Deliberation and Hiring Freezes

In our chapter on bureaucracy and the administrative state, we write of efforts to improve performance by measuring outcomes (pp. 470-471). Paul Light writes on reform of the federal bureaucracy:

It's the service, stupid. If a job does not accelerate and improve performance, it should be cut.

Such a motto requires a deliberate implementation process, however. Instead of using a freeze as the tool for flattening, the federal government must use a more deliberative process. Every supervisory layer and job has to be evaluated. If they contribute to speed and performance, they stay. If not, they go. Either the resources go back into the agency for more front-line employees, or back to the treasury for debt relief.

Flattening the layers and harvesting the resources saved is a perfect job for deputy secretaries and administrators. They should establish the criteria for evaluating each layer, propose needed cuts, and implement permanent change. Most agencies already have the authority to do so in statute. The devil will be in the details, but Congress generally gives the benefit of the doubt to agencies on basic structure.

The place to start is at the very top where presidential appointees and civil service executives occupy one of the most byzantine hierarchies imaginable. Alongside eliminating bonuses and cash awards for appointees, the Obama administration might impose its own deep cuts in the 2,000 political officers appointed without Senate confirmation. A freeze on these appointments would not only save money, it would send the signal that the president means business about improving performance all the way to the bottom.