Federally Endorsed Mediocrity: The Contest
Here's a contest that I have a feeling (maybe better described as a fear) that many GovExec readers will be in a position to win.
It starts with an article my colleague Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in The Atlantic describing the many ways he tried to thwart airport security -- and, for the most part, succeeded. Transportation Security Administrator Kip Hawley responded to the article, saying in part:
Clever terrorists can use innovative ways to exploit vulnerabilities. But don’t forget that most bombers are not, in fact, clever. Living bomb-makers are usually clever, but the person agreeing to carry it may not be super smart. Even if “all” we do is stop dumb terrorists, we are reducing risk.
That, in turn, casued Goldberg to launch a contest, which he described as follows: "How would the Hawley Principle of Federally-Endorsed Mediocrity apply to other government endeavors?" He provided the following example:
FEMA Administrator R. David Paulison said yesterday in a press conference that his agency is well-equipped to cope with the consequences of strong winds and heavy precipitation. "FEMA has been criticized for its performance during Hurricane Katrina, but I would like to point out that Katrina was a very big hurricane," he said. "Most storms, in fact, don't become hurricanes, and it is these storms that we will focus our efforts on." Paulison went on to say that FEMA is also prepared to handle the after-effects of such moderate storms as minor flooding, downed tree branches, and missing cats.
Entries already are coming in to the contest. If you want to give it a shot (and potentially win a subscription to The Atlantic), you can send your entry to: Goldberg.Atlantic@gmail.com.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor in Chief Tom Shoop, along with other editors and staff correspondents, take a fresh look at news affecting the management and operations of the federal bureaucracy.
The private sector would have more potential projects. We could start with the Wall Street world. Then look at our incompetent manufacturers who cannot produce anything.
Wise Old Owl Posted Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:19 PMThere is a saying in health care quality improvement (Donabedian): "Don't let the perfect get in the way of the very good."
This is not a defense of federal mediocrity nor an excuse for the reaction to Katrina. It raises a fundamental question.
Is government there to protect against the extreme result or is it supposed to act like a private business? We can't indict the folks we elected who have been claiming that government should be more like private business when they choose to act like private business does.
Marginal costs are ALWAYS accounted for in business. It may not be worth it for a doctor's office to stay open 24 hours when 99% of the revenue comes in between 7am-7pm and yet 60% of the costs of 24 hour availability (overtime, night shift, insurance) come from 7:01pm-6:59am. So you only have 24 hour care where it makes sense: Emergency Departments and hospitals.
The question then is: are we willing to pay for preparedness against extremes, i.e, that one patient who comes to the doctor's office at 4am with a cold? If so, then realize that government is fundamentally different from business and elect/appoint people who realize this. And realize government won't be as "efficient" as business.
Dave B Posted Wednesday, October 29, 2008 5:04 PMGood points. I know for a fact that the American people and their leaders do NOT want to pay for protection at the 99% level. It is too expensive. Time and again I see local sponsors of flood protection or hurricane protection projects decline to pay for protection from the worst flood conditions because they are so infrequent. The initial construction costs and the maintenance costs in the future are higher than with a lower level of protection, not to mention the issues concerning real estate, emminent domain, etc, with a bigger project. Then when a major storm hits, and there is unusually high flooding, the fingers start pointing and people wonder in hind-sight how we could have been so STUPID. Both the FEMA and TSA executives are correct in that we don't plan for the outliers in any endeavor - no one does. I might have said it a little differently than they did, so as not to fall into the trap of appearing to cater to "mediocraty".
JT Posted Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:36 AMWhen I was in school, I had a choice about how hard to study. I could study hard and graduate about 20 in a class of 100, or I could work VERY hard and graduate about 13. I made the conscious choice that the extra work, and the resulting sacrifices in other areas, was not worth the benefit, because the higher place in class would not translate into a better job. It was a standard cost benefit analysis, one that applies to my current position. If I can come to the correct decision on a question and explain it reasonably well in two hours, I do not take an additional two hours to be able to explain the same decision perfectly.
This same cost benefit analysis is the answer to the question "are we will to pay for preparedness against the extremes." When the consequences of the extremes are extreme, the answer is yes. The Government needs to be ready for the worst natural disasters. That some, or even most, terrorists are dumb does not mean that the Government should not prepare to deal with the rare terrorist who is intelligent.
In some cases mediocrity is acceptable. Mediocrity as a defense to failing to prepare against calamity is not.
wallyp Posted Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:56 AMDoes the fact that every one of us gets a guaranteed >5% raise each year regardless of our job performance count as a Federal Endorsement of Mediocrity?
Happy Fed Posted Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:03 AM