[ANNOUNCER]: Breaking down everyday workplace issues and diagnosing the hidden sickness, not just the obvious symptom. Our hosts, James and Coby.

[COBY]: Did we lose a patient?

[JAMES]: No, that’s just my lunch.

[COBY]: Hey, thanks for joining us. I’m Coby, he’s James. And let’s get started with a question. What happens when we have mass public sector layoffs?

[JAMES]: Yeah, okay. before answering this question, the actual question, I think it’s important that, to establish a little bit of context about why are we talking about public sector layoffs. Well, at the time that we’re recording this, there have been several fairly monumental changes proposed or implemented at the Federal Public service, to the Federal Public Service in the United States. So I’m going to try to lay out the facts as I understand them. But let’s be real. Not being American and recognizing that things change very, very quickly. I’ve not been hanging on every news release, news, article, press release or statement that has come out. But in the past two weeks, or in the last, in the first two weeks of his second term, President Trump has started to follow through on some of his campaign promises to reduce the federal bureaucracy and the perceived bloat within the federal civil service. So there have been a few major events happen to advance those goals. One is the, suspension of all DEI workers and AATE mandate to close all DEI offices within the next 60 days. right now it’s unclear how many people this has affected it. the second piece is the reintroduction of schedule F which reclassifies permanent policy related positions from career positions to become politically pointed positions. and it’s estimated that tens, if not hundreds of thousands of positions could be affected by this change alone. and then the third major event was that an estimated 2 million government employees received a deferred resignation offer via email. And essentially if they resigned by February 6th, they would retain their salary and their benefits until September. if even 10% of the people affected by this were to accept the layoff or the deferred, resignation, it would represent the single largest layoff in U.S. history by a factor of, So all of those things together, the stated intent of these, changes aren’t in and of themselves bad. the stated reasons for these changes are to reduce government waste and increase government efficiency. Both goals that I believe are important. Where I disagree and quite substantially, and we’ll get into that, I’m sure in more detail in this conversation, is the manner in which these goals are being advanced. I don’t know the US Federal Civil Service nearly as well as I know the Canadian Federal Civil Service because I have worked in, worked around and worked with ah, Canadian governmental agencies for many, many years. And I am truly convinced that there is a tremendous opportunity to increase efficiencies in our, both provincially, federally in our civil service as well. So stated goals aren’t necessarily terrible. Let’s examine what happens when we put some of these policies into place without necessarily a strategy for how we are going to reform afterwards.

[COBY]: Yeah. And I think that it’s also kind of good for us just to mention too that this whole episode isn’t going to be about us just talking about the recent events from the Trump administration. I want to talk a little bit about what’s happened in public sector layoffs in the past here in Canada. We can talk a little bit about kind of what mass layoffs do in general. And I think that I always like it when we kind of look at something that’s kind of topical with a historical perspective and an economic development perspective, because I do think those add a lot of value and a lot of clarity to kind of some stuff that’s kind of top of mind right now.

[JAMES]: So especially with governmental changes. Right. There’s direct, significant impact that the delivery of governmental services has on our economies.

[COBY]: Yeah, absolutely. So, I mean, digging into a little bit about the idea around, I think one of the biggest things that, the biggest impacts, the things that you mentioned is probably the federal employee receiving the resignation email. Right.

[JAMES]: The deferred resignation is. It s huge. I mean we’re talking hundreds of thousands of people could be affected.

[COBY]: Yeah. And I mean the idea of one of the things that always gets me and this is going to be kind of where I think we’re going to end up is the idea of reducing government, like, like bloated government spending and kind of like ah, and the overly bureaucratic kind of layers and kind of that even that large kind of middle management stuff that tends to kind of exist in a lot of governments over time. The idea of kind of like, you know, trimming the fat in a sense is something that there’s value in looking at how can we be more effective, how can we be more efficient? But the problem with, I guess, people that have built their careers in the private sector thinking they can just automatically transfer what they feel worked. I would disagree that it works in the private sector as well. but the idea of well, if there’s bloat, you cut the fat is something that I see that people have valued that approach in the past in the private sector, in the public sector, but. Sorry, in the private sector. But in the public sector it’s the idea of things are different. The goal is the efficiency is not meant to be about money spend as much as it is about quality of service because you’serving the public. The name couldn’t be more descriptive. I mean you say civil service. I actually prefer the term public service because to me that’s more descriptive. The goal is to serve the public. So efficiencies are about how much better can we serve the public? How can dollars be spent to increase what the public gets? And I feel like when we try and just cut and paste things that work in you business, which is about profitability, you know, saving money, that type of thing. And, and that’s the intended goal. And we forget the whole point of public service is to serve the public and that. So it’s a flawed idea, but it’s a flawed idea with no corresponding one to one connection that people often forget about.

[JAMES]: I’ve often railed against the. So one of the things that drives me absolutely bananas is when you have career, people who have worked in government for 20 years and never worked anywhere else, creating rules around how businesses operate or you know, business, support programs because there’s a, there’s a distinct lack of understanding if you’ve never worked in that realm of what it actually takes to start and run and grow a business. The same is true when you try to go the other way. And this is what we’re seeing. We’re seeing people who have a lot of private sector experience who’ve never under, never taken the time to understand or look at how governments actually operate differently than a private sector corporation and are just implementing rules that they think should work because this is what’s worked for. This is what they’ve always done in the past. Not recognizing the nuance and the difference between governmental agencies and corporate entities.

[COBY]: Yeah, well, and, but I mean you and I are not a big fan of blanket layoffs in any workforce ever. Right? So we always talk about how, you know, that’s something that is, it’s a reactionary, it’s a reactionary effort to a problem that is overly simplistic. But it’s flashy. Like really layoffs are ah, the performative solution of operational efficiencies. It’s like we want something that’s flashy, that’s big, that’s going to show a really quick win, lay everybody up so.

[JAMES]: Our shareholders that we’re doing something significant, that we’re taking this problem seriously.

[COBY]: Yeah, in a lot of ways that’s what it is. But like you made the comparison, off camera about it is like my doctor says I need to lose weight to be healthy, so I’ll just cut my arm off and boom, there’s like ten pounds gone. So therefore I must be healthier.

[JAMES]: Yeah, right. It’s that same mentality.

[COBY]: It is. it’s a stupid example, but it’s accurate.

[JAMES]: Well, it’s a stupid example, but it’s also a stupid thought process to begin with. And ah, if your actual goal is to lose, if losing weight is the means by which you’re trying to achieve your goal. Right. Your goal is to become healthier. Your goal is for government to become more efficient. The means by which you get there have, it’s the ends do not justify the means in all situations. And the means are very important. Right. Cutting off your arm to lose weight does not. Yes, it accomplishes the means of losing weight. It does not accomplish the goal of becoming healthier. Laying off tens, hundreds of thousands of people or more. We don’t know what the effects are going to be. Yeah, government will end up spending less money on salaries because there will be fewer people delivering services. Will that make government inherently more efficient? No, it’s going to create substantial gaps in service delivery.

[COBY]: Yeah, well, I think so. Again, we’re, we’re saying this isn’t a good thing. I think we can come to that agreement. But let’s talk about why we think it’s a good thing and let’s look back with some historical perspective to not that long ago and look at an example here in Canada just to kind of say what happened when there was mass public sector, layoffs. So in 2012 the Harper government in Canada, laid off 19,000 public sector employees, which was about 4, almost 5% of total government employees. A huge number.

[JAMES]: Good chunk.

[COBY]: Yeah. Much less than what we’re talking about happening of currently, but still a pretty significant, portion. And the fall out of that, again, again the idea of cuts where to save money, smaller government, all the use.

[JAMES]: We’re now 13 years removed from that event and we can look back and actually see what was the effect of that.

[COBY]: Yeah, and the effect of it wasn’t a lot of positive things. there was a decrease in the public service capacity. There was less people to do the work, to serve the public. There was a lot less, there was reduced consumer spending because A lot of the jobs that were cut were middle, income, families. So it had a major impact on the middle class because the private sector saw a big drop in consumer spending because there was less money to be spent because all these stable middle level income families now didn’t have the income. There was significant service delays and disruption going back to the decreased public sector capacity. Because what happened when you have those delays and disruptions in the short term you’re like, yeah, we save money on the salaries. But what happens is that downstream economic consequences come in. And this required provincial and municipal governments to majorly increase their spending in their investments like you a year or two later to restore lost service to cover the gaps. and that’s one thing that it’s almost like all you’re doing is you’re just, when these kind of disruptions happen, you’re just passing the buck ono someone else. You’re like, well that’s next year’s government’s problem, not my problem today. And that’s one thing people don’t realize that even when you do these cuts and you see that short term quarter savings, you’re seeing massive increase in a couple quarters down the road because you have to fill that gap with something.

[JAMES]: And it’s also it’s important to note that the effects are disproportionate as well. when we’re talking about how this impacts local economies, rural communities end up getting hit very, very hard by these types of cuts. Because in many rural communities, if there are government agencies that are set up there, they’re often above the middle, the median income levels. Right, right. So you end up losing the economic impact and the ability for people to engage in economic activities. Going out to eat, buying new whatever, you know, participating in society the way that we’ve told people that to be successful in society you have to buy stuff, it removes that ability to do it and it has a ripple effect throughout rural communities in a much more profound way than it does in many urban areas.

[COBY]: Yeah, so really if you’re listening to this and you are someone that you know, owns a small like retail sales business in a rural community, you’re going to feel this, you very well. I mean in about six months you are definitely going to feel this and you’ll be like why? And this is exactly why. It’s the downstream economic consequences.

[JAMES]: Yeah. And, but is a piece that irritates me though, because I mean I said it at the beginning, I don’t disagree with the stated intent. Right there are opportunities. There is a lot of government waste. We’ve seen it firsthand, in our dealings in different agencies and different levels and like there’s absolutely room for improvement. But what never gets talked about is actual reform. It’s never about what can we do differently. It’s what can we cut, what can we get rid of, where is the A access and let’s just get rid of. And we’re talking about people which is the other thing. And it’s just, it’s so counterintuitive to.

[COBY]: Me but this is, it is going back to again. Our favorite villain is performative solutions.

[JAMES]: Yeah.

[COBY]: And cuts and layoffs are performative. They’re not actually about solving the problem. Reform is about solving the problem.

[JAMES]: Yeah.

[COBY]: And, but reform is complex. Reform takes time. Reform is about trying something, evaluating it then and then adjusting as you go. It’s not simple, it’s not flashy and it’s not short term and you’re probably.

[JAMES]: Not going to get it right the first time out of the gate. It requires a substantial commitment, political will, perseverance, strategy.

[COBY]: Yeah, well and this is just said is that like I think that you and I are in an excellent position to talk about reform because though it’s not a term we use in our business, in our positioning the way we talk to clients, but it is exactly what we do. We do reform with the clients that we work with. We help them reform their governance structures. We help them reform their operational efficiency. We reform their employee experience. We help them, we help them assess, evaluate, create a strategy and support the long term change of this. And we know how hard it is. We know what is required from the people to stick it through and we know how hard it is to sell. But it’s something that if governments are talking about layoffs or talk. I know, sorry. They’re talking about bloat, talking about overly bureaucratic stuff and they’re not talking about reform. They are comfortable with the performative solution. They actually don’t want the problem solved. They want to look like the problem as being addressed. And that’s I think the thing that gets to me. And we saw this back again in 2012 with the public sector cuts of the 4 to 5% of total government employees. Right. And again, but like part of the negative impact of this again there was a lot in the middle class but ultimately who always suffers are the lower income families, the seniors, the vulnerable communities. And what happens is that it’s something that, because it’s Kind of like we talk about the idea of labor value loss and you know money. The losses aren’t showing up on the balance sheet. They’re just being felt and they, everything’s being slowed down because they’re not easy to see and they’re not flashy. Then it’s something that then they get ignored.

[JAMES]: But like pain experienced by those communities does not show up on a government balance sheet.

[COBY]: No. But I think something that also is keep in mind what makes a cut to the public sector public service so much more. The ripple effects of it is so much greater than it is in the private sector I think. Let’s talk a little bit about one of the biggest layoff kind of to date in the..

[JAMES]: The IBM layoff in 90 3 I think is the single large to date. I mean none of the, the things that we’ve been talking about have gone through yet. It’s still the largest historical event to date. And it was 60,000 employees which is a huge number. Right?

[COBY]: Absolutely.

[JAMES]: In 93 I think IBM posted a loss of like $8 billion.

[COBY]: And yeah, I’m not sure if that’s kind of when like the they say kind of like the.com or they in a bubble burst something like that. There some economic impact that happened. But yeah they lost was before I.

[JAMES]: Was paying off a lot of attention to business when you were in like junior high. This wasn’t when I was 11. Yeah.

[COBY]: But yeah. So but things is that it was a, it was an awful situation and those experience that you know were dealt with you know massive issues and problems and then all that kind of stuff.

[JAMES]: I mean the ripple effects still happen. Right. You cannot M. Lose 60,000 jobs from a community or from an area and not have that ripple through the entire community that’s affected. Right. Type of like people losing employment. They are not spending money the same way they’re you know we. It’s the proverbial. Well it’s time to tighten our belts. We need to survive and get through this. Yeah, but it’s also localized.

[COBY]: Yeah, exactly. Because. Because, because one thing you know I even I’m sure even in i3 I’m sure IBM was pretty spread out but it’s probably spread out mostly in like…

[JAMES]: A number of different communities. Right, Exactly.

[COBY]: Yeah but at the same time but it was largely mostly affected the people immediately who were laid off their families and likely their neighbors and communities because of decreased spending, and that kind of stuff. But it was fairly localized. But when you’re talking about the public service, the public sector. That is something that is everywhere because it affects everything from healthcare to education to environmental protection to you know like just kind of like everything.

[JAMES]: Microsoft customers probably did not notice any change in product or service. It’s a result of those 60,000 or.

[COBY]: Minor if there was.

[JAMES]: Yeah, right. Like if they, you would have to be very hyper vigilant and understand the nuances of what they are. Like if there was an effect on the, beyond the employee, on the consumer, on those who received the benefits of the work that was being done. Ye then it would have been very very minor. But that doesn’t translate from private sector to public sector because you start removing people who are delivering services who are responsible for developing programs or for managing budgets or for ensuring that paper is processed properly so people can receive their benefits. You start removing those people from doing their jobs. And it’s not about a product that is going to be delayed going out the door. It’s about people not rece receiving the services that they need to. In some cases, not every case but in some cases literally to survive.

[COBY]: Yeah. And that’s just it is that if there are. So what we’re saying is that there’s going to be negative, there’s going to be negative kind economic consequences to, of rural businesses. It’s going to be one thing that happens with mass public sector layoffs. There’s going to be decreased in service in a much more slow, slow down like delays and disruptions specifically to low income families, seniors and vulnerable communities and that’s something that we again was exactly what happened In Canada when 4% of government employees, 4 to 5% was let go. It’s when you look at other things that have happened in the UK and in Europe it’s very similar. These things happen very you know like they happen you know pretty consistently no matter what happens. Yeah, that and this is just that this is who is going to be the most affected by these things. And I think I want to like just jump kind of briefly to the side and cover one more things that you mentioned kind off the top of the current situation and talk a little bit about the DEI and employees and offices.

[JAMES]: Yeah, I’ll allow it.

[COBY]: All right, thank you sir. So let’s be clear. You and I are not a fan of layoffs. We were on the record for that. But you and I are also not the biggest fan of the way that DEI has been implemented in most organizations that we’ve come across.

[JAMES]: North America as a blanket statement.

[COBY]: Yeah. Partially because as much as we hate the performative aspect, especially of cuts. Right. The implementation of DEI has been kind of just as performative. Right?

[JAMES]: It does. I mean we’ve talked about this on the podcast many times before. We’ve talked about the mentality of diversity plus equity somehow magically creates inclusion. The idea that for many companies the DEI was about looking good rather than about being good.

[COBY]: Yeah, absolutely. That’s just said. And a lot of the employees that were hired into a lot of you know, government organizations and a lot of private companies and corporations were brought in and given very little authority. We’ve given very little, actually long term support were devalued but you know, and then we’re ineffective.

[JAMES]: Yeah.

[COBY]: And you know it’s one of those things where again we are very much in support of what the ideas around diversity, equity and inclusion being in a workplace should do. It’s about removing barriers so that meritocracy can be accessible to everyone. Yeah, that’s the point. And one thing that frustrates me is when I hear all the idea of the argument against DEI is meritocracy like well if you’re stupid. Yeah. because the whole point of what improving belonging, removing barriers and supporting effective representation is about pulling down the roadblocks so that meritocracy is not only for people at advantages, that meritocracy hiring by merit is available to everyone. That’s the point. And when DEI was put place just to look good on public on your website or just to have positions that you can point to saying yeah, we’re solving this issue. But no change happened, no support was given, there was no authority allowed. It did not remove the barriers. So meritocracy was allowed for everyone. It was a failure.

[COBY]: And so there s. So there’s a sense of, you know, what we’re going to see is we’re going to see, you know, with these DEI layoffs we’re going to see that it’s going to be a sweep across the whole spectrum of organizations in the US it’s already swept.

[JAMES]: It’s already gone beyond just federal and.

[COBY]: It’S going to go into Canada, it’s going to go into the UK and Europe. It’s going to happen everywhere. And there’s a sense of well the why they’re doing it is kind of, you know, is complicated. yes, it’s not working, but it’s not working because it was done badly.

[JAMES]: Stated Intent and using that phrase intentionally. the stated intent is that these programs aren’t working. So they need to go right. If you agree with that stated intent, then again it’s going back to the performative solution of just cutting people, like cutting programs, cutting people versus well, if the state, if it’s not working, then what can we do differently to make it work? How can we reform this into something that does accomplish the goals that it’s supposed to do?

[COBY]: And that’s just it. So, so if you’re in a business or you’re in a position where, you know, the idea of, well, the DEI wins have shifted and everyone’s cutting it. So we’re going to jump on board, take a beat and think again about reforms. Because that really is the answer.

[JAMES]: Reforming your language if you want to get away from the. Because there, let’s be honest, there’s. With these changes, there’s going to be some preconceived notions about DEI and so focus on belonging, focus on creating an environment where everyone can belong for who they are. That’s not DEI, that’s being a decent.

[COBY]: Human being or the idea of if. Because it’s so funny. I think a r, a contender for 2025’s Word of the year, I’m going to call it in early February, is going to be meritocracy. That’s going to be a real runner for. So make it about that. Make it about making a meritocracy accessible to everyone.

[JAMES]: Well and in order to do that you need to recognize that there are some systemic, there are some ways in which we’ve created systems.

[JAMES]: Historically, unintentionally, we’ve created systems that provide advantages to some and disadvantages to others. That meritocracy cannot exist in an environment where advantages are provided to some.

[JAMES]: So it’s not about necessarily removing advantage. Maybe it’s removing advantages, but I’d rather you focus on removing the disadvantages, the things that put people at a disadvantage. Right. Looking at how we actually structure our organizations, looking at how we create systems and processes and resources and tools and all of these things that we, how we approach our companies to remove barriers, to allow the best and brightest to want to work with us.

[COBY]: And that’s just what it’s like. One of the things that we talk about when we go in and do again these organizational reforms is we talk about usually we actually have them change how they do, if they have something like that. Because again, we’re usually Very unhappy with, without it’s being done. And one of the things we talk about is we say, you know, the idea of inclusion and belonging really should be the, you know, whether you want to use that language now because it’s kind of tainted like you said, or not. But that’s the idea of how can we as a company allow you to give us your best work.

[JAMES]: Yeah.

[COBY]: Is really the only real question that matters.

[JAMES]: And that question needs to be asked to everybody.

[COBY]: Exactly. Because the whole point is, regardless of their overt barriers or their background, everybody, even the most advantaged person, likely still would benefit from some level of customization to allow them to give you their best work. Everyone should be asked that question. And that should be the question of meritocracy. Right?

[JAMES]: Yah.

[COBY]: And that is one thing that we’re going to want to maybe reframe this. But I do think that making meritocracy available to everyone could be how we in our organizations still reach the actual stated goals of DEI but shed the baggage and the language and shed all the stuff that went wrong with it. I do think that may be a way to go. So I think the last thing I do want to kind of get into is we talked about reform. We talked about there is ability for public service to be, you know, to be improved and they’re actually to actually achieve the goals that you want to. And if we want to say okay. So we talked about how in Canada things have gone wrong. We kind of said this’s been similar in other countries like across Europe and UK and stuff like that. So where has this idea of reform been successful? I think is a fair question.

[JAMES]: Yeah.

[COBY]: And one of the things that I think probably not a lot of people know is that Singapore is actually an amazing example. Of what?

[JAMES]: Of public sector reform.

[COBY]: Yes. And how amazing it can be.

[JAMES]: Yeah.

[COBY]: So if you listening to this are not familiar with Singapore, Singapore’s government, one, I wouldn’t be that surprised. It’s you. It’s like unless you’re a nerd like us.

[JAMES]: We had an opportunity, to participate in a Global Advisor program, several years ago and met a phenomenal contact and advisor in Singapore. And I mean, let’s be honest, this is how we came across it was because it was. The information was given to us by somebody who experienced it and lived in it. And one, that program was phenomenal. And the, but hearing the way it was framed as really focused on the delivery of service, on the quality of services being delivered rather than purely the Numbers of people delivering services. I mean there’s a lot more nuance that we’ll get into. But it was a really interesting conversation and very enlightening to see how you can accomplish the big objectives of significant government reform and do it in a way that actually your services, the people who experience the benefits of your governmental services actually have a better outcome at the end of it rather than a worse one. Which is what we’ve is really the only experience we’ve seen is cuts equal disruptions.

[COBY]: Yeah, cuts make problems worse. Maybe in the long term there may have been sh. Some rays of light in those cuts, but they’re almost always worse.

[JAMES]: Yeah, unless they are accompanied by doing something differently.

[COBY]: Not unless they’re not just performative which to be honest, we were looking back again, we were doing our homework for this episode and we’re looking back and we couldn’t find too many examples or really too many any.

[JAMES]: Well, the problem is because reform generally doesn’t work in a four year election cycle and governments don’t want to put policy processes, procedures in place today that they’re not going to be able to take credit for when election time happens in three and a half years. I mean really, if we’re talking about this realistically, that’s one of the biggest irritations that I have around government, reform is that nobody wants to plan for the future because nobody wants to give their opponent a political win.

[COBY]: There’s a valid point there.

[JAMES]: I do think that was taking us off track again.

[COBY]: Yeah, let’s steer it back because I do want to talk about a little bit about Singapore and their history just to show people that this stuff, that this idea of reform isn’t a pie in the sky theoretical grade that works on paper but no one has ever been able to do it. It’s been done. So it’s a little bit about Singapore and kind of their history. So between 1959 and 1980s Singapore commenced on a really effective administrative reform process that rationalized in the structure and the procedures of the public bureaucracy. And the point was to promote organizational effectiveness and attain a national development goals. The principles and consequences, and practices which constituted the major kind of the core of what of the Singapore state reform were these strong political will, an example of political leaders and the public servants in terms of integrity and honesty through strict adherence to the code of conduct. One of the things that we saw come up a lot in some of these academic articles and on these economical review stuff was the Term best and brightest. What Singapore’s goal was the top minds, the best and brightest in the country should work for the government. That was really the way that they had focused that number two was they constantly reinvented the way the government does its business in responding to external changes. It wasn’t a said and forget it. It wasn’t that. This has always been the way we do it. It’s the idea of continuous improvement in the government. That world changes, we need to change with it. We need to reinvent how we do our work because we’re serving the public.

[JAMES]: Yeah.

[COBY]: Number three was our favorite word. Meritocracy and equal opportunities in terms of open and favor recruitment and selection based on qualifications, relevant experience. And it was really about how do we make meritocracy accessible to everyone. And four was effective performance appraisals to remove complacency. then what? number five was market rates for civil servants. Pay civil servants to the point that why would they ever leave their, their government jobs? Because they’re as well compensated as employees than the private sector.

[JAMES]: So there’s no want to attract the best. You have to do something to make your positions attractive to them. Right. You can’t pay below market wages and expect the best, the most talented people in any particular discipline to come work for you. Because why?

[COBY]: Well and the idea of is that like you know, in North America we have this mind of whatever I’m doing the public service, I could be making 10 times that in the private sector.

[JAMES]: 3.

[COBY]: Sure, we’ll say that. So. But I mean that idea of if you know, is if you do it for the work, you know, if you do it for your own personal motivations, you work in the public sector. But if you want, but if you actually want to get paid, you move into private. Singapore was like no, screw that. Like you know, you know, market rates for civil servants.

[JAMES]: Yeah.

[COBY]: And then 6 and 7 were about continual learning and doing constant reviews and improvements and determination to make an implement difficult decision. So the idea of not doing what’s necessarily popular, doing what’s proper, doing what’s right and going back to the idea of integrity, having the best and brightest people to deliver that. That does not sound like a wild crazy idea. Best and brightest, reinvent, evaluate changes making.

[JAMES]: Listening to those strategic goals, they don’t sound very different than what we are hearing in Canada and the United States.

[COBY]: Yeah. Now some people might say, okay, so you’re paying market rates to civil servants and you’re constantly Reevaluating the way that you do government and you have this fair and equal opportunities for in recruitment then you. It must be. You know the spending in Singapore must be ins. Sy right. Here’s the reality. In 2022 the total government spending in Singapore was 15.4% of the economy’s GDP. So the economy there that the 15.4% of their total economy was from government spending. Compare that to Canada’s which is in 2022 was 41% of the total GDP. And when you compare that to the average for industrialized countries including the US and the UK in a lot of Europe was 42.7%

[JAMES]: 42.7% government of the. The economy of the. Due to government spending as opposed to Singapore which was what 15.4. Yeah.

[COBY]: Right. So their government spending was a whole lot less because they reformed cut the bloat, had the best people and honestly like it’s actually really again if you’re remotely interested in kind of economics or any kind of stuff like we are the stuff ah about Singapore is pretty cool actually. Like it is really worth kind of reading if it’s something is interesting. But I mean here’s a country making it work that actually went with reform, not with cuts and they spend a whole lot less and they have it so much better.

[JAMES]: I’m sure there were a lot of bumps along the road. There were a lot of frustrations. There were a lot of to this.

[COBY]: Was like 20, a 20 year of hard work to get there.

[JAMES]: And that’s just it. They took a long term approach. Right. You can’t set a, you can’t have a strategy that focuses on the next six months. You need. Strategy needs to be vision casting. It needs to be where do we want to go, how are we going to get there? And our favorite question, what needs to exist for this to be successful? And they actually went through that process. They recognize that it was not going to be quick or easy but they were dedicated to the goals of reform and I think the results speak for themselves.

[COBY]: Absolutely. And that’s just said is that it’s the idea of we’re going to put the work in, we’re not going to look for the perform of quick wins. We’re going to focus on reform, not on cuts, not on layoffs. And we’re going to stick it through to the end and it works. And it’s something that’s obtainable probably everywhere. I mean it will look different, it could take a little bit longer but it is obtainable because Like I said, hiring the best people, kind of reinventing the way government does services to respond to changes in the world. Focusing on meritocracy, effective performance appraisals to remove complacency, market rate for civil servants, continuous learning and determination to make difficult decisions was the playbook.

[JAMES]: Yeah, well, I mean having highly skilled people in key governmental positions who are empowered to, adapt to the changing realities of the fact. Because stuff comes at us really quickly.

[COBY]: Yeah.

[JAMES]: But doing that has allowed them to create a very powerful economy.

[COBY]: Yeah, absolutely. And this is just it is that it’s reform over layoffs, reform over cuts. Because the idea of one of the things that’s very popular in kind of like conservative, more like right side of the political spectrum is the idea of smaller government is better. And again, the idea of that is that’s the buzzword, that’s the catchphrase, that’s the sound bite, and it’s the thesis statement for a much longer answer about how we have to actually you probably reform our governments in order to do that. And that’s what people don’t realize is that smaller government is better is just the sound bite of a much larger statement about how we have to reform our government to cut all these things largely do similar things to what Singapore has s done. But people stop at the soundbite and go, just cut people off. Problem solved.

[JAMES]: Yeah, government’s now smaller, we win.

[COBY]: Exactly. I cut my leg off, I weigh less, I win. t really it is. And the idea of, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, political ideology of smaller government, but I think it’s the idea of if you look past the sound bite and get into what that means, it means reform.

[JAMES]: It doesn’t in government.

[COBY]: Exactly. And I think that there’s a lot we can learn from countries like Singapore about how we get there. But again like we said, it’s not about perform solutions. It’s not about quick wins, it’s not about trying to just score political points in your political cycle. It’s about commitment to the public service and trying to again, make sure that you’re focusing on reform and focusing on the long term success of your country rather than just trying to maintain your popularity while you’re viable for government. Yeah, yeah, all right. I think that’s kind of about it. I don’t really have much else to say to you.

[JAMES]: Yeah, I mean this was a bit of a different, episode for us. but I really enjoyed, I like the topical nature of it. It’s an important one. It is a bit of a deviation from our some of our standard topics, but I think it’s an important one to have kind, of highlighted and brought, some interesting conversation around.

[COBY]: I agree. All right, so that does it for us. For a full archive of the podcast and access the video version hosted on our YouTube channel, visit Roman3ca podcast. Thanks for joining us.

[ANNOUNCER]: For more information on topics like these, don’t forget to Visit us at Roman3ca. Side effects of this podcast may include improved retention, high productivity, increased market share, employees breaking out in spontaneous dance, dry mouth, aversion of the sound of James’ voice, desire to find a better podcast…