Dear Editor,

“The industry is in the pits.”

These are harsh words attributed to Mr Komal Chand of GAWU – someone who has been in and of the sugar industry longer than most of the current players.  Should we take him seriously?

This public denunciation of GuySuCo’s current situation may be regarded in some quarters, as irresponsible, since the understanding is that the union is represented at some level of decision-making in the organization.  Whether so or not, it is not enough for the ‘workers’ to just complain of perceived inadequacies. More importantly, it is their obligation to seek dialogue and discuss the viability of their perspective of addressing those inadequacies.

One can therefore identify the need for more effective communication between manager and managed – an area in which the current Booker Tate ‘group’ (one hesitates to describe them as a team) was always suspect.

It needs to be understood that for several years now ‘Booker Tate’ has ceased to be the ‘company’ as known in the past.  For years now it has been taken over by a larger business organization.  It is therefore only a ‘brand name’ at this point in time, so that the management of GuySuCo is now managed by a disaggregated group of individuals, rather than a ‘team’ deriving from a common work environment or steeped in a single management philosophy.

The result is a certain difficulty in articulating a vision of the industry that energises managers and operatives across the various locations.

Interestingly enough there is consistent coverage of information for public consumption.  But what seems to have been overlooked is that the first public is GuySuCo’s employees themselves and that it is the latter on whom attention should be focused.

The communication gap seems at least a contributing factor to the demotivation of too many personnel who feel that their respective morale problems are not being heeded, even in spite of the discernible pattern of voluntary and unplanned departures.

Arguably the continuing skills’ drain over recent years would have impacted negatively on GuySuCo’s productivity.  But while the disenchantment of even skilled operatives can (partially) be addressed by wage increases and varied incentives, mere improved remuneration is not necessarily the panacea for the ills that are possibly besetting particularly the management levels of the organisation.

As in other organisations, the issues include such basics as getting recognition for one’s contribution, being given the opportunity to express a view and contribute to a relevant level of decision-making so that rather than the existing anonymity, the frontline manager can be perceived by his/her subordinates as someone responsible and accountable.

The union/workers can play a part in reducing this state of limbo and transforming it into a more dynamic process by insisting that their supervisors and managers be better informed, and consequently be assigned more authority to organise the achievement of targets in a timely manner.

The communication system, or the lack of it, can at times, deny the decision-makers at the upper hierarchical level of vital, nuanced information that may influence the quality of decision-making.

All of this is subsumed, however, under the overall problem of the increasing departure of critical human resources, and the consequent diminution of strategic institutional memory.

Their replacements in the absence of an appropriately coordinated succession plan, are not necessarily immediate ‘best fits’ for the next rung (and occasionally two rungs) up.

What therefore are the options left for GuySuCo in the short term?  Arguably, where the organisation is bereft of the relevant individual decision-making capability, no harm will be done in exploring a more collegial format, that would provide for the exchange of views and the consensual formulation of strategies.  These focus groups may be cross-functional in the respective locations, and can also cross-cut locations in analysing industry-wide problems.

The selection of the groupings will be logically based on a careful evaluation of performance and leadership capacity.  Membership must constitute persons who are self-confident and willing to take ownership for the decisions made, and the consequences of their implementation.

At the same time self-confidence must be sustained by the demonstrable assurance that their assigned roles will be protected from non-corporate interventions.

In relation to the latter, the exception to be made is in the installation of one or more ‘advisory bodies’ who contain outstanding reserves of skills, experience, relevant institutional memory and importantly, vision, and who can provide informed advice on a range of identified policy (and operational) issues.

There is a significant number of these ‘sugar’ personnel who are available to serve in the national interest as they, like everyone else, are sensitive to the possible wide-ranging effects of ‘sugar melting.’

A first priority will of course be the challenges posed by  the new Skeldon Factory and its ramifications; the implications of mechanisation, and the impact on employment.

There is of course the rest of the sugar industry to be examined by location and by function.  Appropriate expertise can be co-opted into review teams to share perceptions of particular strengths and weaknesses, and make recommendations on opportunities to be seized for rectifying and upgrading systems and procedures, in order not only to stave off the threat of depreciation, but better to guide a process of implementation aimed at achieving the high standards of behaviour and productivity so anxiously desired by all stakeholders
.
The unions of course must be full partners in this new dispensation.

In the final analysis, it is preeminently a matter of leadership, evidence of which is by no means overwhelming.

Yours faithfully,
E B John