Does government job security hurt productivity? Bengaluru CA suggests 3 assessment parameters to improve public sector accountability

The debate around government job security and workplace accountability has resurfaced after a Bengaluru-based chartered accountant questioned whether permanent employment without regular performance checks is hurting efficiency in public offices. The discussion gained attention on LinkedIn, where CA Meenal Goel argued that taxpayers ultimately bear the cost of a system that offers strong job protection but often lacks meaningful performance evaluation.

Her post struck a chord online, with many users discussing whether accountability mechanisms in government departments need to be strengthened while preserving the stability that public sector jobs provide.

A question about accountability, not employment

In her LinkedIn post, Goel described government job security as "the most expensive thing taxpayers fund" and said the issue is rarely discussed openly. She argued that systems where poor performance carries little or no consequence can gradually lower overall productivity.


According to her, an environment where employees can repeatedly arrive late, deliver limited work, or treat citizens poorly without facing action creates a larger structural problem. She wrote, "When performance has no consequences, performance becomes optional."

Goel further stated that many public sector roles provide strong employment protection, making it difficult to remove consistently underperforming employees. In her view, this is not a question of job security itself but of the absence of accountability mechanisms tied to performance.

Comparing public and private sectors

Drawing a comparison with private companies and startups, Goel argued that consequences for underperformance tend to be more immediate outside government institutions.

"The private sector fires for underperformance. So people perform," she wrote. Referring to startups, she added, "The startup ecosystem has no safety net. So people innovate."

She contrasted this with what she described as a culture in some government offices where careers continue largely unaffected until retirement. According to her, this contributes to delays, slow-moving files, resistance to change, and inefficiencies that remain in place for years.

"And we wonder why files move slowly. Why systems don't change. Why the same inefficiencies survive decade after decade," she wrote.

Job security versus performance

A key point in Goel's argument was that job security itself is not necessarily the problem. Instead, she suggested that security without accountability can end up protecting employees who consistently fail to meet expectations.

"Security without accountability doesn't protect good employees. It protects bad ones," she wrote.

At the same time, she acknowledged the role played by dedicated public servants. According to her, some of the best government employees do not rely on job security as motivation but perform well because of their commitment to public service.

"The best government servants I've seen don't need job security to perform, they perform because they care. Security doesn't make them better. It just makes removing the ones who don't care impossible," she said.

Three assessment parameters she proposed

As part of the discussion, Goel suggested introducing stronger evaluation systems inside government institutions. She called for three key measures:

• Performance reviews that are meaningful and regular
• Consequences for chronic underperformance
• Merit-based retention instead of relying only on merit-based recruitment

She argued that government recruitment processes already involve extensive examinations and screening. However, she questioned why similar standards are often not applied throughout an employee's career.

"We test people to get into government jobs. Why do we stop holding them to any standard once they're in?" she asked.