During a supposedly surprise inspection, recently reinstalled Transportation Secretary Vince Dizon lambasted key officials of Victory Liner Bus Inc. after discovering that the toilets in one of its bus terminals had no running water. In another inspection, while a manager was attempting to explain his side, Dizon hurled expletives, loudly interrupting the poor fellow. I understand Dizon’s frustration. The commuting public deserves better service, and government agencies must demand accountability from the entities they regulate.
However, while several facilities across the country experience similar problems, not all shortcomings are necessarily attributable to negligence or incompetence. Some may have legitimate and even excusable explanations. What I find difficult to rationalize is Dizon’s apparent penchant for publicly shaming the very entities his agency regulates, whether in his previous capacity in Public Works or now in Transportation. With television cameras rolling, his inspections often turn into public spectacles in which people are berated and humiliated. Some have described him as a disruptor. His management style, however, appears to rely heavily on a public shaming campaign, a practice that became more conspicuous in government during the administration of former President Rodrigo Duterte.
To be fair, inspections, particularly unannounced ones, are effective management tools. They keep organizations alert, prepared, and focused on the services they are supposed to deliver. At the military academy, we experienced all kinds of inspections in our barracks, day and night, to keep us on our toes. After all, once deployed in combat areas, soldiers must be ready to fight at any given moment.
In law school, surprise quizzes are a regular staple of my teaching. They ensure that students come to class prepared. I sometimes joke that they are my way of distinguishing good students from very good ones. When I was with the Bureau of Immigration, I adopted a similar approach. I visited offices and ports of entry and exit without prior notice to determine whether immigration officers were actually doing what they reported to the main office. These inspections and audits usually ended with detailed discussions of what had been observed, what needed improvement, and how deficiencies could be addressed. No expletives. No public shaming. There is a difference between demanding accountability and humiliating people. The former is an exercise of leadership; the latter can easily become an abuse of authority.
Expectedly, Bible readers will remember the occasion when Jesus Christ became angry in the temple. He drove out the money changers and those who had turned His Father’s house into a marketplace. His anger was not an uncontrolled outburst born of personal frustration. It was a response to the desecration of what was sacred. His indignation was directed at the wrongdoing and the exploitation taking place, not at the pursuit of personal revenge against those involved.
Righteous anger is not an excuse for losing self-control. It is anger directed toward correcting what is wrong and restoring what is right. It does not nurture bitterness or settle personal scores. Most importantly, righteous anger leads to godly action rather than personal gratification. Government leaders would do well to heed James 1:19-20: ‘Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.’
The process of making things better begins with understanding what works and what does not. Much of that information can be obtained from the very people who deliver the services. Leaders must learn to listen. When listening is coupled with empathy, it produces dividends. By listening patiently and humbly, without prejudgment and with the genuine intention of understanding, leaders encourage their people to become more open and transparent. They become more willing to identify problems, offer solutions, and accept responsibility. Proverbs 17:27 reminds us: ‘The one who has knowledge uses words with restraint, and whoever has understanding is even-tempered.’
Leaders like Dizon can be firm without being insulting or demeaning and decisive without abandoning restraint. They must learn to exercise anger only when it serves a righteous purpose. For those who wish to understand how to exercise righteous anger, they need not look further than Jesus Christ. His example in the temple teaches us that anger must have a proper object, a justifiable purpose, and a moral foundation.
Dizon and other government officials must be careful about their propensity to tongue-lash people during inspections. Public shaming may produce immediate compliance, as people scramble to avoid another embarrassing appearance on television. Shame can compel people to obey, but it cannot inspire them to genuinely become better. Lasting improvements come from sustained accountability and a culture that encourages people to do what is right even when no cameras are watching.
Leadership is never measured by how loudly one can berate subordinates. It is measured by how effectively one brings out the best in others while holding them accountable. After all, the objective of an inspection should be to improve public service, not to manufacture a public spectacle at someone else’s expense. Media ought to help by not sensationalizing these ‘angry inspectors.’
Siegfred has a diversified set of education and experiences which has made him a game changer and a servant leader in organizations. His professional degrees came from the United States Military Academy at West Point in New York, Ateneo Law School, and University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA. His corporate experiences include stints as general counsel for the country’s flag carrier, a food exporter with manufacturing plants in Davao and in Laguna, and a sports distributor company. Siegfred is a former soldier and a lawyer by profession, a teacher and inspirational speaker by passion, and a book author and a writer with a mission.