Dear Editor,
If only vicariously a visitor to this society must absorb, and then wonder about the volatile environment in which the concept and practice of governance abides. Protagonists, observers and analysts all, indicate by their posturings and declamations in the media, and more demonstrably on television, their respective (ir)rationalisations about the current state of governance in our ‘village’ community.
The truth is that the tendency to stipulate and impose a ‘centralised’ format of decision-making began with the nationalisation of the ‘commanding heights,’ albeit at a time when the intellectual capacity involved in this intended developmental programme still had perceptible reserves of sensitivity about the implications inherent in their adventurous forays.
Gradually, however, then with increasing rapidity, there emerged the arrogation of governance as a control mechanism, in face of the contradistinctive process of privatisation. In transition the style would appear to have been of authoritative management adopted not only in statutory bodies, but critically also, by private sector entities as the latter in turn forged perceptibly compliant relationships within an unpredictable and non-consultative regulatory framework.
Despite voluble protestations to the contrary, and both subtle and explicit proddings from donor institutions, the evidence of disintegration in public governance structures, is at least sobering, and potentially threatening. Some will argue that the extant climate has had a debilitative effect on the quality of management in the private sector, thus lowering the level of professional leadership, with related distortions in management structures and processes, not to mention slack organisational relationships compounded by insensitive communication with their most immediate customers – their employees.
Despite touted formulations of Visions and Missions – (suspiciously more for purposes of marketing than for good management) it is difficult to identify a Chief Executive Officer who can articulate with conviction a personal and/or corporate philosophy that drives the (economic) success of the business he/she heads. In brief, with but perhaps one exception, there is no positive role model of leadership that inspires. Rather they prefer to be participants at seminars – groups of absorbent managers, shown intently listening to statements by foreign pontificators on structured corporate management experiences, and decision-making systems founded on acknowledged business principles and best practices – but implemented only within an approved comfort zone.
One has to strain to hear local mention of character and ethics. There is hardly an audible reference to the need for trust – a commodity the absence of which has contributed to a riven society. The leadership adrenalin is simply not evident. Yet one continues to hope that a few managers may be familiar with Stephen Covey’s highly acclaimed book The Speed of Trust, in which the author states in his opening paragraph, as follows:
“[Trust] is one thing that is common to every individual, relationship, team, family, organisation, nation, economy and civilisation throughout the world – one thing which, if removed, will destroy the most powerful government, the most successful business, the most thriving economy, the most influential leadership, the greatest friendship, the strongest character, the deepest love…yet it is the least understood, most neglected, and most underestimated possibility of our time.”
Those who perchance interpret the above to be a religious affirmation would be right. It is in fact a credo acknowledged by CEOs of businesses such as Marriott International Inc, Singapore Airlines, Deloitte & Touche, Campbell Soup Company, amongst many others, including global marketing and media authorities.
‘Trust’ speaks to connectivity, to corporate responsibility, to human resources development – attributes the promotion of which are critically needed in our immediate circumstances. Particularly relevant to the substance of the development glibly spoken of in Guyana is that of our human resources, but none of the fulminations of recent years have been translated into any productive projects generated and sustained by the private sector as a whole; possibly because of the comparably low status accorded the human resources management function in most of its member organisations. It is difficult to identify appropriately respected Human Resources Management competence occupying an authoritative seat on most boards in our private sector.
Accordingly these bodies would be surprised by the realisation that the attendant limitations of their respective human resources developmental policies (if any) have cumulated into the paralysis evident in the larger national arena, of which each is a part.
They do not appear to recognise the contradiction wherein the country courts foreign investors, pretends to regional and even global competitiveness, which derives from the very economies whose private sectors are committed partners in human resource development programmes and projects, through active financial and material support to education, with emphasis on the production of professional skills from universities and other relevant training institutions.
There are some who claim that they detect a deliberate, possibly a conspiratorial element in the apathy so consistently displayed by these ‘entrepreneurs’. How does one interpret the absence of any published reaction to the formal plea made not long ago by the last Vice Chancellor of the impending state of collapse of the University of Guyana?
It is difficult to believe that the linkage between the productivity of the university and the sustainability of our economy is not discerned as immediate by our business people. One is forced to wonder whether their governance structures are supplemented by any succession planning – particularly given the high incidence of staff turnover – by no means an insignificant indicator of the lack of trust in current palpably uncaring employers.
One hopes some soul-searching would have been stirred by the revelations on TV’s ‘Plain Talk’ of Sunday, 28 October, 2012, of the precipitous state of our ‘first’ educational institution, with the prospect of losing its accreditation.
Many amongst the viewers must have pondered on the highly publicised priority the corporate community assigns to sports over education, even though contradictorily less for the former’s development than for the promotion of their consumerables.
Struggling graduates can hardly be expected to respect their future employers; and if they may have read Stephen Covey’s book, mutual ‘trust’ is unlikely to be the foundation of future organisational relationships.
What a vacuum in which to claim leadership!
But let me end on a cheerful note on HR, excerpted from the bestselling book Winning, authored by Jack Welch, retired Chairman and Chief Executive of GE (General Electric) acknowledged as one of the most successful business leaders of his time.
“Elevate HR to a position of power and primacy in the organisation, and make sure HR people have the special qualities to help managers build leaders and careers. In fact, the best HR types are pastors and parents in the same package.”
Help the University of Guyana to satisfy this need.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
