22 August 2007

Frog in the Pot



You reap what you sow, and dinner is what you put in the pot on the stove.   Any farmer or cook knows that, but we are so disconnected from the world on which we walk that we forget. We live in the eternal “now.” Wiggling out of short-term problems with easy (and short-term solutions) sets up deferred consequences that are perfectly predictable and disticntly unpalatable.

Deferring them makes them someone else's problem, or at least that is the theory. We are about to deal with the consequences of the housing bubble, every one of us that owns a house. It seemed like such a good idea when prices were skyrocketing.

Next year the Social Security problem will begin, and the medical entitlement mess. I have no idea what the climate is going to be like next year, except they say it will be warm.

I worry about that, since it seems like we are in the frog-in-the-pot situation. Some of the troops in Iraq talk about the phenomenon. If you plop one of the amphibians in a pot of boiling water, it will jump out immediately. If you plop the frog in cool water and gently bring it to a simmer, it will remain there happily until fully cooked.

They say the effects of climate change were first observed in the frog populations in the lower temperate zones, with millions of the little creatures disappearing. Maybe we will run out of them, and not be able to duplicate the experiment.

I had a chance to participate in an experiment with a portion of the Federal workforce, the intelligence analysts who had supported the great structure of the Cold War.

It was in the aftermath of the first Desert War, and the former Soviet Union was in shambles. Congress was intent on spending what they called “The Peace Dividend” on other great new ideas. Some major collection programs were scrapped, but the satellites and sensors have aggressive constituencies among those who build them. The easy place to go for savings was in the personnel accounts. Congress mandated a 17% reduction in the of Spook personnel pool.

You would think that a reasonable approach would have been to find the weak performers and fire them, pruning the population so it retained health and vitality.

That would have been difficult, though, what with the civil service procedures and endless appeals. The temperature was rising to produce savings. Consequently, each of the agencies took the same general approach: a series of early retirement options were trotted out, and the people who did not take them were allowed to attrite their time in an orderly and predictable manner.

The practical consequence was that the intelligence community did not hire anyone for nearly a decade. The analysts matured in their ruts, and the average age soared.   Promotions stagnated and talented analysts- particularly those with technical skills- bailed out of government for greener lily pads.

The problem was recognized even as we started down the road, but there was no choice. The issue was becoming acute as the Intelligence Community approached the millennium. I fondly recall one initiative at the agency where I worked which was intended to lower the average job level in the work force by a full grade. I marveled at how they intended to pull that off without wide-spread rioting; I guess that thought was that since everyone onboard was eligible to retire anyway, they would just replace them, one-for-one, with newer lower-paid workers.

Then the world changed, or at least an alarm clock went off. After 9/11, the coffers were opened, and a hiring frenzy began that had not been seen since the first days of the Reagan Administration.

The consequences were equally predictable. Having been in a deep-freeze for so long, the Community forgot that its little quirks and foibles were not as endearing to recent college graduates as it was to those who had been in the system for a lifetime.

Today, the average analyst at CIA has been on the job for less than three years and retention sucks.

There is so much more money available to them in the private sector, which is selling back the cleared talent to the government.

There is one little problem in this, which any frog would recognize, regardless of the temperature of the water. When the government first reached out for the private sector to meet it's sudden need for experienced analysts, there were plenty of them available- at a price.

It is a low-bid world, though, and it is a long time since the Towers came down. The old pros are expensive and they have continued to age as the water in the pond got hotter. The contract services being sold back to the government may meet the specification for clearance, but not for experience.

I visited one Government customer who disparagingly called her bullpen of young contract analysts “Fraternity Row” for their antics. The expertise is still available; but it comes at a competitive cost. It is much cheaper to hire two young workers than a single old toad. Even the most enthusiastic young workforce cannot execute complex tasks as efficiently as more seasoned pros with an understanding of the mission.

 It is literally the worst of all worlds. The Government has to bear the cost of initial training, and when the kids leave, they have to hire them back as contractors or start all over again at a higher price. The reasoning was that using contractors gave the Government the flexibility it did not have when we were directed to cut the workforce, and now it can't even perform the most basic and inherently governmental functions all on its own.

As a taxpayer, you will be happy to know that the problem has been recognized, and there will be a report on the matter issued shortly with substantive recommendations.   

The frog won't care, though. It seems to have fallen asleep, and the chef by the pot is only there in the kitchen on a short-term contract. I think he intends to eat elsewhere.

Copyright 2007 Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com


Close Window