The fact that people don't trust the government to do the right thing all or most of the time (whatever that means), isn't good evidence the bureaucracy isn't performing. There are other possible explanations for increasing distrust that are more plausible than that a large number bureaucratic functions have somehow gone off the rails. One is that legislators are getting the will of the voters wrong, which is a problem with the legislative branch, not the executive branch. Don't like the CFPB? OK. Which branch created the CFPB? Another is an ever more polarized and politicized news environment. We need better evidence of the corruption and waste that DOGE claims to be solving.
George - Thank you for jumping in. I totally concur that the legislative branch is off the rails -- I agree. They are largely responsible for the spending mess.
As I said in my post, my point was not to defend the instantiation of DOGE; rather, how do we drive frame-breaking change without creating systemic collapse or doing nothing which is clearly on a path to systemic collapse?
Hi Rob, great to read your thoughts on all this. I agree 100% that we need a massive disruption to redirect our government from never-ending growth filling whatever available space it can find to efficiently using taxpayer dollars to deliver essential services. However, I fear DOGE will be a big wasted opportunity that will set back the cause of government reform. The efforts to date seem opportunistic and random, driven by the determination (whims) of one man and his minions. Plus, the "real" problem with government over-spending, over-regulation, and over-reach comes from the top: the President, Congress and all the big money interests that put them in power (to further the big money interests' goals). DOGE can wipe out a bunch of government jobs (for now), but they will all come roaring back as soon as the next administration comes into power (or maybe when Trump changes his mind, as he tends to do daily, when he sees the next jobs report). Moreover, three of the big drivers of government spending (social security, healthcare and defense) are largely outside of DOGE (the defense department is trying to eliminate certain jobs so they can spend more elsewhere - no true DOGE going on here). As long as big money owns all the politicians, we will end up on the same trajectory, and in the meantime the DOGE effort will seem like petty, small actions driven more by personal pique and bias than a thoughtful reconsideration of government's role domestically and internationally.
Bob -- Thanks for jumping in. As I said in the piece, I'm not defending or promoting DOGE.
If you think what they are doing won't make a difference, what would you do? I'd love to hear good thoughts on this. I don't have all the answers (any of the answers?).
What we need is a "Project 2035," rethinking the role that our multiple levels of government play, including service levels, support for the needy, tax policy, healthcare, etc. We have evolved into a multi-layered system with spiderwebs of inter-dependencies and vast, overlapping regulations at every level, which make inefficiency, waste and the opportunity for fraud a feature of the system, and rapid change almost impossible. We need to have some serious subject matter experts from all political and economic persuasions who do not have a financial interest in the outcome analyze each significant area of life where the public sector plays a role, and come up with a long-term "solution," plus a road map on how to get there. We can start with education (which in my view should be controlled and governed at the hyper-local level) and healthcare (which in my view should be nationalized with a private choice overlay).
Hi Rob. A well reasoned essay. I have witnessed firsthand the inertia of large bureaucracies-and I concur change is never easy. I presume time will tell if this frame-braking has the desired effect. I am curious 'why' you think Americans rate their government so low. What problem is DOGE trying to fix? Inefficient delivery, delivery of the wrong things, rude front line personnel, favouritism, someone is siphoning off money?
Thanks, Jan. My commentary was not about this instantiation of DOGE, per se. They seem to be asking where is there waste (spending) and unnecessary constraints for citizens due to a bloated bureaucracy that adds little value to citizens.
My much bigger question is not about the specifics of DOGE. Rather, how does one drive frame-breaking change in an inefficient institution that by most accounts is not serving the needs of the citizens (as felt by people of all political persuasions)? Incremental change appears not to work. So do you need the aggressiveness of DOGE or something like DOGE? And if you don't have that, we know that we will get change, but it will be through failure of institutions and systems.
Can one drive frame-breaking change without system failure?
I think I understand what DOGE is positing - waste and constraints. I'm just not certain if those two factors are what is behind the low ratings for government. i.e. not fixing the issues Americans have but the issues the DOGE team think are important.
In either case I am curious if you can drive frame-breaking change without system failure. Seems to be a grand experiment!
Hello Robert: it is great to see someone from the academic world to come defending DOGE. These days we are seeing loud voices complaining about being asked what we accomplished last week. We have truckers delivering 15,000 gallons of gasoline, we have garbage collector picking 5000 tons of waste. Why can tax payer funded employees tell those who pay their salaries what they did last week ?
Thanks, Alberto. Again, my point wasn't to praise/condemn DOGE in detail. Rather, how does one drive big change in a huge organization that seems incapable of change, and will fight change for reasons we know and understand? Do we need the aggressiveness/non-traditional methods of DOGE (or something like DOGE) to make it happen?
Hi Rob, long-time-no-see. Since leaving your class nearly 10 years ago (!) I've worked across a number of medium and large organizations that required radical change. Most recently as the head of finance of a formerly ~1,300 person (now...far less...) VFX organization spread the US, Canada, UK, Germany, India, and Korea that's been rocked by a series of external shocks (COVID, SAG/WGA strikes), technology change (GenAI), and market changes (the end of the streaming wars / peak TV). As of 48 hours ago, these shocks caused the collapse of decades-old Technicolor among other casualties.
Here's what I've learned as a practitioner - radical change is about human beings with many agendas and interests, often understandably at odds with the organizational objective of "lose less money" or "survive." The measured, surgical approach fails because it is de facto rooted around the principal of minimizing collateral damage versus achieving change, no matter what. Every difficult choice gets "yeah-but"ted to death, because there is always pain or risk that cannot be tolerated. Smart people will make clever arguments for why their department or initiative is critical. On the other hand, I have come to tolerate the seeming chaos associated with brutal, radical, burn-the-boats change. It is the only way to make a *hard* pivot, versus as you put it, incremental.
This is not to say that enacting change isn't strategic (it is, obviously). Rather that there WILL be some broken eggs.
Where am I going with this?
It's unfortunate that your headline is "What if." DOGE is obviously what we need, just not what we may want.
Hi, John Patrick! I agree we need DOGE or something like it. Doing nothing won't change things. And if people don't like DOGE, I'd like to know what alternative they propose.
Mostly because I want to know what is the best strategy to drive change on a government that no one is happy with. I know that doing nothing won't work....
Rob, I like your comments, but my concern is that DOGE, by definition, only deals with government "efficiency". I would far be more likely to support DOGEEA.....Department of Government Efficiency, Effectiveness and Accountability. Without a goal of effectiveness, I deeply fear what kind of government we will have when this is over, and without accountability, derived from agreed upon metrics, there is no way judge whether it is a success. To enhance our leadership in the world order, we need a successful Federal government in all respects. It is just like the old adage that you cannot cut expenses does make a startup successful. Instead, together with efficiency, you must have a higher calling to provides services and benefits are effective in addressing people's problems.
Josh - Strongly agree. the point of my post wasn't to praise DOGE, per se, but rather how to fix a huge system that is fighting change and always will.
If you built DOGEEA, how would you implement to ensure that it drives needed change at scale and with substance?
Thanks, Rob. First, I would have Congress take the lead as they are the legislative body responsible for enabling executive action. Despite some theorists, I do not believe we have a unitary Presidency and I echo the concerns of another comment about dictatorships.
Second, I would envision a bill packed with various metrics derived from the consensus of the legislators. For example, a figure of merit for scientific research funded by the government could be some combination of successful commericalization (e.g. startups or licenses) and/or publications in journals which reach a certain level of acceptance in academic circles. Yes, I am concerned that this process will be manipulated, but the more objective the criteria, the less subject it is to manipulation. This consensus would be forged through hearings and testimony. In all cases, because of the large amount of debt that we are currently running, the program or policy would need to show how it is going to contribute to bringing that debt down. Personally, I would like to see Congress limit itself to X programs per year, including a rexamination of existing programs, and make the hard decision to draw lines as to what falls above what it can spend and what it needs to cut. Finally, every program and policy must be judged regularly on effectiveness, and if not effective, it doesn't get reauthorized.
I am not so idealistic that I believe that Congress will do this on their own. Instead, the American people must demand that of them or Congressmen will earmarked for extinction at the next election. How do we do that? I would like to see a law passed that says that if they don't do this process each year and start to bring down the debt, they are automatically disqualified from raising any money for their campaign, through a super PAC or otherwise. Is that Constitutional? Personally, we need to stop thinking of money as equivalent to speech. It is just money.
All of this is just one possible approach to answer your question. I am sure that there are many other good ones.
Although DOGe is presented as radical change or disruption, it is reactionary and dispositive in its desire to return to the 1890’s. While there are infinite desires to change the status quo for good reason—radical change is often used as an excuse to suspend the rules (in this instance—The Constitution) or our belief in the separation of powers as the mainstay of our democracy. Trust, agency, and goodwill are integral to successful change. If an individual (or group) sees themself as unbound to law or able to create their own laws he/she is a dictator that presupposes a monarchy. “Revolutions” that restore a monarchy are akin to Charles II in England or Napoleon in France. (Despite our current regime’s antipathy to Europe.) Significant change can and should occur—in concurrence with our Constitution and the law.
James -- Love it. Of course, my follow up, and the point of the post, is to ask how you would drive frame-breaking change if not how they are doing it? I'd love to know -- we need all good ideas.
Thank you Robert! Certainly an attractive proposition. I'll supply a few points. However, the Clinton administration was able to reduce the size of government by 426,000 employees and $136 billion dollars. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-reinventing-government-doges-comparison/. Although I'm dating myself a bit...one might compare it an earlier analog of Elon Musk-- "Chainsaw Al Dunlap" (who was later charged with securities fraud and barred from holding any executive position). I think Elon was charged with Securities Fraud as well.
The systemic approach by Al Gore actually created goodwill and identified/prioritized where they could realize big wins. Key components wereP: Formal ground rules emphasizing fairness, stakeholder value, early and frequent communication. Both bottom up and top down teams. Goal setting, rewards for individuals and teams (honorifics), impact assessments, and senior change issue resolution among chief sponsors. It is a longer process but much more thorough. If you cultivate an environment of trust you get more accurate information. Of course there will be mistakes and setbacks. However, they become learning opportunities. By building support you mobilize more people and build momentum. Dignity and honesty will help sustain the program. One only needs to look at the transition of Twitter to "X" as an example of what one should never do.
@Robert E. Siegel - out of curiosity, how is all of this "DOGE churn" impacting your personal investing decisions? Are you staying in equities, moving to cash or gold, or doing something else?
Very thoughtful and concise perspective as always. Thank you Robert. I feel like Doge is necessary in some way shape or form and has even been talked about for years by prominent politicians only to fall to the wayside time and time again. I agree with your point, If we continue the status queue we will face far worse issues than what we’re experiencing via doge. I like than Musk uses humor but he could benefits from a dose of empathy if he wants to increase public support.
Thanks! My point wasn't either to celebrate or condemn Musk. Rather, I think we need to drive radical change, and ignoring the problem or doing it too softly won't work. I'm all open to other suggestions.
The fact that people don't trust the government to do the right thing all or most of the time (whatever that means), isn't good evidence the bureaucracy isn't performing. There are other possible explanations for increasing distrust that are more plausible than that a large number bureaucratic functions have somehow gone off the rails. One is that legislators are getting the will of the voters wrong, which is a problem with the legislative branch, not the executive branch. Don't like the CFPB? OK. Which branch created the CFPB? Another is an ever more polarized and politicized news environment. We need better evidence of the corruption and waste that DOGE claims to be solving.
George - Thank you for jumping in. I totally concur that the legislative branch is off the rails -- I agree. They are largely responsible for the spending mess.
As I said in my post, my point was not to defend the instantiation of DOGE; rather, how do we drive frame-breaking change without creating systemic collapse or doing nothing which is clearly on a path to systemic collapse?
I'm all ears -- I don't claim to have the answer.
Thank you again for speaking up.
Hi Rob, great to read your thoughts on all this. I agree 100% that we need a massive disruption to redirect our government from never-ending growth filling whatever available space it can find to efficiently using taxpayer dollars to deliver essential services. However, I fear DOGE will be a big wasted opportunity that will set back the cause of government reform. The efforts to date seem opportunistic and random, driven by the determination (whims) of one man and his minions. Plus, the "real" problem with government over-spending, over-regulation, and over-reach comes from the top: the President, Congress and all the big money interests that put them in power (to further the big money interests' goals). DOGE can wipe out a bunch of government jobs (for now), but they will all come roaring back as soon as the next administration comes into power (or maybe when Trump changes his mind, as he tends to do daily, when he sees the next jobs report). Moreover, three of the big drivers of government spending (social security, healthcare and defense) are largely outside of DOGE (the defense department is trying to eliminate certain jobs so they can spend more elsewhere - no true DOGE going on here). As long as big money owns all the politicians, we will end up on the same trajectory, and in the meantime the DOGE effort will seem like petty, small actions driven more by personal pique and bias than a thoughtful reconsideration of government's role domestically and internationally.
Bob -- Thanks for jumping in. As I said in the piece, I'm not defending or promoting DOGE.
If you think what they are doing won't make a difference, what would you do? I'd love to hear good thoughts on this. I don't have all the answers (any of the answers?).
I hope you are well.
What we need is a "Project 2035," rethinking the role that our multiple levels of government play, including service levels, support for the needy, tax policy, healthcare, etc. We have evolved into a multi-layered system with spiderwebs of inter-dependencies and vast, overlapping regulations at every level, which make inefficiency, waste and the opportunity for fraud a feature of the system, and rapid change almost impossible. We need to have some serious subject matter experts from all political and economic persuasions who do not have a financial interest in the outcome analyze each significant area of life where the public sector plays a role, and come up with a long-term "solution," plus a road map on how to get there. We can start with education (which in my view should be controlled and governed at the hyper-local level) and healthcare (which in my view should be nationalized with a private choice overlay).
Hi Rob. A well reasoned essay. I have witnessed firsthand the inertia of large bureaucracies-and I concur change is never easy. I presume time will tell if this frame-braking has the desired effect. I am curious 'why' you think Americans rate their government so low. What problem is DOGE trying to fix? Inefficient delivery, delivery of the wrong things, rude front line personnel, favouritism, someone is siphoning off money?
cheers Jan
Thanks, Jan. My commentary was not about this instantiation of DOGE, per se. They seem to be asking where is there waste (spending) and unnecessary constraints for citizens due to a bloated bureaucracy that adds little value to citizens.
My much bigger question is not about the specifics of DOGE. Rather, how does one drive frame-breaking change in an inefficient institution that by most accounts is not serving the needs of the citizens (as felt by people of all political persuasions)? Incremental change appears not to work. So do you need the aggressiveness of DOGE or something like DOGE? And if you don't have that, we know that we will get change, but it will be through failure of institutions and systems.
Can one drive frame-breaking change without system failure?
I think I understand what DOGE is positing - waste and constraints. I'm just not certain if those two factors are what is behind the low ratings for government. i.e. not fixing the issues Americans have but the issues the DOGE team think are important.
In either case I am curious if you can drive frame-breaking change without system failure. Seems to be a grand experiment!
Hello Robert: it is great to see someone from the academic world to come defending DOGE. These days we are seeing loud voices complaining about being asked what we accomplished last week. We have truckers delivering 15,000 gallons of gasoline, we have garbage collector picking 5000 tons of waste. Why can tax payer funded employees tell those who pay their salaries what they did last week ?
Thanks, Alberto. Again, my point wasn't to praise/condemn DOGE in detail. Rather, how does one drive big change in a huge organization that seems incapable of change, and will fight change for reasons we know and understand? Do we need the aggressiveness/non-traditional methods of DOGE (or something like DOGE) to make it happen?
Hi Rob, long-time-no-see. Since leaving your class nearly 10 years ago (!) I've worked across a number of medium and large organizations that required radical change. Most recently as the head of finance of a formerly ~1,300 person (now...far less...) VFX organization spread the US, Canada, UK, Germany, India, and Korea that's been rocked by a series of external shocks (COVID, SAG/WGA strikes), technology change (GenAI), and market changes (the end of the streaming wars / peak TV). As of 48 hours ago, these shocks caused the collapse of decades-old Technicolor among other casualties.
Here's what I've learned as a practitioner - radical change is about human beings with many agendas and interests, often understandably at odds with the organizational objective of "lose less money" or "survive." The measured, surgical approach fails because it is de facto rooted around the principal of minimizing collateral damage versus achieving change, no matter what. Every difficult choice gets "yeah-but"ted to death, because there is always pain or risk that cannot be tolerated. Smart people will make clever arguments for why their department or initiative is critical. On the other hand, I have come to tolerate the seeming chaos associated with brutal, radical, burn-the-boats change. It is the only way to make a *hard* pivot, versus as you put it, incremental.
This is not to say that enacting change isn't strategic (it is, obviously). Rather that there WILL be some broken eggs.
Where am I going with this?
It's unfortunate that your headline is "What if." DOGE is obviously what we need, just not what we may want.
Hi, John Patrick! I agree we need DOGE or something like it. Doing nothing won't change things. And if people don't like DOGE, I'd like to know what alternative they propose.
Mostly because I want to know what is the best strategy to drive change on a government that no one is happy with. I know that doing nothing won't work....
Rob, I like your comments, but my concern is that DOGE, by definition, only deals with government "efficiency". I would far be more likely to support DOGEEA.....Department of Government Efficiency, Effectiveness and Accountability. Without a goal of effectiveness, I deeply fear what kind of government we will have when this is over, and without accountability, derived from agreed upon metrics, there is no way judge whether it is a success. To enhance our leadership in the world order, we need a successful Federal government in all respects. It is just like the old adage that you cannot cut expenses does make a startup successful. Instead, together with efficiency, you must have a higher calling to provides services and benefits are effective in addressing people's problems.
Josh - Strongly agree. the point of my post wasn't to praise DOGE, per se, but rather how to fix a huge system that is fighting change and always will.
If you built DOGEEA, how would you implement to ensure that it drives needed change at scale and with substance?
Thanks for contributing.
Rob
Thanks, Rob. First, I would have Congress take the lead as they are the legislative body responsible for enabling executive action. Despite some theorists, I do not believe we have a unitary Presidency and I echo the concerns of another comment about dictatorships.
Second, I would envision a bill packed with various metrics derived from the consensus of the legislators. For example, a figure of merit for scientific research funded by the government could be some combination of successful commericalization (e.g. startups or licenses) and/or publications in journals which reach a certain level of acceptance in academic circles. Yes, I am concerned that this process will be manipulated, but the more objective the criteria, the less subject it is to manipulation. This consensus would be forged through hearings and testimony. In all cases, because of the large amount of debt that we are currently running, the program or policy would need to show how it is going to contribute to bringing that debt down. Personally, I would like to see Congress limit itself to X programs per year, including a rexamination of existing programs, and make the hard decision to draw lines as to what falls above what it can spend and what it needs to cut. Finally, every program and policy must be judged regularly on effectiveness, and if not effective, it doesn't get reauthorized.
I am not so idealistic that I believe that Congress will do this on their own. Instead, the American people must demand that of them or Congressmen will earmarked for extinction at the next election. How do we do that? I would like to see a law passed that says that if they don't do this process each year and start to bring down the debt, they are automatically disqualified from raising any money for their campaign, through a super PAC or otherwise. Is that Constitutional? Personally, we need to stop thinking of money as equivalent to speech. It is just money.
All of this is just one possible approach to answer your question. I am sure that there are many other good ones.
Josh Green
Although DOGe is presented as radical change or disruption, it is reactionary and dispositive in its desire to return to the 1890’s. While there are infinite desires to change the status quo for good reason—radical change is often used as an excuse to suspend the rules (in this instance—The Constitution) or our belief in the separation of powers as the mainstay of our democracy. Trust, agency, and goodwill are integral to successful change. If an individual (or group) sees themself as unbound to law or able to create their own laws he/she is a dictator that presupposes a monarchy. “Revolutions” that restore a monarchy are akin to Charles II in England or Napoleon in France. (Despite our current regime’s antipathy to Europe.) Significant change can and should occur—in concurrence with our Constitution and the law.
James -- Love it. Of course, my follow up, and the point of the post, is to ask how you would drive frame-breaking change if not how they are doing it? I'd love to know -- we need all good ideas.
Thank you Robert! Certainly an attractive proposition. I'll supply a few points. However, the Clinton administration was able to reduce the size of government by 426,000 employees and $136 billion dollars. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-reinventing-government-doges-comparison/. Although I'm dating myself a bit...one might compare it an earlier analog of Elon Musk-- "Chainsaw Al Dunlap" (who was later charged with securities fraud and barred from holding any executive position). I think Elon was charged with Securities Fraud as well.
The systemic approach by Al Gore actually created goodwill and identified/prioritized where they could realize big wins. Key components wereP: Formal ground rules emphasizing fairness, stakeholder value, early and frequent communication. Both bottom up and top down teams. Goal setting, rewards for individuals and teams (honorifics), impact assessments, and senior change issue resolution among chief sponsors. It is a longer process but much more thorough. If you cultivate an environment of trust you get more accurate information. Of course there will be mistakes and setbacks. However, they become learning opportunities. By building support you mobilize more people and build momentum. Dignity and honesty will help sustain the program. One only needs to look at the transition of Twitter to "X" as an example of what one should never do.
@Robert E. Siegel - out of curiosity, how is all of this "DOGE churn" impacting your personal investing decisions? Are you staying in equities, moving to cash or gold, or doing something else?
DOGE itself is not changing my activities. Broader macro-economic and geopolitical issues have me watching my investments very closely....
Very thoughtful and concise perspective as always. Thank you Robert. I feel like Doge is necessary in some way shape or form and has even been talked about for years by prominent politicians only to fall to the wayside time and time again. I agree with your point, If we continue the status queue we will face far worse issues than what we’re experiencing via doge. I like than Musk uses humor but he could benefits from a dose of empathy if he wants to increase public support.
Thanks! My point wasn't either to celebrate or condemn Musk. Rather, I think we need to drive radical change, and ignoring the problem or doing it too softly won't work. I'm all open to other suggestions.