By Mrs. Precious C. Onyekwere
There is a dangerous sentence that can quietly destroy an institution without making any noise: “Nobody cares.” It is only three words, but when they become a philosophy of work, they can be more destructive than an obvious administrative failure. A public servant comes to the office late and says, “Nobody cares.” Another receives a file that requires urgent attention and leaves it unattended, saying, “Nobody cares.” A citizen waits for hours to obtain a service, while an officer continues with a private conversation, and when questioned, the response is, “Nobody cares.” A supervisor notices declining productivity but chooses not to intervene because, in his estimation, “Nobody cares.” Gradually, responsibility becomes optional, punctuality becomes negotiable, excellence becomes unnecessary, and the public office ceases to be regarded as an institution of service. This is how organisational decline often begins—not necessarily with one spectacular act of misconduct, but with the gradual disappearance of personal responsibility. Public administration exists ultimately to translate government decisions, policies and resources into services and outcomes for citizens. The Nigerian Federal Government’s Public Service Rules state that the rules are to be strictly enforced across the ministries, extra-ministerial offices and agencies to which they apply, underscoring the fact that public employment carries formal responsibilities rather than merely providing a place to earn a salary. Yet rules alone cannot create an excellent public service. There must also be an internal conviction among public servants that their work matters. That conviction is important because behind every file is a person, behind every application is a need, behind every government programme is a citizen waiting for an outcome, and behind every administrative decision may be a family whose welfare depends upon the efficiency of an institution.
The “nobody cares” mentality is particularly dangerous because it can develop even among people who originally entered public service with genuine enthusiasm. A young officer may begin employment with ambition, discipline and a strong desire to make a difference. He may arrive early, learn quickly, treat members of the public respectfully and take pride in completing assignments. But after years of watching indifference go uncorrected, seeing hardworking colleagues receive little recognition, observing poor leadership or repeatedly encountering unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles, that enthusiasm can gradually disappear. The worker begins to conclude that effort has little meaning. This is not an argument for excusing poor performance; rather, it is an argument for understanding the organisational conditions under which motivation can either flourish or deteriorate. Frederick Herzberg’s work on motivation famously distinguished factors associated with the work itself—such as achievement, recognition, responsibility and advancement—from conditions surrounding the job, which he treated as important to dissatisfaction and motivation. Contemporary public-administration research similarly emphasises that leadership, working conditions, career development and employee engagement influence how public servants experience their work. The OECD reports that engaged public employees are associated with better organisational performance, productivity, innovation and citizen satisfaction. This means that the problem of indifference cannot simply be solved by telling workers to “work harder.” Institutions must also create conditions in which responsible behaviour is recognised, leadership is credible, professional development is possible and employees can see the connection between their daily tasks and the public good. The public servant, however, must equally resist the temptation to surrender personal responsibility merely because the system is imperfect. A bad system should be reformed; it should not become an excuse for bad service.
One of the greatest tragedies of the “nobody cares” culture is that it eventually punishes the very citizens whom public institutions were created to serve. Consider a simple administrative delay. A file is placed on a desk but is not treated promptly. The officer responsible assumes that somebody else will attend to it. The next officer receives it but does not consider it urgent. A supervisor signs it days later. Another office requests an additional document. Weeks become months. To the people inside the institution, the matter may appear to be only another file among hundreds. To the citizen outside the institution, however, that file may represent a scholarship, a pension, a land document, a business approval, a promotion, a medical intervention, an appointment or an opportunity that cannot be recovered. The distance between the administrative desk and the citizen’s life is therefore often much smaller than it appears. Max Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy drew attention to the importance of rules, offices, competence and defined responsibilities in modern administration; but bureaucracy becomes dysfunctional when procedure ceases to serve its legitimate purpose and becomes an end in itself. Contemporary OECD work makes a related point from another direction: public employees can become disconnected from the impact of their work when they become absorbed in bureaucratic requirements and lose sight of organisational purpose. The lesson is profound: administration must never forget the human being behind the administrative process. A public officer should therefore ask, whenever a file lands on the desk: “If this were my own application, my child’s application or my father’s pension, how would I want this matter treated?” That question can restore humanity to administration.
Leadership also has a decisive role in either defeating or encouraging the “nobody cares” mentality. Where leaders themselves demonstrate indifference, employees quickly learn the lesson. Where managers arrive late, disregard rules, humiliate subordinates, ignore excellence, tolerate negligence or reward loyalty above competence, they communicate—whether intentionally or unintentionally—that performance is secondary to survival within the system. Conversely, a leader who respects time, listens to staff, recognises achievement, corrects misconduct fairly and explains the purpose of institutional work creates a different organisational culture. The OECD’s recent analysis of public-sector workforces found that leadership and management practices are important to employee engagement and well-being, and that employees’ perceptions that senior leaders trust their judgement are strongly associated with engagement. This is why leadership in public administration should not be reduced to occupying an office with a higher designation. Leadership is the daily demonstration of institutional values. A director who says, “Let us do this because the public deserves it,” teaches something different from one who says, “Leave it; nobody will ask questions.” A head of department who encourages a young officer to develop professionally is building institutional capacity. A supervisor who corrects a mistake without destroying the dignity of the person who made it is developing people rather than merely administering punishment. Public institutions need leaders who understand that morale is not a luxury; it is part of administrative capacity. They must also understand that encouragement does not mean tolerating incompetence. The best leadership combines compassion with accountability, recognition with discipline, and trust with measurable responsibility.
Yet this article must not become an indictment of public servants, because millions of people enter public service and continue to work conscientiously under difficult conditions. Many public officers quietly perform their duties without applause. They open offices, process documents, teach in public institutions, maintain records, administer programmes, provide technical services, protect public resources and assist citizens, often without their names ever appearing in newspapers. Such people deserve encouragement. Public service should not be viewed merely as a means of receiving a monthly salary; it is also an opportunity to leave an institutional legacy. The fact that some colleagues are indifferent should not persuade a conscientious officer to become indifferent. The fact that some people arrive late should not justify one’s own lateness. The fact that someone else neglects a citizen does not give another officer permission to do the same. Character is tested precisely when there is little external pressure to behave well. As Aristotle argued in the Nicomachean Ethics, excellence is connected with habit: what people repeatedly do becomes part of their character. In the public service, therefore, punctuality becomes a habit, responsibility becomes a habit, fairness becomes a habit and service becomes a habit. Similarly, the idea behind John F. Kennedy’s famous appeal that citizens should ask what they can do for their country can be extended to the public office: every officer should periodically ask, “What am I contributing to the institution entrusted to my care?” Public servants should remember that institutions are larger than individuals. A director will eventually retire; a permanent secretary will eventually leave; a clerk will eventually hand over the file; a political administration will eventually change. What remains is the institution and the institutional culture that people have helped to create.
The way forward, therefore, is not simply to condemn the “nobody cares” attitude but to replace it with a stronger philosophy: “Somebody cares—and I am that somebody.” Every public servant can become that somebody. The officer who answers a citizen courteously is that somebody. The administrator who refuses to deliberately delay a file is that somebody. The supervisor who recognises an honest and hardworking subordinate is that somebody. The director who insists on transparency is that somebody. The senior officer who mentors younger employees instead of intimidating them is that somebody. The public servant who comes to work every morning determined to leave the office better than he found it is that somebody. Governments, too, must do their part by providing fair working conditions, opportunities for learning and development, effective leadership, appropriate recognition and systems that make accountability possible. Recent OECD evidence from more than 56,000 public employees across participating European central administrations found that employee engagement, leadership, learning and development, working conditions and organisational performance are closely connected areas of public-service management. But institutional reform ultimately begins with people. A nation does not become administratively efficient merely because it writes excellent rules; it becomes efficient when human beings decide to take those rules and their responsibilities seriously. Public servants should therefore refuse to let cynicism become their professional identity. They should remember that the value of public service is sometimes found not in dramatic achievements but in the small things done correctly every day. A properly handled file, a timely response, a truthful explanation, a respectful conversation, a well-kept record and an honest decision may appear insignificant to the officer who performs them, but together such actions constitute the architecture of good governance. The “nobody cares” attitude says that nothing matters. Public service at its highest level says the opposite: everything that affects the citizen matters. And as long as there remains one public servant who cares, one office that insists on excellence and one leader who understands that authority is a responsibility rather than a privilege, there remains the possibility of rebuilding trust, restoring dignity and making public institutions worthy of the people they exist to serve.
Mrs Precious C. Onyekwere
Is a staff of Alvan Ikoku Federal University of Education Owerri
