The Metro Manila(MM) water crisis not only has brought to the fore the difficulty the residents are being subjected to in different manner, shape and form, but it has also magnified the importance of a sustainable water supply from concessionaires, who in turn are dependent of their sources that is governed, managed and controlled by, supposedly, responsible government agencies.
Perhaps being more concern that it is an election year, the knee-jerk reaction of the Duterte administration, to assuage the gloomy feelings of the MM electorate, is to immediately propose the creation of a Department of Water (DOW).
Reportedly, the DOW is envisioned to have jurisdiction over the functions currently assigned to several agencies including the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, the Bureau of Soils and Water Management, National Irrigation Administration, Local Water Utilities Administration, National Water Resources Board and Laguna Lake Development Authority.
But do we really have to create another layer of bureaucracy over all these agencies just so water supply dilemma of this proportion happening in MM won’t recur?
Having all these agencies established and designed by government to either function dependently or independently of one another for sourcing, treatment and distribution of water have been thought of and studied well to serve the well being of the people in this country.
So, where and why have we failed disastrously this time after all these years?
If one looks at the mandate of these agencies, which can very well be described in their mission and vision statements, all is geared towards giving the best service to the people with competency, efficiency and integrity. Take time looking, for instance, at the mandate given the National Water and Resources Board (NWRB), a government agency responsible for the management of water resources in the country and you will know what I mean. I am making NWRB as an example because it has a responsibility that impacts importantly the water security all over the country.
But while the office is always characterized as such, the same cannot be said all the time of the people tasked to run the office.
Don’t get me wrong. There are very educated and highly capable people to run a department, but if such individual has the tendency to macromanage all the time, especially in service oriented organizations, then sometime or another that individual will fail. Leaving their employees too much on their own is a guaranteed recipe for failure.
Macromanaging can lead to inefficiency on the part of employees in regards to time spend on the job, work completed, and who they seek out for answers. I am not saying that micromanaging is a better style of management because it does more harm to the morale of the employees.
What I am just saying is that at the end of the day the head of the organization has to be on top of what is happening in his department so that proper guidance and direction can be adequately instituted, if needed.