:: E-Journals :: Corona College Of Education E-Resources

Bureaucratic Accountability and Public Sector Management in Nigeria: Examining the Issues, Challenges and the Way Forward

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

African Research Review: An International

Multidisciplinary Journal, Ethiopia

AFRREV Vol. 14 (1), Serial No 57, January, 2020: 166-178

ISSN 1994-9057 (Print) ISSN 2070-0083 (Online)

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v14i1.15

Bureaucratic Accountability and Public Sector Management in

Nigeria: Examining the Issues, Challenges and the Way Forward

Igbokwe-Ibeto, C. J.

Department of Public Administration

Faculty of Management Sciences

Nnamdi Azikiwe University

E-mail: c.igbokwe-ibeto@unizik.edu.ng

Osakede, K. O.

West African Seasoning Company Limited

Apapa, Lagos State.

kosakede@yahoo.com

Nwobi, F.

Department of Public Administration

Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University

fnwobi@yahoo.com

Abstract

The main objective the public sector in Nigeria seeks to achieve is policy initiation,

formulation and implementation for the well-being and welfare of the citizens. However, over

the years, the sector has been plagued with declining service delivery and moral bankruptcy.

This article within the framework of social exchange theory examined the dynamics of

bureaucratic accountability, the nexus between bureaucratic accountability and public sector

management in Nigeria. It is usually the public that suffers from a malfunctioning public

service. Nigerian citizens look up to public servants for protection against various ills in the

society and the provision of essential services. If the involvement of public servants in the

political, economic and social life of the country is considered, we shall better appreciate the

needed urgency in making the service accountable for its actions. It argues that for Nigeria to

match forward, there is need for effective, efficient, patriotic and committed public servants,

who should be accountable for their stewardship. The article recommends that unless the

Nigeria public sector is revitalized and "dead woods" therein removed, Nigeria and Nigerian

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

166

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

will continue to experience deep-seated frustrations in the often-touted desire to move the

nation forward.

Key Words: Accountability, bureaucracy, government, service delivery, patriotic

Introduction

The public sector in Nigeria has come of age not so much because of its efficiency and

effectiveness, but primarily because of its bureaucratic nature or structure, impersonality,

rules and regulations, specialization and hierarchical positions, longevity and resilience of its

relevant in the administration of the country. The public service is taken generally as the live

wire of any government and the greatest asset of the state in its quest for socio-economic

development. Political leaders, chief executives, top government officials and the public

usually look on the service as the machinery that will help them to realize their goals and

aspirations. In a democratic process that requires public officers to periodically give account

of their stewardship, there is growing concern for making public servants accountable for

their service.

The core objective the public sector in Nigeria seeks to achieve is policy initiation,

formulation and implementation. However, over the years, the sector has been plagued with

declining service delivery and moral bankruptcy. The attitude to work of the average public

servant has reflected a very poor work ethic and culture. Some public servants believe that an

assignment should not be finished in a day; otherwise there would be no work to occupy them

the next day.

The vogue is the rainy-day thesis - the practice by which many public servants will perform

their duties only and only when they are offered "kola" by the public they are meant to serve.

Such "kola" could be in various forms to disguise the art. Sometimes, it takes the form of

benefit from society or club membership whereby a member gets preferential attention and

privileges. The consequence is that, the public service is robbed of its function of serving the

public with equity and fairness.

There is also the God-fatherism syndrome which helps to ruin the public service. Through this

means, a public servant takes advantage of his/her relationship with an officer, a boss usually,

to obtain preferential attention and undeserved patronage at the detriment of other colleagues,

who may have had similar needs for long but have nobody in similar positions to help them

(Igbokwe-Ibeto, 2012). This deplorable practice is most evident in processing promotions,

admissions into educational institutions and employment applications. It encourages truancy,

collaboration to embezzle, cheat or defraud character assassination, corruption, disunity and

instability (Oguonu, 1995). The public servant who has a protecting boss behaves as if he is

above the law.

Challenging such situations is not easy. It could even spell doom for the challenger's career.

Often, victimization, frustration, non-promotion, oppression, jungle justice and even outright

dismissal from service may be meted out to those officers who venture to speak out against

injustice and immorality. In the face of such situations, little or no attention is paid to the

issue of bureaucratic accountability in the public sector management. Based on the foregoing,

this chapter seeks to address the following: to give detailed processes of bureaucratic

accountability management; examine some variable affecting the successes or failures of

bureaucratic accountability management in the public sector; and proffer solutions on the

variables identified inhibiting accountable management in the Nigerian public sector.

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

167

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

To address the issues raised, the work will be guided by the following questions: What is

involved in bureaucratic accountable management? What variables affect the successes or

failures of bureaucratic accountability in the Nigerian public sector management? And what

remedial steps can be taken to build bureaucratic accountability into the Nigerian public

sector management?

Methodology

It is descriptive in the sense that it provides a detailed account of bureaucratic accountability

and public sector management in Nigeria. It is exploratory because the chapter attempts the

nexus between bureaucratic accountability and public sector management by espousing the

investigative stance of exploratory research. It is also explanatory because it attempts to look

at the implications of bureaucratic accountability on public sector management.

Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis

In an enterprise of this nature, in order to avoid ambiguity in the interpretation of certain

terms, conceptual and theoretical analyses are embarked upon to clarify, illustrate and provide

a road map for navigating the contour of social phenomena. In this section of the chapter, we

shall attempt to effectuate this endeavour. To be accountable is to be liable to present an

account of, and answer for the execution of responsibilities to those entrusting the

responsibilities. This implies the concept of responsibility for a level of performance or

accomplishment. Accountability is a pivotal concept in democratic governance underpinning

most analysis. It constantly dictates the behaviour of policy making actors, both in terms of

responsibility of those charged with policy making and the behaviour of those observing and

seeking to influence policies from the larger society (Cooper, 2009; Lewis, 1991). No

wonder, Longman Dictionary (1997) does not stop at equating accountability with liability, it

went further to admonish that accountability is the requirement expectation for one to give

explanation for one's action. Accountability can be in private or public sector. However, our

venue of study here is public or bureaucratic accountability.

Public or bureaucratic accountability is the firm recognition and acceptance of the fact that all

public officers hold their positions, and everything associated with those positions, as trusts

for the people, who are their masters. To Lewis & Gilman (2005), bureaucratic accountability

means ensuring that public administrators make decisions that are in the best interest of the

public. Those who are expected to render service must account to the people for their

successes and failures: and those who are entrusted with the custody and disbursement of

public funds must appropriately account to the people for their use (Akpan in Oguonu, 1995).

Thus, accountability is intrinsically linked to what might be called stewardship.

In the light of the above definition, public administrators who are entrusted with public

resources must be able to account for their stewardship from time to time. Their failure to do

this constitutes a major drag on the effectiveness of the public service delivery. It is along this

line of thought that the Freedom of Information Act was signed into law in Nigeria.

Legislation providing freedom of information provides an avenue for the public to gain access

to information previously withheld, leading to identification of actions taken by public

officials in the public sector management process (Dibie, 2014; Dye, 2011).

The concept ‘management’ is a word conceived to express the need for everyone in an

organization to handle his or her affairs in the best possible way so as to achieve the desired

result (Igbokwe-Ibeto&Aremo, 2013). The existence and nature of man makes him to develop

goals and mandates him to do everything within his capacity to attain the goals. The same can

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

168

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

be said of organizations which employ human resources and charge them with the task of

assembling other resources for use towards achieving organizational objectives (Chukwu,

2007). Management can also be seen as a noun or as a process. As a noun management refers

to the key personnel within a system who hold leadership positions. As a process, it refers to

the art of getting the people do their work for the attainment of organisational objectives

(Oguoun, 1995). According to Ejiofor (1991), management is the art of working particularly

through people, for the achievement of the broad goals of an organisation".

The impact of this definition is that for a manager to achieve the set objectives of an

organisation, he has to find the people and material to do the job. He should map out his

strategies, assign different people to different jobs according to their talents, skill and

competencies and co-ordinate and motivate them to do the job.

It is along this line of thought that Likert in (Igbokwe-Ibeto, Agbodike&Anazodo, 2015)

succinctly posited that:

All activities of any enterprise are initiated and determined by the persons

that make up that institution. Plants, offices, computers, automated

equipment, and all else that a modern firm uses are unproductive except for

human effort and direction. Human beings design or order equipment; they

decide where and how to use computers; they modernize or fail to modernize

the technology employed; they secure the capital needed and decide on the

accounting and fiscal procedures to be used. Every aspect of a firm’s

activities is determined by the competent, motivated, and general

effectiveness of its human organization. Of all the task of management,

managing the human component is the central and most important task,

because all else depends upon how well it is done.

However, these should be done through supervision - that is helping, guiding, advising and

inspecting, in order to ensure that set standards are maintained, and that jobs are done as

planned. So, management utilizes human, material and financial resources to attain

organisational objectives. This is done through the managerial tool of planning, organising,

directing and controlling.

Accountable management therefore has been defined by Dean in (Oguonu, 1995) as a system

of management in which results of expenditure, and by extension, of policy making decisions,

should clearly be stated, evaluated, explained and justified where need be. Based on the above

definition, for accountability management to be attained in the public sector, public

administrators should be willing to exert themselves in their various working situations.

Ejiofor (1991described a corrupt public servant as the "worst enemy of the public". He went

further to theorize in his "theory 80" that:

The average Nigerian is corrupt, dishonest, nepotic, tribalistic and lazy, and

is all time seeking for opportunities to cheat his employer. The Nigerian

society does not reward hard work, diligence, objectivity, selflessness,

patience and incentives. The emphasis is in short-cuts, hot cash, me first,

now-now-now and quick-quick. As a result, the environment in Nigeria is

not conducive for effective and efficient running of organisations which is a

pre-condition for genuine national development.

It is along this line of thought that Ake in (Akhakpe, 2014) gave a vivid graphic picture of

Nigerian public servants’ disregard to bureaucratic accountability as thus:

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

169

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

They (public servants) do not believe they are serving anybody else but

themselves and exploit their position for personal gain. The generally arrive

work later and leave early. They take extra lunch recesses. They steal public

property. They accept bribe for performance of duties that are contractually

part of their responsibilities. When the work, they work slowly………they

stymie the public by losing their files through excessive review of the issue at

hand, or by simply pretending that they have not heart of the matter before.

For all of these, they acknowledge no wrong doing for they do not believe

that what they are doing is wrong.

An analysis of the above submission of Ake in (Akhakpe, 2014) suggested lack of

bureaucratic accountability in the public sector management. Corroborating this view is

Ejiofor (1991) who argue that the major drag to effectiveness and efficiency of public sector

management is inability or unwillingness of the available manpower to exert itself in its

various work situations. This is due to many reasons which include the questionable integrity

of some public sector managers (Ejiofor, 1991).

To Ejiofor (1991), integrity is the aspect of one's character rooted in his conviction which

serves to deter him from taking advantage of his position or strength to gain at the' expense of

his organisation, his customers, clients or, subordinates. He concludes that the success of an

organisation is therefore dangerously' dependant on the integrity of its key managers.

Therefore, questionable integrity of some public sector managers affects managerial

performance. For example, Oloko (1991) did a study on staff motivation and attitude to work.

His study population consists of 405 workers in a factory. The findings reveal that the

Nigerian worker does not perceive that his career advancement depends much on how hard he

works. 49percent out of the 405 respondents believe that people are promoted mostly for

being bosses ‘favourites", 23percent of the respondents believe that promotion is based

exclusively on skill and effort while 22percent opined it is mostly skill effort. His interview

with managers shows that 77percent believe that fate alone determines success, while

23percent attribute success to effort. The result of this study reveals the disheartening picture

of motivation and attitude to work of Nigerian workers as workers; perceive favouritism;

rather than effort and hard work as the path to promotion.

The finding agrees with the path goal theory of motivation by Georgopolous (1957) which,

states that "if a worker sees his productivity' as a path leading to the attainment of one or more

of his personal goals, he will tend to be a high producer. On the other hand, if he sees low

productivity as a path to the achievement of his goal, he tends to be a low producer".

Again, according to Hicks & Gullet (1981), organisations are created and maintained by their

members" so as to satisfy their personal objectives; They go on to say that with the passage of

time~ objectives are renegotiated to reflect new problems and opportunities as well as the

power differences among individuals and departments. So, for mutual reinforcement of

objectives to occur,' individuals’ objectives and organisational objectives should be

accomplished together. It appears from the various findings that attitude to work, integrity,

motivation of workers and compatibility of individual objectives with organisational

objectives will affect the success or failure of accountable management in the public service.

To scientifically analyse the issues raised in this paper, we underpin our discussion within the

ambit of social exchange theory because of the advantages it presents in analysing the subject

under investigation. Blau (1964) established the social exchange theory which has been

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

170

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

applied in various organisations in order to understand how both the organisation and the

managers play an important role in creating desirable feelings of obligation among

employees, thereby increasing their devotion towards service delivery. Based on this, it is

said that employees who feel that they are treated favourably by their superiors and their

colleagues are more likely to feel a higher sense of obligation which in turn, leads to positive

feelings of obligation and favourable treatment (Igbokwe-Ibeto&Aremo, 2013). In other

words, employees who are given favourable treatment are more likely to feel indebted to the

party providing such a treatment, and these employees therefore reciprocate such treatment.

To Shore & Shore (1995), employees who are able to experience and receive recognition for

their work are also able to have a better perception of their work, their workplace and the

people they work for. Thus, there is a need for the employer to really make an effort in

showing the employee that his/her well-being is of concern to the organisation and the

management and that the contribution of the employee towards the organisation is highly

valued. This idea is further reiterated by Buchanan (2004) who adds that the recognition of

contributions towards the organisation has a positive relationship towards increasing the

commitment of the employee towards the organisation and its objectives.

Flowing from the above, Skinner (2009) admonish that offering rewards in exchange for hard

work, especially in-service industries is very imperative when it comes to influencing the

perceptions of employees. Through rewards, employees are able to also shape their

perceptions on how they value service delivery. Based on the operant conditioning theory

propounded by Skinner (2009), behaviours that are rewarded have a high tendency to be

repeated. Such behaviours are also capable of being reinforced and employees tend to exhibit

such desirable behaviours more frequently. For accountable public sector management in

Nigeria to achieve maximum potential, it has to do with using reward techniques to achieve

service delivery. However, the reverse is the case.

Characteristics’ of the Public Sector Management

The public sector management represents a system that is governed by laws, rules and

procedures that prescribe roles, skills, responsibilities and boundaries. Bureaucracy may seem

natural state of public organizations. The organizational culture of role type represents a

social construction type appeared in the late nineteenth century, meant to rationalize the kind

of functioning of organizations, both private and public.

Public sector management has in recent time gained prominence in governance and service

delivery discourse. The essence of this endeavour is to bring back the care characteristics of

management in running the public sector in particular. According to Guta (20120, the

characteristics of public management include the following:

1. Synthetic Character: The public management takes over from other fields methods,

theories that were successfully used by civil servants. It is required on adaptation of

knowledge of sociology, psychology, statistics, ergonomics, law, economics, etc. to the

peculiarities of the public sector.

2.Integrating Character: The public management investigates the management processes and

relations in public administration, in order to substantiate the improvement and

rationalization solutions of the administrative system. The public management studies,

essentially the way of leading public institutions in society, in the broad sense of the term,

integrating the elements of all areas of social life: education, administration, social

welfare services, etc.

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

171

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

3. Complexity Character: The public management has a complex character because it

gathers specific elements of management in different areas of public sector: education,

culture, social welfare services, health etc. The mere enumeration of these areas makes us

understand the difficulties in approach of public management problems in general and of

management in these different fields, particularly.

4. Diversity Character: The public management has a character of diversity, as there are

institutions with general material competence and social competence institutions, central

and local institutions. This makes that the management also suffers the differentiation

according to the administrative level to which it relates.

5. Political Character: The public management is a management area influenced by political

factors. This is obvious because they cannot be identical goals pursued by public

administration representatives in the states with different political regimes.

Bureaucratic Accountability and Public Sector Management in Nigeria: The Nexus

Accountability like stewardship involves two manifest parties: a steward or an accountor

(public servant) that is the party to whom the stewardship or accountability is given and who

is obliged to present an account of its execution and the principal or accountee

(government/citizens) that is the party entrusting the responsibility to the steward and to

whom the account is presented. There is also the third party in this relationship, that is, the

codes on the basis of which the stewardship is struck and by which it is maintained and

adjudicated. Codes may be explicit or more often implicit. There interface can further be

appreciated examining the how the stewardship relationship is struck and maintain.

Having established the relationship between the principal and steward, the steward executes

his responsibility or responsibilities whether these may be the guardianship of the assets, the

use of such assets for mutual gain or the performance of the specified duties. At the end of a

stipulated period, the steward is obliged to render an account of conduct in effecting the

responsibilities. The account is being presented and examined in accordance with the codes

by which the stewardship was struck. These follows the adjudication, that is the judgment by

the principal of the extent to which the steward has properly discharged his responsibility and

on the basis of which the relationship is confirmed, modified or terminated. The cycle of

stages will follow for each stewardship relation struck in turn by a steward with sub-steward.

Bureaucratic accountability and transparency are essential tools for the efficiency of public

sector organizations. Some of the measures that could be used to achieve enforcing

bureaucratic accountability can be internal or external strategies.

Internally, it connotes those measures that the government uses to ensure that work within

public sector organization confirms to organizational goals. These include code of conduct,

public or civil service rules and regulations, remuneration and organizational reviewers as

well as system performance appraisal (Dibie, 2014). Externally, it includes independent and

periodic auditing and investigation, ministerial control, as well as powers of the legislature.

Challenges Inhibiting Bureaucratic Accountability in Public Sector Management in

Nigeria

The issues and challenges inhibiting bureaucratic accountability in the public sector

management are so enormous and complex that space cannot permit us to do justice to all.

Therefore, we shall concentrate on topical and salient ones within the context of questions

raised.

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

172

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

What variables affect the successes or failures of accountable management in the public

sector? To answer this question, items developed to indicate variables such as compatibility

of individual objectives with organisational objective, attitude to work, integrity and

motivation of workers as they affect the success or failures of accountable .management, were

developed as follows: (i) Poor conditions of service, (ii) Lack of opportunity to advance, (iii)

Lack of adequate incentives, (iv) Poor supervision, (v) Unfair treatment by supervisors (vi)

Job hazards and.

Of these items, iii, iv, v and vi received 100percent response rate. Such attitudes have

inhibited bureaucratic accountability of the concerned officers in the public sector

management. Items i and iii had zero scores: The· response was. 'No'. The finding reveals that

lack of adequate incentives, poor supervision and unfair treatment of supervisors indicate

poor attitude to work arising from lack of integrity among those concerned. Again, lack of

integrity, a factor assumed to be the key to success of any organisation, constitutes the major

problem hindering bureaucratic accountability in public sector in Nigeria.

Furthermore, the 100percent who opined "Yes" on job hazard indicates lack of staff

motivation. Koontz, O'Donne1 &Weihrich (1980) argued that human motives are based on

needs, whether consciously or subconsciously felt. Some needs are primary such as the

physiological requirements for water, air, food, sleep and shelter. Other needs such as such as

self-esteem, status, affiliation with others, affection giving, accomplishment and self-assertion

may be regarded as secondary. As can be readily seen, these needs vary in intensity and over

time with various individuals.

Another issue that hinders bureaucratic accountability in public sector management or work is

the fact that the civil or public service is designed in such a way that it is an ordered set and a

sequence of jobs. According to Armstrong (2010), one of the fundamental things about a civil

service job is that it has no particular significance in itself, hut that it gets significance from

its place in an organisation. This means that accomplishing an objective is beyond the reach

of an individual worker. This is because, no goal can be attained without the ordered sequence

into which various jobs fit. Thus, no individual can easily be held accountable for non-

attainment of the collective goal of various departments within the public service.

With regard to the public service structure as a challenge, it should be noted that the structure

in some cases makes it difficult to know whether public servants or contractors would be held

accountable for non-performance. In the construction of roads by independent construction

companies for example, public servants are not engaged in the construction, but they exercise

some kind of control over the process.

Another problem of poor accountability is the public servant himself. Some of them see the

service as a part-time venture. They therefore concentrate more solidly on their private

individual ventures. The general notion is that government's problems are no body's problems.

Ocho (1994) noted that: The typical Nigerian teacher, Doctor, Engineer, Postal Clerk and

others can be relied upon to be 'lousy', nonchalant and lackadaisical in his organisational

duties. On the other hand, when self-employed, he can be responsible, industrious, highly

motivated and untiring.

Ocho (1994) also observed that it is the need for economic security that compels the Nigerian

worker to be more responsible and diligent when self-employed. This is opposed to

organisational rewards which may always come to him whether he works hard or not. Ocho

further described the Nigerian attitude to work as influenced by cultural values and

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

173

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

perspectives regarding work and the impact of the external environment on the organisational

maintenance, inputs of motivation and morale.

Also, in the public service setting, standards are not clearly defined or stated at various levels.

To determine how accountable a worker is, the set standard must be measured against actual

performance. This measuring rod with which to compare the actual result is questionable in

the public service.

Promotion is not necessarily based on job output, but rather on the number of years' in service

and on favouritism. There is no room for initiation or innovations. More attention is usually

given to laid down rules and procedures.

It can therefore be seen that the Nigerian public servants can hardly pedorm. They therefore

cannot account for their jobs. The system itself makes it difficult to hold any individual

responsible for poor performance. This has resulted in public servants taking it for granted

that accountability is not highly desirable in their jobs. This poor accountability attitude,

breeds a lot of social ills, which in one way or the other results in waste of public resources -a

dangerous trend that should be effectively checked.

How Bureaucratic Accountability Can Enhance Public Sector Management

Having identified and discussed some of the topical and salient issues and challenges

confronting bureaucratic accountability in Nigerian public sector management. We shall at

this juncture, based on the variables identified, examine how bureaucratic accountability can

enhance accountable public sector management in the Nigerian.

What remedial steps can be taken to build accountable management into the Nigerian public

service? Before addressing this question, it is pertinent to first of all examine what is involved

in bureaucratic accountability management. As already highlighted before in this chapter,

bureaucratic accountability management in the public service is a system in which public

officers are expected to give account of their stewardship to the public. This implies that the

activities of these public officers to whom the public resources are entrusted should be

evaluated, explained and justified.

The core aim of bureaucratic accountability management is to properly harness the limited

resources in the service. This objective can be achieved by ensuring that within the service

adequate checks and balances are put in place, so that loopholes which could be exploited to

fritter away available management resources would be blocked. It is hoped that in this way,

prudent management of public resources would be maximised to optimise effective results.

For public sector managers to be able to render account of their stewardship, the objectives of

the public service at various levels should be clearly stated and made known to the officers

responsible for them. The acceptable standards should also be stated and be made known to

officers concerned too.

It is also important to design a structure of roles or positions. There should be divisions of

labour among various departments and individuals. The span of control of each supervisor

should also be clearly stated and demarcated. Thus, the design should be made in such a way

as to facilitate the accomplishment of organizational objectives. Aside all these, performance

is required by those concerned. They should be clearly guided and motivated to get them

committed to their work. Yet, there should also be a way of measuring the established

standards with the actual performance. Corrective measures should also be taken when

necessary to remedy deviations.

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

174

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

Flowing from the above, it indicates that managerial tools of planning, organising, directing

and controlling are involved. It is when these tools are effectively used within the public

service, that accountable management can be said to be attainable. This is because the

officers, especially the key ones, would be held responsible for their actions which can now

be measured against the acceptable standards.

This paper looked into the problems of accountable management in the public sector. It has

been observed that variables like lack of adequate incentive, poor supervision, lack of

integrity of supervisors, job hazards' indicating lack 'of staff motivation, constitute some of

the problem hindering bureaucratic accountability management. Other problems include lack

of well-defined areas of responsibility, inadequately spelt-out objectives at various levels and

lack of a well-defined yardstick for measuring performance. 'Little or no attention is therefore

paid to taking corrective measures where deviations are apparent. It is common feature that no

serious sanction is actually exerted on those who abandon their duties. This is more so once

those concerned are relations or friends of officers in strategic positions. The result is

nonchalant attitude, mismanagement of public funds etc. It is suggested that the variables

identified above be taken into consideration so as to improve bureaucratic accountability

management in the Nigerian public sector.

The need for the task of public servants to be clearly defined cannot be overstated. This

according to Armstrong (2010) and Oguonu (1995) involves: (i) Defining the objectives and

priorities for areas of the (governmental) organisations, (ii) Delegating responsibility clearly

to individuals, (iii) Measuring managerial effectiveness, (iv) Devising new organisational

forms related not to classes but the task in hand, and (v) Increasing the use of management

controls.

For public officers to render account of their services they need to work hard and with a lot of

commitment. This they can do when they perceive hard work as a means of advancing in their

careers. This is because everybody in the service joins the service to achieve his own personal

objectives (like improving his standard of living). So, the objectives of the service could be

better realised if they are compatible with the individual's objectives. In other words, there

should be mutual reinforcement of objectives. This according to Hicks & Gullet (1981) means

that, organisations benefit when they assist individuals in reaching individual objectives.

Similarly, individuals benefit when they help organisations reach organisational objectives.

As earlier stated, unless objectives are measurable, the concerned officers may not know what

target to shoot for and then determining whether the objective has been accomplished

becomes next to impossible. Other variables that hinder bureaucratic accountability as

identified above include lack of incentives and poor work ethics which have their roots on the

issue of reward.

Igbokwe-Ibeto&Aremu (2013) viewed reward as stimulating people to action to accomplish

desired goals. They suggests the following among others, as necessary ingredients that could

improve the morale, efficiency and effectiveness and service delivery of Nigerian public

sector workers: (i) The span of control should be highly limited to allow keener supervision of

workers, (ii) Control and discipline of workers should be reappraised, (iii) Every worker

should be made to feel that his immediate superior has a say in his advancement, (iv)

Suggestions schemes should be encouraged and (v) Basic needs can be attained only if a job

is secure; this coupled with a good level of wages is needed. Other needs, e.g. self-respect,

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

175

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

group participation, can then be developed. In this respect, promotion, job description and

specification have a role to play.

In assessing managerial effectiveness, Eze (1984) suggested that attention be given to the

manager's ability to perform the managerial functions of "planning, executing, controlling,

organising and accounting. He also stressed on the manager's ability to perform the scientific

functions of testing, analysing, monitoring, innovating, exploring, and inventing. He finally

stressed on the manager's ability to manage resources well and to utilise them to accomplish a

set of specifically defined objectives in a tangibly progressive trend.

Another strategy that could be used in enforcing bureaucratic accountability in public sector

management is whistle blowing. This approach to checking unethical behaviour in public

sector organizations is often referred to as whistle blowing (Rosembloom,

Karvchuk&Clerkin, 2009; Dresang, 2006). This management approach suggest that

government official have the obligation in this 21st century to be honest as a result of public

trust as well as private virtue so that public dishonesty, unjustified by other overriding values,

lessons the forces of confidentiality (Sheeran, 1999).

Also, social audit is an important strategy that can be used to ensure bureaucratic

accountability in the public service of developing countries and Nigeria in particular. Social

audit refers to the method of identifying, evaluate, measure monitor and report the effects of

organizations on their stakeholders and the society at large (Dibie, 2014). According to

Stillman (2010), social audit, in contrast to financial audit, focuses on social actions rather

than fiscal responsibility. A social audit is an important tool for the measurement of

achievement under affirmative social responsibility. The action and programmes of

bureaucratic officials need to be audited periodically to ascertain whether all of its elements

are working accordingly.

Conclusion

This article has examined the dynamics of bureaucratic accountability, issues, challenges, and

characteristics of public sector management, the nexus between accountability and public

sector management and the way bureaucratic accountability can be used to improve public

sector management in Nigeria. It contends that there is no gainsaying the fact that effective,

efficient, patriotic and committed public servants, who should be accountable for their

stewardship, are desirable for any nation to match forward. It is usually the public that suffers

from a malfunctioning public service. Nigerian citizens look up to public servants for

protection against various ills in the society and the provision of essential services. As Nwosu

in (Oguonu, 1995) admonished, "the public service is the central core of public bureaucracy

in Nigeria". If the involvement of public servants in the political, economic and social life of

the country is considered, we shall better appreciate the needed urgency in making the service

accountable for its actions. Unless the service is revitalised and "dead woods" therein

removed, Nigerian leaders will continue to experience deep-seated frustrations in the often-

touted desire to move the nation forward.

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

176

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

References

Akhakpe, I. P. (2014). Bureaucracy and good governance. Lagos: Pumark Publishers.

Armstrong, W. (2010). The fulton report: The tasks of the civil service. Journal of the Royal

Institute of Public Administration. 47, I-II.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Buchanan, B. (2004). Building organisational commitment: The socialization of managers in

work organisations. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 19.

Chukwu, C.O. (2007). Management and organization. Enugu: Choby Press Enterprise.

Dibie, R. A. (2014). Public administration: Theory, analysis and application. Ilishan-Remo,

Ogun: Babcock University Press.

Dresang, D. (2010). Public personnel management and public policy. New York:

Longman/Prentice Hall.

Ejiofor, P. N. (1991). Management in Nigeria - Theories and issues. Onitsha: Africana

Educational Publishers (Nig.) Ltd.

Eze, N. (1984). Identifying sources of management motivators in Nigeria. In Ejiofor, P. N.&

Aniagoh (eds.) Managing the Nigerian worker. Lagos, Nigeria: Longman Ltd.

Fashina, (1984). Identifying sources of management motivators in Nigeria. In Ejiofor, &

Aniagoh (eds.), Managing the Nigerian worker. Lagos, Nigeria: Longman Ltd.

Guta, A. J. (2012). Characteristics of public sector management. Annals of the University of

Petroşani, Economics, 12(4):95-102

Hicks, B. & Gullet, B. (1981). Management. Tokyo: Kosaido Printing Co. Ltd.

Igbokwe-Ibeto, C. J., Agbodike, F.C., & Anazodo, R.O. (2015). The application of federal

character principle and its implication on service delivery in Nigerian Federal Civil

Service, International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 5(3):1-22

Igbokwe-Ibeto, C. J. & Aremo, M.O. (2013). Reward and reward management: An antidote

for productivity enhancement in the Nigerian public sector organizations. Journal of

Policy and Development Studies, 8(2):1-12

Igbokwe-Ibeto, C. J. (2012). Delivering efficient public service in Nigeria through better

performance management frameworks. International Journal of Social Sciences and

Humanities Review, 3(1):56-68

Koontz, A., O’Donnel, B. & Weihrick, H. (1987). Management. Tokyo: Kosaido Co. Ltd.

Longman. (1987). Dictionary of contemporary English. Singapore: Singapore Publishers Plc

Ltd.

Ocho, L. O. (1994). Cultural and environmental influences on work attitudes. In Ejiofor, &

Aniagoh (eds.) Managing the Nigerian worker. Lagos, Nigeria: Longman Ltd.

Oguonu, C. N. (1995). The problem of accountable management in Nigerian public service.

Nigerian Journal of Public Administration and Local Government, 6(1): 95-104

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

177

AFRREV VOL 14 (1), S/NO 57, JANUARY, 2020

Oguonu, C. N. (1994). Implementation of financial duties and responsibilities in the local

government system. A paper presented at the third national conference on national

orientation and development held at AlvanIkoku College of Education, Owerri.

Oloko, O. (1991). Incentives and rewards for efforts, in Ejiofor, P. N. (ed.) Management in

Nigeria - Theories and issues. Onitsha: Africana Educational Publishers.

Rosenbloom, D., Karvchuk, R., &Clerkin, R. (2009). Public administration. New York: The

McGraw Hill Press.

Sheeran, P. (1999). Ethics in public administration. Wesport CT: Greenwood and Heinemann

Press.

Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H., (1995). Perceived organisational support and organisational

justice. In Cropanzano, R. &Kacmar, K. M. (Eds.) Organisational politics, justice,

and support: Managing social climate at work. Westport, CT: Quorum Press.

Skinner, B. F. (2009). Contingencies of enforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,

Stillman, R. (2010). Public administration. Boston. Massachusetts: Wadsworth Cengage

Learning.

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info

Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/

178