Let’s Talk Cutting Stuff

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

OK, so this is sort of a political post. Yes it’s about the US Government, DOGE, and cutting stuff for “efficiency.” It’s also a post on general efficiency and issues, but because this kind of subject is a mine field let me address it with my usual delicacy and decorum.

DOGE is a dumb, corrupt mix of stunt and coup that also feels like the worst of Silicon Valley Management fads combined with people that don’t know how things work. This may sound embellished, but I also speak as a guy with 30 years of IT experience, way too many certifications, and a skill at cataloging every dumb thing I’ve seen in my career. I come at this from hard, painful experience.

Now with that said, the next statements my seem surprisingly, well, unbiased. Because really good sense and good process sense isn’t hard. We just make it hard.

I’d like to zero in on an idea I’ve seen for way too long, that anything – government, business, charity, your bowling league – has too much bureaucracy. That all you have to do is cut bureaucracy and everything gets more efficient in a kind of Darwninian market magic. This of course is usually wrong, but often in ways that aren’t as obvious and that take time to find out.

Simply put, no, not all bureaucracy, process, etc. is inefficient in that it doesn’t get the job done with appropriate expenses. Shockingly, an amazing amount of things actually work. They may not be perfect, perhaps they can be better, but the amount of “good enough” you’ll see in the world is often higher than you’d think. Things can be better, but let’s put a pin in that for later.

The problem is effective work is not easy to notice unless you’re really good at awareness and have an organization that has good internal awareness. In fact as I’ve stated before some jobs become invisible when done well – like my own, Project and Program Management. Am I saying that sometimes organizations need more reports – and the attendant bureaucracy – to know they’re doing OK?

Honestly, yeah. This is a great example – if you don’t have the right reports (bureaucracy) you might make changes to fix things that are OK.

Anyway, we’ve got the idea that somehow everything is inefficient (for political, social, and economic reasons I may analyze another time). So we believe people who say “well, we’ve got to cut that,” and those people usually have an agenda. I’m not just talking political, a lot of consulting groups make bank telling people how to cut bureaucracy in a kind of oroborous of management hypocrisy.

So people don’t see good work and because of our culture, we go a-cutting and thinking we can make things efficient by getting rid of stuff.

Which, as you may guess, doesn’t really work. We’ve probably all been at a place that was going to cut itself into efficiency, and we probably don’t work there anymore. If we’re so fortunate not to have experienced it, there’s a good chance someone we know has, and will tell us about it at profanity-filled length.

So you don’t just charge into a place and start magically cutting your way to efficiency. You have to analyze goals, workflows, and so on. You have to actually do things and know research. If you don’t do these things you will -intentionally or not – create disaster. If you’ve ever been through cuts and been the Lone Employee Left Over In An Area, you know what I mean.

Now let’s pull the pin out on improving government, business, etc. Let’s talk the thing that doesn’t often get talked about – sometimes you have to do more, hire more, and spend more money to be efficient.

This of course is blasphemy in pop business world because the idea of efficiency is spending less, right? Well much as you sometimes have to spend money to make money, you also need to spend money to have the people, resources, and processes to be efficient. It can cost more to eventually cost left.

It sounds like a paradox, but it’s not. If say a government office isn’t doing great handling things, then it’s wasting money. But you don’t cut if, you may have to spend more to make it work effectively. If you can’t do the job, maybe you have to make sure the department does its job with more money. Sometimes saving isn’t the goal of something.

Yet, surprisingly, shocking to others, things operate better at scale. If spending $1 on a department or business unit saves $2, but spending $5 saves $15, what’s the best choice? I once advised someone on process improvement and found they were in a situation where hiring five more people would save work across hundreds of other employees.

Or it all goes back to goals, research, and understanding. Not cutting. Cutting costs, etc. does not magically make things better, especially when you rush it.

If you want to understand that, we can often look at the business world once you get beyond survivorship bias. But maybe now where I’m seeing angry town halls and protesting park employees (words I didn’t expect to type) you can see random cutting doesn’t work.

Which in some ways is a great irony of the DOGE era. Actions that are arguably governmental are going to be studied by business schools as well. Just not in the way some would have expected.

Hey I got this done without mentioning The Unaccountability Machine. Whoops . . .

Steven Savage

Step Out, Stand Out, Freak Out

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

There’s something about American culture that is all about Standing Out, and I think it explains a lot of our problems. Or is part of our problems – our many, many problems.

Anyone remember when Personal Branding first hit? I actually loved it because it was a vision quest to ask who you are and communicate it. In time it became more about standing out and marketing, being visible but not being who you are. I probably “got out of it” too late for my own dignity, but in the end I realized it had become marketing and standing out.

Then there’s all this Influencer Culture. I keep trying to figure out what’s there, but there’s no there there – it’s standing out so you can sell projects. The goal is to be Known but not be something worth Knowing. I resent the fact that, to understand the world, I actually have to understand who Mr. Beast is – and further resent he’s not a metal singer or superhero.


Then there’s the usual business advice of standing out. I think I resent that a lot as a Project Manager, because my job is to make sure nothing noteworthy happens. If my status reports are not filled with the color red and panicked comments, then I did my job. But a lot of business gurus and youtubers want to tell me to stand out even though if what I do is interesting it’s probably time to worry.

But standing out is part of our technology, economy, and culture. And I think it’s a problem because it seems it may be all there is in our politics and economy.

We’re conditioned to stand out, to market ourselves, to be noteworthy. Sure, it gets into the job search, but Social Media has made everything about standing out. We’re in a race to get hits, get likes, be better than that other Instagram addict. The Modern Web 3.0 feels like everything is a social media competition and a job search. In short we’re all trying to be Influencers without being anyone.

(While of course the Social Media companies make bank).

So many people are now in a competition to be celebrities, we also treat people who have made themselves into celebrities as the most trusthworthy. How many people out there with real financial, cultural, and yes, political influence are indistinguishable from some supplement-hawker Social Media Influencer. You can’t tell the difference, and maybe they can’t either.

Survival of the fittest? No survival of the most noticeable.

Being noticeable gets you money. Being noticeable gets you elected. You can end up getting people to throw venture capital at you, CEO positions, etc. It doesn’t mean you’re good at any of this, but boy will you get it handed to you especially if you fit certain demographics.

When getting noticed pays off, then that’s all you do. That’s all you aim for. That also attracts a certain kind of person that probably should not have their sweaty hands on the levers of power and loads of money. Once you have loads of money you can buy people to say you’re right, and you probably believe it.

It doesn’t seem to be working out for us. I want my politicians to solve problems, not be posting internet memes and Instagram photos. I’d like to see more talk of people doing their job as opposed to making that killer LinkedIn profile. I want to stop having the suspicion that people with lots of power and money are so performative that’s all their is to them.

I kinda want things to be like me and my status reports.

When standing out is all that matters, people’s ability to assess aptitude and character atrophies. It certainly isn’t doing too hot to judge by the state of the world.

Steven Savage

Thinking With Different Minds

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

As noted many times, I’m interested in history, especially the history of religion and project management. Fortunately my interest in such things has focused on China, which has a long history of written records, and preserved writings on management advice over a thousand years old. We Project Managers have been here forever, everyone needs some anal-retentive worrier who can’t stand to leave things undone.

You think you got canals and great temples without someone like me?

Often in my readings I find how much I relate to people a thousand, two thousand, or more years gone. The same observations, the same issues, the same human condition – and human solutions. There’s so much similar, to the point where I can read about some guy charting grain storage and go “yeah, my man, great job, you update those records, you keep that thing running!”

But among all those similarities, I’d like to talk about differences in how we organize, get things done, and indeed just live with each other.

Yes, I can relate to people thousands of years ago, but they also led different lifestyles than mine. They probably didn’t live thousands of miles away from their family. The seasons meant different things to them with less transport for food and different dwellings. The people I read of might pass by a slaughterhouse casually, or eat food that literally came from next door. They operated on different schedules. NONE of them had to learn what an “Influencer” was or become bitter about it.

They had different minds than me. Yes, we have much in common, but it’s important to remember the differences too.

When I think of this, I think how different we can be sometimes. Now that’s easy to think of the differences between people now and a few thousand years ago. In fact it’s probably good as a lot of us have ideas quite out of date that got handed down over the centuries we don’t question. But there’s more.

Do we have the same minds as someone born a hundred years earlier than us? Fifty? Even ten? How many of us are running around this world trying to interact with people who have different minds than we? How many of us haven’t adapted to the present? For that matter how many lessons are we trying to apply to our current crises that may not be old, but are from different times and different minds?

As we try to solve the problems we face, we may want to ask if we have the wrong minds to do it. If I can speculate on using Agile in pre-Industrial China, we can ask if we are literally the wrong people for the job of running and probably saving the world.

It’s OK. The world has changed a lot. We’ve done some very stupid things in hindsight. It’s OK to admit it. But we have to become different people and that means recognizing we need different minds.

We can reach back and time and learn from people different yet similar to us. We can ask who we need to be now. We can see who we used to be. We can become who we need to be, to have different minds.

Because I’m not sure current us is ready for the job, and we cling mightily to ourselves.

Steven Savage