“ Threatening employees exacerbates the 0.7n problem and Type 2 errors, as many government workers may perceive being inconspicuous and less efficient as their best survival strategy. ”
I was a math major, so that part’s not the issue. But I don’t get your point - or to the extent I do, I mostly disagree with it.
Employees who are clearly leftist (for this purpose, merely “Democrats”) - and we both know they are the large majority - ain’t gonna cooperate anyway, so the idea that using a stick is a bad idea I find profoundly unconvincing.
By contrast, employees who are right of center, or centrist and interested in improving government, are unlikely to feel threatened by DOGE and will finally have a place that might listen to their suggestions.
I think there will be a lot of type 2 errors from the bottom in this administration, and a lot of type 1 errors from the top. I worked at OMB during the Nixon/Ford years; and on domestic issues, Haldeman and Erlichman did a good job of placing loyalists in Departments and Agencies. These were not just political hacks, but talented people who had the authority to act on behalf of the White House. They effectively delegated in a manner that reduced the chances of getting results that were inconsistent with the overall philosophy of the Administration.
Fred Malek, whom I worked for at OMB, wrote a great book after his time there, in which he put forth the importance of delegating down to the lowest level capable of achieving a particular task or set of tasks. I don’t think the President or Elon Musk gets this; and regardless of how smart and intuitive Musk might be, there is just so much that one person can do.
Very good information to consider. And so translatable across disciplines. But I wonder about the variability that exists in a system as large as what DOGE is addressing where those within it might be dedicated toward fighting against any attempts at finding inefficiency or redundancy. Until the right people are in place, and those dedicated to complacency are gone, then doesn’t this warrant a continued centralized control? One can’t delegate when there isn’t a shared interest in success.
I think the basic issue here is that DOGE does not truly want to achieve a more efficient government, and therefore all this good advice isn't pertinent to what they are actually doing.
“ Threatening employees exacerbates the 0.7n problem and Type 2 errors, as many government workers may perceive being inconspicuous and less efficient as their best survival strategy. ”
I was a math major, so that part’s not the issue. But I don’t get your point - or to the extent I do, I mostly disagree with it.
Employees who are clearly leftist (for this purpose, merely “Democrats”) - and we both know they are the large majority - ain’t gonna cooperate anyway, so the idea that using a stick is a bad idea I find profoundly unconvincing.
By contrast, employees who are right of center, or centrist and interested in improving government, are unlikely to feel threatened by DOGE and will finally have a place that might listen to their suggestions.
I think there will be a lot of type 2 errors from the bottom in this administration, and a lot of type 1 errors from the top. I worked at OMB during the Nixon/Ford years; and on domestic issues, Haldeman and Erlichman did a good job of placing loyalists in Departments and Agencies. These were not just political hacks, but talented people who had the authority to act on behalf of the White House. They effectively delegated in a manner that reduced the chances of getting results that were inconsistent with the overall philosophy of the Administration.
Fred Malek, whom I worked for at OMB, wrote a great book after his time there, in which he put forth the importance of delegating down to the lowest level capable of achieving a particular task or set of tasks. I don’t think the President or Elon Musk gets this; and regardless of how smart and intuitive Musk might be, there is just so much that one person can do.
Very good information to consider. And so translatable across disciplines. But I wonder about the variability that exists in a system as large as what DOGE is addressing where those within it might be dedicated toward fighting against any attempts at finding inefficiency or redundancy. Until the right people are in place, and those dedicated to complacency are gone, then doesn’t this warrant a continued centralized control? One can’t delegate when there isn’t a shared interest in success.
I think the basic issue here is that DOGE does not truly want to achieve a more efficient government, and therefore all this good advice isn't pertinent to what they are actually doing.