# Why the DOGE Approach Fails: Lessons on Efficiency and Management
The U.S. government often sets precedents that ripple through the private sector. When Ronald Reagan fired over 11,000 striking air traffic controllers in 1981, employers nationwide felt emboldened to take stronger stances against unions. Similarly, the Trump administration’s dismantling of DEI initiatives in federal agencies has prompted many companies to reconsider their own diversity programs.
Now, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) approach to improving productivity is creating pressure on private organizations to adopt similar methods. But there’s a fundamental problem with applying these techniques across sectors.
## Understanding Government Bureaucracy
Government agencies operate under different constraints than businesses. The rules and procedures that seem to slow down government work exist for specific reasons:
– **Fairness** in how people are treated
– **Transparency** in decision-making
– **Accountability** to prevent corruption
These priorities often outweigh pure efficiency. What would raise no concerns in a private company—like hiring a relative—would create scandal headlines in a government setting. Internal procedures that businesses might bend for important clients become criminal offenses when government officials do the same.
The mountain of regulations facing federal agencies serves important purposes. Making government “more efficient” by removing these guardrails might speed things up but at what cost?
## Why Cutting Headcount Doesn’t Equal Efficiency
The DOGE approach assumes reducing staff improves efficiency. This fundamental misunderstanding creates several problems:
**Cutting work** improves efficiency—not cutting people. When you remove employees but leave the same workload, remaining staff struggle to complete everything, actually slowing processes down. Many government service delays (like passport processing) stem from this exact problem.
Early corporate “reengineering” efforts tried forcing departments to become more efficient by reducing headcount. This approach only works when:
1. Employees have authority to change what gets done
2. There’s a systematic review of necessary work
3. Leaders recognize the burnout risk
Without these elements, you’re setting up a failing system.
## Better Approaches from Corporate America
The corporate world has learned valuable lessons about efficiency improvement that DOGE could benefit from. Consider GE’s famous “work-out” programs designed to eliminate unnecessary work:
1. **Employee engagement** – Frontline workers who understand the daily challenges identify improvement opportunities
2. **Bottom-up problem solving** – Solutions come from those doing the work, not executives
3. **Process review** – Regular evaluation of what work adds value
This approach contradicts DOGE’s top-down strategy and requires significant time investment—but produces lasting results.
## Problems with Weekly Accomplishment Reports
The DOGE requirement for employees to submit weekly accomplishment reports reveals another flawed understanding of performance management. This approach works primarily in professional service firms that bill hourly—not in complex government agencies.
Effective performance tracking requires:
– Supervisors who understand the work
– Recognition that tasks have different timeframes
– Focus on removing obstacles rather than punishment
When employees believe their job security depends on these reports, they’ll focus on creating impressive-sounding accomplishments rather than doing meaningful work. This creates several problems:
1. **Misaligned priorities** – Time spent documenting work instead of doing it
2. **Short-term thinking** – Focusing on quick wins over long-term projects
3. **Gaming the system** – Inflating minor achievements
If an employee works on a challenging, multi-month project, what “accomplishments” can they report weekly? If they’re stuck waiting for input from another department, how do they demonstrate productivity?
## The Fear Factor Doesn’t Work
**Constant layoff threats paralyze organizations.** When employees don’t understand the criteria for keeping their jobs, they:
– Become risk-averse, avoiding innovation
– Start job hunting instead of focusing on work
– Protect themselves by documenting everything
– Hoard information rather than collaborating
Recruitment professionals see this regularly when interviewing candidates from companies with toxic performance cultures. These candidates often describe tremendous relief at leaving environments where they spent more time protecting themselves than contributing.
## Key Takeaways for Better Efficiency
True efficiency improvement requires thoughtful approaches:
1. **Identify and eliminate unnecessary work** before reducing headcount
2. **Engage employees** in finding solutions instead of imposing top-down cuts
3. **Create psychological safety** where people can admit problems without fear
4. **Focus performance management** on removing obstacles, not punishment
5. **Recognize that meaningful work** takes time and doesn’t always produce weekly “wins”
Many recruitment firms report that candidates increasingly prioritize sustainable workloads over higher salaries. Organizations known for slash-and-burn management struggle to attract top talent.
## The Real Cost of Slash and Burn
The DOGE approach might create flashy headlines about cutting waste, but the long-term consequences often include:
– Institutional knowledge loss
– Decreased service quality
– Higher turnover costs
– Difficulty attracting replacement talent
– Compliance failures
Improving efficiency requires investment, patience, and nuance. Quick fixes create new problems that eventually cost more than the initial savings. Organizations that understand this principle build stronger, more resilient operations that deliver better results over time.
# Why the DOGE Approach Fails: Lessons on Efficiency and Management
The U.S. government often sets precedents that ripple through the private sector. When Ronald Reagan fired over 11,000 striking air traffic controllers in 1981, employers nationwide felt emboldened to take stronger stances against unions. Similarly, the Trump administration’s dismantling of DEI initiatives in federal agencies has prompted many companies to reconsider their own diversity programs.
Now, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) approach to improving productivity is creating pressure on private organizations to adopt similar methods. But there’s a fundamental problem with applying these techniques across sectors.
## Understanding Government Bureaucracy
Government agencies operate under different constraints than businesses. The rules and procedures that seem to slow down government work exist for specific reasons:
– **Fairness** in how people are treated
– **Transparency** in decision-making
– **Accountability** to prevent corruption
These priorities often outweigh pure efficiency. What would raise no concerns in a private company—like hiring a relative—would create scandal headlines in a government setting. Internal procedures that businesses might bend for important clients become criminal offenses when government officials do the same.
The mountain of regulations facing federal agencies serves important purposes. Making government “more efficient” by removing these guardrails might speed things up but at what cost?
## Why Cutting Headcount Doesn’t Equal Efficiency
The DOGE approach assumes reducing staff improves efficiency. This fundamental misunderstanding creates several problems:
**Cutting work** improves efficiency—not cutting people. When you remove employees but leave the same workload, remaining staff struggle to complete everything, actually slowing processes down. Many government service delays (like passport processing) stem from this exact problem.
Early corporate “reengineering” efforts tried forcing departments to become more efficient by reducing headcount. This approach only works when:
1. Employees have authority to change what gets done
2. There’s a systematic review of necessary work
3. Leaders recognize the burnout risk
Without these elements, you’re setting up a failing system.
## Better Approaches from Corporate America
The corporate world has learned valuable lessons about efficiency improvement that DOGE could benefit from. Consider GE’s famous “work-out” programs designed to eliminate unnecessary work:
1. **Employee engagement** – Frontline workers who understand the daily challenges identify improvement opportunities
2. **Bottom-up problem solving** – Solutions come from those doing the work, not executives
3. **Process review** – Regular evaluation of what work adds value
This approach contradicts DOGE’s top-down strategy and requires significant time investment—but produces lasting results.
## Problems with Weekly Accomplishment Reports
The DOGE requirement for employees to submit weekly accomplishment reports reveals another flawed understanding of performance management. This approach works primarily in professional service firms that bill hourly—not in complex government agencies.
Effective performance tracking requires:
– Supervisors who understand the work
– Recognition that tasks have different timeframes
– Focus on removing obstacles rather than punishment
When employees believe their job security depends on these reports, they’ll focus on creating impressive-sounding accomplishments rather than doing meaningful work. This creates several problems:
1. **Misaligned priorities** – Time spent documenting work instead of doing it
2. **Short-term thinking** – Focusing on quick wins over long-term projects
3. **Gaming the system** – Inflating minor achievements
If an employee works on a challenging, multi-month project, what “accomplishments” can they report weekly? If they’re stuck waiting for input from another department, how do they demonstrate productivity?
## The Fear Factor Doesn’t Work
**Constant layoff threats paralyze organizations.** When employees don’t understand the criteria for keeping their jobs, they:
– Become risk-averse, avoiding innovation
– Start job hunting instead of focusing on work
– Protect themselves by documenting everything
– Hoard information rather than collaborating
Recruitment professionals see this regularly when interviewing candidates from companies with toxic performance cultures. These candidates often describe tremendous relief at leaving environments where they spent more time protecting themselves than contributing.
## Key Takeaways for Better Efficiency
True efficiency improvement requires thoughtful approaches:
1. **Identify and eliminate unnecessary work** before reducing headcount
2. **Engage employees** in finding solutions instead of imposing top-down cuts
3. **Create psychological safety** where people can admit problems without fear
4. **Focus performance management** on removing obstacles, not punishment
5. **Recognize that meaningful work** takes time and doesn’t always produce weekly “wins”
Many recruitment firms report that candidates increasingly prioritize sustainable workloads over higher salaries. Organizations known for slash-and-burn management struggle to attract top talent.
## The Real Cost of Slash and Burn
The DOGE approach might create flashy headlines about cutting waste, but the long-term consequences often include:
– Institutional knowledge loss
– Decreased service quality
– Higher turnover costs
– Difficulty attracting replacement talent
– Compliance failures
Improving efficiency requires investment, patience, and nuance. Quick fixes create new problems that eventually cost more than the initial savings. Organizations that understand this principle build stronger, more resilient operations that deliver better results over time.