Leading from the Middle

Caption: Sometimes, a cartoon is so good, I am motivated to make up a blog!

When Washington bureaucrats first read of DOGE* - the latest plan to reform (reduce) government - how many, do you think, were heard to mutter, "When pigs fly", or more likely, with emphasis, "When hell freezes over"?
It's been many-a-moon since any downsizing in the federal government.
Like Topsy, it's "growed" just like C. Northcote Parkinson predicted it would back in 1955 in his good-humored booklet setting forth his economic law: "work expands to fill the time available for its completion."
Or, in terms of an agency's staffing, "tasks will swell in (perceived) importance and complexity in relation to the time allotted for them."
There are two solutions to this: hire more people and increase the cost of doing business or insist that current staff figure out how to deal with increased demand.
Obviously, the latter is much more challenging for the leader to achieve than the former.
And, as long as there is a source of ready cash, whether through high profits or taxation, the former will all too often be the preferred strategy; it's the easy way out.
Usually, it is a lack of cash that drives reductions in force (RIF). The boss can shed crocodile tears and blame shrinking income as the reason for letting people go.
This is effective to a point, but does nothing to reform the reason behind the bloat. Saying, "I am sorry, I have no choice" is not the same as saying "We have a choice. We are obligated to reduce our costs (remember the deficit!) while doing our important work. It is up to us!"
Getting to keep some of the savings, can be a major impetus for desired change.
Another source of administrative bloat, is envy. Yes, the same kind of envy one encounters in mens' locker rooms.
Staff envy. If a deputy in one agency has an assistant, all deputy administrators must have an assistant!
If an assistant to a deputy has a personal assistant, all assistants must have a personal assistant.
Or, mimicking fads, if one agency has a DEI unit, all agencies must have DEI units. If those units each number 12 individuals, all agencies must have DEI units with at least 12 staff.
Hence government's great burgeoning.
Lest you think I am an ungrateful curmudgeon, I believe, for the most part, everyone in most agencies is doing something of value, but - and this is a big but - most if not all those workers could be doing more and at a lower cost.
What is blatantly missing when visiting most government agencies?
Urgency.
Too few have a sense of purpose and a dedication to doing something well.
It's as if the thrill (of serving mankind, of helping people in need) is gone or it's been taken away.
With a notable exception here in Oregon
most Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) are reviled for their lack of urgency and the resulting poor service.
Will DOGE introduce an urgency apart from fear? Let's hope so.
In my own experience, I had some success in reducing the body count for one higher education organization.
When I mentioned to the units I supervised that I was charged with reforming the organization, the come-back was predictable, we need more staff not fewer.
This was followed by lengthy explanations of the dire consequences that would devolve upon our heads. Our high-quality work would deteriorate, clients would be dissatisfied; more staff would "burn-out"; existing backlogs would swell exponentially; etc.
And, when I persisted, I encountered the academy's version of the iron triangle. At the Federal level the iron triangle has three legs: Congressional Committees, Bureaucratic Agencies, and Special Interest Groups. Each blocks (have you heard of the RESISTANCE?) any attempt to reduce budgets. Imagine the fireworks when Mr. Ramaswamy and Mr. Musk lay down the law about remote work. Those iron triangles are going to be glowing red hot.
Every organization has an iron triangle that resists change and ultimately stops efforts to change.
What makes the difference? What cracks the iron triangle?
When the leadership is committed to the change and when the leadership has the backing of its supervising board.
My efforts at getting rid of baroque processes and redundancies, and reducing staff through automation would have gone nowhere without my boss having my back.
Notably, when I asked the people doing the work for their streamlining and cost cutting ideas they were forthcoming and those ideas were quintessential to our reforms.
What is different with what Musk and Ramaswamy are planning to do?
Besides their business saavy, they have the backing of their "boss", the iconoclastic Mr. Trump who says he wants to reduce regulation and the size of government to promote private sector growth and reduce costs for Americans.
And, speaking of urgency, the DOGE clock is ticking toward its self-imposed deadline of July 4 2026.
DOGE appears to be less a "political" crusade than a genuine effort to make the best use of our resources.
We can all get better. Rarely does doing so require more staff, more money, more equipment, more, more, etc.
Indeed, more gets in the way of invention by reducing necessity.

*The Department of Government Efficiency as proposed and administered by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in the incoming Trump administration. Some smirk that it's an oxymoron! The two words, government and efficiency, are contradictory, they say. We will soon find out.

_______________
John's books can be ordered via these links:
Fables for Leaders
&
Leading from the Middle

Copyright all text by John Lubans 2024

Caption: Gladys by Microsoft Copilot, November 17, 2024
While visiting great grandchildren (Ruby and Sylvan) in Redding, California, something happened that reminded me of an essay I published in November of 2010.
As we jaywalked across a downtown street one night, Ruby put her hand in mine. Since she has seen me only infrequently, it was a sweet and trusting gesture.
Her hand remined me of one of the most poignant moments in all of Wodehouse's writings, a scene in his short story, Lord Emsworth and the Girl Friend.*
I often ask students to read that story.
While some students can't quite figure out why they should, most catch on.
Lord Emsworth, the dreamy earl - a man who regularly flees from conflict - finally gets the courage to stand up to his overbearing gardener and his sister's hen-pecking.
While Lord Emsworth is the boss of the Castle, sister Connie - when in residence - beleaguers the chumpish Lord into wearing top hats and tails, and celluloid collars.
He'd rather be in his patched shooting jacket and baggy corduroy pants pottering about the castle's glorious beds of flowers and chirruping to his cherished Pig of pigs, the Empress.
My students read about the earl just ahead of our class on conflict. The students take a conflict self-test and discover their preferred conflict behavior.
Almost always the class - similar to most other groups - scores highest at avoiding, accommodating, and compromising. The low-end scores are in competing (win-lose) and (the most desirable) collaborating (win-win).
Most students come away from this lesson vowing to be more balanced in how they deal with conflict.
All of us know how difficult it can be to be assertive - there are times when we should and we do; other times we choose the easy way out, slipping out the back door. Privately, we know we should have roared like a lion, instead we squeeked.
We flee to fight another day. Or do we?
Gladys, is the charmingly drawn heroine in Wodehouse?s story.
She, one of the urban school children visitors to an open house and fete at the castle, has serendipitously gotten to know the earl. He is bemused and charmed by her street-urchin, Cockney ways.
In the treat tent, when she takes two of everything, Sister Connie intervenes and puts her into a dark garden shed for what she grande-damishly deems inappropriate behavior.
Had only Connie asked, she would have learned that Gladys was not "pinching" but gathering the extra treats for her little brother, Ern, whom Connie had banished from the castle for "biting 'er in the leg".
Lord Emsworth, while avoiding the human hordes on the castle grounds, stumbles across and frees Gladys.
He empathizes, calls for the butler, and makes sure he packs a basket of food and other treats, including a bottle of port, for Gladys and her brother.
Later, when Gladys is pursued by the castle's gardener, McAllister, for picking "flarze" (flowers) - the earl had given her permission - Lord Emsworth finds himself in the line of fire.
Gladys hides behind him.
Lord Emsworth has had his moments with the gardener - a taciturn and formidable Glaswegian.
Today, facing the infuriated McAllister - with shaking knees and quivering soul - something different happens: "It was, in itself, quite a trivial thing, but it had an astoundingly stimulating effect on Lord Emsworth's morale. What happened was that Gladys, seeking further protection, slipped at this moment a small, hot hand into his"*
The worm turns.
Emboldened by Gladys's gesture, the earl tells off his gardener (and not long after; his sister).
It is, as one Wodehouse biographer wrote, a lyrical, rare and unfettered expression of emotion not just for the earl, but for all of us.
Gladys's portrait (above), amidst the flarze, just might capture some of her je ne sais quoi.

*P. G. Wodehouse, Lord Emsworth and the Girl Friend; a selection from his Blandings Castle, NY: The Overlook Press (original copyright, 1935) 2002, pp.136-160.

_______________
John's books can be ordered via these links:
Fables for Leaders
&
Leading from the Middle

Copyright all text by John Lubans 2024

In the spirit of my recent An Immodest Proposal, here is a suggestion for Elon Musk's proposed Government-efficiency Commission (GeC):
Action Force Teams (AFT) that create a pilot for a legislated idea.
What is the deliverable? A working pilot. For example, in the case of rural high speed internet access, the pilot results in a functioning network for a largish geographical area taking into account terrain and weather. (Why this example? Broadband Internet access for rural America was enacted in 2021 with 42 billion dollars in the kitty. To date, "not one home or business has been connected through it.")
An AFT pilot is to demonstrably deliver the most for the least cost.
If feasible, assign two independent AFTs on the same problem but in different geographic locations.
The AFT will be free of:
regulations that include diversity, equity and inclusion requirements,
climate-change rules
price controls (artificial, arbitrary or otherwise)
preferences for union labor, and (in the case of the broadband Internet project)
schemes that favor government-run networks.
Each AFT is set up to implement legislation that is funded but stalled or being boondoggled.
Each AFT reports to the head of GeC and enjoys considerable latitude and independence.
After each pilot, an AAR (after action review) will enumerate what worked and what did not and what could be improved to help implement fully what was intended in the legislation.
AFTs use their best judgement to implement a fiscally responsible, functioning pilot using available resources.
No irreversible actions are to be taken.
When things go awry, then changes and corrections are made and learned from.
This is not a laboratory-controlled experiment; it is to show what is possible with a rapid hands-on implementation of what has already been legislated. The mistakes made along the way are essential in getting the best results in the national roll out.
Who?
Each AFT is a select, recruited group of action-takers, innovators, implementers, and pathfinders.
It is quintessential that each member, including volunteers, has a demonstrated ability to get real things done.
It is important that each member understands "urgency trumps all".
Action team members rotate off and on with a mix of people from not-for-profits, from government (including the military) and from industry.
Local communities are consulted to identify specific needs and to help develop a functioning pilot.
Compensation for AFT members is paid from existing funds in the stalled project or from projects that are evolving into boondoggles.
Team dynamics are addressed up front and resolved early.
Each AFT ascribes to and follows best practices for high performing teams.

John's books can be ordered via these links:
Fables for Leaders
&
Leading from the Middle


Copyright all text by John Lubans 2024

Caption: Herb Kelleher, co-founder and CEO of Southwest Air winging it alone.

My Australian friend, Kaz Kazim, has been editorially skewering Qantas - Australia's national airline - about "the fundamental flaws of the management style that failed our national carrier and sent it tumbling into the doldrums, distrusted by staff and customers alike."
Qantas' Chairman Richard Goyder asserted that "you needed a command and control [style]through COVID"
Au contraire, says Kaz. Tightening control was not what was needed to survive and thrive. What was needed were a "shared vision, a collaborative commitment and well-informed and engaged staff implementing action."
Kaz's criticism of the Qantas chairman, reminds me of an AT&T CEO I went to hear speak, years ago, at a luncheon in Houston, Texas as part of a Public Administration class.
His speech was full of bromides, platitudes and cliches with little substance. I was not expecting to be inspired - I'll take care of that - but I was expecting unique insights and opinions on telecommunications.
Instead the AT&T CEO came across not as a leader but as a caretaker, a place keeper, an empty "suit".
Surely he did not get the top job by acting and talking that way? Or did he?
Do corporate boards want someone who looks the part (let's hear it for presidential) but does little more than keep the organization on an even keel?
Is that it?
Or, once hired the CEO prefers to be "better safe than sorry" by not taking on more risk. Risk taking is what leadership is all about. The true leader is a risk taker (depicted), self-deprecating, and always has a sense of who he/she is.
Didn't someone say many CEOs suffer from imposter syndrome? In some cases the imposture is real.
But, don't let me get too smug.
Am I any different than Goyder or the AT&T CEO?
Not sure. I was always a good second to a great #1, but what would happen if I went solo, like Hank flying on the wing?
How would I do in a crisis?
When crisis hits, the caretaker CEO hides, dissembles, since new ideas are foreign and risky.
During the pandemic, the airline industry, across the board, displayed little leadership. Airlines the world over panicked and did the same things.
They cut back staff and promoted early retirement in spite of huge governmental supplemental funding intended to help them weather the storm.
Once the pandemic ended, the airlines found they did not have enough staff, or planes, for that matter!
Imagine that. You are running a company and you fail to adequately plan ahead.
Worse, why did all these leaders do the same thing?
Even Southwest, about which I have blogged numerous times, went lemming.
Gary Kelley, who once notably and irrelevantly claimed to eat a banana a day, succeeded Hank Kelleher upon his retirement.
Kelley led SWA well, but not in Hank's inimitable way. While he built on past successes, he innovated little.
Kelley was an excellent second in command: fiercely loyal, honest and able to carry out complex and innovative decisions.
But when he replaced Hank, things seemed to shift into a lower gear.
Sure, much of the esprit de corps remained (To quote Hank: "It's in the DNA*") but the absence of Hank's looming persona took its toll.
Hank, if his leadership post 9/11 is any indication - SWA was the first airline back in the air - would have done the opposite of what the other CEOs did during the pandemic. Hank died in 2019, so he was not here for that panic, but I don't think he would have gone along with the lemmings.
Instead, he would have used the drop off in travel to upgrade systems, to streamline schedules, to rethink how and what SWA was doing, and anticipate what was next , etc. In so doing he would have avoided the gargantuan meltdown SWA suffered shortly after the pandemic.
Importantly, his contrarian leadership would have brought other airlines along; they would have followed him, the person leading the way, the tip of the spear.
In my own career, I found that taking a contrarian approach when everyone else was playing it safe, often resulted in significant improvement and productivity gains for my organization.
But, I have to remind myself, I did that as a second in command.
My boss had my back, as they say, and deflected the numerous slings and arrows of envy and jealousy and admonishment from people I upset with my contrarian ways and success.
That all changed for me when a new and unsupportive boss came on board.

*My Latvian cousin who works for Norwegian (an airline) was recently in the USA and flew SWA for the first time. She told me: "Southwest Airlines was really exceptional, what a great service and hassle-free travel!"
Like Herb said, the SWA spirit lives on.

Copyright, all text, John Lubans 2024