Kristen Gyles | Those public sector saboteurs

“I am coming to the conclusion that there are persons in the public sector who are determined to… sabotage… delay, derail policies, programmes and initiatives of the Government”.

Why is this sentiment so controversial when so many of us have seen it first-hand?

The Prime Minister made the comment at a press conference recently where he essentially presented a post-mortem of the Government’s execution of its disaster risk management mechanisms both pre- and post-Hurricane Melissa. He also spoke about measures that would be introduced to increase the speed, agility and responsiveness of the government and to remove unnecessary duplication and improve coordination across public administration.

While his comments regarding sabotage are broad and perhaps warrant some qualification, it should be obvious that the description does not apply to all public sector workers.

At some point following the press conference, the Leader of the Opposition poured scorn on the assertion that there was any attempt at sabotage within the public sector and suggested that such a claim by the government is nothing more than an excuse for its own non-performance. As reinforcement for this view, he said the government has long weeded out most individuals (in the public service) that it feels are aligned to the opposition and replaced them with government supporters.

That is a claim neither you nor I can either confirm or deny. However, the assertion seems to assume what many others have assumed, which is that any saboteurs within the public sector must be politically motivated. This is not necessarily the case and is often not true.

What does an employee do when they have a strong opinion that the direction being taken by a superior is wrong, not morally or ethically wrong, per se, but just downright foolish? Does the employee just shut up and keep grinding the mill? Or do they visit every corner of the office to complain about the decision they can’t change? Most experienced employees know that the latter won’t do anything but get them branded as a ‘problem’ employee. So, what do they do? They put up subtle resistance hoping to thwart the plans of the decision-makers at the top.

There are many stubborn and headstrong individuals who must have their way in any organisation they work in, no matter the cost. They are immune to professional guidance, whether it be legal, administrative, financial or otherwise. No one can reason with them because they are stiff-necked and inflexible. This is usually more of a personality deficiency than a reflection of any political stance or posture.

In some cases, these individuals are simply change-averse. They will fight tooth-and-nail to thwart any effort to effect unwelcome transitions and changes. In other cases, they pride themselves in ‘sticking to their guns’ and mistake stubbornness for conviction.

A ship can have only one captain. Sometimes the captain performs outstandingly and sometimes the captain sinks the ship. But any ship that has two or more captains fighting for control is bound to sink. It is okay to abandon a sinking ship or a ship heading in the wrong direction, but it is not okay to undermine or subvert the leadership of the captain simply because you don’t like where the ship is heading. Such behaviour rarely hurts the captain alone.

This is a lesson many take years to learn and it is the cause of much of the friction within several workspaces. It is painfully difficult for some people to defer to the judgment of a superior they are not in agreement with.

On the other hand, deliberate attempts at sabotage are not to be confused with general professional disagreements, which are bound to arise in any organisation. There will oftentimes be disagreements between decision-makers and technocrats on policy decisions or on the overall direction or path an organisation takes. But disagreement does not in any way suggest an intention to sabotage.

And then there are leaders who live under the constant fear and paranoia that someone on their team is trying to unseat them. They don’t actually care about the ship, just their position in it. Every criticism or suggestion is taken as a personal attack and seen as an attempt to undermine. Their insecurities become the cause of friction, and their subordinates are accused of undermining them even when there has been no such attempt.

Politics is not just partisan.

But to return to the start, the Prime Minister’s suggestion that the progress of hurricane relief, reconstruction and recovery activities may have been derailed by saboteurs within the public sector has not been substantiated or proven, but is certainly not far-fetched. The comments need not be seen as an attack on public sector workers because again, the allegation is clearly in reference to an unnamed few.

What the controversy over the Prime Minister’s comments highlights too is that the ‘government’ is, technically speaking, a coalition of government workers. While the cabinet might shoulder some responsibility for the slow or tardy execution of its own duties as the chief instrument of government policy, ordinary civilians like you and me are the ones who carry out the policy directives of the cabinet, even if in small and seemingly insignificant ways. If public sector employees at large choose not to cooperate with the directions of the cabinet, no work gets done. So, it is not only those who sit in Gordon House who are accountable to the people of Jamaica, but also those charged with the general execution of public business.

Kristen Gyles is a free-thinking public affairs opinionator. Send feedback to kristengyles@gmail.com and columns@gleanerjm.com