"Our focus is on outputs rather than inputs"
About this Quote
"Our focus is on outputs rather than inputs" is the kind of tidy management slogan that sounds like accountability while quietly rearranging what accountability means. Stephen Cambone, a Pentagon power broker in the post-9/11 national security boom, is speaking in the idiom of performance metrics: results over process, deliverables over deliberation. In a military and intelligence context, that framing is never neutral. It’s a bid to move scrutiny away from how decisions are made, what assumptions drive them, who gets heard, and what safeguards slow things down.
The subtext is that inputs are inconvenient. Inputs include legality, dissent, oversight, budget transparency, and the messy human realities of intelligence collection and war planning. Outputs, by contrast, can be counted, briefed, and defended: missions executed, targets hit, threats “disrupted.” The phrase flatters urgency and competence; it also pre-emptively devalues the questions that tend to surface when policies are controversial: Were the methods sound? Were the constraints respected? Who bears the costs?
Politicians reach for this language when they want to project managerial control over complex systems, especially in moments when failure is politically intolerable. It borrows credibility from the private sector’s obsession with KPIs, but in government, “outputs” can drift into optics: what can be shown rather than what is true. The rhetorical move is subtle: it’s not arguing against oversight outright, it’s redefining oversight as impatience with anything that can’t be turned into a chart.
The subtext is that inputs are inconvenient. Inputs include legality, dissent, oversight, budget transparency, and the messy human realities of intelligence collection and war planning. Outputs, by contrast, can be counted, briefed, and defended: missions executed, targets hit, threats “disrupted.” The phrase flatters urgency and competence; it also pre-emptively devalues the questions that tend to surface when policies are controversial: Were the methods sound? Were the constraints respected? Who bears the costs?
Politicians reach for this language when they want to project managerial control over complex systems, especially in moments when failure is politically intolerable. It borrows credibility from the private sector’s obsession with KPIs, but in government, “outputs” can drift into optics: what can be shown rather than what is true. The rhetorical move is subtle: it’s not arguing against oversight outright, it’s redefining oversight as impatience with anything that can’t be turned into a chart.
Quote Details
| Topic | Management |
|---|
More Quotes by Stephen
Add to List

