A Job Done Well - Making Work Better

DOGE - Is This Really the Answer to Cost Challenges?

• Jimmy Barber and James Lawther • Season 2 • Episode 27

Share episode

Send us a text

'The wise learn not only from their own mistakes but also  from the missteps of others.'

In this episode, we discuss the challenges faced by the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) as it attempts to cut federal spending and modernise technology under President Trump's agenda. 

We discuss Elon Musk's cost-saving playbook, the risks of the approach, and most importantly, some suggestions on better ways of saving cost - by focusing on purpose, finding the right opportunities and listening to employees. Could we do a better job than Elon? Have a listen and you decide!

Plus, you'll discover James's latest middle-class gadget and how Jimmy's dog, Bear, is spending his newly found fortune!

Hello. I'm James. Hi, I'm Jimmy and welcome to A Job Done Well, the podcast that helps you improve your performance enjoyment at work.

Jimmy:

Afternoon James.

James:

Good afternoon. How you doing?

Jimmy:

I'm doing well. How are you?

James:

I'm doing fabulously. Thank you very much. The sun's out. It is a beautiful day.

Jimmy:

It's funny how the mood is, I impacted by the weather

James:

Absolutely.

Jimmy:

and how our US British, we always like to talk about the weather

James:

Yeah. Well, it gives us something to talk about. We'd be screwed if it was bright and sunny every day, wouldn't we?

Jimmy:

other than admiring the weather, what have you been up to?

James:

Uh, well, as I told you last time, it was Mrs. Law's birthday, so I bought Mrs. Law. The, you know what we, yeah, you gimme a hard time about Volvo being a bit middle class, but I bought Mrs. Law the a sourdough proving oven. How is that for middle class? I think I have excelled myself. Uh.

Jimmy:

Earth is a SADO proving oven?

James:

It is, it's where you, it's where you proof your sourdough, isn't it? It's indis, it's indispensable. That's the word I'm looking for. Indispensable.

Jimmy:

in your middle class armory. So you are not even frequenting artisan bakers now. You are doing it yourself.

James:

I, I have my own Artis and baker and it's all right for you to take the mick, but when she cooks you a loaf and I bring it round, you'll be pleased as punch.

Jimmy:

I I am definitely willing to be a hypocrite at that point. No doubt. I.

James:

Yeah. How about you?

Jimmy:

Well, I've gotta tell you, um, I haven't, I, I had another insurance claim, which I haven't bitched about for

James:

Another one?

Jimmy:

yeah, yeah, it is for the dog. Um, I won't, I won't, I'll spare you the details and I'll spare you the, uh, the nightmare that you have with automated messages that constantly trying to close your claim,

James:

Yeah.

Jimmy:

and, and the complaints I've had to have and all the rest of it. I'll just tell you the cherry on top of the, uh, of the issue was when they finally sent me the check after the third time of asking,

James:

Yeah.

Jimmy:

time me sending the invoices in, they had sent me the check made out to bear. That's my dog.

James:

Bear is the name of the dog

Jimmy:

The check was handwritten, they're still handwriting checks. I'm still getting a check, not a bank transfer to bear.

James:

to bear the.

Jimmy:

He is living his best life now. He's cashed a check. He's living it up. Tell ya.

James:

Couldn't make it up, could you? All right. Anyway, what are we talking about today?

Jimmy:

So today we are talking about the, challenges in the us. We are,

James:

Uh, well, no, hang on. That's

Jimmy:

on the

James:

there. Won't jump in the bad part. That's a bit of a broad statement. Which particular challenge are we talking about? Are we gonna invade Greenland?

Jimmy:

Well, we are keeping our political opinions on Greenland and Trump's other escapades. We are limiting it today to Doge

James:

Ah, okay.

Jimmy:

or doggy as

James:

Do

Jimmy:

by

James:

doki.

Jimmy:

So the, the challenge that that Doge are taking on to try and reduce the American federal spending. we are talking about this for a couple of reasons. One, it's in the headlines everywhere.

James:

yeah,

Jimmy:

a really extreme way of cutting costs. but costs, getting away from you are often

James:

yeah.

Jimmy:

that everyone faces.

James:

Have seen that once or twice.

Jimmy:

Perhaps. So we're not going to do a detailed analysis of all, uh, DO'S activities, but we are going to and learn from them, in some instances how not to do things, but also perhaps how, how you can do things when faced by this sort of challenge.

James:

So we're gonna give Elon a masterclass in how to do it. Jolly Goods. So let's start off then explain to me what is Doge and what is there and what they all about them.

Jimmy:

So Doge is, stands for the Department of Government Efficiency.

James:

Okay.

Jimmy:

they were there to implement, one aspect of President Trump's agenda, which was to, modernize the federal technology and software to maximize government efficiency and productivity. You can tell I've got that from, their website.

James:

I thought Doge originally was an internet mean.

Jimmy:

It was,

James:

it was a dodgy looking dog, and then you had to have two words in rather poor English, um, in comic sands underneath it. things like macho spending That's what, um, that's what Doge was.

Jimmy:

It then became a, um, a cryptocurrency, didn't it? A meme

James:

Now did there you,

Jimmy:

Yeah.

James:

you know a lot about cryptocurrency, don't you? Jimmy is a crypto billionaire. How much are you worth, mate,

Jimmy:

I invested, I think it was$50 in doge coins.

James:

Doge coins and how much they're worth now?

Jimmy:

now worth$11 25, so that is my crypto fortune. So

James:

Well done. Uh,

Jimmy:

a crypto billionaire.

James:

yeah, he'd probably best to back away from that. I think. Doge then. So founded by executive order then, so that was Mr. Trump himself, or so I should say President Trump himself founded it.

Jimmy:

Yes. So the reason Doge was set up though, was that federal spending has increased by nearly 3 trillion.

James:

Well, before we get into this,

Jimmy:

yeah.

James:

should just have a little health warning, I think, because I'm not sure our fact checking is as robust as it could be.'cause when I look at these numbers, they don't necessarily add up. But go on, give, uh, tell us what we've got.

Jimmy:

I think, some of the numbers are pretty clear. Some of them are incredibly opaque, and you'll find lots of different answers. but federal spending has gone up by, uh, 3 trillion. it is gone up from just over 4 trillion to about 7 trillion.

James:

And when you say gone up, since when?

Jimmy:

Since pre pandemic, so since

James:

Okay.

Jimmy:

Now if you can bear in mind, we're talking about trillions, right? I've just about got my head round. A billion. A trillion is actually a thousand billion.

James:

Yeah. Or a million million. Bit of quick maths there. Yeah. It's a reasonable amount of money.

Jimmy:

this is why you're the analyst. It

James:

Yeah.

Jimmy:

it's more than the GDP, so the eco entire economy in this country. So it's a big number. and aside from all of the conspiracy theories, I think you can say it's, it's an issue. And Elon has very publicly said on many occasions, he's going to save a trillion dollars.

James:

How is he saving this money, then? What's his approach?

Jimmy:

they're looking at things like

James:

Yeah.

Jimmy:

costs. Contracts the government has, how you use tech enablement and, individual fraud as well.

James:

Um, yeah. Okay. So there's a lot of talk about staff costs. We'll come onto that and the contracts, but the other two surround a bit suspicious to me. What's the real story there?

Jimmy:

Well, I think you're, you're right James. staff costs and contracts often form the largest part of any organisation's cost base. Tech enablement is what they were supposedly set up to do. I.

James:

Yeah.

Jimmy:

you know, it doesn't seem like there's a lot of talk around the actual tech enablement

James:

Uh, now,

Jimmy:

is creating a huge amount of the heat and light in this because in order to assess, individual fraud, they're asking for lots of personal data and

James:

well.

Jimmy:

people don't wanna give up their personal data. So that's, that's resulting in all sorts of lawsuits. He's trying to save a lot of money off this cost base. If you took it as, a trillion off seven, it's 14%. Well,

James:

So yeah, having worked, worked in local government, I am sure you could get 14% of efficiencies out, but it's not quite that straightforward, is it?'cause it's not 14%.

Jimmy:

actually if you look at what's fixed. The, uh, 3.8 of it is fixed mandatory spending,

James:

Which is

Jimmy:

actually impact. So

James:

um,

Jimmy:

start, uh, social care and Medicare. debt repayments. So you're getting into trying to save, almost probably a trillion out of three. So a third plus. that's an ask that is you

James:

it is a slightly different game. Yeah, you are.

Jimmy:

deep. And that's why some of the activities seem to be really extreme in terms of virtually shutting down whole departments, making, large scale layoffs, moving very fast, but creating lots of heat and light say so lots of legal challenges and. Funny enough, Lots of noise around the savings they're already making. they're claiming to have saved a hundred billion uh, dollars

James:

How much of that could they evidence them? I.

Jimmy:

they've got a, uh, a, a website where they're putting everything up the Wall Street Journal had done their own independent analysis and they said it was, sub 5 billion. So a fraction of that.

James:

I think they're making a lot of these numbers up. So one of the largest savings they talked about was, um, a treasury. A treasury department contract, which was 1.9 billion, which, you know, they'd slashed. But actually that was, canceled a year earlier under Joe Biden. So I think a lot of this is, smoke and mirrors

Jimmy:

Oh yeah. I mean there, there was a, at one point on their, their wall of receipts, they were claiming an$8 billion saving, well, actually the contract was only 8 million. It was a typo, so,

James:

A bit unfortunate, isn't it?

Jimmy:

Yeah, just a bit.

James:

So that's like a typo to the tune of three zeros on the end then? Is that what they did?

Jimmy:

people get one zero extra.

James:

Okay, so we're a bit skeptical about it. has Mr. Musk got previous experience of this then? If organisations, I've seen doing this before, they do bring people in who have got experience and know what they're doing.

Jimmy:

the premise of taking capacity out of a system does sometimes work. It seems like that's what he did with with Twitter.

James:

Yeah.

Jimmy:

at Twitter he cut 80% of the workforce almost straight away.

James:

from what I've read, he's using exactly the same approach, the, um, letter that he sent to all employees is pretty much the same letter he used in Twitter.

Jimmy:

Yeah, he's got,

James:

Yeah.

Jimmy:

a playbook. He, this is how he did it and is, is Twitter better off than it was?

James:

Well, and there's a really interesting thing because clearly it's a lot cheaper to run,

Jimmy:

Yeah.

James:

arguably it is no longer the same organisation at all.

Jimmy:

No, and they've, they, they are doing something completely different from the, the days of, sharing, what you're up to or what your opinions were or the latest things that are happening. it may well be more powerful as in, in terms of impacting elections and the like, but, know, as a force for good, I think there would be a only one answer you'd come up with that.

James:

Yeah,

Jimmy:

again.

James:

hang on, sorry. But there is a very valid point there then, isn't it? Which is if you're gonna save money, that's great, but what is the outcome you're looking for? What is the purpose of the organisation? Because if you're not, if you're changing that, is that legitimate or not?

Jimmy:

Yeah. And it, and it does appear that he has changed the, the purpose as well as the name of Twitter to become X.

James:

interestingly, actually X. Very macho, isn't it? Have you seen the Doge logo? Have you seen it?

Jimmy:

all, it's all macho

James:

Oh, it's all macho. Yeah. Okay, go on. Oh, it's got a very nice chrome chainsaw.

Jimmy:

So we, just for a second, put aside, uh, any feelings that we have of Elon?

James:

Yeah.

Jimmy:

are actually some positives about the approach of Doge.

James:

Tell me, see if you could convince me.

Jimmy:

Uh, I'm not sure I'll convince you, but there is a burning platform and the numbers are compelling in terms of doing something and the stated aim to use technology to try and help improve the government's performance that level. It makes sense.

James:

Yeah.

Jimmy:

one of the things we quote on this podcast regularly is progress, not perfection.

James:

Yeah.

Jimmy:

to get the

James:

Well

Jimmy:

answer.

James:

definitely got progress

Jimmy:

Yeah. as I say, taking capacity out of a system, systems are often very adaptable. And if you re remove some of the capacity, then quite often the system will adapt

James:

Well, it forces people to act. Yes.

Jimmy:

one of the things that, that, that they've done, which has caused. All sorts of, um, angst and issues is they have sent an email to all federal employees and Tell told them they've got to reply with what are the five things they've achieved in the last week, which,

James:

I hear he got some

Jimmy:

which I,

James:

rather rude responses.

Jimmy:

it did. I know, I'm, now, I'm talking about this under the positives, James, but.

James:

Okay.

Jimmy:

is if you are sitting there at the end of the week and just thinking back and reflecting about what you've achieved in the week, that's probably a positive thing to do.

James:

Yeah.

Jimmy:

The

James:

Oh, is an individual level? Yes.

Jimmy:

individual level, just thinking about what have I achieved is good. The issue here is A, if they're doing it across everyone, b, it's they've, they've then said, if you don't, you're effectively resigning and or.

James:

Well, you might get the sack

Jimmy:

Somewhat sacked, I think

James:

somewhat sacked. Was that the phrase? Yeah. We'll see if we can get that clip. Yeah.

Jimmy:

you'd be somewhat

James:

You was somewhat sacked.

Jimmy:

every department has interpreted that differently. Some say, yes, you've gotta do this. Other departments like the FBI have said, no, you don't need to do this.

James:

Presumably,'cause if you work for the FBI, you probably somewhat sacked already. Is that the problem?

Jimmy:

It could be. there are some things that I think you could argue a principal level might be sensible, but

James:

However,

Jimmy:

what

James:

let's move on.

Jimmy:

I know you want to talk about the things that, the reasons why this is not a good approach. So

James:

Well.

Jimmy:

off.

The show you're listening to right now. Insights to help you improve performance and enjoyment of work. It takes a long time to produce, but we think it's well worth it. It's all in the name of helping you get your job done well. All we ask in return is that you share the link to this show with someone that you think would benefit from it. And if you haven't already, click on follow the show wherever you're listening to this podcast right now. Anyway, let's get back to the show.

James:

I listened, I did listen to a very interesting podcast, called, the Rest is Classified, which is worth the Listen. And they were, they were talking about this, but they were talking about this in the, um, context of the CIA. I thought, well, I don't know anything about the ccia A but I thought what they said was quite interesting'cause it kind of, pulls out the risks. And for me, the risk is, it's all about the human and the machine. and if you want the organisation to work well then, you need to look after the people. so one thing that I think they have done very well is if what you read is to be believed, a lot of the people who've been, told that they can take voluntary redundancy have been told to get eight months worth of severance. Now, I dunno about you. Yeah.

Jimmy:

Uh,

James:

six organisations.

Jimmy:

there are very few jobs I've had that I wouldn't be, uh, interested

James:

Yeah, absolutely. I'm thinking of signing up for a job right now to see if I can get me eight months. on those grounds? I think actually you're treating people pretty well, however, it's not quite that straightforward. one of the groups of people that they're, um, not giving those eight months worth of severance to are people on probation. So what does probation mean? Well, those are people who've just transferred jobs or have had less than one year in the job or have recently been promoted, and that's a bit of a blanket cut on anybody who's on probation. But perhaps if you think about that, so what you're gonna do is you're gonna sack everybody who's just been promoted or you're gonna sack everybody you've just recruited into the organisation'cause you think they're talent. So from a talent perspective that really does sound terribly, dubious to me.

Jimmy:

it, it, it's, it's a real blunt instrument. This is,

James:

Right. So that's the first. The second one, which I think was just interesting, they were talking, as I said, they were talking about the CIA births. Say, well, if you were, let's just hypothesize a member of the Chinese Secret police or whatever that they call themselves, and you wanted to find yourself somebody who's fairly disaffected, who had previously had security ca clearance in the US government, then you wouldn't be too difficult to go on LinkedIn and find a whole host of people who've got a whole big ax to grind about the organisation. personally, there are two or three people in my career who I've got a bit of a grudge against. And if I got the opportunity, I will gladly stick the knife in. But when you're making this many people redundant, you are opening yourself up to a huge amount of risk So that's my second point.

Jimmy:

I said that they were working at Pace and you know, progress, not perfection, you're gonna make some mistakes. But Elon has actually held his hands up to, that fact and, and says that when they make a mistake, they'll put it right. And the example that he gave. Which has been widely reported on is he said, we shut down the Ebola program funny enough that we probably want to have people working on, control and management and cure of Ebola.

James:

Yeah,

Jimmy:

he accepted that. He said, so we, we put the program back in except they didn't.

James:

they didn't. Yeah. Another one I heard on that grounds, apparently there was some nuclear power station safety people that they sacked who they allegedly have brought back in.'cause that's what you need, a load of people who are really pissed off, who work in nuclear safety.

Jimmy:

Well, I think also the other thing is that the a blanket. everyone's going to save this. Everyone's gotta save 20%, but it doesn't allow for variances within those, those different areas, does it?

James:

No, not at all. Anyway, coming back to my CIA story,'cause it's quite interesting. The next risk they called out was disaffected partners. So if you, are sharing intelligence and you end up pissing off the people that you are sharing intelligence with, what is the implication of that? Now, okay, we don't all share intelligence, but you do run the risk of pissing your customers off something rotten if you could take this approach. So there was the third risk. And then the other two risks, which they called out, which I thought were really quite interesting. The first one is if you scare a lot of people, then you will get poor performance because they'll be too busy worrying about their jobs or updating their cvs or whatever the hell it is that they're doing to do their jobs.

Jimmy:

up. In fact, uh, in the next few weeks we have got an episode on Fear at Work,

James:

Yeah,

Jimmy:

exactly that, but rule by fear and you'll see what you get.

James:

absolutely. a linked point is actually, what is it like if you are in the group that's remaining?'cause you've just seen this massive coal? Well, you're probably still gonna be scared. And that's a real cause of group think. maybe you just don't tell Donald that the things that he doesn't want to hear. But of course you see group things, all sorts of organisations. So there's another aspect of fear. So I think there are a whole host of risks associated with taking this approach. a bit more Elon bashing just'cause I'm in the mood here.

Jimmy:

You're on

James:

His, I am his analyst. This is fascinating. You need to Google Doge kids. Who are these young wiz kids who are going into these organisations? one of them, and I'll only pick on one, one of them has got a, uh, small business. And in this business he hosts websites. Amongst the websites that he hosts are children, sex party. And if that's not bad enough, K KK is cool club. Now we can have a conversation about beat, whether or not woke is a good thing or not. I do think the pendulum has swung maybe just a little bit too far the other direction with those boys.

Jimmy:

Well,

James:

really, have you got the skills that you need or have you just got a group of people who is agreeing with your approach? there is a bit of a silver lining though. Apparently, there is a anti Tesla group, which is, spring forward in the, US and also in the UK and across Europe, but the, um, the song of the moment is Elon Musk can Go to Mars. We don't want your Nazi cars. Which I thought was very funny.

Jimmy:

it's, it's a, Elon's got his own song.

James:

well, absolutely. Yeah. But.

Jimmy:

though, in in fairness though, I am

James:

You used to own the Tesla, didn't you?

Jimmy:

up

James:

Yeah. No more taking the piss outta my Volvo. Will you?

Jimmy:

no. And, now we're looking at what car we get next and the one thing we've been clear of, I loved my Tesla for a drive. I will never buy another Tesla.

James:

maybe Elon would've saved more money if he'd just taken the amount of money he's lost on Tesla shares and bring that at the um, American government instead.

Jimmy:

So it's, so, it's easy to do Elon bashing and, we've tried to bring out potentially some of the principles that, that were positive. But James, what's a better way of doing this?

James:

Well, the first really smug answer and probably not very helpful, but is not getting to that situation in the first place. So I've seen time and time again people going for growth and building capability and building capacity, and the invariably ends in tears. So not very helpful now because they are in this position, but really think very carefully before you do go for that capacity. Build my first point.

Jimmy:

Very, very true pro proactively. But when we are in it, What's a

James:

Well, yes. So the first thing for me really is focus on purpose and service rather than cost. So bizarrely, if you're really clear about what it's, you are there to deliver and you deliver only that your costs will fall. But it's about being clear what you're there to deliver.

Jimmy:

often in service organisations, and I would argue that large parts of the US government are service organisations,

James:

Yeah.

Jimmy:

you f, if you focus on getting it right for your customers, your costs will fall as a result of that.

James:

Yeah, absolutely. the second thing I think is really stand back and look at. What the opportunities are for improvement. Now, I know they're doing some of this with their, um, doge kids. I do question how much Mr. K, k, K is going after. But what do your customers think? What's the data? Tell you what very important, what do the employees think?'cause they understand how things work. Go and have a look, What exactly is going on? that time taken. Understanding how the system is working is all important if you want to make the system work more effectively.

Jimmy:

there are multiple lenses that you look at. You don't just sit a bunch of analysts in a darkened room with some data and they'll tell you all the answers. That's only part of the answer.

James:

Absolutely. there were interesting, a bunch of Democratic senators who signed up to be part of the Doge initiative and had a whole host of ideas of things that they could do. For example, reducing subsidies on fossil fuels or moving locations out of w of Washington, DC to places where it's cheaper. But they all got a good stiff ignoring.

Jimmy:

I think that also raises an interesting point, James, which is this will all become incredibly political So the politics will be, I've got the right answer. You've got the right answer. Don't listen to the Democrats, whole politics around the data and the numbers, and is it 110 billion or is it 1 billion? How much we save all of that. Heat and light around disagreement, politics, data telling stories. It doesn't save you

James:

Um, yeah. Not helpful. In fact, worse than, doesn't save you a penny. Um, the next thing is about, creating an environment for success. How do you get everybody engaged in pushing this way? Now, I know there is more to it than just money, but actually if you're gonna get sac, people giving the maintenance worth of money is actually, a very positive place to be. I've been places where you get statutory minimum, how else are you creating that environment where people feel that they're being listened to and have been given opportunities?

Jimmy:

Yeah, and communicated to, treated with respect. then people will help you and when they move on, they'll move on as advocates rather than being alienated and either not helping you solve the problem, or as you say, God knows what some of these people will do when they've left.

James:

and I know you don't like it much, but actually I'm a big fan of if you really do have to take cost out, putting in a hiring freeze rather than going around sacking people. but be explicit about it.'cause at least that way people know that they've got a job and the cost will come down'cause you have attrition.

Jimmy:

I'm not always convinced by hiring free.'cause I think it assumes you've got the resource in the right place. Um, but yeah, it's definitely a, definitely a less blunt instrument than just pure sacking,

James:

another one, which we kind of touched on, but just honesty. So being very clear about what is happening, what your successes are, what your failures are, and pony up to what the results are. The whole smoke and mirror about the wall of receipts is not helping the situation at all. And then the final one for me, which is interesting because if you read the, um. Presidential decree or whatever they call it, doge was set up for, but it's all about building capability. So the technology should, amongst other things, should have helped, but it doesn't seem to be that's the way that they're going. How would you summarize that then? What would our advice to Elon be?

Jimmy:

Well, I think the need for savings is pretty generally agreed the intent behind some of the stuff that they're talking about. IE tech enablement is a sensible approach,

James:

Yeah. And he has got, he's got his stakeholders lined up as well. Mr. Trump, sorry. President Trump seems to be there too.

Jimmy:

he's got strong sponsor.

James:

Strong sponsor. Yeah.

Jimmy:

However,

James:

what is the outcome that you're searching for, and maybe this is the outcome they're searching for, And then the second thing is you really do have to bring the people with you and not scare the bejesus out of them.'cause if you do that, you will, fail.

Jimmy:

I guess the angle we wanted to take is there is a better way of doing it. And if you face the cost challenges in your organisation, which you probably will at some point, listen to our way rather than neons, I guess what we're saying is

James:

Good luck, Elon. Right? So we emailed this to him directly then. Anyway, on those words of wisdom, speak to you later. Cheers now.

We cover a whole host of topics on this podcast from purpose to corporate jargon, but always focused on one thing, getting the job done well, easier said than done. So if you've got. Unhappy customers or employees, bosses or regulators breathing down your neck. If your backlogs are out of control and your costs are spiraling and that big IT transformation project that you've been promised just keeps failing to deliver. We can help if you need to improve your performance, your team's performance or your organisation's. Get in touch at jimmy at jobdonewell. com or james at jobdonewell. com

People on this episode

Head Shot

James Lawther

Co-host
Head Shot

Jimmy Barber

Co-host