Since “crowd sourcing” didn’t work, I was curious how AI would answer, so I posed the same question to perplexity.ai and this was its response: “Current research suggests that city and county organizations often face greater challenges in fostering innovation and creativity compared to the private sector.” It cited some key factors that influence innovation in the public sector, including risk aversion, cultural challenges, and structural and financial constraints. It also cited some opportunities for improvement, including:

• Leveraging private-sector methodologies.
• Building workplace cultures that encourage risk-taking while balancing accountability.
• Collaborating with private entities to bridge gaps in expertise and resources.

It would be crucial to know how ICMA would answer this question. If their answer to this foundational question is no, then it is time for me to shut up. If the answer is yes, then we need to consider why and determine what we can do about it. 

Some Possible Answers to My Questions in the Original Article

Since the response rate to my questions was so low and hence there was no crowd sourcing, I have provided my own thoughts. I also posed the first three questions to perplexity.ai and have provided those AI responses as well. 

1. If all our brains work the same to form patterns, repetition, and habits, then why is the private sector more creative and innovative than the public sector?

• Local government’s hiring process could be attracting individuals who are more interested in security, consistency, and stability than individuals attracted to the private sector.
• The public sector doesn’t seem to seek out and hire risk takers.
• Local government doesn’t have carrots or sticks to motivate employees to disrupt our status quo culture.
• Most elected officials and top executives are risk averse, which permeates their culture.

AI Response: “The private sector’s greater creativity and innovation compared to the public sector can be attributed to several factors, even though all human brains form patterns, habits, and routines similarly: incentives and competitive pressure, risk aversion in the public sector, cultural differences, resource allocation, and leadership dynamics.”

2. How does local government overcome our monopolistic lack of incentives to become more innovative?

• ICMA could collaborate with state leagues, think tanks, and foundations like the Bloomberg Center for Public Innovation to research potential effective incentives, and market and assist local government to implement these incentives.
• Local government must implement these incentives to encourage and reward innovation.
• ICMA and state leagues/affiliate organizations should consider honoring, identifying, and showcasing elected officials who have endorsed and implemented innovation. This would be similar to how ICMA honors and rewards outstanding city managers.
• Is there a legitimate way to create a “stick” by providing a ranking of local governments who fail some basic, generally accepted innovation guidelines?

AI Response: “The private sector’s ability to innovate stems from external pressures (competition), internal cultural practices (disruption), and resource availability to encourage risk-taking and creativity. In contrast, the public sector’s monopolistic structure, risk aversion, and rigid routines inhibit similar levels of innovation. Overcoming these barriers will require fostering a culture of experimentation, courageous leadership, and rethinking incentives within government organizations.”

3. How do we change local government’s deep-seated risk-averse culture and our old government model?

• First, we must admit that this is our existing culture before we can change it.
• We must eliminate our “bitch and fix” model and replace it with a “partnership” model.
• ICMA and state leagues could devote more articles, research, and forums to addressing our existing risk-averse nature and best practices to break through this culture.
• ICMA could consider providing one keynote speaker at every conference who is able to call out our profession’s weaknesses and challenge us to rethink and remake our culture.
• Top executives need to speak out in articles, conferences, social media, and podcasts about our shortcomings and what we should do differently.
• ICMA’s new Innovation Bootcamp is an excellent example of how our professional organizations are starting to address this issue. (The next ICMA Innovation Bootcamp begins February 17, 2026. Stay tuned for more information.)

AI Response: “Local governments often operate within a deeply ingrained risk-averse culture that stifles innovation and creativity. Addressing this issue requires: 

• A multifaceted approach that targets structural, cultural, and leadership challenges.
• Understanding root causes: structural factors, cultural norms, and leadership gaps.
• Steps to foster change: model courageous leadership, promote transparency and accountability, invest in workforce development, break down silos, and shift public perceptions. Key challenges include:
  • Overcoming fear of failure among staff and elected officials.
  • Balancing the need for innovation with accountability requirements.
  • Addressing structural barriers that reinforce risk aversion.”

4. How does our profession recruit, develop, and promote more leaders? 

• We need quality research to learn if those with leadership potential are more drawn to the private sector than the public sector and, if so, why.
• ICMA and state leagues should consider expanding their valuable training programs to provide more leadership training, which differs from managerial training.
• We need a better understanding of how organizations can recognize potential leaders earlier so they can develop and promote them sooner.
• State leagues and senior city managers need to convince elected officials that their city/county would be more successful if they hired strong, dynamic leaders who are passionate about innovating rather than just capable managers.
• Cities should consider recruiting interns majoring in business with entrepreneurial aspirations rather than just those pursuing public policy.

Our Challenge

To ICMA: Address the foundational question: Is local government less innovative, less creative, and more risk averse and status quo–oriented than the private sector? If so, then what do you recommend we start doing differently and what additional steps can you take to help us become more innovative and creative?

To the wise elders in the profession: It is time to weigh in. We need your voice, experience, ideas, and wisdom. We need your leadership on this issue.

To state leagues and affiliated organizations: You are closer to elected officials and need to play a big part in educating them on the fact that small beta test mistakes are necessary for their organization to be innovative. You are our profession’s best hope in convincing elected officials not to be threatened by hiring strong, innovative leaders.

To city/county managers presently in the profession: You have a responsibility to raise your voice and address this issue within your own organization. We need you to become a leader who pushes your organization and council by being more innovative and risking some mistakes. 

To the younger stars in our profession: We need you to push the rest of us to become more innovative. We need your new thoughts, ideas, and courage to push for change.

To the rest of us: All of us must get out of our comfort zone to challenge both our profession and our individual organizations to face our weaknesses and failures. We must change our own organization’s culture to become more creative and innovative to better serve our communities and earn their trust.

If you are moved to respond to me, please do so. This discussion must begin somewhere, or we will forever delude ourselves about how well local government is doing. 

ED EVERETT, ICMA-CM, is a retired city manager (everetted@comcast.net).