted (though not always acceptable) interdependent
management of its “chosen” (because unquestioned) way of life by its rulers and citizens. (See the central overlap E of all four circles A, B,
C and D; and the large segment overlaps of a, b, c and d; and the smallest segment overlaps of A1, B1, C1 and D1.)
3) Extremism or Certainty is merely the far edge of the faith and belief exhibited by gentler societies - as segment B1, the small 3 curved,
triangular-shaped overlap of circles A, B and C - directly above the central 4-sided shape E - shows. This is where conflict and hatred occurs.
4) A constitutionally neutral service must contribute to the integrity of the whole governing system and work on every element of the model -
without exception; including challenging its validity and helping/allowing it to evolve. Otherwise the governing system cannot be in complete
alignment and exhibit coherence, the twin bases of authority and control. It will also lack the latest skills and knowledge, unless it has acquired
them outside the control of the higher civil service.
5) The links between talk, action, theory, reality, policy, philosophy, leadership, vision, politics, strategy, management, administration, execution,
competence, experience, innovation, experiment and path-breaking must be built into the study, institutions and practice of good government.

Most consultants (and civil servants are consultants to ministers) do not operate beyond the strategic bandwidth of
their clients - because they cannot ‘sell’ their services to people who don’t understand them. So they keep it
simple stupid and ignore the highest complexities of good government.
They concentrate on the efficiency of parts and ignore the effectiveness, knowledge, networking capacity, growth
and integrity of the whole system. (See BOX items 1 to 9, in E. THE MULTIPLE ETHOS IMPACTS… )
But good government must be evolutionary; it must either foresee, or respond quickly to, major imperatives for
change in the national and global environment; or in the era values and zeitgeist. (See H & G in the left hand
column of boxes leading into the central box Governing system. Please note the arrow flowing from E to the
second diagram, the contents of E1, E2 and E3 – effectively Past, Present and Future - and also the arrows F,
feeding back from I (“…is this good government? Does it feel good?”) the box at the bottom of the second
diagram E. THE MULTIPLE ETHOS IMPACTS… into diagram 1 at the top G and bottom H left hand boxes.)
normativegov62, 11052007
8 December 2021