Ground and Field Visits, Project Inspections,"Turun Padang" and MBWA: Bridging Headquarters Perceptions and Outstation Realities

This month the Editorial focuses on a somewhat seemingly mundane and trivial topic i.e. ground or field visits and its similarities for administrative, audit or meeting purposes, project inspection, or for some other miscellaneous tasks. Mundanity or triviality is a matter of viewpoint and perception. However, it can be seen from a relaxed and leisurely manner or conversely from a serious or even intellectual manner. An umbrella being a common object may not be worth studying. Yet if one is serious in pursuing the study of umbrella in greater detail – its majestic symbolism, types, colours, umbrella for summer or winter, to protect against the rain or sunshine, markets and market segments, ethnic preferences and so on – the student can be an expert in the field of “umbrellaology”.

Taking the cue from here, this editorial examines the significance of field visits or its other variants as a management tool, the various aspects associated with it – metaphors, historical perspectives, significance or otherwise, types and nature. Field visits are now all the more imperative as the public sector is dealing with an even more sophisticated and demanding public while the many development programmes and projects implemented traversing the Divisions, Districts and Sub-districts of the State will require and call for regular visits by officials and staff from the Headquarters.

We shall start discussing the subject from the metaphorical perspective – the metaphor of “wars and battles” can be utilized effectively in understanding the significance of field visits. In the context of the Civil Service, there are indeed many wars and battles to be fought and won. There has been and still ongoing war against corruption, the battles to promote accountability and integrity and to address indiscipline, adhocracy and status quo mentality. There is the battle in the field of communication to ensure that policies and procedures are adhered to and implemented, and the need to work together as a team and projecting an esprit de corp at all levels (across the A, B, C, D groups) as desired by the Headquarters. Now, there are the battles to achieve a 100 per cent performance in terms of financial and physical achievement in the implementation of development programmes and projects by the various ministries, departments and agencies. How have we fared on the ground vis-à-vis the headquarters? Are projects implemented on schedule or are they facing mountains of ground problems? With the wars and battles in mind, obviously the commander - generals, colonels, lieutenants and all (Permanent Secretaries, Directors or Heads of Departments (HODs) and Senior Government Officers (SGOs) – have to visit the battlefront. They have to visit the fields to see and assess for themselves whether the situation is under control to make quick decisions to ward off attacks, ambushes, and surprises of intruders and making sure that his ‘army’ do not succumb to the onslaught of the advancing ‘enemy’.

From a historical perspective, field visits can be traced back historically through the writings of great warriors of the past like Alexander the Great, Sun Tzu and Attila the Hun. The latter warrior once said that: “… It is unfortunate when final decisions are made by chieftains headquartered miles away from the front, where they can only guess at conditions and potentialities known only by the Captain on the battlefield….” In essence, decision making must avoid guesswork but instead should be based on ground reality and make field visits imperative.

Getting nearer home, it would be remembered that ground or field visits in the 1950s and early 1960s by colonial officials like Malcolm Mcdonald and Tom Harrisson are very well documented, experiential journeys from which we can draw lessons. These officials often penned their travelogues from which we can gain vast insights of life in yesteryears. The objectives of their visits were mostly administrative and officialese. With the rather limited and negligible development work and the modest modes of communication then, the visits had tended to be lordly and leisurely. Thus Robert Nichols’ reviews of their travelogues portrayed the visits as anything but one reflecting personal idiosyncracies. He pointed out that Tom Harrison often “moves with the discharge of the musketry” while Malcom Mcdonald often travels with his camera in the rural area and having a “roving bachelor’s eyes” with his pictorials.

Todays HODs and SGOs have a much greater volume of work programmes and activities, and a very wide span of responsibilities and have to juggle their time and priorities. It is now necessary for them to accord priority to ground visits if they are to make inroad into their tight schedules with the various meetings, project inspections, protocols and other errands. Of course, it would also be unrealistic to expect HODs and SGOs to visit and inspect all the projects implemented under their purview. Our contention, however, is that a practical and carefully organized programmed visit, monthly or bimonthly should still be made to obtain a balanced view and perspective.

We now look at field visits from the modern management perspective. In modern management parlance, field visits have been accorded a special acronym – MBWA or Management by Wandering Around, Management By Walking About, Management By Walking Away and its other variants. Tom Peters in his bestseller book In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies introduces the term “Management By Walking About” to describe the act of organizations in “getting management out of the office” in order to give meaningful contribution to informal exchanges. We recognize that formal exchanges in official meetings can be stiff and stern while informal exchanges during field visits or ground inspections will allow for a more relaxed, easy and open expression of views. Later, Kouzes & Posner in another bestselling book The Leadership Challenge – How to Keep Getting Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations prefers the term “Management By Walking Away” as synonymous with the act of “trading places” whereby the management leaves the running of the organization to their second echelons while managers attend their annual off-site strategic planning sessions. MBWA, if practised by organizations is a marvelous way to get feedback about how others think you are doing and of course portraying “visible management”. Managing can be invisible if leaders or managers do not move around and be seen on the ground.

In the State, it is recognized that the monthly or at times bimonthly Permanent Secretary and Resident Meetings held at either the Divsional or District headquarters and followed by project inspections have been a regular feature of our workstyle. By meeting outside the Kuching Headquarters, HODs and SGOs, will inevitably and automatically meet their ‘ground soldiers’ and getting first hand and on-site reports. This ‘turun-ke padang’ programme has now become an important activity agenda of the Permanent Secretaries and Residents with the State Secretary.

Many visits are relevant. Some may be irrelevant; some need to be economized, some to be prioritized while some are “absolute musts”. What exactly are these visits? We need to distinguish the various types of visits and impact on the organization. Let us tackle headquarters visits to the divisional, district and sub-district levels first. In the context of general administration, headquarters visits by HODs and SGOs to the ground would help to create and open up vistas for observing, seeking and identifying problems, issues and challenges faced by the organizations that may not be seen or fathomed if one were to remain cocooned in one’s own shell at the headquarters. If one fails to visit the ground, so to speak, one is therefore oblivious to the sights and sounds of places, including the faraway voices of their officers and staff on the ground. How many HODs and SGOs have held regular annual meetings or dialogues with their C & D support staff throughout the State?

In Sarawak we encounter a 5-tier pyramid: the Ministries, the Departments, the Divisional offices, the District level offices and the Sub District level offices. There is a wide gap spanning these organizational levels. It is not the supremacy or authoritative power at each level that matters, but rather how communication is transmitted through these various strata that is of concern. It would obviously require a very effective communication skill and network to disseminate and transmit information down the line. Beyond the circulars and memos it would call for other methods and means – e-mail, meetings, workshops, seminars and so on. Yet all these are easily said than done – and to be done effectively, efficiently and sustainably in a consistent manner. Such communication channels should be sufficiently stimulating and encouraging so as to generate interest and capture the imagination of their officers and staff.

Visits by headquarters purely from the viewpoint of checking and auditing may not be adequate as these efforts often are done for very specific purposes. The ground level crews need motivation, coaching, mentoring and wanting to be close to their captains. Moreover, they want to be heard, attended to and be nurtured at the same time.

Field visits can also be made when researches and surveys are undertaken. These visits, however, are often scholastic or investigative in nature, and under the domains of the research and investigating officers rather than by the HODs and SGOs. Because of its specificity of purpose, it is not expected that administrative matters will be their concern. As such, management will need to distinguish this from other visits, and appreciate their relevance as an item that can impact on the T&T budget.

Field visits can bring another added advantage i.e. the experiential kind. An armchair manager will never experience the joy of journeying between Miri and Bintulu and vice-versa on land. A manager on a field trip can observe for himself the economic development and the bustling business activities in the hinterland situated between the two booming towns. The very heavy traffic even during the night reveals the urgent need for safety measures and upgrading of facilities along the busy road. In short, it is likely the volumes of goods transported between the two towns must be substantial taking into account the presence of the Bintulu Port. If the number of big lorries and buses plying between both towns is any indication, business must be on the positive note.

The journey between Sri Aman to Sarikei, on the other hand, reveals a stark contrast, where much of the economic activities are agriculture-based smallholdings, except for the recent introduction of large-scale land development for oil palm cultivation. A similar comparison can also be drawn if one is journeying between the Serian to Sri Aman sector. These experiences evince the development scenarios with respect to development focus, land ownership and land use, entrepreneuralism within the farming community, apart from the various comparison of geographical and resource endowment in terms of soil, relief, state of infrastructures and so forth. Travelling between Sematan/Kuching to Limbang/Lawas and up to the far-flung destination of Merapok can offer us variegated nuances and diverse experiences, pointing of course to the various levels of development taking place in Sarawak. The scenes of the early 1970s against today’s backdrop is indeed a stark contrast as a result of the integrated and holistic development taking place in the State.

Let us now consider the constraints associated with field visits. For any Permanent Secretary and HOD, they have to reckon with the 9 Divisions (and maybe more in future), the 28 districts and 30 sub-districts – where various programmes, projects and activities are taking place. It will be a Herculean task to cover all the administrative units in a year. If indeed one can make a whirlwind tour, such HODs and SGOs will only be branded as “highly-paid rural tourists” and not spending enough time on policy matters. Delegation, empowerment, decentralized decision-making will be required and these are already done. The ground and field visits will undoubtedly change the scenario of managing tasks and people in the public service.

Prioritization, putting field visits in one’s radar screen, and expecting to do something or resolve administrative and project level problems should be duly emphasized. The culture of not only making visits but putting up your reports immediately after the visit is an absolute must. Aide-memoir or Project Reports are normally prepared after mission visits by UNDP, World Bank, ADB or other multilateral agencies. It would be a good practice if HODs and SGOs ensure that reports are put up, read, discussed or deliberated, and follow-up as well as follow-through actions need to be taken.

Now let us consider the limits and limitation associated with field visits. There is a vast difference between non-work visits and fieldwork, between purposeful visits and unnecessary ones. A Lands and Surveys team conducting survey work on the Bakun Resettlement Project is a good example of field work, especially when the team has set a target date to complete their work. On the other hand, ground visits sans targets, justification and reports are all construed as meaningless visits.

When meetings and discussions are held outside the Headquarters, the occasion almost always invariably provides ample opportunities for field visits. These field visits are meant to search, discover and uncover issues and matters which are sometimes hidden, swept under the carpet or escaped the unprobing eyes. Visits enable us to empathise with the local issues and problems, hear directly from the source and grassroot level of actual woes and difficulties encountered. Voices emanating from the ground or grassroot level have their own particular perspective. The perspective may sometimes be labelled as a skewed view because the ground may not have the advantage that the Headquarters possess, especially in seeing the macro or larger mental picture – a picture which is holistic, integrated and all encompassing. Conversely, the ground view is about reality and practicality where hands-on skills are needed, demonstrated and executed. But have we as HODs and SGOs given the ground officers and staff the necessary support and exposure to deal with the large picture? Are we ready to empower them?

In a rural setting, field visits entail sampling the mud, basking in the hot sun, being soaked in the torrential tropical rain, having your land cruiser stuck in the deep muddy potholes, negotiating valleys and rivers, balancing your body on the wobbling plankwalks. It can also mean journeying from one longhouse to another proverbial “sebatang rokok” longhouse, be it on foot, longboat, four wheel drive, express boat, Twin Otter, and the Bell helicopter. Visits to the districts and sub-districts will help us to understand the historical aspects and dimension of the place, the unique characteristics of the rustic population as well as sampling the famous local hospitality and delicacies (tahai in Lawas, salai and kasam senek in Saratok, dabai in Sibu and Kapit, umai and tebaloi from Mukah, nenas pada from Dalat, belacan from Bintulu, beras Bario, obor-obor from Grigat, tuak and langkau and the blackening of the face, or being awake for 24 hours in the longhouse, and what have you).

Visits to the district and sub-district towns will distinctly portray the unique characteristics of all Sarawak towns which are almost always located or sited along the mighty rivers in the country. Consequently, riverine transport and infrastructures like wharves, jetties and pontoons thronged our rivers. It has also given rise to the mushrooming of local boat builders in Mukah and Beladin, as well as witnessing Sibu’s rise as a shipbuilding centre. Sometimes, the construction of a new road can kill this popular mode of transport of the rural populace for example the express boat service plying between Sarikei and Sibu. Today, waterfronts are familiar sites. Comparative levels of development of all the towns are possible – the unique landscape, the pulse and beat of the town life, and the general development of its periphery and hinterland areas. Some are buzzling while others are slumbering. Government officers with their colleagues from the private sector can help to activate the life in such towns.

Project inspections involving onsite visits constitute another form of ground or field visit. No matter where these projects are located – urban or rural setting - thorough project inspections will entail preparing a detailed visitation programme, holding meetings and discussion, and hearing directly from the foremen, project managers, construction crew, including the contractors involved. A well-managed project, especially the bigger ones, will often have a project site office, a project manager and a cohort of supporting staff. Any project management team is likely to have the project schedule and completion targets in its arsenal.

We shall posit a number of reasons why ground or field visits is important and a must for all HODs and SGOs. It helps to bridge the headquarters perception and outstation realities. After all how often do we hear the saying “We are still waiting for the answers from the headquarters” or “The matter is handled by headquarters”. The headquarters of course are run by the Directors and their Deputies and Assistants as well as other senior officers i.e. the HODs and SGOs. But what if the HODs and SGOs do not go to the ground often enough? Decision-making can be blurred and may lack intuition or the benefit of being there. We will be receiving only secondary rather than primary information; we will be deprived of the most current and correct information and reports which will facilitate good decision-making after the various options have been weighed. After all, project inspections will mean the presence and participation of the executing agencies, implementing agencies, the contractors or sub-contractors, the project players and so on.

In conclusion, the editorial wants to explain the importance and imperative of ground or field visits and project inspections by HODs and SGOs which would greatly help in managing their organizations. This is all the more so given the large number of administrative units in Sarawak – the Divisional, District and Sub-district tiers. An equally important outcome of field visits are the reports associated with the visits and the follow-up and follow-through exercise. It will also enhance HODs and SGOs in their decision-making, especially when they are in full control of information. We are mindful however that virtual reality can challenge the arguments for field visits in the future in view of the growing utilization of ICT via teleconferencing, e-mailing and so forth. Despite this impending challenge, this editorial firmly believes that virtual reality is not an adequate substitute to ground reality which can only be obtained through field visits, project inspections, turun-ke padang or through MBWA.