Pro-LED wage system for civil servants is a welcome development that is expected to wake up the civil service from its slumber to perform its tasks in such a way that will put the country on the path to real development for the benefit of all citizens.
But the government should not be in a hurry to introduce the initiative. For it to work, there is a crucial need to consider and take care of everything likely to work against its success, including possible resistance from incompetent, corrupt and indolent workers who have for long benefitted from the old situation of earning salaries whether or not they are productive. Besides, it should not be one of the good policies that will eventually end up in a dustbin because of a lack of political will to diligently implement it or hijack by political officeholders to persecute political opponents.
It is a fact that the Nigerian public sector is bedeviled with the twin evil of inefficiency and corruption. Despite the underperformance and incompetence of the majority of government workers, they continue to enjoy regular wages and other benefits without rendering valuable services to the public. The extant auto-reward system has greatly engendered laxity, insipidness, and complacency in public servants thereby depriving Nigerians of quality public services and decent living.
The present administration appears sufficiently bothered by this amorphous anomaly as hinted by the Director-General of the National Productivity Centre, Nasir Raji-Mustapha. He recently disclosed that the Federal Government was considering a performance-based innovative pay system to drive productivity in the public sector. In his words: “We are in the process of developing a productivity-led wage system that will ensure that those who are productive are rewarded for their efforts, irrespective of their grade level.
Under the proposed system, employees on the same salary scale can earn different wages.” He confirmed that the proposal has the support and input of the organised labour, Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), and Trade Union Congress (TUC).
The development has generated a healthy debate as to whether a productivity wage-based system is practicable in the public sector. These are the fundamental questions agitating the minds of some experts: Is there a real political will to implement the proposal? How does the government intend to enforce the proposal nationwide? Is the government ready to deploy the resources and infrastructures to enhance productivity? Are public services measurable? What will be the measuring prerequisites? Will the assessment apply to all cadre of workers? and will there be exemptions?
Indeed, it will be herculean to fairly measure the productivity of government workers given the complex nature of the public sector as presently structured. The public service thrives in opaqueness, secrecy, and bureaucracy. Hence, any reform that is intended to make the sector transparent and accountable may be systemically frustrated. To this end, some fear that a productivity-based reward system will be strangulated by the prevailing endemic corrupt structure. The above argument is further strengthened by the fact that similar plans in the past completely failed even from the inception.
In 2003, former President Olusegun Obasanjo, acknowledging the ineptitude of public officers, stated: “Nigerians have for too long been feeling shortchanged by the quality of public service. Our public officers have for too long been showcases for the evils of inefficiency and corruption.” Consequently, a move was made to: review service delivery in Nigeria; examine the institutional environment for service delivery; reflect on peoples’ lives and expression; and draw a roadmap for a service delivery programme. To achieve this, SERVICOM (Service Compact With All Nigerians) was established in 2004.
SERVICOM was designed to ensure that the Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) render quick and satisfactory service to Nigerians in a timely, fair, honest, effective, and transparent manner. Typically, SERVICOM, like most government initiatives, failed to meet the intended objectives. It has not in any way improved or made any positive impact on, public service delivery. Ironically, public servants now seem oblivious to the existence of the SERVICOM as they have remained hostile, unprofessional, egoistic, and derelict in discharging their duties.
Notwithstanding past failings, a productivity-based pay system is a practicable problem-solving strategy that could boost the national economy, block wastages, and trim the cost of governance if properly executed. The Nigerian government must tackle the instant discourse with dispatch because no nation can attain its full potential with an inefficient public service administrative system. Despite the importance of the private sector in driving growth and development in an economy; the main actor responsible for creating inter-linkages between service users in an economy is the public sector.
Public service is the engine of effective governance delivery and a pathway to national development. It is the channel through which the government can meet the core needs of the citizens. Without gainsaying, the Nigerian government at all levels cannot function effectively without an enabling administrative system. Accordingly, any plan to make the public sector productive to meet public expectations is commendable. Nonetheless, the challenge is: does government have the capacity to measure workers’ productivity?
To make the most of performance-based pay, it is essential to design and implement it strategically. With the combination of the right tools such as SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound) and TQM (Total Quality Management), the performance of workers can be measured. Firstly, MDAS must have a clearly defined mission, vision, values, goals, and performance standards. Also, the job description, expected deliverables, set targets, and deadlines for each employee should be spelt out. With the aid of technology, the attendance and punctuality of workers can be monitored. Furthermore, the requirements for assessing services and delivery timelines should be made public.
In a nutshell, the timeframe for every activity and service should be specified. For instance, how long does it take for a file to move from one desk to another? How consistently and efficiently does an official complete tasks or accomplish goals? If the appropriate parameters are in place, the efficiency of everyone in the value chain can be ascertained.
It is asserted that attempting to make public servants efficient without proper orientation is akin to “pouring new wine into old wineskins” which of course, will spill the wine and ruin the wineskin. After all, the performance assessors will be drafted from the same public service. Therefore, to achieve the desired productivity, the psyche of the public servants has to undergo a paradigm shift. Sadly, an average government worker does not perceive himself as a servant of the public. On the contrary, he sees himself as superior to members of the public and treats them with utter disregard and contempt.
“Progress is impossible without change and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” If the productivity-based wage system purports to improve public service delivery, then the re-orientation of the mindset of public officials should be prioritised. For the assessors not to weaponise their role as a sword against perceived enemies and shield for allies, a re-orientation programme is necessary. Additionally, the public service has to be restructured.
Importantly, the performance-based pay system should be extended to all public officials, including those elected and appointed, as well as judicial officials. The penalty for non-performance should not merely be lesser pay as proposed but dismissal. After all, “any tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down.” What would be the rationale for retaining a public official adjudged to be “unproductive”? It is submitted that any system that enables such practice is destruction-bound.
