Accountability

The government of the Philippines, like any democratic government, is made up of an entire army of officials, elected, appointed, or hired to manage the country's affairs. Each one is king of his particular hill, and each manages his department as he thinks best. Each tries hard to protect the interests of his department and to make sure that projects within his jurisdiction get the highest priority.

An effective government though, requires that all parts operate with a common purpose. One department may have to sacrifice so that another may complete a function which has a higher priority. Or one office may have to merge its goals with those of another for the greater good. Naturally, and rightfully, the people in charge of those offices and departments would never willingly sacrifice their own interests in favor of another. And so a leader is needed to manage the team and to make decisions that transcend the individual interests of lower level departments. A leader who can enforce laws and policies across the board, without regard for favors or perceived obligations.

Filipino culture recognizes that a favor done requires a favor in return, but in the world of government, this is not only inappropriate, it also runs counter to the good order of the country. The cultural rules that dictate the way people interact in the private world have no place in government.

An effective government should be managed very much like a corporation. The CEO, who is usually elected by the Board of Directors or by the stockholders, is charged with the very important responsibility of appointing qualified people to manage each department. Those managers, and the CEO himself, are then regularly evaluated on their performance and effectiveness. In the corporate world, when a manager fails to perform as required, or botches a critical assignment, the company leadership will usually demote him or fire him. Either way, the manager is held accountable for his performance.

From the company's point of view, this serves two purposes. First, an inadequate performer is removed from an important position and replaced with someone more capable. This eliminates a weak link and keeps the company running at peak efficiency. And second, it sends a clear signal to other managers that there is a consequence for sub-standard performance. The company may be sympathetic to the manager's sense of dignity, but it cannot afford to let that sympathy weaken the organization.

If the manager's failure involves some kind of crime, it may be appropriate to file criminal charges against him. But that is secondary to the company's goal of efficient operations. Leadership is not about gathering evidence and filing cases, and leaders do not always need an airtight legal case before action can be taken. Just replace a bad performer with someone more capable. We do it with junior employees every day.

In the Philippine Government, we often hear very senior officials admitting that they serve at the pleasure of the President, and that they understand they may be relieved at any time. But when they find themselves facing dismissal, we suddenly hear them loudly complaining that the action is "unfair" and that they were not afforded "due process". Effective government, like effective management, cannot operate this way. The benchmark is simple: Was the goal accomplished? If a manager is not performing, government must replace him with someone who can -- immediately.

And if you fire a man because he was not up to the task, it makes no sense to give him a different job to let him save face. A poor performer is a poor performer, no matter where you put him. Moving him to a different position is just asking for failure in another department. This applies at all levels of government.