Dear Editor,
When I wrote the following comments in 2013, I could hardly have had a clue as to their being prophetic enough to relate as closely as they did to some of the remarks the Minister of Finance made in a very informative interview conducted on Channel 11, on Tuesday evening, August 11.
The text went like this:
“4.1 Annual increases vis-à-vis annual increment
Not to be overlooked is the issue of eligibility of ‘contracted employees’ for the administration’s voluntary annual across-the-board increase in the same manner (and time) as their counterpart traditional ‘pensionable’ colleagues, particularly having regard to the provision to the former of gratuity accruable every three months and payable to at the rate of 22.5% of salary every six months.
“But it is perhaps more critical to appreciate the ‘outmoded’ principle of awarding increments. In the earlier history of the public service the award was based on the assessment of individual performance and could range from zero to as high as double the amount (percentage) applicable to an average performance.
“The practice still obtains in some public corporations (albeit with modifications), as evidenced by the subject of the recent industrial dispute at GPL where the system was negotiated with the representative union (Naacie).
“The point is that a deserving performance can earn increments moving from the minimum to the maximum of the relevant salary scale.
“The public service performance appraisal system once not only spurred individual and group productivity but, more importantly, was utilised for promotional purposes, as well as for identifying training and development needs to be addressed.
“4.2 The Bunching Effect
“One significant inhibitor to productive performance is the very ‘across-the-board’ annual increase. For example, an employee who joined the public service at the minimum of the applicable scale, say ten years ago, and the beneficiary of the ‘annual increase’, continues to remain at the minimum, as the scale itself is adjusted consequentially over that period. His/her newly recruited counterpart (ie 10 years after) starts exactly at the same (current) minimum – implying no recognition of earlier experience and/or competence or growth over the relevant service period. This situation, known as ‘bunching’, is of course prevalent throughout the public service.
“The resultant frustration of the ‘senior’ employee can be compounded if he/she has been acting in higher position/s (not unusually more than one grade) without any specific indication of the criteria or deadline for promotion. There is a significant incidence of persons acting for more than five years.”
It was further encouraging to learn from the Minister of a review being undertaken of public service pay (apparently in the face of complaints by the Guyana Public Service Union). Again in this regard the following 2013 commentary does not appear to be totally irrelevant:
“4.3 Scaling Down
Perhaps more significantly, the imposed increases make a fiction of the policy of salary grades. The latter are but a chimera. Yet they do provide some guide as to how respective categories of jobs in the public service appear to be valued. But not quite. The last comprehensive evaluation of positions in the public service was undertaken about 1991, when the jobs hierarchy was reduced from approximately 18 grades to the current 14, which still exists more than twenty years after. It means that old, changed, as well as new tasks and responsibilities, and work dimensions, generated largely by new technologies, continue to be forced into the same fourteen grade structure.
“Inexplicably, as the ICT sector expands there still exists such pensionable posts as ‘Typist/Clerk’. Specialist technology and ‘knowledge’ positions keep growing remarkably in the health and agriculture sectors, amongst others; while those who talk glibly about human resources continue to recruit and retain various levels of ‘Personnel Officer’ – ie, Chief, Principal, Senior, and then Personnel Officer.”
Over-optimistically perhaps one thought of hearing welcome talk about, ‘performance appraisal’, for once again it appeared to correlate with another text from my 2013 compendium which read as follows:
“4.6 Performance Measurement Revisited
The ultimate implications for individual and unit productivity invite serious reflection, particularly in operations engaging relatively inexperienced skills. There seems a good case for insisting on the re-institution of performance management systems – for the benefit of all involved parties.
“Since in the meantime the current blanket of annual increases is not seen as performance related, its application can have a demotivating effect on the more committed performer. When the individual experience is multiplied, the prospects for sustainability of the organisation remain at best tenuous. Given this perspective one outcome may well be that the person who leaves is the better performer.
“Intricated in the management of an environment with potential for a significant level of migration must be the temptation of the employee to exploit management’s perceived need for the particular skills set, forcing an in-expert compensation manager to respond peremptorily, while bearing the competition in mind.”
But if opportunity can be taken to advert to a very current topic of debate – the ICT sector alluded to earlier. I just hoped to entice comments and possible debate by those more expertly informed concerning the current prioritisation of ICT jobs and their respective grades in the public service job hierarchy. Incidentally at first glance there would appear to be a good case for rationalising the range of titles, and related job content.
Over to the better informed analysts.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
