I think the bit on procedural fetishism is mostly correct, but I think misses a psychological point (putting aside the folks on power trips, which does happen, but not that often). If you're a federal employee and are trying to actually do your job, a fair amount of that is stuff you personally will think is unwise, unnecessary, counterproductive, or pandering. Because that's what congress has told you to do. The way you, or at least I, adjust to that psychologically is to say 'I may or may not be correct on the utility of this, but I am a civil servant, my job is to carry out the tasks provided by congress under the guidance of the president and his appointed leadership/policies.'
And that's the psychological out that means that, denying someone disability benefits because, hey, they help out around the house sometimes, so could work as a part-time janitor, isn't morally debilitating, merely unpleasant. That's the standard established by the courts and congress hasn't adjusted it, so it's the law of the land and I need to comply with that as a good civil servant (this obviously has some moral limits, but they very rarely come up in my experience).
But once you've taken that psychological step of accepting that your role genuinely is to be a servant of society and execute the policy laid out under the restrictions laid out...well, by what right do I decide 'eh, this bit of procedure is dumb and counterproductive to the overall goal of the project? It's exactly as much something I'm supposed to comply with as the desired end result of the action. Yeah, yeah, I'm supposed tobuild a project, I'm also supposed to comply with NEPA/ESA/NHPA/ETC. By what right do I prioritize one of those over the others?
ETA: Or, phrased differently, almost everyone thinks they're a problem solver, the question is, what's the problem they're solving? Is it how to build a project? Or how to comply with NEPA? Both of those are congressional mandates, after all.
You mention unions in passing, but the political economy of reforming union rent-seeking seems like it deserves more emphasis and discussion. It's such a big factor in all kinds of state capacity and barriers-to-abundance issues, not just civil service reform.
I agree. I don't know enough about it! Philip Howard has taken a very bold anti-public sector union stance that will get some play in this new administration. I'm not sure I'd go as far as he does but he makes some excellent points.
"Stop layering on dumb rules, start fixing the ones we have."
Amen. It will suck if things have to get even worse before they get better, but they *need* to get better. And I think you're 100% correct that public-sector employees who *want* to do a good job desperately want reform. I know from experience that nothing is more demotivating than being surrounded by people who "can't or won't do the job."
True, but even worse is unnecessary/counter productive "jobs" and policies being created. Focusing on removing unproductive "people" is just a mistake.
With Musk's recent comments on X calling out specific federal public servants, I think this optimism about what DOGE will do can be safely put to rest.
As a fellow infrastructure planner, I get and share your exasperation. I hope that, despite the trolling, these guys want to get credit for actually making stuff work.
<But civil service reform has been off the table when Dems are in charge (and is miles from the table in blue-run states like California) because the unions block it. The position of the unions doesn’t match what government employees I talk to actually want — not in the least. With a Republican trifecta, it should be on the table. And Musk and Vivek should be its champions.>
In my (limited) experience, proponents of civil service reform have a similar problem that the legal reform movement faced a few years ago: they alienated the relevant stakeholders and put them in a hostile, defensive crouch. "Defund the police" put many cops on the defensive and likely contributed to the recent crime mini-boom because of more defensive enforcement policies. A similar problem affects the civil service reform movement: hostile criticism (usually, but not exclusively, on the political Right) towards government workers, public-sector unions, and even the idea of federal bureaucracy puts public-sector workers in a defensive crouch, leading to further obstacles to improving efficiency and performance. I'd argue that hostility towards teachers is a major contributing factor to regionalized teacher shortages.
Of course, the situation is different because unlike "defund the police", the political Right is more effective and influential at a national level. This makes me rather bearish on the prospect of civil service reform, at least in the near future, but I could be wrong.
It is not even sure they want efficiency so much as lower expenditures to create more fiscal space for larger tax cuts. The LIFO strategy will reduce expenditures less than numbers.
As a retired fed, let me tell you- career employees CAN be fired but the manager must document the poor performance, or porn watching (actually that is probably a job for IT), or other reasons. If the manager or supervisor doesn’t have the time because they are doing the job of three people- guess what is the last task they will attack? I’ve had deadlines that are not feasible. I actually asked my supervisor which of my 10 tasks was the priority. He said all of them. I was like well I can walk her on all of them all at the same time but that means they’ll all be late and it’s difficult. So I asked again, which are the top three? His answer they’re all important. Get them all done. that is the kind of pressure most of the employees are under. The agency I worked for has still not recovered from the hiring freeze Trump instituted. And even though he said it was rescinded -but in reality, it was not. In four years just in my state’s agency of almost 200 employees, 34 retired, 10 transferred and five quit to work in the private sector. My former agency IS STILL understaffed. Many lower to mid-level positions have been filled- but with employees right out of college who have little or no experience.
The disruption in the workforce is a battle but for those who care about what they do- there is no time for quality. Projects are rushed and deadlines are ‘met’ by incompetents ….and soon the work has to be repeated because there is no quality control. Everything is ‘risk management’ - what’s the chance it’s wrong or not done AND we get caught with noncompliance. That is not the way the civil service used to work nor should it be today. Those bureaucratic rules the private sector companies go thru are there because too many of them lie or cheat and/or don’t plan well. 3M gets caught dumping chemicals in creeks. A developer cuts down a pine tree with an active eagle nest. The expansion of a factory obliterates a local cemetery. All this happens because they don’t want to follow the rules and regulations cause it costs money to do it right - especially if you didn’t plan well.
I was there in the DOGE community when Elon dropped in and started talking about it - basically after all the hard work was done. He said a lot of things, hyped people up, then left the scene when he found something else shiny to talk about. Basically wasted everyone's time since he never really gave any real support or thought to it. (He was successful in destroying the good will of the community that it once had, though - once a few people got rich, the work itself stalled and that was kind of the end of an era.)
I'd imagine something similar is going to happen with this version of DOGE too: Nothing. That's kind of his whole thing, in a way. More bark than bite, as usual.
Laws and policies change from administration to administration. If you want laws and procedures implemented in a predicable way that upholds the rule of law, you need people who are there for the long-run.
Civil servant here. Yes to civil service reform (especially with regard to insane hiring and procurement rules). Unions tend to protect retirees and near-retirees the most. I don't have a solution for that, but no one is negotiating on behalf of the new employees or the public benefit of recruiting talent.
I think we need to cut out all affirmative action in civil service hiring, including of veterans and tribal members. I want a meritocracy. Many do. Let’s try to get closer to one, not make laws that obviously get us further away from it.
As a 30 year federal supervisor one thing that I agree with Musk on is eliminating work from home. You simply cannot supervise people you can’t see. File clerks (mostly black women) can’t possibly do their jobs at home but if you deny their request you get a discrimination complaint. Enough.
If supervisors truly had discretion to decide who can work from home, I’d still favor it. 80% of the time it goes just fine and is very valued by employees. But yeah, the people who can’t handle it get away with a lot, and if you deny a request you better have lots of documentation to justify that decision.
Lex: It would probably work in the private sector but in government (where I had my supervisory experience) it is virtually impossible to punish slackers and work at home makes the situation worse.
What about a geographically dispersed team? Are you saying it is easier to supervise someone in a remote office more easily than it is to supervise someone in a home office?
But can you agree that might work in some cases and not in others? If you take away managerial discretion and replace it with a one-size-fits-all solution, can you see that it might hamper innovation and efficiency, not to mention reduce your pool of qualified candidates?
I appreciate the sentiments, but I also understand what Elon and Vivek think they’ve been tasked to do.
As the spouse of a Federal Employee, I admit that I’m not totally objective here. (Her agency is largely self-funded, but legal rulings have interrupted that more than once…)
Congress needs to fix this, but they’d rather not.
Senator Paul’s “Penny Plan” was something when he came up with it years ago, but even that doesn’t come close to fixing the problems that have crept in.
Is this a case of do-something-even-if-it’s-wrong?
I think the bit on procedural fetishism is mostly correct, but I think misses a psychological point (putting aside the folks on power trips, which does happen, but not that often). If you're a federal employee and are trying to actually do your job, a fair amount of that is stuff you personally will think is unwise, unnecessary, counterproductive, or pandering. Because that's what congress has told you to do. The way you, or at least I, adjust to that psychologically is to say 'I may or may not be correct on the utility of this, but I am a civil servant, my job is to carry out the tasks provided by congress under the guidance of the president and his appointed leadership/policies.'
And that's the psychological out that means that, denying someone disability benefits because, hey, they help out around the house sometimes, so could work as a part-time janitor, isn't morally debilitating, merely unpleasant. That's the standard established by the courts and congress hasn't adjusted it, so it's the law of the land and I need to comply with that as a good civil servant (this obviously has some moral limits, but they very rarely come up in my experience).
But once you've taken that psychological step of accepting that your role genuinely is to be a servant of society and execute the policy laid out under the restrictions laid out...well, by what right do I decide 'eh, this bit of procedure is dumb and counterproductive to the overall goal of the project? It's exactly as much something I'm supposed to comply with as the desired end result of the action. Yeah, yeah, I'm supposed tobuild a project, I'm also supposed to comply with NEPA/ESA/NHPA/ETC. By what right do I prioritize one of those over the others?
ETA: Or, phrased differently, almost everyone thinks they're a problem solver, the question is, what's the problem they're solving? Is it how to build a project? Or how to comply with NEPA? Both of those are congressional mandates, after all.
Yes, I think your last paragraph in particular is very insightful.
You mention unions in passing, but the political economy of reforming union rent-seeking seems like it deserves more emphasis and discussion. It's such a big factor in all kinds of state capacity and barriers-to-abundance issues, not just civil service reform.
I agree. I don't know enough about it! Philip Howard has taken a very bold anti-public sector union stance that will get some play in this new administration. I'm not sure I'd go as far as he does but he makes some excellent points.
Is there an article or book you’d recommend? I’d be interested in learning more about how unions fit in the public sector
"Stop layering on dumb rules, start fixing the ones we have."
Amen. It will suck if things have to get even worse before they get better, but they *need* to get better. And I think you're 100% correct that public-sector employees who *want* to do a good job desperately want reform. I know from experience that nothing is more demotivating than being surrounded by people who "can't or won't do the job."
True, but even worse is unnecessary/counter productive "jobs" and policies being created. Focusing on removing unproductive "people" is just a mistake.
With Musk's recent comments on X calling out specific federal public servants, I think this optimism about what DOGE will do can be safely put to rest.
i just don't think they care about federal rules or policy. alternatively, I'm sure this is all just trolling.
As a fellow infrastructure planner, I get and share your exasperation. I hope that, despite the trolling, these guys want to get credit for actually making stuff work.
i am here for the process if it works. we desperately need to fix how we build - and if doge takes this seriously…we’ll see
<But civil service reform has been off the table when Dems are in charge (and is miles from the table in blue-run states like California) because the unions block it. The position of the unions doesn’t match what government employees I talk to actually want — not in the least. With a Republican trifecta, it should be on the table. And Musk and Vivek should be its champions.>
In my (limited) experience, proponents of civil service reform have a similar problem that the legal reform movement faced a few years ago: they alienated the relevant stakeholders and put them in a hostile, defensive crouch. "Defund the police" put many cops on the defensive and likely contributed to the recent crime mini-boom because of more defensive enforcement policies. A similar problem affects the civil service reform movement: hostile criticism (usually, but not exclusively, on the political Right) towards government workers, public-sector unions, and even the idea of federal bureaucracy puts public-sector workers in a defensive crouch, leading to further obstacles to improving efficiency and performance. I'd argue that hostility towards teachers is a major contributing factor to regionalized teacher shortages.
Of course, the situation is different because unlike "defund the police", the political Right is more effective and influential at a national level. This makes me rather bearish on the prospect of civil service reform, at least in the near future, but I could be wrong.
I think there are likely also collective bargaining agreements in place that would govern who gets laid off
It is not even sure they want efficiency so much as lower expenditures to create more fiscal space for larger tax cuts. The LIFO strategy will reduce expenditures less than numbers.
This strategy will backfire ..
As a retired fed, let me tell you- career employees CAN be fired but the manager must document the poor performance, or porn watching (actually that is probably a job for IT), or other reasons. If the manager or supervisor doesn’t have the time because they are doing the job of three people- guess what is the last task they will attack? I’ve had deadlines that are not feasible. I actually asked my supervisor which of my 10 tasks was the priority. He said all of them. I was like well I can walk her on all of them all at the same time but that means they’ll all be late and it’s difficult. So I asked again, which are the top three? His answer they’re all important. Get them all done. that is the kind of pressure most of the employees are under. The agency I worked for has still not recovered from the hiring freeze Trump instituted. And even though he said it was rescinded -but in reality, it was not. In four years just in my state’s agency of almost 200 employees, 34 retired, 10 transferred and five quit to work in the private sector. My former agency IS STILL understaffed. Many lower to mid-level positions have been filled- but with employees right out of college who have little or no experience.
The disruption in the workforce is a battle but for those who care about what they do- there is no time for quality. Projects are rushed and deadlines are ‘met’ by incompetents ….and soon the work has to be repeated because there is no quality control. Everything is ‘risk management’ - what’s the chance it’s wrong or not done AND we get caught with noncompliance. That is not the way the civil service used to work nor should it be today. Those bureaucratic rules the private sector companies go thru are there because too many of them lie or cheat and/or don’t plan well. 3M gets caught dumping chemicals in creeks. A developer cuts down a pine tree with an active eagle nest. The expansion of a factory obliterates a local cemetery. All this happens because they don’t want to follow the rules and regulations cause it costs money to do it right - especially if you didn’t plan well.
I was there in the DOGE community when Elon dropped in and started talking about it - basically after all the hard work was done. He said a lot of things, hyped people up, then left the scene when he found something else shiny to talk about. Basically wasted everyone's time since he never really gave any real support or thought to it. (He was successful in destroying the good will of the community that it once had, though - once a few people got rich, the work itself stalled and that was kind of the end of an era.)
I'd imagine something similar is going to happen with this version of DOGE too: Nothing. That's kind of his whole thing, in a way. More bark than bite, as usual.
“It’s just a loyalty test, and it's a disastrous idea that should be stopped if at all possible.”
I dont see why its not important to have civil servants who arent diametrically opposed to an administration’s ideological goals
Laws and policies change from administration to administration. If you want laws and procedures implemented in a predicable way that upholds the rule of law, you need people who are there for the long-run.
No, you need competent people who can do their job. That may include learning fast.
Civil servant here. Yes to civil service reform (especially with regard to insane hiring and procurement rules). Unions tend to protect retirees and near-retirees the most. I don't have a solution for that, but no one is negotiating on behalf of the new employees or the public benefit of recruiting talent.
I think we need to cut out all affirmative action in civil service hiring, including of veterans and tribal members. I want a meritocracy. Many do. Let’s try to get closer to one, not make laws that obviously get us further away from it.
As a 30 year federal supervisor one thing that I agree with Musk on is eliminating work from home. You simply cannot supervise people you can’t see. File clerks (mostly black women) can’t possibly do their jobs at home but if you deny their request you get a discrimination complaint. Enough.
If supervisors truly had discretion to decide who can work from home, I’d still favor it. 80% of the time it goes just fine and is very valued by employees. But yeah, the people who can’t handle it get away with a lot, and if you deny a request you better have lots of documentation to justify that decision.
Lex: It would probably work in the private sector but in government (where I had my supervisory experience) it is virtually impossible to punish slackers and work at home makes the situation worse.
What about a geographically dispersed team? Are you saying it is easier to supervise someone in a remote office more easily than it is to supervise someone in a home office?
Ben: I simply mean that a supervisor should be physically in the presence of those who (he) supervises. Home office or remote office.
But can you agree that might work in some cases and not in others? If you take away managerial discretion and replace it with a one-size-fits-all solution, can you see that it might hamper innovation and efficiency, not to mention reduce your pool of qualified candidates?
I appreciate the sentiments, but I also understand what Elon and Vivek think they’ve been tasked to do.
As the spouse of a Federal Employee, I admit that I’m not totally objective here. (Her agency is largely self-funded, but legal rulings have interrupted that more than once…)
Congress needs to fix this, but they’d rather not.
Senator Paul’s “Penny Plan” was something when he came up with it years ago, but even that doesn’t come close to fixing the problems that have crept in.
Is this a case of do-something-even-if-it’s-wrong?
Maybe.