 |
|
|
|||||
Young software engineers from Elon Musks Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) continue to infiltrate U.S. government agencies with the stated goal of eliminating what the Trump White House deems wasteful (or woke) spending. Theyre already on the ground at the Labor Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. And theyre spreading further every day. DOGE has also said it aims to modernize government systems, which implies altering the code within those government systems. That could bring members of the organization face-to-face with something theyve potentially never seen before: COBOL, or common business-oriented language. COBOL was developed in the 1950s by a private-public partnership that included the Pentagon and IBM. The goal was to create a universal, English-like programming language for business applications. In the decades since, private-sector businesses have moved away from the language. The code is difficult and costly to maintain, and was built for batch processing, which means it doesnt integrate well with more modern cloud-based and real-time applications. But its a totally different story in Washington, D.C. Indeed, despite a number of modernization pushes in recent decades, the language is still widely used within government mainframe systems that manage all kinds of government financial transactions, from tax payments and refunds to Social Security benefits to Medicare reimbursements. The systems, if maintained correctly, are extremely reliable. COBOL acts as the glue that holds the components of the mainframe together, the code that orchestrates its work with apps and databases, as one expert told me. The mainframes themselves are loaded with redundancy and fault-tolerance features so they never break down. COBOL-based mainframe systems are also still widely used in regulated industries such as financial services, telecommunications, and healthcare. Some people worry that Musks young engineers might blunder into the COBOL code base and make changes without understanding the full effects. Normally, any changes to the code underlying government systems has to follow a set of detailed business requirements written by other agency staffers. Any delays or downtime in these systems has direct effects on real peoples lives. Its also very possible that software engineers and others within the agencies will impress upon Musk and his DOGE advisers the importance of respecting established norms. But Musk and his people are, if anything, unpredictable. Should the DOGE staffers attempt to rewrite sections of the COBOL code, it could lead to unintended consequences, including major disruptions to critical government services. And unintended consequences are very possible, if not probable. Itll break and then well figure out what to fix In a way, the COBOL language symbolizes the disconnect of worldviews of the players in the DOGE drama. Maintaining the COBOL code is a process of translating new policies or regulations into detailed business requirements, translating the requirements into computer code, arduously testing the code in a safe environment, putting the final product into production, and documenting its purpose in the system. Since COBOL hasnt been part of the computer science curriculum since the 1990s, the people who do this work are usually older, and their numbers are diminishing. Musk and the DOGE staff, most of whom are young software engineers from Silicon Valley circles, are used to a very different move fast and break things process, says Don Hon, principal of Very Little Gravitas, which helps governments modernize complex services and products. You look at the way, for example, the early Tesla full self-driving software was put together, and we have a culture in the tech industry of, Let’s hack it together, let’s get something that works well enough, and then it’ll break and then we’ll figure out what to fix, says Hon, who has helped troubleshoot and modernize state and federal government systems, including Medicaid and logistics at the Defense Department. To be sure, that philosophy has yielded a lot of success for entrepreneurs like Musk in the past, Hon says. But that sort of calculated risk means something very different for government systems on which hundreds of millions of people rely. Engineers whove spent their entire professional life developing consumer-facing software may not be equipped to draw a correct risk profile for implementing changes to a government payments system. You’ve got someone who might say, What’s one missed Social Security payment or what’s one missed Medicaid payment, because we can fix it later, right? Hon says. What’s one missed federal payment that the states then disperse weekly to, for example, a service provider for social services? (DOGE did not respond to Fast Companys request for comment.) The COBOL software is brittle. If, for instance, the code is updated with a new policy that conflicts with an existing one, the whole system can crash. Some systems dont have automated testing routines, so software engineers must program tests by hand and go through the time-consuming task of testing new code before it gets implemented. This is complicated by the fact that some parts of the code arent properly documented, so people whove not yet seen itsuch as DOGE engineersmay not know what the code was written to do. Without whistleblowers from inside the agency, it may be hard to know if the DOGE people are attempting to alter system code. Earlier this month the Trump administration and the Treasury Department claimed that Musk and his cadre of DOGE operatives have merely read only access to government computer systemsand will make no changes to government systems or operations without the express consent of the president. But in a recent court filing, the highest-ranking DOGE point person at the Treasury Department, Thomas Krause, admitted that another DOGE staffer at the department, Marko Elez, had indeed been granted read and write access to the code, allowing him to alter it. (Krause said this access was given by accident.) Krause also said in the same court filing that his job is to understand how the agencys end-to-end payment systems and financial report tools work, [and] recommend ways to update and modernize those systems. This implies an intet to alter system code. Such an effort could easily touch the COBOL code working within the mainframe systems. In the court filing, Krause said hes been working closely with Treasury staffers to find ways of advancing Trumps and Musks objectives while still respecting the agencys data privacy and security guidelines. But DOGE officials already pushed out the Treasurys highest-ranking career staffer, David Lebryk, after he refused them access to the agencys payment systems. Krause likely can dispatch any internal objector with one phone call if they dont comply with DOGEs wishes. But the DOGE team may think twice before firing the veteran staffers who speak COBOL and know where the bodies are buried. In the end, COBOLs incomprehensibility and brittleness may be features, not bugs.
Category:
E-Commerce
I once hired an executivewell call her Alicewho elevated our company overnight. She helped shape our strategy, built a great team, and brought instant credibility to our brand. Our growth accelerated. The board respected her. The team loved her. I felt lucky to have her. But five years later, things had changed. Alice looked exhausted. She was short-tempered in meetings. One of her best people left. The teams performance stalled. She wasnt making obvious mistakes, but she was slowing the business down. Looking back, the signs were there, but I looked past themlike many CEOs do. When an executive has been a major contributor to success, its easy to let loyalty, optimism, or past achievements cloud your judgment. When I finally sat down with Alice and told her I thought it was time for a change, she seemed hurtbut also relieved. She knew it, too. The conversation was difficult but necessary. If youre a CEO, this moment will come for you, too. Changing executives isnt about whether someone is capable or not. More often, its about whether the executive who was right for yesterday is still right for tomorrow. The hardest part isnt making the call when the numbers are bad, the team is frustrated, or the board is raising concerns. By then, the answer is obvious but the damageto both the business and the individualhas already been done. The real challenge is recognizing the early warning signs before failure happens. Here are five signals to watch for: 1. They Hire for Yesterday, Not Tomorrow Great executives hire people who push them, challenge them, and bring new capabilities into the organization. But when an executive stops scaling, their hiring reflects it. Instead of bringing in talent that stretches the companys future potential, they hire for what they already knowpeople with skill sets that made sense in the last stage of growth, not the next one. Even worse, they may avoid hiring people who are more experienced than they are, fearing theyll be outshined. This is one of the subtlest but most telling signs that an executive isnt evolving with the business. Strong leaders arent threatened by A-players; they seek them out. 2. Theyre Getting Caught Flat-Footed Early in a companys growth, a strong executive is ahead of the curve. They anticipate problems before they arise and see opportunities before the competition does. But as the company scales, things get more complexmarket dynamics shift, operations grow more intricate, and leadership requires a different level of execution. An executive who once led with foresight can suddenly find themselves constantly reacting, caught off guard in ways they never were before. Often, its not that theyve lost their strategic instinctsits that the business has entered a stage theyve never navigated before, and their previous playbook no longer applies. 3. Their Team Doesnt Know Where Theyre Going A key role of any executive is ensuring their team understands the companys strategy and how it translates into their function. In a small company, this is relatively straightforwardthe strategy is narrow, and the CEO is often close to employees, reinforcing the vision directly. But as the company grows, that changes. The strategy becomes more complex, and executivesnot the CEObecome responsible for making sure their teams understand how their work connects to the bigger picture. If employees seem unclear on the companys direction or their role in it, its a sign that their leader isnt effectively setting strategic clarity. And its not just about communication; its about an executives ability to process complexity, distill it into actionable priorities, and inspire alignment. 4. They Struggle to Translate Strategy into Execution Similarly, in a companys early stages, translating strategy into action is relatively simple: The organization is smaller and the steps to execution are clear. But as the company grows, the gap between strategy and execution widens. Success requires more than just understanding company goals; it requires breaking them down into operational plans with clear milestones, defined ownership, and built-in accountability. An executive who once thrived in a lean, fast-moving environment may start to struggle as the organization becomes more complex. If they can no longer connect long-term strategy to day-to-day execution, teams lose focus, decisions get delayed, and momentum fades. 5. Theyre in Nonstop Operational Meetings Great executives elevate themselves over time. They move from being operators to being leaderssetting direction, aligning the team, empowering their managers, and ensuring execution through others. But when an executive cant scale, they get pulled deeper into the weeds. Instead of creating an environment where the strategy, expectations, and processes are in place for the team to operate, theyre stuck firefighting. If theyre constantly in meetings troubleshooting operational issues, solving tactical problems, or micromanaging details, its a sign that the business is running themnot the other way around. What Do You Do When You See These Signs? These are the warning signs Ive learned to watch for, but spotting them doesnt always mean an executive needs to go. If an executive is struggling to translate company strategy for their team, for example, it could be a sign that the strategy itself isnt well-defined. And if theyre micromanaging, it may be a reflection of the expectations, culture, or tone set by the CEO. Thats why the first step should always be feedback and coaching. But if the same patterns persist despite candid conversations and support, waiting longer wont fix the problem. It will just delay the inevitable. Companies dont move backward. Some leaders recognize these gaps and rise to the challenge. Others dont. And when they dont, its not a failureits simply that their strengths align with an earlier stage of the companys journey, not where its headed next. Making an executive change is disruptive. Its expensive. It can be risky. But failing to make a change is often exponentially more so. The CEOs who scale companies successfully are the ones who make these calls earlybefore the business, the team, or the results force their hand. When it comes to evolving the executive team, like many other areas of leadership, knowing what to do is rarely the hardest part. Knowing when to act is.
Category:
E-Commerce
The Fast Company Impact Council is a private membership community of influential leaders, experts, executives, and entrepreneurs who share their insights with our audience. Members pay annual membership dues for access to peer learning and thought leadership opportunities, events and more. Los Angeles is our home and living laboratory. For four decades at RIOS, we’ve pioneered design that confronts complexity, believing that every urban challenge carries profound opportunities for transformation. The recent catastrophic fires aren’t just a crisis, but a critical inflection point for reimagining resilience. Our landscape practice, led by Katherine Harvey, has always understood that urban design is an act of collective imagination. This moment demands we move beyond survival to radical reinventiona challenge that resonates deeply with our founding ethos of designing for dynamic, adaptive futures. Katherine’s background in landscape architecture, academic research, and residency in downtown Los Angeles provide her with valuable insights into the citys future. She offers thoughtful perspectives during this moment of sorrow and hope for the city we cherish. The following reflection from Katherine emerges from our commitment to Los Angeles, a city we’ve helped shape and continue to believe in, evenand especiallyin its most vulnerable moments. Los Angeles 2025 This year arrived with unimaginable devastation for the Los Angeles region. The catastrophic fires present a test for how we will address our citys future and the generational challenges and opportunities we have before us. As we move from shock to recovery, the debates have already begun on how, what, and where we rebuild. Immediate momentum addresses the human impacts, which will continue to unfold in the coming months. How we sustain that momentum and act deliberately toward our future is more uncertain. This recovery will be a massive work of city remaking and reenvisioning. This unanticipated moment grants us a window to address Los Angeless past and present challenges as we confront our global climate reality. Territory, governance, and collective recovery Most major acts of city-making have denied the complexity of existing communities, history, or environment in the service of narrow motivations and achievements. Los Angeles, on the other hand, has historically been plagued by the incremental and individual motivations of capital, resulting in a dispersed and decentralized city. Can we learn from these historic dichotomies of singular grand plans versus incremental individualism and define a collective recovery urbanism? One where we build back a city that reduces further harm to our residents and environment. One where we do not accept the inevitable results of extreme weather ending in disaster, but instead lay out ambitious plans for adaptation to build back more brilliantly. Many have speculated that our distributed jurisdictions and centers of power have held us back from a collective vision for the basin. Even the citys Mayor Bass has acknowledged our lack of comprehensive planning and fragmented governance as recently as October, when tackling street improvement initiatives. Could this event induce enhanced cooperation between disparate places: Altadena and Pacific Palisades, county and city, mayor and supervisor? With the appointment of a chief recovery officer for the city, Steve Soboroff, we now wait to hear if the county and city will find a method for shared cooperation. What may be needed is an agency that collates across these governances to address the kindred struggles and the unique geographies. Despite our snarled infrastructure, our LA Metro public transit system has been a remarkable model for what is possible when we remove the friction of inter-urban territories and support cross-agency planning. Design a collective vision There are many who will continue to say these events were inevitable, in the face of a warming climate. Yet we have a chance to change the next inevitability. As a landscape architect and creative director at a global design collective I am part of a design community where envisioning the future is integral to our daily work. This event has opened questions for us that would have gone unasked without this disaster. Can we rebuild our neighborhoods as places that will evolve from serving our immediate resheltering needs to more robust buildings? Can these new buildings be fire-hardened and passively coexist with the environment? Can we address equity and ongoing displacement more aggressively, in what will no doubt be an aggravated housing and affordability crisis? Can we amplify and restore the wildland urban interface and bring back our former basin ecologies, grasslands, and coastal sage scrub, as ecological buffers from intense weather? A wealth of ideas, research, and plans have been brought together under the Governors Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force. Yet this work needs to become actionable and translated to our region and the urban context of these fires. For the design community, the translation of this expertise to scalable solutions for communities, neighborhoods, and buildings will be essential next steps. Allowing ourselves to dream in this moment of collective pain and trauma is imagining ourselves in a place beyond catastrophe. If we can do that, we can sort out the steps to get there. It will require invention and retooling, no different than what has already been initiated in hundreds of Californias climate initiatives to mitigate our projected climate future. It is the work our generation needs to do anyway. This is our moment to decide whether we will play a major role in defining that trajectory towards reduced vulnerability and increased resilience for future extreme weather as a city and region. Pacing ourselves It will not be an easy time to choose a collective vision over the instrumentality of executive orders or the facility of individual decisions. As of writing this on January 28 it is clear there will be a larger resistance to such a path from both a dismissive federal perspective and those that see the climate crisis as a fate we cannot change. Yet there are many more voices, from community members to experts, that will contribute to these questions and optimism about our future if we commit to this generational shift in city-making. Institutions, universities, community members, and storytellers will need to be engaged and empowered to move us imaginatively toward our future. Ultimately, a collective vision will need an engaged citizenry to imagine a different future that is invested in enhancing our regions livability and vitality. In this process we will revive the waning histories of these places, in combination with the nascent futures that were just beginning and are now emerging after this event. If we choose this as a generation, then the process we design will be as vital as the outcome. Jessamyn Davis is co-CEO and Katherine Harvey is creative director and landscap architect at RIOS.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||