jordan pulse -

Dr. Laith Abdullah Al-Qehyawi
Despite the abundance of administrative reform plans, the multiplicity of national strategies, and successive government modernisation programmes, the public sector in many of our countries continues to suffer from a clear gap between declared intentions and actual impact. The problem is not a lack of vision, nor a shortage of capable professionals, but rather a deep congestion within the decision-making system itself—one that drains policies of substance and turns reform efforts into movement without clear direction. In the Jordanian context, this gap appears in daily details felt by citizens: a service delayed without explanation, a decision stalled between multiple levels, an initiative buried under layers of procedures, and indicators that change on paper faster than real performance on the ground.
The core question is no longer whether we possess the competencies capable of change, but whether we have a system that trusts these competencies, empowers them, and holds them accountable for impact rather than mere compliance. Practical experience shows that many public institutions are rich in qualified expertise, yet operate within structures that do not allow initiative, do not reward achievement, and do not protect professional decision-making from bureaucratic erosion. Here begins the real diagnosis: the problem is not a weak individual or an unqualified employee, but a system that reshapes individual behaviour and redirects energy. When competence is constrained, it learns silence; when capability is punished, it learns retreat; and when job security becomes tied to “not causing problems,” the employee becomes skilled at managing time rather than creating impact.
In this context, administrative reform becomes a complex challenge that cannot be reduced to restructuring, legislative amendments, or new training programmes. Many reform attempts fail because they operate on the surface of the problem: changing titles, merging units, launching platforms, or holding workshops, while the core of the crisis remains untouched—centralised decision-making, blurred responsibilities, and a cost of error that always outweighs the reward for doing things right. Hence the striking paradox: institutions full of talent, yet weak impact. Competencies are not lacking, but their path to impact is blocked. There is a “leakage of energy” within the administrative process itself: decisions eroded by successive approvals, an inflated role of auditing at the expense of empowerment, and management turning into a defensive apparatus that prioritises procedural safety over improvement. In many institutions, the average time to take a simple operational decision stretches into weeks—not due to complexity, but because of multiple signatures, overlapping authorities, and chronic fear of accountability.
When trust breaks down, its effects extend beyond the institution itself. Employees lose trust in their organisation and in the fairness of evaluation; citizens lose confidence in the possibility of service improvement; and the relationship between state and society turns into one of constant testing rather than partnership. In such an environment, even good initiatives lose momentum: employees see no value in initiatives that will be met with suspicion, and no point in extra effort when success is measured by compliance rather than impact. Over time, a “minimum-effort culture” emerges, where low quality becomes an acceptable ceiling as long as it does not raise questions.
This is where the required shift becomes clear: from managing resources to managing trust and impact. Managing resources alone—through recruitment, training, and organisation—is insufficient if trust remains absent from the equation. What is needed is a new operating model that treats trust as an institutional asset: genuine delegation to middle management within clear boundaries, well-defined responsibilities, and performance indicators that measure outcomes rather than activities. It is not enough to count completed transactions; we must measure service time, user experience quality, financial discipline, and the real effect of decisions on citizens’ lives. At the same time, professional decision-making must be protected through transparent pathways that ensure responsible initiative does not become a trap, and that unintentional errors made in the context of performance improvement are managed through learning rather than punishment.
Impact does not arise from “correct procedures” alone, but from the ability to take the right decision at the right time. Empowering middle management therefore becomes a strategic priority, as it is the link where policies turn into execution. When this link is restored through delegation and fair accountability, institutions shift from merely managing workflows to producing measurable results. Conversely, when decision-making remains locked at the top, government turns into a centre for approvals rather than solutions, and digitalisation becomes bureaucratic mechanisation instead of a means to shorten the distance between citizen and state.
Ultimately, no state can accumulate public trust while being governed by excessive caution, nor build institutional efficiency while chaining professional decision-making with procedures and fear of error. Real public sector reform does not begin with changing faces or importing ready-made models, but with the courage to acknowledge that part of the crisis is a crisis of trust in people and in their ability to deliver when empowered and fairly held accountable. The message to decision-makers today must be clear: competence is not a threat to stability; it is its primary condition. Empowering middle management, protecting professional judgement, and linking evaluation to impact rather than compliance are no longer administrative luxuries, but sovereign necessities in a rapidly changing world where the state’s tolerance for poor results continues to shrink.
Investing in institutional trust is the least costly and highest-return investment. When public employees feel heard, fairly evaluated, and confident that initiative will not be punished, institutions shift from operational burdens into national enablers. Only then can the public sector reclaim its true role: serving citizens, implementing policy, and creating impact. The decision lies with policymakers, but its cost—positive or negative—will be borne by everyone.