How Government Shutdowns Would Equal Organizational Failure in Any Other Sector

In the private sector businesses or non-profit organizations, leaders are expected to keep organizations functional, efficient, and accountable to employees, customers, and stakeholders. When leaders fail, whether by neglecting core operations, mismanaging resources, or engaging in internal conflicts, the consequences are swift. CEOs, CFO’s, etc., are replaced, boards intervene, or the organization collapses. Yet in the federal government, our elected officials have routinely allowed shutdowns to occur, halting services, delaying paychecks, and undermining public trust. Such outcomes represent not only policy disputes but dysfunctional leadership behaviors that would never be tolerated in high-functioning private organizations.

Dysfunctional Behaviors Behind Shutdowns

A government shutdown is not a neutral event; it is the byproduct of leaders engaging in counterproductive behaviors. Dysfunctional leadership manifests in several ways:

• Avoidance of responsibility. Instead of finding compromise, officials defer decisions and allow deadlines to lapse, a behavior akin to organizational neglect (Kellerman, 2004).

• Power struggles. Shutdowns often stem from battles for dominance, where political “wins” are prioritized over functional governance for the greater good. Such self-serving behaviors mirror toxic leadership in organizations where leaders prioritize personal agendas over collective success (Lipman-Blumen, 2005).

• Blame-shifting. Rather than taking ownership, officials point fingers across party lines, a tactic that erodes trust and makes resolution more difficult (Einarsen et al., 2007).

• Neglect of stakeholders. Federal employees, service recipients, and the general public bear the cost of stalled operations. In a private business, ignoring stakeholder needs would be grounds for leadership termination (Drucker, 2007).

These behaviors, when normalized, erode the very legitimacy of government. In contrast, private-sector leaders who exhibit these patterns face financial collapse, shareholder revolt, or regulatory intervention (ironically from the federal government).

The Organizational Lens

Comparing government shutdowns to private-sector failures provides a useful lens for evaluating our elected officials’ performance. If a company failed to pay its employees, shut down operations without notice, and jeopardized supply chains, it would be considered a case of catastrophic leadership failure. Drucker (2007) noted that management’s primary responsibility is to sustain continuity and effectiveness; failing at these basic functions indicates a breakdown in leadership discipline.

When elected officials prioritize rigid adherence to party lines rather than the fundamental goal of governing effectively, they engage in dysfunctional leadership behaviors that undermine the very purpose of public service. Partisan entrenchment fosters gridlock, erodes trust, and prevents collaborative problem-solving necessary for addressing complex societal challenges (Hetherington & Rudolph, 2015). Leadership research highlights that dysfunction arises when personal or group interests override organizational or collective goals, leading to inefficiency and a breakdown in performance (Kellerman, 2004). In the context of governance, such behaviors create a misalignment between the responsibility to serve the public and the actions taken by officials, resulting in outcomes like government shutdowns and public disillusionment (Lencioni, 2002). By valuing party loyalty over effective governance, leaders not only fail their stakeholders but also normalize dysfunction as an acceptable standard.

Trust can break and unravel just like a rope.

Implications for Trust and Legitimacy

Trust between leaders and followers is one of the most fragile yet essential elements in the  leadership process. When elected officials allow the government to close, they signal to the public that personal or partisan interests outweigh the common good. This mirrors the loss of confidence shareholders experience when private corporate leaders engage in scandals or gross mismanagement (Lencioni, 2002).

The erosion of trust has long-term consequences. Citizens lose faith not only in individual leaders but in institutions themselves, creating a cycle of disengagement and cynicism. In the private sector, loss of trust can tank a brand; in the public sector, it can destabilize democracy.

"We are responsible. Whether we lead or follow, we are responsible for our own actions and we share responsibility for the actions of those whom we can influence." - Ira Chaleff, The Courageous Follower

Moving Forward: Competence Over Dysfunction

Shutdowns are not inevitable for government just like they are not inevitable for other forms of organizations. They are choices rooted in dysfunctional behaviors. Competent leadership requires accountability, compromise, and a recognition that the role of governance is stewardship, not gamesmanship. As Lipman-Blumen (2005) argued, toxic leaders thrive when followers allow dysfunction to persist. The same is true of elected officials; the public must demand higher standards of performance and accountability from their elected officials.

In any organization, failure to perform core responsibilities results in termination. In government, it should result in the same. Democracy only works if citizens actively defend it. Dysfunctional leadership is sustained by public apathy.  We should all be disgusted and demanding better “service” regardless of party lines. 

References

• Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

• Drucker, P. F. (2007). Management challenges for the 21st century. Routledge.

• Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behavior: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002

• Hetherington, M. J., & Rudolph, T. J. (2015). Why Washington won’t work: Polarization, political trust, and the governing crisis. University of Chicago Press.

• Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Harvard Business Review Press.

• Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Jossey-Bass.

• Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians—and how we can survive them. Oxford University Press.