GUEST COLUMN.

When conditions are intense, the instinct in cities, counties and states is to chase the crisis of the day. Leaders focus on what is burning, politically charged, or immediately visible. That instinct is understandable, and often necessary. But incremental, deliberate, data-driven management is not a distraction from urgent work. It is what allows governments to respond to crises without losing ground on their core priorities.

Consider New York City’s confrontation with the devastating storm a few weeks ago that slammed much of the US. The streets were cleared repeatedly, neighbors shoveled every few hours, and within days the city was moving again. That could not have been possible if the city hadn’t been preparing for the unpredictable events that can easily make life relentlessly miserable for residents for weeks on end. What made New York City’s success possible wasn't heroic effort in the moment—it was routine systems that had been running all along.

The city has clear protocols for when plows deploy based on accumulation thresholds. Equipment gets maintained during off-season months. Performance is tracked block-by-block, with GPS on every plow so supervisors–and residents–can see in real time which routes are behind schedule. There are established accountability structures: business improvement districts know their responsibilities, the sanitation department has defined standards, and communities know who to call when things aren't working. None of this feels urgent in October. All of it matters in January.

But at least dealing with a huge snowstorm is something for which a city or a state can be prepared. The tension between keeping a community on an even keel even when confronted by a totally unexpected event creates particularly powerful tensions.

This scenario is playing out across state and local governments right now. In Minnesota, for example,  recent ICE actions have required immediate response. Leaders like Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Governor Tim Walz are responding to the moment while still running organizations responsible for housing delivery, public safety, and basic services. Addressing the catastrophe of the day is essential. But so are leading teams whose work determines whether important long and short-term goals are met.

In times when there seems to be a crisis every few moments, performance discipline becomes most important. Many consequential decisions are made well before outcomes are visible. By May, budget teams are already shaping choices that will be locked in by August. That's when leaders need clear answers: Are we on track to meet affordable housing targets? Ahead in some neighborhoods and falling behind in others? Are programs aligned with stated priorities, or carrying forward last year's assumptions?

These questions are not abstract. They determine whether leaders are surprised later—or prepared now. Ensuring that programs are actually delivered in ways that advance priorities requires ongoing attention to whether communities have invested in strategies that are shown to work, and then whether they are working as intended. That means reviewing programs through the lens of strategic plans, evidence, and community-identified concerns, not just compliance checklists or spend rates. It also depends on unglamorous but essential foundations: shared definitions, credible data, and clear governance about what information leaders trust and use.

In practice, leadership attention often clusters around two extremes. There is the 10 percent of work that is going well and easy to celebrate, and the 10 percent that is failing loudly and demands immediate intervention. But the real risks—and opportunities—sit in the 80 percent in the middle. These are programs that are not in crisis but also may not be fully delivering. Over time, drift in that middle is what turns ambitious strategies into missed outcomes.

Instability, uncertainty, and political shocks make this dynamic harder. When attention is pulled entirely toward emergencies, the middle quietly erodes. Targets slip. Implementation gaps widen. Leadership’s commitments drift. And issues that could have been addressed incrementally become tomorrow’s crisis—often at a much higher political and human cost.

None of this minimizes the importance of emergency response. When people are in the streets or systems are under acute strain, governments must act quickly and visibly. The public expects that, and rightly so. But high-performing organizations do not abandon discipline in these moments—they rely on it.

For practitioners, the lesson is straightforward but demanding. Successful performance in unstable times is not about standing still or ignoring what’s urgent. It is about continuing to ask the right questions early, keeping attention on delivery as well as response, and protecting the steady work that makes progress possible. Like snowplows that keep running through the storm, incremental performance management is not glamorous—but it is what keeps governments moving forward when conditions are at their worst.

The contents of this Guest Column are those of the author, and not necessarily Barrett and Greene, Inc

#StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentPerformance #StateandLocalManagement #CityGovernmentPerformance #CountyGovernmentPerformance #CityGovernmentManagement #CountyGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentData #CityData #GovernmentPerformanceInUnstableTimes #StateandLocalLeadership #StateandLocalEmergencyManagement #StateandLocalDataDrivenManagement #CityDataDrivenManagement #NewYorkCitySnowPerformance #ManagingPerformanceDuringCrises #ManagingUnpredictableEvents #StateandLocalEmergencyResponse #StateandLocalLongTermPlanning #StateandlocalGoalSetting #StateandLocalPerformanceTargets #StateandLocalPerformanceMeasurement #StateandLocalDataGovernance #ZacharyMarkovits #FifteenthandField #BandGGuestColumn #BarrettandGreeneInc