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

 

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail: Remember Me