By Abiodun AWOSANYA
What happens when the very system designed to nurture talent begins to suppress it? What happens when brilliance is no longer an advantage, but a liability? These are not abstract questions but a reflection of a growing reality within the civil service, one that many young professionals encounter but few openly discuss due to either fear of the unknown or terrible outcomes.
The civil service is often described as the engine room of governance. It is a place where policies are implemented and the machinery of the state is kept running. For many, it represents stability, purpose, and an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to society. It promises growth and a chance to be part of something larger than oneself. Yet, beneath this promise lies a different experience. The experience that quietly shapes careers, decisions, and ultimately, outcomes.
Rather than a nurturing environment, the civil service is frequently weighed down by unhealthy attitudes such as sycophancy, deceit, hostility, and what is commonly referred to as “eye-service.” These are not isolated behaviors; they form a pattern that influences how success is defined and who gets to achieve it. And for those who enter the system with genuine passion and ideas, the realization can be both surprising and discouraging.
At first glance, the system appears to reward diligence and competence. But a closer look reveals a different dynamic. Individuals who master the art of pleasing superiors, sometimes through flattery rather than performance, often advance more quickly. Meanwhile, those who rely on merit alone may find themselves overlooked. This contradiction creates a subtle but powerful shift in priorities. Performance becomes secondary, and perception takes the lead. Very bitter experience when perception of you shape people’s actions towards you.
As competition within the civil service intensifies, a deeper tension begins to surface. Opportunities for advancement are limited, and this scarcity creates an environment where individuals are not just working, they are positioning themselves. In such a setting, brilliance can become unsettling. Senior officers, instead of embracing the energy and innovation of younger staff, may begin to see it as a potential threat. The fear, sometimes unspoken, is that today’s subordinate could become tomorrow’s replacement.
Mentorship is withheld. Opportunities are rationed. Capable individuals are subtly sidelined, not because they lack ability, but because they possess too much of it. In extreme cases, excellence is not developed. It is contained. The system, instead of expanding to accommodate talent, structured to protect existing hierarchies.
Even more intriguing is the quiet contradiction that emerges among some leaders. Many of today’s superiors once stood where the younger generation now stands, questioning norms, pushing boundaries, and benefiting from those who believed in their potential. Yet, having risen through the ranks, some begin to resist the very traits that once defined them. What was once seen as courage is now labeled insubordination. What was once innovation is now considered disruption.
Framed as discipline, order, or protection of institutional values, such actions can easily gain acceptance. Others rally behind it, believing a necessary line is being drawn. But beneath that justification often lies something more personal, such as discomfort with being challenged, and a reluctance to confront one’s own limitations.
In a healthy system, ideas are tested through dialogue. Questions are encouraged, not punished. But within many civil service structures, reasonable challenge, especially from subordinates or contemporaries, is seen as a direct threat to authority or intellectual standing. Instead of fostering discussion, it is often met with resistance. Those who question are labeled deviant. When they persist, they are quietly pushed aside.
Over time, this message reshapes behavior. New entrants, who once believed in hard work and integrity, begin to adapt. They observe what is rewarded, what is ignored, and what is punished. Gradually, survival replaces aspiration. Silence replaces curiosity. And conformity replaces originality.
Motivation declines. Creativity fades. Bright minds either dim themselves to fit in or leave entirely in search of better opportunities. What remains is not necessarily the best, but the most adaptable to the system’s unwritten rules. And when this happens, the impact extends beyond individual careers. It affects the quality of governance itself.
But this is not where the story must end. What if the civil service could become what it was always meant to be? A place where excellence is not feared but celebrated. Where leaders are confident enough to mentor those who may one day surpass them. Where challenge is not seen as defiance, but as a pathway to better decisions.
Merit must once again become the standard, not only in theory but also in practice. Mentorship must be intentional, not selective. Leaders must model not just authority, but openness the willingness to listen, to be questioned, and to grow. Because true leadership is not measured by how well one holds power, but by how effectively one prepares others to carry it forward.
The civil service holds immense potential. Within it are individuals capable of driving meaningful change, if only they are given the space to do so. The question therefore is not whether the system can improve, but whether it is willing to confront the very patterns that hold it back.
Because when excellence is no longer seen as a threat, but as a shared strength, everything changes.
Abiodun AWOSANYA writes from Igbogbo
