The White House’s New “Productivity” Mandate Is Just a Fancy Way to Say We’re All Getting Fired
Oh, fantastic. Just when you thought the federal government couldn’t get any more efficient at wasting your tax dollars, the current administration has decided to pivot to corporate synergy. Word on the street is that they’re rolling out a new "performance management" initiative. Or, as the rest of us call it, a pre-written pink slip with a side of gaslighting.
Because sure, Jan. The same government that can’t process your passport application in under four months is suddenly worried about "output metrics." The same crew that runs the DMV is about to introduce a dashboard for "key performance indicators" for middle managers at the Department of Agriculture. I’m sure the guy who inspects corn futures is going to be thrilled to log his "deep work" sessions into a Slack channel.
Let’s break down this latest masterstroke of bureaucratic theater, because if there’s one thing Americans love more than apple pie, it’s watching a bunch of lifers in D.C. pretend they understand hustle culture.
**The "Synergy" of Unemployment**
Apparently, the big brains over at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have looked at the federal workforce and thought, "You know what this system needs? More corporate jargon and the threat of termination."
The plan, leaked to various outlets that still have sources, revolves around forcing agencies to identify "low-performers." This is a classic corporate move. You set up a vague rubric, you fail to define what "good" looks like, you make your employees fill out a 40-page self-evaluation, and then you use that data to justify axing the people you wanted to fire anyway for political reasons. It’s the HR equivalent of finding a reason to break up with your girlfriend—you just start nitpicking how she chews her food.
But wait, there's a twist. This isn't just about firing the guy who naps in the supply closet. This is about weaponizing efficiency. We’ve seen this movie before. It’s called "Reagan’s deregulation," except back then they just kind of let the air traffic controllers go and hoped nobody noticed. Now, they’re using "data-driven" approaches to do it.
The administration claims this is about "accountability." They want to ensure that federal employees are actually working and not just collecting a paycheck. To which I say: Have you *seen* congress? We’re talking about the legislative branch, where the average workweek is about 12 hours and the primary job requirement is being able to raise $50,000 a day for your reelection campaign. But sure, let’s slap the wrist of a GS-9 at the Social Security Administration who processes claims for a living.
**The Irony Is Thicker Than a Steak at Mar-a-Lago**
Here’s the kicker, the part that makes me want to laugh until I choke on my iced coffee: The people pushing this "efficiency" agenda are the least efficient people on the planet.
We’re talking about an administration that spent four years golfing. An administration whose cabinet picks have the organizational skills of a wet napkin. They want to talk about *performance*? Last time I checked, the border wall wasn't finished, the infrastructure week was a meme, and the response to a global pandemic was largely, "Have you tried injecting bleach?"
The sheer audacity is staggering. They are going to hold a Zoom meeting to discuss how to minimize Zoom meetings. They are going to hire a consultant for $2 million to tell them how to cut costs. They are going to build a new website that crashes on day one to track the productivity of people who build websites.
And who is going to be on the chopping block? It won’t be the political appointees. It won’t be the high-level donors who got cushy ambassador posts to France. No, it’s going to be the people who actually answer the phones. The data entry clerk in Oklahoma. The park ranger in Montana. The food safety inspector who actually stops you from getting E. coli from your romaine lettuce.
**The "Ghost in the Machine" Problem**
Let’s talk about the actual methodology for a second. How exactly do you measure the productivity of a federal worker?
If you work at the IRS, is your metric "number of audits completed"? Great, we’ll have a bunch of auditors rubber-stamping returns to hit their quota, and then the rich people will get away with even more because the complex cases take too long. If you work at the EPA, is your metric "number of permits processed"? Congrats, we just fast-tracked a permit for a factory that dumps lead into a river because the guy in charge was worried about his quarterly review.
This is the "Goodhart's Law" in action: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. They are setting up a system that incentivizes the exact opposite of what the government should be doing. They aren't measuring the *quality* of the work, just the *quantity* of the clicks.
This is how you end up with a federal workforce that spends all day sending "synergy" emails to each other to prove they are typing, while the actual mission—whether it's protecting the air or securing the border—goes to hell in a handbasket.
The real goal here is pretty obvious to anyone with a brain cell and a pulse: Privatization. You make the public sector look so bloated and incompetent that you can justify handing the contracts to your buddies at Halliburton or some other defense contractor who will do the job for three times the price and half the quality. It’s the classic "starve the beast" strategy.
First, you defund the agencies. Then, you blame the workers for being lazy. Then, you fire them. Then, you hire back the same work as a contractor for $200/hour. It’s a beautiful grift, and we’re all paying for it.
**The AITA Verdict**
So, to the administration: Are you the asshole for trying to bring "corporate
Final Thoughts
Having covered enough bureaucratic battles to know the difference between policy and theater, I’d argue that the true test of any administration isn’t its grand pronouncements, but its quiet, unglamorous capacity to make the machinery of government work for the average citizen. When we reduce "administration" to a mere synonym for political leadership, we miss the far more critical, grinding work of execution — the budgeting, the rule-making, the interdepartmental diplomacy — where good intentions go to either thrive or die. Ultimately, a president can set the compass, but it’s the unsung administrators who steer the ship, and a failure to respect their craft is the first step toward a failed term.