Why No Mention of Efficiency?

As governments in the US (and to some degree here in Canada) wrestle with global financial system strains, deficits and austerity programs, the lack of attention paid to scrutiny of current system inefficiencies simply astounds me.
Remember the old story of the $125 hammer in the US military budget?
I just read that the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued an audit report criticizing the Federal government for paying out $600 million to dead former Federal employees over the past five years. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/report-govt-paid-600-million-benefits-dead-people-155600786.html
About a year ago, President Obama mentioned in a speech that digitizing medical records in the US would release $75 billion annually in medical administration expenses.
I have no idea as to the accuracy of either of these claims, and imagine there are hidden complexities involved in each case, but what amazes and troubles me is the lack of discussion (at least in the media) about how we might find relief by seeking more efficiency in current programs.
All we seem to hear about are the ‘either/or’ options of raising taxes or cutting spending, and the cutting always seems to involve the slashing of full programs. But as every private sector company knows today, a better solution is to keep effective programs but make them as lean as possible.
Effective government leadership here would involve a clearer explanation of our debt challenges and their long-term implications, and a request for public service employees (and the rest of us too) to examine their work areas for efficiency ideas that eliminate careless waste. Just as most of us have by now learned, and follow, new recycling habits (with little disruption to our lifestyles), so can we learn to operate more efficiently in other areas, with minor irritation or inconvenience.
But doing so requires personal ownership and accountability, and that comes (in companies and countries) when good leaders a) galvanize our attention around the pressing changes that are needed, and b) inspire us to want to do our part to achieve better results.
Example: the largest US trucking firm persuaded it’s 10,000 truck drivers that by raising the air conditioning temperature by several degrees for only a few hours at night (most sleep overnight in their trucks on long hauls), they’d save gallons of fuel and significantly reduce pollution, with little or no discomfort in their sleep. They tried it out, and saved $24 million a year.
Peter Drucker capsulized the essence of good leadership in two questions: “What needs to be done?” and ” What can, and should I do about it?”
If our public leaders don’t get it, may I suggest we speak to our MPs and MPPs about general efficiency within the current system, and at least prod them to explore how much systemic waste might be eliminated.
We may just discover that a large portion of our deficit can easily evaporate.

email a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *