The debate between public scolding (often termed “naming and shaming”) and collaborative correction represents a critical fault line in modern governance, pitting immediate accountability against long-term, systemic improvement.
“Average players want to be left alone. Good players want to be coached. Great players want to be told the truth.” — Doc Rivers.
The Impact of Public Scolding and Shaming:
Public shaming is often used as a tool for accountability, particularly against powerful figures. However, research suggests it frequently backfires, provoking defiance, instigating nationalist sentiment, and causing resistance rather than reform.
The Philosophers’ Magazine –
“Shaming was often counterproductive… it incites backlash, provoking resistance, and worsening human rights practices.” — Rochelle Terman, Political Scientist.
“Shaming… can lead to severe consequences such as threats and harassment… The emotions [it creates] can last for a lifetime.” — Research Npreparedpublic shaming is truly ‘a public, collective punishment… without even having interrogated the other four constraints,’ then all information is relevant to determining that person’s personhood.’ By pure design, then, public shaming would never be morally justifiable.” — Journal of Philosophy.
“Usually we can support our points without [public shaming]… we can do so in ways that are kinder, more honest, and more likely to make intellectual progress.” — Russell Blackford.
“Praise in public; criticize in private.” — Vince Lombardi.
“Governance Collaborative correction is centered on trust, shared objectives, and constructive feedback, aiming to solve complex policy issues without destroying the actor’s reputation or triggering defensive reactions.” Wiley Online Library
“Collaboration means respectful debate grounded in facts, where all members are permitted to speak freely and without intimidation. Collaboration does not mean silence or forced compliance.” — Adirondack Daily Enterprise.
“Feedback is a gift, and it’s always better to praise in public and punish in private. Leaders should always be developing other leaders.” — Lt. Col. Charles Buchanan.
“We must learn to speak with each other in a language that uplifts and heals, not condemnation that belittles the soul: – Dr. Anthony Fallah Swaray, Saimplementingnnesota, Trained Non-Profit and Project Management Guru.
“Criticism, like rain, should be gentle enough to nourish a man’s growth without destroying his roots.” — Frank A. Clark.
“Collaborative governance needs to be more than calling on the advice and competence of others… governance involves seeking how God is revealing his work through others in the execution of community.” — Blase J. Cupich.
“We must know that the essence of public policy is to uplift everyone, not only those in utopia but also those in the slums of society: Hon. Edward Wesee, Hamline Methodist University, Trained Public and Private Policy Expert.
“When the people become involved in their government, government becomes more accountable, and our society is stronger, more compassionate, and better prepared for the challenges of the future.” — Arnold Schwarzenegger.
“The growth and development of people is the highest calling of leadership.” — Harvey S. Firestone.
“An area of improvement to consider is the way you edit other people’s work. It would be helpful to explain why you updated something instead of changing it without context.” — Example of constructive, team-based correction.
“Instead of calling out people for mistakes in meetings because I know it can be embarrassing and isn’t the appropriate way to handle the situation.” — Example of self-correction for collaborative governance.
By: Austin S Fallah – A True Son of the Planet Earth Soil: [email protected].
In Liberia, a nation striving for democratic governance and effective public administration, the relationship between appointing authorities and their appointed officials is critical to developing sound public policy.
This relationship, however, can become fraught with tension, particularly when public policy missteps occur.
The pressing question remains: should the appointing authority publicly scold government officials for these missteps, or address the issue collaboratively?
In this adda, I will argue that public scolding through press releases not only serves to ridicule officials but also undermines their authority and that of the agencies involved.
Instead, a shift toward collaborative dialogue and uplifting correction is essential for fostering effective public policy in Liberia.
To begin with, it is necessary to evaluate the implications of public scolding by appointing authorities.
Public scolding, often expressed through press releases or public statements, may take the form of humiliation directed at appointed officials for perceived failures in the execution of public policy.
While the internet may stem from a desire to hold officials accountable, the repercussions are often damaging.
Such public reprimands can diminish morale, undermine agency authority, and fuel a culture of fear rather than accountability.
This creates an environment in which appointed officials may feel they are operating under constant scrutiny and risk, leading to a reluctance to innovate or take the necessary risks in policy formulation.
In many instances, public officials already face immense pressure to deliver effective results while navigating Liberia’s complex political landscape.
When they are publicly ridiculed, it can result in hesitancy in decision-making, stifling creativity and initiative.
Furthermore, publicly scolding officials sends a message to the broader public that their leaders are incapable of collaboration or support, which can erode trust in government institutions.
This lack of trust has far-reaching consequences, not only for governance but also for public engagement with and support for government initiatives.
On the other hand, when appointing authorities choose to convene conferences with their appointed officials to address public policy missteps, they create a space for dialogue and resolution.
Collaborative discussions provide a platform for officials to explain their decisions, reflect on failures, and develop solutions collectively.
By fostering a constructive atmosphere for discourse, appointing authorities empower their officials, enhancing their professional credibility and effectiveness.
This collaborative approach encourages ownership of decisions while reinforcing the authority and legitimacy of the agencies involved.
Moreover, calling for a conference cultivates a culture of mutual respect and cooperation rather than one of fear and public scorn.
In an environment that prioritizes open communication, appointed officials are more likely to feel supported and reassured, which increases their motivation to work diligently towards improving public policy outcomes.
By engaging in dialogue, appointing authorities can support their officials in solving problems directly, rather than exacerbating the situation through public shaming.
The practice of publicly rescinding decisions via press releases without prior consultation with the affected agencies is also problematic.
This approach not only insults the competence of appointed officials but also leads to confusion and a lack of clarity in governance.
It effectively creates an atmosphere of uncertainty, leaving agencies unsure of their standing and authority.
Rescinding decisions should ideally be a decision made jointly, allowing agencies to maintain their credibility.
Additionally, allowing appointed officials to recall a policy statement or document fosters responsibility and accountability, enabling them to learn from their mistakes while remaining supported by their appointing authorities.
Further, it is essential to consider the impact of public ridicule on the climate of public policy in Liberia.
Policy-making does not occur in a vacuum. It involves collaboration among various stakeholders, including government officials, societal groups, and, hopefully, citizens themselves.
When the appointing authority resorts to public scolding, it undermines the collaborative spirit necessary for effective policy-making.
Instead of fostering an environment where feedback is welcomed and constructive debate is encouraged, public ridicule can deter engagement from various sectors of society.
People may feel disheartened or unwilling to participate in discussions about public policy for fear of facing similar ridicule.
The principle of uplifting public policy should resonate profoundly in the context of governance in Liberia.
The shift from a culture of ridicule to one of uplift hinges on creating an environment where all individuals feel valued and respected, regardless of their level of government involvement.
This commitment to uplift can be particularly transformative when considering the immense potential for collaboration within agencies at all levels.
For example, inviting appointed officials to discuss lessons learned from missteps and opportunities for growth fosters a sense of community and shared purpose.
As a former President and Vice President of the Graduate Student Governance Association at Hamline University(Hamline University’s student body is predominantly white, comprising roughly 56–60% of total enrollment, with a significant and growing population of students of color (approximately 40–44%). The largest minority groups are Black or African American (approx. 10-12%) and Hispanic/Latino (approx. 10-13%).
As a practical, well-schooled leader in Public Administration-Policy (in government in Liberia and the US, county, state, and federal governments, and student governments), I have witnessed the tremendous impact a supportive environment can have on performance and motivation.
Government operates similarly; a culture off support can yield far more productive results than one based on humiliation.
Importantly, a shift toward a more uplifting and constructive approach to accountability has implications beyond the immediate context of public officials.
The public perception of govethe rnmethe nt is influenced not only by policy outcomes but also by the overarching culture and tone set by leadership.
If a government authority establishes an environment of positive reinforcement rather than derision, it encourages citizen engagement and fosters public trust.
Citizens are more likely to engage with and support government initiatives if they feel confident that their leaders are acting with integrity and respect toward their appointed officials.
Indeed, it is possible for appointing authorities to hold officials accountable without resorting to public humiliation.
Constructive feedback, mentorship, and opportunities for professional development are all avenues through which accountability can be maintained and improved.
These approaches create a feedback loop that not only addresses missteps but also helps prevent further errors in the future, fostering continuous improvement in policy-making processes.
Ultimately, the dilemma faced by a future generation of authors regarding public scolding versus collaborative correction encapsulates a broader conversation about leadership style in governance.
The effectiveness of government institutions hinges on the balance between accountability and morale.
By redefining accountability to minimize public ridicule and prioritize constructive dialogue, Liberia can usher in a new era of governance marked by efficiency, collaboration, and ultimately, enhanced public trust.
The practice of publicly scolding appointed officials for missteps in public policy is counterproductive and damaging to the governance environment in Liberia.
Rather than encouraging accountability, it undermines morale and agency. Fostering a culture of shift toward collaborative dialogue and uplifting correction is crucial for creating a supportive atmosphere in which public officials can learn from their mistakes and engage in effective policy-making.
Government officials should be encouraged to acknowledge missteps and learn from them, rather than being publicly ridiculed by the appointing authority.
By emphasizing uplift over ridicule, Liberia can improve public policy outcomes and ultimately strengthen trust between the government and its citizens.
