| Sports |
 by Dr MICHAEL
UNAGE
Decline of
professional conduct in public sector
LAST week in Talking Point, we dealt
with perfunctory and concluded that this phenomenon is deeply rooted in
the psychology of most public servants.
Hence, employing techniques of psychosynthesis would be one solution to
dealing with this workplace syndrome and this week, we will discuss
breaches of workplace ethics that contributed to lack of productivity by
the public sector.
In criticising the performance of the public sector, however, we should
also commend and appreciate the achievements of the civil servants in
the pre-independence era.
Under the supervision of the colonial administration, the civil servants
did perform exceptionally well.
Nonetheless, that aptitude declined as the localisation process gained
momentum.
The breakdown in authority, disrespect for rank and file, service
disorientation, selfish pursuits and a host of other predicaments
slipped into the civil service rendering it a disreputable entity.
In fact, non-professional behaviour is a total neglect for the code of
conduct stipulated to regulate the integrity of public institutions.
Six rampant categories, though not exhaustive, contribute to
unprofessional conduct that we will discuss below, beginning with
incompetence which is a breach of professional conduct contributing to
ineffectiveness.
The public sector employs people lacking knowledge and skill in
specialised area.
For instance, some years ago, the National Executive Council appointed a
medical doctor to become the managing director of the National
Broadcasting Commission.
Despite possessing management skills, the person lacked the necessary
knowledge and technical skills required to offer informed top-level
management decisions.
There are people in senior positions who are incompetent because the
appointment processes and procedures are defective, leaving room for
swindlers to manipulate.
Merit-based appointments, a political and bureaucratic jargon, only
serve as window dressing.
Though there are efforts towards enhancing workplace competence, the
effort itself becomes abortive because the state networks and mechanisms
are so manipulated by individuals who have their own agenda.
The second aspect of non-professional conduct is politicking.
It is now common to find people with lucrative jobs in the public sector
acting as “briefcase carriers” of politicians which suggests how they
got into the position in the first place.
Many administrators, heads of department and statutory bodies are
financial members of more than one political party, or have bribed their
way to the job.
Civil servants also engage in sinister manoeuvres in their attempt to
rise to higher positions to gain more control and power.
Politicking among civil servants does result in inefficiency and
ineffectiveness of service delivery.
For instance, in the last three years, the management of the University
of Goroka has been characterised by individuals vying for the position
of vice-chancellor.
The struggle of those selfish individuals has affected the governance of
the institution, the work commitment of employees and student
performance.
The struggle continues even at this very moment.
What happens at the University of Goroka is symptomatic of politicking
that exists in state institutions.
The third aspect is a conflict of interest and the axiom, “what’s in it
for me”, applies.
Conflict of interest means that the public servant puts personal
interest before the interest of the common good. Thus, public servants
are unwilling to serve, when they find no personal gain in the tasks
required of them.
A conflict of interest also destroys efficiency because proper
assessment of task and quality checks and monitoring of activities are
absent, rendering services to the public of very low standards or even
at times non-existing.
It can be safely assumed that the awarding of contracts and appointments
of persons to position is imbued with some degree of self-interest.
Domestication is the fourth category of misconduct in public office that
I want to deal with.
Domestication in this context means using public office and privileges
as one’s own personal paraphernalia. This is actually making private and
personal what belongs to the public and is very prevalent.
Some time ago, we learned that a female provincial treasurer in Simbu,
duly appointed, had to break into the office to assume duties, because
the previous incumbent refused to hand over the key.
One attitude of domestication is that persons in authority think that
they are invincible and irreplaceable – a kind of fluid conviction.
Compounded with a sense of insecurity, they will deliberately stifle new
talents and creativities. They will completely quash up and coming
intelligence which they see as a threat to their position.
The constant legal battles of who should head state institutions are
explicit demonstration, not of natural justice, but of domestication.
The fifth aspect of misconduct in public service deals with co-ethnic
favouritism.
Often the word wantokism, a loan word from Tok Pisin, expresses the same
idea.
The service offered by the Government is meant to be inclusive and
offers no discrimination regarding sex, race or ethnicity.
The evil concerning co-ethnic favouritism is that public time, resources
and energies are exhausted by a minority group.
It is very common practice that wantoks enter public offices, use up
precious time unnecessarily, and have excess to public utilities.
Indeed, state properties are used to assist clan obligations and
expectations. For instance, a report presented at a gun summit a few
years ago reveal that those in the disciplinary forces are culpable in
delivering arms and ammunition to respective clans.
Similar to co-ethnic favouritism are practices such as nepotism and
cronyism.
Insubordination is the sixth aspect of misconduct in public office.
First, insubordination is a direct disregard for the person in
authority, where there exists a general dissolution of rank and file.
Also, insubordination can result from the persons in authority
compromising their positions with subordinates.
In a meeting, I observed a junior officer throw a betelnut skin at his
boss to seek attention. The incident, though insignificant, reveals more
than what words would express concerning insubordination.
The dwindling of control demonstrates that, often, the boss and subjects
collaborate in an evil act against the State.
They both agree to do each other’s dirty laundry, or in other words,
protect each other’s neck. Thus, lack of moral command in a workplace
makes it immune to the stipulation of professional code of conduct.
Finally, one aspect of professional misconduct in the public sector
deals with misappropriation of State assets.
Since the act is of a criminal nature, it is proper to treat this
category of debauchery in another article.
 
|
