05/08/2024
05/08/2024
BY MANDATING the addition of a third fingerprint requirement in the public sector, we wonder if the extensive hierarchy of officials, from ministers, undersecretaries, assistant undersecretaries, directors, inspectors and those in supervisory capacity, failed to adequately monitor employee productivity. Does this additional fingerprinting genuinely enhance efficiency, or does it introduce unnecessary complexity where it is not needed?

This indeed highlights an administrative failure that cannot be justified. It suggests either the reluctance of the workforce to perform their duties or a lack of trust in the employees.
Nonetheless, in either case, an additional fingerprint will not solve the problem. It instead is an indication of lack of confidence among executive officials in their ability to urge their subordinates to work, as employees often emulate the work ethic and behavior of their supervisors.
How can an official hold their subordinates accountable if he practices a closed-door policy, neglects to follow up and monitor their work and performance, and then passes the responsibility onto their subordinates?
Otherwise, how does he explain the queue in the middle of the shift for “proving attendance”? How many hours are wasted for this process? Is the time factor not taken into account by the one who invented this “genius” solution?
The introduction of an additional fingerprint requirement is unprecedented in other countries. It appears to be a Kuwaiti innovation aimed at increasing bureaucracy and promoting laziness. This system allows employees to merely demonstrate attendance without necessarily proving their productivity or efficiency, thus potentially fostering a culture of making excuses for not fulfilling their duties promptly.
It is widely recognized that an official must serve as a role model for their employees. If they fail to fulfill their duties, it undoubtedly sets a precedent for subordinates to also neglect their responsibilities.
In this regard, I remember an incident that took place in Dubai in 2016 when the ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid was on a morning tour of some departments. At that time he had posted a Twitter message in which he said, “I made a surprise visit to government departments and I was surprised to see a number of directors sitting behind closed doors. I immediately issued orders to remove all the doors.”
The same Sheikh had also made a surprise visit to the Executive Council of the Emirate, and discovered that nine officials were not in their offices. He then ordered their immediate dismissal and a radical change in the way the Emirate was managed.
The intention here is not to impose strictness for the sake of being strict, but rather to demonstrate the ability to serve the people and ensure that employees fulfill their assigned tasks effectively.
However, when an official is unable to do this, he cannot hold the negligent employees accountable. This is because he either “is part of the network of cronies” or “was appointed through connections”, or some other excuse. Such an official will resort to this type of solution that indicates administrative failure, as his mission is not only to follow up, but also encourage his employees to produce.
In this regard, there is a story that applies to this army of officials we have - There was a diligent worker who consistently started early and worked actively every day. An official was surprised by the level of efficiency displayed by the worker in his work despite not being supervised. He then wondered how productive the worker would be if he was under supervision.
Subsequently, a supervisor was appointed for him, whose first task was to implement an attendance and departure system. Soon after, realizing the need for administrative support, they hired a secretary to handle the increased paperwork and reporting.
The official then concluded that there was a problem in performance, and he appointed an expert in administrative development, whose first decision was to appoint a personal assistant to help him develop plans and strategies.
When the official reviewed the operating cost, he realized that it had become higher than it was before, and he therefore sought the help of a management consultant and an internal auditor to find an appropriate solution.
After two months of study, a decision was made to dismiss the worker, ultimately leading to the company’s downfall. The tale of the additional fingerprint requirement is no different from the story of the worker. We hope that someone will learn from this.
By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times