To be fair, I'm not sure a profit motive would be best for national defense and intelligence.
That's an area where sometimes you can't quantify ROI for some time.
I am sure you also know a lot of good people that work for some of those agencies which make a decent living but could easily be making far more if they went into the private sector who just like the idea of serving their country. I have a family member who meets that criteria.
I wouldn't argue there isn't waste and redundancy though. You'd know far more than I would there, so I wouldn't be opposed to having the proper oversight and leadership in place to streamline processes though. I just personally don't like the politicization that comes from politicians (in this case Vivek) that disparages thousands of government workers just because it will gain sympathy from people with an anti-government sentiment.
Paragraph one: I did not say profit is necessarily the best motivator for such organizations. I said that the absence of profit as a motivator has consequences on organizational behavior.
I agree with your ROI comment and have lived through that. Example: How do you quantify the value of solving a murder case? We know there is value, but how do you quantify it? (Offered as a rhetorical question) ROI is often difficult to truly quantify in the private sector also.
Paragraph Two. I agree. The frontline people any organization are typically motivated by doing a good job, serving, obtaining some recognition, and putting food on the table. My comments are directed at the leadership and motivations of the organization. There is a huge difference between the world of the top leadership and that of the front line.
Paragraph three: There is always waste and redundancy in any organization and the larger it grows, the more you will find. There is a stark difference though in the motivations to eliminate waste in the public vs. private sectors. Generally, the public sector is motivated to spend their entire budget so they can request more. They are motivated to expand their organizations Public organizations are often penalized for saving money because they get their budgets cut.
If you look in the private sector you often see the same thing in the line vs staff orgazaions within a company. I worked at IBM in the 80s and witnessed the massive bloating of non-productive staffs. Staffs reporting to Staffs and producing nothing but cost. I went through a significant downsizing and reset at IBM. They came out of re-invented and stronger. I think that is the kind of thing he talking about.
As a similar example, look at what Musk did to Twitter. He cut 50% staff. He was told the systems would collapse. The system didn't skip a beat. Yes the ad revue is down but I don't think that was a function of his staff cuts. Jack Welch was famous for requiring 10% efficiency gains each year. Much of that was cutting the bottom 10% of performers.
Vivek seems to be proposing zero-based budgeting and mission on steroids. Note that he states that the necessary organizations should be rebuilt anew. I believe he has the FBI in that category. For organizations like the Department of Energy or Department of Education, I see the possibility that we would not skip a beat with the elimination of most or all of what they do. I do recognize the element of pollical drama that his claims contain.
A for myself, I am not anti government. I am anti big and wasteful government. I do believe the Federal government could do well with a bit of reset.
www.foxnews.com
