MCVPenalosa Ginhawa Hanapbuhay-at-Katiwalian PPT

FILIPINO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES’ SEARCH FOR
“GINHAWA” (Wellbeing*) IN THE WORKPLACE:

Social Acceptance and Tolerance for
Bureaucratic Practices that may be Construed as Corruption
following Western Bureaucratic Norms and their
Implications for Public Human Resource Management
MA. CARMEN V. PEÑALOSA, PHD.

Miriam College, Loyola Heights
2016 EROPA-CSC CONFERENCE, MANILA HOTEL, 10-14 October 2016
*“Ginhawa” is often inadequately translated into English as “Wellbeing” which although probably the closest to its meaning nonetheless
fails to cover the complexity of “Ginhawa’s” dimensions.
FILIPINO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES’ SEARCH FOR “GINHAWA” (Wellbeing*)
IN THE PUBLIC WORKPLACE
Parts of the presentation

I. Introduction
II. “Ginhawa”* as fundamental Filipino human motivation and
overall aspiration in life
III. Government Employees and their Search for “Ginhawa” in
the Bureaucracy
IV. Confronting the “Hanapbuhay-Trabaho”** Dichotomy in
the Public Workplace
Ma. Carmen V. Peñalosa, Phd.

*“Ginhawa” is often inadequately translated into English as “Wellbeing” which although probably the closest to its meaning nonetheless
fails to cover the complexity of “Ginhawa’s” dimensions. **”Livelihood-Work Dichotomy
Parts of the presentation

V. A Culture of Complaisance versus Culture of Complacency
and Corruption
VI. Implications for Public Human Resource Management
VII. Conclusion

I. Introduction

➢ Public human resource management (HRM) in the Philippines until

now continues to be heavily reliant on western management
approaches, theories and practices.
➢ In Managerial Philosophy, the human resources approach remains the
most popular because of its emphasis on the easily accessible available
idea of “the full development and utilization of the talents and skills of
the employees.”
➢ Our basic premise about the Filipino civil employee and what
fundamentally motivates him or her does not really reflect any
profound understanding of the Filipino psyche, one that is borne out of
in-depth basic research that utilize the Filipino viewpoint and employ
culturally sensitive approaches and methods in research.
Introduction
➢ The author explored selected indigenous Filipino concepts and inquired

into how their operation in the bureaucracy translated into certain
administrative attitudes and behavior that may be construed as
negative following the “legal-rational” definition on standard
bureaucratic behavior but nonetheless receive varying levels of social
acceptability and tolerance for Filipino government employees.
➢ The result was a dissertation on “HANAPBUHAY”: THE FILIPINO
BUREAUCRAT’S QUEST FOR “GINHAWA” IN THE WORKPLACE. Its
Implications for Understanding Bureaucratic Corruption. Dissertation
submitted to UPNCPAG, 2014. A study conducted based on the
theoretical and methodological formulations of Pantayong Pananaw
(“For us, of us, among ourselves, about ourselves and others”
Perspective) and Sikolohiyang Pilipino (“Filipino Psychology”).
Introduction
The Research Process
Qualitative & Exploratory Research Quantitative Research
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
History & Ethnography Ginabayang Talakayan Sample Survey of One
of the General Culture on Public Sector Employment Selected Govt. Agency
1. Dictionaries/Reports/Interviews 1. Pilot GT/FD 1. Pretest of Survey: CFA
2. Internet Language Use 2. Actual GT/FD 2. Survey: PLS-SEM
GT 1 GT 2
Perceived Perceived to be
to be Graft & Graft & Corrupt-
Corrupt Free Ridden (or most
(or least corrupt) corrupt) Govt
Govt Agencies Agencies
G G
Ght in a
h h Government
Agency
t t
GT 4
GT 3 Civil Society,
Anti-Graft & Business, Church,
Corruption Professional &
Government Youth Sector
Agencies
Introduction
A Mixed Methods Transformative Research Strategy
GT/FD 1: Respondents from agencies perceived to be graft and corrupt

free or perceived to be the least corrupt (Department of Social Welfare
& Development, Department of Health, Department of Education,
Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Department of
Interior and Local Government & the Department of Trade & Industry).
GT/FD 2: Respondents from government agencies perceived to be graft
and corrupt ridden or perceived to be the most corrupt (Armed Forces
of the Philippines, Philippine National Police, Department of Public
Works & Highways, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Land Transportation
Office, Bureau of Customs & the National Food Authority).
Introduction
GT/FD 3: Respondents from anti-graft & corruption bodies (Office of

the Ombudsman, Commission on Audit, Civil Service Commission,
Sandiganbayan, Judiciary -- headed by the Supreme Court -- and the
Department of Justice).
GT/FD 4: 6 respondents from nongovernment sectors: civil society

(Evelio B. Javier Foundation, Inc.), business (Employer’s Confederation
of the Philippines), interfaith groups (Imam Council of the Philippines),
media (Kapisanan ng mga Broadcasters ng Pilipinas), academe
(University of the Philippines National College of Public Administration
& Governance) and professional organizations (Philippine Association
of Professional Regulatory Board Members, Inc).
Introduction
All in all the pilot test excluded, 16 rank and file government employees
and 5 representatives from the nongovernment sector participated in
the final exploratory and qualitative stage of GT/FD for data gathering.
The discussion guide was prepared based on the results of stage 1

of the research process (i.e., the initial historical and ethnographic
research). This 2-page Mga Paksa para sa Ginabayang Talakayan
provided the topics around which the discussions proceeded. Divided
into three parts which correspond to the major points of interest, each
part lists down questions and/or internet blogs intended to direct the
discussion. Cf. Dissertation, Annex D.
Introduction
Qualitative data gathered through GT sessions were categorized

according to naturally arising themes or patterns, a process of data
analysis that is iterative.
The results were transcribed, and those which had nothing to do with
the research problem crossed out. Coding of transcripts according to
themes or patterns was conducted per question. The transcripts were
read, as many times necessary, and relevant parts marked, selected and
classified. The themes or ideas arising out of the marked answers were
identified, labeled and defined.
No notable difference in responses were found across GT/FD.
Introduction
II. “Ginhawa” (Wellbeing*) as fundamental

Filipino human motivation and overall aspiration in life

➢ “Ginhawa” derives from Proto-Austronesian [PAn] *(Ra-)siNáwa

in the sense of “to breathe,” with cognates from Central Taiwan
and Southeast Asia and the entire Austronesian domain,
particularly the Philippines.
➢ It has reflexes in the 1) islands north of Luzon – from the Orchid

Island (Pongso no Tao) south of Taiwan (with the Philippine
language Yami) to the Batanes (Ivatan languages); 2) Northern
Luzon (Cordilleran Group); 3) Central and Southern Luzon (from
Kapampangan down to Bikol); 4) the Southern Islands save
Mindanaw and Sulu (essentially Palawan and the Visayas); and
5) Mindanaw and Sulu.
“Ginhawa” (Wellbeing*) as fundamental Filipino human motivation
and overall aspiration in life
Mapa II Extent of the Austronesian World (Bellwood et al, 1995)

ANITU
Pan-Filipino Configuration (Soul in the spiritual realm)
BREATH
of “Ginhawa” Character/Will BEHAVIOR/SELF WITH/FOR OTHERS
(Pakikipagkapwa)
(KALOOBAN)
GINHAWA KALULUWA
LIFE (Spirit in body) INNER BODY SELF
(soulstuff)
(
(SALOOBIN/NILOLOOB)
(individual soul)
STOMACH Feelings/Yearnings SUSTENANCE OF COMMUNITY, FAMILY
(entrails/ Emotions & SELF
liver) (Pangangayaw/Hanapbuhay)
GINHAWA
(All living things; Life Essence)
1. Respiratory-alimentary (breath-life-stomach): relates to the overall biological/physiological conditions/functionings of the human

body.
2. Vital-spiritual (life character/will-inner body-feelings/yearnings/emotions) or its figurative meaning: relates to a persons philosophical-
religious and psychological existence or the internal components of the Filipino “Pagkatao” (“humanity”) in dynamic interaction with
the natural and supernatural realm.
3. Relational-communal (behavior/self with/for others through “Pakikipagkapwa” and Sustenance of Community and Self in terms of
“Hanapbuhay”): may be construed as “sarili” (self) and one’s “pagkatao” (humanity) interacting with the external world.
4. Relative nature (spacio-temporal dimension): relates to changing life circumstances and human relations.

➢ It is an indigenous concept common to all Filipinos, providing a common

cultural thread across the various Filipino ethnic groups.
➢ Thus “ginhawa” is central to the meaning of life as maintenance of life

and wellness of being. The “entirety of the nature and workings of the
emotions and external senses of Filipinos as human beings, their
perception of whatever occurs internal and external to their humanity, all
of these have a profound connection to ‘ginhawa.’ In fact, ‘ginhawa’ is
the basis for the natural order of the emotions and external senses of
human beings.”
➢ Defined in the negative, the non-attainment of “ginhawa” results in its

exact opposite – i.e., illness, hardship, pain and suffering and ultimately
death, instead of life, its fullness and continuance.

III. Government Employees and their

Search for “Ginhawa” (Wellbeing*) in the Bureaucracy

➢ One way to attain “Ginhawa” is through “Hanapbuhay” in its general or

broad sense as pursuit of life in four broad categories, all of which may
be found in the previous diagram on the Configuration of Pan-Filipino
“Ginhawa:”
1. the maintenance of life (“buhay”);
2. the procurement of food (“pagkain”) as life sustenance for self, family and
community;
3. the assurance of income, salary or gain (in as much as money has now
become the critical resource in acquiring food and sustaining life); and
4. the aspiration for a life of ease and happiness or a good life for one’s
immediate and extended family, as well as for the community at large.
➢ Literally, “Hanapbuhay” means “search for life” and/or “search for a

livelihood which is essential to remaining alive.”
Government Employees and their Search for “Ginhawa” (Wellbeing*) in the Bureaucracy
➢ “Hanapbuhay” has two meanings

1. broad and loose, in the sense of “search for a life and
livelihood.” This covers any and all economic activities
that bestow “ginhawa” or “kaginhawahan” to an
individual or his/her family; and
2. restrictive and is glossed as mere subcategory to the first.
This is identified in contrastive distinction or elaboration
to the phenomenon of modern industrial work
(“trabaho”).
“Hanapbuhay” or the Search for “Ginhawa”

in the Public Workplace
Act and Primary The “hanapbuhay-trabaho” Attitudes/Behavior
Motivation Dichotomy
FILIPINO
FORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE
SECTOR CULTURE
EMPLOYMENT
PUBLIC BUREAUCRATIC
ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR
SECTOR
HANAPBUHAY
WORKPLACE 
AS SEARCH BUREAUCRATIC CORRUPTION
FOR
“GINHAWA”
INFORMAL
SECTOR
EMPLOYMENT
“Hanapbuhay” and its SubcategoriesIN THE PUBLIC WORKPLACE
“Hanapbuhay”
“hanapbuhay” “trabaho”
✓ the continuing assertion of the traditional Filipino work ethic, closer to the ✓ in its restrictive sense is glossed as energy expended
Visayan concept of pangayaw ✓ generally focused on human activity or occupation above
✓ the primary emphasis is the procurement of “ginhawa” for one’s self, family all other considerations, even that of personal “ginhawa”
and consequently community, and not the means by which the latter is acquired in the workplace
attained ✓ generally understood to mean strictly regimented activity
✓ nonregimented in nature and therefore not subject to organizational ✓ mostly in the formal industrial sector and thus defined by
direction, management structures and processes contractual work arrangements subject to an employer-
✓ mostly in the informal sector and therefore not governed by work employee relationship; also glossed as employment
restrictions such as on time and location, as well as rules and regulations ✓ primarily driven by organizational maxims of efficiency
demanded by official and regular conduct of performance and effectiveness designed to promote productivity levels
✓ exalts personal freedom, informality, flexibility and may be migratory when and measured in terms of predefined performance
required indicators
✓ first and foremost dependent on an individual’s overall disposition in life ✓ governed by moral, ethical and professional standards
and changing socio-economic circumstances. The extent of “ginhawa” centered on “official” and “legal” definitions.
aspired for is believed to be essentially a function of one’s health; and one’s ✓ broadly speaking, is also “Hanapbuhay” because it results
character as it interacts with the drive for basic survival needs, as well as in “ginhawa” measured in terms of salary minus loan
changing wants and aspirations in life; overall levels of actual savings and deductions; the overall quality of work relations; the
investments for the future; and the aggregate of problems and worries individual’s knowledge of work, and the level of skills
besetting a person. brought into it against the amount of time allotted to
✓ sometimes referred to as “trabaho,” but rarely and when glossed as such accomplish the work. Affecting all these are the overall
(i.e., as synonym to “trabaho”) is done strictly in the sense of energy conditions of the workplace and the perceived nature of
expended leadership values upheld by government in general
✓ have stringent moral and ethical demands operating as Filipino social control (political leaders) and the extent to which agency
mechanisms structured around “kapwa” or a sense of shared humanity management (top administrators) coales with the former
✓ enjoys varying levels of social acceptability and tolerance depending on
their association with positive Filipino values
http://bagongaurora.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/07/11787465_386521668212608_425650135
_n-638x368.jpg
http://media.philstar.com/im
ages/pilipino-star-
ngayon/metro/20140519/Scav
enger-Garbage-Dump-Site.jpg
http://s228.photobucket.com/user/docovaltine/media/PhotoMail
%20Uploads%201/34f2.jpg.html
https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/lQzu1eZ_ZhCM6avGmdvKSiHusF0hnJXhqCD2XAF46mo.png
http://www.smallbusinessidear.com/wp- http://philippinenewstagalog.blogspot.com/2014/01/gu
content/uploads/2015/06/Sari-Sari-Store-Business-in-the- n-for-hire.html
Philippines.jpg
http://www.pinoyexchange.com/forums/sho
wthread.php?t=432474
http://www.dipologcity.com/HRRAD/120203JollibeeCo
unterArea01a.JPG
http://www.argeltiburcio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Filipino-call-center-
agents-at-work-argel-tiburcio-money-saving-tips-money-management.jpg
https://38.media.tumblr.com/aaf46b81c7d3b9e300181a8f6194e039/tum
blr_inline_moukdyFYm21qz4rgp.jpg
http://media.coindesk.com/2014/10/Screen-Shot-2014-10-09-at-4.37.22-PM.png
http://www.usthospital.com.ph/images/usth_06_banner4.jpg
https://media.glassdoor.com/l/549199/department-of-social-welfare-and-development-philippines-office.jpg
“Hanapbuhay” and its SubcategoriesIN THE PUBLIC WORKPLACE
“Hanapbuhay”
✓ the continuing assertion of the traditional Filipino work ethic, closer to the ✓ in its restrictive sense is glossed as energy expended
Visayan concept of pangayaw ✓ generally focused on human activity or occupation above
✓ the primary emphasis is the procurement of “ginhawa” for one’s self, family all other considerations, even that of personal “ginhawa”
and consequently community, and not the means by which the latter is acquired in the workplace
attained ✓ generally understood to mean strictly regimented activity
✓ nonregimented in nature and therefore not subject to organizational ✓ mostly in the formal industrial sector and thus defined by
direction, management structures and processes contractual work arrangements subject to an employer-
✓ mostly in the informal sector and therefore not governed by work employee relationship; also glossed as employment
restrictions such as on time and location, as well as rules and regulations ✓ primarily driven by organizational maxims of efficiency
demanded by official and regular conduct of performance and effectiveness designed to promote productivity levels
✓ exalts personal freedom, informality, flexibility and may be migratory when and measured in terms of predefined performance
required indicators
✓ first and foremost dependent on an individual’s overall disposition in life ✓ governed by moral, ethical and professional standards
and changing socio-economic circumstances. The extent of “ginhawa” centered on “official” and “legal” definitions.
aspired for is believed to be essentially a function of one’s health; and one’s ✓ broadly speaking, is also “Hanapbuhay” because it results
character as it interacts with the drive for basic survival needs, as well as in “ginhawa” measured in terms of salary minus loan
changing wants and aspirations in life; overall levels of actual savings and deductions; the overall quality of work relations; the
investments for the future; and the aggregate of problems and worries individual’s knowledge of work, and the level of skills
besetting a person. brought into it against the amount of time allotted to
✓ sometimes referred to as “trabaho,” but rarely and when glossed as such accomplish the work. Affecting all these are the overall
(i.e., as synonym to “trabaho”) is done strictly in the sense of energy conditions of the workplace and the perceived nature of
expended leadership values upheld by government in general
✓ have stringent moral and ethical demands operating as Filipino social control (political leaders) and the extent to which agency
mechanisms structured around “kapwa” or a sense of shared humanity management (top administrators) coales with the former
✓ enjoys varying levels of social acceptability and tolerance depending on
their association with positive Filipino values
➢ The civil employee is actually involved in “Hanapbuhay” in the

general sense of the word as pursuit of “Ginhawa” or search for
life and livelihood. This is in so far as working in government
results in wages and salaries, and compensation and benefits that
allow employees to acquire and maintain, and give meaning to
“life.”
➢ However, once in the bureaucracy, employees come face to face

with “Hanapbuhay’s” two subcategories of “hanapbuhay” and
“trabaho,” operating separately as though a dichotomy, but
actually intersecting.
“Ginhawa” defined
“Ginhawa” has to do with the pursuit of health and happiness; and livelihood in
terms of acquiring food and avoiding hunger (“gutom”), insufficiency
(“paghihikahos”) and hardships (“hirap”). It is being able to breathe easily after
work and actual respiration of fresh air associated with a feeling of ease or
“aruhay”/“haruhay”/ “hayahay.”
Its experience is believed to be largely dependent on individual character (will)
and to manifest itself in one’s feelings/yearnings and emotions as these affect
perception, outlook and attitude towards life and “Hanapbuhay.” It is the
positive, optimistic and appreciative disposition that generally maximizes one’s
acquisition of “ginhawa.” Moreover, “ginhawa” -- given its variable nature
according to differing personalities and its impermanence being largely
dependent on changing life circumstance -- takes on a very personal connection
despite its basic relational-communal direction.
It relates to an individual’s overall disposition in life that affects an
employees regard for livelihood in general; and second, to what may
be solely attributed to public sector employment or work itself.
“Ginhawa” that may be derived from “hanapbuhay” (engaging in

livelihood activities)
The first appears to be essentially a function of one’s health; plus

character as it interacts with the drive for basic survival needs,
and wants and aspirations in life; plus level of actual savings and
investments for the future; and the aggregate of problems and
worries besetting a person.
“Ginhawa” that may be derived strictly from “trabaho” (work)
Appears to be a function of the monthly salary of an individual

minus monthly loan deductions; plus the overall quality of
relations with co-workers and superiors; plus the individual’s
knowledge of his/her work and the level of skills he/she brings
into the work against the amount of time allotted to accomplish
the work. Affecting all these are also the overall conditions of the
workplace and the perceived nature of leadership values upheld
by government in general (political leaders) and the extent to
which agency management (top administrators) coalese with the
former.
On another level, the social dimensions of “ginhawa” relates to the

nature, quality and impact of an individual’s relationship with family,
fellow human being (“kapwa”), neighbor, officemate, superior and “iba”
also did not escape. Although primarily pursued for family, “ginhawa,”
may likewise be attained and perpetuated through good human relations
with persons outside of the family. One fundamental idea is that any
extra “ginhawa” is naturally to be shared with one’s “kapwa” if one is to
acquire further “ginhawa.”
“Ginhawa” also derives from being able to help one’s “kapwa,” whether
or not identified as the public or those in more proximate or intimate
circles. It appears that helping others may be better understood in the
context of service extended by the employee to another and the extent
to which that other is perceived as “kapwa” or “iba.”
A more deeply spiritual meaning of “ginhawa” implies a generous

spirit (“mapagbigay,” “bukas ang puso”), charitable
(“nagkawanggawa”) and “helpful” (“pagnag-abot kamay ka”) all
connected to performing one’s duties and obligations in life
(“Maginhawa na kami kasi nagawa ko ‘yong tungkulin ko”) and
securing a good life in the afterlife. However, spiritual “ginhawa” is
tied to financial “ginhawa,” because being able to provide for one’s
basic needs means that one can also share the extra blessings of life.
Thus there appears to be a transference of spirituality from the

Austronesian “ginhawa” pervading all of nature as this relates to the
entire conceptual world of the anitu to Christian spirituality in the realm
of caritas. It is this being able to help others or making a difference in
the lives of others – Christian caritas – that a higher “sense of fulfillment”
or “self satisfaction” may be derived from work in government. The latter
is said to give a higher form of “ginhawa” derived from not merely being
preoccupied with life or livelihood for oneself and family but with a
“career” and possibilities for “self-actualization” coupled with the
knowledge of sacrifice for “others.” But, not surprisingly either, is the
assertion that sharing of “ginhawa” with others also means that one’s
basic needs for “ginhawa” had already been secured.
This relational-communal dimension of “ginhawa” sharing “ginhawa”

also operates through the public extending generosity in return for
the service received from the employees – i.e., “expressions of
appreciation” (“pasasalamat”) or “goodwill” (“kagandahang loob”)
or what one respondent regards as tenderness (“paglalambing”) --
which nonetheless, based on the general atmosphere and demeanor
of respondents, were also obviously sources of their personal
“ginhawa.”
“Ginhawa” being an overall condition should be seen and treated

holistically. It is about finding a “balance” or “moderation” among all its
sources so that the net result is positive. It is for this reason that
insufficient “ginhawa” in terms of low wage and salary levels or
inadequate benefits and compensation package need not necessarily
result in pursuing livelihood activities while working in government.
Instead employees can choose to be more disciplined, to scrimp and
save or to refuse self-indulgence. Only when one’s income is not
enough to pay (“hindi sapat”) for the basic survival needs is one
necessarily compelled to engage in “hanapbuhay” in the workplace to
augment income or when one is driven by greed or desire for too much
“ginhawa” (“sobra-sobrang ginhawa”) does a government official turn
his/her work into a livelihood.
Whichever is the case, the “hanapbuhay-trabaho” dichotomy now

becomes evident. The idea that one’s “trabaho” is not to be used for
livelihood purposes or to earn income over and above one’s regular
salary is where the fine line between may be or not considered
socially acceptable and tolerable pursuit of “ginhawa” in the
workplace.
Inconsistencies in the government employee’s level of expected

“ginhawa” in/from life and “ginhawa” experienced in relation to
“trabaho” in government affect the employees’ inclination to seek
further “ginhawa” either through activities that result in salary
augmentation or corruption.
Interestingly though, the association between “ginhawa” and

“hanapbuhay” outcomes may not necessarily be negative because
some employees may in fact privilege the stringent demands of
“trabaho” over furtherance of overall “ginhawa” through monetary
gain. It is here where other factors, also associated with “ginhawa,”
seem to hold more primacy. These are character, positive outlook and
attitude in life, self discipline, forbearance and sacrifice, faith in God
and interaction with one’s co-human being (“pakikipagkapwa-tao”).
IV. Confronting the “Hanapbuhay-Trabaho” Dichotomy

in the Public Workplace

➢ “hanapbuhay-trabaho” Dichotomy are practices among employees

in the bureaucracy that revolve around the intersection between
the two forms or subcategories of “Hanapbuhay” – i.e., between
“hanapbuhay” and “trabaho” in the public sector workplace and
occurs either in the form of “paghahanapbuhay sa trabaho”
(“pursuing a livelihood while working”) or “ginagawang
hanapbuhay ang trabaho” ( “turning one’s work into a livelihood”)
Public sector Employment = “Hanapbuhay”

Intersections between “hanapbuhay” and “trabaho”
“Paghahanapbuhay sa trabaho”
“Ginagawang hanapbuhay ang trabaho”
Confronting the “Hanapbuhay-Trabaho” Dichotomy in the Public Workplace

➢ It is the intersection or gray area between “hanapbuhay” and “trabaho”

that gives shape to certain Filipino bureaucratic practices that although
considered socially acceptable and tolerable may be construed as
dysfunctional or negative bureaucratic behavior following the western
bureaucratic ethos that privilege the “legal-rational” definition on
standard bureaucratic behavior.
“Hanapbuhay-Trabaho” Dichotomy
PHILIPPINE ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM
(Livelihood-Work Dichotomy)
“GINHAWA”

➢ “Paghahanapbuhay sa Trabaho”
(pursuing a livelihood while working)
are practices in the bureaucracy that
revolve around an employee’s
pursuit of additional “ginhawa” by
engaging in “extra/sideline/
negosyo/raket/ dagdag na
hanapbuhay” during, alongside or
simultaneous with the performance
of “trabaho” in the workplace. Such
practices enjoy varying degrees of
social acceptability and tolerance.

➢ “Ginagawang hanapbuhay ang

Trabaho” (turning one’s work into a
livelihood) refer to practices in the
bureaucracy that point to an employee’s
use/abuse of his/her office or position in
order to gain additional “ginhawa” or
“dagdag na benepisyo or kita” over and
above what are stipulated by law. These
practices are equated with graft and
corruption and are generally political in
nature, instigated mainly by political
appointees and their cohorts in the
bureaucracy. Outright condemned as
evil and immoral. http://www.filipinostarnews.net/wp-
content/uploads/2012/11/Cartoon-Anti-Political-Dynasty-Bill.jpg

➢ Filipino moral and ethical standards of administrative behavior apparently

discriminate between what are considered more desirable and acceptable forms
as against those that are scorned by Filipinos. Notable is the strong condemnation
of elective officials who turn their positions in government into a livelihood as
“walang hiya” (shameless), “walang panindigan” (without conviction),
“manloloko” (deceitful), “magnanakaw” (thieves), and “salang hanapbuhay”
(corrupt and evil).
“…[H]indi lahat ng Pilipino ay corrupt, hindi lahat ng

nagtatrabaho sa gobyerno ay naghahanapbuhay
lamang at walang paninindigan.” [Not all Filipinos are
corrupt. Not all of those working in government are
merely in search of a livelihood and are without
conviction.] Heidi Mendoza, February 23, 2011
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/files/2012/09/heidi1.jpg

➢ Employment in government should neither be pursued as livelihood

nor should it be converted into one because it is strictly work
(“trabaho”). The underlying assertion is that government officials
should not be preoccupied with acquiring personal “ginhawa” but with
dispensing it to the public; and in fact should even be willing to
sacrifice (“magsakripisyo”) personal conveniences for what they are
duty bound to uphold – i.e., “ang interes ng publiko” (public interest).
It is in this context that the contrastive distinction between
“hanapbuhay” and “trabaho” arises, precisely because reality dictates
a certain level of “ginhawa” to live decently.

On “Paghahanapbuhay sa Trabaho”
(Pursuing livelihood while working)
❖ Reasons: the absence of sufficient “ginhawa” to meet the basic

survival needs of one’s family; clearly, the necessity to “augment
salaries.” Examples: peddling of food or dry goods/merchandise in
the office and or the operation or management of small time
businesses within the compounds of the agency.
❖ Social acceptability & tolerance: Although considered “mali”

(wrong) because these involve seeking additional personal
advantage or gain from one’s work (in terms of opportunities
brought about by the workplace), these are regarded in varying
degrees of acceptability and tolerance.
Despite the awareness of Civil Service prohibitions, transgressions of rules happen

all the time for “understandable” reasons, and which is regarded as acceptable and
tolerable under the following conditions: when these
1. do not compromise one’s work nor the quality of work;
2. do not impinge on the time designated for work; and
3. do not utilize the material resources of the agency.
Similarly, when these
1. do not disrupt “trabaho,” even of co-employees;
2. do not shorten hours meant for “trabaho;” and
3. the employee despite this is able to perform his/her work assignments by
compensating (“bumabawi”) for work hours lost during weekends, even at
home.”
It is intermittent and ultimately acceptable and tolerable when “permission

from one’s superiors” is granted and coworkers are not negatively affected by
another’s pursuit of “hanapbuhay.”
Enterprising employees either seek the permission of their superiors; or in

some cases extend courtesy by informing their superiors after the fact.
Permission are rarely denied for “humanitarian reasons” or usually given on
grounds of “compassion,” especially when according to one “may kanya-
kanyang kuwento” (“each has a story to tell”). Practices being out in the open or
public knowledge (“alam ng lahat”) are accepted and tolerated. Proof of this is
that nobody complains.

In reality, “trabaho” is affected. CSC restrictions are hard to observe because

people are driven by needs (“pangangailangan”) and so could not be blamed
(“hindi masisisi”). Naturally, given present realities, violation of relevant CSC
rules and regulations as well as relevant laws are really unavoidable (“hindi
maiiwasan”), and anyway may be circumvented (“malulusutan”). Moreover,
there is a real market for economic activities in their respective agencies.
Coemployees also benefit as clients or customers. Add to these is the fact that
Filipinos are said to be easy to concede (“madaling makumbinse,” “madaling
maawa”), or that some employees are simply hardheaded (“matigas ang ulo”),
mischievous (“pasaway”) or influential even with superiors (“malakas sa boss”).

goodpixcool.com
In truth “hanapbuhay” is generally understood to be an obligation to oneself

and family and its desirability is gauged by its association with the positive
Filipino values identified by the respondents: “honorable” (“marangal”) and
therefore out in the open vis-à-vis those that involve deception (“panloloko”),
stealing (“pagnanakaw”), or those done secretly (“patago”) or surreptitiously
(“pabulong”), those that hurt others (“nakakasakit sa kapwa”) or are bad for
oneself (“nakakasama sa sarili”). The latter are typical of those which are
unacceptable and intolerable. Acceptable are those which are right (“tama”),
“permissible” and orderly (“maayos”); earned through hardwork (“nanggaling
sa pinagpawisan”), “honest, legal and good means;” are moral and which
involve industry (“sipag”), perseverance (“tiyaga”); personal effort (“sariling
sikap”), diligence (“pursige”), and resourcefulness (“diskarte”).
berkonomics.com
Since “ginhawa” is really about finding a work-life balance, low salary

levels need not necessarily compel one to engage in “paghahanapbuhay
sa trabaho.” Employees can, at all times or in certain moments, choose
to be more disciplined (“maging disiplinado”), to scrimp (“magtipid”)
and save (“mag-ipon”), to refuse self-indulgence (“magtiis”) and instead
sacrifice self (“magsakripisyo”). Only and whenever there is a need to
augment salaries is “paghahanapbuhay sa trabaho” resorted to.

On “Ginagawang Hanapbuhay ang Trabaho”

(Turning one’s work into a livelihood)
These are practices in the bureaucracy that equate to “katiwalian” or

corruption; are “immoral,” “illegal” and unacceptable; are ugly (“panget”),
involve deception (“panloloko”) and stealing (“pagnanakaw”); done secretly
(“patago”) or surreptitiously (“pabulong”); hurt others (“nakakasakit sa
kapwa”) and bad for the self (“nakakasama sa sarili”) and family.
Strongly held belief is that it may present/deliver immediate and

momentary “ginhawa,” but in truth carry negative “karma” or divine
retribution (“may balik,” “gaba”) in the long term. “Ginhawa” is eventually
lost to them and their families in folds (i.e., they either end up disgraced or
in jail, or are eventually made to suffer personal tragedies).

These are principally political in nature but with administrative

implications– i.e., involve elective officials with accomplices in the
bureaucracy and the conniving public either because the latter are
beholden to them being relatives or clients, or are like them driven by
greed or the want of too much “ginhawa” (“sobra-sobrang ginhawa”),
unlike ordinary rank and file employees whose aspirations revolve
around merely having enough (“sapat na ginhawa”) to get by
(“makaraos”).


❖ Social acceptance and tolerance: Outright unacceptable and

condemnable; but corrupt leadership inspires corruption; and “low
waist” positions or “low ranking,” “ordinary” employees cannot do
anything against their superiors.
❖ Reasons: fear of losing personal “ginhawa;” belief that mere
subordinates have neither moral nor legal right to pass judgement on
anyone, which is what according to them individual conscience and the
proper authorities are for. Assertions include the golden rule of “do unto
others what you want others do unto you!,” “what you saw you reap!,”
“pagbibigayan” (generosity to those who have been generous to you).


❖ There is also the intense dislike for “inggitan” (being objects of envy) or
“paninilip” (“fault finding”); and the high value placed on good social
relations between themselves, their coworkers and superiors. Bosses can
deliberately make life difficult (“papahirapan”) for them. Employees can be
scolded and embarrassed (“kakagalitan”) or pressured (“pupukpukin”).
Some respondents were hesitant to comment (“mahirap magsalita”) on
corruption in their offices, because according to them, they are not
personally involved, there is no evidence (“walang ebidensya,” “walang
pruweba”), it is merely gossip (“tsismis lang”) or that they themselves are
not firsthand witnesses (“hindi naman ako yung mismong nakakawitness”),
or do not know the real situation or reason behind it.


“Fixing” which involves outright influence peddling (“nagpapalakas”) or in more

years, merely insinuating or hinting (“nagpaparinig”) demand for greese money
(“nagpapalangis); worst among local government units. One form has to do
with securing government contracts for a commission, either as an outright
percentage in sales or a mark up in the total contract price. This happens
through “biding-bidingan” or “bid fixing.” The result, “may ibinubulsa” (literally,
“an amount is pocketed”). Associated concepts are “bukol,” “tompatz” or
“patong.”


“Pangongotong” (extortion): “tolerable” in so far as it not only involves private

funds and what to the willing public in transactional negotiation with the
official is “barya” (of little value; literally meaning “change”) compared to the
inconvenience (“abala”) a potential arrest leads to, particularly in regard to
traffic violations. It also does not involve stealing from (“kaban ng bayan”)
government coffers and is therefore a lesser evil.


Other types involve not only the use of influence but of force or coercion.
Examples, subordinates who are forced or pressured to buy merchandise from
their superior; the highly publicized PDAF scam, and AFP equipment scam.
These become particularly immoral when “big time.” Being immoral, even if
legal as in the case of PDAF (being prone to misappropriation or stealing),
corruption is strictly regarded as unacceptable (“hindi katanggap-tanggap”).


Others, bribery; facilitated government service in exchange for a higher fee,

fiscals peddling cases or passing confidential information to a third party;
investigating officers or clerks of court who deliberately withhold already
dismissed cases (“iipitin”) with the view of using the delay to extort money
from respondents in the case. While age-old practices of “lagay” and “suhol”
came out, a new interpretation seems to be in the rounds – i.e., “paglalambing”
or expressions of tenderness and appreciation.


“Paglalambing” or expressions of tenderness and appreciation: points to the

fine line between what may be interpreted as corruption and unsolicited
expressions of goodwill and generosity on the part of the public and therefore
acceptable and welcomed. According to some respondents, it is oftentimes
difficult not to accept “gifts” or “tokens” from the contented and appreciative
public, especially because one’s refusal may be misinterpreted for rudeness. In
anycase, this is consistent with what is a natural Filipino tendency -- i.e., the
sharing one’s “ginhawa” with another “ginhawa.”

Comparing intersections between “Hanapbuhay” subcategories
Finally, it is believed that graft and corruption among rank and file or ordinary
employees may ensue from “paghahanapbuhay sa trabaho” (“pursuing
livelihood while working”) but are essentially driven by “need” and are merely
“small time,” not much (“barya barya lang”) and drizzles (“ambon lang;”
“naaambunan lang”) while those of politicians who “ginagawang hanapbuhay
ang trabaho (“turning work into a livelihood”) are fueled by “greed,” are “big
time” and “high financed” and therefore have more devastating impact. Thus
the former may be socially acceptable and tolerable, in varying degrees, while
the second which by its very nature, is outright condemnable.

V. Culture of Complaisance (“Pagkaumaunawain”)

versus
Culture of Complacency (“Walang Pakialam”)
and Corruption (“Katiwalian”)

CSC will have extreme difficulty to compel those who

engage in “livelihood activities while working” to strictly
follow CSC rules and regulations and relevant laws unless
civil work gives sufficient “ginhawa” to employees,
especially when rules are regarded as incongruous with
reality and social relations within the bureaucracy may be
relied upon to shield employees from “unreasonable”
accountabilities.
Culture of Complaisance versus Culture of Complacency and Corruption

A deeper analysis can be found in

Filipino social psychology structured
around “kapwa” (“shared humanity”).
Employees operate in an environment
of fellow human beings naturally
drawing a line between those whom
they regard as “one-of-us” or “no
different from us” (“hindi ibang tao”)
vis-à-vis those perceived as “ibang tao” www.slideshare.net
(“others” or “outsiders”). Through

“pakikiramdam” (“a shared
sense/sensitivity to non-verbal cues”),
“kapwa” is then translated into
behavior.

Against the backdrop of interrelations with those

“who do not belong to the group,” the overall
inclination towards “members of one’s group” is
that of spontaneity, compassion, flexibility, intuition
and protective affection (complaisance or
www.youthnetonline.eu
“pagkamaunawain”) characterized in various levels
operating in the bureaucracy from
“pakikipagpalagayang-loob” (“being at ease/in
rapport/fellowship with”), “pakikisangkot” (“in
alliance/getting involved with”) and “pakikiisa”
(“self-identifying/being one with”).

A Note on Corruption
On the practical level, what comes out from our historical
review of bureaucratic and political behavior since
Spanish colonial times is that graft and corruption or
“turning work into a livelihood” have largely been the
handiwork of the elite forces which had entered into a
dyadic patronage relationship initially with the successive
colonial powers and, upon our “independence”, have
worked on their own networks.

A Note on Corruption
“Ginagawang hanapbuhay ang trabaho,” which is the
Filipino metaphor for corruption, pertains to practices
that are more associated with politics impinging on the
bureaucracy and not inherent to the bureaucracy itself.
Thus in all the scams and scandals “entire” agencies are
rarely involved but groups within these agencies in
conjunction with external forces, mainly political,
resulting from patronage and clientelism involving mainly
heads of offices who are political appointees.

VI. Implications for Public Human Resource Management

Diagram 3
Framework for Human Resources Management
Recommendations with the acquisition and management of
“Ginhawa” at the center of HRM processes
1. To acknowledge in
MANAGEMENT
organizational development Philosophy

Goals/Objectives
Strategies
that the Filipino employee is

primarily driven by the
pursuit of “ginhawa” in work GINHAWA
and in life in general.

EMPLOYEE TECHNOLOGY
Needs, Values & (Structures,
Expectations Systems &
Processes)

Recommendations
Diagram 2
The Filipino “Ginhawa”-Centered
1. To reframe human resource Life
management with “ginhawa” at the

Vital-
center of its processes and therefore Spiritual
to ensure that programs deliberately Respiratory

-Alimentary
and equally attend to the relational- Relational- Relative

Communal Nature
communal, philosophical-religious,
and spatio-temporal dimensions of
“ginhawa” as it does to the basic
respiratory-alimentary.

3. Depart from the inclination towards incremental policy

making when it is clear that fundamental concerns issues as
social acceptability or cultural sensitivity remain
problematic.
4. Invest more in grounded research that genuinely attempts
to understand how best the Filipino bureaucracy can be
made to function in the most efficient way possible
targeting administrative goals that are not only reasonable
but socially acceptable and therefore achievable as well.

No doubt, addressing the dissonance between western values

espoused by the bureaucracy and the values operating within
the Filipino administrative machinery which are embedded in
the larger societal context and deeply rooted in history requires
the privileging of what fundamentally matters to the and works
for the Filipino, if we are indeed resolute in our desire to make
the western bureaucratic import meaningful, workable and of
real value to societal progress.

Knowing that “ginhawa” is holistic (striving for constant balance)

could help us understand and predict organizational phenomena
more effectively, thereby allowing for better informed policy
interventions that seek to address administrative inefficiencies by
addressing the fundamental root of problems. HRM efforts of the
CSC and its various arms throughout the bureaucracy could be
directed towards helping ordinary employees acquire and manage
“ginhawa” more efficiently through an integrated, comprehensive
development program which provide a package of compensation
and benefits that follow an employee’s life course.
Supplemental to wages and salaries that really provide “living” wages

are:
1. On Respiratory-Alimentary “Ginhawa”: Health oriented programs

that address physical health and psychosomatic concerns such as a
uniform system of managed health care plan and life insurance
program; agency health clinics; guidance and counseling offices;
wellness centers and sports facilities; flexible benefits plan that
provide employees the right to choose from a pool of benefits (e.g.,
reimbursement of health or medical expenses of family members);
others that target physical wellness, and stress relief and relaxation
after work.

2. On Vital-Spiritual “Ginhawa:”
a. Policies and programs that reinforce employee
spirituality –areas assigned for religious worship mimaropa.neda.gov.ph
regardless of affiliation; daily institutional prayer

(ecumenical) could serve as a constant conscience
building and spiritually nurturing exercise. Undertakings
on social conscience building emphasizing social
awareness and responsibility such as outreach programs
may also be valuable in reinforcing programs on integrity
and public accountability.

www.jsm.org
b. Values education and character formation. Helping

employees develop a better understanding and
appreciation of “Pagkataong Pilipino” and
“Pakikipagkapwa-tao” as bases for Filipino human
social interaction, in general and in the bureaucracy in
particular. Approached from the perspectives of
Sikolohiyang Pilipino and Pantayong Pananaw, these
values along with others could be harnessed for a
more responsive bureaucracy -- i.e., the primacy of
“ginhawa” to every Filipino including the public in
contact); the importance of “loob” and “dangal,” of
“katuiran,” “pagkapantay-pantay,” “pakikiwani” and
other relevant values.

Similarly, programs that target one’s efficient

management of “ginhawa” may serve the
purposes of helping employees handle better
their personal finances through self-control and
discipline in budgeting, and savings and
investments. Financial literacy is important in matangapoy.blogspot.com
order to effectively manage the monetary side to

the “ginhawa” equation.
It is high time for government to develop a

Kartilya for Government Employees based on
values espoused by the Katipunan’s philosophy of
governance – i.e., kaginhawahan ng bayan bilang
batayan at patunguhan ng lahat ng pamumunong
bayan.
Building optimism or developing a positive outlook and attitude in life

and in work. Workshops intended to develop and reinforce positive
work values and attitudes directed at appreciating one’s “trabaho;”
learning how to adapt or adjust to changing conditions in one’s life,
particularly one’s “trabaho” (i.e., how to find “ginhawa” in terms of
satisfaction and fulfillment) [e.g. life coaching]. Also, possibly provide
for psychotherapy and counselling services for mental health.

www.123rf.com
C. Campaign against bureaucratic corruption. Connected also with

the respiratory-alimentary and relational-communal dimensions of
“ginhawa,” this aspect of bureaucratic reform could probably best be
achieved by strengthening and capitalizing on the administrative side
of the politics-administration dichotomy that oftentimes results in
the bureaucracy being coopted by politicians in quest of corruption.
However, no amount of effort against corruption directed at the

bureaucracy would succeed without any parallel attempt to put an
end to political corruption. In both respects, leadership examples
and strong political will are crucial. Principles of justice and fairness
that cut across all echelons of government, be it administrative or
political, should be a matter of common perception and practice.

As far as transgressions of the law are concerned, “katuiran”

and “katarungan” should not be matters of mere individual
conscience but of collective outrage. While beholden to
political leaders, administration should be shielded enough
from patronage politics. This may require radicalizing our
concept of “pagkabayani” from a mere Jose Rizal to an Andres Andres Bonifacio
(1995, Monumento)
Bonifacio and the exemplar of the Katipunan so that not only

do we really widen the democratic space inclusive of
nontraditional politicians and contenders outside of politically
entrenched dynasties but public outrage naturally translates
into positive collective action rather than quiet individual
dissent and appeal to one’s conscience.

Jose Rizal
(1995, Monumento)
Emphasizing the idea that being “kapwa tao,” management and employees
are all “pantay sa pagkatao,” (absolute equals) may set aside real
hesitation on the part of ordinary employees to report on their superiors
for graft and corruption because of the belief that they are only
subordinates, “low waist” or “ordinary,” and it is therefore not their place
and “trabaho” to report and apprehend perpetuators of the crime. Also,
utilizing the concept of “karma” or “busong” (Bisayan term) through
programs that promote a strong sense of historical consciousness to
include narratives on the lives of people who have been known to commit
graft and corruption. Critical to this is the emphasis on not only the “divine
wheel of justice” that eventually makes itself felt, but also the seriousness
of the agencies of the state in apprehending and prosecuting those who
have committed graft and corruption.

The prevailing justice system also does not seem to impose

punishment grave enough to discourage those who are
“malalakas ang loob,” where “dapat masampolan para hindi
gayahin” is a real threat to the personal “ginhawa” of the
perpetuator and his/her family. Possible themes for seminar
workshops along this line could be “Walang personalan, trabaho
lang,” “Bawal gawing hanapbuhay ang trabaho,” “Ang taong
may puri at dangal, hindi ginagawang hanapbuhay ang
trabaho,” and others.

3. On Relational-Communal. On positive leadership and management styles. This

pertains to efforts in creating and projecting leadership and management styles that
are centered on the acknowledgement that in government everyone are fellow
human being (“kapwa tao”), including the public that they serve; and that pursuit
of “ginhawa” is a common aspiration and endeavor, not only individually by
employees but organizationally by everyone in the agency merely under the
leadership and direction of management. All agency endeavors are likewise
directed towards the acquisition and maintenance of “ginhawa” for the national
community, to which every government agency contributes or should. All this
requires a departure from the idea of an elitist management to one that is informed
by the conviction that we are all absolute equals in our humanity (“pantay sa
pagkatao”) which implies an appreciative style of leadership that is not
hardpressed in showing gratitude, according recognition whenever and wherever it
is due.

It is true that policies and programs that develop camaraderie, trust, good
fellowship among co-workers and employees are desirable but more
fundamental is reforming the “mindset” that views the bureaucracy as a
hierarchy of superiors and subordinates towards one that considers it a
body of equals, only difference is that each have been entrusted with
specific job descriptions in fulfillment of the general mandate entrusted
to it by Bayan. Going back to the Katipunan Philosophy of Pinunong
Bayan (i.e., which is not entirely different from “governance” in regard to
its focus on leadership), ascension into office does not nullify
“pagkapantay-pantay sa pagkatao sa pagitan ng pinuno at ng bayan na
nagluklok dito.” It is only in their general direction that the two concepts
of “Pamumunong Bayan” and “Governance” seem to diverge.

For the Katipunan, the very basis for the existence of leaders is
“Bayan” = public and so the latter’s “kagalingan at
kaginhawahan” should be the sole direction of all government’s
work and pronouncements. It is the duty of our leaders to lead
the country into a holistic state of wellbeing (“kaginhawahan”).
Since Bayan is taken to be “everything, blood and life, wealth and
strength, everything is owned and owed to Bayan.” Therefore its
“kaginhawahan” is the sole basis for any authority on earth and
its want is to be blamed on no one but our leaders.

Moving on to employees unions and collective negotiation

agreements, we recognize the crucial role of the latter in
securing and promoting the “ginhawa” of employees’
collectively. Employees unions with strong leadership are
highly valued as these provide effective protection against
potential abuses by management and are generally efficient
in bringing to the attention of administration employees’
concerns. These associations may continue to do well as
partners in human resource management and development
as well as in providing mechanisms for checks and balances in
the exercise of power and authority within the agency.

4. Institutionalization of a Civil Service Commission instrument to regularly

monitor government employee’s levels of “ginhawa” and their sentiments
towards (or inclination to accept and tolerate) “paghahanapbuhay sa trabaho”
and “ginagawang hanapbuhay ang trabaho” with a view to addressing
employee welfare through informed policy interventions as well as checking
against potentially fertile ground for corruption (“katiwalian”) and therefore
proactively addressing the problem. Even the present Performance
Management System-Office Performance Evaluation System, which is based
on the premise that individual performance should be aligned with
organizational goals and in turn with national goals, should integrate within its
managerial philosophy the idea that not only are government employees
fundamentally “ginhawa”-driven but that organizational goals should be
directed towards the mutual attainment of “ginhawa” for its human resource
and the organization if any of its policies and programs are to succeed.

Diagram 4
The Alignment of Individual Employee’s Goals to Organizational Goals,
National Goals (as well as Local and Sectoral Goals) with that of the Katipunan’s Philosophy of
Leadership/Governance centered on the Acquisition and Management of “Kaginhawahan ng Bayan”
NATIONAL GOALS
SECTORAL/LOCAL GOALS
Medium Term Philippine
Development Plan
Philippine Development Plan
Local Development Plan
ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS
Agency Logical
INDIVIDUAL GOALS KAGINHAWAHAN Framework/Organizational
Performance Indicator
Respiratory-Alimentary NG BAYAN (OPIF)/Agency Charter/Strategic
Ginhawa Pag-ibig sa Kapwa at Bayan Plan
Vital-Spiritual Ginhawa Pagpapahalaga sa Kalayaan Major Final Output (MFO),
Relational-Communal Ginhawa at Katuirang kaloob Support to Operations (STOs),
Relative Nature of Ginhawa General Administration and Support
ng Langit Services (GAS)
Programs, Projects and Activities
(PAPS)
MGA PINUNO AT LINGKOD

BAYAN
PAMAHALAAN

Finally, our last recommendation is addressed to the state

as society and culture, but particularly as polity. Such efforts
will necessarily involve not only the Civil Service
Commission and its various Human Resource offices
throughout the Philippine Administrative System but all
agencies of the state as well as stakeholders from within the
government, in both national and local levels, those
responsible for legislating, executing and interpreting laws but
also the general public for which this type of public policy
reform is directed.

To ground Philippine bureaucracy in Philippine culture thereby

making it more socio-culturally relevant not only to its own
employees but also to the general public it serves, minimizing
areas of conflict and competition between Filipino and western
informed ways of doing things, and capitalizing on existing
culture-based social controls that could reinforce desirable
bureaucratic practices. This is possible not through incremental
policy making but mainly through innovative policies built
around knowledge generated through basic research using
Filipino perspective/s and culturally sensitive approaches and
methods to research.

Summary and Conclusion

“Ginhawa” is central to the life and life pursuit of every Filipino. Often
inadequately translated into English as “well-being,” it may be understood
in its various aspects. The first dimension is respiratory-alimentary which
relates to the overall biological/physiological condition or functioning of
the human body. The second dimension is vital-spiritual which is
“ginhawa” in its figurative meaning. This relates to one’s philosophico-
religious and psychological existence or in other words, the internal
components of Filipino humanity (“pagkatao”) in dynamic interaction with
the natural and supernatural realm. The third is the relational-communal
dimension or “ginhawa” construed as self (“sarili”) and one’s humanity
(“pagkatao”) interacting with the external world. Finally, the fourth and
last aspect of “ginhawa” is the spacio-temporal dimension or “ginhawa” as
it relates to changing life circumstances and human relations.

Government employees’ pursue “ginhawa” in the workplace in what is

known to Filipinos as “Hanapbuhay” in the general sense of the word
which means the “search for life and livelihood.” This is in so far as
working in/for government translates ultimately into compensation
that allow employees to acquire and maintain “life.” “Ginhawa” is the
primary motivation for the pursuit of “Hanapbuhay” in government.
The paper will show however that once in the bureaucracy employees
are confronted by the “hanapbuhay-trabaho” dichotomy or the clear
and contrasting demands of two subcategories of “Hanapbuhay:”
“trabaho” or the prerequisites of and gains from formal sector
employment and “hanapbuhay” which is more in tune with the
traditional Filipino work ethic and nature of informal sector
employment.
As “ginhawa” derived from strictly administrative work proves

inadequate, an intersection or gray area between “hanapbuhay” and
“trabaho” occurs, giving shape to certain Filipino bureaucratic practices
that although construed as dysfunctional or negative following the
western bureaucratic ethos enjoy certain levels of social acceptance
and tolerance among government employees. This is known as
“paghahanapbuhay sa trabaho” or “pursuing a livelihood while
working.” In contrast to this is the resulting intersection of
“ginagawang hanapbuhay ang trabaho” or “turning one’s work into a
livelihood,” the Filipino metaphor for corruption, which pertains to
practices that are more associated with politics impinging on the
bureaucracy.

There is thus a need to distinguish between political and bureaucratic

corruption, especially because Filipinos have very strong moral and
ethical standards that govern administrative conduct; and that within
our culture itself are very strong social controls or corrective
mechanisms that operate to define, regulate and control bureaucratic
behavior. In the Filipino conception of bureaucratic norms, the varying
degrees of social acceptance and tolerance for “paghahanapbuhay sa
trabaho” is shaped by its association with positive Filipino values unlike
“ginagawang hanapbuhay ang trabaho” which is outright condemned
as immoral and therefore unacceptable.

What in fact permeates throughout the Philippine bureaucracy which has

tremendous consequences for human resource management is a culture
of complaisance and not a culture of complacency and corruption, the
latter primarily political in nature.
Public human resource management to be meaningful, relevant and

effective should put “ginhawa” at the center of its policies and programs,
processes and procedures. It should be integrated, comprehensive and
developmental. What are crucial are not incremental policies but
innovative ones that not only address the concerns identified above, but
more fundamentally help ground the Philippine bureaucracy, thereby
making it more socio-culturally relevant not only to our own employees
but also to the public it serves. This is possible through more investments
in basic policy research using Filipino theories and methods of research.

Thank you very much!

The research presented may be found in detail in the following

reference:
Ma. Carmen V. Penalosa, “HANAPBUHAY”: THE FILIPINO

BUREAUCRAT’S QUEST FOR “GINHAWA” IN THE
WORKPLACE. Its Implications for Understanding
Bureaucratic Corruption. Dissertation submitted to
UPNCPAG, 2014.

MCVPenalosa Ginhawa Hanapbuhay-at-Katiwalian PPT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MCVPenalosa Ginhawa Hanapbuhay-at-Katiwalian PPT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILIPINO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES’ SEARCH FOR

“GINHAWA” (Wellbeing*) IN THE WORKPLACE:

MA. CARMEN V. PEÑALOSA, PHD.

2016 EROPA-CSC CONFERENCE, MANILA HOTEL, 10-14 October 2016

Parts of the presentation

Ma. Carmen V. Peñalosa, Phd.

Parts of the presentation

Ma. Carmen V. Peñalosa, Phd.

Ma. Carmen V. Peñalosa, Phd.

➢ Public human resource management (HRM) in the Philippines until

➢ The author explored selected indigenous Filipino concepts and inquired

GT/FD 1: Respondents from agencies perceived to be graft and corrupt

GT/FD 3: Respondents from anti-graft & corruption bodies (Office of

GT/FD 4: 6 respondents from nongovernment sectors: civil society

The discussion guide was prepared based on the results of stage 1

Qualitative data gathered through GT sessions were categorized

No notable difference in responses were found across GT/FD.

II. “Ginhawa” (Wellbeing*) as fundamental

Ma. Carmen V. Peñalosa, Phd.

➢ “Ginhawa” derives from Proto-Austronesian [PAn] *(Ra-)siNáwa

➢ It has reflexes in the 1) islands north of Luzon – from the Orchid

Mapa II Extent of the Austronesian World (Bellwood et al, 1995)

“Ginhawa” (Wellbeing*) as fundamental Filipino human motivation

1. Respiratory-alimentary (breath-life-stomach): relates to the overall biological/physiological conditions/functionings of the human

“Ginhawa” (Wellbeing*) as fundamental Filipino human motivation

➢ It is an indigenous concept common to all Filipinos, providing a common

➢ Thus “ginhawa” is central to the meaning of life as maintenance of life

➢ Defined in the negative, the non-attainment of “ginhawa” results in its

“Ginhawa” (Wellbeing*) as fundamental Filipino human motivation

III. Government Employees and their

Ma. Carmen V. Peñalosa, Phd.

➢ One way to attain “Ginhawa” is through “Hanapbuhay” in its general or

➢ Literally, “Hanapbuhay” means “search for life” and/or “search for a

➢ “Hanapbuhay” has two meanings

“Hanapbuhay” or the Search for “Ginhawa”

➢ The civil employee is actually involved in “Hanapbuhay” in the

➢ However, once in the bureaucracy, employees come face to face

“Ginhawa” that may be derived from “hanapbuhay” (engaging in

The first appears to be essentially a function of one’s health; plus

Appears to be a function of the monthly salary of an individual

On another level, the social dimensions of “ginhawa” relates to the

A more deeply spiritual meaning of “ginhawa” implies a generous

Thus there appears to be a transference of spirituality from the

This relational-communal dimension of “ginhawa” sharing “ginhawa”

“Ginhawa” being an overall condition should be seen and treated

Whichever is the case, the “hanapbuhay-trabaho” dichotomy now

Inconsistencies in the government employee’s level of expected

Interestingly though, the association between “ginhawa” and

IV. Confronting the “Hanapbuhay-Trabaho” Dichotomy

Ma. Carmen V. Peñalosa, Phd.

➢ “hanapbuhay-trabaho” Dichotomy are practices among employees

Public sector Employment = “Hanapbuhay”

Confronting the “Hanapbuhay-Trabaho” Dichotomy in the Public Workplace

➢ It is the intersection or gray area between “hanapbuhay” and “trabaho”

Confronting the “Hanapbuhay-Trabaho” Dichotomy in the Public Workplace

Confronting the “Hanapbuhay-Trabaho” Dichotomy in the Public Workplace

➢ “Ginagawang hanapbuhay ang

Confronting the “Hanapbuhay-Trabaho” Dichotomy in the Public Workplace

➢ Filipino moral and ethical standards of administrative behavior apparently

“…[H]indi lahat ng Pilipino ay corrupt, hindi lahat ng

Confronting the “Hanapbuhay-Trabaho” Dichotomy in the Public Workplace

➢ Employment in government should neither be pursued as livelihood

Confronting the “Hanapbuhay-Trabaho” Dichotomy in the Public Workplace