Meanwhile I’ve worked for companies that eliminated entire layers of management without seeming to affect operations. So I question the assumption that private enterprises are models of efficiency.
I do wonder what it means WRT actual operational changes though. I mean yeah it’s a simile but presumably some actions are more or less business-like. I’m just having trouble wrapping my head around concrete examples.
I’ve never been employed by a government but I’ve been hired by them before for contract work. And businesses (especially big ones) can give government some competition when it comes to bloat and nonsensical practices.
In USA most fire departments are now run as government servicess. This is fairly new. Back in the day, fire companies were just that, private businesses. If you wanted your building protected, you paid that company for an outside wall plaque. If a fire started and the responding company didn’t see their plaque, they left you to burn down. (We’ve collected some pre-1900 San Francisco fire plaques, in English and Chinese.) Call it free enterprise.
Run government like a business! You want fire, police, sanitation, ambulance, etc? Subscribe or die. You want clean air? Buy a mask and tank. You want justice? Pay for McLaw, McCops, McCourts, McPrisons - oh wait, we have those already. All must profit! All roads as toll roads, paid for by usage-inches - pedestrians too. Pay up.
No, the government should not be run like a business. There are various business practices that have always turned out detrimental for the public.
People in power should run the country aiming to improve the living standard of the citizens. In the EU, for example, national governments are supported to ensure basic education to all the citizens.
In certain EU countries, free quality education is available for everyone at all levels. In addition, there are programs (such as the Erasmus Programme) that encourage exchanges and mobility in higher education education for all the citizens.
National governments are encouraged and supported to build modern hospitals, acquire advanced equipment and finance the instruction of medical personnel. Laws in every country have been aligned so that people’s health will be equally protected, consumers’ rights can be observed all over the EU, and safety of food should play an important role on every national market.
All EU countries offer their citizens a free European Health Insurance Card which provides insurance for emergency medical treatment insurance when visiting other European countries. Patients can access safe and high-quality healthcare wherever they are.
The European Union has some of the highest levels of life expectancy in the world. The overall life expectancy in the Europe is 81 years, higher than the world average of 73 years.
As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure that only businesses should be run “like a business.”
If “running things like a business” can be extended to other human activities, why not go beyond government life? Why shouldn’t reforestation campaigns be run like a business? Why shouldn’t space programs, vaccination schemes and military operations be run like a business? Why shouldn’t personal diet, friendship and sexual intercourse be run like a business as well?
Why not? Because the business style of doings things is not applicable to aspects of human life, especially when it comes to the work of public servants whose activity is supposed to serve the public’s interests.
I have twice worked for not-for-profit corporations. Not charities; corporations that were deliberately organized without shareholders. They weren’t run like governments, either.
It’s a common sense statement that you’re taking literally. It means that the government should work within a budget based on clearly definable goals.
I saw the flaw in the “run government like a business” theory when I started working for government contractors. The theory is that they’ll find efficiencies in order to get the highest profit. The reality is that they’ll find ANY way to get the highest profit, even at the detriment to the mission or actual efficiency. That’s not at all intuitive so let me just give some of the examples I’ve seen or know about.
There was the medium-sized software company I worked for that did software for 911 agencies. They had captured the majority market share for that niche, were doing very well financially and were almost a household name (among police, fire and EMS agencies). Shortly after I was hired they were sold to one of the major defense contractors and then we were forced to do business the Defense Contracting Way. Meaning that all of our customers who sent us five-figure payments annually were ignored in favor of chasing multi-million dollar contracts. In my last few years there, our very long-term customers (like 30 years long term) one by one switched over to our competitors because we were not bidding on their proposals. In division meetings it was very clear that concepts like market share were unknown. The high level strategy was almost entirely focused on “capture management” (i.e. winning large government contracts) and actually executing on the contracts we were awarded was a poor stepchild hassle. They were engaged in a very large lawsuit over the inability to execute one of those contracts at the time I left.
There are also issues with sub-contracting. The government and the Small Business Association set up contracts that will only be awarded to niche small companies, like those owned by Alaskan Native Americans. It’s not unheard of for the major contracting companies to spin off a little shell company staffed by one or two Alaskan Natives (for example) to win those contracts.
There are also issues with sub-contracting labor. The last defense contractor I worked for (not the one mentioned above, a smaller one) was an odd conglomeration of direct hires like me and sub-contracted workers from other contracting houses. We all got along but holidays were weird because we all had different holidays based on which company direct-hired us. A worse example was the semi-company-semi-agency with a lady’s name that has something like 10% direct hires and all the rest are sub-contract labor. They have an entire department set up to do nothing more than manage the hiring and recruitment of sub labor and their “preferred vendor list”.
To some extent this describes how the government over time stops serving the people and starts serving the people who work for the government. There is no evolutionary pressure to improve the way there is in the private sector. Change is hard for everyone but without change the customer experience stagnates.
For example, someone in my family got a speeding ticket. A week later I tried to pay online. Could not find the ticket listed. Two weeks later I called the courthouse during business hours and was able to talk to someone who said there was a backlog and to wait another month. After that I was able to go to the website, which was hard to use, and pay the ticket. If a private business made it that hard to give them my money, I would use a competitor, but the government has no competition and so they serve the customer poorly.
Why don’t governments have their workers do the work instead of contracting? Since government workers are hard to get rid of, every worker hired is like giving them a 30 year contract. Thus they are very reluctant to hire anyone. So the work is outsourced to contractors, this adds another level of management which needs to get paid, and another level between those who do the work and those who need the work done which makes mistakes more likely.
Meanwhile, contracts are written so that people from certain favored groups are more likely to win the contracts and are less concerned with whether the people who win the contracts can actually do the job. No business would be more concerned about whether a company is owned by a disabled minority than they are about them constantly being late and over budget.
In some ways it should be run more like a business. How about doing things better and reducing costs …is there any incentive to do that?
Take these last couple of months for example. While some parts of government are going crazy and needed more money to provide the needed levels of service, certainly others are shut down and doing less. Are they saving money and where will it go to? … or are they looking for ways to spend the money budgeted to them? There is prob no way to know for a while cuz any savings to this point could still be spent before the fiscal year is over if things turn around at all.
I’m wondering which agencies you believe are saving money and on what. I work for a state agency and my agency isn’t saving a dime - and neither are many others. People who aren’t coming into offices because they are not essential are still being paid, so no savings there. People who are essential are working more OT than usual because so many coworkers are out.
First you need a mission statement - this one came to me in the shower this AM:
It is the role of government to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.
Second you need strict conflict of interest rules:
Thou shalt not:
-
Hire an unqualified relative
-
Make arrangements to work for a contractor at a future date
-
Accept anything of value
-
Solicit or accept campaign funds
-
Own an interest in any company that is effected by government legislation
-
Date or have a romantic relationship with a supervisor or subordinate
-
Fail to investigate a subordinate or coworker’s wrongdoing because of party affiliation
-
Accept consulting fees or provide advice to individuals or corporations
-
Utilize your position in government for personal gain
-
Have made oaths or accepted obligations that conflict with the interests of government
Third set qualifications:
All employees will be qualified by education or experience for positions filled.
Fourth
Define duties:
-
Maintain professional demeanor
-
Act in accordance with the company mission statement
-
Fill all subordinate positions with qualified personnel
-
Provide detailed accurate reports
Stuff like that.
Oh yeah:
No party line caucuses.
Quarterly goals to pass problem solving legislation
Performance to budget reviews
Annual performance reviews of progress as measured by the mission statement
Well, I’m sure glad that no businesses use contractors. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Ever hear of the concept of core competency? The DoD’s competency is in supply chain management and fighting wars, probably in that order. Why should they be in the business of building weapons. Much better to contract it out. On domestic bases at least, why use well trained staff to serve meals at the Officer’s Club when you can contract it out?
It is exactly the same reason businesses use contractors.
Use of contractors is an excellent example of how government is being run like a business.
I don’t know, Utilities for one maybe?
Did you get any memos to encourage cost savings of any kind?
Nope. But we’re spending a lot more on masks, sanitizer, and bleach. Had to buy hundred of brooms/dustpans/boxes of rags to sanitize every vehicle before each use. Spending a fortune on certified mail for documents that people used to be given in person. Utilities don’t go down much if offices are open, just with fewer people in them - the extra overtime will more than wipe out any savings from the electric bill.
The primary meaning of that phrase is “It should be run by a businessman like me”. It is no more valid than the other very common beliefs, that [anything] should be run by [people more like me]. The secondary meaning, explicit in the statement, is that it should be run more like a businessman hopes or thinks a business should be run: efficiently, and without making a loss.
These are amusing questions, but have nothing to do with statement as intended. It’s like pretending that conservatives are growing marijuana on their front lawns, because (as everyone knows), conservatives have grass lawns.
“Should not. They bare no resemblance to each other. The goal of a company is to increase the profit of the company. The goal of a government is to increase the access to the pursuit of happiness of its citizens.”
Wait…what? I had no idea.
Yeah, that’s it. One amusing thing about businessmen in government is that they are used to being "judged by hand-picked boards of directors, who support them unless they really screw up big time. Politicians have to deal with legislatures which are usually not nearly so pliable.