Recently, because I concluded the first phase of a two-part assignment as Chairman of a commission created to recommend reform of the Connecticut Department of Transportation, I have been asked to share my observations about government to a number of audiences. I will begin that process in this blog, but, because I have learned so much, I will probably cover this subject over several blogs.

By the way, my comments are not meant to be critical of individual government officials, most of whom I respect greatly. In fact, as you will see, government officials have to overcome huge structural and political obstacles to get anything done, and, given the constraints that have been put in their path, anything they do has to border on the heroic. (more…)

As a person who studied Communications, Political Science, and Law during college and law school, I am acutely aware of the power of language to shape how we think about and act on problems.

The main example that comes to mind is the way we characterize how government positions are filled.

When I was growing up, like most American history students, I read about the 1881 assassination of President James Garfield, who was killed by a “disappointed office seeker.” I learned that this tragedy gave rise to “civil service reform”, which, if I remember the history books, characterized the change as being one which replaced an appointment system based on “patronage” or “spoils” with one based on “merit”. Like most Americans, I came to believe that the civil service system was an unqualified positive development for American government, and the old system was corrupt, to the point of being “un-American.” In fact, on the radio this past week, I also heard a radio commentator refer to “patronage” appointments in a very disparaging way. (more…)

People who should know better, such as sophisticated investors, members of the media, or experts, are always surprised when a successful firm, or for that matter, a successful industry such as financial services, experiences a rapid and severe decline. I am not surprised, because virtually every kind of success contains within it the seeds of future failure. There are four reasons for this.

First, successful companies that achieve a dominant position in a market are most vulnerable to disruptive technologies precisely because they have the greatest stake in maintaining the business model that made them successful. Clayton Christiensen eloquently and cogently discussed this in his landmark book The Innovator’s Dilemma. Thus, even legitimate success can become a trap that prevents a firm from adapting to a threat. (more…)

I recently had the opportunity to speak with Eleanor Trickett, the editor in chief of DM News, about the inaugural DM News/Pitney Bowes survey on direct mail and the environment.

The survey reveals that consumers greatly overestimate the environmental impact of direct mail. Eleanor and I discussed the implications of this survey and how the industry can implement new technology and other initiatives to reduce the environmental impact of mail. We also discussed how industry leaders can work to improve the public perception of mail, and grow the value of mail as a medium in the long-term.

Listen to the Podcast

Anyone who has read this blog knows that, in discussing public policy issues, I have always tried to consider both the intended and unintended consequences of government decisions. For example, I have contended that, before governments mandate that “Do Not Mail” registries be created in each state, they should consider the economic and environmental consequences of such registries by both elected and appointed officials. If the goal of reducing unsolicited mail is to improve the environment, that goal may actually be undermined by a change in consumer behavior to engage in more face-to-face retail transactions begun by a drive in a motor vehicle to the retail store.

Using a similar analysis, the regulation jointly issued by the U.S. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury limiting wellness incentives to 20% of the premiums paid by an employer-based health care plan participant is one which appears to have been decided without reference to whether it will maximize health improvement or lower health care costs for those not receiving the incentives. (more…)