Dear Editor,
Recent reports in the media repeated the old conundrum surrounding the retention of older people in employment versus ‘retiring’ them just to provide opportunities for youth employment.
Naturally, younger people want to escape the stigma, misfortunes and vicissitudes of the unemployed while their older counterparts struggle to remain relevant, recognized, useful and rewarded.
Concurrently, employers who are increasingly under pressure to get the best returns from their significant outlays on rising employment costs, must weigh the pros and cons of retaining the services of the tried (not necessarily tired) experienced staff who have already proven their worth versus the unknown but ‘suspect’ competencies of the latest ‘graduates’ from schools and institutions of equally ‘questionable’ curricula, credentials and objectives.
Often, the doubts and debates devolve from dubious attitudes and aptitudes of potential recruits. Especially disconcerting to employers are their personal/behavioural ‘characteristics’, their approach to work and relationships with people, including manners and courtesy towards seniors and supervisors and sensitivity to organizational norms and contextual imperatives.
Areas of practical concern include their engagement with and commitment to the organization, willingness to learn and go the extra mile in the interest of the organization vis-à-vis their expectation from the organization or the so-called give and take. This is not to say that all young people are guilty of these shortcomings, nor is it an excuse for poor orientation by unwary or insensitive employers; they certainly have basic responsibilities in these regards. However, while corporate social responsibility cannot be ignored, the over-riding concern of management in the private sector includes efficiency, productivity and profitability which remain their basic raison d’être, compared to their counterparts in government and the public sector who are required to think of their over-riding obligation to the state to pursue developmental opportunities for the population at large. Obviously, a viable compromise is the ideal.
My experience as a human resource management practitioner convinces me that while younger people tend to be more academically and technically ‘qualified’ and are more concerned about their professional profile, the older counterparts tend to be more competent and committed to the organization. (The days of the organization man as, for example, the ‘Bookers Man’ or the ‘Bauxite Man’ or the ‘Civil Servant’ are a thing of the past, but that tendency or culture still lingers among the elderly as opposed to the newer generation of employees who appear to be more self-centred in pursuit of their personal and professional development. Again, it must be emphasized that nothing is intrinsically wrong with self-development, but its pursuit must not be exclusive of considerations for the employer who facilitates it.
In practical terms, it is obvious that the foregoing tendencies and the reported brain drain being experienced in Guyana, require a liberal, more pragmatic use of all the available, usable human resources irrespective of any dogmatic or pre-conceived constraints like a fixed age of retirement; many of the more advanced and better endowed societies have already moved in the direction of open-ended or flexible retirement.
Already there has been much media coverage about the questionable practice of retiring members of the noble profession of teaching as early as at 55 years when most of them are at their best; given the numerical shortages and/or inefficacy of the recent youthful intake into this critical profession, the need for urgent reversal of current practices seems pellucid.
Similarly, I am aware of the dearth and/or deficiencies in the human resources management profession which is also nodal for effective utilization of the employees in important production and services organizations.
Yours faithfully,
Nowrang Persaud
