One of the major challenges facing public services the world over is finding the appropriate and effective processes to ensure proper and desirable linkages necessary to maintain a healthy balance of functional interactions between and among the various structures of the public service. The nature and operations of public services is such that diverse and varied structures and the inherent need for unity of purpose require systematized processes to ensure the right balance in service delivery. In Botswana, like elsewhere, we have to ensure that our service delivery processes are based on an equilibrium that ensures harmonious relations amongst and between the main service delivery structures. This harmony is necessary to ensure that development is not only a progressive process but also because when delivered in an atmosphere of tranquillity and stable values and mores within the larger citizenry, development becomes visible and meaningful to the general public. In the context of the above, I want to reflect on a few aspects that define the need for this balance in our system.
Firstly, we acknowledge (or so I hope) that our public service has multiple components that all have a critical role to play in the general service delivery processes of our development process.
We have so many individuals as both elected and appointed public servants, each of which is supposed to bring to the table their expertise, skills, knowledge and experiences that are requisite to the performance of their specific responsibilities. As individuals they stand to make a contribution to the general growth processes and ideally we often assume that this will be a positive contribution as per the rules and regulations that guide the performance of functions in the public service. This is the ideal but sometimes this contribution can be negative, as when we choose to violate the set guidelines, rules and procedures for a variety of reasons, largely selfish based. The very reason that public servants are a collection of individuals necessitates a need to ensure that they by and large operate in unison for the good of the citizens.
Secondly, these very individuals, once part of the organization that is the public service, become members of the formal and informal groupings that have become a permanent feature of the structure of public services. As members of the formal and informal groupings, they must be seen to follow established channels of communication as they interact with each other at both the individual and institutional level. These communication channels have been created in part to ensure that they can elicit action on the part of these public officials as they perform their roles and account for such. They also serve as fundamental tools in exerting control over these groups to maintain that balance or equilibrium in the service delivery exercises. The control over the formal and informal groupings provide a leeway for governments to ensure that efforts towards the preservation and advancement of public interests are protected and insulated from abuse of any nature.
Thirdly, the interaction between and amongst individuals and groups creates certain patterned behaviours within public servants. These types of behaviour are largely mirrored on the requirements or demands of role specificity for these individuals and groups. The extent to which public servants understand their roles and link their competencies to energetic application of selves requires that their behaviour must comply with the organizational value systems and accepted norms.  This interaction creates a series of responses from the individuals and groups within the public service. Some choose to stay within the accepted values and norms and hence use this interaction to reinforce their contributions to the larger society in a positive way, but there are those who maximizes on any weakness that may arise in the process of this interaction, and take advantage to advance untoward type of behaviour.
These are those who choose to disturb the balance and in the process also compromise service delivery intentions. It is out of this lot that practices of corruption, fraud, malfeasance and related unethical habits develop amongst some public servants. The regularity of this type of behaviour in public services is reason for citizens to be concerned but to the extent that these can be adequately dealt with by existing laws and administrative procedures, we can hope to nip any possible progression of such into unmanageable malpractices.
Lastly, the work environment of public servants is a critical factor in the type of behaviour that emerges amongst public officials and the extent to which the environment reinforces positive behaviour patterns or act to cultivate negative attitudes towards the service. The response to duty and necessary commitment to protecting the public interest can be compromised by a hostile work environment, including, among others high inflation rates that devalue public servant’s salaries substantially. The public services, like any other organization, require to positively grow in stability so that service delivery becomes an area of public solace and comfort. At the helm of this growth in stability is the extent to which the public service provides an opportunity for individuals, groups and institutions to interact meaningfully in harmony and in a manner that entrenches desirable public service ethics and citizen empowerment for good service delivery.
We stand to benefit from a well-balanced application of effort by these individuals, groups and institutions in the public service for that balance is a precursor to good and sustained service delivery programme.
Molaodi teaches Public Administration at the University of Botswana
