Post-Soviet Georgia in The Process of Transformation-Modernization Challenges in Public Service

Romanian Journal of Political Science.
Post-Soviet Georgia in the Process of

Modernization Challenges in Public Service1
Transformation-
Tamar Charkviani2
ABSTRACT
The aim of this article is to address the lack of academic knowledge about
public services in post-Soviet Georgia. Its attention is focused on the practices of
career progression in public institutions in the context of meritocratic principles. In
the new, ever-changing environment, with the inherited general mistrust of Soviettype institutions, and at the time when formal democratic social institutions (formal
and moral criteria of success) are still in the process of development, informal
factors (protectionism, nepotism, etc.) still largely determine social-economic
success. This article claims the prevalence of informal relationships over
meritocratic principles in the Georgian public service management system, which
hinders the process of making public service more effective, productive and
transparent.
KEY WORDS: post-Soviet Georgia, meritocracy, bureaucracy, paternalism.
Introduction
Georgia is considered to be a post-Soviet state, a transitional/transforming
society and a young democracy. In a transitional society, the weakening
of various systems
brings
about
the
necessity to
transform and
institutionalise social institutions and practices. This process is reflected in all

spheres of social life. One of the main parts of this transformation process remains
with state/public institutions, which determine working and living conditions
and the ability of the population to adapt to new conditions.
The level of state development depends on the reforms that are carried out
in the countryon the norms, standards and game rules functioning formally or
1
A similar topic was covered in Volume 8, No. 1, summer 2008 of the Romanian Journal of Political
Science which focused on the topic Defective Democracies.
2
Tamar Charkviani is a PhD Candidate and Lecturer at the Department of Arts and Sciences, Ilia
State University, Tbilisi. She is a graduate of the Georgian State University, Faculty of Philosophy
and Sociology, specialty in Sociology.
137
informally. Effective reforms in all areas are an important priority, but, unfortunately,
the incompetence of human resources and lack of social capital hinder both their
understanding at a strategic level and their practical implementation. This
undermines the political, economic and social stability of the country, and the
trust accorded to government and its reputation in society.
It is extremely important for a transforming country to adapt to global
changes in regard to economic and meritocratic principles. This requires a high
level of professionalism, contemporary knowledge, leadership skills, a wide range
of strategic thinking and ethical norms in the fields of managing both state and
public institutions. It should be pointed out that the political-economic systems of
most countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development
(OECD) are based on meritocratic values. In order to integrate with developed
western countries and establish standards corresponding to the norms of EuroAtlantic structures, Georgia has to choose a strategy based on meritocratic
principles, which will help the improvement of the economic, political and social
environment of the country.
Commonness in Soviet and post-Soviet ways of government and informal
practices is especially problematic in state institutions, as the state is the first
guarantor vis--vis the protection and regulation of legal norms. One of the main
aims of this article is the description of strategies for public service management
and analyses of factors assisting/hindering the formation of the new type of
management - meritocracy.
Methodology
The object of this article is represented by the public services in Georgia
and the public servants employed there. The selection of public servants included
those of different rank and those employed in different public institutions
(ministries, the State Chancellery, the Public Defenders Office, etc.). The
timeframe for the present research is the period after the Rose Revolution - from
2003 to 2012.
A sociological approach to the issue of managing state/public services
involved a review of social institutions and management principles in the context of
a transforming state and society. For the implementation of the aims and objectives
of this research and for the acquisition of exhaustive/objective information on the
138
subject under study, first of all a theoretical study has been undertaken. We have
studied the main concepts of the bureaucratic system, social networks and social
capital, the formation and functioning of social institutions, management systems,
communication processes and information circulation etc. Apart from this, the
information about the professional and labour activities of public servants was
discovered through the analysis of relevant written sources - these included both
documents connected with public services (ratings, administrative documents) and
those connected with job markets (CVs, HR department materials, etc.). This
enabled a study of general tendencies and the classification of similar or
homogeneous facts. Also, it allowed for the identification of the public servants
career progress and the criteria met by public servants that permitted their career
advancement.
Two types of interview methods were employed in the present research: indepth interviews and narrative interviews3. Two target groups, totalling 55
respondents, were identified in the research: public servants occupying leading
public positions (mainly departmental heads) and public servants occupying senior
or junior public positions (mainly departmental workers). This model of selection for
qualitative research enabled us to determine the situation connected with the
subject under study in different public institutions. It also made it possible to
compare the experiences and discourses of representatives from these two
groups. Different criteria were taken into account while selecting respondents
relevant to the aims and objectives of the research: education, work experience,
profession, sex, age, origin (nationality, place of birthtown/village), social activity,
connection to political or business elite, etc.
The aim of the research was to fill in the gaps in the existing scientific
literature about the functioning of public services in post-Soviet Georgia.
Despite the acuteness
of
the
issue,
there
is
virtually
no
systematic
empirical research in the field. A systematic scientific study of the transformation

process through experienced by the public service management system and the
implementation of meritocratic principles is important not only for understanding the
Interview Transcription Disclaimer: the quoted excerpts from our interviews are translations from
Georgian left in their original, unedited state. The use of grammar may not always be correct. Any
use of bold text within quotations represents author-added emphasis.
139
themes and theories of social changes, but also for the further development of
these scientific fields in Georgia.
Public services in Georgia

In a jural state, the mechanisms for operating and managing state/public
institutions have a strategic importance for the institutionalisation of state policy
and laws. The quality of state machinery and public institutions largely
determine the institutional potential of the state. Public service is one of the main
elements of state government, as the performance of its internal and external
functions depends on how effectively it works. Public services represent an
important way to demonstrate the political vision of the government and
state regarding its development. They should result in the creation of a common
goodcommon game rules and a guarantee of their protection.
The issue of developing and implementing a single policy for the
management and functioning of public services is especially acute in Georgia. This
problem is directly connected with the process of establishing a modern
bureaucratic
system
and the development
of
new
type
of
public
servant: the introduction and implementation of meritocratic principles.

The optimal model of public service organisation and HR policy determines
how flawlessly and effectively they function. Even the best initiatives will not be
realised if their implementation is entrusted to the incompetent, corrupt, or those
disinterested in the reform. According to Bismarcks famous quote with bad laws
and good civil servants it is still possible to govern. But with bad civil servants even
the best laws cannot help (von Bismarck, 1884). As Barry Bozeman (1999) noted,
the strength of bureaucracy lies in its focus on standardized relations. Favouritism,
nepotism, bribery and other forms of corruption should not be acceptable in a
modern bureaucracy; this is more pathology rather than its natural characteristic.
The model of meritocratic government is an evolved form of democracy and
is opposed to social practices common in Soviet and post-Soviet Georgia
plutocracy (acknowledging a person according to their career success and wealth),
nepotism (family connections), oligarchy (class privileges), cronyism (friendly
relationships), clientelism (patron-vassal relationships). Meritocracy is a form of
government in which offices and responsibilities are granted to people according to
their skills and abilities. In meritocracy, the society rewards (through wealth, rank
140
and social status) those that demonstrate their skills and competence through their
experience and succeed in competition.
Modern bureaucracy in Georgia faces a challenge: either to allow reforms
so as to create a healthy system based on the principles of meritocracy, or find
alternative ways of functioning, which will hinder its development into an open,
democratic system. In order to study the factors that determine the principles for
managing public services and the success of public servants, the specific state of
Georgian
society should be taken into consideration since
its society, socio-
economic, legal and knowledge systems are changing from a totalitarian mind-set
to an open one
After the Rose Revolution of 2003, Georgia began to reform many of its
state institutions. The reform of public institutions was one of the most salient since
it was supposed to ensure state efficiency. All social groups were interested in
making public services more effective, active and transparent. Despite the ongoing changes,
public
service
institutions
still
retain, in
their
form
and
essence, remnants of autocratic management characteristic of Soviet institutions.

This is extremely damaging, especially in the present situation, when state
institutions are being re-shaped and oriented towards modern structures and, nontraditional methods of management. President Mikheil Saakashvili said that A new
revolution against bureaucracy has to happen in Georgia. The people have
orchestrated the Rose Revolution, and if up to now bureaucracy has been making
laws
for
these
people,
now
people
will
make
laws
for
the
bureaucracy (Khorbaladze, 2005). Dismissing officials of the former government

and bringing fresh blood to state institutions has been the approach of the new
government.
The secretary of the National Security Council and one of the Rose
Revolution leaders, Giga Bokeria, stated that for a long time, corruption has been
the established rule of the game in Georgian public service, and, quite suddenly,
the states policy embraced an aggressive fight against corruption. This caused
fear in within a major part of the bureaucracy and, according to Bokeria, in some
sense it should be so. However this caused the other, negative effect - the
bureaucracy has problems with competence and experiences difficulties in making
decisions. This significantly hinders establishing the major function of the
bureaucracy - to serve the citizens: certainly painful steps have been made to
141
reduce the size of the bureaucracy, but it was necessary and it was the proper
course of action. The state [...] had permission to rob our citizens. We will not
tolerate such an attitude anymore. The bureaucracy must be properly funded,
controlled and accountable. It could not be achieved without the steps we had
made [] No other normal country has such an extended bureaucracy (Bokeria,
2005).
According to the statement of the former Minister of Economy, Kakha
Bendukidze, it was very important to reduce the bureaucratic sector in order to fight
corruption effectively. State corruption starts with the communication process
between a state official and an ordinary citizen4.
The experts and researchers of post-communist countries agree that before
the Rose Revolution, Georgia was a failed state with rampant corruption,
collusion between criminals and politicians, and ineffective state institutions. Under
Eduard Shevardnadzes government, the entire state apparatus was organized
along the lines of a pyramid of corruption. Public offices were sold from the top to
the bottom, and officials expected returns on their investments. Money was made
from embezzlement, kickbacks, the sale of public goods, collusion with organized
crime, extortion and many other more or less sophisticated forms of converting
administrative powers into private economic capital. In this environment, the state
had virtually abandoned its public functions and stopped delivering basic services
as the entire machinery of government had turned into a private market for corrupt
informal transactions. Massive corruption and the dysfunctional state were major
causes of the Rose Revolution in 2003 (Engvall, 2012). Bringing order to such a
society, together with maintaining a degree of legitimacy, was a difficult task. In this
respect, Saakashvili inherited Georgia in the same state as Russia was in the
aftermath of the chaotic years of Yeltsins rule. The development of a new and
effective state requires first of all a strong anticorruption policy which also includes
the fight against organized crime (Kupatadze, 2012). The Georgian approach has
been cantered on state building, modernization and market liberalization, with a
In the case of a large public sector, these contacts are very frequent. The Georgian government
has realized very soon that it cannot handle corruption with fire and sword. So the economic reform
program, which aims to reduce the role of the state in the economy, matched the anti-corruption
program which aims to reduce contacts between officials and ordinary citizens - it is common
knowledge that to control two bureaucratic organizations is easier than two thousand. The Officials
have to be sure that nobody around them steals (Bendukidze, 2012).
142
strong focus on improving the legislative basis of the state and reorganize public
bodies.
According to Thomas De Waal, the central government that came to power
after the Rose Revolution has achieved real results. They have very successfully
eliminated everyday corruption and criminality. They have attracted foreign
investment. Georgia now has efficient state services, something that cannot be
said of most of its neighbours. You can buy an apartment or obtain a drivers
license quickly and without paying a bribeno small achievement given the
countrys traditions and those of its region (De Waal, 2011). Corrupt police officers,
customs and excise officials who worked into their own pockets and with their own
networks were dismissed in their thousands. Thus, the central government in
Georgia did not only achieve a strengthening of their own position but also a
modernization effect. The civil service was rendered more efficient and even
though political corruption within the elite still belongs to the ruling practice, petty
corruption was fought successfully. The financial scope of the central government
has increased considerably with the reforms of the tax authorities and the tax
system (Matthais, Jobelius, 2011).
This simultaneous accord of modernization and the attainment of power are
described by Stefes in his comparative study on authoritarian ruling methods in
Caucasus very vividly. Stefes underlines following achievements in fighting
corruption in Georgia: in large-scale raids, several former government officials and
industrialists were arrested and were charged with corruption; local rulers and their
governments were removed from office by Saakashvili; the police force was
replaced more or less completely, whereby the new police officers were better paid
and equipped; well-known markets for smuggled goods and smuggling routes were
shut down by the government; better laws and less corrupt tax authorities put a
stop to tax evasion. Stefes argues: "within a few years, the state budget multiplied
in this way. Of this money, a significant proportion was channelled into modernizing
the police and security apparatus (). Overall, the modernization of the state
apparatus enabled a concentration of power in the hands of the central
government. Using his party, the president was able to build and develop
patrimonial networks". (Stefes, 2010). However, this is still the beginning, not the
end, of a process. In 2011 there were worrying signs about the direction Georgia
143
was heading. The modern Georgian project has many internal contradictions to it
and is much less free than it looks. Some of the modern Georgian reforms have
cured one problem while creating another. Reform of the police force and a broadly
successful fight against crime and corruption; for example, have resulted in a
criminal justice system in which acquittals in criminal cases are almost impossible.
Moreover, the prisons are overcrowded, and the Interior Ministry is the most
powerful arm of the government. Law enforcement bodies, such as the tax police,
possess great power and are perceived as an instrument of political control. This
raises Juvenals famous old question, Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? (Who is
guarding the guards themselves?). The qualitative researchs results, carried out
in 2011 (Engvall, 2012), showed the following: while the high level of political
monopoly in the first few years enabled the government to push through crucial
reforms very quickly, the very same concentration of political power in the hand of
a narrow group of politicians are increasingly turning into a cause for concern. The
major challenge for the Georgian government is the perception of lingering
partiality and favouritism at the highest political level. Several of the aspects rose
as sources of concern by international and domestic NGOs, including central
political interference, political unaccountability, judicial dependency and the use of
other state bodies, like the tax service or recently the Chamber of Control, against
oppositionists indicate that there is still work to be done. Still, the arbitrary use of
power reflects a situation common in all countries that straddle the boundaries
between authoritarian and democratic rule (Engvall, 2012).
According to Transparency International Georgia (TI Georgia)5 a number of
surveys reflect the notable improvements in recent years in terms of corruption. At
the same time, suspicions of high-level corruption are still being voiced and are
sometimes borne out by factual evidence. In the 2010 edition of the Corruption
Perceptions Index, Georgia ranked 68th (out of 178 countries surveyed), with a
score of 3.8 out of ten. The country performed better than all of its neighbours
(except Turkey) and all of the former Soviet republics (except for the three Baltic
States). Georgia ranked the fourth cleanest country in terms of corruption in
5
Transparency
International,
Corruption
Perceptions
Index
2010
Results,
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results, retrieved 17 May
2011 - Transparency International Georgia (TI Georgia) is a local non-governmental organization
committed to combating corruption in Georgia through the promotion of transparency and
accountability. TI Georgia is a national chapter of Transparency International (TI), the only
international non-governmental organization devoted to combating corruption.
144
Eastern Europe and Central Asia (behind Turkey, Croatia and the FYR
Macedonia). The findings of the Global Corruption Barometer support the
widespread belief that petty corruption, including bribery, has been virtually
eliminated in Georgia. In the Global Integrity Index study which assesses the
strength of anti-corruption mechanisms in different countries, Georgia's rating has
fluctuated in recent years from "moderate" in 2006, to "weak" in 2007, to "very
weak" in 2008, to "moderate" again in 2009. Also, in 2009, Georgia was dropped
from
Global Integrity's
Grand
Corruption Watch
List,
while
government
accountability, the budget process, business regulation and law enforcement were
listed among the key areas of concern.
While virtually no one challenges the idea that the government has largely
succeeded in eradicating petty corruption, it is sometimes argued that corruption
has changed shape in Georgia in recent years. For example, it has been
suggested that, while the country suffered from rampant and all-encompassing
corruption until 2003, presently, a "clientelistic system" has emerged where the
country's leadership "allocates resources in order to generate the loyalty and
support it needs to stay in power". It has also been suggested that there are
significant opportunities for "cronyism and insider deals" because of the
"concentration of power among a small and interwoven circle of individuals". The
fact that Georgian society is generally characterised by a low level of confidence in
public institutions and instead dominated by more traditional, informal relations
could be a contributing factor here (together with the general weakness of the
government's internal system of checks and balances and of external watchdogs).
As it was rightly pointed out in the OECD Anti-Corruption Network's 2010
report, most of the existing studies on corruption in Georgia focus on perceptions,
while little research has been done
regarding the "levels, forms, types,
manifestations and location of corrupt practices". The Georgian government is

advised to sponsor research aiming to "qualify and quantify" corruption as it would
provide reliable information to "inform, trigger and monitor policy change". To date,
no such effort has been undertaken.
According
to
Transparency
International
Georgia's
Global
Corruption Barometer in 2012 in Georgia, nepotism in the public sector remains a

concern (Transparency International, 2013). The change of government that
followed the 2012 parliamentary election has been accompanied by noteworthy
145
new trends in public service and in discourse of informal relationships (nepotism).

From 1st November 2012 to 1st March 2013, 4089 people were dismissed from
public service.6
The Prime Minister of Georgia, Bidzina Ivanishvili, explains nepotism in
government as derived from the Georgian character. According to him, it is better
to prioritise appointing people to vacant positions via competition; however,
choosing staff based on friendship or family connections comes naturally to
Georgians and there is nothing terrible about this7.
Paternalism vs. Partnership

One of the pillars of public service is the development and implementation of
an optimal model for human resource management. Implementation of modern
principles
for
human
resource
management
can
increase
administrative
effectiveness, decrease costs and improve service delivery. General principles and
strategies for managing human resources in public service are in the process of
development. Systems for sharing databases and information about services,
methods and decisions necessary for managing human resources in public service
are not perfect. The optimal model for human resource management in public
service implies a formal and flexible system for career development.
Results
One of the pillars of public service management strategies is the
establishment of a set of clearly defined criteria for measuring success. The
establishment of success-measurement criteria, and their existence made evident
to employees, determines the effectiveness and development of public servants
and public service as a whole.
Our survey results demonstrate that career development is based on
unwritten rules; discussion of this issue is taboo and limited to very general and
6
Source: financial.ge - Georgian news website - http://www.financial.ge/Main_News/%E1

In this sense, Georgian Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili stated: We shouldnt forget our
Georgian spirit, what kind of people we are, and you shouldnt expect to transform a society in five
minutes. When I say two decades, even that is too little; and you shouldnt expect me to perform
some magic tricks and bring such people that well start a new style of living. If someone knows a
person, who is a professional, knows about their experience, knows that they are honest and trusts
them, there is nothing terrible in this. I do not believe that this is a distortion. However, I believe that
it is better to have a competition in any case, and as a result of the competition find someone better
than them. (Kakheti Informational Centre, 2013).
7
146
stereotypical answers. While discussing career development criteria, employees

often refer to the issue of showing off in front of a head person. There is virtually
no practice of giving scores to employees based on their performance and
documenting those scores for use in promotion. Career development depends on
the relationship with and observation of a department head: "there are no written
rules. It is the task of a department head to observe the performance of
employees: who is more competent, qualified etc. It depends on an evaluation and
appraisal done by the head" (one of the respondents).
Meritocratic principles of management, as mentioned above, do not just
involve the formalisation and general adoption of criteria for success; the main
indicator is the existence of a model for the identification and measurement of
knowledge, experience and professionalism that is open and obvious for public
service employees.
The research revealed that the criteria for career progression and success
conforming to meritocratic principles are not clearly formed in public service.
Discourse on it shows that public servant reflection on this subject is superficial.
According to the respondents, there are no formal norms for career
progression. Public servants are mostly selected for promotion spontaneously,
probably based on their qualifications, experience and on how much they show
their expertise in the process of work: "[N]o documents are created stating that the
employee can be evaluated in such-and-such a way; it does not happen this way,
but on the basis of observation by and relationship with the manager. The
manager can make observations: who does a certain job better, who is more
competent, etc." (one of the respondents). Unlike common employees of the
ministry, officials occupying higher positions (deputy ministers, departmental
heads) better realise the importance of formalising the criteria and admit their
absence in the public service at this stage: There isnt a career development plan
for each employee, but just at the moment the HR department is working out a
career development plan. It will mainly depend on evaluations, the quality of their
work, their skills (one of the respondents).
As the extracts from the interviews show, due to the lack of formalised
criteria for career success, they are replaced by subjective manager evaluation,
i.e. the commonly accepted selection criteria are very general and their
identification is based on individual interpretation, allowing for a non-objective,
147
informal approach. Consequently, according to the research results, work quality

and efficiency evaluations carried out by public servants must become more
standardised and formalised. Non-formalised selection criteria are employed not
only in the promotion process in public service, but also at the commencement of
employment at the initial stage of ones career. In addition, public service
organises employment competitions, yet our respondents failed to identify public
servants employed at their department as a result of these competitions. The
dominant discourse on this topic is as follows: "not many people have been taken
on in our department as a result of a competition... There hasnt been a
competition in our department since Ive been here" (one of the respondents).
Public servants occupying higher positions are much better informed about
employment competitions. According to them, competitions for positions in
ministries are rather common, in some ministries even about three vacancies a
month on average and their principles for the competitions are - transparency and
equal accessibility.
Those public servants with limited information about employment
competitions, or those stating that their department contains no staff employed in
this fashion, emphasise that employment occurs the following way - staff is
appointed mainly by the manager, based on recommendations, without any
competitions: "It mainly happens based on recommendations again and again.
This is not strange or unknown to anybody. Staff are not selected from outside,
i.e., it happens on the basis of a recommendation (one of the respondents).
Providing a recommendation is a modern form of favouritism. This practice
is considered positive as it is assumed that the individual granting a
recommendation is impartial as No one will give a recommendation for a narrowminded
person
just
because
of
favouritism.
An
individual
granting
recommendation evaluates professional and personal skills because it is important

to consider whether a person is capable of fulfilling an assigned task or not. But in
same time in the opinion of respondents it is obvious that one prefers ones own
talented person to an outsider.
As a result of public sector reform in 2005, a number of job openings were
announced. Different information dissemination methods were applied to inform
society about available vacancies. According to the survey carried out from
September-October, 2005, vacancies were filled with applicants that learned about
148
job openings through relatives, friends and acquaintances, rather than through
mass media institutions (Charkviani, 2006). The survey results allow us to argue
that there is a positive causal relationship between the source of job vacancy
information and the chance of applicant employment. Comparative analysis of the
2005 survey results demonstrates that this trend persists. Based on these
outcomes, is obvious that 83% of respondents did not participate in an open call.
In the period from 2003 to 2012 the state implemented a number of projects
to improve staff recruitment mechanisms8. The research results show that despite
all the formal changes, the informal practices in the stuff recruitment system of
public service do not lose their relevance. The majority of those surveyed were
appointed to their respective positions based on recommendations (See the
Appendix for some examples of answers to this particular question).
These examples demonstrate that employment in public service also occurs
on the basis of unclear criteria since it depends on the managers decision, as it
does in the case of promotion. This manner of employing staff reinforces the
importance of informal connections and their influence in public service. It is
important to emphasise the problem of informal relations, as it is a distinctive
indicator of the principles opposing meritocracy. Public servants, naturally, avoid
discussing the subject of employment and promotion on the basis of friendly or
family relationships; we have therefore created projective questions on this topic,
which revealed the following discourse: No one ever talks about this openly.
Nobody talks about who appointed who or where, on whose recommendation, etc.
It is a taboo topic; anyway, it is normally discussed off-stage (one of the
respondents).
A group of civil servants that confirm the existence of formal criteria for
career development in public service note that criteria for promotion are defined,
8
For example: Introduction and enhancement of E-governance systems - Taking into account the
fast paced development of information technologies, introduction and development of e-governance
systems within the Georgian Public Service is one of the priorities for the country. The government
has been actively working in this direction since 2009 and have been implementing a number of
successful e-governance projects. Web-platform for competitions within the Public
Service www.hr.gov.ge In June 2011, an internet portal for employment with the Public Service
was launched. In accordance with the legislative amendments, all agencies, funded through the
state budget, are obliged to post announcements concerning all vacant job postings through this
web-site only. Anyone looking for jobs can register at the web-site, fill out a resume, search for a job
and apply online. The system simplifies the procedures for announcing the competition as well as
for participating in competitions.
149
established, assessed and put into practice by the administration. In addition,

another aspect that should be mentioned is the lack of interest and information
regarding this issue among civil servants. Respondents argue that civil servants
indifference toward the absence of clearly defined criteria for promotion is due the
system itself. They think the system is non-competitive. A general policy of
reducing the number of staff causes absence of new positions, also the motivation
to move one step up on a career ladder is quite low; it increases in responsibility
while positive salary gains remain minor. There are no major complaints and
interest is quite superficial. According to a statement, there is a clear difficulty
regarding the career advancement: Unfortunately our office does not provide any
opportunities for career advancement. It took me 10 years to become a senior
specialist from a leading specialist position; in other words, I was in the same chair
for quite long time. In general, what are real promotion opportunities for me now?!!
(one of the respondents). One of the aspects behind this sentiment is the lack of
personal contacts necessary for advancement - career advancement is difficult
due its dependence on who has better contacts. It does not relate to how smart
you are and how much you deserve it. Someone has to push you forward (one of
the respondents).
According to the research results, the adaptation strategy dominant among
Georgian civil servants is oriented toward gaining protection and patronage in
exchange for subordination, obedience, loyalty and supervisor dependency.
Paternalism is spread in every level of public service. While evaluating their
supervisor, civil servants often refer to an individual as a guardian: A
departmental head should be in good relations with subordinates, should take
everyones case close to heart, should care for the well-being of employees,
should be understanding to everyones situation, should be considerate of every
employees situation, should be human, first of all, should have human
character, should be philanthropic, should be kind etc. Looking at the personal
characterizations, there is a clear dominance of informal relations, a feature of the
paternalistic relationship between supervisors and subordinates.
Paternalism and partnership are models of attitudes and relationships
between supervisors and subordinates. Paternalistic attitude is to replace formal,
contract-based norms with those that are informal (nepotism, friendship,
acquaintance etc.); partnership, on the contrary, prioritises formal regulations.
150
Paternalism is beneficial for both parties involved. Formal, contract-based

legal norms are replaced with non-formal norms based on personal contacts. A
subordinates dependence on a supervisor is a crucial aspect of paternalism. This
relationship is beneficial for paternalistic civil servants because it helps them to
delegate responsibility for defining and implementing life strategies; it also aids in
the avoidance of decision-making in difficult situations.
Partnership
between
subordinates
and
supervisors
is
opposite
to
paternalism. In an ideal setting, the following preconditions are to be found:

formalisation of working relations (job contracts, strict discipline standards),
consideration of professional qualifications, employee education specialisation and
managerial readiness to consider employee equality (regarding the delegation of
responsibilities and rights, encouragement of participation in decision-making
processes, policy of no-interference in the process of performance and the private
lives of employees).
When a supervisor takes all responsibility, they demonstrate distrust toward
employees and develop of model of non-partnership business relations,
establishing paternalism. Dependence of a subordinate on a departmental head is
therefore strengthened, empowering the latter beyond the frames defined and
granted by law. Paternalism is widely seen in the lower levels of public institutions,
but it is also practised in business relations at the higher echelons of their
hierarchical structure. Every managerial level that is not able to fulfil responsibilities
assigned and granted to it by law, delegates its own rights to an upper level. Power
is thus concentrated in upper levels and only high level officials can make
decisions. The decision-making process is therefore closed and opaque (not
transparent). Escaping responsibility is beneficial for both the civil servant and the
head manager. Therefore, principles of centralised management dominate in public
service institutions.
The decision-making process and criteria for assessing the quality of

performance and effectiveness of civil servants
According to modern management theory, making informed decisions is the
main objective of a managerial unit. In order to achieve this goal, it is
fundamentally important to establish mobile and flexible mechanisms for
information exchange and open communication within the organisation. In order to
151
increase the effectiveness of the decision-making process, it is important to ensure

regular and effective information exchange among all levels of employees. The
communication climate (environment) between them impacts this exchange.
Distrust and confrontation between departmental heads and employees hampers
the exchange of required information. An atmosphere (environment) of trust, on the
contrary, increases the flow of crucial information and supports rising managerial
effectiveness. Making impartial decisions is only possible when one has all
necessary information; communication is one of the methods for collecting such
data.
A departmental head should study quantitative and qualitative aspects of
his/her demand for informationas well as that of employees so as to be able to
regulate its flow. This study will help him/her to identify what is too much and too
little exchanged information. Improvement of the system of feedback ensures
prompt identification of mistakes in information exchange processes and helps to
correct them. Information plays an important role in diagnosing problems occurring
in working processes, though it should be comprehensive and precise. Experience
is one of the factors that influence the perception of information. Frequently,
information that contradicts previous experience is partlyor sometimes even
fullyrejected or distorted based on this particular experience. In the process of
communication, information is exchanged to allow for informed decisions followed
by the implementation of these decisions. Objectives are achieved only when
decisions are divided into particular tasks and assigned to particular employees.
According to modern management theories, organisations with a high level
of decentralisation retain relatively open and democratic structuresthe decisionmaking process is transparent and, in a number of cases, is more effective than
those organisations with a higher degree of centralisation. Therefore, a high level
of decentralisation between different units is extremely important to ensure a
balance of power and control in public service institutions. A participatory decisionmaking process supports the involvement of different units and ensures
transparency of the process.
In centralised structures, senior officials rarely monitor everyday decisions
made by their subordinate managers. Evaluation is carried out based on final
outcomes. An effective functioning mechanism for control ensures the prompt
identification, response, elimination and prevention of errors in working processes.
152
Those focusing their research on the importance of human relations in

management argue that supervisors and subordinates alike can effectively monitor
the management process. A decentralised, organisational, structure in public
service is directly linked to the establishment of effective monitoring mechanisms
and the division of labour: assigning different tasks to relevant specialists in order
to achieve better results. Division of labour has a long history. Rational
division/allocation of labour is one of the most important issues in management,
which can guarantee the effective performance of an organisation. Allocation of
tasks in public service is achieved via the horizontal division of rights and
responsibilities; the hierarchical character of this division creates a foundation for
monitoring one anothers performance. Vertical division of labour in an organisation
creates hierarchical levels of management. A senior official remains most
responsible for the implementation of management principles in public service.
Academics/scientists of contemporary management define a head/manager as a
set of behavior roles that is adequate for an institution or a particular position
(Mitzberg, 2004).
Managerstake on different roles as they are appointed to a particular
position in a particular department; this appointment/position defines their
behaviour at work. Naturally, personal characteristics influence their acting as
managers, but not its content. Accordingly, managers and actors play predefined
roles that they interpret with their own personal touch based on their
characteristics.
A civil servants interpretation of subordination excludes participation in the
decision-making processone cannot question tasks already assigned. My
subordinate has to fulfil the task that he/she is assigned to and, I think, that it
should not be discussed. Also, when I get assignments from my supervisors, it
should be done, no matter what are the principles (one of the respondents). The
problem in this context is not only biased judgment of a civil servants performance
by a supervisor, but also a lack of quality control. The only criteria for quality
control named by respondents are that assignment should be done on time.
Contradictory ideas were also expressed as relevant practices were
illustrated: We discuss issues with our head and accordingly make decisions (one
of the respondents). The decision-making process in public service is not
homogenous and is not based on common principles, which is acknowledged,
153
shared and implemented by all managers. Delegation of rights and responsibilities

in public service should ensure decentralisation of the decision-making process.
Decentralisation of public service is the foundation for establishing a transparent,
open and merit-based structure in an organisation.
The decision-making process in public service contains signs of
centralisation. Though public service is a hierarchical system, decentralisation here
is referred to as making decisions in every unit within the framework of rights and
responsibilities to which it is assigned. Civil servants often try to explain exclusion
from the decision-making process due to hierarchy and subordination.
Decision-making
is
linked
to
responsibilitythe
prerogative
of
departmental head. Accordingly, when we are discussing the job descriptions of

different positions in public service, elaborating on rights and responsibilities, we
are only left with responsibilities, while all rights de facto are transferred to a
departmental head. The boundaries between rights and responsibilities thus
become vague. This is a factor that may hamper effective performance at work.
Civil servants become mere executors rather than employees responsible for their
actions. Unhealthy business relations are established between departmental heads
and employees.
Merit-based management is challenged by the lack of clearly defined criteria
in the public service domain. Employee performance assessment is based on both
standardised
and
organised
mechanisms
in
well-functioning
formalised
bureaucraciesit neutralises any impartiality that a manager might have. In wellestablished bureaucracies, civil servant performance is evaluated based on the
following criteria: knowledge/competence, quality of
productivity, initiative,
leadership skills, supervising skills etc. Establishment of an effective system of

evaluation that is known and shared by employees improves organisational culture
and sense of accountability.
Impartial assessment of performance is directly linked to, and has a positive
effect
on
motivation.
Establishment
of
an
evaluation
system
improves
communication and identifies factors that support, as well as challenge, the

working process. It also identifies topics for future trainings. As mentioned above,
showing off in front of a departmental head is one of the factors that determine
career advancement.
154
Survey results confirm that a direct supervisor primarily assesses civil

servant performance. Assessment of a supervisor is not monitored and cannot be
appealed by an employee. We do not have a formalised evaluation system. It is
done informally based on observation of a direct supervisor and other officials
(one of the respondents).
The rank and file do not participate in the quality evaluation process. At the
same time, monitoring one anothers performance is considered unethical and
immoral by civil servants. Therefore, the evaluation system is a closed system; it is
not discussed publicly. Similar to other closed systems, relevant discussions are
held in lobbies and behind closed doors. As long as civil servants do not monitor
one anothers performance, evaluation of performance is not open and is not
publicly discussed. However, it must be mentioned that monitoring one another is
one of the more important factors that help to improve a systems quality of
performance. Monitoring and evaluation create a relatively open and impartial
system for career advancement. There is no monitoring between employees; a
head of department monitors your performance, how well you fulfil assigned tasks.
I have never heard of a colleague [standing on a same career ladder step] doing
monitoring (one of the respondents). Absence of formal performance assessment
criteria extends and exaggerates the role of a head. Civil servants have a good
understanding of this situation and accordingly find interference by a departmental
head in their work a regular occurrence. Discussion regarding cases of unfair
interference by departmental heads in employee duties does not occur. Moreover,
concepts of fair and unfair interference are not differentiated. Any interference by a
departmental head is considered fair: there is no way my supervisor treats me
unfairly in the case that I follow the law. I had 25 different supervisors and none of
them were bad, none of them intervened unfairly (one of the respondents).
As it was difficult for civil servants to present examples of unfair interference
in their work, we asked them to imagine a hypothetical situation and discuss the
steps they would take to protect their rights. It must be noted that our respondents
had difficulties even imagining the situation and were quite reluctant to discuss
their reaction. As a result of repeated questioning on this issue, we may argue that
civil servants are reluctant to name cases of rights violations. Moreover, they do
not see any effective mechanism through which to react to these violationsthe
only optimal outcome is to quit. Fighting for protection of ones rights is considered
155
non-effective. In rights violations, adjusting to ones situation is seen as preferable

to opposing action. I never had an experience of violation of labour rights. Where
is injustice solved? There might be special departments for that (one of the
respondents).
The fact that civil servants consider inter-monitoring activities in a negative
light increases the intensity and occurrence of non-formal mechanisms in public
service. When a monitoring system is weak and protection of rights is not
considered a relevant issue, it is impossible to manage an office based on merit.
Civil servants do not attempt to protect their rights and neither do they appeal to
formal institutions, e.g., courts, and do not feel obligated or responsible to react to
a co-workers violation made regarding the work process. One trend can be
identified in the answers to the following question: What will you do, if you become
aware that one of your colleagues makes a decision based on his/her personal
interests? The resulting trend reveals that civil servants prefer to react informally.
In particular, one of the reactions is to give friendly advice; if it is not effective, they
restrain themselves from further action - What will I do? I might advise my
colleague not to do it. Nothing else. (one of the respondents). A number of civil
servants think that it is acceptable to inform a departmental head regarding the
ineffectiveness in an informal discussion. At the same time, misbehaviour by a
colleague, if it is his/her first time, is considered forgivable. First of all, I will tell the
person that it is wrong and unacceptable. In case he/she does it again and I think
that it harms the work, then I will tell the department head. Also making sure that
the person knows about it, so it is not behind his/her back (one of the
respondents).
Based on the situations described above, we may assert that civil servants
put their personal interests above public ones and may misuse the power granted
to them by law.
Teamwork is considered an important factor in guaranteeing success in a
modern organisation. Discussion regarding teamwork provides an opportunity for
one to further expand on the issues of informal relationships and to illustrate their
effectiveness. Apropos civil servants shortfall awareness of meritocratic principles
of teamwork, team spirit is interpreted and understood in a clan context.
Respondents use the latter in a positive connotation while discussing the issue:
There are many cases of a department head leaving the office and taking his/her
156
team along if he/she trusts them . . . I had an experience when a head told me
wherever I go, whatever position I take, you have to be by my side. Accordingly, it
is a team work! I know many cases of people leaving this place, getting appointed
as heads and taking 4-5 others with them. There were similar cases (one of the
respondents).
Conclusions
The main aim of this article was the description of strategies for public
service management and analyses of factors assisting/hindering the formation of
the new type of management - meritocracy. A sociological approach involved a
review of social institutions and management principles in the context of a
transforming state and society by means of analysis of connected theories,
relevant written sources, in-depth and narrative interviews. The research revealed
following tendencies/findings: (1)The contemporary managerial system of public
service is seen as a system based on particular personalities rather than a nonpersonal, non-unified system; (2) Georgian public service practises senior public
official replacement, thus supporting the argument that there is an increased bias
in the evaluation process and leaves no sustainable and predictable development
environment for public servants; (3)The practice of employee evaluation creates an
environment that is mainly defined by external factors and varies in circumstances.
Institutional management strategy is weak and poorly developed. The environment
is created by a newly appointed head and not by an open, formal, well-established
system of public service. It demonstrated that there is a lack of structure and a
dominance of personal and circumstantial approaches in public service; (4)Survey
results demonstrate that career development is based on "unwritten rules";
accordingly, discussion of this issue is taboo and limited to very general and
stereotypical answers. While discussing career development criteria, employees
often refer to the issue of "showing off in front of a head person"; (5) The criteria for
career progression and success conforming to meritocratic principles are not
clearly formed in public service, and discourse on it shows that public servants
reflection on the subject is superficial; (6)Giving a recommendation is a modern
form of favouritism; (7) The civil servant performance evaluation system is a closed
systemit is not publicly discussed. Similar to other closed systems, relevant
discussions are held in lobbies and behind closed doors; (8) Absence of formal
157
criteria to assess performance extends the role of a head and exaggerates it. Civil
servants have a good understanding of this situation and find interference by a
departmental head in their work a regular occurrence; (9) Civil servants are
reluctant to name cases of rights violations. Moreover, they do not see any
effective mechanism through which one may react to these violations. The only
optimal outcome, therefore, is to quit; (10) Civil servants are not aware of the
meritocratic principles of teamwork; team spirit is interpreted and understood in a
clan context; (11) Power is concentrated in the upper echelons of employment
where decisions are left solely with high officials. Accordingly, the decision-making
process is closed and opaque. Escaping responsibility is beneficial for both the civil
servant and the head. Principles of centralised management dominate in public
service institutions.
In the contemporary transitional Georgian environment, with the inherited
general mistrust of Soviet-type institutions at a time when formal democratic social
institutions (formal and moral criteria of success) are still in the process of
development, informal factors (protectionism, nepotism, etc.) still largely determine
social-economic success. This is inconsistent with the ideological route declared by
the state.
The results of the research can be explained through the prism of Becks
approach in Theory of Risk Society (1992)9. It becomes possible to logically
explain that public servants artificially create a deficiency of legal opportunities,
which, in our case, is reflected in several ways: The absence of formalised/written
criteria for career success, the vagueness of existing informal criteria and the lack
of interest in them on the part of rank and file employees. These legal rights are
later sold in exchange for involvement in informal relations. In this way, a right is
transformed into a commodity, which is monopolised by the elite of state
bureaucracy.
According to Beck, modern informality is not intellectual capital from human and social
development; rather it is individual salvation in the conditions of general uncertainty and fear. The
negative logic of the risk society is motivated by the fear of uncertainty and is expressed in the
formula I am scared! An informal network requires an institute of mediators, which provides
security and retains market value. All activity is directed at transforming the formal/impersonal into
trustful/personal relationships, i.e., the return to archaic forms of social communication.
Institutionalisation of informality is at the same time the process of deinstitutionalisation of the state.
158
APPENDIX
The following quotes are relevant to illustrate the importance of informal

connections:
I used to work in a computer [IT] centre that closed down. This centre used to be
under the supervision of the ministry and after it was closed, a number of
employees were transferred to the ministry. I was one of them. I was
recommended by the head of human resource department in 2003 (one of the
respondents).
The head of one of the departments of the financial police told me that he wants
me there (one of the respondents).
Before Ms. Nino Enukidze was appointed as a Deputy Minister of Energy, she was
a head of legal department at the Ministry of Economy and I was a senior
specialist at the department of protocol at the same ministry. After the new
minister was appointed I resigned as Ms. Enukidze proposed to be her assistant
Since I studied at the university I maintained contacts with those who were
employed in different public service offices and that determined my involvement in
public service (one of the respondents).
Mr. Aleko needed someone for my position. At that time he was the first deputy
minister. He needed someone experienced who also knew [foreign] languages.
My wife was working in the same office and she told me that there is an opening
at Mr. Alekos office and I had an interview with him (one of the respondents).
The chairman himself proposed to take a position. I was on a same position in
Chamber of Control and was transferred here when new parliament was elected
I have a long-term acquaintance with the department, since I studied at the
university. I personally knew the minister since I was a student due to activities I
was involved in as a student. In general, they knew about me and appointed me
to this position (one of the respondents).
The supervisor of my medical internship introduced me, thats how I was
employed at the Ministry of Health (one of the respondents).
159
REFERENCES
Beck, Ulrich. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage, 1992.
Bell, Daniel. The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting.
New York: Basic Books, 1973.
Bendukidze, Kakha. There is no other way. Tabula. 2012, March, 29. Retrieved
October
2013
from
http://www.tabula.ge/ge/story/58634-sxva-gza-ar-
arsebobs
Bokeria, Giga. We will build our Country! Asaval-dasavali. 2004, 27 December 2005, 9 January. Retrieved October 2013 from
http://www.for.ge/view.php?for_id=23552&cat=14
Bozeman, Barry. Bureaucracy and Red Tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 1999.
Blau, Peter. The Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963.
Blau, Peter M. and Duncan, Otis D. The American occupational structure. New
York: Wiley and Sons, 1967.
Charkviani, Tamar. Influence of Informal Practises on Labour Relations in
Governmental Institutions. Collection of works Prospects of Development
for Georgia Published by: Caucasus University and Friedrich Ebert
Foundation. Tbilisi, 2006.
Crozier, Michel. The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1964.
De Waal, Thomas. Georgia's Choices Charting a Future in Uncertain Times. The
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 2011.
Engvall, John. Against the Grain: How Georgia Fought Corruption and What It
Means. Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program A
Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center. 2012. (Authors interviews
with representative of Georgian Young Lawyers Union, Tbilisi, September
12, 2011 and foreign experts, Tbilisi, September 13 and 14, 2011).
Gajduschek, Gyorgy. Bureaucracy: Is it efficient? Is it not? Is that the question?
Administration & Society, vol. 34, 6: pp. 700-723, 2003, January.
Kupatadze, Alexander. Explaining Georgias Anti-Corruption Drive, European
Security, vol. 21, no. 1 (2012), pp. 16-36.
160
Kupatadze, Alexander. Organized Crime, Political Transformations and State

Formation in Post-Soviet Eurasia. 2012.
Kakheti Informational Centre. Ivanishvili about nepotism - we are georgiana ... we
can love and makes friends. 2013, February, 05. Retrieved October 2013
from http://ick.ge/rubrics/politics/13553-2013-02-05-11-38-37.html
Khorbaladze, Tamar. Revolutionary slogans in Georgia are still topical. 24 Saati
pp. 1. 2005, April 14.
Kleinig, John. Paternalism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1983.
Kodua, Eduard, et al. (Eds). Dictionary/Directory of Social and Political Terms.
Publisher: Lasha Beraia. Tbilisi, Logos Press, 2004-351 p. Series of Social
Sciences. Editor: Marine Chtashvili.
Kordzaia, Tamar. Freedom of information and internet regulation in Georgia.
Institute for Development of Freedom of Information. Retrieved June 2011
from http://www.idfi.ge/?cat=researches&lang=en&topic=34&header=
Margvelashvili, George. Three descriptions of distorted bureaucracy. Rezonansi
pp. 4. 2005, February 1.
Matthais, Jobelius. Georgias authoritarian liberalism, in Gernot Erler et al, South
Caucasus - 20 Years of Independence . Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2011. pp.
77-91.
Mintzberg, Henry. Managers, not MBAs: a hard look at the soft practice of
managing and management development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc. 2004.
Polanyi, Karl. The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our
time. New York: Ferrar & Rinehart, 1944.
Smith, Ken, G., Carroll, Stephen, J. and Ashford, Susan, J. Intra- and
interorganizational cooperation: Toward a research agenda. Academy of
Management Journal, 38, 723, 1995.
Stefes, Christoph H. Autoritare Parteien und Kooperation im Kaukasus und auf
dem Balkan. Berliner Debatte Initial. Volume 21 (3). 2010, p. 100-112.
The Constitution of Georgia, Chapter 2, Article 41, Part 1. (Adopted on 24 August
1995. Last amendment 27 December 2006).
Tonnies, Ferdinand. Community and society. New York: Harper, 1987.
U.N. Resolution A/RES/59(1), para. 1.
161
Transparency International. National Integrity System-Georgia (NIS) Report 2011.

Retrieved
October
2013
http://transparency.ge/nis/2011/introduction/corruption-profile#ftn2
Transparency International Georgia. Global Corruption Barometer (GCB). 2013.
Retrieved October 2013 from http://transparency.ge/en/node/900
Von Bismarck, Otto. Bismarck's reichstag speech on the law for workers'
compensation, 1884, March.
Voslensky,
Michael.
(Ed). Nomenklatura:
The
soviet
ruling
class. Trans.
Mosbacher, E. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984.

Weber, Max and Roth, Guenther., Wittich, Claus (Eds.) Economy and Society.
N.Y.: Bedminster, 1968.
Weber, Max. The theory of social and economic organization. New York: The Free
Press. 1947
Whiston, Susan. C, and Rahardja, Daryn. Qualitative career assessment: An
overview and analysis. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 371-380, 2005.
Ziller, Jacques and Peters, Guy B., Pierre, Jon (Eds). The continental system of
administrative legality. Handbook of Public Administration. London: Sage,
2003.
,
. : " "
. "", 1991.
162

Post-Soviet Georgia in The Process of Transformation-Modernization Challenges in Public Service

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Post-Soviet Georgia in The Process of Transformation-Modernization Challenges in Public Service

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Romanian Journal of Political Science.