Odd Lots - Scott Kupor's New Plan to Bring Tech Workers Into the Federal Government

Episode Date: December 25, 2025

If you're a high-skilled tech worker, then potentially huge fortunes await you working for a startup or one of our booming AI giants. But the government needs these types of workers too. And the government is not set up to pay commensurate salaries with the private sector -- particularly for these types of roles. This challenge has long been understood, and there have been numerous efforts over the years to infuse the government with high-tech talent. Scott Kupor is the director of the US Office of Personnel Management, which manages and coordinates recruiting of new government employees across the federal workforce. Scott was also previously one of the top partners at the famed VC firm Andreessen Horowitz. So he has a mind for bringing the recruiting practices of the tech world into DC. But of course, that's easier said than done. On this episode, we talk about how federal hiring works and doesn't work, and also his new endeavor called the US Tech Force, which aims to bring in top talent for a two-year stint of solving problems across the bureaus. We also talk about the DOGE initiative, and how he thinks about recruiting top talent at a time when the administration has been aggressive about shrinking the size of the overall federal workforce.Read More: Federal Workforce’s Toll After a Year of DOGE and Trump: 317,000USDA Lost a Third of DC Staff Even Before Relocation Effort Join the conversation: discord.gg/oddlotsOnly Bloomberg.com subscribers can get the Odd Lots newsletter in their inbox — now delivered every weekday — plus unlimited access to the site and app. bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlotsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The news doesn't stop on the weekends. Context changes constantly. And now Bloomberg is the place to stay on top of it all. Hi, I'm David Gurra. Join us every Saturday and Sunday for the new Bloomberg this weekend. I'm Christina Rafini. We'll bring you the latest headlines, in-depth analysis, and big interviews. All the stories that hit home on your days off.

And I'm Lisa Mateo. Watch and listen to Bloomberg this weekend for thoughtful, enlightening conversations about business, lifestyle, people, and culture. On Saturday mornings, we put the past week's, events into context, examining what happened in the markets and the world. That on Sundays, we speak with journalists, columnists, and key political figures to prepare you for the week ahead. Join us as soon as you wake up and bring us with you wherever your weekend plans take you. Watch us on Bloomberg Television. Listen on Bloomberg Radio, stream the show live on the Bloomberg business app, or listen to the podcast. That's Bloomberg this weekend.

Saturdays and Sundays starting at 7 a.m. Eastern. Make us part of your weekend routine on Bloomberg Television, Radio, and wherever you get your podcasts. Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News. Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots podcast. I'm Joe Wisenthall. And I'm Tracy Allaway. Tracy, one of the topics that we like to talk about, but we haven't talked about it for a while, public sector tech, public sector hiring. We've done a number of episodes on this.

It's been a while, though, since we've revisited this question, but it raises so many fascinating things. I remember the ones that we did with Jennifer Palka, which were fantastic. And we got a good sense of some of the issues facing public technology, including, I think it was 7,000 requirements in a single RFP. That was at the state level. But you hear stuff like that, and it just kind of blows your mind how complex the whole process of developing new technology actually is in government. Right. Right. So, right, and we've also, Patrick McKenzie is the other one we've talked about this with, like, these legacy systems, they have all of this croft or whatever and some of it's tech and some of it's related to hiring. Everyone, I feel like comes in to the public sector. They're like, well, I can't this look more like the private sector, etc.

But I have an observation that I thought about after the last time we talked to Jennifer, which again, they're excellent conversations. Maybe we'll move the ball forward. So there are all kinds of obvious problems with the public sector and we'll get into them. That being said, and I think you had the same experience, you hear these descriptions of like say what's broken with the hiring process. And it's like, you know what? That sounds kind of familiar. I've experienced that in the private sector too. Yeah. A lot of these pathologies seem to exist in large organizations.

I was going to say, I think it's endemic to bureaucracy. Yeah. Right. And I remember Jennifer specifically saying that like one of the main choke points is just the operational process. of getting stuff approved or getting a new candidate through a hiring process that has been dictated by human resources and you have to fit into certain slots or certain categories. So it's a big deal. But the whole dealing with HR thing and their role as gatekeepers of the hiring process and their whole... Careful what you say, Ger.

I love our HR people here at Bloomberg. I'm just saying some of it sounded a little bit familiar. I'm going to leave it at that. Some of it sounded a little bit familiar. Fair. So, of course, we know that the new administration, of course, lots of people from the tech world have come to it, I think probably most famously, Elon Musk and the whole Doge endeavor, which we'll get into perhaps where we stand on the verdict for that, but widely viewed is not particularly transformational. Nonetheless, a lot of buy-in, a lot of people from the tech world thinking about what aspects of our most dynamic industry in America can be brought into the public. sector to perhaps make it a more dynamic place, maybe more efficient, maybe more effective, and maybe a more desirable place to work for talented people.

Right. And the government, the Office of Personnel Management, is launching a new cross-government program, right, to recruit top technologists to modernize the federal government. And I would just add, it kind of has some new urgency because the Trump administration has identified the AI race with China as like this existential threat to the U.S. So you can see stuff kind of coalescing. Totally. Well, we literally do have the perfect guest because we are going to be speaking with the director of the Office of Personnel Management in D.C.

We're going to be speaking with Scott Cooper. He's a former venture capitalist who's at Andreessen Horwitz. So he knows all about the public world, the private world, etc. Literally the perfect guest. Scott, thank you so much for coming on the Outlots podcast. Well, thank you for having me. I'm glad to be here. Absolutely.

Really, let's start from real basics. What is the job of the office, the director of the office of personnel management? Yeah, it's a great question. And I didn't know the answer to this one before I started talking to the administration about the job either. So I think the simple way to think about is, look, we're the talent management organization for the federal government. So there's about 2.1 million federal employees roughly in the government today. And we are responsible for all policies related to people. So how do you hire, how do you fire performance management system? so HRIT systems, and then we're also a cross-functional organization that everything we do obviously touches all the different agencies. So we're trying to make sure that we've got consistency of policies across the government. And the simple goal in my mind is just how do we make sure

we have the right people and the right jobs in the federal government? That's basically the, you know, forward articulation of what we do. Why did you decide to go from Andrewson Horowitz to what seems like, you know, something of a challenging job and possibly lower paid? You don't have to tell us your salary, but it's probably public somewhere, but I assume. It's definitely lower than a partner in Andreessen Horace. Right, right. My salary is public. Actually, in fact, you know, you know when you hit a high point in your life when your

oldest daughter who is, I won't give her age, but she is, let's say, under 30 is making more money than I am at this stage. Congrats to her. Exactly. I'm very proud of her. Yeah, it's a great question. Look, the honest answer is, it was a couple of things. One is just it was the right time.

You know, I'd been in Andreessen, as you know, from the founding for 16 years, super proud of what we did there. And Ben and Mark were incredibly gracious in giving me this opportunity. And I really felt like there is an opportunity in this administration to do something differently. So you mentioned a bunch of technology people coming to the administration. There's also just a bunch of business people more generally. And look, we're not going to make a mistake of applying every private sector method and model to the federal government. But I think what the president has asked us to do is to think differently about things and given us kind of the permission and the flexibility to do that. And so to me, look, I've been around the venture capital business.

as you know, ultimately companies succeed or fail. My lesson from the venture capital business is they succeed or fail almost entirely because of the people in the organization and the organizational structure and the culture and the incentives. It's pretty simple. And so my view is, look, why can't we learn some of those lessons and apply them as appropriate to the federal government and think about creating a culture where we've got great people who can do great stuff on behalf of the American people?

So I want you to tell me about your new initiative to bring in tech talent. And also in the answer, maybe like, situation. within maybe what makes it different from other endeavors. You know, there was the Code for America endeavor, which, you know, probably had some similar themes. Obviously, there was the judge experience, which I want to get into further. But talk to us about this new project. What is it? And then why is it different from past efforts to infuse technology or infuse tech thinking into the government?

Yeah. So let me take you through the program. So the program is called U.S. Tech Force. So anybody who's interested can go to our X at U.S. Tech Force and find more information about it. Basically, here's the program. The goal is to bring 1,000 engineers into the government. So software developers, AI experts, data scientists, product managers. So anybody who can help us basically with the job of modernizing government infrastructure.

It's a two-year program, and we partnered with about 25 of the largest private technology companies, private sector technology companies, I should say. And we're really trying to accomplish a couple things here. Number one is the government has a dearth of what I would call modern software expertise and modern AI technology expertise. And that's not a knock at all on the organizations. But a lot of what these big CIO organizations in the government have to do is they're maintaining these massive legacy infrastructures. And so the ability to do bespoke development is quite difficult in those organizations. So this will be a vehicle to help them accelerate bespoke development across the entire government.

The second problem we're trying to solve is we have a massive early career pipeline problem in the federal government. So 7% of the federal workforce is early career, let's call that, less than five or seven years of work experience. And that compares to about 22, 23% in the non-federal sector. So by a factor of three to one, the federal government is completely failing at getting early career people into government. And if you look at the other end of the spectrum, by the way, so we've got about 44% of our population that's over the age of 50, and that compares with about a third in the non-federal workforce. So we've got this looming problem, which is we're going to have a ton of people, you know, over the next five to 10 years who, rightly so, you know, are at retirement age

and want to go do other things. And we've done very, very little to actually replenish the pipeline. So this program is really intend to do that. And one of the ways we're doing that is by making it a two-year program. So I don't think it's reasonable for us to go to a 22, 25, 27-year-old person and say, decide today, do you want to commit 40 years of your life to be a career public civil servant? What I'd rather do is expose them to the problems in government, let them actually have a great experience. And you know what? Like, we should convince them over time. how great this is. But you know what? If the end of the two-year period, they want to go back to the private sector, that's great. And that's why we've lined up all these private sector partners

who are going to actually help run a job fair for us and make sure that we have kind of greater connectivity between the public and private sectors. You can get the news whenever you want it with Bloomberg News Now. I'm Amy Morris. And I'm Karen Moscow here to tell you about our new on-demand news report delivered right to your podcast feed. Bloomberg News Now is a short five-minute audio report on the day's top stories. Episodes are published throughout the day with the latest information and data to keep you informed. Yes, there are other products like this from a variety of news organizations, but they usually rerun their radio newscasts throughout the day.

That's not what we do. We create customized episodes that can only be heard on Bloomberg News Now. And we don't wait an hour to publish breaking news. When news breaks, we'll have an episode up in your podcast feed within minutes, so you're always getting the latest stories and developments. Get the reporting and the context from Bloomberg's 3,000 journalists and analysts we're all over the world. Listen to the latest from Bloomberg News Now on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere you listen. Can you talk a little bit more about why historically government roles have not been that desirable for tech workers?

I assume you diagnosed the problem before you came up with a solution, but in your view, what is the main choke point or market failure? that is leading to difficulty for the government to recruit the kind of people that it wants to. Yeah. So I think there's a couple problems. So one is it's, I think the fundamental issue, quite frankly, in my mind, is a messaging problem, which is, I'll give you an anecdote, right? So when I first came into office, I've been in the office about six months now. I met with one of my managers in the organization who said, hey, you guys are ruining things. And I said, what do you mean? And by you guys, she meant Doge. And, you know, I'm not part of Doge, but obviously, look, I come from, you know, I know lots of those people. And I said, well, how are we ruining anything? She said,

said, well, our whole value prop to employees has been come to the federal government and have lifetime employment. And I said, oh my gosh, you're not going to like my answer because, number one, I'm going to tell you like, that's a myth and a lie that people have been telling you. There is no such thing as lifetime employment. And two, I said, look, that's the most, that's the worst, least compelling kind of narrative that I've ever heard that I'm going to go tell some 25-year-old, like, that's the value proposition I'm coming to work for the government.

So number one is, like, we have to change the narrative. The narrative in my mind is come work on the toughest, biggest, most complex problems. you know, do some public service, but then give yourself career options. And you know what? If you want to go to the private sector, if that, you know, God bless you. That's a perfect thing to do. So that's part of the problem. The other problem is the nature of what happens in government. And, you know, Jen Pawka, as you guys mentioned in your intro, who's like brilliant on this stuff, diagnosed it perfectly, which is so much of what government does is it's a compliance-based culture, right? It's not just literally, you know, that we follow laws, but if I do something wrong, you know,

I'm worried about getting an inspector general report, or I'm worried about a GAO report or worry about some Congress person hauling me in front of their committee to testify about stuff. And so the short answer as a result is, like, we have a zero risk-based culture inside of government. There's no concept of, you know, you know, you guys mentioned I came to the venture capital world. You know, in that world, look, we take crazy risk because all we're doing is trying to maximize upside opportunity. Now, I'm not proposing we do that in government, and I've been using the term measured risk as a better way to try to describe it in government. But, like, we have to kind of change the culture and enable people to think about the upside

opportunity that comes from taking modest amounts of risk. And unfortunately, particularly on the technology side of things, that has not been the case. And so again, if you're a young, you know, early career person, I think you want to do cutting edge stuff. You want to learn things. You want to kind of go out a little bit on the risk curve. And right now, at least historically, government has not been an amenable place for that. So you mentioned that the pitch to work in the federal government should not be, this is lifetime employment. That that is like, that's not healthy for a lot of reasons, and I think a lot of people can intuitively agree with it. On the other hand, you mentioned the sort of like, in the VC world, you're always shooting for

the right tail. But when you're talking about no layoffs or lifetime employee means like you're cutting off the left tail, just from a money standpoint, the employee of the federal government never has the chance to experience a right tail outcome. The highest paid worker in the federal government, it's a very decent salary. But, you know, compared to very, even moderately, successful people, you know, the most senior successful person in the federal government will make less very often than just sort of like someone who's hung around Google for a long time. So like how much of the problem actually just comes down to that simple monetary fact? So look, there's no question that compensation is relevant, but I actually think we've been overstating the nature of that problem. So let me give you a couple of thoughts on it. So first of all, part of the reason why we're focused on early career here is at least the pay gap between private. private and public is a little bit more manageable. And it just kind of, it asymptotes like massively as you go farther through your career.

So yes, it's totally unrealistic, you know, unless you're rich and you just decide you want to do something different, it's totally unrealistic for us to think we're going to compete against like a VP at Google for a senior level executive person in government. So that's not even, in my mind, like that's not even worth worrying about basically because like the pay gap is just crazy and no way's going to do that. But my experience at least, and you know, you guys have been around a lot of organizations, is, look, there are some people who are purely kind of primarily kind of profit maximizing, and that's great. I'm not, have no normative objections to that, obviously.

But my sense is that's actually a relatively small minority of the population of employees. I think most employees come to work every day because they're being challenged, they're learning, they have career development opportunities, they work for someone who cares about their career, and they feel like, you know, they can be rewarded when they actually do good stuff. They feel like they're held accountable. Like that to me is a culture that we can create inside of the federal government. And, you know, even if it means, yes, in a short period of time, you are going to have like a remuneration challenge relative to the private sector. But this is also why, again, just to go back to it, this is why I think this whole narrative of come, you know, work for the

federal government for 40 years to me is just crazy. Like, we should have an open idea that you can go back and forth in the public and private sector. And you know what? If you have points in your life where you think like profit maximization is the most important thing, then yes, like you should go to the private sector because the government's never going to deal with that. But I think we just have to break this, like to me, this dichotomy that there's one way to go or the other makes no sense. So look, in the perfect world, I'd wave a magic wand and say, we pay everybody like what they can get paid to Google, but that's not realistic. And quite frankly, as you know, there's zero support in Congress for that. The final thing we can do, though,

just, Joe, to give you one last perspective is we can do things inside of OPM to mitigate some of the challenges on the compensation side of things. So let me give you a very specific example. So as you probably know, there's a GS schedule, which is like everybody gets paid, you know, GS one through 15. These are different levels. Today, all those GS schedules are driven off of tenure and they're driven off of degree requirements. So if I don't have a college degree and I haven't worked for 10 years, no matter how good I am,

I can't get to a GS-15 level in government. In my mind, that's just silly, quite frankly, right? That's the opposite of a merit-based culture. You all will remember, since we've talked Doge, right, you'll remember, I won't mention his name, but, you know, there's a Doge engineer with a very colorful name that I'm sure your listeners have heard of.

You know, when all the kind of exciting Doge stuff was happening, there was a quote from an administration official who said, this guy's terrible. We never would have hired him because he didn't graduate from college and he didn't have whatever five years of work experience coming here. And in my mind, like, I literally wanted to pull my hair out when I heard that because I was like, that's the craziest thing in the world.

Like, if this guy is capable of performing at a GS-15 level, why should we care about what his tenure is or whether he has a college degree? And so one of the things we're doing inside of OPM is we're going to eliminate all degree requirements and all tenure requirements in the pay schedule. And so as a result, if someone is doing awesome, like we can hire them at the appropriate level. So some of the pay gap problem is not just a numerical problem. It's a leveling problem. And I think we can solve that even in the absence of congressional legislation. Yeah, I remember Jennifer again, said something very similar about like the best coder in America or a young guy who had won this

huge coding competition and then couldn't get hired by the government because he didn't take all of the official boxes. Kind of crazy. For that specific role. Yeah. Since you mentioned doing awesome, how do you actually go about evaluating the performance of a tech worker in government? And how do you figure out which people you actually want to hire in terms of talent? Yeah. So the short answer is we have to do it differently from how we do it today. But let me give you the very specific. So on the front end, historically, we have relied on self-attestation of skills in order to hire people into the federal government. So I apply for a software engineering job. And I get this application where I check boxes and I say, you know what, I'm an expert in Perl programmer. I'm an expert in, you know,

AI technology. And I literally check the boxes. And that is the basis on which, like, my application gets through or doesn't get through to the next round of screening. I assume this is tested at some point, though, right? There's some sort of competency test. So in many roles, there's not, and the reason is, let me give you a perspective, there's a historical reason for this. So way back when we used to have literally a civil service exam, it was called PACE, was the name. I forget what the acronym stands for, but it was P-A-C-E. That existed until 1980, and there was a lawsuit at the very tail end of the Carter administration, very beginning of the Reagan administration, first Reagan administration, where there was disparate impact claim, basically. So the kind of test results on

this exam were disproportionately negative for minority applicants versus majority applicants. And so in 1981, the government entered into a consent decree where basically they banned essentially the use of these examinations. And from 1981, until literally four months ago, we were living under that consent decree. Nobody ever revisited it, and as a result, every agency was terrified to use any kind of actual merit-based assessment for hiring because they were afraid they would run afoul of this consent decree. Luckily for us, we revisited it along with the Department of Justice, and we got out of the consent decree. We actually found the original plaintiff actually was still alive, LeVano was his name,

and we actually finally said, okay, 43 years later, we think it's time to get rid of this consent agree and they agreed to that. So for the first time ever now, we have kind of avoided, we've eliminated the risk that the agencies were worried about, which is if I use a technical assessment to judge somebody in their employment process, I might get sued, you know, under some type of disparate impact theory. So we are now doing that. So number one, to answer your, there's a long way to answer your question, but so like the way we're going to evaluate people is they actually have to demonstrate merit. So there's lots of private sector tests, as you probably know, code signal, all these other things that every single private sector company uses,

where they're like, hey, basically, let me give you a coding test if you're applying for a software development job. And then we can level you and figure out are you a, you know, GS5 or GS-15 based on that. And then we can do secondary stuff like obviously an in-person interview or other things to make sure that, you know, you're actually a good bit for the organization. So that's kind of thing number one we have to do on the front end. Does that make sense at least and kind of, you know, a little perspective about how we got her? It totally does.

It is kind of wild to think that, you know, last year or a few years ago or just four months ago, Joe and I could literally say that we're like coding experts. I'm a 10x engineer. Yeah, that's right. And apply. I know. I'm a cobal expert. Cobble, cobal, I can never remember.

Cobol expert would be very much in demand. It's cobal, cobal, no team. Cobalt is, cobalt is the mineral. There's a cobalt mineral. There's a cobal. I never know if it's cobble. I want to say cobble because it's like cobbled together across IT systems. Oh, that's actually really good.

Okay, I didn't think about that. Actually, but on the second part of Tracy's question, okay, so once they're in, once they're in the office, and again, because it's not a for-profit entity, like, how do we current, how does the government currently go about evaluating how someone did this year and what would be the optimal way for the government to evaluate, how productive someone there is in their state? And this is a problem in private sector, too. I'm pretty sure that if you went into Facebook or Google, et cetera, they would also not have a clean answer of like which software engineer is more. or contributed more value than the other one. Yeah. No, you're absolutely right. Look, this is not a problem that's unique to the government. But what I think is unique to the government is historically, basically, everybody gets an A in government.

To give you a perspective, most agencies rank people one through five at the end of the year on their performances, one being the worst and five being the best. And if you look historically over long periods of time in government, about 80 plus percent of people get ranked a four or five. Okay. So meaning basically, you know, everybody is in, you know, kind of like Wobagon. and well, well above average. And then about 0.2% of federal workers get ranked a one or a two, meaning that you're performing below expectations. So number one, like we've had no system that actually recognizes like outstanding performance and quite frankly, unfortunately, no system that actually holds accountability on the other end of the spectrum. We're changing that.

We've already put out regulations for the most senior executives, what are called the SES, which are the most senior executives, where we effectively, for the SES, have put out a regulation that requires a forced distribution, so a cap of full. 30% of fours and five rankings, which we think is appropriate to actually distinguish people, you know, in terms of their performance. So number one is we've got to reform the system, period, and we're working on that, and you'll see more regulation from us on that. Number two, you're actually right, which is, look, like sometimes the metrics are hard, right? So, you know, you don't really want to measure, like, lines of code that somebody produces because obviously all code is not

created equal. But, you know, what I think does work in the private sector is, look, managers are responsible for their frontline workers, they meet with them one-on-one, they have. weekly, they have a sense of what they're doing, they provide feedback along the way. Like, I think the performance management ongoing process works better in the private sector. In the public sector, what I found is instead of managers, we use the term supervisor, which I think actually, unfortunately, does a disservice to what the job is. Like, I don't think the job is necessarily supervision. The job is to manage, meaning, are they working on the right stuff?

Are they doing the right things? Do they need training for this kind of stuff? And historically, we haven't done a great job on that. So one of the things that we just did, for example, is we just rolled out a brand new training program that's mandatory for all supervisors specific to this issue on performance management so to teach them like what does a one-on-one look like. You know, those of us who grew up in the technology industry, the first book that we were all assigned to read was Andy Groves, Only the Paranoids Survive, which I still think is a fantastic book. I don't know if y'all have read it. It's actually

a really awesome book. I have read it years ago. I have read it. Yeah. Keep going. Yeah, I mean, basically, he literally talks about like, what is a one-on-one meeting with your, you know, team member, like, what should it look like? And it's like, you know, it's very much like management one-on-one stuff. But I think the honest answer is like most people don't get that training. And so as a result, we have had a performance management culture where we have inflated grades and we have basically once or maybe maximum twice a year people actually get feedback. So it's totally unfair to the employee. And it's also just unfair to top performers who are not actually getting differentiated reviews and differentiated compensation. I was just about to ask, just to be

100% clear, compensation is going to be tied to performance. Correct. Okay. Correct. All right. Yes. And again, it's not that it hasn't been before, but the problem is if everybody's a four and a five and you have a finite bonus pool, then you're peanut buttering out the bonuses basically. So like, again, just, you know, Tracey, just to give you a sense. Like when we gave guidance on this SES, these very senior executives, when we said there's a 30% cap, we also said we think 60% of the bonus-based compensation should go to that 30% of the

individuals. And, you know, that's a, you know, we can argue whether it's 60% or 80%. But the point is, like, let's actually really pay for performance. and let's differentiate compensation as opposed to giving everybody a $300 or $500 bonus, which in the scheme of things has little retentive or incentive value for employees. So you mentioned project management just then, and I was looking at some of the press releases and documentation that you put out as part of this program. And there really is an emphasis on getting project managers. And I am very curious why that particular role seems to be in short supply, because I know someone who moved from a completely different. for an industry into project management for a graphic design company. They had never done it before.

And it didn't seem that hard. Okay. So I'm going to distinguish between project management and product management, which is, I hope we wrote product management in the, in our stuff. Oh, did I miss read it? Oops. Well, I don't know that you did or not. We may have put it in there. But what we need is what I would call a product manager job, which is, you know, a product manager in my mind is basically somebody who, sometimes they come from an engineering background. They might actually have been developers themselves. But they're kind of people who sit between the engineering organization and the end user customer. And they listen to the customer and say, great, okay,

tell me your problems. What are you trying to solve? And their job is kind of to translate that into ultimately, in tech speak, what we'd call a PRD, a project requirements document for the engineers to develop against. So like, that's the role we need. So in a well-functioning engineering organization, you have developers, you have designers, and then you have product managers. And the product managers probably aren't putting their hands on the keyboard actually, you know, you know, typing, you know, ones and zeros. But they are literally that go between, between like the end user customer and then the requirements that ultimately drive the development process. It's interesting. I feel like that's something I've really come to appreciate in

working for a large organization. How valuable translation skills are, because you have this one part of the room that knows one very specific thing. And then there's these generalists on the other end that have some vague thing. And that person who could sit in the middle and talk to both sides is clearly a very, is a valuable person. You know, so you mentioned like the one thing that comes up a lot in a common theme on our podcast is like the importance of this sort of like tacit organizational knowledge, things that are like cannot simply be written down. They do not exist necessarily in one person's head. There are just things that are sort of collectively known process knowledge and so forth. How do you think about that in, like,

of the fact that these are two-year roles. And, you know, again, maybe in some cases someone will do two years, then continue their career in the federal government. But, you know, especially given the pay gap that emerges specifically for technologists. Like, that's probably, you're taking in the one area where the pay gap probably gets the widest over time. How do you think about fostering, fostering and maintaining that kind of knowledge, especially given what you laid out at the very beginning, which is this sort of, I don't know if crisis is the right word, but these looming retirements of all these people that do have years of accumulated knowledge about how things really work. Yeah. So you're absolutely right, which is, look,

we have to balance kind of the two-year time period against the need for actually the organization being able to maintain these systems once people leave. So I'll give me a real world example, Joe, just so you have it because it might be helpful. So in my organization, OPM, we own the retirement process and retirement for, you know, several million annuitants, basically, who have, you know, kind of completed their professional careers. And we are complete, it's a very, I won't go into the details. I won't bore you, but there's literally, it's a, like, a ridiculously manual paper-based process where for years we have had people literally filling out paper applications as recently as beginning of this year and sending paper by postal mail and all kinds of stuff. And we

literally have a mine in Boyers, Pennsylvania, which is very fun if you ever want to come see it, where we have hundreds of millions of file cabinets of people's retirement records that we can solve. We'd love to, I would love to. I've always wanted to go like those those like huge like under mountain like big iron mountain. They literally bury a lot. It is iron mount. I'd love to check out. The Indiana Jones warehouse for government bureaucracy.

I've always wanted to check out one of these places. We'll arrange that after the episode. All right. We're going to work on that one together. Anyways, I bring that up to say, okay, so look, we've, luckily, we've had a small team of developers, Joe Jebia, who you guys may recognize the name. He's a co-founder for Airbnb. He joined the administration even actually before I got there. But he's been kind of housed in OPM, and he has like a team of like three developers and, you know, a design person. And they've been completely

redesigning this retirement application. So we now have what we call ORA, the online retirement application, where instead of paper, people actually can go, you know, in the year 2025 onto a, you know, computer and you know type in their application, upload their documents, it gets ratted to the HR and it's you know it's vastly better than what we've had. So I bring this up to say look I think this is me is a good example which is all those people are going to disappear at some point in time and then the responsibility for that application is going to shift to the existing CIO organization within OPM to maintain it to integrate with other systems and so a requirement of being able to do

that development process for Joe and his team is look they have to do documentation they have to do training of the team look I think it's not an insurmountable problem. I just think it means as part of your process, you just have to anticipate that there is going to be a time where people are going to disappear. And quite frankly, it's a smart thing to do anyways because we just know, and look, this happens in private companies all the time. Look, people's average tenure in private companies, I can tell you in Silicon Valley, it's way less than four years is what the average tenure of an engineer is. So these are not new things. They are new things to the government, which is this idea of kind of knowledge capture and knowledge management,

you know, kind of in light of the fact that people might not be there for their entire your career. But I think it just means, as we've designed this program, that we have to have the appropriate level of documentation, of integration, of source code notes and all those things that are, you know, you would do in a normal circumstance to recognize that. Now look, Joe, in the perfect world, I hope people love it and they're like, wow, this is exactly where I want to spend the rest of my life. And that's awesome. If they want to do that, like, we want to keep them in government. But, you know, I think we're also have to deal with the practical realities that, you know, the current generation of, you know, people are not thinking about, you know, three, five, 10-year,

you know, employment, basically things are much more plural than that. I'm Francine Lacqua, an award-winning journalist, and I've got a new podcast, Leaders with Francine Lacqua from Bloomberg podcasts. I've interviewed everyone from Heads of State to fashion icons about the news of the moment. But I've always been curious, who are these people as leaders? I don't think there's one right way to be a leader. Make decisions. A poor decision is always better than no decision. Listen to new episodes every other Monday. Follow leaders with Francine Lacois wherever you get your podcast. What are you doing to streamline the operational side of the process? Because I imagine you mentioned

culture before. If the pitch is come work for government, it's important, but you're going to be lower paid and you're going to have to constantly deal with paperwork and put together, you know, RFPs that have 7,000 requirements and things like that. That's a tough sell to someone who's used to the whole move fast and break things culture. Yeah. So anyways, let me just be totally clear, which is we are not going to move fast and break things because we can't quite do that in government. We can move faster than we currently do, and we can afford to take some risks, but we generally don't want to break things because, you know, people do need to get their Social Security checks and, you know, the IRS needs to actually make sure you get your tax refund. So, but it's a great question. So look, there's a couple things that we're doing both inside of outside this program. So outside the program more generally, what are the big things that OPM is driving along with OMB, you know, kind of the Office of Management budget is we're working with all the agencies to basically what I would call do headcount planning and reshape the priorities for the organization. So there's a huge amount of government is very good about adding things to the

plate and they're very bad about actually ever taking anything off. So every time something new comes down from Congress, we add, you know, thousands of more people, we add stuff to the plate. And then we have this list now of 20 things, probably five of which we've been doing for 20 years. And quite frankly, nobody even remembers why we're doing them anymore. They've just now become like, you know, embedded into our culture. So part of the exercise in order to kind of make the throughput faster and to make sure that an engineer isn't like sitting on their hands dealing with, you know, crazy bureaucracy is we have to go back and look at prioritization and actually remove services that are no longer statutory and they're no longer valuable to the American people.

So that's the exercise we've started. That's the exercise that we're kind of ongoing right now. But the purpose of that will be not only to make sure that we're hopefully spending our money in the right places, but will also be to remove layers that ultimately slow down. and the actual work product of government. The second thing we can do is, as I mentioned, we're really trying to kind of change the performance management culture in government and eliminate barriers to people being able to move

through the organization and change the idea that you can't take any risk. I mean, obviously that's a big cultural challenge that we have in government. So everything from down to like, what's your performance plan look like, your performance plan should have, you know, efficiency, it should have, you know,

some measured amount of risk taking in there. So things that, again, will speed the pace of deployment and make sense. The third thing we're doing is, and this is, again, you guys ask me, you know, how is this program different from other programs? As we hire these thousand engineers, ultimately, they will live in various agencies, right? So Dr. Oz at CMS says, you know, it's like, look, I need 75 engineers to do, you know, kind of important projects there, or obviously Department of War, you know, has lots of stuff. So they're going to live in those agencies. But what we're not going to do, which is historically where I think these programs has failed, is if you drop these teams just into the blob that is the federal government, they're going to have a terrible experience.

and they're going to get lost, and their two years will literally go by without them actually having accomplished anything. So our whole goal with this is keep these teams together. So what I'm hoping from Dr. Oz is there's going to be a team of 75 engineers who are going to be a team. And they're going to work on the projects that he thinks are the most important projects. And of course, they have to integrate with the existing CIO organization because so much of what we do has integration backends and all that kind of stuff. But we've got to make sure that that happens because otherwise, you know, you hire a random, you know, intern to, and you plop them into an organization, and they get swallowed by the beast, basically. It's just, it's understandable why that happens. So we've got to think about the

organizational implications of bringing people in and make sure they're set up for success. And, you know, my expectations are, and certainly the conversations that I've had with all the agency heads are that they understand that. And they understand that for them to achieve what they want to do. They have to create the organizational structure that enables these guys to actually do what they're there for. Yeah, I think this is another thing that we can probably say from firsthand and experience is you come to a big organization, you've spent a long time, maybe the first year, of just getting to know the lay of the land,

who are the people that you should talk to, et cetera. It's a real challenge. It's a real challenge being effective of actually accomplishing anything, the amount of time. I mean, I've been to Bloomberg. We've all experienced. Yeah, I've been here 10 years and there's like, who do I call it?

It's just like the nature of large organizations. I want to talk about, you know, people who, you say, okay, like you need, we need to do something about the fact that all these people are going to retire and there is this pipeline, etc. Setting aside optimal levels of how big the federal workforce should be, et cetera. One thing that I could see as a bit of a problem about maintaining career is if federal workers do not feel that they are respected in their jobs. And there is rhetoric that you hear, it's like federal governments, they, you know, again, some people that's like, oh, they're leeches. They're part of the deep state. They're all woke and they spend money on this and that's waste.

But even that spending looks like what I observe is spending in the private sector, et cetera. And then, you know, there's at least from this administration, there's been these sort of seemingly from the outside and probably from the inside capricious layoffs or arbitrary layoffs. And so if you respect this workforce, then how could you possibly have just like cut so arbitrarily? I mean, this is what it seems like. When you think about building a talent pipeline, do you think about this dimension and do you agree with the sort of premise of the question that it's a challenge that

no one is going to work at a place if their bosses to some extent sort of think they're, you know, do not respect them? Yeah. So the short answer is, yes, like absolutely this is a critical part of making sure that the federal government is an attractive place for the people who are there and also the short answer. the people who, you know, we're trying to recruit in. So I got a million thoughts. Let me try to see if I can keep them in the time we have remaining. So I'll give you one thing. So just to back up, as you know, I've worked at Injuries and Horowitz, and Ben Horowitz, in my mind, is one of the, you know,

best CEOs, best managers that I've ever learned from. And I, I'd worked for him for literally 10 years prior. So for 26 years of my life, I've had the benefit of learning from Ben. The most important thing I learned from him is exactly what you describe, which is when you have restructurings in companies, basically you have broken trust with your employees. Okay. So particularly in the startup context, right? Like, you know, when we were in startups, we personally recruited every single person into that company, and we told them how we were going to conquer the world

and how awesome we were going to be, and we believed it. We weren't, like, lying to them. But it turns out we were wrong. Like, the market changed. We didn't have enough money. And, you know, we had to live through this in our loud cloud opsware days. We had to lay a bunch of people off.

And so you've immediately broken trust with those employees. So you are, from that day forward, basically, in a situation where you have to rebuild that trust, right? So you have to demonstrate to them that, you know, it wasn't capricious and arbitrary and that you're not like lying to them in a jerk, but that you actually do care about them. And it turns out through no fault of their own, their next door neighbor who sat in the cube next to them, unfortunately, lost their job because, like, we couldn't afford to pay them anymore. So I say that only to say, look, I recognize that very clearly. I understand that. And if you literally go back to, like, the testimony I gave when I went through my hearing, I said that very explicit.

I think that's important. All that being said, I think, look, the way to think about, let me just give you the context. of the headcount reductions that happened in the government because I think there is, in my mind, at least some misinformation out there that I think is worth talking about. So it'll give you some numbers, you know, you've got a very sophisticated audience. As at the end of this year, roughly about 317,000 people will have exited the federal government. Okay, we started the year at about 2.4 million ish, roughly, in terms of civilian, these are civilian employees, by the way, so forget about the armed services because my organization doesn't touch that. About 2.4 million civilian employees

will be roughly 2.1 million civilian employees as of December 31st of this year. At the same time, we hired about 66,000 employees, so on a net basis, call it 270,000, roughly, kind of net departures from the government. If you go back to that 317,000 number, 92.5% of those people took some form of voluntary retirement. So we had this thing called DRP, Deferred Resignation Program. That was literally half of it. 154,000 people took that, which was an eight-month severance that we gave to people to

voluntarily leave government. And then the rest of it was, there are some other. programs, the acronyms aren't relevant for your listeners. They're called Vera and VISA if people want to look them up. But those are other voluntary kind of, you know, retirement programs. And then only 7.5% of people were removed through either RIFs or what we call probationary employees, which is in the government, if you've been there for one or two years, depending upon the job, you're kind of the closest thing to an at-will employee that we have in the federal government. And so there were about 7,000 of those probationary employers who were removed and about 17,000

people who were ultimately rift, you know, reductions enforced as a result of restructions. So I say that, number one, not to, I want to be totally clear with your listeners, not to make light of any of this. Obviously, those are real people with real jobs and real families and stuff, but the numbers, again, you know, kind of, I think, bear out what we tried to do in the government, which is tell people that things were changing, tell people that, you know, we do have a different view as to what, you know, we think the federal government should be doing, and give people an opportunity to voluntarily say, okay, this is not what I signed up for, which is a very noble thing to do and say, you know, it's time for me to go do something different. So

92 and a half percent of the people who left the government did so because they decided, you know, this wasn't an environment they wanted to be in. So that being said, now look, I totally agree with you, which is we have to demonstrate to the people that are there and to the people who are coming in that, you know, we obviously care about them and that we think they do valuable work. And I think that's the case for the vast, fast, fast majority of people there do great work. Like any organization, yes, there are some people who are not doing great work, and we have a system that makes it very hard to hold them accountable. We're try to fix that. But look, that's true of any organization. So I don't think it, we're not,

it doesn't make sense to kind of demean the broad federal government based upon the work of a few. But we have to do that. And we also have to be honest and transparent with our people, which I, which I believe very strongly in is, look, we can't be all things to all things to all things to the trillion dollar deficits. That's not sustainable. And so look, we've got to be smarter. We have to use technology to find ways to improve efficiency. We have to think about if we're doing 20 things, are all 20 of them still required. Do they still add value? Because ultimately we're stewards of the taxpayer dollars. Like, this is not our money we're spending. And so I think it's incumbent upon everybody, and this is the message that I'm trying to get across to my team and to the rest of government, is efficiency doesn't mean just cutting costs.

Efficiency means are you thinking about delivering a better service, but doing so at or below, like, what you do today because you're thinking about organizational changes, you're thinking about technology. Like, to me, that is just, like, quite frankly, required of anybody in any organization to do. And so that to me is, like, what I'm trying to convey to people. And yes, that means that there may be some jobs that are impacted because of technology. But those things are going to happen whether we want them to happen or not. The question is, do we actually set up the workforce and do training and do all the kinds of things we need to do to make sure that people have opportunities in light of what is a very, very rapidly changing technological market? So I get that part of the problem that you're trying to solve is an operational one, this idea of like a cobalt programmer who's been there for decades and he retires and walks out. door and no one knows how to do what he was doing or no one understands the system that he's

basically had control over for ages. But at the same time, you know, we're talking about a decent amount of turnover, a lot of new employees, if this goes the right way. How are you, I guess, guiding for safety? Are there any sort of like institutional guardrails that you're putting in so that the government doesn't actually end up breaking things? Yeah. I mean, look, there are, you will hopefully appreciate this. But look, there are a ton of institutional guard rules. You know, in my mind, like, the problem is we have too many institutional guardrails.

And again, you know, rational people may disagree with me. But, you know, I can just tell you, like, the entire culture of everything we do, everybody I've talked to in government, and luckily we've had lots of kind of impact on making change early on, everybody is like, we can't do that because of X, right? And the answer is either because, like, it's statutory. And the honest answer is when you dig and dig and dig, the reality is it's not statutory. Like, we built up this, like, urban myth over time that something is statutory. Or, as I mentioned, because, like, I'm terrified that I'm going to get a GAO report, an Inspector General report, or a congressional inquiry. And, like, we have built such a compliance culture that we are

just literally, like, unable to do anything that actually is kind of modern and, you know, forward thinking in terms of government. And so this is what I'm trying to do. And as I told you guys from the beginning, like, yes, this is not the private sector. We're not going to take crazy risks. We're not going to, like, go, like, put everything on black, you know, in the casino. But we can have a rational conversation, which is, okay, like, what are the risks we're taking and what's the upside? So if you'll give me a minute, let me give you a very, very tangible example for your listeners. So I mentioned to you that we handle retirement services. And it's a very manual process. And so, like, it takes us a really long time to get people formally retired. So, you

You quit from, you know, you retire from the government on September 30th. In the current process, you know, it takes 60, 90, 120 days sometimes for you to actually get a check because we have this ridiculous manually paper process that takes forever to, for us to calculate, what are you actually entitled to and to make sure you're getting the right money and all that stuff? So that's a huge burden on retirees, right? You've been getting a paycheck every two weeks for the last 40 years. And now I'm going to tell you, like, sorry, like go manage your cash flow some other way while I'm doing this. Like, that's terrible in my mind.

And it's a complete disservice and completely disrespectful to people who are retiring from the government. So we have a process in the retirement services thing called interim pay, right? Which is, as the name sounds, right, the idea is, okay, can we get you some money on an interim basis that may not be 100% accurate, but at least helps bridge this gap between when you retire and when you get your actual annuity check. Okay? So going into and then a couple of this with we've got this massive, you know, we've had a lot of exits in government. So the 317,000 I mentioned, not all of those are retirees, but, like, Like, on average, people, we have about 100 to 150,000 exits a year. So we're, you know, more than double the number.

So, and as a result, there's more than double the number of retirees that are happening. So you've got this terrible payable process, like massive volumes, and we're just going to make life miserable for all these people who can't get money. So I asked the team, I said, okay, how many people go through interim pay today? This is kind of pre-R change. And it's about like, well, what's the problem? They're like, well, that's how we've always done it. So, you know, again, part of the answer was statutory, which it's not.

It's not statutory. And they're like, well, there's huge risk to the system because if we pay somebody more and then they die between the time we paid them their interim payment and we get their actual annuity, there may not be any assets left into the estate. And so we might compromise the fidelity of the trust fund. Okay. Now, keep in mind, this is a $1.2 trillion trust fund that is actually cash flow of positive. So among trust funds for retirement, it's actually very rare.

But we earn 2.5% on government treasuries a year, which is horrendously bad because we're only allowed to invest in government treasuries. But not with Spain, that, it's actually still cash flow positive and fully funded, like, almost in any circumstance. So we finally went through the math, and I said, let's go through the math. And let's assume, you know, we get it wrong X amount of time and all this other stuff. And we did a bunch of math. And I said, look, if we're wrong 100% of the time, it could cost us a couple million dollars

of overpayments out of a $1.2 trillion trust fund. But we can shrink from 90 to 120 days the time somebody gets a payment to, either zero to seven days if we put more people through this interim pay process. So in my mind, like, this is just the most obvious thing to do. And we are doing it, by the way. We decided to do it. But like, it's a great example, at least in my mind, of where we have so ingrained in the culture that risk, any kind of risk is bad without actually people being willing to have the conversation to say, okay, like, what is the cost of that risk relative to the upside opportunity that taking that risk entails? And I'm perfectly happy. You know, I told them, I said, look, you don't need to

protect me. If it turns out, some Congressperson wants to yell at me because, like, I took a modicum of risk in order to, like, make, you know, hundreds of thousands of retirees lives better and not have to, like, take loans out after they've given their career service to the federal government. Like, I'm totally fine defending that. I think that's a perfectly rational answer. So that to me is the issue. I have one last question. And maybe I was sort of ask you a little bit to put your VC hat on. Maybe you, because maybe you will go back to VC when this rolls over. But who knows, someone who knows a lot, a lot about technology. So we had an episode recently. with Tyler Cowan, we're talking about one of the weird things. Oh, yeah, he's great. Yeah, is that, you know,

we haven't even really talked about AI. So there's my AI question. AI, the tech, you know, makes your jaws drop when you see it. On the other hand, the impact so far on the economy or the real world is sort of muted. It maybe is like, you might have given the capabilities you might have expected more, more revolutionary change. And his thesis that he put forth was like, we're really not going to see that sort of meaningful, impactful diffusion of the tech until we have organizations that to some extent are built ground up from AI. That, you know, yes, you can maybe get some productivity gains here and there by putting AI into some existing workflow, but that the real breakthroughs will come from whether it's companies or so forth that are truly

AI native from day one. I'm curious, you know, when you think about, you know, again, going back to the VC world, A, does this feel intuitive to you that the real deployers will be AI native? And then does that have any implications for like, we're not going to have a revolution, I guess hopefully, at the federal level, not going to have a complete destruction in starting over. Does that have any implications then for thinking about how AI will be diffused within federal processes? Yeah. So obviously, yeah, Tyler is a brilliant guy, so far from me to disagree with him. But let me give you just a couple of thoughts on what he said. So look, I guess I generally agree with most of what he says, which is, and this is true,

by the way, I think of adoption of most new technologies, which is we go to the common use cases and we think about incrementality as the first thing to do it. So if you go way back when Mark Andreessen told me this, so if it's made up, I'll blame him. When we first had movies, you know, actual like, you know, moving pictures, they were just plays basically that people filmed, right? So like they weren't like producing them. They weren't new content. It was literally just we said, wow, we have this cool thing called a camera. Let's film a play and then go show in a thing. Now, it's obviously, that's not that relevant to this conversation, but my point is just like, we tend to go to these very common incremental use cases for things. And so, look,

I believe that if you look at any major Fortune 500 company, I guarantee you that every single board conversation is, what the heck are you doing about AI, and how do I get three to five to seven percent greater EPS growth relative to last year because you can fix my customer support problem or stuff like that? So I think that's what's happening right now. I do agree that, yes, what often happens is then there will be a new generation of companies. And we see this in the venture capital world too already, which is the most obvious use cases that people did is there's a ton of companies who have customer support applications for AI. And there's a ton of companies who have, you know, how do we help lawyers read documents better using AI? And that's great. And those

companies are fantastic. But the real breakthrough is going to be, yes, like when someone says, okay, we're not just going to just going to make Salesforce.com more efficient, but like we're just going to rethink customer relationship management with an AI first mentality. And like, the AI should know who my customers are. It should anticipate what I want to do. And it should send me emails and texts and say, like, you haven't talked to this person in five weeks. And I just saw that they, you know, spoke at this conference and they talked about this. And, you know, you're not following up on it. So that's where we will get. And I have no doubt we will get there, quite frankly. And look, I'm an optimist by nature. You have to be to be in the venture capital business.

But yes, I would agree with him generally. I think that's right. What does it mean for the federal government? Very simple, which is that if the private sector is incremental, the federal government's going to be like, you know, 100x incremental relative to 100x less incremental, I guess I would describe it. But that's, in my mind, that's okay. So again, I've told everybody in my team, I'm not asking you, I don't want you to go build like the 2040 AI plan because we have no idea what the heck that's going to look like. That's a total waste of our time. What I want you to do is look at a process you do today and figure out, can you use an AI tool to help you get 3, 5, 10% greater performance out of your organization, right? So we do a ton of, I'll give you very simple example. We do a ton of regulation

obviously, because that's what we're ultimately in the business of government is producing regulations. And we're about to put out a regulation. We got 40,000 public comments on this regulation. We literally assigned each one of those 40,000 comments to a person to read and to draft a response to. Now, to me, that's just insane, right? And I'm not saying that, like, the AI, we should just like the AI should do it,

but, like, clearly AI is very good at, you know, summarization, at, you know, helping people think about stuff. Like, that's all, if we did that, like, we would unleash so much creativity and opportunity to government. If we just said, take the very basic stuff we're doing today and use your, you know, companion chat GPT or XAI, whatever your favorite tool is, and just, you know, eke out a little bit of productivity. So, anyway, that's how I think about it. So, yes, look, government is not going to, we're not going to transform government overnight.

But what we're trying to do and what the U.S. Tech Force is trying to do is, can we get the right people in here who understand those things so that we start to drive ourselves forward so we don't wake up five years from now and find that we're the last dinosaur, basically, and the world has passed us by. So you sort of mentioned it just then, but can you talk at all about what kind of platforms you're using currently or what kind of models? Because, you know, I'm sure some people would find it very ironic if the federal government was using deep seek or something like that. And I'm curious whether you lean towards like an open source thing or a closed source thing because of privacy concerns. Right now, the honest answer is we're at the very, very early stage.

which is most of what people are doing. Literally, this may make your head spin because it made mine. Until about a month ago, we did not even have chat GPT on our government desktops. So like, you know, I literally would sit there on my phone and ask chat GPT questions. My personal phone, just to be totally clear, on my personal phone, and then I would go back to my work laptop and do stuff. So as of about a month or two ago, we actually have chat GPT, we have XAI now. We might even have, we might even have a third one, I don't even know.

Oh, and of course, we're the government's a big Microsoft. clients that we have Microsoft copilot. For an individual user in government, that's basically the state. That is like the state of, you know, kind of advanced automation, basically, is we literally have it on our laptops now. For the development work that's happening, you're absolutely right, which is, look, there are major security issues that we all have to think about. Look, I'm a big believer, as you can imagine, in open source, and certainly our firm

Andrews and Horowitz, you know, you've seen Mark make lots of public comments about this. So I think the government will use open source and can appropriately do so. clearly we're not going to use like the deep seek commercial version. Yeah. But, you know, so much of that stuff is open source. And if you bring it in, you know, to your environment and you make sure that you got the right security standards, you know, there's tremendous value to develop on open source. But I would just, just to give you a sense of where we are, I would say we're very, very early in that journey in government. I have one last very quick question, which is how much of a constraint is drug testing on new hires nowadays? You know, I wish I had a really

smart answer to your question. I don't know the answer to that. I have not seen it. It hasn't shown up as some like big red flag where we're losing people in the recruiting pipeline because of that. But the very honest answer is I don't know. But I will

find out. I think that's a good question. I'm actually very curious about drugs in the workforce in general. We should do more on that. Scott Cooper, thank you. No, for real, for real. I, you hear about it. My barber was talking about how hard it was to hire because he's like, everyone is sort of If somebody, I would just say, Joe, if somebody clips that and puts it on,

the point's going to be, Joe is very, I'm very, I'm very curious about drugs in the workforce. That's going to be a great clip. We'll get, our producer, we'll clip it. We'll get ahead of that one. Scott Cooper, thank you so much for coming on, Adelage. That was really, really appreciate your take your time, very helpful, and I would love to stay in touch and hear more about how these projects evolve during your tenure. Thank you both of your time. I appreciate it.

I thought that was great. I love, I love these conversations. I mean, because I think they're just, I guess the sociology of them. Yeah. Like that's what these conversations are really about. And especially, you know, we talk about some of these pathologies that replicate from the public to a private sector, et cetera, that are both. Like, they're really interesting sociological questions. The Department of War needs to get a bunch of ping pong tables and three snacks to recruit the most cutting edge tech workers, right?

With a match bar. That's right. I wonder if they're an experiment. We should have asked that whether they have a match on tap. at the office and whether that could move the dial. But it's also interesting, again, there's that cultural sociological aspect, but it does apply to large bureaucracies and private organizations. And I think everyone at some point in their lives will experience this type of unnecessary paperwork,

whether it's in their jobs or when they're applying for a driver's license or whatever. Yeah. You know what? Like this is like where I have like the sympathy for like sort of like modern life, large complicated things. How can the individual with our, I mean, how could we do, how could you navigate insurance? How can you navigate all this stuff? It like drives you crazy at any scale. I do think, you know, and this came up also in our conversations with Jennifer, and I believe it that there is a lot, there is more to a career than pay, right? But I also think that's like a very real issue, especially

when you're talking about the tech workforce specifically where we know that you can just like make an absolute fortune. And in many cases, you can make a fortune as a very young person. You'll be in the right company at the right time and many overnight multi-millionaires in Silicon Valley. So it's not just the late stage, although that's where it becomes the most obvious. I really, the pay is a very tricky situation. Well, I do think the emphasis on time constraints for the tech force. That's really interesting.

And that's kind of a shift, again, a cultural shift from the way people have perceived government jobs for a long time. And I can imagine, you know, like if you're a. young tech worker. Maybe you're having trouble getting into the private sector, you know, just last year, no, two years ago. Remember there was the wave of like layoffs. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And now everyone is recruiting because of AI. But I mean, no, I mean, you're to your point. Like, there are even like there are many talented tech people. If they're not right there on the sweet spot, we even know that's not what it used to be. So I can imagine like you go to the government for two years and it's it's an educational process and you can take some of that knowledge away from you

when you then go into the private sector although that also opens up the question of rotating doors between the government and private companies but maybe that's a topic for a different day. I just add I do think there is and it's not just this administration but I think it's been very notable at least with some parts of the administration or some parts of the rhetoric there's this sort of like vilification of bureaucrats which is again sort of a long time like bureaucrats has sort of been a kind of a pejoral. I mean, a bureaucrat's a real thing. The B word.

Anyway, I do think that's an issue. And I also think, you know, like maybe we should just bring back civil service exams everywhere. And if you could, no, seriously. And if you could pass this test, you can get a job. Like, it's Lindy, you know, it's like famously, you know, go back thousands of years in China. It's like the big test. I was about to say, do you know about the Chinese civil service exams? Those are so interesting and crazy.

Shall we leave it there? Let's leave it there. All right. This has been another episode of the Oddlots podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy Allaway. And I'm Jill Wisenthall. You can follow me at the stalwart.

Follow our guest, Scott Cooper. He's at S. Cooper. Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez, at Carmen Armin. Dashobennett and Dashbot at Kale Brooks and Kail Brooks. For more Oddlots content, go to Bloomberg.com slash Oddlots for the daily newsletter and all of our episodes. And you can chat about all these topics 24-7 in our Discord. Discord. gg slash oddlots. And if you enjoy oddlots, if you want us to go to Pennsylvania to look at a bunch

of file cabinets, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes, absolutely ad-free. All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening. This is Caroline Hyde. And I'm Ed Ludlow inviting you to join us for Bloomberg Tech. a daily podcast focusing exclusively on technology, innovation and the future of business. Every weekday, we bring you the top headlines from the world's biggest tech companies.

From finance to defence, AI to entertainment and from startups to the magnificent seven. We highlight the latest stories of the people and companies pushing the tech sector to new frontiers and the politics that shape global tech markets. We do this all every weekday, then bring you the most important conversations and analysis in our podcast. Search for Bloomberg Tech. On YouTube, Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen. Join us every afternoon on your commute home and stay ahead of the tech news cycle. That's the Bloomberg Tech podcast.

I'm Caroline Hyde in New York. And I'm Ed Ludlow in San Francisco. Subscribe today wherever you get your podcasts.