David Senra
00:29:39 · Scott Kupor, David Senra
[00:29:39] S1: Because what I learned, and particularly, through all the stuff I've done with working for Marc and Ben in companies and managing people, is something very simple, which will sound like so obvious, but I think it's really true, is, look, organizations are pretty simple. It doesn't matter if you're a government organization or a private organization or a not for profit, they're all the same, which is all an organization is, it's a collection of people who are just aligned around a similar set of objectives. Like it's no more complicated than that. The question is like, do you have the right set of objectives? Do you have the right people? And then do you have a set of incentives that track to those objectives so that when people do the things you want them to do, they get rewarded and recognized and you can then kind of do 10 more great objectives or when they don't do that, do you have a mechanism to either correct that behavior and or remove them to the organization? And so when I looked at that, was like, okay, I'm gonna come to government and it's a totally different set of objectives, which I agree, but the fundamental question is like, do we have the right people and do we have the right incentive structure to actually enforce the behavior we want? And the short answer, particularly on the latter side is like the incentive structure is completely screwed up from my perspective. [00:30:37] S0: Before you move on, let's Why describe is the incentive structure completely screwed up from your perspective?
00:30:37 · David Senra, Scott Kupor
[00:30:37] S0: Before you move on, let's Why describe is the incentive structure completely screwed up from your perspective? [00:30:43] S1: So a couple of things. Number one is, it is an incredibly like legal regulatory compliance related culture basically and so everything that happens basically in government is for fear of doing something wrong, we do the same thing we've been doing the same, you know, all along. So the idea of innovation, any kind of innovation is very much difficult to do because the better thing to do is keep doing what you're doing, don't take risks. You know, when I first came in one of my, you know, reports said, look, our job is to keep you out of the news basically. And I was like, well, okay, well tell me more about that. And they said, well, we don't want you to get hauled in front of Congress for doing something that they don't want you to do. We don't want you to get a report from the GAO, which is basically like this compliance organization. We don't want the inspector general, you know, doing stuff. I was like, okay, [00:31:30] S0: like- Okay. So then let me just send her a video-
00:31:31 · Scott Kupor
[00:31:31] S1: That's easy. Yeah. Like, it's pretty easy how to solve that, right, which is okay, like we will just do nothing, right? It's exactly right, and that's what I said. Was like, that's not your job, like your job is to help us figure out like what can we do that's good, and yes, if we have a good reason for doing something and we screw it up, like I'm fine getting hold in front of some congressional committee and explaining that to them. Obviously, we're if we're... Our process was crappy, that sucks. We gotta fix that. But what it means is basically it does not allow for any innovation. Right? So look, I come from, as you know, we come from this crazy world in venture capital where we take like obscene amounts of risk, which is fine because you've got like upside that potentially is uncapped, right? If you find Coinbase in 2012, as Chris Dixon and Marc did, you know, if it works, right, it can, you know, generate 300, 500 times your money, right, and like that's a good thing to happen and that can cover a lot of mistakes. We don't have that in government, but instead what they've had is basically the answer is like take zero risk, but that also means therefore like no consideration of upside potential for anything. And so part of the incentive structure that I think we have to put in place and we're trying to put in place is, I've been using this term permissioned risk, which is deliberately different from the permission less risk that I think exists in Silicon Valley, which is we got to have this conversation and we got to be willing to let people take some risk, and that risk needs to be appropriately sized for the organization. So if you're in Department of War and the risk is people die, okay, like maybe we ought to have a really like low tolerance for that. But look, what I do and what most people in government do is not life or death, right? So like we want to get people their social security checks, we want to get people their IRS refunds, like if it happens, you know, plus or minus a day or two from when we expect it, like, you know, most cases nobody's going to die.
00:33:01 · Scott Kupor, David Senra
But if we could actually like automate a system and figure out like how do you make it dead simple for people to get their social security checks or their retirement checks or anything like that, that has masked upside potential, but the incentive system has never allowed that. So that's part of number one, like that's part of the reason why the system screwed up is like there is zero, zero opportunity for innovation as a result, therefore you have slow and plotting and not great customer service from a lot of these organizations. [00:33:24] S0: Well, not only that, if there's zero possibility for any kind of innovation, like what kind of talent are you going to attract?
00:33:29 · Scott Kupor
[00:33:29] S1: Yeah, so here's the other side of this, right, which is then you have a performance management system that's also screwed up. So I'll give you a story. I think you and I may have talked this long time ago when we first met. Everybody gets ranked generally one through five at the end of the year in terms of their employee rating. Some organizations have a four point rating, but I should say one through five. One is the worst. Like, you definitely, like, should not be here. Five is like, you're not gonna cover off the ball. And three means, hey, like, you know what? Like, you're good. You're doing what we asked you to do. That's all fine. And and every organization, quite frankly, needs a lot of people like that. Historically, in government, 99.7% of people are a three or above, meaning literally 0.3% fall below expectations. Now in a population of 2,000,000 people- Is that even possible? It's not even mathematically possible. It's not. You have one problem, which is we don't do anything on low end accountability in the government. We're we're... I'll tell you about how we're gonna change this in a minute, but... So that's a serious problem to your point, which is look, how do I attract and retain great people when I'm sitting here, you know, busting my ass and you're like dialing it in and everyone knows you suck, like nobody actually wants to do anything about it. Like that's a terrible place for high performing people to be. No, like Yes, exactly. And then on the other end, so four and five, right, those are the top ratings mean not just you're doing your stuff, but like you're extraordinary or you're outstanding, you're doing great stuff. In the senior... Just give me an example. In, like, the most senior side of government, which is, like, 7,000 people that are, like, senior executives, something like 90% of people get ranked a four or a five, meaning, like, literally everybody's awesome.
00:34:57 · David Senra
[00:34:57] S0: Not in an organization 7,000 people.