Has the time come to re-think the Worker of the Year award?

The award was won this year by a senior technician at the Resources and Infrastructure Ministry, Jimmy Mercieca. Apart from the long list of projects on which he has worked, he was praised for his willingness to work on urgent calls outside office hours, often without requesting extra payment. He was singled out from among the other equally-worthy nominations for his ability to mediate between those above and below him in rank, pushing his colleagues to reach targets that would certainly have been missed without his intervention. What better acclaim can there be than bringing out the best in others?

An important point was made by selection board chairman Anthony Tabone in his speech at the award ceremony. He lamented that none of the 17 nominations came from the private sector.

The board had no idea why the private sector had not come forward and Mr Tabone pondered on whether management simply never found the time to fill in the forms.

One would certainly hope not, especially as larger companies should have a human resource department that would bring worthy employees to the management's attention and do the legwork involved. And do public sector or public service companies have any less work pressure? In any case, many of the larger companies already have an internal system for rewarding high performers.

It must be more than that.

In 1988, the idea was to recognise the values that made a good worker. The context then was so different: The public service was being shaken up by the new Nationalist government, with the first glimmerings of customer service and accountability and the intention of privatisation. It was introduced at a time when there was little thought that one should do a day's work for a day's pay. There was little faith that hard work - rather than vague political promises and affiliations - led to promotion.

What union in 1988 would ever have supported a worker who did not expect to be paid for extra work? He would have been setting a dangerous precedent that would undermine the rest of the workers whose financial tightrope rested on overtime. Times have changed.

Without detracting at all from Mr Mercieca's evident merit of the award, even the concept of someone who is a good mediator is nowadays what you would expect from a well-trained and experienced employee.

One can only surmise that, after 20 years, the concept of the award itself has to be rethought. First of all, the fact that it is awarded by the Ministry for Education, Youth and Work may link it subconsciously or otherwise in people's minds with state workers. Perhaps the time has come for it to be handed over to an entity distanced from politics, no matter how impartial and conscientious the jury undoubtedly is.

And, secondly, the values need to be perhaps more clearly defined in terms that the private sector would appreciate. The work ethic in the private sector and the state sector have undoubtedly converged since 1988 but they are still far from aligned. The selection board was careful to point out that it was looking for something beyond the normal requisites, something beyond the call of duty. But would you award someone for one's productivity, good attendance, innovation? Aren't those all internal benchmarks?

Still, it is worth ending on a positive note: The fact that there were 17 candidates all worthy of the award says much for how far the state sector has come.