[ad_1]
This news has been read 53 times!
By forcing a third fingerprint requirement into the public sector, we wonder if the layers of officials, from ministers, deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, directors, inspectors to supervisors, are failing to adequately monitor employee productivity. Does this additional fingerprinting actually increase efficiency, or does it introduce unnecessary complexity where it is not needed?
This really highlights an administrative failure that is indefensible. It shows either a reluctance on the part of staff to carry out their duties or a lack of trust in staff.
But in any case, pressing one more fingerprint does not solve the problem. Instead, it shows that the executive lacks confidence in his ability to supervise his subordinates, because employees tend to imitate their superiors’ work attitudes and behaviors.
If officials implement a closed-door policy, do not track and monitor the work and performance of their subordinates, and push the responsibility onto their subordinates, how can they hold their subordinates accountable?
How else could he explain standing in line to “prove attendance” at work? How much time was wasted in this process? Didn’t the person who invented this “genius” solution take the time factor into account?
The introduction of additional fingerprint requirements is unprecedented in other countries. It appears to be a Kuwaiti innovation designed to increase bureaucracy and encourage laziness. The system allows employees to prove only attendance, without having to prove their productivity or efficiency, potentially fostering a culture of making excuses for not performing their duties in a timely manner.
It is well known that officials must set a good example for their subordinates. If officials fail to fulfill their duties, it will undoubtedly set a precedent for their subordinates to fail to perform their duties.
In this regard, I recall an incident in Dubai in 2016, when Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid was inspecting some departments in the morning. He tweeted at the time: “I conducted a surprise inspection of government departments and was surprised to see some supervisors sitting behind closed doors. I immediately ordered all doors to be removed.”
The sheikh also made a surprise visit to the emirate’s executive council and found nine officials absent from their offices. He ordered their immediate dismissal and a radical change in the way the emirate is run.
The intention here is not to be strict for the sake of being strict, but to demonstrate the ability to serve the people and ensure that employees complete their assigned tasks effectively.
But when an official is unable to do this, he cannot hold the employee who failed to perform his duties accountable because he is either part of a “crony network” or “appointed through connections” or some other excuse. Such an official will resort to such solutions that indicate administrative failure because his mission is not only to follow up but also to encourage employees to produce.
In this regard, there is a story that applies to our team of officials – there was a hard-working worker who got up early every day and worked actively. An official was surprised at how efficiently the worker worked without supervision. Then he wondered how much more efficient the worker would be if he was supervised.
A supervisor was then appointed whose first task was to implement an attendance and leave system. Soon after, they realized they needed administrative support and hired a secretary to handle the growing amount of paperwork and reports.
The officer then concluded that there were performance issues and appointed an executive development specialist, whose first decision was to appoint a personal assistant to help him develop plans and strategies.
When the officer reviewed the operating costs, he found that they were higher than before, so he sought help from a management consultant and internal auditor to find a suitable solution.
After two months of research, the decision was made to fire the worker, which ultimately led to the closure of the company. The story of the additional fingerprint request is not dissimilar to the worker’s story. We hope someone will learn from this.
Ahmed Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief of Arab Times
This news has been read 53 times!
[ad_2]
Source link
