The contributions of Prime Minister Andrew Holness and the Minister of Finance Fayval Williams in the recent 2026 Budget Debate focused on the pillars of fiscal discipline while looking forward with a growth strategy and social and infrastructure investment. In my own contribution to the debate in the Senate, I sought to raise an issue that I believe impacts whether any policy initiative succeeds or fails.

I refer here to the need for a cultural shift in how we think about the responsibility of those in our public service whose duty it is to deliver the outcomes of policy. I speak not of collective responsibility, but personal responsibility.

This is not a semantic distinction. It is the difference between a system with scattered accountability and one that is goal-oriented.

The Productivity Problem We Shy Away from Naming

For decades, Jamaica’s public sector has struggled with a persistent challenge — inefficiency. While there is much to be desired in respect of the tools and funding provided for our public servants to do their work, the historical inefficiency we suffer is not always traced to policy gaps or resource constraints, but rather to execution. Preparation and delivery of reports are delayed. Files sit in inaction. Decisions linger in the process maze of “not my department”.

In many cases, public servants have come to resile from ownership for fear of administrative or political backlash. Outputs are measured in activity rather than outcomes. In practice, no single person takes ownership of outcomes or lack thereof, despite the designation of the permanent secretary as the accounting officer and, effectively, the CEO. This leads to delays in achieving results, frustration of citizens, and loss of investment, especially by those who can ill afford bureaucratic delays.

The lack of optimal productivity and efficiency which plagues us is not because public servants lack competence or commitment, it is, in part, because the system has historically leaned towards collective ownership of outcomes, whereby responsibility is shared so broadly that, in practice, it is owned by no one, no single person, notwithstanding office designations.

The language used by many public officers when reporting on action taken on various matters is telling. The overuse of the past conditional tense instead of the past tense to describe past actions reveals a systemic reluctance to take responsibility for the delivery of outcomes. For example: ‘I would have written to the board in March of last year and advised them of the situation,’ versus ‘I wrote to the board in March of last year.’ It is almost an epidemic.

When ‘we’ are responsible, ‘no one’ is accountable.

The Case for Personal Responsibility

Ultimately, the State performs optimally at the level of individual accountability, not institutional aspiration, though institutions are important. A ministry does not deliver results. A department does not deliver results. A committee does not deliver results — people do.

Personal responsibility in the public service means that each public servant understands:

• what they are specifically accountable for

• what standard they are expected to meet

• how their performance is measured

• what consequences, whether positive or negative, flow from that performance

Without this clarity, productivity becomes optional, excellence becomes incidental, and outcomes are unpredictable.

Why Collective Responsibility Has Reached Its Limits

Collective responsibility has its place in Cabinet governance and political solidarity, but as an operational doctrine within the public service, it has unintended consequences. When accountability is diffused, meaning, tasks pass through many hands but responsibility is unclear, when high performers and low performers are treated the same, or when there is resistance to measurement because everyone is responsible and, therefore, performance metrics are uncomfortable for the individual officer, the outcomes are tenuous.

In reality, performance management systems often exist on paper but not in practice. Take, for example, the reality I confronted as a member of independent panels adjudicating over disciplinary proceedings in the public sector. Frequently, it appeared that performance evaluations are either not conducted or, when they are, on an inconsistent basis. When they are conducted, they are often treated as ticking-the-box activities rather than tools used to achieve improved performance or identify weaknesses that are thereafter corrected and employees supported.

Quite often public officers who have a history of errant behaviour and low productivity when brought before disciplinary panels on charges of poor performance are able to demonstrate strong and positive performance evaluations wholly inconsistent with their known professional conduct. No one has documented their consistent failures against the documented performance standards.

The Role of Performance Matrices

If personal responsibility is the philosophy, performance matrices are the mechanism. A modern public service must embrace:

• clear key performance indicators (KPIs) tied to roles, not just departments

• time-bound deliverables with visible tracking that citizens can see

• quantifiable outputs: For example, processing times, case/project completion rates, process milestones, customer communication timelines, and protocols for escalating matters that fall into the nooks and crannies of neglect

• regular performance reviews linked to advancement and incentives for all public servants

This is not about importing private sector rigidity and strikeouts for non-performance. It is about establishing fairness and clarity while ensuring performance standards are upheld and the system of delivery produces intended results for every single Jamaican that engages with it.

A high-performing public servant should be recognised. A consistently underperforming one should be supported, but also held accountable.

Cultural Resistance and Why It Must Be Confronted

There is likely to be resistance to any shift towards an accountability system that centres around personal responsibility. Performance measurement is often perceived as punishment rather than empowerment. There is concern about politicisation, unfair evaluation, or unrealistic targets. These concerns are valid, but they are not reasons to avoid reform. They are reasons to design systems that are fair and transparent and deliver results to the Jamaican people.

The alternative is worse: A public service in which effort and outcome are disconnected, resulting in people who are the losers.

Back to the Budget Debate

The 2026 Budget Debate outlines ambitious national priorities: resilience, growth, and access to opportunities. Prime Minister Holness and Minister Williams both emphasised fiscal discipline and results-driven governance as central to Jamaica’s continued progress and, indeed, its resurgence after a catastrophe. However, budgets do not implement themselves. The success of the national budget depends not only on allocations, but on execution, which depends on individuals.

The recent tabling of the National Reconstruction and Resilience Authority Act 2026 (“NaRRA”) provides a moment for us to consider whether our approach to the execution of national projects requires a revolution in personal responsibility. Even while NaRRA seeks to provide a legislative framework supported by billions of dollars of funding to achieve the vision of resurgence that Prime Minister Holness articulated in the Parliament last Tuesday and during his contribution to the Budget Debate 2026, it is people who will deliver on the vision articulated.

A New Ethos for the Public Service

What Jamaica now requires is a reframing of public service identity:

• Not ‘I am part of a ministry,’ but ‘I am accountable for this result.’

• Not ‘The system is slow,’ but ‘What can I move forward today?’

• Not ‘We are responsible,’ but ‘I am responsible.’

This is not about blame. It is about ownership. And ownership supports the notion that every public servant will treat the business of every single citizen as if it is their own.

The Pay-off

If embraced, personal responsibility paired with measurable standards can transform the public service through:

• faster service delivery

• improved investor confidence

• greater public trust in government institutions

• higher morale among high-performing civil servants

Adopting an ethos of personal responsibility, marrying effort with outcome, is something Jamaica can no longer afford to leave to chance.

Jamaica does not lack policy. It does not lack talent. In many cases it does not even lack performance matrices. What it must now strengthen is accountability at the level at which work actually happens: the individual.

The shift from collective to personal responsibility is not a criticism of the public service. We continue to be a nation in evolution. Resurgence is a realisable goal if we and me are deliberate, accountable, and ultimately acting in the interest of our great nation, Jamaica.

I urge my public servant officers and colleagues to consider these comments seriously.

One love!

Sherene Golding Campbell
is a government senator. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or senatorgoldingcampbell@gmail.com.

Sherene Golding Campbelll