In many instances, making something better should be about tweaking something minor that would create a major shift. Take the space shuttle program.  It used to be that if someone wanted to postpone a launch they had to prove why the launch should not proceed.  After the Challenger incident, that approach was put on its head.  Anyone could stop a launch and those who felt the launch should proceed had to prove that it could go.  That simple change was small, yet its effects were widespread.

There are any number of things that government does not do well.  For most things government organizations would get a passing grade but you would not call it excellent.  It bathes itself in mediocrity.  Why is it that there is little striving for greatness in government hallways?

I don't plan to give you the answer.  Anyone who could do that deserves a medal.  What I think we can do is to implement some micro changes that could have positive effects.

Does anyone who works in government think that if they don't do their job well, they could get demoted or fired?  Does that ever happen?  Some would say no.  Are there any incentives for going above and beyond?  Do those who excel get recognized and rewarded?

Does anyone see a problem with this? Perhaps this is what is needed.  Have some sort of reason that a person would have to show up to work and try to do better or to improve.  These could be a combination of incentives and negative consequences.