Follow Her Red Shoes

https://bookstore.gpo.gov/products/innovating-government-re-designing-executive-branch

Administration after administration has complained that implementing change is hindered by bureaucracy, siloed structures, inefficient funds from congress, and archaic, burdensome practices.

While true, no one has asked the people in the system how to fix these very problems…until now.

Innovation Fellows are Americans with special expertise that are now being brought into the executive branch to address these root issues. Though not often recognized, innovation in the U.S. Government has historically impacted 60% of economic growth, enabled the superior capabilities of our defense program, and solved problems facing our nation ranging from healthcare to the arts. But now, government innovation has a new goal: modernize the executive branch for the 21^st century. The question is: How?

News, politicians, and bureaucrats alike have focused on congress and the Administrations to make the major changes and improvements to the government but all have missed a key, important point. These groups add up to only 552 people. Compared to the 2.4 million executive branch employees, their impact can only be, by design, limited.

But what if we designed solutions from within the branch? What if the employees shared their views on how to improve the system? What if we listened to the true experts in the U.S. Government?

Through a review of the expansive innovation programs working to solve national issues, a book recently released to the public, Innovating Government, provides a voice for many of the 2.4M executive branch employees…or who I like to call, America’s unsung heroes. These workers make the daily decisions, decide expenditures, and do the work. This is a rare glimpse inside the executive branch, the innovation happening in our nation, and how all this work can be used to re-design the government for the 21st century and prepare our nation to be ready for the future. It provides clear solutions that address root issues, define policy change recommendations, and even design improved communication structures that can better connect Americans to programs and executive branch innovators and directors to congress.

Ultimately, this re-design plan has been informed by the very people who are most deeply involved in the government: those who know the real issues and the solutions they need. Contrary to popular belief, government workers are incredibly dedicated employees that are here with one joint purpose: to do the very best work they can for the American people they serve. This book aims to elevate their voices to maximize their efforts for nation.

One of the greatest mistakes we all make when we are young is to believe that our great idea is either a) totally brand new and/or b) that everyone is as excited about it as we are. It’s not surprising because we spend our early years oftentimes being praised whether it be at home or in school. Alternatively, those not being praised, must expend enormous amounts of personal energy to get the inertia needed to leave an oppressed environment. But those that do, will likely believe the former fallacies as well because they’ve proven to themselves that even without help, they can compete at the top.

And then we move into adulthood – we go to college or get a job, we move away, we get hit, hard, with the realities. Not everyone is excited for you. Not everyone wants to hear what you have to say. Not everyone believes in you. Not everyone even wants you to win – especially if your success somehow diminishes theirs. The real world can be much tougher than we are led to believe as children, regardless of background.

So what are some key lessons I’ve learned working in one of the most entrenched systems we have in this nation: The federal government?

First, listen. I can’t foot stomp this enough. If you don’t know what people want, how in the world are you going to convince them that your idea is something of interest to them? In military, we say WIIFM: What’s in it for me? No one can answer this question without first listening to the very people to whom you want to send your message.

Two, make the pathway to yes/agreement easy, clear, and beneficial to them. It is easy in any system but especially in one where we feel passionate, such as helping our children or protecting our nation, to feel the compulsion to defend and explain why our ideas are the best ideas. It is easy to fall into the trap of excitement and share all the details. Rarely does anyone want to hear them all – not because they aren’t excited for you or supportive of your idea but they have ideas and tasking of their own. It is presumptive to assume or suggest that your work is more important than theirs. Rarely is it the case that this is what we mean but nonetheless, this is where we accidentally, but commonly, misstep being lost in our own enthusiasm. Stay focused on gaining buy-in through collaboration over explanation.

Three, name your target but don’t create a rigid pathway to get there. Be open to others’ ideas for how to achieve the same goal. You might find they add substantially to either the quality or completion of the goal.

Always remember, when people are part of creating the solutions, they become your champions – but when they are the recipient of your plan, they become your critics.

-jjoy

I just finished my last days as a federal government employee – wow, what an experience! Inspired by the 2016 election, I wanted to better understand why we’ve become so messy, so angry, so unable to understand what our government is doing…

I’ve worked on government contracts and grants for years supporting our amazing military, answering the hard questions in education, and working with teams of scientists to tackle a wide variety of issues but this past election was so intense, it drove me to do something different. So I quit my job, walked straight into government, and started asking the hard questions.

But when I applied for a human innovation fellowship, I had little idea of what I would experience. I was asked in my interview to come into government, observe patterns of behavior, and make recommendations about how, from a human-perspective, we could re-design the executive branch. To say that it was a daunting concept to try to imagine would be a significant understatement. But also, to assume that one person could have all the ideas needed or even just new ideas that haven’t already been tried, would be equally unwise. As such, I spent a significant portion of my first year in this branch simply observing – just as I was asked to do.

My first observations, on my very first day, were of a group of people that conducted the on-boarding trainings I had to attend. These were some of the most enthusiastic, dedicated employees I had ever met. They exuded what I had hoped, but held little to no faith, existed across the rest of the government. One man in particular stuck out. He was the person in charge of ensuring the building was, and remained, vermin free so that we could be enabled to do our job. This man, who came into our meeting almost at a run and with a smile that lit up the room, literally offered us his cell number to call him any time of day or night, to ensure we had the best work space available to us at all times so we could serve America. All I could think was, whomever hired this guy was a genius! Even in a tie he’s offering to hunt vermin!

As my journey progressed, I met people at the lowest ranks who made sure my medical paperwork was signed and personally expedited if needed and other individuals at mid-ranks so eager to talk and share their work that it was almost impossible to end conversations because their enthusiasm to serve was so heartfelt. I traveled the world and met delegates from other nations who gave me insights and viewpoints from their own cultures and so many Generals and Admirals that wholly supported multi-national defense efforts. I met bright-eyed young people ready to shape the future and yes, I learned that rules and regulations – and many, many attorneys – exist among the ranks. But I can honestly say that I was not only surprised and impressed by these workers at every level, across every department, I was truly blown-away by the dedication to work, to serve, and to help others they displayed.

Simply put, I was inspired.

Innovation isn’t about re-inventing the wheel, it’s about simply connecting the dots and in that vein, I learned that our federal government is made up of over 4 million dedicated Americans willing, able, and enthusiastic about serving our nation, our people.

It has been my honor to serve among these unsung American heroes – I hope my experiences gives you hope and faith that while we may only see the arguments of our politicians on TV, there is an enormous force of individuals who are working hard for all of us, every single day.

-JJoy

We’ve been hearing a lot of politicians talk about fighting for the middle class and certainly, we need to help control the balance of power because the division between the haves and the have-nots creates a myriad of problems. Oftentimes, the discussion though focuses on a goal of regulating fairness and that if people are nice or rich, they are obligated to help those less fortunate. An important question to ask though is: Do we believe as a nation that government is allowed to tell us how to live our lives?

But there’s also another question and this one often goes overlooked: Is regulation the most effective way of supporting the middle class?

There are times that we simply have to put rules and laws in place for safety purposes and to deal with individuals who are intentionally lying, cheating, or stealing. But it becomes less clear when we consider individuals who enter into the highest income spaces if they got there through genius or family history. Should these people also be told how to spend their money? Are they morally obligated because government says they have to share their wealth?

In a socialist society it is expected, or rather, required but in a capitalistic society it is generally not.  Why? Because the assumption is that if we limit the height of achievement, we inadvertently reduce motivation to compete and more than that, collectively, we lose out on the ideas those high achievers share, even if they don’t share their fortunes.

Further, I would argue that opportunity alone does not support the middle class. It’s akin to putting a child in a resource-rich classroom but without a teacher to guide them. In technical terms, this is called discovery learning and it has been debunked in science because basically, when the blind lead the blind, erroneous outcomes are expected. People at the highest levels of income don’t get there simply because they worked 40 hours in a low stress job nor because they followed the typical rules of liner job progression. They get there because they think outside the box, work crazy hours, make connections with people, are confident, resilient, goal-oriented, and determined. Yes, some of it is due to opportunity. Yes, there is also generally a bit of luck involved. Yes, coming from a resource-rich family helps. But none of these things alone guarantees success.

So if the only answers we have to help our middle class are to give them opportunities and force the highest income earners to share their money – I think we will be in a perpetually vicious cycle that creates a pathway for a few individuals but never manages to empower all.

Instead, let’s develop the tool kits of all our people and help our nation appreciate the diverse capabilities and interests of each individual. The benefits of a collective mentality aren’t supported by a socialist, forced system. Rather, they are enhanced by helping every individual shine in their own brilliance and making the national connections that benefit everyone.

We see it often these days: someone supports a subgroup of the population and others assume they are simultaneously implying they are against everyone not part of that group. But when I support one of my children in their activities, no one assumes I do it at the expense of the other ones.

Why the difference?

In short, expectation and our funny brains. What does that mean? First, we assume parents love all their children so we attribute positive intentions to them when we see them supporting a child. We are not quick to assume they do so just to point out the differences between their children. In society though, in a nation filled with diversity, where many of the subgroups are feeling like they are at a disadvantage, it’s not so clear.

Are we lifting up and energizing a group? Or are we dressing up negativity with feigned smiles?

In truth, it’s probably one sometimes and the other other times. In other words it’s both – likely depending on how the person is feeling that day. I tend toward the former because it’s just my personality to focus on the positive and I’m not an easily angered or offended person. But I can certainly respect and accept that others are angry. Still, why assume if they are rallying support that it necessarily implies negativity toward others?

The other issue keeping us from seeing rainbows is our brains. The brain has a natural tendency to fill in gaps. So when a sentence feels like it should be longer, we will actually fill in the ending from our perspective, even if the speaker never intended that implication. So when we say we lift up women, it doesn’t necessarily mean we want to put down men. I support all sorts of male candidates in politics; I am simultaneously incredibly proud of the women that have learned to juggle all that comes with having children and families and still running for office. Women in politics is still relatively very new and we need a little extra encouragement and ata-girls to build us up. Is that so bad?

I’m not an activist but I support people lifting up all the different groups in our society. I know this isn’t utopia; everything isn’t fair and certainly not equal so sometimes we need to lift up, support extra, or become better knowledgeable about minority needs. It’s not meant to harm the majority population, it’s simply meant to lift up those who need it.

But just like my children, at all times, I appreciate all Americans.

-jjoy

In a recent publication (PDK50, 2018), they report that parents increasingly don’t want their children to grow up to be teachers because the pay is so low. Unfortunately, it’s too easy to not increase teachers’ pay because their salaries are paid by taxes, rather than directly, and the results of their work are not immediately observable. It creates an easy target for reducing allocations in budgets.

But how many educators are in politics? 

Unfortunately, not many teachers are in politics – it’s a significant career change. But without their voices represented directly, decision makers can not only adjust salaries without realizing the implications in the classroom but education policy can also suffer from top-down decision making where politicians, instead of teachers, are defining parameters. These two issues may seem isolated to those with children but instead, they are more accurately described as national issues because when our children of tomorrow only have access to the lowest cost, technically acceptable education that is defined by individuals who don’t have a background in education…we create a long term problem for employers, social security recipients, and defense. Without young people working, the social security pots are not replenished. Without building resilience into our youth and other social and emotional skills, the ripple effect of adult decision making and emotional issues becomes a greater problem.

The teachers of Los Angeles have finally had enough and taken to the streets to remind us all that we need to support them, their salaries, and respect and appreciate their abilities to encourage and empower the next generation.

Thank you to all our teachers – WE LOVE YOU!!!

-jjoy

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash Photo by Thought Catalog on Unsplash

Political discourse has been a long-term norm. In some ways, I find this ironic given that we aren’t really enemies but rather, we are colleagues and a national family trying to achieve largely the same goals. Everyone wants to live in peace, have access to the opportunities they need to live a happy life, and security to know that they and their children will be safe from illness, harm, and financial ruin. It is the pathway to achieve these goals, however, that is oftentimes different…and so we have discord.

But is that the true underlying issue?

I don’t think so because it were, we would be more concerned with running the same path than achieving the ultimate destination. While it is a common pitfall to get caught up in the details of designing and demanding the path, metaphorically seeing the trees but missing the forest, when a person or group is given the opportunity to step back, generally, they will find the destination most important.

But there are two other issues that plague this system. The first is the need for power. With not enough competition for resources comes people who look for challenges to create. In other words, for those people who are biologically wired to need these constant fights in their lives, if there is not enough inherent struggle, they will create it. And so you see in the media, the rise of individuals who simply and honestly enjoy a good political fight. It’s in their blood, as they say.

The second underlying issue is a lack of vision, or the ability to see a different framing of the problem. Growing up poor, I thought my goals were to get an education which would allow me to have a strong resume that would allow me to apply for and get a good job – which I would work for a long time to make a higher salary. But when I went to college, I was the scholarship kid amongst the extensively wealthy, and what I observed was unimaginable to me. I learned I was approaching the system entirely wrong. It wasn’t a linear system that rewarded good behavior, achievement, or the proof of capability. Rich people didn’t make their fortunes off their salaries, they made them through investments and across generations. The kids of these wealthy families weren’t at college to get an education, they were there to make friends with people who would become their colleagues in the future. And none of them cared about a resume because it was an archaic piece of paper that didn’t tell your skills but rather was a glaring demonstration that you didn’t know how to work in the system. Rather than proof that you were capable, it was proof that you were ignorant. What I was supposed to do was know who needed what I had to give. Then call someone who would call the first person and speak for me – not about a job they already had available but about a job I invented and believe they needed.

Yelling louder in politics, using linear arguments and pathways to force change, and demanding to use only the methods we always have renders us useless in a game of Rubik’s cube – a metaphorical space where we will be out maneuvered every time simply because we aren’t approaching the problem space with a visionary eye.

Equity will never be achieved so long as information remains technically acceptable but not realistically consumable. The power within the system is no longer held by force but rather by knowledge of a more sophisticated game approach.