Conflict between good management and government

THE EDITOR: The problems of the Police Service are not atypical of those found in virtually all government institutions, including state owned corporations, and occur largely because of the irresponsibility and unaccountability inherent in these institutions. The difference is that in most other government and state owned corporations the problem manifests itself in the form of waste and inefficiency which can, in part, be concealed by Government spending. Such waste and inefficiency is therefore less conspicuous and/or easier tolerated — for now. 

Unfortunately, however, in areas like health and crime prevention even the vast spending of Government cannot help to conceal the waste and inefficiency — thus the general concern being currently voiced and displayed by the population despite the fact that the same crisis for the same reasons exists in all areas of Government. The big problem is really the conflict between good management (truth/efficiency) and politics/government and the solution can only be had by applying more of the fundamentals of good management beginning with ensuring that those who appoint (be it the President, the PM, the Leader of the Opposition or a private sector HR Consultant) accept responsibility for ensuring the performance of their recommended appointees.

This means that in the event of non-performance or failure to deliver on the part of appointees, those responsible for making the appointments are clearly visible and can be targetted for consequences. In order to fairly evaluate the performance of appointees and afford them full opportunity to display their skills, they should be given as free a hand as possible to manage, with the power to discipline, promote, appoint or even fire. Appeals, reviews, checks and balances, or whatever, can be allowed by way of a process outside and independent of the mainstream of their activity. Performance criteria and related incentives, delivery schedules/targets, penalties for non-performance, etc should be part of the conditions of engagement for all persons appointed. A bipartisan, bicameral Committee with members/expertise co-opted from the private sector should be set up to oversee the process and monitor the performance of all public service managers. The disciplining and firing of managers and staff should be reintroduced as a management tool (how do we fire parliamentarians and ministers though?).

With approaches like this I am sure all of those who currently insist on being the ones to appoint without accepting responsibility for the non-performance of their appointees will think twice before so insisting. Also, appointees will not be able to hide behind a friend or family in government, a union agreement, a party card or a Police Service Commission that operates in secret, accounts to no one and accepts no responsibility for its recommendations. This is just part of the approach that should apply to all state agencies and indeed all of Government, from Parliament down, and if it cannot then we have to ensure that we have as little Government as possible (privatise everything) or accept and live with the consequences of crime and poor education and health systems and waste/inefficiency and non-performance and inadequate infrastructure, and deteriorating environmental conditions, etc, etc...

EUGENE A REYNALD
Port-of-Spain