How the Elon Musk-Vivek Ramaswamy DOGE initiative could help Americans dodge red tape

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 16/12/2024 (636 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

This article was originally published on The Conversation, an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. Disclosure information is available on the original site.

___

Authors: W. Dominika Wranik, Professor, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University; Nachum Gabler, PhD Student in Public Administration, Dalhousie University; and Vurain Tabvuma, Professor, Sobey School of Business Management, Saint Mary’s University

Donald Trump’s proposed new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is already earning praise and criticism in the United States weeks before the president-elect’s inauguration.

So far, there’s only vague information on how this new department — headed by Tesla founder Elon Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy — plans to reach its stated goal to streamline and improve how the U.S. federal government operates.

DOGE’s goals may be desirable or detestable, depending on who you ask. But partisanship aside, could DOGE potentially have any benefits?

Quite possibly, depending on how wisely its policies are implemented. Some parts of government operations could be removed without the loss of programs or any threat to public servants’ jobs.

As public administration and management scholars, we believe DOGE should start by cutting red tape and reducing the onerous bureaucratic hurdles faced by ordinary citizens when using government services, an issue that’s been dubbed administrative burden.

No value

Red tape and administrative burden refers to all the rules, forms, protocols and procedures that employees and citizens must use or follow, but do not add any value or help an organization to function. Red tape and administrative burden are perceived as pointless extra requirements that stand in the way of doing necessary work or providing or accessing services.

There is a lot of evidence documenting the negative impacts of red tape at both individual and organizational levels. Red tape can reduce employee engagement, job satisfaction and workers’ commitment to their employers, and overall operational effectiveness.

Cutting red tape would therefore be beneficial for public servants and taxpayers alike. Public servants would face fewer obstacles in delivering services to the public, and taxpayers would receive services in a more effective manner. We can’t think of any key stakeholders or special interests lining up to defend red tape.

DOGE should also turn its attention to administrative burden, which is basically red tape that citizens have to cut through in order to access programs and service. In terms of tangible drawbacks, administrative burden can erode citizens’ trust in government and even undermine democratic norms and inclusivity.

People and programs are key stakeholders and the raison d’être for government-provided service. Similar to red tape, it’s hard to imagine citizen advocacy groups opposing and lobbying against the reduction of burdensome administrative procedures.

Undercutting morale

DOGE should be cautious, however, about gutting the administrative capacity of the federal government to the point that it can’t fulfil its main responsibilities. It would be careless to broadly slash public service jobs.

Evidence suggests that a scorched Earth approach to improving government efficiency could have unintended negative consequences. It can undermine employee morale, effort, motivation, productivity and operational effectiveness — which is all counter to the goal of improving government efficiency.

Instead, DOGE should start by building credibility with the public and key stakeholders and avoid appearing too partisan. If it looks like it’s disproportionately targeting parts of the government that had strong support from the previous administration — like the environment, public housing and health-care departments — that might erode the public’s confidence and negatively affect DOGE’s image over the long run.

DOGE could also have an impact on public perceptions via its messaging and how it describes its work. Talk of thinning out the ranks of “bureaucrats” could be more acceptable in the eyes of the American public than laying off dedicated “government workers” or “public servants.”

We think DOGE should avoid derisive depictions of bureaucracies that paint the whole public sector in an overly negative light. Refraining from badmouthing bureaucracies or bureaucrats may reduce some of the negative stereotyping and growing ire directed at public servants.

Peeling back the layers of red tape

The choice of name for the new unit — the Department of Government Efficiency — is worth considering. The term efficiency can be misunderstood as being synonymous with laying off employees. That’s one possible way of increasing efficiency, but it’s not the only way in either the private or public sectors.

Efficiency can also be increased by producing more with the same resources through improvements in processes — for example, by eliminating red tape. It can also be boosted by producing more desirable programs and services that align better with society’s changing needs.

In short, there’s good reason to do away with pointless and cumbersome processes, rules and procedures, and to streamline and improve how the U.S. federal government operates.

Partisan controversies aside, a worthwhile mandate for DOGE is to start peeling back the layers of red tape that have accumulated over many years, and then slowly begin focusing on redundant programs, regulations and non-essential agencies. It should avoid slashing public service jobs en masse, or eliminating valuable programs that easily pass the cost-benefit test.

___

W. Dominika Wranik receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council that supports the research of the Professional Motivations Research Lab focusing on public sector employees’ experiences.

Vurain Tabvuma receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Nachum Gabler does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
___

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Disclosure information is available on the original site. Read the original article: https://theconversation.com/how-the-elon-musk-vivek-ramaswamy-doge-initiative-could-help-americans-dodge-red-tape-245014