How America traded systematic improvement for quick wins–and lost both | Hacker News Reader

How America traded systematic improvement for quick wins–and lost both

population.fyi

62 pointsklooney15 comments

I enjoyed this article but the assertion that Work Simplification was the direct cause of high levels of trust in government in the decades after WWII strains credulity. I would have expected some mention of the twin crises of the Depression and World War II; the low levels of economic inequality in the postwar years; the oppression of large swathes of society (who presumably weren't surveyed); or the increase in political polarization since the 1970s - factors which intuitively appear more relevant. The article would be much improved if it attempted to explain why Work Simplification made such a big difference.

Training from the bottom up ("equipped front-line supervisors with analytical tools rather than targeting top leadership") helps make change in the right place at the right time. For changes to come from the top down means that problems have to reach the top first; then the "solutions" have to percolate slowly back down to implementation.

I was a mid-level government manager. What most people outside don't understand is that our modern US bureaucracy isn't set up to deal with problems at scale.

This article gives an alternative from history in juxtaposition that would address a lot of problems I saw:

> 1. Systematic Training: The Bureau developed clear, teachable methods that managers of average competence could master.

> 2. Ground-Level Focus: They equipped front-line supervisors with analytical tools rather than targeting top leadership.

> 3. Practical Application: Training wasn't complete until managers had successfully improved an actual process in their unit.

> 4. Long-term Perspective: The program aimed to build sustained analytical capability rather than achieve quick wins.

edit: formatting

Yup. Big org problems, but specifically big govt org problems. Perhaps also:

5. Systems thinking - To cut though and optimize across organizations requires government "consultants" who can apply systems thinking. They become temporary experts in an area by listening to and gathering feedback from those inside and their stakeholders/customers. It would require a massive org of consultants to address the gigantic US government that is necessary by the scale and scope of America's needs.

6. A panel of wise, benevolent (rather than spiteful/malicious/ignorant) dictators who can make organizational changes the organization itself cannot. This, rather than than politically, keeps the focus on mission and effectiveness rather than political fashions.

7. No more political appointees when it comes to public administration.

8. Perhaps some sort of performance review including an anonymous vote of confidence/no confidence in leadership that has sway in hire/fire decision and keeps managers accountable to deliver for the org. (I'm inherently suspicious of layers upon layers of management unless there is a clear organizational need based on the scale and division of labor involved.)

And, for bonus points, perhaps the US should transition to a method of choosing public administrators including the chief executive by sortition every 2 or 4 years.

Polls by Blueprint show that the main reasons for the right shift among swing voters were inflation and immigration; "Democrats are bad at running the places they control" was seen as much less important

Source: https://blueprint2024.com/polling/why-trump-reasons-11-8/

> The implications of these differences become clear in times of crisis. When COVID-19 struck, agencies struggled to adapt their operations quickly and effectively—precisely the kind of capability that systematic process understanding and improvement would have facilitated. The same patterns emerged during the 2008 financial crisis and Hurricane Katrina response.

Inflation and immigration would both qualify as crisises that admins fail to handle

America needs to throw out the entire political system and replace it with sortition because unqualified political appointees are counterproductive by definition. The only way to fix government is slow, thoughtful, and deliberate consultation and reformation rather than arbitrary, agro destruction.

But sortition appoints people to political positions through random lottery. By definition it doesn't consider qualifications to be meaningful.

Except you made the failure of assumption that it would be of random people exactly like jury duty. I contend that it would be better to pick from a pool of professionals who, as part of their entrance into a professional society, agree also to lend their talents to civic duty for the benefit of all.

>I contend that it would be better to pick from a pool of professionals who, as part of their entrance into a professional society, agree also to lend their talents to civic duty for the benefit of all.

We already have a word for those people - politicians.

Why is a random lot better than an election, and having the public at least ostensibly vet the candidates and choose one?

I've seen this so many times it hurts - and yet people don't learn.

Many companies choose to reorganize because it's easier and less disruptive than addressing deeper operational inefficiencies.

Structural changes—like reshuffling teams or altering reporting lines—are relatively simple and give the illusion of progress.

However, true improvement comes from optimizing processes and execution, which require deep expertise, discipline, and often cultural change.

So without tackling these harder challenges, reorganization often results in minimal long-term impact.

Fun fact, Japan learned most from American teachers sent after the war... We can learn a lot from our own...

Perhaps the different approaches are suited to different levels of trust / trustworthiness between levels in the organization?

It's a nice article (upvoted) but I found it a little unpersuasive.

"Management Methodology A is good; Management Methodology B is bad. We know this because of Case Study A and Case Study B."

Sure, but those case studies only represent two data points. We can't be confident we are interpreting those case studies correctly.

We'd ideally like to have more data points, or stronger theoretical arguments for why Methodology A beats Methodology B.

If an organization is under-performing dramatically, why isn't dramatic change appropriate? What if cost-cutting is the primary objective, and we aren't aiming to improve capabilities? Given that capitalist countries are generally nicer to live in than socialist ones (see e.g. North vs South Korea), what's so bad about making the government more capitalist? I didn't see persuasive answers to these questions; I got the sense the author was assuming the answers based on their ideological bias.

at the mention of clintoon, I disregarded and dissmissed this as auto babble navel gazing. our current situation is unprecidented in human affairs,in many ways, the ratio of those with unlimited power to those with no choices would make a pharoe blush, the loss of personal space and time, with the absolute personal responsiblity to take initiative, is gone, swamped under an endless stream of media inputs into every last vestage of the process of self identity and expression, millions every day signing up to take the biege pill and invoking clintoon, the bro from pedo island, is absolute proof of a total incomprehension of where we are now

The one making the current reforms the article is talking about, is also a convicted sex offender and a bro on the same island.

History though, as a very distinguished philosopher once said, is the actions of men (and women) in pursuit of their ends.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com