4 ms·

What makes you believe the military is immune to "bureaucracy-at-scale" problems? From my vantage point, it may have both large bureaucratic issues and massive

by bumby 2y ago

What makes you believe the military is immune to "bureaucracy-at-scale" problems? From my vantage point, it may have both large bureaucratic issues and massive churn. (And it's not immediately clear to me that the former isn't partially a result of the latter.)

whimsicalism 2y ago
The military has lots of waste and graft, but it is also not terrible at hiring very competent/smart people through their commission system (unlike a lot of the rest of government). I am skeptical that churn is a cause of problems, almost everywhere I have worked in government has by far the opposite problem. The smartest people I've met either have plum book positions, military officers, or work as prosecutors.
- bumby 2y ago
  (by plum brook, do you mean NASA? If so, I've met some smart people from there and other NASA posts, but also met some of the worst employees that epitomize some of what the discussion is against - very toxic, against any new ideas, refusing to retire, shirking duties etc. at one point one org had an average age of 59+, that's very indicative of a refusal to move on). >it is also not terrible at hiring very competent/smart people through their commission system I suspect you would get a very different perspective if you talked to enlisted servicemembers (or subordinate officers). I would argue the commissioning system is better than the previous aristocratic commissioning system, but still relatively poor at mating skills to positions. I think churn is a couple of problems for a couple of different potential reasons: 1) constantly moving positions tends to leave the more complicated problems unsolved. For one, it's difficult to truly understand the dynamics of a complicated system in a short period. Secondly, if someone is concerned with promotion, attacking small problems tends to get you a win during your tenure, while it's unlikely you'll make much headway on a really difficult or complicated problem. Even worse is the commander who has all kinds of great ideas they want implemented even before they really understand the problem (ie the 'good idea fairy' dilemma) 2) military churn can bias toward giving people responsibility beyond their capability, simply because they need someone to fill that role. This is especially with younger organizations (and the military definitely biases young). Meaning you tend to people with a lot of power/responsibility before their frontal lobe is even fully developed. Now I do think the military does a pretty good job at accountability, which can mitigate some of those factors. But if that's the case, we should be trying to optimize for "accountability" and not "churn". The better military organizations seem to have "churn" in the uniformed services in charge but a steady cadre of professional civilian staff supporting them.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    the plum book is a list of politically appointed positions in the federal government, including positions at NASA and elsewhere. i wasn’t referring to the plum brook facility
ethbr1 2y ago
The mandatory rotating post system is an effective redress to the "in this job until I die" problem and the ills it creates. That's not to say there aren't other ills, but that's a pretty major one of large bureaucracies and causes serious effectiveness issues downstream.
- bumby 2y ago
  I don't disagree that it solves the "in this job until I die". But as you allude to, it creates its own issues and it's not clear to me if, on balance, its better. Churn can also create an ineffective (or superficially effective) organization because the hardest problems can't really be solved in a short tenure. (If it could the Executive Branch would be considered highly effective because it has churn every 4-8 years).
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    The USAF would certainly agree with you! ;) On the whole, I think it's still a net positive. The drag of unmotivated, apathetic, and/or inflexible employees is incredibly high, and then there's the additional efficiency drag of the systems that must put in place to ensure they meet minimum performance (i.e. filling out make-work forms to track performance). Better to simply create a system by which they're weeded out. Which I guess dovetails with the military "up or out" process. From a giant organization perspective, there's a lot to admire in militaries. They're the worst systems, except for all the other ways organizations as large as them could be organized...
    - bumby 2y ago
      >Better to simply create a system by which they're weeded out. I agree with this. It's really just another way to say there should be mechanisms to hold people accountable. >Which I guess dovetails with the military "up or out" process. I don't think the military does a great job of this. From what I could see, it only forces out the absolute absymal performers (e.g., those who can't pass a PFT or have multiple DUIs etc.) I would argue it takes far too long (often only implemented once they've been in a decade or more and haven't made SNCO). This does a disservice to both the organization (the person is still around for a decade) and also the service member (they have now dedicated over a decade to a career that is a dead end, and usually over halfway to retirement).

by bumby 2y ago

whimsicalism 2y ago

The military has lots of waste and graft, but it is also not terrible at hiring very competent/smart people through their commission system (unlike a lot of the rest of government). I am skeptical that churn is a cause of problems, almost everywhere I have worked in government has by far the opposite problem. The smartest people I've met either have plum book positions, military officers, or work as prosecutors.

bumby 2y ago
(by plum brook, do you mean NASA? If so, I've met some smart people from there and other NASA posts, but also met some of the worst employees that epitomize some of what the discussion is against - very toxic, against any new ideas, refusing to retire, shirking duties etc. at one point one org had an average age of 59+, that's very indicative of a refusal to move on). >it is also not terrible at hiring very competent/smart people through their commission system I suspect you would get a very different perspective if you talked to enlisted servicemembers (or subordinate officers). I would argue the commissioning system is better than the previous aristocratic commissioning system, but still relatively poor at mating skills to positions. I think churn is a couple of problems for a couple of different potential reasons: 1) constantly moving positions tends to leave the more complicated problems unsolved. For one, it's difficult to truly understand the dynamics of a complicated system in a short period. Secondly, if someone is concerned with promotion, attacking small problems tends to get you a win during your tenure, while it's unlikely you'll make much headway on a really difficult or complicated problem. Even worse is the commander who has all kinds of great ideas they want implemented even before they really understand the problem (ie the 'good idea fairy' dilemma) 2) military churn can bias toward giving people responsibility beyond their capability, simply because they need someone to fill that role. This is especially with younger organizations (and the military definitely biases young). Meaning you tend to people with a lot of power/responsibility before their frontal lobe is even fully developed. Now I do think the military does a pretty good job at accountability, which can mitigate some of those factors. But if that's the case, we should be trying to optimize for "accountability" and not "churn". The better military organizations seem to have "churn" in the uniformed services in charge but a steady cadre of professional civilian staff supporting them.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  the plum book is a list of politically appointed positions in the federal government, including positions at NASA and elsewhere. i wasn’t referring to the plum brook facility

ethbr1 2y ago

The mandatory rotating post system is an effective redress to the "in this job until I die" problem and the ills it creates. That's not to say there aren't other ills, but that's a pretty major one of large bureaucracies and causes serious effectiveness issues downstream.

bumby 2y ago
I don't disagree that it solves the "in this job until I die". But as you allude to, it creates its own issues and it's not clear to me if, on balance, its better. Churn can also create an ineffective (or superficially effective) organization because the hardest problems can't really be solved in a short tenure. (If it could the Executive Branch would be considered highly effective because it has churn every 4-8 years).
- ethbr1 2y ago
  The USAF would certainly agree with you! ;) On the whole, I think it's still a net positive. The drag of unmotivated, apathetic, and/or inflexible employees is incredibly high, and then there's the additional efficiency drag of the systems that must put in place to ensure they meet minimum performance (i.e. filling out make-work forms to track performance). Better to simply create a system by which they're weeded out. Which I guess dovetails with the military "up or out" process. From a giant organization perspective, there's a lot to admire in militaries. They're the worst systems, except for all the other ways organizations as large as them could be organized...
  - bumby 2y ago
    >Better to simply create a system by which they're weeded out. I agree with this. It's really just another way to say there should be mechanisms to hold people accountable. >Which I guess dovetails with the military "up or out" process. I don't think the military does a great job of this. From what I could see, it only forces out the absolute absymal performers (e.g., those who can't pass a PFT or have multiple DUIs etc.) I would argue it takes far too long (often only implemented once they've been in a decade or more and haven't made SNCO). This does a disservice to both the organization (the person is still around for a decade) and also the service member (they have now dedicated over a decade to a career that is a dead end, and usually over halfway to retirement).