Institutional strengthening is examined through two key metaphors that serve to elucidate not only the six vital areas of institutional strengthening, namely leadership, purpose, structure, unifying mechanisms, relationships, and rewards, but also the uncharted spaces within institutions. These uncharted spaces refer to such overlooked areas as the imperative need to change the mindsets of many public sector employees from one of entitlement, of public service positions as sinecures, to one of inspired public service and commitment.

Years ago, while I was working my way through University, I worked on a road paving crew. It was hot work. My job was to rake and smooth the hot asphalt as it was being poured. The sound of the paving machine was deafening. There was lots of time to think while I worked. Each morning, for mind exercise, I would memorize a quotation that I could focus on through the day. The harder the quotation to understand, the better it was for me, as I had eight full hours to ponder its significance and tease out its meaning. I would repeat the quotation again and again, like a mantra, and I would often see the puzzled, concerned looks on the faces of my co-workers.

One fine day I selected a quote from a Canadian philosopher, actually the media guru of the day, Marshal McLuhan. It is a deceptively simple quote: “We don’t know who discovered water, but we can be pretty sure it wasn’t a fish.” I thought about that statement long and hard under the blazing sun. At the time I was confused and a little vexed with myself for not being able to figure it out.

That statement has come to be extremely significant for me in my consulting work on institutional strengthening and organization development. Indeed, it’s enabled me to probe beneath the more obvious and commonplace approaches to institutional strengthening.

What has always fascinated me about organization charts, for example, is the spaces between the boxes. That’s where the real action is- in those spaces, in those gaps. That’s where institutional strengthening begins. And that’s where the practiced consultant first focuses his or her attention. But more about charts and structure a bit later.

I like to use the analogy of space and stars in an institutional strengthening context. The stars of the night skies can only shine brightly because of the vast spaces between them. Let’s examine six stars in the firmament from an institutional strengthening perspective.

One of the first key stars to study is that of leadership. What’s happening there? Do the leaders subscribe to an overarching Vision, or do they merely manage their personal careers? Do they promulgate and disseminate and drive the Vision and mission forward, or do they simply “network” and garner support for greater and greater personal opportunity and advantage. I believe there is always a necessary dynamic, a struggle between public good and personal gain in effective leaders. Institutional leaders need to balance these claims in order to further both. There is absolutely nothing wrong with furthering one’s career. Indeed, a career is furthered best when the institution carries it on its current, as a ship rides upon the sea. True leaders are the acknowledged champions of institutional change and strengthening. Singapore’s masterful transformation from an unsuccessful bureaucracy replete with nepotism and cronyism to a model of successful public sector functioning is a case in point. Without the brilliant stewardship of a Lee Kuan Yew, the Singapore transformation could not have happened.

Let’s examine another star, one that is obvious, and one that I referred to earlier. What gets an inordinate amount of attention and endless fussing over, is structure- organizational charts and the like. I’ve seen a number of CEOs who proudly parade about displaying freshly printed organization charts as if they were tablets delivered from on high. The boxes alone are not enough. In this regard, the words of Peter Drucker are as instructive as always: “Structure follows strategy.” Organizational charts are only as effective as the strategy that informs them, the purpose behind everything, behind what the organization delivers whether it is service to its citizens, or the marketing of iPhones.

Contained within an institution’s star purpose is its strategy to deliver what it promises. This purpose is intimately bound with its Vision; one cannot exist without the other. But the question arises: How do we ensure that the purpose of an organization or institution or entity is transmitted throughout its workforce so that everyone from the janitor to the CEO shares the same institutional DNA, and acts upon it?

Wishing upon a star is not enough. Staring into the night skies and clearly discerning the outlines of institutional purpose might provide the big picture, but it won’t take us where we want to go. For that, we need a number of unifying mechanisms that circulate freely throughout an institution, enlivening it, and pushing past the natural atrophy that blights most public sector bureaucracies. Developing such mechanisms is essential to the smooth, friction-free, and sustained functioning of successful institutions.

E.M. Forster once famously said that the important thing is to “only connect.” Within large institutions the capacity to link and coordinate work initiatives is vital. There are a number of unifying mechanisms at play that warrant close attention: policy statements; procedures; meeting guidelines; work processes, to name a few. However, it is not enough to merely have them, as most institutions and organizations do. Nicely bound policies, procedures, agendas, and standardized work processes need to be adhered to, internalized to some extent, and subscribed to by all. This star shines best when it is polished and nurtured.

Every institution contains a host of relationships, big and small, like the stars of the sky. The important thing, in terms of institutional strengthening interventions, is to minimize conflict and maximize cooperation. This requires an intuitive human touch as well as adhering to the rigorous and rational unifying mechanisms listed above. The quality of internal work relationships must be studied, managed, and monitored by proactive and insightful leaders. Without the human touch, rational organisms wither and die. The same is true of institutions and public sector entities.

Sometimes a small, seemingly trivial observation will reveal a deeper systemic crack in institutional functioning. A number of times, for example, in public sector ministries in the Caribbean, I’ve observed bored and restive school children jostling each other in large open offices where several employees were working. It seemed to me, and this was corroborated later, that they were the children of public sector employees working there. It struck me as very unprofessional as the presence of the playing children interfered with employees being able to respond efficiently to public inquiries and needs. Perhaps the children were waiting for a parent to finish work and take them home. Whatever the reason, it detracted from effective public service and from the professional citizen-focused orientation so necessary to modern public institutions. I believe that with a little careful planning, by Human Resource personnel for example, the children could have assembled elsewhere in a more congenial, non-disruptive setting.

If you think about it, you realize that a true orientation and commitment by a majority of employees to public service is simply not there. This fundamental issue, one of the big spaces between the boxes, is not being satisfactorily addressed in most public sector institutions in the developing world. A radical shift in mindset is necessary, a mindset that changes from an orientation of entitlement to one of service. Public sector employment should not be regarded as a sinecure by its constituents. The general perception of public sector employees needs to be radically transformed so that a commitment to service delivery is front and center. After all, international and local consultants may offer useful approaches to structural and policy change, for instance, but unless the hearts and minds of public sector employees are engaged in the process of institutional change, “that bird just ain’t gonna fly,” as one of my colleagues puts it. This issue of changing mindsets will be addressed in a separate article.

Oftentimes, I’ve met public sector employees who were disarmingly candid. When I asked what could help them do their jobs better, they replied, “pay us more.” They went on to say that they would not contribute as much as they could because their salaries were too low and that it seemed to them that their work contribution was not valued. So why bother?

Certainly low salaries are a part of the problem and symptomatic of institutional weakness and national economic weakness beyond that. However, the crucial issue of motivation and rewards does not hang upon a single financial thread. Let’s face it; unsatisfied needs do not motivate once they have been satisfied. Once an institution has been turned around and salaries are commensurate with contribution, as in the Singapore public sector model, money is not enough to motivate. Challenge and personal and professional growth rise to the top as Abraham Maslow’s insightful pyramid of needs and human motivation shows us. Healthy and strong public sector institutions rely on teams of motivated individuals who put out their personal best to achieve goals that are both highly personal and strategically aligned with institutional purpose and institutional goals. Getting there, to a place where individuals feel justly compensated and rewarded for their contribution, is not an easy thing. But, given considered and patient attention, it is doable. Let’s take a moment to recap and examine how.

So far we’ve looked up into the starry skies of institutional strengthening and observed six shining points of light: leadership; purpose; structure; unifying mechanisms; relationships; and rewards. We need all of them working together in strategic alignment to function effectively. However, and here’s the rub, it is the spaces between the stars that allow the stars to shine brightly and to gain distinction. These necessary spaces between the stars are like the spaces between the boxes on the organization charts described earlier. Those are the areas we need to pay attention to in order to successfully strengthen public sector institutions, to make them shine.
Now, I’d like to leave the starry heavens for a moment and return to my first institutional strengthening metaphor: “We don’t know who discovered water, but we can be pretty sure it wasn’t a fish.” McLuhan’s pithy quotation contains a sea of meaning for people interested in strengthening their institutions. What it means to me, so many years after raking asphalt and tar under the hot sun, is that, like the spaces between the stars, we need to pay attention to what surrounds us, to what we take for granted and largely ignore because it is so all-encompassing, like the sea or the sky. We need to pay attention to our work environment, to our organizational culture.

So, how do we do this? Where do we begin? The heavens favour enterprises that begin with a clear and unequivocal message, with communicating a Vision, a purpose. That necessitates transparent and open communication throughout an institution, to all of its employees with their variegated and specialized skills. It doesn’t end there of course. Specialized communication initiatives that are sustained through a comprehensive change strategy need to be set in place. This will require commitment and patience. A sea change in institutional awareness must happen. That means that the mindset of individual public sector employees needs to change from one of entitlement, of a position as a sinecure, to one of service, inspired public service and commitment. It is a tough goal, but eminently doable. So let’s begin.