The Monitor Bureaucracy Index™ (MBI™) is a survey-based assessment of internal and external dimensions that helps organizations gauge their performance across eight drivers of high performance. By supplementing existing output-and impact-based measures of performance, the MBI™ fills an important data gap for senior executives of public sector organizations. By filling this gap, we enable managers to drill down to the root causes of their performance problems, compare their organizations to other similar ones, and plot an appropriate improvement program. Please note that some of the points on this graph represent more than one organization.

Six common archetypes of performance have been identified by mapping the External Impact and Internal Effectiveness scores from our respondent pool of 104 public service organizations. Through this recent research effort, and consistent with our experience, Monitor found that only about one in 10 bureaucracies can truly be called high-performance organizations. These high performers not only operate highly efficiently, but also deliver superior results in serving their constituencies. Another 25 percent are poor performers dwelling in a "red zone" of failure, exhibiting significant or material performance shortfalls. The rest are in the great middle. They deliver only medium impact while exhibiting varying degrees of efficiency. The majority of large public organizations are stuck on this performance plateau of “good enough for now.”

Each group—the true high-performers, the "red zone" of poor performers and the great middle—demonstrates a unique set of characteristics that distinguishes them from other types of performers. Their strengths and weaknesses indicate where leaders should focus their improvement efforts. Our research shows that Alignment is highly correlated with greater improvements in both Internal Effectiveness and External Impact; in other words, it takes superior leadership and execution of mission and strategy to achieve higher performance.

Dysfunctional:
This low-performing organization struggles to meet its basic requirements; indeed, there is often a struggle to define its core mission and strategy. Indicators: The organization is characterized by de-motivated employees, poor customer service, and the lack of an effective basic infrastructure (such as reporting processes, IT, and performance management).

Insular:
This organization achieves modest levels of internal effectiveness, yet struggles to have external impact. Indicators: Internally—to both employees and leaders—the organization appears to be running well, with adequate internal processes and structures. But constituents and other stakeholders complain about a lack of impact and missed opportunities to do better.

Inefficient:
This bureaucracy has attained moderate levels of external impact, yet internally it runs into problems when seeking to streamline operations and reduce costs. Indicators: From the outside, the organization appears to be competent. But internally, leaders and their employees spend much of their time “putting out fires” and struggling to “keep their heads above water.” Internal processes are often ad hoc and rarely documented, and significant work is repeated as solutions are communicated across the organization.

Middling:
This archetype describes many organizations that have successfully met their basic obligations. They are able to make competent efforts to deliver value and have developed systems and processes to do so. They may be operating "under the radar" but significant opportunities for improvement exist. Indicators: Organizations that occupy this archetype run the risk of complacency. There is no crisis or “burning platform” prompting urgent change and improvement, so inaction is the norm.

Efficient:
This archetype describes organizations that have pursued high performance in the “traditional” way: by figuring out how to serve customers at reduced costs, and then repeating the cycle. Indicators: The drive towards efficient performance is often a necessary step in the pursuit of excellence; these organizations manage to free up resources (capital, talent, and management attention) that can then be used to pursue higher performance. But watch out—the organization can become so focused on internal efficiencies that it becomes rigid, resisting the need to respond to changing circumstances.

High-Performance: 
This rare organization not only excels at organizing itself for optimal internal performance, but is also a valued member of the broader ecosystem of constituents, policy-makers and partners. High-Performance Bureaucracies differ from their Efficient colleagues in their ability to connect with outside entities, in the creativity of the solutions they collaboratively generate, and in their flexibility to deploy resources against new and unforeseen opportunities. Indicators: High-Performance Bureaucracies invent new processes, products and services for constituents. They don’t just improve; they change the rules of their game.