Dear Editor,
Please refer to my letter of 24th May and published in SN of Monday 27, 2019 under the heading `Dynamic human resources management urgently needed in public service’.
Please note that your sub-editor in retaining the following sentence: ‘But it is only fair for the interested reader to get an appreciation of what types of jobs (skills?) are included in the foregoing categorisations’, then omitted Table 3 following and related text, overlooking the fact that many informed persons, including public servants themselves, would recognise the omission of what in fact is a critical portion of the letter.
“But it is only fair for the interested reader to get an appreciation of what types of jobs (skills?) are included in the foregoing categorisations.
Table 3 following, when examined carefully, throws up some interesting samples of incongruities in terms of the categorisation of alleged skills.
Table 3
The positions are extracted from the 2019 Estimates of the National Assembly.
What the Table does not reveal is the fact that there is no substantive consensus on the purported categorisation of skills. Examination strongly suggests that some agencies would have effected their own evaluations; while others (novitiates) had to be advised.
On the whole, the outcomes are not consistently reassuring.
There appears little promise of this organisational confusion being comprehensively revised in the immediate future, as needed.”
Indeed I have had to explain to a few interested complainants that the omission was not the fault of the author.
Yours faithfully,
E.B. John
