A private company will hype the same information that a government agency will downplay.
Companies that can choose on which criteria it will be judged often appear to outperform those who are judged on anything.
One topic I mentioned in my last post was weather forecasting. There are some obvious benefits to involving the private sector in what has traditionally been a public concern. However, the limits of the market are very obvious in the context of weather. A private company can choose its range of focus in order to define itself as successful without serving public interests. Sure, we got that thunderstorm wrong, but our specialty is blizzard forecasting.
It can also market itself according to recent performance by trumpeting accurate predictions or remaining quiet after a poor forecast. Over time, this cycle is sure to create a skewed impression of the company in the mind of anyone who isn’t paying close attention to the company’s predictions (which is to say, pretty much everyone).
There is a point where complacency turns to alarm and alarm turns to action. How far away from a tornado does the calendar need to be before these transitions take place?
Learning about a threat without understanding the mentality of those being threatened makes it very challenging to help people respond to the threat.
It’s very threatening to learn that someone can use an algorithm to replicate the results of someone with decades of experience.
Another limit of the private sector’s ability to meet public concerns is the nature of specialization. A company that expertly collects, aggregates, and synthesizes data can make a decision – do we profit by sticking to what we do well or do we extend our business into areas of lesser expertise such as analysis and application? It works the same way for considering short and long term – should we ignore the short-term gain if it will leave a long-term mess for someone else?
The public sector rarely enjoys the luxury of considering these dualities. For a government, data isn’t collected unless it will be applied and no one magically shows up in twenty years to clean up the externalities from today’s profits. This reality positions government to solve problems that the vaunted private sector almost by definition cannot address – how to provide good enough storm shelters without discouraging most people from evacuating, for example, or implementing job training programs for those made redundant by new processes and technologies.
Leadership teams must always know where they are going to be intentional. These are the things that continue to be worked on throughout busy periods.
I remember from Alfred P. Sloan’s My Years with General Motors that this was one of the three biggest problems in corporations – how to stay focused on long-term goals throughout a busy period. He may have been correct in the sense of it being a problem but what I’m not so sure of is whether it applies just to corporations.
People used to measuring everything in terms of progress struggle to adapt to environments where the relevant concern is keeping up.
People who like their work should find ways to keep doing their work.
I thought these two insights were related in the sense that the pace, rhythm, and style of work is often an important consideration (especially for those who don’t necessary have a preferred or defined line of work). The type of person who likes to see consistent and regular progress is probably well suited for the short-term considerations of the private sector while those who enjoy the challenge of maintenance might find themselves at home in the public sector.
All I ever wanted to be... was an elevator operator, can you help me, please?
I won’t even pretend this is something other than a Courtney Barnett lyric. If you get bored today, though, ‘Elevator Operator’ is a jam – here’s the best version I found.
Is there any better way to end a riff off?
