What Public Service Taught Me About Power

Power Begins Before the Signature

Power does not always announce itself through a title, a large office or the final signature on a document.

Sometimes it appears in the options placed before a decision-maker. Sometimes it sits in a clause that gives one person discretion over another. Sometimes it is exercised through a delayed response, an omitted objection or a record that leaves out something important.

Public service has taught me to look beyond who holds the office to how the work of that office is done. The person who signs a decision carries responsibility, but so do the people who prepare, recommend, record and implement it.

A junior officer may not determine policy, yet can ensure that a material concern reaches the person who does. An adviser may not control the outcome, yet can refuse to make uncertainty look like established fact.

The question is therefore not simply, ‘Who holds power?’ It is also, ‘How is that power being used, who bears its consequences, and what happens when it is used wrongly?’

Responsibility begins before the signature—and continues after the decision.

Let the Record Tell the Truth

Consider a committee that meets on 4 March, prepares draft minutes on 7 March and approves them on 18 March. This is an illustration, not a report of a particular meeting.

The three dates describe different events. A truthful record should not make approval appear to have happened before it did. The concern is not simply that minutes were written or approved later; it is whether their history has been misrepresented. The governing procedure matters. Later approval and false dating are not the same thing.

The same care belongs in the substance. An objection should not become agreement merely because agreement would make the file easier to complete. A recommendation should not become an approval because someone assumed the decision-maker would consent.

A record need not reproduce every spoken word. It should preserve the material decisions, reasons, responsibilities and qualifications that a later reader needs to understand what happened.

But an accurate record does not prove that a decision was just. It makes the decision available for scrutiny—and, where necessary, correction.

Remember Who Is Not in the Room

Imagine a public service moving an application process entirely online. Around the planning table, the change looks efficient: fewer queues, easier storage, faster processing.

Now consider the applicant without reliable internet, the person who needs an accessible format or the older resident who cannot complete the form without assistance. The queue may have disappeared from the office while the difficulty has moved into their homes.

The answer is not automatically to reject digital services. It is to ask what support or alternative access is needed before efficiency becomes exclusion.

That is the discipline of remembering the absent person. Who will encounter this rule with less information, less money, less confidence or less ability to obtain help? What would we notice if that person were sitting at the table?

Fairness also requires more than treating everyone identically. Relevant differences should be considered, and differences in treatment should be justified. Compassion should not become favouritism; consistency should not become an excuse for refusing to examine circumstances.

The aim is not to grant every request. It is to make a decision that recognises the person affected without abandoning the institution’s legitimate purpose.

Do Not Lend Authority Casually

Suppose a business asks an organisation to confirm that it completed an earlier assignment satisfactorily. A draft letter then goes further and promises support for its future financial obligations.

Confirming past performance and offering future support are different acts. A reassuring heading does not settle what the wording may commit the organisation to. Its effect needs appropriate review in the relevant legal and institutional context.

Before signing, ask what is being confirmed, what is being promised, who has authority to promise it and whose interests the commitment serves.

The concern is not whether the requester later succeeds or fails. The decision must be justified by the information and authority available at the time. Friendship, urgency and confidence in someone’s character cannot substitute for that examination.

A signature should not lend public credibility to a promise the institution has not properly considered.

Delay Can Become a Decision by Exhaustion

A request can be defeated without anyone formally refusing it. Repeated visits, unanswered messages and changing requirements can make the cost of continuing greater than the person can bear.

A file left unanswered can become a decision by exhaustion.

Not every delay is misconduct. Information may be missing, resources limited or a necessary review unfinished. Speed without care can create its own harm.

Yet unavoidable waiting should not become unexplained waiting. Clear, timely information is part of accountable administration. What remains outstanding? Who owns the next step? When will there be an update? What happens if that date cannot be met?

For the officer, the request may be one item among many. For the applicant, it may determine whether work can begin or an opportunity remains open. Communication does not remove every delay, but it can prevent uncertainty from becoming an additional burden.

Reasons Must Leave Room for Challenge

‘Management has decided’ identifies a decision-maker. It does not explain the decision.

A useful explanation connects the authority being exercised, the relevant facts, the criteria applied and the conclusion reached. It should distinguish what is known from what remains uncertain.

Imagine an application refused because a document appears to be missing. The applicant produces an acknowledgement showing that it was received. The institution now has a choice: examine the new evidence or protect its earlier position.

That is where accountability becomes more than a well-organised file. A credible process must allow errors to be acknowledged and put right. It should make the available review or complaint route understandable, rather than treating a challenge as disloyalty.

Correction may require reconsidering the decision, repairing its effects, explaining the mistake or changing the process that produced it. The appropriate response depends on the facts and the powers available.

Confidentiality matters too. Openness does not mean publishing private information or disclosing material unlawfully. The task is to explain as much as can properly be explained and identify the relevant limits.

The record should make scrutiny possible, not make correction impossible.

Make Accountability Useful, Not Paralysing

There is another danger: turning accountability into so much defensive paperwork that necessary work stops.

A routine correction should not require the same process as a decision that risks substantial public resources or seriously affects someone’s rights. The level of review should match the significance, uncertainty and potential harm involved.

Leaders should make authority clear, give staff workable guidance and support timely decisions within their responsibilities. Asking for clarification should not be punished; responsibility should not disappear through endless referrals.

The purpose of a record is to support judgement, not replace it. The purpose of review is to improve a decision, not postpone it indefinitely. Good accountability helps people act with care and gives the institution a way to learn when care was not enough.

A Power-and-Accountability Audit

Choose one decision or process you influence. Ask:

1. What authority am I exercising, and where does it end?
2. Who will be affected but is not represented in the discussion?
3. What facts are established, and what am I assuming?
4. Have personal interests, relationships or pressure distorted the options?
5. Does the record distinguish what happened, what was recommended and what was approved?
6. Could delay impose avoidable harm, and who owns the next step?
7. Is the proposed action proportionate, and have realistic alternatives been considered?
8. Can the decision be explained clearly while respecting legitimate confidentiality?
9. How can the affected person seek review, and what will we do if the decision is wrong?
10. What should change so the next person does not encounter the same problem?

Use these questions to identify what needs attention, not to collect reassuring answers. Choose one improvement, assign responsibility and follow it through.

Leave More Than a Defensible File

The lesson I carry from public service is that public power is a trust, not a personal possession. It is not an entitlement to obedience, gratitude or immunity from questions.

An institution should be able to do more than defend yesterday’s decision. It should be able to show whose needs it considered, what evidence it examined, how it used its authority and what it changed when an error became clear.

When a title passes to someone else, the consequences of decisions do not pass away with it. People continue living with what was approved, delayed, overlooked or corrected.

Leave records that tell the truth, processes that permit challenge and decisions that respect the people who must live with them.

Power does not become smaller when it is accountable. It becomes worthy of trust.