Governance: Comprehensive coverage

WE have always known from the balanced scorecard literature that governance has comprehensive coverage. Governance takes us away from having a tunnel vision focused only on financial results; it expands our concern to include investments on and training of people; the efficiency of internal core processes; and service to, as well as satisfaction of, customers and constituencies. And in public sector governance, there is no way of disregarding the socio-economic impact of any transformation program.

Applied to the work-life balance of individuals, governance needs to be comprehensive in coverage as well. But what facets of a person’s life do we include?

The testimonies from the Philippine Heart Center are eloquent in stressing this key point: the work-related facet is all-important. From the enterprise standpoint, this is the reason for cascading governance down to the personal level, to ensure that an individual’s work, and the performance that such work delivers, should be fully aligned to the priorities or objectives in the enterprise scorecard. There are no “ifs” and “buts” about the inclusion of the work-related facet in an individual’s personal scorecard.

But is personal governance to be limited only to the work-related facet?

From what one gathers from the testimonies of ISA Associates from the uniformed services---the Army, the Navy, and the Police---the coverage of personal governance extends to facets that are not directly work-related, but facets that nonetheless do have an impact and influence on the work (and its quality) that gets done. Based on actual experience, it is impossible for any individual to carry out their work duties and responsibilities unless they are physically fit. In addition to physical fitness, it is absolutely necessary for individuals to keep undergoing training, and thus the imperative of capacity-building in the cultural-professional sphere.

Experience also says that two other facets need to be emphasized when looking at an individual’s work performance. An individual’s family situation and one’s observance of financial discipline do have a bearing---almost always significant--- on the attention given to, and thus the quality associated with, one’s work.

Finally, experience is equally telling on the importance of a person’s moral compass and of one’s personal relationship with God (the spiritual facet). While everyone should be left free to profess one’s faith and observe one’s religious practices, nonetheless the principle of giving due importance to the spiritual facet in one’s personal life has broad and wide acceptance.

This brings up the practical question of what to impose (and what not to impose) when cascading the observance of a personal scorecard. The answer that emerges from the different testimonies given is the following: the work-related facet needs to be accorded the essential importance it deserves. This facet is imposed by an enterprise governance and transformation program. The other facets need to be presented as critical to a proper work-life balance; they are therefore highly recommended and strongly encouraged; but it is up to every individual to decide on including them in one’s work-mandated personal scorecard.

However, through an open sharing of actual experience in using a personal scorecard as a tool for personal development, the comprehensive inclusion of all key facets of one’s personal life is highly recommended and positively proposed (although not formally required).