Public services are historically large scale organizations that, nevertheless, equally pursue the most feasible and practical ways to establish an effective joinder between means and ends. All public service institutions exist to channel their resources towards attainment of very clearly spelt out end results that can only be achieved through a deliberate choice of appropriate means – maximizing both efficiency and effectiveness. It would be noted that efficiency centres on means to be adopted while effectiveness largely speaks to the nature and impact of ends. An issue I seek to deliberate on this week has to do with the focus of public organizations beyond efficiency of the institutions as measured largely in the short term frame.
Organizational efficiency is inherent in the extent to which, within public organizations, we often overemphasize either the means or ends in pursuit of what may seem to be very desirable and appropriate short term benefits to both organizational image and value for stakeholders, particularly citizens as beneficiaries of public services. This lack of balance and due consideration of the synergy between means and ends, particularly the likely impact of such a consideration in the long term, can be a source for public service inefficiency and irelevance overtime. There are two critical aspects to this imbalance; firstly, our pre-occupation with short term administrative efficiency restricts our focus on what are the best efficient techniques and methods to undertake. Often we do this with rather minimal consideration of what could be the long term negative impact of the choices of means we have made, particularly if they appear to present a solid short term gain for both the organization and clients.
Secondly, the cult of administrative efficiency, many a times, stresses techniques and methods that are essentially neutral and therefore asssumed to be amenable to pursuit of any ends/goals, whilst we should be looking for those means that are and can be peculiarly adaptive to specific organizational development stages and in the long term be able to safeguard organizational security and sustainability. A common characteristic of large scale organizations, including public services, is that efficiency is largely an operational ideal with an inherent presumption that resouces for short term goals achievement are readily available and we can easily make routine decisions of how to select the short term appropriate means for such goals. This level of decision making is the more common and easy to make within public services. But there is a need to be more careful with the long term impacts of it on the organizations’ reason to exist.
Essentially, another level of organizational decision making must be focused on critical aspects of organizational efficiency. This level of decision making looks beyond efficiency in the short term, it creates an incisive and deep assessment of the long term impact of all the good, necessary and value adding short term activities of the organization. This is the basis for long term sustainability of the character of the organization, with a well understood perception of what is the larger significance of short term good initiatives on the long term survival of the organization. Let us note that I am simply running through a system of oiled means that are smoothly yielding positive results and therefore, it’s not about the breakdown of organizational pursuit for efficiency, at least in the short term. It’s about taking extra care to ensure that the short term good of all organizational efficiency can be the basis for long term survival and entrenching of positive synergy of means and ends.
Let me briefly reflect on some of the more practical issues that seem to play themselves out to the above analysis, at least as they have unfolded in our public service. Government institutions and public corporations in this country have undertaken quite a number of positive initiatives that were meant to reorganize, rebrand, restructure and adapt these institutions to new challenges and re affirm their reason for existence. Some of the more visible measures included changing of logos, rationalization of organizational structures, revisiting of missions and visions, and identification of subsidiarity. All of these were and continue to be normal and necessary requirements for any organization in search of maximizing its levels of efficiency. Without going into details on these other examples, I would wish you could reflect on the BIUST and Bokamoso projects and see if the above analysis has any relevance to them, I for now reserve my take on those.
Embeded in an environment that has challenges that implores organizational leaders to exert their responsibilities in ensuring that there is deliberate efforts made to smoothen the organizational path of development, leaders will necessarily start from the short term value of available means to ends. It is the stage after this that often creates the gap between short term and long term synergy. Leaders make choices of when to adapt and move with the changes and, institute measures for specific organizational changes. It is easier to decide to change, rebrand, restructure or rationalize, but it’s more difficult to find the right techniques and measures that equally support your short and long term surivival as an entity.
Public services are in a more difficult position to balance the short term positive benefits of new initiatives with the long term desired sustainability of the institutions, because their primary motive is not always profit, though current trends suggests that should be the case. When you deal with social projects and sometimes even political projects, it’s often a mammoth task to reconcile short term gains and long term ones. In most cases we tend to sacrifice the long term considerations for short term gains, but more importantly is the total neglect of any possible assessment of the likely negative impacts that may begin to handicap our efforts going forward, once the short term period and gains are done.
I want to stress the point that yes short term considerations are necessary, but for me they are, for as long as they provide a base for long term sustainability of the organization and for public services that must also mean ensuring long term protection of citizen rights and opportunity to access government resources equitably and in ethically and morally acceptable ways. You can explore this beyond.
