Introduction of performance measurements for all public servants | Sunday Observer

Introduction of performance measurements for all public servants

6 November, 2022

The profusely debated topic of inadequate performance of public sector institutions is not an arguable subject. The subject has been in the limelight for the past few decades.

The dominant reasons for the overall poor performance of the sector are attributed to corruption, malpractices, lack of accountability, absence of motivation, lethargy and poor attitude towards duties. The aspects of inefficiency are assumed to be inherent in the systems. The entire public service is far from perfect and causes immense hardships to service seekers.

According to the Institute of Internal Auditors’ narrative, it is generally agreed that the public sector includes Government and publicly-funded institutions, enterprises, and other organisations that deliver public programs, goods, or services.

Public services

In Sri Lanka, the public sector essentially provides all public services and, ideally, it should focus on efficiently serving the citizenry that funds them. Regrettably, in Sri Lanka, the focus on such efficiency is lower than minimal.

However, the role of the public sector in increasing the aggregate capacity of the economy is substantial. The influence of the public sector from birth to death of a countryman is immense, and the lapses and delays due to inefficiency negate the country’s performance.

The public sector needs capable institutions and a cadre to deliver satisfactory services. When public workers neglect or underperform their respective roles, the investment aspects of the State that are allocated for public service can deteriorate.

Media reports recently revealed that the Government will introduce Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to streamline Government mechanisms efficiently. Considering the general attitude of the public servants in Sri Lanka, although the move is vastly commendable at this crucial point, introducing such internationally putative mechanisms will be a daunting task in implementation.

The chairman of the sub-committee must obtain advice from the private sector to design and implement this important program. Also, he must be prepared to take on the inevitable heat that will arise from the vast majority of public servants, as they will certainly be opposing performance measurements for obvious reasons.

Key performance indicators are defined by Investopedia as “a set of quantifiable measurements used to gauge a Government’s overall long-term performance that specifically help determine strategic, financial, and operational achievements.”

Larger organisations

KPIs are not new to the Sri Lankan private sector. While larger organisations practise it with more precision, almost all private-sector entities, large and small, apply it in their own ways by using unique methods.

Simply put, any small business owner knows what happens in his or her operation and the performance of each employee is measured in some way. In contrast, in almost all public sector institutions, performance measurements or reporting are non-existent.

As there was no blueprint to enhance the public sector’s performance, the successive Sri Lankan Governments have adopted diverse approaches, time and again, with the auspices of a few policymakers who genuinely wanted to make a change. On many such occasions, the efforts failed due to either political manipulations or trade union actions.

The Sri Lankan public sector, historically, opposes change. They have always been unwilling to adapt to new circumstances or ways of doing things differently. They fear that the ease of performing duties they are currently enjoying will be altered if they agree to new systems in the Government machinery.

Even a slight change in the ongoing practices is looked at suspiciously by the vast majority of Government servants.

Factually, bureaucracy exists even in developed and rich countries, and the popular stereotypes of public servants attempt to maintain their way of life. Nevertheless, in such countries, historical evidence clearly indicates that they adapt to changes in operating systems once it becomes policy.

Regrettably, in Sri Lanka, the vast majority of politicians in successive ruling Governments were afraid to design or implement more stringent rules and regulations in order to create an efficient public service.

The key reason for such fear is the belief that their electoral base will be negatively affected if they take bold steps. Simply, very rarely in Sri Lankan politics does a politician think beyond the next election, let alone the next generation?

The Performance Information (PI) in any organisation has numerous benefits and it has zero negatives. What is wrong with knowing how public servants, who are paid and maintained by the general public, perform their respective duties?

Performance

Certainly, the entire citizenry, except the public servants themselves and perhaps a few politicians, will confirm their fullest agreement to obtain information related to performance.

The performance that can be easily measured and pinpointed by KPIs can generate a sharper focus on results within the Government. Unlike audit processes where the loss or inefficiency is calculated and publicised in the aftermath, well-designed KPIs can identify the mistakes in performance almost instantly.

Accurate information on performance can provide regular, more and better information on Government goals and priorities; information on the spending of public funds; the overall performance of respective institutions; and even undue political pressure if it exists.

The information will inform the public on overall Government performance and whether the public can trust its governance.

In addition, the KPIs can encourage a greater emphasis on planning as they act as a signalling device that provides key factors in future performances. Most importantly, the performance analysis can provide extremely important transparency, which currently is almost non-existent.

The information derived from KPIs on important public sector entities tabled in Parliament is undoubtedly useful to the public to measure the functioning of the government in power.

This is useful to honest and genuine politicians as their impending parliamentary elections will be decided on scientific information and calculations rather than emotional biases. Also, the general public has a way of clearly identifying the potential to improve public management and efficiency.

Introducing KPIs is perhaps the best way of improving the performance of any organisation, public or private, in the modern world. However, the pertinent question for the sub-committee is how they can effectively inculcate the concept into an already deeply inefficient and corrupt outfit.

It is even doubtful that the committee members themselves are completely aware of the concept of performance measurements and the importance of such information in improving the public sector. However, if the sub-committee members are humble enough, they can seek help from private-sector organisations that have plenty of knowledge, both in theory and practice.

Depending on whatever definition is used to design a KPI program, performance objectives are the outcome goals of public institutions or measurements that assess how well they perform their duties.

Bottom line

Key performance indicators are yardsticks or extents to appraise the results of such duties. Utilising the KPI program and its results in a coordinated effort will help set, track, modify, and evaluate targets to improve the bottom line.

If the introduction can be initiated successfully and effectively, goal-setting with KPIs can be vital for the Government in long-term aspects. The results will showcase the Government’s achievements. An efficacious KPI program will ensure actionable improvements in the country and society that will gain public satisfaction, a factor currently at the bottom of the pit.

There were more than enough discussions, criticisms, solutions, and proposals made public by politicians, scholars, economists, and the general public about the current dire economic situation.

As indicated earlier in the article, public sector performance is one of the most important facets in improving the situation.

Hence, if the Government and the entire public sector can come together, with the assistance of proposed performance measurements, it will tremendously bring down operational costs on one hand, but on the other, it will provide more efficient and effective public service across the board.

Comments