I love this one, and this is such an important discussion. I talked about this on the pod with Delphi, as well. We considered how the culture in Washington makes course corrections hard because analyzing whether your policy is working is, as you said, viewed as an expression of uncertainty, which is vulnerability, which is perceived as weakness - especially at moments when our policymaking is defined by a scarcity mindset, vice abundance. Keep writing all the things - the ones that get clicks and the ones that don’t. They’re all important, and you’re building a body of work that is super interesting now, and a great resource for future policymakers. So glad to know you!
Another excellent piece, Judd! Thanks for calling attention to a grinding aspect of truth-seeking in the policy world, and pointing us to a useful format to help alleviate it. Indeed, political capital is built on confidence in the policymaker to make good decisions, and unfortunately, by the time anyone notices that something is seriously wrong with a decision, too much political capital is at stake to admit error and change course. Such is the climate in which we move.
This is so helpful, and gives voice to something I’ve been asking of clients lately: what’s your permission structure to realizing something isn’t working as intended? How do you create a culture where people are empowered to say “we all had good intentions, but we need to wind this down and move on?” Thank you for sharing!
Hope this is one of those that gets clicks. Thoughtful, well framed and important. And of course the time pressure of policy making means that stock taking is even harder than it looks!
Development assistance regardless requires sustained long term commitment. Cardinal is local empowerment in program management design allowing for failure—fail again, fail better resulting in constructive social administrative publics calibrated in service instead of exploitation.
Another insightful essay, Judd. I am reminded of the assessments that take place on the operational side of the house in CIA — particularly when it comes to counterintelligence reviews which are, or at least should be, a regular part of any operation. They are, in fact, a form of stocktaking. The dynamic you describe about such reflection being encouraged among analysts, but viewed with wariness in the policy world, is often mirrored within the Agency between the analytical side and the operational side. A sense of pride and ownership in any successful intelligence operation is entirely understandable, and often justified, but, as one mentor of mine was fond of saying, “passion” is too often used as a compliment, without understanding the risks it brings. Discernment, objectivity, and pragmatism are the watchwords. The French capture the idea perfectly in their idea of the esprit critique.
I'm enjoying your Substack, Judd. Not to take anything away from journalists or thinkers, but working in a policy environment is fraught with bureaucratic processes (some sound, others not-so). Stocktaking is one of the few processes that (from what little I've seen in an Australian context) that creates a collective panic. In my experience, mismatched conveners seem to find their way into rooms they do not belong in (I'm sure you have plenty of stories tucked away!)
I love this one, and this is such an important discussion. I talked about this on the pod with Delphi, as well. We considered how the culture in Washington makes course corrections hard because analyzing whether your policy is working is, as you said, viewed as an expression of uncertainty, which is vulnerability, which is perceived as weakness - especially at moments when our policymaking is defined by a scarcity mindset, vice abundance. Keep writing all the things - the ones that get clicks and the ones that don’t. They’re all important, and you’re building a body of work that is super interesting now, and a great resource for future policymakers. So glad to know you!
Thanks Cait! This is exactly the fuel I need to keep going!
Another excellent piece, Judd! Thanks for calling attention to a grinding aspect of truth-seeking in the policy world, and pointing us to a useful format to help alleviate it. Indeed, political capital is built on confidence in the policymaker to make good decisions, and unfortunately, by the time anyone notices that something is seriously wrong with a decision, too much political capital is at stake to admit error and change course. Such is the climate in which we move.
Thanks Chad. It means a lot coming from you.
This is so helpful, and gives voice to something I’ve been asking of clients lately: what’s your permission structure to realizing something isn’t working as intended? How do you create a culture where people are empowered to say “we all had good intentions, but we need to wind this down and move on?” Thank you for sharing!
Thanks Emily!
Hope this is one of those that gets clicks. Thoughtful, well framed and important. And of course the time pressure of policy making means that stock taking is even harder than it looks!
Thanks. And excellent point!
Greetings,
Your insights are valued.
African publics are complex defying quick fixes.
Development assistance regardless requires sustained long term commitment. Cardinal is local empowerment in program management design allowing for failure—fail again, fail better resulting in constructive social administrative publics calibrated in service instead of exploitation.
💯
Another insightful essay, Judd. I am reminded of the assessments that take place on the operational side of the house in CIA — particularly when it comes to counterintelligence reviews which are, or at least should be, a regular part of any operation. They are, in fact, a form of stocktaking. The dynamic you describe about such reflection being encouraged among analysts, but viewed with wariness in the policy world, is often mirrored within the Agency between the analytical side and the operational side. A sense of pride and ownership in any successful intelligence operation is entirely understandable, and often justified, but, as one mentor of mine was fond of saying, “passion” is too often used as a compliment, without understanding the risks it brings. Discernment, objectivity, and pragmatism are the watchwords. The French capture the idea perfectly in their idea of the esprit critique.
Thanks Paul! Such an important insight on the split between operations and analysis.
I'm enjoying your Substack, Judd. Not to take anything away from journalists or thinkers, but working in a policy environment is fraught with bureaucratic processes (some sound, others not-so). Stocktaking is one of the few processes that (from what little I've seen in an Australian context) that creates a collective panic. In my experience, mismatched conveners seem to find their way into rooms they do not belong in (I'm sure you have plenty of stories tucked away!)
Exactly! We are on the same page. Thanks for reading!