adaptiman.com

Category: Politics

  • How much is that DOGE in the window?

    How much is that DOGE in the window?

    I was re-reading a really good book this week. A quote stuck out:

    In most governmental services, there is no market to capture. In place of capture of the market, a governmental agency should deliver economically the service prescribed by law or regulation. The aim should be distinction in service. Continual improvement in government service would earn appreciation of the American public and would hold jobs in the service, and help industry to create more jobs.

    –W. Edwards Deming: Out of the Crisis, 1982, MIT Press.

    This seems especially relevant this week as we had the first meeting of the DOGE Subcommittee of the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. This is not to be confused with President Trump’s DOGE, headed by Elon Musk. There has been a lot of ink on the nature and relationship between these two DOGEs – enough to perplex and confuse most of the American public. I’m not here to lend an opinion about the relationship or constitutionality of the two organizations. I want to focus on higher questions in light of the above quote. But it seems that we may be losing sight of the bigger picture – that one of the purposes of DOGE is to improve our government by making it more fiscally efficient.

    No Market to Capture

    “No market to capture” means no competition. No competition results in an organizational culture of complacency and mediocrity operating with increasing inefficiency and producing less valuable programs and services unless/until someone/something holds them to account. It’s clear that an organization with no competition is an abnormal condition in a capitalist society. This is the crux of the Marxist argument – that competition should be replaced with socialism and eventually communism. But the end result is centralized control of the means of production, and we have seen what kind of society that leads to.

    Deming makes a key observation. He asserts that since it has a captured market, government has an exceptional duty to deliver economically efficient services in the absence of market forces. Is our government delivering on this promise?

    Distinction in Service

    Distinction in service would seem to indicate that the efficiency and effectiveness of government programs should be exemplary. The way to achieve exemplary services in any sector is to engage in a culture of continual improvement. Since our government services don’t appear to be exemplary in many cases, is this an indication of a lack of focus on continual improvement? How do we change that?

    The first two steps of the ITIL Continual Improvement process are 1) What is the vision? and 2) Where are we now? The vision (or strategy, if you will) comes from our executive branch, i.e., the president. This is the way our government is structured, whether we like it or not. Where are we now? I would point out that the debt-to-GDP ratio of the U.S. over the last 45 years has increase four-fold. In 1980, the ratio was 31%. Today, the ratio is 120%. We can argue about whether or not this fiscal path is sustainable, but that’s not my point. It would seem obvious to anyone that our current state is not efficient and arguably not effective. It is definitely not exemplary. How do we change this?

    Continual Improvement

    Deming points out HOW this is done – by focusing on continual improvement. As an ITSM practitioner and educator, I frequently think about continual improvement and how it affects value. Having worked in the government sector, I have seen how a lack of competition can lead to complacency and mediocrity. But I’ve also seen the results of having the RIGHT people in charge. My observation is that the biggest difference between the right people and the wrong people is a focus on developing a culture of continual improvement within the organization. In the case of our government, these people understand that they have an awesome and sacred responsibility to use their position with honesty and integrity, and in so doing will earn the respect and appreciation of the American people. This is what I believe our government can and should become.

  • The Appropriation Paradox

    The Appropriation Paradox

    My father joined the army fresh out of high school. After training as a “sigint” operator, his second tour took him to Munich, Germany. He married my mother shortly before moving to Germany and they settled in the small town of Bad Aibling, close to the army base and nestled under the gaze of the Wendelstein in the Bavarian Alps. I was born 11 months later in a Munich army hospital.

    Although I don’t remember much from that first year of life, I do remember family references to my birthplace and still have a pair of lederhosen they bought me there. I don’t have a drop of German blood in me, but have always loved German things. In high school, I took German for four years and was a proud member of our high school German club. I learned all about German culture including German folk dancing which carried over to college. That’s where I met my wife. My wedding present from her was a Lladro statuette of polka dancers.

    What’s my point? The reason I’ve embraced German culture is because I love it, respect it, study it, share it, and advocate for it. So yesterday’s story in the UK Daily Mail about a University of Houston Latina sorority who “culturally appropriated” black step dancing doesn’t make any sense. No one adopts a cultural practice that they don’t like. On the contrary, adopting cultural practices is a way to show your love and respect for it by making it your own. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

    The main argument against cultural appropriation is that if you are not a [fill in the blank: race/gender/culture/religion] person, then you can’t do something that that a [fill in the blank: race/gender/culture/religion] person does. Let me get this straight: if I’m black, I can step. If I’m white, stepping is cultural appropriation. So the difference in these two scenarios is my color. Hmm.

  • How will work change?

    How will work change?

    Stones stacked on each other on a beach.
    Stones balanced on a beach.

    After reading this article in the WSJ today, I was struck by the reason given for missing work;

    … as the pandemic obliterates any hint of work-life balance, many are seeing the office for what it really was: an escape from domestic life that helped to more fully define them.

    ​(Feintzeig, 2020)​

    Is that what work really is? An escape from domestic life? Is that why we work?

    Don’t get me wrong. I have five children. My parents-in-law and brother-in-law live next door. My domestic life runneth over. While I like to get away from the crush of the brethren occasionally, it’s kind of what I signed up for. At the end of the day, I don’t mind my domestic life and, frankly, am thankful for it.

    But if I’m totally honest, work does define who I am to a certain extent. I like to think that I work so that I can focus on the things that truly matter – family, friends, service to others, worship. But pride in my job also defines who I am. I’m proud to be in a role that I think can make a difference. My job helps me fulfill my life goals.

    In light of COVID-19, it begs the question – what role will my work life have in the future? Is my contribution less valuable because of the method or location of my work? There’s no doubt in my mind that our work is going to change. As I read articles like this, I’m struck by the angst many people have about the future. Many of us are truly fearful of a changing workplace. But we can choose how we approach this situation, and look at it as an opportunity rather than a problem.

    What will change?

    As the article points out, working from home (WFH) weakens the boundaries between work and home life. This suggests that we have to assess whether an appropriate boundary can be established at home. This boundary is defined by things like good space in which to work, reliable technology, appropriate supervision of children, and demarcations between work time and home time. Some of us will NOT be able to achieve these at home, and so are not good candidates for WFH. That’s OK.

    With more remote work comes more conversations and meetings remotely. While technology affects this issue, the greater issue, in my opinion, is effectiveness in remote communication assuming technical requirements are met. Case in point; most of us have learned to mute our microphones during meetings. But this has a tendency to encourage multitasking, lack of attention, and less engagement. The good news is that we can acquire the skill of being present in remote meetings through training and discipline, even with a muted microphone.

    If WFH becomes more prevalent in the future, the consequences of reduced transportation will have effects at both the micro- and macro-levels. At the micro-level, spending less time in my car going to and from work decreases my costs and increases my available time to do other things. It eliminates desirable down-time that I may need to decompress and set demarcations between work and home. At the macro-level, decreased transportation results in less pollution, fewer collisions and fatalities, and less economic activity, just to name a few. For us, it could also mean an increase in transportation research questions that need to be answered, i.e., greater opportunity.

    At the macro-level, it also seems obvious that WFH will change the distribution of our economic sectors. It’s hard to predict what permanent changes in our economy will happen, but it seems reasonable to assume that as more people WFH, the economy will change. We can be fearful of this change or embrace it.

    1. Feintzeig, R. (2020, May 19). It’s OK to Miss the Office. Wall Street Journal, p. A12. Retrieved from http://ereader.wsj.net?publink=039e0f678_134366b

  • Succession Planning

    Last week, I picked up (for the third time) one of my favorite books: South!: The Story of Shackleton’s Last Expedition 1914-1917. One particular passage piqued my interest:

    Sir Ernest Shackleton

    “We had eighteen fur bags, and it was necessary, therefore, to issue ten of the Jaeger woollen bags in order to provide for the twenty-eight men of the party. The woollen bags were lighter and less warm than the reindeer bags, and so each man who received one of them was allowed also a reindeer-skin to lie upon. It seemed fair to distribute the fur bags by lot, but some of us older hands did not join in the lottery. We thought we could do quite as well with the Jaegers as with the furs.”

    Why would Shackleton defer? Shackleton was the second oldest member of the expedition and the leader. If anyone deserved to have one of the warmer bags, it was him. One could argue that the younger members of the team were better fit to withstand the hardships of their situation.

    I believe they deferred because, quite simply, Leaders Eat Last. This mindset is one way leaders demonstrate care and commitment to their teams. Simon Sinek puts it this way:

    “Marine leaders are expected to eat last because the true price of leadership is the willingness to place the needs of others above your own. Great leaders truly care about those they are privileged to lead and understand that the true cost of the leadership privilege comes at the expense of self-interest.” It’s a visual presentation of the value of the team.”

    The reason this passage stood out to me is that I’ve had some recent conversations about succession planning within TTI. In my opinion, succession planning is really about demonstrating care for those we lead. Coaching, mentoring and guiding those who will someday replace us are primary skills for effective leaders. And not only planning for my own replacement but also helping my subordinate managers understand the value of succession planning creates success across the organization. Because, at the end of the day, it’s never about me, but about making my team successful and in so doing, making the organization successful.

  • Hitchen’s Razor

    Hitchen’s Razor

    Hitchens’s razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

    (more…)

  • Is Trump for Real?

    Is Trump for Real?

    Make America great again. Tax cuts. Tremendous relief. Individual mandate is now gone. You can dream anything. You can be anything. In God we trust. (I see Pelosi clapping at that, which is ironic, considering she is a fake Catholic.) Little kid fu. Stand for the national anthem. Stone faced justices. Stone faced chiefs of staff. Eliminated more regulations than any administration in the history of our country. Get motor city revving its engines again. Exciting progress. Trump clapping up and motioning for the Democrats to stand. Evil pharma. Vocational schools. Second chance for inmates. Kick the illegals out. Americans are dreamers, too. We are just tougher than they are. Eliminate catch and release. Merit – based immigration system. Four pillars. America first. Let’s come together, put politics aside, and get the job done. Get tough and drug dealers. Rogue regimes. Terrorist groups. End the military sequester. (Joint Chiefs of Staff stone faced). Keep Guantánamo open. America stands with Iran. Down with North Korea. Crying fu. Heart jerk fu. Five stars for emotional rhetoric. Total American resolve. North Korean amputee fu. Invoke the forefathers fu. All stand for jingoistic references. He’s winding up for the close. The people are making America great again. God bless America.
    Analysis: Deadpan Democrats. Deadpan tea party. Political rhetoric. Little substance. Feel good. Nice, nice. Stick to the teleprompter. Trump claps for himself. All political theater.

  • First Freedom

    First Freedom

    A recent article reported that most college students believe that offensive speech is not protected by the Constitution. Of those surveyed, 44% answered that offensive speech is not protected while 39% answered correctly that the Constitution protects offensive speech. I guess the other 17% didn’t know, which is almost as bad. 62% agreed that campus groups hosting an event are legally required to supply a speaker with the opposite view point. Huh?

    It is beyond scary to me the lack of understanding of our Constitution that young people have. I suspect that older generations have a  marginally better understanding, but suspect that much of the citizens of our great country don’t understand the bedrock document of our nation. I believe we have a duty to teach the Constitution to others.

  • The Politics of Contraception

    The Politics of Contraception

    Here we go again! As usual, The Times is overplaying the point.

    “In the lawsuit, filed by the state of Pennsylvania, the judge said the rule would cause irreparable harm because tens of thousands of women would lose contraceptive coverage.”

    Within the context of this article, “losing contraceptive coverage” doesn’t mean women wouldn’t have access to it. Rather it means they must pay for it themselves instead of having other citizens pay for it. How much are we talking about? In my health plan, the prescription co-pay (after deductible) would be $15 for three months. For Medicaid recipients, there is no deductible, and the co-pay is $4. Putting aside the reasonableness of all of our citizens being responsible for their own medication, do these amounts of money sound like they would cause “irreparable harm to tens of thousands of women?”

    95% of US Citizens have mobile phones and pay at least $30/month for service. If contraception is as critical as the media portrays, and losing free contraception would cause “irreparable harm,” dare I suggest it would be reasonable for those who can’t afford contraception to give up their mobile service in order to pay for it? What it sounds like is The Times is making an argument citizens have a right to free contraception. I’m pretty sure that’s not in The Constitution.

    “It is difficult to imagine a rule that ‘intrudes more into the lives of women.’”

    Huh? Expecting citizens to pay for their healthcare is intruding into their lives? I don’t want to intrude on anyone’s life. But it’s OK for them to reach into my pocket to pay for something I find morally wrong? That sounds like the intrusion is on the other foot.

    From The New York Times: Court Temporarily Blocks Trump Order Against Contraceptive Coverage