The Productivity Elephant: Blind spots in public service delivery

By Michael FRIMPONG, Ph.D.

Productivity, much like truth, resists tidy definition. It is elusive, multifaceted, and often misunderstood, particularly by those who attempt to capture it with excessive precision.

To comprehend productivity entirely is to confront complexity, ambiguity, and competing perspectives. It recalls the timeless parable of the blind men and the elephant: each participant, guided only by touch, offers a confident yet partial description of the creature.

One grasps the trunk and declares it a serpent; another encounters the sturdy legs and insists it is a pillar; still another feels the tail and imagines a rope. Each perception is sincere, yet incomplete.

Only when these fragmented experiences are woven together does the full magnitude of the elephant emerge. So it is with productivity. No single definition suffices, because productivity is not a singular concept but a constellation of interrelated strands.

In Public Service Delivery, productivity manifests differently depending on who observes it: policy designers, frontline workers, managers, or citizens. Each sees a portion of the whole, shaped by their role, incentives, and constraints.

The danger lies not in partial understanding, but in mistaking the part for the whole. At its most conventional level, productivity is expressed as the relationship between outputs and inputs, often quantified as a ratio.

Outputs represent the goods produced or services delivered, the tangible or intangible results that justify institutional effort. Inputs, by contrast, encompass the resources consumed in generating those results: labor, capital, time, technology, and organizational capacity.

Yet this arithmetic alone does not capture the essence of productivity.  Actual productivity resides at the intersection of efficiency and effectiveness. It is not merely about doing things right, minimizing waste, streamlining processes, and optimizing resource use, but equally about doing the right things: aligning effort with purpose, outcomes with societal needs, and actions with public value. In public service, where success is measured not only in outputs but in trust, equity, and impact, overlooking either dimension creates blind spots as large as the elephant itself.

Time Dimension: The multi-faceted nature of Productivity considers the time dimension as well, which translates as the relationship between results and the time taken to accomplish a task. Time is often a good denominator because it is the universal measurement and beyond human control. The less time used to achieve the desired result, the more productive the system is perceived to be.

Labour dimension

Productivity is not intensive labour, because while labour productivity reflects the beneficial results of labour, labour intensity means excess effort and is therefore not smart enough. The essence of productivity is working more intelligently and not harder.

Value creation

This is the ability to create more value for customers. For many organizations, the economic goal and basis for existence is value creation. Financial gains for all (employees, management, government, and other stakeholders) are measured in terms of value added, which may come from increases in inputs or improvements in productivity. Hence, to such proponents, value creation underpins the essence of productivity.

Attitude of mind

The worker continually seeks to improve what already exists. This is based on the belief that one can do things better today than yesterday and better tomorrow than today. It should be emphasized that to make tomorrow better than today is an innate wish of everyone.

Hence, productivity can be a common objective for everyone, aiming to improve the quality of life for all.  Therefore, productivity holds that we must make the best use of resources, minimize waste, and continuously improve through innovation and creativity.

Perception and indicative trends

The Public Sector has held its own over the years, and clearly, many interventions have been undertaken to improve the delivery of its mandate. Nonetheless, as enumerated above, delivery of set objectives alone may not necessarily connote productivity. The narrative below tries to expand on the notion.

• Productivity is not measured by the presence of staff

The adage that ‘I am going to work’ presents an interesting phenomenon in the public service. Here, the headcount of staff is erroneously misrepresented as an activity that will lead to productivity. People see work as a place they go to, not necessarily the actions that lead to specific outputs, which in turn lead to productivity gains.

• Introduction of systems and gadgets without stakeholder buy-in

Productivity thrives through the introduction of new systems and innovative ideas. This is meant to reduce, among other things, the intensive use of labour and to ensure brilliant work.

A vivid example is the introduction of the clock-in system in the Government Ministries a couple of years ago. Not only was there inadequate consultation and buy-in from the workers, who are the key stakeholders, but it is also instructive that attendance does not necessarily reflect productivity.

Clearly, people found ways to circumvent the system by clocking in, disappearing, and then clocking out again. The computation of data at the end of the month also remained problematic, as workers were not privy to the methods used.

• Visitors not regarded as customers

There is a lingering perception that people who visit the public services are not regarded as customers. Customers have a special place in businesses and, as such, should be treated with special care. The prevailing view is that there is wanton neglect of customer care toward people who visit the premises for enquiries or to transact government business. This perception can be addressed through targeted orientation and training to improve service delivery.

 Productivity Improvement Measures

Improving productivity in public service delivery requires more than goodwill or increased staffing; it demands deliberate interventions that confront entrenched blind spots, such as equating physical presence with performance and underutilizing systems designed to enhance efficiency. Targeted, well?sequenced measures can shift institutions from routine activity to results?driven service.

First, clear, outcome?oriented Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) must serve as the primary yardstick for performance. Individual and team targets should be explicit, time?bound, and citizen?focused, for example, resolving 50 citizen inquiries per week within a 48?hour turnaround time.

Such specificity replaces vague notions of attendance with measurable contribution and makes progress visible, comparable, and accountable. Second, adequate supervision is indispensable to sustained productivity gains.

Supervisors must be empowered with absolute decision?making authority and held responsible for results, not merely compliance. Structured succession planning should complement this effort by developing a pipeline of capable leaders who exemplify smart work, mentor subordinates, and institutionalize performance?oriented behaviors.

Third, advocacy and communication play a catalytic role in shifting organizational culture. Through targeted awareness campaigns, seminars, and stakeholder engagements, public servants can be encouraged to move beyond the “going to work” mindset toward one centered on creating tangible value for citizens. When productivity is framed as a shared mission rather than a managerial imposition, resistance gives way to ownership. Finally, systematic training and capacity building must underpin all productivity initiatives.

Expanding access to training in areas such as time management, customer care, digital system adoption, and innovation equips staff at all levels with the skills needed to work smarter, not harder. Over time, this investment fosters a culture of continuous improvement, one in which learning, adaptation, and innovation become routine rather than exceptional.

The Training Rubrics (earmark MDPI)

The Management Development and Productivity Institute (MDPI), a mandated government institution, stands at the forefront of delivering tailor?made, productivity?focused training solutions that respond directly to the evolving, increasingly complex demands of industry and public service.

With a clear statutory mandate and a deep understanding of national development priorities, MDPI bridges the gap between policy intent and operational excellence. Through carefully structured training rubrics, MDPI equips organizations and professionals with practical tools, contemporary methodologies, and adaptive mindsets that enhance efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainable performance.

Concluding Remarks: Taming the Productivity Elephant

The public sector, spanning diverse ministries and departments, demands a concerted push to engineer a massive mindset shift embracing productivity not as headcounts or clock-ins, but as smart, value-driven service.

This transformation starts at the top: leaders must lead by committed example, igniting an attitude that makes today better than yesterday and tomorrow better than today. With its vast potential, Ghana’s public sector can fully deliver its mandate through minimizing waste, unleashing creativity and innovation, and driving continuous improvement for a more efficient, citizen-focused future.

Have a Productive Day!

Michael is the Head, Industrial Engineering, Management Development and Productivity Institute (MDPI)0243661973
[email protected] / [email protected]

The post The Productivity Elephant: Blind spots in public service delivery appeared first on The Business & Financial Times.

Read Full Story