Dear Editor,
Vincent Alexander’s criticism of the Chairman’s vote in the selection of the Chief Election Officer at Gecom (SN. 30.12.21) reveals why he should not have been involved in the selection process. He does not seem to understand the hiring process or care about committee dynamics and he frowns on the doctrine of majority vote. I do not know Mr Alexander or any of the candidates he referenced. However, his feud with one of the candidates which pre-dates this hire is disqualifying and his views cannot escape that history.
Hiring decisions are for most parts, judgement calls. Guidelines are helpful but (for good reasons) non-binding and anyone who believes good hiring decisions can be delegated to a calculator, is sadly out of touch. Sure, add your numbers if you like but do not leave your instincts, intuition and your “sixth sense” at the door. As a former judge, the Chairman has many years’ experience evaluating evidence, assessing character and credibility and judging people through an impartial lens. It counts.
Past behaviour is the best predicter of future conduct and for that reason testimonials have always been (and should always be) an important and necessary part of the hiring process especially for senior positions. It is true that references are usually requested late in the process but only because most applicants may not want their current employers to know they are job hunting until there was a reasonable prospect they will be hired. In this case, the Commission was fortunate to have a reference from a trusted source who was also familiar with the organization and the position. You cannot get much better than that.
I could not follow his argument in the second paragraph of his letter where he mentioned “qualifications” and “academic qualifications” several times, once in the same sentence. He appeared to be conflating those terms but in employment circles, “qualifications” means everything that makes a person suitable for a job. It includes, but is not limited to, academic qualifications. Education, training, experience, knowledge, skills, achievements and personal characteristics are all part of the equation.
I was struck by his fixation on academic qualifications. Academic achievements are not and should never be the sole or main criterion for selection. Other credentials are equally, and in some cases, more important. Academic qualifications are necessary to get the applicant an interview. It might even get you a better position on the starting block but it will not get you over any of the bigger hurdles you must get over. A degree or diploma is simply evidence that an individual has completed the educational requirements for the designation. It is not evidence in and of itself, that the person has the ability to apply the training he or she received. Interviewers must dig deeper.
Further, except for highly skilled professions, the successful candidate will not need or use much of what he or she studied to do the job. His or her personal development (or growth) as a function of education is what will really count. The list is not exhaustive but the ability to think, reason, rationalise, plan, organise, learn, communicate, get along with people and make good decisions are qualities that will be needed on the job. This must be flushed out during the interview and here again I stress the value of testimonials.
At the end of the day the person selected will need three things to do a good job: He will need some knowledge, some skills and the right attitude (ASK). Attitude (or approach if you prefer a softer term) is the most important criterion. Deficiencies in knowledge and skills can be addressed by training and development but attitudes are difficult to affect or change. For better for worse, a person’s attitude will have a major impact on his or her performance and it would be foolhardy to hire a person with great academic qualifications if his or her attitude is unknown, unclear or at odds with the values of the organisation. The recent case of Mr Lowenfield speaks for itself.
Integrity matters. Competence and character also matter. How the candidates would have handled the Mingo situation, the recount and the results of the last election also matter. Mr Alexander’s preoccupation with academic qualifications is misguided.
As an aside let me say that single vote majorities are not unusual. What is unusual is for a member of a committee to criticize another for a decision taken by the committee where all seven members (including Mr Alexander) were present and voted. Why single out the chairman? What about the other members of the committee who voted with her? Is losing a vote and conceding gracefully now outdated? It is disingenuous to harp about a “Ruling.” and complain about what the Chairman didn’t say when she was under no obligation to say anything in the first place. Is Mr Alexander aware that his rigid partisanship gives the Chairman more power than she craves? Gecom is hardly an example of good governance. I urge him to engage in constructive dialogue and become a part of the solution.
Yours truly
Milton Jagannath
