The latest buzz is all about productivity. When this mantra is intoned by those in supervisory positions, their intended target is almost invariably line-workers. Indeed, when these types talk about increased productivity, they do the next best thing, they omit themselves from the equation.
When reference is made to the need to increase productivity, the goal is that of making better use of limited resources. These would include money, manpower and material. The scenario in every situation turns on trying to use resources as efficiently as possible. This would, of necessity, also involve the expertise brought by those in management.
Interestingly, while there is widespread agreement – in principle – about the need for productivity to be linked to pay, in the real world practically everyone balks. Indeed, there is a strong case to be made for the argument that public sector managers will be the people who would be most opposed to any linking of their pay to productivity. Having grown accustomed to their vaunted positions in the privilege hierarchy, these people routinely resist even the talk of change.
Paradoxically, they are the same who wish to lead the charge in calling for the pay of their subordinates to be linked to productivity indexes. This will never work. Our perspective on the matter is that while increased pay should be linked to productivity, all workers should be guaranteed fair returns for the labour. At the same time, the pubic sector should be streamlined, made leaner and refitted for the talk of helping build The Bahamas.
The time is now for the government to engage more seriously with public and social entrepreneurs. Our suggestion is that government should take the lead in searching for ways and modalities, to make the delivery of social services more effective.
In this regard, then, there is no reason why any number of social services could not be made more productive. For example, even if it is conceded that there must be a certain level of public provision of educational or health services, there is no reason why some of these operations could not be out sourced to public service entrepreneurs. Our point is that public funds can and should be put to optimal use.
The question of productivity is not as easily answered in monopoly situations such as that which obtains at The Bahamas Electricity Corporation. In an operation like this, productivity gains are directly attributed to the technology used. For example, the means exist for the displacement of meter readers. If such a decision was to be made, BEC’s bottom line would look better. And for sure, workers would be up in arms, because they would be the losers. At that point, the productivity issue veers off in the direction of the political. The government would be obliged to measure the price it could bear.
Clearly, then, in a situation where workers are voters, no government will be allowed too much slack by workers intent on holding on to their jobs.
The only real alternative the government has on the productivity question is that of encouraging more private sector start-ups. It can also help by seeing to it that productivity demands are placed on everyone. Whatever regime is put in place should be demonstrably transparent.
Regrettably, there are today any number of situations and scenarios where managers brought into government service from the private sector are failing. This is due to the differing nature of what they do, and how productivity is measured. In the private sector, the benchmark is dollar profitability. In the public realm, the equation is somewhat more complex. Here, success is also measured in voter satisfaction.
In the real world, no politician ‘worth his salt’ will sacrifice his career on a productivity altar. The conclusion of the matter is therefore clear, any large-scale initiative, aimed at linking productivity with pay must be part and parcel of a larger initiative aimed at energising the private sector.
Editor, The Bahama Journal
