I believe it fair to say that a healthy majority of the American people support Trump’s efforts to shrink the size of our government and make it more efficient. It is perfectly legit for him to state that he was elected on that premise and he fully intends to pursue it. That being said, the American people are notorious for supporting political initiatives without thinking them all the way through to their practical application impacts. I think this is what Trump’s DOGE effort is encountering at this point and if he is not careful, it can significantly damage the momentum he has created for his ambitious crusade. In this piece, I want to focus on the shrinking aspect and leave the efficiency angle for another day.
I
spent 30 years working as a lower-level, civil service office manager. I saw many presidents come and go over my
career; I watched many politically-appointed State Directors serve short terms
in their offices; and I experienced the phenomenon of each and every new
president and congress believing that they had all the answers to all the
questions. They felt they could learn nothing of use from previous efforts to address the
same problems and there was simply no point in consulting with career
employees to gain any useful perspective on how certain reforms might impact
operations.
I
have no illusion about my knowledge and experience gained from a federal
employment career qualifying me as some type of expert on the DOGE targets of
shrinking and improving our government; I am not. But I can tell you for a fact that over the
years, it is pretty clear for any reasonable person to see some undeniable
truths that are simply too clear to ignore.
And yet…they continue to be
ignored.
The
mission (what they do) of government
departments and agencies is dictated by congressional legislation and the
manner in which they deliver their services (how they do it) is managed by a large group of career (civil service) employees who are by and
large supervised by a sizeable group of political (patronage appointees) employees.
As I have written before, the abuse of Executive Actions by recent
presidents has to some degree warped this mode of operations; but the basic
premise remains largely unchanged.
Ideally, political appointees arrive in their offices as people
competent and qualified to do their jobs.
In a perfect world, they ease
into their positions of authority and observe the lay of the land before reinventing the wheel with major and
dramatic actions. The really smart ones take the time to locate quality career
employees who can provide them with valuable insight as to how their
departments and agencies currently function and how they have evolved over the
years.
Though
it is somewhat an oversimplification, the DOGE effort at shrinking the government can be broken down into
two broad categories known as rightsizing
and downsizing. Simply put, rightsizing is matching the
proper number of personnel required to do the assigned tasks to the assigned tasks. Downsizing is a result of a department or
agency, in response to a prime directive from high levels of management, having
to reduce its number of personnel or offices by a certain amount. Sometimes these two processes occur
simultaneously and sometimes that occur independent of each other. But
there are certain principles that should apply to either process BEFORE the
process is implemented.
The
primary issue to be addressed in any effort at government reform is whether or
not the problem being addressed and the department/agency addressing it are necessary. Is this a matter that the government (public sector) is uniquely qualified to confront at the expense of the taxpayer or is it a matter that is best left to
the market place, driven by capitalistic principles (private sector)? If the results of this consideration are
that a department/agency is not required as part of our government, then the
rightsizing and downsizing solutions are taken to the extreme. However, in most
cases, and if the department/agency is determined to be vital to our
government’s function, then the answer to the question is to reform it through
a combination of legislation, rightsizing, and downsizing. Legislation is the proper initial step remedy for this
scenario. The Executive Action is an often used aberration. Trump/Musk/DOGE must never lose
sight of the fact that while many private sector business principles can apply seamlessly
over to the public sector…many others simply do not transfer effectively.
It
is estimated there are 2.25 million civil servants working in our government in
over 400 departments and agencies. These are career employees and not political
appointees. If they pursue their
jobs through to retirement, they will typically work within the system for 30
years or so. It is patently foolish to
arbitrarily prescribe a certain number of employees needed for a certain
federal department or agency without first determining WHAT they should do and HOW
they should do it. Once those priorities
are satisfied, then the first steps towards shrinking the personnel numbers are
rightsizing and downsizing. If you have
an individual civil servant who has been a solid employee for 15-20 years and
the department or agency in which they work is targeted for rightsizing or
downsizing, then there are established procedures in place to decide who goes
and who stays. It is critical to the future of maintaining a reliable, competent, and
experienced federal workforce that career employees be treated with fairness
and respect. Failure to do this will
result in a federal workforce that is not of the quality that our government
desires and needs to deliver its
prescribed missions.
At this point, I want to briefly address the Musk idea of each employee submitting a weekly report of five things they did the previous week. Within the civil service system, there exists an established method of performance review. Over my career, they were multi-paged, extensive summaries of an employee's performance over, at a minimum, the previous year. These reviews were conducted by an employee's immediate supervisor and were then entered into that employee's permanent employment file. Their future promotion options and salary increases were based upon this review. These reviews are also the basis for required employee performance improvement and, in extreme cases, employee dismissals. There were times within my 30-year career when these reviews were required on a semi-annual basis. If this process is executed properly, it is a very effective way to ensure adequate employee performance and address shortcomings on the job. It was detailed, explicit, and time consuming. There is really very little reason to add another layer of bureaucracy to this existing process; taking up valuable time that is better spent performing assigned tasks and duties. If a federal employee is not doing their job, it is the responsibility of their immediate supervisor to bring them up to speed or, failing that, dismiss them. If this protocol does not work, it is not a failure of the system; it is a failure of the supervisor.
If
a thoughtful and deliberate process leads to a decision requiring the shrinking
of personnel numbers in a department/agency, then the initial step in that
direction should be a hiring freeze. If you have too many employees, do not hire
any new ones. This will allow the
department/agency to reduce its number of employees over time due to the
natural attrition of retirements and people voluntarily leaving their jobs. Over the last several years, the attrition
rate for federal employees has been between 115,000 and 150,000 each year. As you can plainly see, this is an extremely
effective way to reduce the size of the federal workforce over time. The downside is that when you have such a
large workforce, time is not always available. Politicians love their quick solutions.
Another
downsizing solution is the ability of civil service employees to transfer from one federal job to another…from
one department/agency to another. This
is an extremely effective way to create reasonable career alternatives to displaced
federal employees with a significant amount of service and who would like to
continue their federal employment through to retirement. A critical element is this particular process
is that displaced federal employees seeking to fill federal job openings must
be given priority status over candidates who are not currently federal
employees; assuming they are qualified for the job opening. As you can see, this option
makes a lot of sense when you balance
the need for a competent and experienced federal workforce with the obligation for fair treatment of employees with the necessity of reducing the
overall number of federal employees.
Displaced federal employees are not always willing to uproot their lives
and relocate to a new job location.
Sometimes the distance is small and sometimes the distance is
large. But the point is that the
employee is given an option that can result in a win/win situation for both the
employee and the government. They can take
it or leave it.
The
final procedure I want to address in the government’s downsizing toolbox is the
use of federal employee buyouts. It is simply a fact that oftentimes, it makes
good fiscal sense to provide a current employee a modest financial incentive to
voluntarily quit their job. This can
work because (A), it has been
determined that a certain number of employees must be eliminated and (B) the employee’s choice to accept the
modest buyout offer rather than work through to a full retirement can result in
significant long term dollar savings for the employer (government). In a broad
sense, the buyout offer is the equivalent of the severance payment in the
private sector. It is a bridge to the
employee’s next employment chapter in their life. Over my 30 years as a federal employee, I saw
the use of the buyout used many, many times.
The key to the effective use
of the buyout is making certain that the position being vacated due to the
buyout is not refilled.
As
you can readily see, once a proper determination is made by our elected
officials that the size of our government must shrink; there are many sensible
and reasonable options available to them to accomplish this goal. The two fundamental requirements in making
this process a productive effort that accomplishes targeting goals through the
use of fair employee actions are…first
to be wise in determining the need for federal departments/agencies and secondly…determining how many federal
employees are needed to deliver the solution to that need.
The
Trump Administration is currently receiving high marks for its DOGE
efforts. However, I am concerned that in
their haste to reform our government, they are both neglecting the fundamental
questions of department/agency relevance and the existence of good options to
achieve their employment targets. I
applaud their efforts and goals; goodness knows that our government is too
large and highly inefficient. However, some of the methods they are
employing ignore both respect for career employee institutional knowledge/experience
and proven methods that are readily
available to them to accomplish their stated goals. It is useful to note that as the portion of
those 2.25 million federal employees that are dismissed or displaced has to deal with
reordering the lives of their families, those impacted people will be scattered
all across this country in every state and county. The pain will be significant and it will be
real. Regardless of the perceived immediate need to do this, it is far
more important to do it in a way that is thoughtful, deliberate, and fair to
the people involved.
A
couple of quick hits on the evolution of national education…
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/college-closures-are-nothing-to-worry-about/
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/college-doesnt-have-to-take-so-long/
The
East European theatre of American foreign policy is in a critical state of flux
and will have momentous implications for future generations…
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/02/the-german-election-green-dreams-in-the-dustbin.php
So
far…a refreshing change that we see in the Trump Administration as compared to
the Biden Administration is the transformation of a
censorship/disinformation-centric administration (Biden) to a free
speech/transparent administration (Trump).
Although the AP/Gulf of America
kerfuffle gives me pause about the sincerity of the Trump folks in this
area…they have certainly changed the mood in the room.
https://amgreatness.com/2025/02/23/the-three-amigos-give-a-progress-report/
You may not agree with what
President Trump is trying to accomplish, but you have to admit that he is
certainly not trying to hide it.
No comments:
Post a Comment