Q&A with Santhakumar V

Q: A number of government officials work hard to effectively meet the demands of citizens. What motivates them to work hard since they may not receive any additional financial gain by doing so? Does this mean that monetary compensation is unimportant?

A: Yes, there are many government officials including school teachers and doctors, who work hard to meet the needs of those who seek their services. They receive their regular salaries, which are not linked to how hard they work. They must be deriving some satisfaction or joy from the work.

Monetary compensation is important. These government officials should get a salary/​monetary compensation that is comparable to that of others with similar levels of education in society. If the salary is low, then government jobs may not attract appropriately qualified people. However, the previous point is that there are people who work hard (and others who may not do so), and this difference may not be linked to their salaries since all officials of the same levels get the same salaries.

Q: How is this situation different in for-profit private firms?

A: There is a section of employees who work hard in private companies too even if it does not bring them additional monetary gains. Some people are motivated by the joy/​satisfaction of doing their work well in all types of organisations. However, managers/​owners of for-profit private companies have an incentive to reward their hard-working employees because their hard work may create additional profits for their firms.

However, the situation in government or public organisations is different. The owners of these organisations do not gain financially from the hard work of their employees and hence, have no incentive to reward hard-working employees financially. Therefore, the additional financial incentive is less likely to be a motivation for government officials to do hard work. (Of course, some officials expect and receive bribes, which is unethical and risky.)

Also, the output of the work of a government official can be intangible in many cases. A notable part of the benefit from the work of a government official is for society as a whole and not just for an individual. For example, when a person gets a driving license, that person gets a benefit, but society also benefits since the license ensures that only those who are capable of driving safely will get a driving license. Hence, if we measure the number of people who get the license as the output of a motor vehicle inspector, it will not reflect how careful this person is in ensuring that only proficient people obtain licenses. This may be true for the work of a government school teacher or a police officer. When the output is intangible, providing a financial incentive may become challenging.

Q: A set of government officials works well due to intrinsic motivation. What about giving them a financial incentive also? Won’t that encourage them to be more effective?

A: Financial incentives may sometimes diminish motivation. This has been observed in behavioural experiments. For example, some parents in a kindergarten (KG) would come late to pick up their children after school; the school imposed a fine to discourage this behaviour. But after the imposition of the fine, more parents than before started coming late. An example of the disappearance of intrinsic motivation is when a financial incentive is used. (Parents had been coming on time earlier due to the perception that it was not right to keep the caretakers waiting but when the fine was imposed, they perceived it as a price that could be paid to get the additional time of caretakers.)

Q: Isn’t this a rare case? Is it relevant in the case of other public services?

A: It is not rare. We have many examples. What happens when government doctors can collect money from patients? They may charge even for those services which they are expected to provide under usual conditions; what if government school teachers are allowed to charge a fee from school students to provide tuition? They will charge the fee for doing what they are expected to do; what if judges are given an incentive to complete trials quickly? They may rush through trials. All these indicate that financial incentives can work against the motivation to do the right thing in many cases.

Q: If financial incentives are not desirable what is the way to motivate government officials?

A: There may be a need to look for alternatives. One possibility is social recognition. Awards and other forms of recognition for government officials could be considered. However, if officials focus excessively on such recognition, there can be harmful effects. For example, each official may try to highlight their achievements and overlook those of others, including subordinates. Or there may be a tendency to ignore the accomplishments/​work of predecessors to project one’s own work. While there is potential to use social recognition as a means to motivate government officials, it should be approached cautiously.

Q: If social recognition as a tool has limitations in motivating government officials, what are the alternatives?

A: Once basic monetary compensation (which is revised regularly to maintain parity in the economy) is assured, intrinsic motivation must play an important role in the work of government officials. Social and working conditions should support the development and sustenance of such intrinsic motivation.

However, there may be other motivations as well. An official may have an empathetic attitude towards a specific group of people. For example, an official who is part of a particular socioeconomic group may have an ideological or emotional bias towards it, driving the official to work towards the betterment of this group. However, this may hinder the development of an unbiased approach towards all citizens, which is essential for enhancing the effectiveness of public services.

Q: How can intrinsic motivation be sustained in government systems?

A: Supervisors/​leaders should understand the importance of intrinsic motivation among their subordinates. Excessive micro-management may work against the sustenance of intrinsic motivation. While the responsibilities and tasks of each official must be specified, some autonomy in their work may be necessary to sustain an intrinsic motivation. Supervisors/​leaders also need to have a high level of credibility among their subordinates. Transparency in the process of assigning supervisory roles to individuals based on seniority or other qualifications may enhance credibility. (Arbitrary decisions in this regard may reduce credibility and impact the intrinsic motivation of subordinates.)

Q: How can government jobs attract those who are driven more by intrinsic motivation?

A: Ideally, government jobs should attract those people who are intrinsically motivated. Those seeking higher salaries may not see government jobs (which provide public services) as attractive. Since this information is available to all, government jobs may attract those who are not motivated by financial incentives, through a process of self-selection.

However, there are challenges in ensuring this self-selection in countries like India. The overall situation of employment is not optimistic and not many can get a decent job in the private sector. In contrast, government jobs offer certain benchmark salaries and social security, making them a lot more attractive. Therefore, all types of individuals, not just those who are driven by intrinsic motivation, may look for government jobs. Once they are in these jobs, they may look for financial incentives which are unethical and fraudulent. This can be a reason for the corruption among a section of government employees.

Q: How do we ensure that government officials do not indulge in corruption?

A: Corruption is influenced by political factors (related to the functioning of a democracy and how voters respond to the corruption of politicians). However, certain factors which affect personal behaviour also matter. Let us take two cases: There is a police constable who takes a bribe from a driver who violates a traffic rule. This may not happen if the police officer is upright and feels a sense of shame in doing something dishonest like this. Let us take another case: What makes a police officer lenient with a rich person who violates traffic rules? This may stem from feelings of powerlessness or the prevailing perception that rich person has connections with politicians, or that they have certain privileges. All these issues are connected to the social development of a context. Hence, there may be a need for social development to reduce corruption.

Q: Isn’t the existence of corruption related to laws and law enforcement?

A: Yes, but the enforcement of the law depends on political and socioeconomic factors which we will discuss separately. However, there is an issue of trust in this regard. When we take a taxi, why do we pay the taxi driver? Is it out of fear of law enforcement or the taxi driver’s aggressive (if not violent) reaction? If we pay taxi charges due to one of these reasons, it is costly (detrimental) to society. We may not pay a charge if law enforcement is weak in a context, or if we are sure that the violent behaviour of the driver can be controlled. Many taxi drivers may not be willing to provide their service in such contexts. But most of us pay taxi charges believing that it is the right thing to do fostering trust and responsible behaviour. This behaviour is good for society and the economy (since more and more taxi drivers will be willing to provide their service in such contexts). Therefore, trust and behaviour that spring from knowing what the right thing to do is is important for the provision of goods and services, and this is much more so in the case of public services.

Author

Santhakumar V is Professor, Azim Premji University, Bengaluru

Featured photo by Aditya Rathod on Unsplash