Dear Editor,
As a former HR practitioner in Guyana and now operating in the Caribbean, I always read with keen interest developments in human resource management and labour relations in Guyana, and more particularly in the sugar industry, where I had my earlier groundings as a clerk in the personnel department. I read with interest the missive from Mr Earl John, whom I remembered as a former Personnel Director in GuySuCo, captioned ‘Priority should be given to the humanisation of GuySuCo over mechanisation’ carried in SN edition of April 10.
Due to my naivety in cane farming, I will focus on human resource management and development. I am in disagreement with Mr John that the financially beleaguered sugar company should focus its investment, as a priority, in the “humanisation” of its human resource over that of mechanisation and technology. There must be a balance of investment in both human resource development and mechanisation/technology. It would make no sense if the industry has a highly developed and trained cadre of managers operating in an environment of outdated machines and antiquated technology. For the sugar company to move forward there must be a synchrony between management and development of talent to effectively deal with a workforce that’s evolving from paternalism of the past to irrationality and aggressiveness of the present, and being technologically savvy to deal with modern day machines and technology.
I further disagree with Mr John that GuySuCo “has been bereft of an incumbent with adequate sapiential authority to drive the human resource management and development train since the departure of once cadet Nowrang Persaud as HR Director several years ago.” I had the opportunity in the mid ’90s to listen to a lecture from Mr Persaud at a Guyana HR Practitioners Association (GHRPA) session and was quite impressed by him. I do not think the company was bereft of an incumbent after Mr Persaud left, because if the sugar company’s performance is to be determined by its sugar production and financial standing, then after Mr Persaud demitted office production soared exponentially every year thereafter to almost 330,000 tonnes sugar in 2004 and profitability was recorded in the same period. Of course, these levels of outstanding performances could not have been without input from those that head the HR function; as such whilst Mr Persaud may be a good practitioner he could not have been that good that his departure has left the sugar company in a state of inertia where its HR function was concerned.
I wish to caution that whilst I agree that the search to fill the vacant position of HR Director should be “throughout the diaspora”, care must be taken that the successful candidate must be equally knowledgeable in the strategic functions of human resource management and the culture and operational vagaries of the sugar industry.
I would therefore support Mr John that GuySuCo needs to accelerate its management development programmes, but at the same time should not lose sight of the equal need to invest in modern machinery and technology.
Yours faithfully,
Mohamed Sayad
