When I wrote that President Khama’s inauguration address was punctuated with veiled intimidation, I was given unsavory labels by my detractors. I had then reasoned that in order to ensure that people do the work they are hired for, we need a soft (people-oriented) and sober (empathetic and inspirational) approach that will awaken their will and abilities to perform at the highest level, an approach that will make us work together with candor and civility to meet our challenges but again I was rudely reminded that public servants have entered into a contract with their employer and if they do not perform, they have to face the consequences. I found this very simplistic, accurately and a blatant excuse for workplace bullying.
It is acceptable and desirable for President Khama to demand improved service delivery and rightly need not be apologetic in this respect. After all, the people of Botswana are entitled to quality and prompt service delivery from public servants. Equally, it is not unreasonable for Cabinet ministers to demand same.
President Khama’s unrelenting demand for high value performance from public servants has set precedence among his Cabinet ministers. It has filtered down to his lapdogs. His style of leadership that characterizes core values and principles of hard work and integrity represent what may be called the new magical paradigm, the ultimate good, the magic wand or blueprint for improved service delivery in the public service.
On the one hand it manifests in a commitment to the pledge to serve the nation, yet on the other the paradigm is characterized by veiled dislike and disdain towards those who do not reflect and exude those values.
This style of management may suit president Khama, not least because of his popularity. But when he systematically intimidates workers, the victims of intimidation may in actual fact get to enjoy it as serious fun. They may further interpret that intimidation as a challenge, an aggressive and emotionally charged desire to get the best out of them.
Unfortunately, some high ranking members of Khama’s administration, especially those whose rise and rise to political stardom could solely be traced to their acidified tongues, have copied Khama’s management style with religious zeal. Not surprising, a majority of those who have adopted this style of management without adapting it to their own histories have never had the honor to serve in the civil service or at least worked for a decent entity. They have been initiated into street politics as their profession. They enjoy wandering around huffing and puffing, throwing their weight about, competing with each other for talking the loudest and harassing employees big time. Often their style of supervision is no more than just an arrogant display of a sense of self-importance. Those ministers who have vast experience from reputable institutions, the public service included are treading this righteous path with requisite care.
The public service is a complex environment in which employee performance is dependent on a variety of equally complex processes. Thus, management by intimidation is never the right thing in the public service. There is a possibility that a good number of civil servants work hard but that their output is compromised by an already stigmatized workplace. It is very easy to blame civil servants for our own faults precisely because a majority of public servants happen to be sheepish. This being the case, the leadership need be able to empathize, inspire, guide and foster a win-win situation (Gazette business column, 9-15 July 2008). A negative confrontational approach which is the equivalent of workplace bullying and harassment creates a hostile environment that makes employees’ work days despondent and strained.
Yet of late this has become a defining feature of Botswana’s public service management. It is not uncommon to read about Cabinet Ministers berating public servants for alleged laziness, incompetence and for having a corrupt disposition. It is not uncommon to read about Cabinet Ministers threatening to beat, dismiss and surcharge employees for suspected wrongdoing, thus, calling their integrity into question. It is not uncommon to hear ministers boasting that ‘I’ will do this and that, ‘I will inspect projects if necessary’.
Leaders who operate a management style that places more emphasis on ‘I’ than ‘we’ are normally bossy and authoritarian and such a perspective often does nothing to advance service delivery. It is the vanity type where leaders elect to use their awkward body frames to get things done. They harbor a na├»ve faith in the power of coercion. Thus, President Khama’s otherwise noble philosophy of management by walking around and sneaking into workplaces has inadvertently bred power fanatics and a criminal cabal that is hell bent on instilling fear at all levels of the public service. The power fanatics have now bred hostilities that are bound to destabilize and cripple the public service.
This is very unfortunate and undesirable. Whereas there are instances where stern action is justified against irresponsible employees, widespread threats and intimidation gives the impression that the public service is a rotten institution. An impression is created to ordinary people that poverty, marginalization, high fuel and food prices are a consequence of a lethargic public service. This stigmatization has long term consequences for the public sector as skilled and self-respecting people shun it for fear of damaging their profiles. Ultimately the public service will only attract people willing to vegetate side by side with naked abuse and often such are people who are dead from the neck upward.
Management by intimidation could chase away quality people from the public service. Generally employees deserve respect and skilled employees deserve it most. They may not stand being bullied at the slightest chance. They can not accept to go to work dreading working with workplace bullies that camouflage as political managers. They need reasonable space to do their professional work fearlessly and honestly.
They want to be considered as servants of the people not modern slaves beholden to crude politicians.
They want to be allowed to maintain their prestige and the integrity of their service to the nation. They cannot stand falling victims for simply not satisfying the whims of political managers. They cannot stand being put to trouble for not doing anything wrong but for doing something right. When workers feel insecure, they do not necessarily put more efforts into their work. In the contrary they either timidly await the chop or device retaliatory schemes which could include falsification of information and overt sabotage. The world is not innocent, it is nasty.
It is, therefore, certainly imperative that the new administration re-orient its management style from the intimidating and bully type to an inspirational, motivational and empathetic type. President Khama should be careful not to over-indulge in his demand for star performances because it is likely he will not succeed much owing to the application of inappropriate philosophy based on a mistaken assessment of the causes of poor work ethic in the public service. That failure could be very devastating in the long term and may cause him to lose momentum early.
It may also make him to lose the overall desire to rule.
Fear of failure could cause one to fail and fail faster. But of course ‘the thought of the ideal passing into the real is very profound’ and tempting.
The civil service has an entrenched culture of entitlement, bred by its deliberate politicization by the ruling party. Thus, strategies designed to usher in new positive work ethics should be based on a relaxed, incremental, sustained and non-partisan approach.
While Cabinet ministers are required to provide political leadership and general supervision in their respective ministries, they should not interfere in professional decisions.
They should not try to bring political pressure to bear upon civil servants. They should know that it is possible to be aggressive without being bully. Harriet Wood remarked that ‘you can be a victor without having victims and you can stand tall without standing on someone’. They should appreciate that the public service is not a grocery store where some managers believe that they are entitled to have unlimited access to the bodies of their junior female employees. The public service is not a cattle post where farm owners whimsically dismiss herd boys for such silly little things like feeding on milk from cattle instead of giving the milk to the owners’ dogs in the full knowledge that there is another economic refugee ready to take charge.
