> It tells veterans their primary skills are that they can "communicate by speaking" and "use [their] arms and/or legs together while sitting, standing, or lying down." Thanks for your service. If you don't believe me, look for yourself.
But to me it’s clear why these abilities are listed: veterans with disabilities. The author not getting that is just… do you ever stop and think?
The author is also complaining that it took two years to get approval to use the cloud and using that to show that the govt is too slow. That’s a crazy take to me, there are countless large and small companies where this did and is taking longer.
at what point do you stop treating people like they're not utter idiots though? the JD is a rotary drill operator. do you really need to list that you need finger and arm movement for this job? And, it's not solely for veterans with disabilities, it's for all veterans.
> The author is also complaining that it took two years to get approval to use the cloud and using that to show that the govt is too slow. That’s a crazy take to me, there are countless large and small companies where this did and is taking longer.
just because this happens elsewhere, doesn't mean that's excusable. also, author worked for the VA which is a lot more consequential for people than some rando corpo taking a long time to get a domain they want.
I’ve enjoyed being on teams and organizations that have tried to focus on the “why” instead of jumping to conclusions because meaningful changes ended up getting implemented and future changes are a lot easier as a result of process change.
The author’s jump to conclusions just wastes everyone’s time and money.
They refer to themselves as a "lifelong libertarian", so probably not since turning 14.
Obama's United States Digital Service, which the author worked for, did not practice the broad authorities to rewrite the federal service that the current administration is exercising. This suggests to me that a healthy democracy is perhaps subject to some kind of a "Chesterton's Fence Fallacy," wherein the assumption that rules should be respected somehow becomes a bad assumption when an organization gets large.
I've read a lot about the meaningless work at FAANGs that don't appear to tie to any bottom line, to the effect of "most employees at FAANGs seem to do nothing useful." In contrast, all federal work draws its authority to exist at all from Congressional direction, so there's always a clear connection to a "why" in the federal government for literally every role, and one that the person in that role seems to always be very aware of. None the less, federal work gets similarly mired in seeming ineffectuality where day-to-day action is so tied up in internal "red tape" the positive impact gets lost, like the 300k lives noted in the article. Government folks can always draw a straight line from their role to the impact on the public, but too often can't seem to get the authority to take any actions that move them along that line because of organizationally-imposed rules.
Which is all to ask my real question: is this "Chesterton's Fence Fallacy" an inherent feature of large organizations? How do we overcome it?
But that answer doesn't really solve the inherent problem that more rapid improvement is necessary, maybe even critically so. To paraphrase JFK, is the issue here that an institution that makes meaningful improvement impossible perhaps also makes meaningless harm inevitable?
So many tech people try to solve all the problems of Gov tech in the executive branch, which is intentionally slow and conservative. And yet, watch any Congressional hearing about a tech topic, and it’s painfully obvious that Congress has very little expertise in tech issues on staff.
Instead of going 12 rounds with OIRA about the PRA (which I hate as much as the author does), what if we…changed it?
The Judiciary also has no idea how to think about tech issues.
Don’t blame the executive branch for the perverse constraints and incentives created by the Legislative and Judicial.
Maybe some of the recent grads who find themselves in a losing tech job market can pivot.
While I agree with this statement.... Elon and Dodge are "good at computers" now? Lol
Yes, inefficiency and bureaucracy suck. No, the answer is not to scrap it all without knowing what the hell you're doing and "just wing it", which is exactly what Musk and co are doing. Strangely enough, the solution is probably a compromise. Compromise takes two sides actually talking to each other, with people familiar with the matter present, and an acceptance that the goal is to make the process better without negatively impacting important things like security, safety and data integrity.
Please forgive the tone of this message, but I can't help wonder how many thousands of people are going to die because of the effective abolishment of USAID and other programmes.
If this is the first time you’ve heard of inefficiencies of this kind, you’re in a filter bubble.
fixed it for you
But that's not what's happening now. They're not streamlining, they -- and by that I mean Elon's engineers -- are "uncovering fraud", "rooting out corruption", and "getting rid of DEI" -- none of which have anything to do with efficiency and red tape. Oh, and coincidentally, the fraud and corruption all happens to be centered at agencies which Trump and Elon have a beef with (maybe because DEI==corruption?)
Yes, we need more technologists in government. Also, technologists should take care of _technology_, not _purges_.
I've worked in large academic institutions and currently work in a giant private corporate behemoth and see a lot of the same issues. I think what it comes down to is a couple of things:
* For a lot of people, status means not having to learn or update/change anything about yourself or your way of working. We (where I work) franchise, and I see so many business owners who can't be bothered to learn email, how to log in to a computer system, etc. They shouldn't have to, they think. They're too important! In academia, this is professors in their 70s who don't want to change their teaching style or administrators who think it's the 1980s. In government, I'd expect this to be the bureaucrats who've been in their positions for 20-30+ years. Because these people have status (be that capital or tenure), the culture of the organizations leans towards pleasing them, and people who ask them to learn are stonewalled or exited.
* Related to this, people care most about what's in front of them. The veterans dying/students who have issues/clients who aren't served well are more abstract than John who doesn't want to learn and will make your life hell if you try to make him.
* In terms of resistance from the less entrenched, I think it's worth noting that for the most part, changes in the modern American workforce (especially rapid ones) very, very rarely favor the worker. Sudden changes usually mean more work for less pay, layoffs, etc. For example, my own company just switched the bonus system in what is clearly an attempt to pay people less in bonuses. The only counter-example I can think of recently is the rise of WFH, but that's already being rolled back. Changes = good for management/owners, bad for workers. This means people are going to be resistant to all change because they've learned it means bad things for them. In small enough organizations, this can be somewhat mitigated by the leaders having a personal relationship with their worker bees, but in big orgs that doesn't happen.
I also think there's a fundamental tension between the type of person you need to be in order to implement and understand systematic changes and the type of person that makes a good factory/retail/service worker. There's a lot of people at the top of society who want obedient, uncurious workers and then are shocked when there are negatives to a population filled with those kind of people. We (as a society) have completely failed in educating our population for the digital age because a lot of people make money off the general populace's ignorance, but that does mean that the general populace can't administer in a digital society.
If you're very high up in a giant organization and the business fails, you have the network to land somewhere else - the COO of a 10,000+ employee company is not going to end up penniless working at Walmart. In an organization of that size, responsibility is so diffuse you just blame it on other people/departments/etc. and parachute away.
If you're a worker bee in an organization of that size, whether the business succeeds or fails doesn't have much correlation with your job security or performance.
I'd agree in a vacuum that in a capitalist society that would be a major difference, but post 2008, business leaders are well aware that the appetite for letting large businesses fail is not there. We'd lose too many jobs/the economic hit would be too large, and we'd rather prop up bad businesses to keep people employed than help low-level employees after their leaders run their businesses into the ground.
