Dear Editor,
Listening past the vociferousness of the euphoria sensitive citizens cannot help but wonder how the first official steps of national unity are being organised. They point to evidence of the accustomed decision-making pattern perceived through pronouncements that are obviously unilateral, and without semblance of any prior consensus. Some are already reflecting on the extent to which the Cummingsburg Accord is being honoured.
And honour indeed must be an attribute reflective of this coalition. Inherent in the very word coalition is an embrace of confidence and trust – beyond, and perchance above, the provisions of the constitution the very coalition undertook to reform. So that the relevant players need to be careful how they act out certain roles in the view of the public critics.
It is not what they say by which they will be measured, so much as how they are reported to behave towards one another not only behind the stage screen, but towards the audience, individually and collectively, in close quarters, day or night, so that the latter must not be able to recount the similarity with the behaviour of their former predecessors.
In short there must be transparency of the highest order in respect of every decision, so that when it reverberates the decision-makers are not placed on the defensive. Once such a reaction starts the splinter cannot be contained, but on the contrary, would degenerate into widening cracks.
In simpler words this is the time to flaunt the morality of consensual leadership rather than the power of a constitution tainted by foregoing players for most of our independent years.
The coalition by its very organisational nature demands balance, consensus, teamsmanship and could only be sustained by consistent disposition towards negotiation – in the interest of those to whom this government is at all times accountable. Indeed the most important ingredient in such interactions is the ability to listen. There must therefore be an explicit communication system which assures access of feedback and solicitous response.
This leadership therefore must understand its substantive role as first amongst equals, that it would hardly be appropriate to claim singular victories when in fact they belong to the supportive electorate.
The following excerpt from John P Kotter’s book titled Leading Change may not be totally irrelevant. It speaks to leadership.
“Establishing direction: developing a vision of the future – often the distant future – and strategies for producing the changes needed to achieve that vision
“Aligning people: communicating direction in words and deeds to all those whose cooperation may be needed so as to influence the creation of teams and coalitions that understand the vision and strategies and that accept their validity
“Motivating and inspiring: energising people to overcome major political, bureaucratic, and resources barriers to change by satisfying basic, but often unfulfilled, human needs.”
One recalls a period in the 1980s when St Lucia went through a phase of rapidly changing administrations, to the extent that one elected team recognising its shortcomings about governance, had the Caricom Secretariat arrange a workshop from which they could learn about several basic and necessary concepts of, and appropriate actions for, governance. The point is that after 23 years newcomers to executive governance will have more than their share of institutional issues to comprehend, and procedures and practices, albeit distorted, to decipher and retool. They must understand that they are on a learning curve which, compounded by the shortage of relevant trustworthy skills and competencies, will inhibit the achievement of optimistic targets in 100 days.
With the intricacies of procedures and processes deriving from the previous administration, now somewhat compounded by the reconfiguration of several ministries, it seems not too exotic an idea for the respective ministries to organise a series of workshops in order to expedite clarification of the vision, mission, programmes, roles and responsibilities, reporting relationships and performance expectations. Such an approach should yield beneficial results for those who have never led a management team before.
In the meantime the leaders must also understand the impatience of the electorate on both sides of the divide for delivery on commitments made. It is in this context that one perhaps over-riding ingredient will be trust – to be engendered amongst the leadership team, as well as between them and their publics. The former would do well to refer to Stephen Covey’s outstanding treatise titled The Speed of Trust, which has been highly commended by a host of CEOs, and one of whom wrote: “This book gets to the core roots of ethical behaviour and integrity and how ‘trust’ is the most critical factor in effective leaders and organisations.” Surely this perspective is true for a multifaceted business like government.
The author himself opens with the following incontestable proposition: “There is one thing that is common to every individual, relationship, team, family, organisation, nation, economy, and civilization throughout the world – one thing which, if removed, will destroy the most powerful government, the most successful business, the most thriving economy, the most influential leadership, the greatest friendship, the strongest character, the deepest love.
“On the other hand, if developed and leveraged, that one thing has the potential to create unparalleled success and prosperity in every dimension of life. Yet, it is the least understood, most neglected, and most underestimated possibility of our time.
“That one thing is trust.”
This is our expectation from the leadership.
Yours faithfully.
E B John
