Managing Diversity in the Workplace

By: Joseph D. Corpuz

2018-12958

Abstract

Everyone and everything has their own differences. Diversity is a reality created by individuals and groups from a broad spectrum of demographic and philosophical differences. Though we may share things in common with other individuals, at the end of the day, everyone is their own person. Having unity in an organization seems to be more beneficial than working in everyone’s differences. Diversity in the workplace is vital for employees because it manifests itself in building a great reputation for the company, leading to increased profitability and opportunities for workers. Diversity is one of the best environments to encourage employees to use their creativity to its full potential to a career. There will likely be challenges to creating a more diverse work environment. Transitions in the diversification of a workplace can be difficult but finding it’s worth the effort and the investment and that the results are both morally and financially rewarding.

Keywords: Diversity, Workplace, differences, organization, diverse work environment,

Introduction

Diversity is present everywhere; in our population, in the workforce, and in healthcare. Diversity is an important component of business and workplace success that should be valued by all. Managing diversity in the workplace involves the recruiting process, training and supporting of individuals, as well as enabling a work environment to achieve the full potential of its people. An organization’s success and competitiveness often depend upon its ability to embrace diversity and realize its benefits. Organizations should actively assess their handling of workplace diversity issues. Organizations must work to overcome perceptual, cultural, and language barriers for their diversity programs to succeed. Having unity in an organization seems to be more beneficial than working in everyone’s differences. But diversity is unavoidable and nothing’s all the same. Despite of the differences of everything in an organization, there are still ways to be efficient on work thus, becoming coordinated. Effective diversity processes should reach all employees, creating a workplace culture that is inclusive regardless of similarities or differences. Although developing and maintaining a diverse workplace environment may require effort, there are many ways that we can model our workforce so that all viewpoints are valued.

Diversity Defined.

Talk of diversity in the workplace is nothing new, but as more individuals, organizations, and politicians speak about feminism, immigration, gender identity, and the gender pay gap, it is coming to the forefront of business news once again. According to Rock and Grant (2016), the more diverse a workplace is, the more success it achieves, and organizations are looking to learn more about how to increase diversity and manage diversity.

According to Pantaleo (2018), the concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It means understanding that each individual is unique, and recognizing our individual differences. These can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies. It is the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing environment. It is about understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual.

The word “diversity” can have so many meanings. Diversity in workplace means that the company employs different varieties of employees. Diversity refers to both an obvious fact of human life—namely, that there are many different kinds of people—and the idea that this diversity drives cultural, economic, and social vitality and innovation.

Diversity is a reality created by individuals and groups from a broad spectrum of demographic and philosophical differences. It is extremely important to support and protect diversity because by valuing individuals and groups free from prejudice, and by fostering a climate where equity and mutual respect are intrinsic. (Pantaleo, 2018)

"Diversity" means more than just acknowledging and/or tolerating difference. Diversity is a set of conscious practices that involve:

·         Understanding and appreciating interdependence of humanity, cultures, and the natural environment.

·         Practicing mutual respect for qualities and experiences that are different from our own.

·         Understanding that diversity includes not only ways of being but also ways of knowing;

·         Recognizing that personal, cultural and institutionalized discrimination creates and sustains privileges for some while creating and sustaining disadvantages for others;

·         Building alliances across differences so that we can work together to eradicate all forms of discrimination.

Diversity includes, therefore, knowing how to relate to those qualities and conditions that are different from our own and outside the groups to which we belong, yet are present in other individuals and groups. These include but are not limited to age, ethnicity, class, gender, physical abilities/qualities, race, sexual orientation, as well as religious status, gender expression, educational background, geographical location, income, marital status, parental status, and work experiences. We acknowledge that categories of difference are not always fixed but also can be fluid, we respect individual rights to self-identification, and we recognize that no one culture is intrinsically superior to another. (Pantaleo, 2018)

Importance of Diversity in Workplace

According to Mayhew (2019), as workforce demographics shift and global markets emerge, workplace diversity inches closer to becoming a business necessity instead of a banner that companies wave to show their commitment to embracing differences and change. Employees reap tangible and intangible benefits from workplace benefits, not the least of which include respect from co-workers and business gains.

Workplace diversity fosters mutual respect among employees. Whether employees work in groups or teams comprised of co-workers with varied work styles, disabilities or who represent different cultures or generations, a synergistic work environment becomes the norm. Although an idyllic atmosphere may be difficult to achieve as Mayhew said, employees nevertheless recognize the many strengths and talents that diversity brings to the workplace and they gain respect for their colleagues’ performance.

Also, Mayhew mentioned that many members of the workforce have been marginalized due to racism, ageism and discrimination against people with disabilities. Not only is this discrimination unethical and illegal, it also has serious economic consequences. When people are unable to find work, or are not able to earn a wage that is consistent with their training and abilities, their standard of living suffers and they become less financially secure. This not only has an impact on individuals and their families but can also take its toll on the community at large, as talents go unused and there is less money being circulated in the local economy.

Diversity in the workplace is vital for employees because it manifests itself in building a great reputation for the company, leading to increased profitability and opportunities for workers. Workplace diversity is important within the organization as well as outside. Business reputations flourish when companies demonstrate their commitment to diversity through aggressive outreach and recruiting efforts. (Mayhew, 2019)

According to Cheah (2019), employees stand to experience more personal growth in an environment where they are exposed to differences in culture, opinions and ideas. “The more you know, the more you know you don’t know,” goes the Aristotelian saying. The following can is also be said: The more you know, the better your capacity to test and refine your own perspectives and opinions. Employers will have to improve their ability to adapt to different circumstances in a diverse environment. They have to work through differences in personality, culture and background. Underlying ethno-centric notions may finally be brought to the fore and confronted as they learn to work with different styles and cultures.

An organization known for its ethics, fair employment practices and appreciation for diverse talent is better able to attract a wider pool of qualified applicants. Other advantages include loyalty from customers who choose to do business only with companies whose business practices are socially responsible. (Mayhew 2019)

The importance of workplace diversity cannot be overstated when it comes to an organization’s ability to reach markets in foreign countries also said by Mayhew (2019). The appeal of global markets creates two kinds of opportunities for employees: opportunities for promotion and employee development. A global marketplace opens doors for employees of different ages, physical and mental abilities, and ethnic backgrounds to build global profit centers. Employees interested in learning multinational business strategy and who are available for possible expatriate assignments may also find new and challenging career opportunities.

A diverse workplace offers more than exposure to employees from different cultures and backgrounds. Employees learn from co-workers whose work styles vary and whose attitudes about work varies from their own. This is particularly true for employees within multigenerational work environments, as well as those who work in environments that are accessible to those with disabilities.

Benefits of a Diverse Workplace

Though we may share things in common with other individuals, according to Deering (2019), at the end of the day, everyone is their own person and can bring different things to the table, which is why diversity is so important among a team. By hiring people with different personalities and at varied stages of their career, it can help to foster creativity and offer a range of perspectives and ideas.

Individuals from diverse backgrounds can offer a selection of different talents, skills, and experiences that may be of benefit to the organization and their work performance. Though some crossover of skills can be beneficial when it comes to assisting each other, it’s important to hire people with the appropriate skills to fit each of the roles within the company. A variety of skills and experiences among the team also means that employees can learn from each other. Along with attracting top talent, diversity will help you improve your company's culture and retain current employees long-term. By encouraging diversity, you're allowing every employee to feel comfortable being authentic. (Deering, 2019)

According to Gallagher (2019), diversified workplaces have higher ratios of employee engagement. Since engaged employees deliver a higher level of productivity, they’re more likely to have higher tenures in your organization. During their tenure, they’re able to enhance their professional skills. With increased corporate exposure, they are competent enough to increase their client base, thus increasing the company’s profitability as a whole.

A company who embraces diversity will attract a wider range of candidates to their vacancies, as it will be viewed as a more progressive organization and will appeal to individuals from all walks of life said Deering (2019). Naturally, as the number of applicants for each vacancy rises, the chances of finding an exceptional candidate increases too. It can also help with employee retention, as people want to work in an environment who are accepting of all backgrounds and promote equality.

According to Martic (2019), diversity in the workplace ensures a variety of different perspectives. Since diversity in the workplace means that employees will have different characteristics and backgrounds, they are also more likely to have a variety of different skills and experiences. Consequently, employees in a company with higher workplace diversity will have access to a variety of different perspectives, which is highly beneficial when it comes to planning and executing a business strategy.

Diversity creates and leads to higher innovation rate. By working alongside people of different backgrounds, experiences and working styles, creative concepts can be born from bouncing ideas off of each other and offering feedback and suggestions. Whereas one person may be great at generating exciting, out of the box ideas, another individual may have the necessary experience to execute it; so it is essential to play on each individual’s strengths and collaborate with others in the team.  In a diverse workplace, employees are exposed to multiple perspectives and worldviews. When these various perspectives combine, they often come together in novel ways, opening doors to innovation. (Martic &Deering, 2019)

According to Sling (2019), problem solving is a major speed bump for most teams. Inefficient problem solving can lead to delays in the workflow, ineffective solutions, and, ultimately, loss of revenue. Why does this occur? Lack of diversity in the workplace. With a homogenous (non-diverse) team, employees only have access to a limited range of experiences and viewpoints. That can delay them from reaching the best solution, or even prevent them from reaching a solution at all. But with a heterogeneous (diverse) team, employees have access to a wide range of experiences and viewpoint. They can draw on that knowledge and those life experiences to create more diverse solutions in a shorter amount of time than the homogenous team. And when you have more options right out of the gate, the problem-solving process runs much smoother and much faster.

Companies with higher workplace diversity solve problems faster said Martic (2019). Harvard Business Review found diverse teams are able to solve problems faster than cognitively similar people. Employees from diverse backgrounds have different experiences and views, which is why they are able to will bring diverse solutions to the table. Thus, the best solution can be chosen sooner, which leads to faster problem-solving. According to Forsey (2018), it's critical you have diverse perspectives to enable your team to brainstorm out-of-the-box solutions to complex problems, or challenge each other's way of thinking. According to Martic (2019), when employees with different background and perspectives come together, they come up with more solutions, which leads to more informed and improved decision-making process and results.

Diversity in workplace improves employee performance. Employees are more likely to feel comfortable and happy in an environment where inclusivity is a priority. Equality in the workplace is important for encouraging workers from all backgrounds to feel confident in their ability and achieve their best. The higher the team morale, the more productive employees are. (Deering 2019)

According to Forsey (2018), diversity can help you become a global leader. It's likely you already work with clients or vendors from other countries. As your competitors scale up globally, it's critical you're able to do the same. By having employees who speak other languages or understand other cultures, you're more likely to succeed in the global market. According to Deering (2019), language barriers and cultural differences can often act as a bit of an obstacle for a company who want to expand their business over shores; however, by hiring employees who speak different languages it can make it possible for a company to work on a global basis and interact with a broader client base. Representing a number of nationalities within your company can also help to make it more relatable. You'll need a diverse team of employees, with unique cultural backgrounds, to combat foreign challenges and satisfy clients from other countries said Forsey (2018).

Issues, Challenges and Issues of Diversity in the Workplace

According to Hood (2019), workforce recruitment companies always battle diversity issues every day. While some believe that diversity in the workplace is as simple as meeting the required quotas for employee race and gender, it’s much, much more than that. However, as the workplace becomes more diverse, more issues arise accordingly. HR personnel and recruitment professionals need to be aware of the various challenges associated with diversity so that it can be prevented and addressed.

A fundamental value that contributes to a successfully diversified workplace is respect among workers and employees. When there is a lack of acceptance of the diverse culture and beliefs among employees, conflicts may arise. Sometimes, this conflict turns to animosity and may even effectuate situations of violence. When employees accept the differences between each other, it results in a sharing of ideas and effective collaboration. Acceptance fosters mutual respect and prevents conflicts from arising. Acceptance of individual differences is essential in creating a copacetic and productive work environment. Acceptance leads to respect, and ultimately opportunity. Diversity training will help employees understand, accept, and respect each other’s differences. (Hood, 2019)

Hood (2019) also said that diversity in cultural, spiritual, and political beliefs can sometimes pose a challenge in a diverse workplace. Employees need to be reminded that they shouldn’t impose their beliefs on others to prevent spats and disputes. Though one's personal life should typically not affect their job performance, lifestyle acceptance is sometimes an issue in the workplace. Unfortunately, even though many employers now provide extended benefits to "alternative lifestyle partners," sometimes gay and lesbian workers experience disrespect and discrimination from coworkers. Such behavior leads to an uncomfortable working atmosphere and poor productivity. They also need to make sure to keep their ethnic and personal beliefs independent of their work responsibilities and duties.

According to Dhuppar (2015), some individuals harbor unfair prejudices against people of different colors, cultures, ethnicity or religion than their own. Such prejudice should not be tolerated in the workplace – much less anywhere – and should be dealt with in a firm and prompt manner. Firm company policies and appropriate training help build acceptance and respect among a well-diversified employee body. Cultural sensitivities training and diversity awareness programs in the workplace can help address this issue.

One the oldest and most common diversity issues in the workplace is the "men vs. women" topic. Over the years, a new element in the disputes over equal pay and opportunity is the transgender employee. Some corporations have trouble dealing with the fact that a man in women's clothing or a woman in the stages of "becoming a man" may perform equally as well on the job done as those in traditional gender roles said Renee (2019). According to Hood (2019), in the past, women were paid less than men, but the Equal Pay Act has changed that. In recent years, there has been an influx of women in the workplace. Employers need to prevent gender discrimination and maintain equality regarding hiring, salary, opportunities, and promotions.

Harassment can sometimes be an issue in a diversified work environment, but should absolutely never be tolerated. Recognizing harassment is key in preventing and eliminating discrimination from the workplace. Even the slightest comment made in jest can be considered harassment if any – even remotely vague – any racial, sexual or discriminatory connotation is made. For example, "I love Asian women" or "We should have hired a man." (Renee, 2019)

Renee (2019) added that even when no prejudice exits among employees, a diversified workplace can bring about certain communication issues. Hiring immigrants who speak little or no English can reduce productivity by creating a communication barrier among team members. Employing some form of communication training and hiring sufficiently bilingual workers helps encourage and improve staff interaction. According to Hood (2019), language and communication barriers are ever-present in companies with a diverse workforce. This can lead to miscommunication and productivity loss. Language training for non-native English speakers can often prevent this from happening. Hiring multilingual or bilingual employees can also help bridge the gap.

According to Edge (2018), each year, new workers are entering the workforce while others are retiring. Employees from other generations may have difficulties adapting to changes in the workplace and the work culture that the younger generation are bringing about. This denotes a huge shift in the workforce, often resulting in showcasing key distinctions between the different generations, as well as different perceptions among each group. According to Hood (2019), in larger diversified corporations, staffs are often made up of workers who range in age from teenagers to senior citizens. Inevitably, generation gaps can become an issue and the age differences can trigger "cliques" and separation of the company as a unit. Bridging the gap between multiple generations of workers can sometimes become an issue for employers attempting to establish teamwork. There may also be times that workers from different generations may disagree with how things should be done. To maintain teamwork and collaboration, create an open communication culture within your organization to help bridge the gap between generations.

Workers who are mentally or physically handicapped sometimes encounter discriminatory behavior from insensitive coworkers. In some cases, employers innocently overlook handicapped workers’ needs, such as ramps or special needs equipment. Often, disabled employees have a difficult time navigating through their workplace because proper accommodations as simple as wheelchair ramps are not available. Some special needs employees also have service dogs, and some office buildings don’t allow them inside. Make arrangements for service dogs to be permitted in your place of work. Creating a fair and comfortable work environment for disabled employees is important in a diversified workplace (Renee, 2019). Have procedures in place for people with physical or mental disabilities. Some companies have a “quiet room” so that when employees start to feel anxious, they can use that room to ease their anxiety. Be supportive to your disabled employees and avoid discriminatory or derogatory remarks. Ensuring a fair and comfortable work environment for employees with physical and mental disabilities helps successfully create a more diverse workforce. (Hood, 2019)

Encourage Workplace Diversity

Diversity allows each team member to focus on their strengths. If an employer can create diversity in the workplace, then each worker will have their strengths complement those of everyone else on the team. That means assignments can be handed out with greater specificity so that the quality of the work improves. Supervisors aren’t forced to guess at who might be the best option for an assignment because each person has a unique skill that they bring to the table. Diversity in the workplace allows for strengths and weaknesses to be spread out so that their effects are maximized and minimized respectively. No matter what the requirements of a project might be, there is someone who can step up to lead the team toward a successful result. (Regoli, 2019)

According to Regoli (2019), diversity in workplace increases the number of job opportunities for minority workers. Diversity in the workplace looks at all population demographics when hiring for an open position. That means employers have an opportunity to find the best possible person for a job because they are not limited to a specific group of individuals. This advantage makes it possible to have more women working in society and promotes the hiring of minority groups. It applies at all levels of employment, from the local small business to multinational firms.

According to Emma (2019), if everyone acts and thinks alike, you’re likely to see the same-old, same-old when it comes to approaches to products, distribution, marketing, management and sales. However, when several people approach problems and challenges from varied perspectives, you’ll discover more creative solutions. Research suggests that diversity increases innovation and improves market growth.

Companies have access to more talent. When diversity in the workplace is a top priority for an organization, then supervisors and hiring managers can expand their applicant screening processes to include more people. There are fewer restrictions on geographic location, educational accomplishments, or previous work histories. The top priority in the hiring process focuses on the talent and skills of the individual, and then how that person could fit into the team. Instead of trying to hire the best possible candidate from a group of applicants, diversity in the workplace encourages managers to find the best person for the job. (Regoli, 2019)

Diversity in the workplace creates more revenue-earning opportunities. The companies which focus on diversification are the businesses which tend to see more sales and revenues because of their efforts. Emphasizing multiple language fluency for a team can boost their profits by 10% for every fluent language that is spoken (Regoli, 2019). Gender diversity can help revenues grow by 40% in the first year of this effort. This advantage can open new markets for the organization that can help profits to start climbing as well without a significant increase in the work of the team. Diversity in the workplace goes beyond skin color or gender. These benefits occur when lifestyle differences, spiritual perspectives, and other unique life factors are taken into account during the hiring process. You cannot exclude employees from a job because of their differences, but you can look for people who can fit into a specific role for you.

Diversity is one of the best environments to encourage employees to use their creativity to its full potential to a career because it offers numerous perspectives that can enhance the brainstorming sessions. The biggest complainers about a lack of creative energy in the modern workplace are those who limit the diversity of their teams (Regoli, 2019). Having different perspectives can create conflict at times, but the unique interpretation of life that each person brings is invaluable to the employer and their team. The need to create change or embrace differences is what leads to an environment that encourages innovation.

Diversity in the workplace exposes societal bias. Bias is what destroys diversity in the workplace before it can establish itself. Hiring managers tend to bring men on more than women, even if the qualifications of each candidate are equal. During a study funded by Harvard and Princeton, managers were given a set of applications and qualifications, but they did not reveal the gender of each identity. During this blind process, women were preferred over their male counterparts when gender was not part of the hiring process. When everyone has a chance to work if that’s what they want to do, then a secondary benefit of this advantage is that it diversifies the wages and productivity of the economy. This process reduces the amount of risk communities face if an unexpected recession were to occur. (Regoli, 2019)

Customers are attracted to diversity in the workplace. Over forty percent of employees say that their company has the right amount of diversity or that their teams should try to become more unique. Although it can be challenging to share a workplace environment with someone who is uniquely different, the advantages typically outweigh the problems which can develop over time. When everyone comes from the same perspective, then the daily routine becomes dull (Regoli, 2019). Going to work becomes a boring experience. People can even lose their passion for what they do because there is a lack of diversity present on their team. There are immediate benefits to consider when hiring managers make diversity a top priority. It can lower the levels of burnout which are present in the workplace, improve the quality of each project, and boost the levels of community exposure that are present.

Productivity levels improve because of diversity in the workplace. Even when a team doesn’t like the idea of being diverse, their productivity levels can rise by more than Thirty percent. When people have co-workers who are different from them, then there is an increase in the sensitivity levels that are present in the workplace (Regoli, 2019). People start to look for ways to find common ground. There is more time given to each team member to share ideas, and a higher emphasis on hiring women occurs. The fastest way for an employer to encourage a higher level of productivity is to add diversity throughout their organization. Even when there are moments where the work levels decline, the overall benefit never disappears.

Disadvantages of Diversity in Workplace

If your company is just beginning to recognize the potential of diversification, there will likely be challenges to creating a more diverse work environment. Old ways of thinking and entrenched prejudices may hinder your efforts and create tension and conflict (Emma, 2019). Additionally, as cultures collide, there may be misinterpretations of meanings. What’s funny to one culture may be considered disrespectful to another. Management needs to buy in and educate employees across the board if workplace diversity is to have its first measure of success.

Hiring managers focus on leadership qualities too often. Diversity in the workplace seeks out experts who excel in their chosen career, job function, and team environment. The goal is to create a series of strengths that allows everyone to grow over time (Regoli, 2019). These are all advantages, but it can become a problem if hiring managers are bringing in people who all want to be in charge. Competition can be healthy, but it can also be dangerous when it spirals out of control. When the goal is to promote the individual instead of the team, then a diversity initiative fails. You must go beyond what you see to create a team that complements one another. That means there must be leaders, people who are content with their current position, and individuals who come to work because of their passion. There must be emotional diversity too.

Depending on how long you’ve been in business, you may have already learned a great deal about accommodations in the workplace. Just as the employees with Disabilities Act brought significant changes to some businesses at a financial cost, so will diversity require some flexibility (Emma, 2019). For example, if you have employees who are practicing Muslims, you’ll need to give them time and space for daily prayer. Transgender employees may need their own bathrooms. As your employees become more diverse, you may face associated costs that you hadn’t considered. Although the transition to a diverse workplace can be difficult, employers across the country and the globe are making moves to diversify. They’re finding it’s worth the effort and the investment and that the results are both morally and financially rewarding.

Managing Diversity in the Workplace

Managing diversity in the workplace is a critical skill for leaders to hone as companies spend significant time, energy, and resources driving workplace diversity and inclusion. Even so, many leaders talk the talk when it comes to diversity and inclusion, but too few walk the walk. This is because knowing that you need a diverse workforce is not the same as understanding how to manage diversity. According to Blakemore (2018), the biggest mistake managers make is applying the same management style for each person on their team. This results in poor management, which can have a negative impact on a company, from low morale to high turnover--the exact opposite of what a dynamic, well-managed diverse workforce can deliver.

According to Ortiz (2019), you cannot be averse to diversity at the hiring stage and then expect the same thing you shun to work for you later on – that would be absurd. The inroads into the organization for any aspiring employee should reflect what the organization is trying to achieve in terms of diversity. Let your employees resemble the country or community your company is based in as much as possible. This can only be possible by ensuring your recruitment policies encourage and embrace diversity. To hire for diversity, you will need to overcome bias in the assessment and interviewing process. This can only be achieved by creating a diverse interview panel that will ensure that the candidate selection process is free of prejudices and biases and that candidates are strictly selected based on merit. Fair recruitment is crucial if diversity will be managed successfully later on.

Everyone is driven differently. Connect with your employees and find out what motivates them. People like to be heard and understood. Making the effort to inquire about them personally and see what they are passionate about may uncover their motivating lever. When you understand what works, you can engage each team member by providing them the information they need, the way they need to receive it (Blakemore, 2018). Ensure that all employees understand your policies, procedures, safety rules, and other important information. Work to overcome language and cultural barriers. Have key materials, such as safety information, translated when possible. Use pictures and symbols on warning signs so that everybody can understand (Kilbourne, 2010).

Set your team up for success by clearly identifying company and department goals. Communicate what is expected of them to deliver on those goals--and then let them creatively collaborate around how to achieve them. Take advantage of the different viewpoints you have on your team, creating opportunities for people to express ideas and provide feedback (Blakemore, 2018). According to Ortiz (2019), it’s only through interactions with one another can diverse groups of people really understand, appreciate and respect the differences that exist among them. Encourage your employees to collaborate with colleagues who are “different” from them.One way of implementing this is by creating work groups that reflect the diversity that exists in the workplace. This will not only help your employees know and value each other as individuals but will also expand the views and experiences of team members helping them appreciate the strength of their combined perspectives and talents.

Conclusion

From our discussion, we can conclude that diversity is very beneficial to and individual or an employee, but also to the whole workplace itself. Workplace diversity fosters mutual respect among employees. Working on everyone’s differences requires time and effort. Diversity provides more options, thus giving more opportunities, better outputs. Not only diversity is beneficial to an organizations outputs but also to the well-being of the members. Diversity allows members of an organization to assess their weakness and strengths thus having an advantage for competitive growth. Workplace diversity is important within the organization as well as outside. A diverse workplace offers more than exposure to employees from different cultures and backgrounds. Everyone is their own person and can bring different things, which is why diversity is so important among a workplace. Individuals from diverse backgrounds can offer a selection of different talents, skills, and experiences that may be of benefit to the organization and their work performance. Diversified workplaces have higher ratios of employee engagement and performance. Companies with higher workplace diversity solve problems faster. Diversity is one of the best environments to encourage employees to use their creativity to its full potential to a career because it offers numerous perspectives that can enhance the brainstorming sessions. There will likely be challenges to creating a more diverse work environment. Competition can be healthy, but it can also be dangerous when it spirals out of control. Managing diversity in the workplace is a critical skill for leaders. Transitions in the diversification of a workplace can be difficult but finding it’s worth the effort and the investment and that the results are both morally and financially rewarding.

References

Martic, K. (2019) Top 10 Benefits of Diversity in the Workplace, Culture and People

Pantaleo, J. (2018) Definition for Diversity, Celebrate Diversity at Queensborough Community College

Steiner, S. (2016) Multicultural Literature: Reflecting Diversity in Literature for Youth

Stringfellow, A. (2019) 50 Must-Read Articles on Diversity in the Workplace: Valuable Insights on the Challenges, Benefits, and Best Practices for Cultivating Diversity

Rock, D. & Grant, H. (2016) Why Diverse Teams Are Smarter, Diversity

Mayhew, R. (2019) Why Is Diversity in the Workplace Important to Employees?

Cheah, L. (2013) Why workplace diversity is important for every organisation

Deering, S. (2019) What Are the Benefits of Diversity in the Workplace?

Gallagher, M. (2019) The Benefits of Workplace Diversity and What it Means for your Business

Sling, T. (2019) Why Diversity In The Workplace Is Essential For Success

Forsey, C. (2018) 5 Awesome Benefits of Diversity at Work, Marketing, 5 Minute Read

Hood, A. (2019) 7 Biggest Diversity Issues in The Workplace

Renee, M. (2019) Top 10 Diversity Issues at Work

Dhuppar, S. (2015) Managing Workplace Diversity: Challenges and Strategies, International Journal of Research, Volume 2, Issue 3

Edge, G. (2018) Diversity in the Workplace: 4 Common Challenges and Solutions

Emma, L. (2019) Advantages and Disadvantages of Diversity in Workplace

Regoli, N. (2019) 20 Advantages and Disadvantages of Diversity in the Workplace

Ortiz, F. (2019) Managing Diversity In The Workplace – How To Successfully Go About It

Blakemore, K. (2018) 3 Tips for Boosting and Managing Diversity in the Workplace

Kilbourne, C. (2010) 5 Steps for Successfully Managing Diversity, Special Topics in Safety Management

Improving public trust through good governance

JOHN MARK T. MARUQUIN

Student, Ph.D. Major in Development Management

Divine Word College of Laoag, Ilocos Norte Philippines

Abstract

This paper argues that public trust is often mistrusted on the unscrupulous performance of public services and in political negotiation well-functioning public services are said to create trust in government. This is a very sensible reasoning, only part of which corresponds to reality. The relation between governance or government performance and trust can only be made when very specific circumstances are present. It is obvious that performance of the public organization has a certain impact on trust in government, but existing levels of trust in government may also have an impact on perceptions of government performance.

Keywords: Good governance, public trust, government, performance

Introduction

“Public office is a public trust”. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives (The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article XI, Section 1). Public trust is considered as one of the most significant aspects in the implementation of government strategies for any country. In order for citizens to trust their government, the latter must achieve its ambitious targets to develop and provide the efficient quality of public services.

According to Avelino P. Tendero (2008) that public officers and employees of government are therefore accountable for what they do; they are enjoined to serve the people with utmost patriotism and justice and lead modest lives. From the foregoing paraphrase of the constitutional provision, those employees in the government are to conduct themselves in accordance with certain normative prescriptions and ethical standards. In a democratic policy, management of public affairs should be in accordance with the provisions of law. It is these rules of law that define the area of administrative performance. These rules are value norms, which government employees must live up to.

Public trust is perceived at interpersonal and organizational levels in which fairness, confidence, risk taking and expectations are considered its main constructs (Colesca, 2009). Public trust in public sector is essential for the functioning of government especially that it has become increasingly associated with governance. Public administration has examined trust as a basic ingredient of social capital in that it helps create networks between people in a community and helps to make these networks function smoothly (Walker et al., 2008).

Governments are always in need to respond the demands of citizens to improve the efficiency and boost the effectiveness of their public services (Siddiquee, 2008). Lot of studies has been conducted in terms of different dimensions of good governance. For instance, Egwuonwu (2011) focused on the behavioral aspects of governance that consists of accountability, justice, transparency, genuine disclosures, integrity and high performance. Others discussed good governance in terms of equity, efficiency, sustainability, transparency, accountability and security (Khan, 2013, Kefela, 2011).

A. Efficiency. In the importance of good governance, it is saving and protecting the environment by manageable use of the natural resources (UNESCAP, 2012).

B. Transparency. Transparency is the process of making decision and it is properly implemented through the regulations and rules (UNESCAP, 2012). In other words, it is the disclosure of any related information to the interested stakeholder on timely manner (Salin & Abidin, 2011).

C. Accountability. Accountability is considered as a key prerequisite of good governance for both public and private institutions (UNESCAP, 2012). Accordingly, Khan (2013) described accountability as an open government that supports good level of social and political objectives of authority, sharing, respecting the rights and empowering the equity. Thus, governments must find a balance between the requirements of accountability to the society and those of state governments (Kluvers, 2010).

Many public sector reforms have been motivated by a belief that the public trust in public services is low, and declining. Where statistics are available, though, there is little evidence of such declining trust (Van de Walle, Van Roosbroek, & Bouckaert, 2008). Furthermore, there is a wide variety within the public sector, with some services being trusted a lot (especially those in the health sector, and emergency services).Still, trust in more generic public sector categories such as “the public sector”, “civil servants” or ‘bureaucrats’ tends to be quite low when compared to other institutions. Bureaucracies tend to feature in the bottom half of ‘most trusted institutions’ rankings, yet generally well above institutions such a politicians or the press.

Do citizens trust Public Officials?

In public administration we have observed a sharp increase in attention for the public perception of government and trust more in particular, to more sophisticated multi-country analyses of trust, looking at country-level explanations for differences in trust. In this trust relation between citizens and government, it has often been assumed that outputs matter and that distrust results from low government performance. Research has however shown that the process by which services are being delivered, or the process by which policies are being implemented is at least as important. Trust is thus at least as much influenced by procedural justice as it is by outputs (Van Ryzin, 2011).

Do Public Officials trust citizens?

Things work more smoothly, it has been argued, when citizens trust their government and each other. This reduces transaction costs because there are fewer instances where trustworthiness has to be checked prior to the transaction. But what about the attitudes and opinions at the other end of the relationship: government itself? Do administrators actually trust citizens enough to involve them and to drop their suspicion? While citizens’ trust has received a lot of attention, the opposite relation has received only marginal attention (Wu, J.and Yang, Y. (2011). Expressions of such distrust are visible in officials’ unwillingness to involve citizens in decision-making, in their unwillingness to take their views seriously or in an overall relatively skeptical attitude toward citizens. The reason for such distrust can be multifaceted, ranging from negative prior experience, over a belief that citizens aren’t sufficiently knowledgeable to play a role, to a conviction that citizens have profound negative intentions when interacting with government. Official’s distrust in citizens may evoke a reciprocal reaction, leading to a mutually reinforcing dynamic. Mutual distrust has become well documented in studies of street-level bureaucracy, and especially studies focusing on interactions between welfare officials and welfare clients, where officials suspect all claimants of cheating, and where clients perceive officials not to be there to help them, but to punish them for their dependent situation. 

Trust in citizens has become very relevant in an age when governments want to reduce red tape and control- and inspection-related burdens. This has lead to innovations such as labeling or self-regulation, where companies are for instance granted exemption from regular inspections after they have proven to comply for a number of consecutive years. Systems such as sectoral self-regulation or horizontal inspection require a great deal of trust in citizens’ and companies willingness to follow the law. Replacing extensive control systems by trust-based arrangements requires a total change in officials’ thinking and may prove to be very hard when officials continue to be faced with attempts at cheating.

Public sector actors, suspicious about each other’s motives, and a political discourse fuelling citizen distrust in government culminated in the introduction of series of public sector innovations all directed at strengthening control and command systems within the public sector (Van de Walle, 2010). This strengthening happened mainly through a widespread introduction of contract-type arrangements, and through an expansion of the use of (performance) information. Contracts were introduced to regulate relationships between ministers and top officials; between ministries and agencies; between government bodies and external contractors; and between public employers and employees. Both sides of the principal-agent relationship were thought to have antagonistic interests, and contracts were a way of canalizing mutual distrust and of inserting control into the system. Performance information helped actors in the system to control others, and to call them to account.

The most important question dealt with in this paper will be: Do citizenries have a negative opinion of government because its services do not work properly, or do citizens evaluate government administrations and their performance in a negative way, because their image of government in general is a negative one?

Trust in government may be based on experiences over a long period of time, on the current situation or on expectations of the government in future the level of trust inspired by the current government, the more likely it is that a person will express specific support and trust, while long-term experience points more in the direction of diffuse support and trust.

The broad performance perspective presupposes that certain modern public reforms imply better quality of public services and hence high levels of public satisfaction and trust in government. Such an assumption of course throws up many questions, which can be debated and elaborated, both theoretically and empirically: some reform measures will affect some public services, others will not, and service quality improvements may have other origins than reforms. Quality improvements for some people may imply disadvantages for others, and quality improvements may in any case be primarily connected to political symbols and hype. People may react to purely symbolic quality improvements, while real quality improvements may be seen by some as of little significance compared with other aspects of a service, either because access to a service is limited or simply because of a lack of responsiveness. A further possibility is that people have other reasons for trusting government than satisfaction with public services. 

Conclusion

It seems upright and heroic public servants have die or get up in politics for press and public to pay attention to them. That can hardly to encourage excellence in government nor would it inspire others to emulate good work or the youth to aspire for careers in honest and competent public service. People wants to see more responsiveness, integrity, competence, efficiency, compassion and other hallmark of exemplary public service, to bring the wider public attention especially among students pondering their future.

People may be satisfied with the existence of a particular service or the availability of certain services that meet their needs. At the same time, they may also be satisfied with information concerning services, the accessibility and friendliness of the service providers they meet, the competence of service personnel, the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the services, or other factors.

If one presupposes that satisfaction with government services is trust enhancing, implying that the consumer role is important and performance is of significance for trust, one can ask whether people will react equally to all public services. One essential variable could be how universal the services are, meaning how many people they potentially cover. Public services range from those that are collective or universal, like education in most countries, which is potentially consumed by everyone, to those that are more selective and individual and target more specific groups of clients. One expectation might be that the more controlling, selective and individualized a service, the more dissatisfied the user is likely to be.

Increasing government authority by modernizing public services is therefore just a partial strategy, since actual performance is not equal to perceived performance and because differences might exist in citizens’ minds on the definition and necessity of public service performance. A one-sided focus on performance will not be sufficient, since perceptions and definitions of performance are not only created in government- citizen interactions, but also in everyday citizen-citizen relations. Restoring trust in government cannot just be based on a managerial action-plan but requires social engineering as well. The core question should therefore be how government can alter these perceptions and evaluation criteria in a way that is acceptable in a democratic society.

Public trusts have both institutional and personal aspects. People may trust both the system as such and individual actors they encounter or observe. This may include both central political leaders and actors in the administration and public service sector. Another possible combination is trust in the political-democratic system as such but distrust in current leaders or other political actors. This distrust may be based both on myths or symbols, for example distrust fashions furthered by the mass media, or else on first-hand negative experiences with government representatives. People may trust certain political and administrative leaders because of their achievements or personal charisma but not the institutional features of the political-administrative system. If we relate these basics to the distinction between diffuse and specific support, it is probable that individual elements of public trust or trust will be more related to specific support while institutional elements are linked to diffuse support.  

References:

a.   Books

Tendero, Avelino P. Theory and Practice of Public Administration in the Philippines, 2008

The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article XI, Section 1

b. Electronic Publications

Colesca, S. (2009). Understanding Trust in E-government. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, (3), ISSN 1392 – 2785.

Egwuonwu, R. (2011). Behavioral Governance, Accounting and Corporate Governance Quality. Journal of Economics and International Finance.

Khan, M. (2013). E-government, GIS and Good Governance. Public Management

Kluvers, R. (2010). Mechanisms of Accountability in Local Government: An Exploratory Study. International Journal of Business and Management,

Retrieved from http://hub.hku.hk/handle

Salin, A., & Abidin, Z. (2011). Being Transparent: An Evidence of a Local Authority in Malaysia. In Proceeding of International Conference on Sociality and Economics Development, 10, Singapore: Press. Retrieved from http://www.ipedr.com

Siddiquee, N. (2008). Service Delivery Innovations and Governance: The Malaysian Experience. Transforming Government People, Process and Policy, 2(3), 194-213.

UNESCAP. (2012). What is good governance? United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.

Retrieved October 3, 2013 from www.uniscap.org/huest/gg/governance.htm

Van de Walle, S., Van Roosbroek, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2008). Trust in the public sector: Is there any evidence for a long-term decline? International Review of Administrative Sciences.

Van Ryzin, G. G. (2011). Outcomes, Process, and Trust of Civil Servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,

Walker M., et al. (2008). Trust in Government and Its Changing Dimensions: An Exploration of Environmental Policy in Hongkong. Asian Forum on Public Management, National Chi-Nan University: Taiwan. Retrieved from http://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/63655

Wu, J. and Yang, Y. (2011) Public servants’ trust in citizen raters really matter, International Public Management Review.

  

Restoring faith and trust in government by ending corruption

By: cassandra b. paraggua

Abstract

Restore the faith and trust in the government, end the very root that kills it, corruption. Corruption is the abuse of public trust for private gain; it is a form of stealing. Systemic corruption has long been a problem in the different countries that is like a malignant tumor that it keeps on sucking the life out of the country, robbing the economy of its competitiveness as well as eroding trust in government and thereby threatening its effectiveness.  Corruption basically robs government of the ability to positively affect the lives of every individual.  Corruption deprives the economy of its full potential and erodes trust in markets and institutions. This article discusses corruption, types of corruption and what can policy makers do to end corruption to restore faith and trust in the government. When people consider the government corrupt and believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction this negatively effects social solidarity as expressed in trust in others, and reduces trust in the bodies and decisions of the authorities. Laws must be clear and durable, leaving the least possible room for discretionary action, while decisions must be made on the basis of clear criteria, and be transparent and accessible to the public.

Keywords: Corruption, government, faith and trust in the government.

Introduction

The most common definition of corruption, that is used by the World Bank (1997) and other organizations, is “the abuse of public power for private gain”.  The typical definition of corruption involves the notion of the “public” in a fundamental sense. For this reason, it is customary to regard the main focus of corruption is government as is invariably involved public officials. Corruption is the perversion or destruction of integrity or fidelity in discharging public duties and responsibilities. It entails the use of public power for private advantage in ways which transgresses some formal rule of law. (Tendero, 2008).

Trust among citizens depends, to a large extent, on the governments’ actions to fight corruption. There is plenty of historical evidence to back this assertion. Yet there are still those in power who either leave the prevention of corruption for technical experts to take care of, without adequate political support, or who hinder anti-corruption efforts to protect themselves and their allies.

If politicians were to take a look at the evidence of research alone, they would immediately draw two very simple conclusions: first, that countries with more corruption have lower levels of citizens’ trust, especially in government; and, second, countries with less corruption enjoy far higher levels of citizen trust. (Kos, 2014).

A higher level of citizens’ trust is a key factor in achieving development. So why do so many governments come up short in the fight against corruption and not do so much more to win back public trust? The answer to this question is not complicated: while citizens and society as a whole benefit from the consequences of the efficient fight against corruption, some powerful individuals and their narrow circles of allies do not have the slightest interest in benefiting anyone but themselves. We have seen the sad truth of this in recent history, when corrupt leaders managed to empty state funds belonging to citizens into their own pockets. Trust finally collapsed, leading in some cases to public demonstrations to demand change. However, too many governments still do not appreciate how important trust is for everything else they have to do, and how much benefit they can derive from building trust up (Kos, 2014).

Acts of corruption by people in power have long shaken public faith. (Williams, 2002). Corruption significantly contributes to political instability and widespread disbelief in governmental institutions and state bodies. Most equate corruption with bribery, where an illegal payment is made to a government official in return for some type of official, state-sanctioned, authoritative act that has a selective and tangible impact and that in the absence of the secret payment would not otherwise have been made (Johnston, 2005). But beyond bribery, corruption also includes kickbacks which operate much like a bribe, but where the illegal payment is made after the service is rendered, usually from a portion of the governmental award itself, and extortion where the public official threatens to use (or abuse) state power to induce the payment of a bribe. While such acts involve transactions between citizen and government official, corruption also includes graft and embezzlement, where public officials act alone to appropriate public funds or divert their use. Closely related to graft, fraud refers to the various, often complex and imaginative schemes orchestrated by officials to appropriate public funds, often with civilian accomplices. These may include establishing fake companies, listing ghost workers to pad payrolls, overbilling the government on contracts, or otherwise fixing the books to hide the disappearance of public funds. Beyond these acts commonly associated with corruption, corruption also encompasses such diverse activities as nepotism, favoritism and conflict of interest, where public-sector jobs or benefits are illegally channeled to family, friends or to the benefit of the decision-makers own interests. Even within the partisan and electoral realms, corruption encompasses a range of activities such as illegal campaign contributions, illegal expenditures, electoral fraud and vote buying (Morris, 2011).

Forms of Corruption

1.   1  The institutional location and function of the public official involved (“political corruption” versus “bureaucratic corruption”)

Whereas by definition political corruption involves “public officials” the sheer vastness of the public sector means that corruption can occur at virtually any place within the government. An easy means of differentiating forms of corruption centers on the institutional location of the public official involved (i.e., corruption within the executive branch, the legislature or the judiciary, the local government, the police, customs agents, building inspectors, etc.). (Morris, 2011)

The term “political corruption” thus tends to refer to corruption occurring at the policymaking stage or, in Eastonian terms, the input side of the political system, whereas “bureaucratic” or “administrative” corruption relates to the implementation of policy carried out by lower level officials or the output side of the equation (Bardhan 2006; Scott 1972). Because of their different functions within the system, these two forms of corruption also violate different norms. “Bureaucratic corruption” involves the violation of first-order norms (the written rules and laws that are the product of politicians’ decision making), whereas “political corruption” committed by policymakers entails the violation of more nebulous second-order norms (the often-unwritten guidelines determining how politicians should make decisions, such as impartiality and fairness. (Warren 2004)

2. 2.     The direction of influence (“bribery” versus “extortion”)

It draws a distinction between “bribery” and “extortion”. In bribery, societal interests use extra-legal payments or bribes to influence the content of state policy or its implementation. At a broader, more systemic level, this form of corrupt influence can take on the characteristics of “state capture”, whereby an entire agency or institution operates on behalf of societal interests. Extortion, by contrast, involves the use and abuse of state power by public officials to demand extra-legal payments or rents in return for providing a legitimate or illegitimate service. In extortion, the direction of influence moves from state to society, while bribery reverses the direction (Morris, 2011).

3.      The size and frequency of the transaction (“grand corruption” versus “petty corruption)

Grand corruption” involves large sums of money and usually less frequent transactions, while at the other end “petty corruption” refers to smaller and more routine payments. This distinction tends to parallel those rooted in the institutional position of the state official involved, with “grand corruption” more likely to occur among high level government officials who have limited interaction with the public, while “petty corruption” tends to take place among low-level, bureaucratic workers who regularly interact with the public. (Morris, 2011)

4.     3. Systemic framework

Though somewhat related to differences based on size and frequency, distinctions are also often based on the broader pattern of corruption within the system. This focuses not just on the individual corrupt act, but rather on the context in which the act occurs. Mark Robinson (1988), identifies three forms of corruption: “incidental” corruption, which is confined to malfeasance on the part of the individual and is thus rare; “institutional” corruption referring to certain institutions that may be riddled with corruption due largely to the absence of controls; and “systemic” corruption which reflects situations where corruption is deeply entrenched and pervasive throughout society. A similar sort of distinction contrasts “centralized” and “decentralized” corruption depending on the level of control exercised by the political elite over local officials (Bardhan, 2006).

5.      4.. Motive or purpose

It distinguishes types of corruption based on the motives, purpose or outcome of the corrupt act. One easy distinction based on motive separates corruption that promotes purely personal interests from corruption that benefits a clique, a political party or an institution which may be more systematic. Margaret Beare (1997) offers a non-exhaustive taxonomy of corruption based largely on motive or outcome. She identifies four types: “bribes/kickbacks”, which are paid or demanded in return for being allowed to do legitimate business; “election/campaign corruption”, designed to ensure continuing influence; “protection corruption”, payments in exchange for being allowed to engage in illegitimate business; and “systemic top-down corruption”, where the nation’s wealth is systematically siphoned off by the ruling elites.

In the Philippines, RA No. 3019 also known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act provides corrupt practices of public officers. Two variants of corruption have been identified as negative bureaucratic behavior in the Philippines:

1.      that which involves only civil servants like giving lucrative positions and promotions to the highest bidder and giving and accepting bribes to get a preferred position or receive lenient treatment than what is deserved, especially in cases where the employee is under administrative investigation

2.      that which involves a person or persons outside the bureaucracy either of whom initiate the act. (Tendero, 2008)

Dios and Ferrer ( 2000) proposes list of types or objects of corrupt transactions:  (a) bids, purchases, and auctions; (b) sale of policies and rules; (c) rules-evasion; (d) bureaucratic or political facilitation; (e) bureaucratic or political harassment; (f) political favors and support.

The first and most easily analyzable transactions that are the subject of corruption are those involving bids and purchases. These include over- and underpricing and collusion among potential bidders of services, franchises, concessions, and asset sales. The second important type of transaction is the sale of policies or rules. Examples of these are industrial priorities; fiscal policies; regulatory rules, judicial decisions, electoral rules, etc. The bottom- line efficiency effects of such corruption are difficult to predict beforehand. Rose-Ackerman (1998) notes that it will depend on the efficiency of the rules themselves. If rules are over-extended to begin with, then to the extent that exemptions are made, then they would be welfare-enhancing. Unlike policy-for-sale, the purpose of rules-evasion is not to alter the rules themselves but to modify their application for individuals who are in principle unqualified for the benefits or are liable under the rules. Corruption to excuse tax evasion, or bribes made to officers of the court would fall under this category. Bureaucratic or political facilitation are a third type of corrupt transaction and are related to what Rose-Ackerman (1998) calls “corruption to lower costs” and what Alatas (1997) calls “transactive” corruption. Examples range from petty corruption in lower-level agencies (e.g., car registration) to buying political influence to smooth out deliberations on franchises given out by congress. Hence, an illicit exemption from a tax would be liability evasion rather than a case of facilitation. While the parties involved in facilitation and harassment are the same, i.e., private agents and public officials, the significance can be completely different. The case of harassment corresponds to what they call “extortive” corruption, such as when tax collectors summon taxpayers and minutely go over tax returns as part of a shakedown or when politicians initiate an investigation of their potential opponents as part of vendetta.  Finally, political favors and investment are transactions distinguished by the fact that the result is not an immediate pecuniary benefit but a political one

Conclusion

Corruption is a phenomenon with many faces (Morris & Klesner, 2010). It is characterized by range of economic, political, administrative, social and cultural factors. It results from interactions, opportunities, strengths and weaknesses in socio political systems. Corruption kills people’s trust and faith in the ability of the government to mobilize projects for the benefit of the people and even undermines government efforts to mobilize society to help fight corruption and leads the public to routinely dismiss government promises to fight corruption. Nonetheless, fighting corruption is a sure way of boosting public trust, the government just need to do enough to address it for increasing trust would bring widespread benefits. It is difficult to measure exactly how government gain citizen’s trust- but here are some ways that policy maker can do to restore the trust and faith of the public.

1.      The government must demonstrate through consistent example that it has the political will to greatly reduce corruption.

2.      Public officials, in all branches and all levels of government, and private persons found guilty of major corrupt activities should, after a fair trial, be punished with heavy sentences, including imprisonment and seizure of assets. The cases against them should be widely publicized. Laws should be amended periodically to assure that penalties are sufficiently heavy to serve as a deterrent to corruption when enforced.

3.      The Ombudsman must be impartial and willing to investigate thoroughly all major allegations of official corruption, without favoritism or political considerations.

4.      Make data readily available. One of the most promising means of regaining trust is making data – all data, on everything from pothole repairs to emergency response times – open and accessible to the public. Be transparent also about policy making. Governments today should do more than provide raw data on public services – they must present information in simple, easily digestible ways to show citizens what their taxes are funding.

5.      Involve citizens in policy. Citizens must be consulted on a big policy decision. Researches shows that people who participate in policymaking are more likely to understand the complexities face by government.

6.      Bring all government services online. The ability to pay taxes, order a passport or register a business online does more than cut out bureaucracy and save time – digitizing services can have a significant cultural impact on citizens and there should be a website where citizens can anonymously email information about suspect or known corrupt activity for investigation.

7.      The private sector should do more to police its ranks to discourage corrupt relations with government agencies, in revenue collection and procurement. Compliance and integrity programs for businesses to pledge not to bribe public officials, to report corruption, and to embed such behavior as standard corporate practice should be undertaken.
8.      Further reform public sector procurement. Expand the public sector e-procurement system. Reform the project selection process and bidding procedures to reduce potential corruption. Otherwise intensify efforts to reduce waste in public expenditures.
9.      Increase public sector transparency. Issue an executive order instructing all government agencies to release appropriate information on government policies and procurement, when requested by the public. Expand e-governance.
10.  Undertake civil service reforms, reducing the number of political appointments and strengthening career civil service professionals in more senior positions. Pay competitive salaries to employees of critical agencies and improve all public sector salaries when budgets allow, while rationalizing positions.
11.  Strengthen the anti-corruption legal framework like the (a) Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (b) Ombudsman Act amendments, and (c) Whistleblowers Protection Act

A successful fight against corruption influences a range of fronts, such as transparency; accountability; nondiscrimination; meaningful social, economic and civic participation; legal and income equality; and more. All of this matter to citizens in every country. Any improvement in these fronts shows that government genuinely cares about people and their welfare, and will be reflected in a higher trust level.

With the many forms of corruption and differences across nations and localities, there is no single best way to fight it. Compassion. Real Change, is what we really need right now. Let us all help the government in fighting corruption.  Start with our self, for change starts with us and in us. Together let us solve the ills and weaknesses such as, corruption to their very root and “restore faith and trust in government.

References

Alatas, S. H. (1990), Corruption: Its Nature, Causes and Consequences, Aldershot, Avebury.

Bardhan, P. (2006), “The Economist’s Approach to the Problem of Corruption”, World Development 34(2), 341–48.

Beare, M. E. (1997), “Corruption and Organized Crime: Lessons from History”, Crime, Law and Social Change 28,  155–72.

de Dios, E. S., & Ferrer, R. D. (2000). Corruption in the Philippines: Framework and context.

Johnston, M. (2005), Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth, Power and Democracy, Cambridge University Press.

Kos, D. (2014). Tackle corruption to restore trust. OECD Forum. (OECD, Ed.) Retrieved from   

         www.oecd.org/forum/oecdyearbook/tackle-corrupt

Morris, S. D. (2011). Forms of Corruption. CESifo DICE Report.

Morris, S. D., & Klesner, J. L. (2010). Corruption and Trust: Theoretical Consideration and Evidence from Mexico: SAGE.

Robinson, M. (1998), “Corruption and Development: An Introduction”, in M. Robinson, ed., Corruption and Development, Frank Cass, London, 1–14.

Rose-Ackerman, S. [1998]  “Corruption and the global econopmy”, in G. Shabbir Cheema, ed. Corruption and integrity improvement initiatives in developing countries, 1998, Management Development and Governance Division,  United Nations Development Programme.

Shleifer and Vishny [1993] “Corruption”, Quarterly Jourunal of Economics

Tendero, A. (2008). Theory and Practice of Public Administration in the Philippines.

Warren, M. E. (2004), “What Does Corruption Mean in a Democracy?” American Journal of Political Science 48(2),  328–43.

Williams, H. (2000). Core Factor of Police Corruption Across the World. Forum in Crime Society Vol 2, 1. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/publications/core_factors.pdf

World Bank [1997a] World development report: the state in a changing world. NewYork: Oxford University Press.