Q: Why is self-reflection important for public officials? Isn’t it important for everybody; how are public officials different? 

A: Self-reflection is important for everyone because it makes our lives joyful and meaningful. But while for everyone, self-reflection is useful for themselves, self-reflection by public officials is also important for society. Let me explain this. 

There are three main reasons for people to conduct themselves appropriately in society. First, is the fear of law enforcement – of being caught, investigated, and possibly punished. Secondly, isolation from social networks or communities may discourage people from behaving in a socially unacceptable manner, so social sanctions play another important role in correcting people’s behaviour. The third reason is the internalised values of right and wrong, which prompt people to choose to do the ​‘right’ thing (according to their internalised values). No society can depend fully on law enforcement (since such enforcement can be weak in many contexts, like in private spaces). Community/​social norms may become weak when people become anonymous or are not affected by societal opinion. Hence, the internalisation of certain values by human beings is important. 

In one sense, all human beings internalise some values. But these values need not always be those that are useful to society. For example, we know that some public officials misuse their official power to help their friends and relatives. This may be due to their internalised value and probably the community norm that one should help close friends and relatives at any cost. However, in this case, the internalised value which may be useful to the public official’s relatives and friends is harmful to society as a whole. This is where informed self-reflection becomes important. 

We may think of other factors that should make public-sector officials work for societal good. Let us consider these and why they are not effective. 

Here, a comparison with private sector employees is pertinent. As we have noted (in other Q&A in this series), the task of a private-sector employee is to enhance the profits of the company and, hence, the owners or shareholders have an incentive to monitor their actions. The contribution to profit in many cases is measurable. Hence, the owners or shareholders of a private company have a higher incentive and capability to punish or reward the performance of their employees. However, the situation of public officials is different. It is society as a whole that benefits from their work. Senior employees are not the beneficiaries (unlike the owners of private companies) of the work of their juniors. Secondly, the contribution of many public officials like those who ensure law and order or cleanness of public spaces, or in sectors like education and healthcare is not measurable. Hence, society as a whole has to monitor the work of public officials. There can be a problem of free-riding behaviour on the part of most people where they want others to take action on issues that they all benefit from. Therefore, the supervision by senior officers may not be adequate to ensure that public sector employees behave according to the needs of society. 

Community or social norms also may not be very binding for public officials though peer pressure can make some difference. However, the impact of peer pressure can be context-specific. In contexts where the majority of public officials behave in a socially beneficial manner, peer pressure may be useful to society but this may not be the case in all contexts. 

One may presume that public officials get training/​education on the importance of serving society without any biases. However, that information per se is not adequate. Public officials must practice self-reflection to ensure that their actions are indeed beneficial to society. In one way, this informed self-reflection is to change one’s (own) values to make these compatible with the needs of society as a whole. Abiding by these values should become a source of joy to these officials. 

Q: Isn’t this a utopian idea? 

A: It may be a utopian idea, but alternatives are not going to create socially useful officials. If an official behaves appropriately because of the rules imposed by the organisation, he may have discretionary spaces wherein he can behave according to his whims without being monitored by his seniors. If an official performs well due to the need to acquire power or get social recognition, it need not be always good for society. Hence, the sustainable way to ensure that public officials perform well is to ensure that they have an appropriate internal disposition to do so. That is why we see the influence of a ​‘culture’ — wherein public officials are less effective in certain contexts but more so in others.  Building the ability for self-reflection is to be part of the process of creating an appropriate culture. 

In essence, we need informed and reflective public officials. Their reflection should include that about their identity as a public employee. Such a self-reflection should make that person useful and effective for society as well as derive personal joy and satisfaction from the job. A change in one’s work that may not give more joy and meaning to oneself will not be sustainable. In my view, an important part of the education or training for public officials should be to enable and empower them to reflect on themselves. This may be a lot more important to youngsters who get into government jobs (like Indian Civil Service) which may have a significant and longer-term impact on the performance of the public system as a whole. 

Every public service official may pose a set of questions to oneself: How can I enhance my gains/​joy/​happiness as a government official? Is it by trying to get more money? Of course, a public official gets a reasonable salary (by domestic standards) in India. Government is an important part of the formal sector employment in the country (since the majority of workers who are in the private sector work in the informal sector without any social security). The entry-level positions in the private sector, for example, a software engineer, may not be higher than that of most government employees. Moreover, the latter has certain assurance of a periodical revision of salaries to withstand inflation. Though there may be a small set of employees (experienced managers) in the private sector who get a much higher salary, the majority of them may be getting a salary that is comparable to public officials. Hence, the job of a public official in India (or others including many developing countries) may not be less attractive in terms of income. However, as noted in another Q&A in this series, public officials are less likely to get increased monetary compensation if they perform specific tasks more effectively. If one is motivated mainly by monetary gains, then one does not have the incentive to perform well. Both performers and non-performers may get the same salary. 

Q: The salaries of public officials may be fixed but what about the unlawful opportunities to make money?

A: Corruption in different tiers of government is common in India and many other countries. Even if a few public officials are not corrupt, the public perception of government officials, in general, is that they are involved in making money through bribes and other illegal transactions. (This is also one reason for the higher dowry commanded by government officials in the Indian marriage market.) So, the question is: Is self-reflection enough to stop public officials from engaging in corrupt practices? 

One can presume that those who are intrinsically motivated to be in public service may not be willing to participate in corrupt activities. And even those who are not averse to corruption may be dissuaded because of the possible implications of it. Citizens are increasingly opposing and exposing corruption forcing the government to come out with more stringent anti-corruption laws and mechanisms. Though such mechanisms existed in the past, their enforcement was weak due to the lack of adequate social demand. We have seen in recent times that corrupt government officials have been apprehended by law enforcement agencies and have had to face the shame that follows the investigation and penalty. Hence, corruption and other illegal sources of making money are not a sustainable way of deriving joy for public officials. They have to think about other ways. 

Q: Isn’t ​‘power’ also a motivating factor for hard work for public officials?

A: Yes, government officials seek hierarchical power. My sense is that such power is a lot more attractive to them since their monetary compensation may not increase notably (like in the case of private sector managers) as part of career growth. The desire to acquire more power is not wrong or immoral. Many officers may want to serve people better for which they may need to have more powers. Power manifests in assigning decision-making to specific individuals. Giving ​‘power’ to a person who holds a specific position in the organisational structure is to address the collective action problems in organisations. Though different personnel in the organisation may have useful information and experience and can provide inputs to decision-making, it cannot be based on consensus or majority opinion in many cases. One person may be assigned the responsibility to make decisions to reduce delays. Hence the exercise of power is useful in organisations and is good for society. 

However, seeking power for the sake of it (and not using it to enhance the effectiveness of public actions) can be harmful to society. This may lead to the sustenance of the rituals of hierarchy which can enhance the cost and time for decisions. Such people may not have the incentive to take valuable inputs from others. This is a serious problem in public services in developing countries and we have noted it in another Q&A in this series. 

Q: Don’t public officials look for social recognition? Can’t it be a motivating factor for them to do their jobs well even though it may not lead to any additional monetary compensation?

A: Yes, social recognition can be a motivation and looking for such recognition is legitimate for public officials. There can be recognition from different sources and of different kinds. Prizes, awards and medals which are provided by the government to exemplary public officials can be an example of formal recognition. There can be similar types of recognition by non-governmental organisations (including private and philanthropic organisations.) Many people may like to receive such recognition from known or reputed organisations. (There can be material or monetary rewards as part of some of these medals/​prizes/​awards too.) In addition, there can be social recognition among the communities, neighbourhood, or people at large. A good teacher may be recognised by students, their families and the community even if she is not recognised by the government. Informal recognition by the community and the government may go hand in hand in certain cases but some officials may focus more on the view of the communities/​beneficiaries about services. 

However, an excessive focus on social recognition on the part of public officials can be problematic. Ideally, such recognition should come to a person who has been doing exemplary work (probably without aiming at such recognition). However, there may be a small set of people who may focus on recognition as the main goal of their work. This can be harmful (not necessarily from a moral point of view) and may have negative implications. There will be a tendency to project what one does, by neglecting the useful work by others. This is not a hypothetical situation since we can see a minority of officers following such a path in India. It may work against team-building and the achievement of those goals where such teamwork is important. It may work against the continuity of the improvement in governance. Many district collectors in India do not have an appropriate incentive to look at and continue with the initiatives taken by their predecessors. They may start their initiatives which again may be neglected by their successors. 

Q: What about intrinsic motivation? How does self-reflection help such motivation? 

A: Intrinsic motivation is widely prevalent, and self-reflection is important in this regard. Public officials may have to ask a set of questions to themselves. Am I getting joy in doing my work (in addition to money and joy from power and social recognition)? There can be multiple sources of this joy. It can be due to the satisfaction that one has done the right thing. It may be due to a perception that those who have received this official’s service have benefited (even if the recipients may not recognise it and/​or have not appreciated the service). Will I get more joy if I do my work more effectively to meet the needs of the people whom I serve? A positive answer to these questions may encourage officials to be effective. 

Q: Many government officials may not find a very conducive work environment. How can they find the motivation to do their work well despite this?

A: Yes, it is true that the organisational and external conditions may not be conducive for many government officials. This may be more so in certain socioeconomic contexts. When many officials are not motivated or they are inappropriately motivated, they can make the working environment toxic, and this can create problems for others who are motivated to do well. The problems of the working environment can also be due to sociopolitical factors (and we may discuss these issues in detail in another Q&A session). Many people may get demotivated in such toxic environments. Then they may become lazy and limit their work. 

I can understand such a response if no good work can be done due to the environment. However, that may not be the case often. A person may be able to do some work that may be socially useful even if the work environment is not very conducive. In such a context, it is much better for that person to do the job as well as possible. There are benefits even if the work is not recognised by the organisation. This person’s work benefits a set of citizens, and this itself can give certain contentment to the official. There can be certain social recognition, even if there is no recognition by the organisation. Being lazy can be harmful to oneself and that may have a negative impact on one’s life. One can be deprived of joy and meaning. Informed self-reflection can motivate public officials to work well even if the working environment is not very conducive. 

Q: How can public officials be encouraged to reflect on themselves and their work?

A: Ideally, education in general should enable people to be informed and reflective. It should facilitate the creation of reflective practitioners. However, this is often not achieved. Hence an important part of pre-service and in-service training programmes for public officials should aim at cultivating this trait of self-reflection. There is a need for informed reflection. Probably training programs currently impart the required knowledge and information. However, these need to be combined with an ability and willingness to practice self-reflection. 

Santhakumar V is Professor, Azim Premji University, Bengaluru

Featured Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash