Dear Editor,
Last Monday’s Kaieteur News carried a letter by T Sandiford which was critical of Mr Clinton Williams’ leadership roles in two businesses and the Board of Industrial Training (BIT). I am not in a position to comment on Mr Williams’ performance as a business leader, but I feel obliged to do so regarding his performance as Chairman of the BIT of which I was the Vice Chairman since mid-2013.
In doing so I wish to remind readers that the success of any organization is dependent on a number of factors and people in a variety of positions at several levels of the organizational hierarchy; the effectiveness of the chain of actors also varies depending on the nature of the organization with bureaucratic, government-controlled organizations being more circuitous if not obscure than others. Admittedly, smart leadership can cut through contextual constraints, but sometimes, even the Jack Welches, Jock Campbells and Yesu Persauds of the world can falter at obstacles in their paths; their excellence emanates from their ability to turn these obstacles into challenges to be overcome.
The Board of Industrial Training is not a unitary outfit; it is comprised of governmental nominees representing various interests, with the prime focus being on articulating and overseeing governmental policies and objectives for industrial and vocational training, the actual implementation of which is vested in the chief executive officer (CEO) and staff of the BIT, all of whom fall under the purview of the designated permanent secretary and minister of government.
I have had the pleasure of seeing for two years how Mr Clinton Williams wisely operated within this maze in order to achieve improvements by and within the BIT, despite an apparent stubbornness against necessary change in attitude, approach and programmatic priorities. His was a refreshing style of democratic, participative and consensual leadership without which nothing would have been achieved. Among the top achievements during my two years was a refocus on ‘hard’, basic “industrial” training as opposed to pressures for more marginal ‘soft’ training in things like “cosmetology, hairdressing, cooking, catering,” etc. Much work was also done in monitoring and streamlining the financial and business controls, including the disciplined reporting of same.
In concluding, let me clarify that I have no personal brief or interest in defending Mr Williams, but I view an attack on his chairmanship of the BIT as an extension, tenuous as it might be, on me and my colleagues on the Board, hence this letter.
Yours faithfully,
Nowrang Persaud
