Unless you’ve been trying to protect your mental health by not consuming news in the last week or so, you’re probably aware of the latest salvo from Carmaker/Rocket blaster-turned Government Efficiency Czar Elon Musk’s new agency, DOGE (which stands for Department of Government Efficiency – in case you were thinking it meant Department of Goofy Effrontery). Over the weekend, Musk commanded the US’s 2.3 million civilian federal employees to “reply to this email with approx. 5 bullets of what you accomplished last week and cc your manager,” setting an 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time Monday deadline.

In a post on X, he indicated that failure to reply to the email would be construed as a resignation. That specific threat got edited out of the actual email, probably because… well… according to many legal experts, that would be illegal (an obstacle which has not always stopped this administration from trying…)

While in favor of regularly asking workers about their work activities, accomplishments, disappointments, etc. (and listening to their replies), I have three significant concerns with DOGE’s methodology in ‘asking’ federal employees to list five activities from the most recent week:

1. It completely bypasses the federal management structure, the people who daily are responsible for giving work direction and gaining results (or not) from the workforce at large. They’re the ones who should best know what their teams/members attempted/accomplished vis-a-vis goals, and how to improve it; and the same ones who will be responsible for implementing any fixes, long after the DOGE crew is gone. If not, why do they exist? 
2. The tone and tenor of the message was completely off-key, and seemingly meant to intimidate. (Do it or else.) If you think they’re unproductive now, wait until they’ve been threatened, intimidated, and pissed off. Keep in mind that they’ve got more ways to screw us up than DOGE can count. Asking them instead to describe what work they did last week that they’re most and least proud of essentially leads to the same place, without the trauma. This isn’t hard!
3. The US Office of Personnel Management seems (underscore “seems”) to have signed off on this, perhaps as a reluctant participant. If that’s the case, why? This was a nonstarter from the jump. If joining this caper fits with their idea of good HR and leadership practice, something’s wrong. Maybe the purge needs to start there.

Come on, folks, we can do this in a manner much more consistent with our values and goals. A simple survey* of what’s working and what’s not in the federal workforce would be a great start. Let’s get on with it! 

*Our firm does Employee Surveys regularly for clients.