The privatization of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) has a lot of employees worried about finding themselves suddenly downsized, the popular euphemism these days for being out of a job. Employment for all of one's working life, the so-called iron rice bowl that being hired by a government organization was supposed to guarantee, can no longer be taken for granted. The same is true of employment within government administrative agencies. In addition to the radical downsizing of the Taiwan provincial government slated to be completed within a few months, the huge executive branch is also working to reduce its staffing levels.
Even though a great many people are fighting to save their jobs, there is a flip side to this: many others are leaving SOEs and government slots by personal choice. Government employment, for decades seen as one of the island's best career options, is losing its luster. The result is a brain drain. Many division chiefs and other managers within the government system are now asking "How can we attract good people, and how can we keep them?"
The worry may seem surprising. After all, a government position has strong perks. Once one passes the appropriate civil service exam, it is almost impossible to be fired. Much of the cutting currently under way hits senior people who can opt for reasonably good early-retirement packages or those who have been hired but have yet to pass the exam (a substantial percent age of the total). True, government salary scales are not particularly high, but health and housing benefits, educational support for children, transportation allowances, discount stores for employees, subsidized meals, and a host of other perks make the job choice attractive. And female employees say that the so-called glass ceiling that still puts limits on promotion in much of the private sector has been raised at least a bit. So why leave?
The answer is, a large percentage do not. What is new these days is that many of the best and the brightest who previously considered their selection of a government job to be a positive career move--dedicated people who wanted to get ahead in their lives and careers--are looking elsewhere. They leave for an assortment of reasons. A major one is money, of course. Top ability can attract top dollar. So financial wizards these days don't look for a career, say, in the Securities and Exchange Commission or a state-owned financial institution, they head for a new local or international bank.
But more than money is involved across the spectrum of government employment. A shift to the private sector is considered a smart professional move, because government agencies are seen as falling behind the times, mired in badly dated operations procedures and unattractive personnel policies that put more emphasis on longevity on the job and passing a series of largely irrelevant examinations than on expertise. If one is young, smart, and experienced, a government position doesn't seem to offer enough returns, challenges, or career development potential.
These problems are not unique to Taiwan, of course, but like other countries, they can be mitigated by revamped personnel policies. This is an exercise worth undertaking soon. The government cannot continue to assume, as in the past, that the best people will seek it out, then stay. Recruitment and retention policies need to be recast to fit the times. Much is at stake.
For instance, national leaders have been urging people to make Taiwan more internationally competitive. But in recent years, the international rating schemes have consistently pointed out that the government itself lacks competitive punch. As one long-time foreign resident who specializes in financial matters recently put it: "The government is losing leadership and competence by the brain drain to the private sector."
This is particularly worrisome for Taiwan, because it is trying to revamp its regulatory environment in such a way to attract investment in its APROC plan, intended to make the island a regional center for manufacturing, media, finance, air and sea transportation, and telecommunications. Closely related to this plan are hundreds of major infrastructure projects, from municipal incinerators to airports and science parks, all geared to provide the upgraded services needed in the coming century.
Goals are useful, but they require government software to achieve, namely, good people. But consider the complexities involved with enforcing the regulations for all these new projects. A case in point is the high-speed rail along Taiwan's western coast. A new regulatory system is needed to govern this train's operations, based on legislatively mandated requirements, because the old ones, which governed everything from grade crossings and road-bed standards, were designed for slower-moving steam, oil-burning, or electric trains. The high-speed rail system poses different problems. Moreover, it will require an extensive support infrastructure of specially trained and certified safety inspectors, high-tech repair staff, and computer specialists. Can the government attract such people in sufficient numbers? A lot of new people will have to be in place before passengers can make that first ninety-minute trip from Taipei to Kaohsiung.
More focus needs to be put on attracting highly skilled, motivated people. Higher salaries and more performance-based benefits would help, as would increased opportunities for professional growth. If the government wants to boost competitiveness, it has to offer its employees a better deal. For many people, the government's rice bowl is just too small.