Dear Editor,
Appearing in the Sunday Chronicle of August 4, 2013, was a Vacancy Notice for the position of Senior Communications Officer in the Guyana Sugar Corporation.
It was as if the troubled organisation did not wish several of the very ‘stakeholders’ or ‘media’ often referred to in the notice, to know about the occurrence. One other reason may well be sensitivity about the actual structuring and text of the notice.
A few basic grammatical glitches may be detected amongst the agenda of the ‘Major Duties and Responsibilities’ assigned to the incumbent. From amongst these the following excerpts have been abbreviated:
√ Spokesperson for Corporation to ‘stakeholders’
√ Promote ‘media’ relations
√ Prepare ‘press releases’, speeches, communication documents
√ Coordinate independently with ‘media’ and ‘stakeholders’
√ Conduct ‘Press conferences’
√ Promote corporate image by assisting executive management to plan and execute communication strategies
What is clearly indicative is the corporation’s commitment to image-making so far as the public is concerned. This is a curious direction in which to point, when in fact there is a plethora of evidence which suggests the substantive disconnection existing between GuySuCo’s management and its employees.
For some reason the organisation refuses to attempt to verify what well-placed observers have consistently remarked on: poor productivity, low worker attendance, an indifferent, if not, demoralized estate management – all reflective of the communication gaps – amongst the latter themselves, and between them, and the executive management team, and then the Board.
However academically well qualified, the successful applicant cannot cure or even ameliorate this endemic ailment in GuySuCo.
Neither could the best candidate have been exposed to a similar environment, nor would the best of them make sense of the ‘Key Management Competencies’ applicable to the position. Very confused, if not irrelevant are the descriptors. For example, one is not certain of the expected outcomes of ‘Strategic Thinking’ as described. Surely ‘Innovation and Creation’ would have been typographical errors and perhaps instead read ‘Innovativeness and Creativity’ – a distinction which in any case is not normally made.
In the meantime no mention is made of reporting relationships.
It would be too much to ask GuySuCo to state what aspects or areas of the several strategic plans they have achieved, so that lessons learnt from their success would be helpful to the new recruit. For it would not be possible for the latter to meaningfully assist the former.
Yours faithfully,
EB John
