Resource insensibility is ignorance, resource abuse apathetic and resource waste a big malady. It is a direct threat to the functional effectiveness of any group of people. Human wisdom, therefore, warrants a steady endeavour for resource accumulation and optimum utilisation.

The same wisdom has established ‘time value’ as one of the most meaningful resources for human progress. Time waits for no one; once gone, it never comes back; and it’s always limited. These assertions are no clichés.

A prudent use of time is a sign of a prospering civilisation. The paradigm of time consciousness has paid due rewards to the societies that acknowledge its crucial importance. Those in denial have had to bear the brunt of their incognizance.

Unfortunately, in our country, time insensitivity has made a big dent in work culture, especially in the public sector institutions. Resultantly, there is a considerable lag in the use of all dependent resource variables, such as human, material and financial resources. The overall impact is quite devastating — alarmingly low levels of value creation activities leading to poor productivity.

The official meetings syndrome in our public sector bureaucracies is a huge drain on resources paid for by from taxpayers’ money. The key point of this investigation is the purpose of the official meetings. It is a common observation that most of the meetings are called on mere whims with or without determining a specific objective. The process that follows is often an absurdity in the absence of a well-defined purpose.

The first step in the process involves preparing the agenda for the meeting, drawing a list of participants and setting date, time and venue. In general, this is subservient to the directions of the authority and, sometimes, is not reflective of the real purpose of the meeting and its intended outcomes.

The participants are also chosen arbitrarily and, in most cases, without ensuring their availability, interest and suitability for the occasion. The selection of date, time and venue too suffer from similar arbitrariness. Those at the lower end of the hierarchy prepare the draft agenda and share it with the potential participants once it is cursorily reviewed and casually approved by the authority. In short, the whole process of conception, initiation, and planning for official meetings lacks structure and precision.

The second step is the receipt of agenda by the participants and their responses. To some, it comes as a surprise. To some, it is a break from their daily routine and an opportunity to connect with the influential people in the organisation. And to some, it is a chance to get some financial benefits to supplement their supposedly meagre compensation.

Those under the direct supervisory control don’t stand any chance to miss the occasion. However, those holding close to parallel positions may offer regrets or else nominate taken-for-granted personnel as a substitute. The logistics include administrative approvals, flight and hotel bookings and other ancillary arrangements. All of these tasks are, in fact, time-consuming and are performed at the cost of participants’ day-to-day work assignments.

The third step in convening the meeting prompts three situations: first, the meeting is summoned as per the given schedule; second, it is postponed; and the third, it is called off. The worst-case scenario entails cancellation of meetings without prior notice and the participants getting this news only when they have arrived or are about to arrive at the venue. This last situation is a total waste of time, money, and effort.

Let’s consider for a while that the meeting is actually convened as conceived, with an encouraging attendance, and is presided over by the authority, which actually desired it. In this situation, the chair (the authority) is surrounded by a brigade of subordinates who have little genuine interest but to please the boss and are always ready to play the second fiddle even at the cost of institutional priorities.

As for other participants, some disinterested ones simply nod their heads in affirmation; some absent-minded folks gaze at others with hollow eyes; a few bold and brazen ones can be seen dozing off. Only a handful actually try to make a contribution.

Since the culture of reading is almost non-existent among our public sector officials, the level of preparedness and homework is at best minimal. Almost half the time is virtually consumed in administrative and technical hiccups, refreshments, internal/external noise, etc, and the rest in the inordinate speeches, judgmental remarks, and unilateral orders of the boss.

The boss’s wish dictates the proceedings, which are superficially and ineptly recorded. The meeting ends with a vote of thanks to the chair and the crowd leaves the venue with most of them denouncing and vilifying the whole exercise and tagging it as sheer waste of time and resources.

The fourth step involves preparing and sharing the minutes of the meeting with the participants. And that’s it. What will be the follow-up action to ensure compliance with the decisions taken at the meeting? What would be the responsibility matrix? Is there any monitoring and evaluation system to track the progress or not?

Addressing these concerns should ideally be the most critical part of the process that is actually taken for granted. As a result, the outcomes of most of the official meetings appear to be frivolous as many other public sector initiatives undertaken by our officials, including those holding the highest offices of the state.

The significance of official meetings cannot be denied. These should be a forum for healthy dialogue and critical thinking to solve problems and reach conclusions. An effective official meeting is always triggered by a compelling purpose, clear in scope and direction, consistent with the organisational values, convened in an environment free of bickering, moderated by competent staff, and always backed by a strong follow-up mechanism to ensure achievement of intended outcomes.

The need of the hour is for our officialdom to realise the importance of time as one of the key resources and channelise it to create maximum public good. Otherwise, we are still far away from the fundamental principles of value creation in our public sector milieu.

The writer is a senior institutional reforms and capacity building professional. He can be contacted atEmail: alitariqjatala   @hotmail.com