Dear Editor,
I thank Mr Nowrang Persaud for his kind words – ‘Extraneous considerations should be avoided when selecting or promoting staff’ (SN, June 6). I readily recognize Mr Persaud’s enduring exposure and expertise in his chosen area, as is corroborated by the writing referenced. Now I proceed to share and expand on what I had penned before.
First, I advocate no hard (or soft) quota system. That could, and would, clash severely with personal beliefs and calls for meritocracy. The numbers tendered are guideposts only, and I think that they can easily find qualitative traction in this society. I emphasize: qualitative traction, especially in view of high unemployment levels.
Second, while I do appreciate that best intentions can become hopelessly skewed (if not unmanageable) and a far cry from original visions, I believe that, whatever the criteria as so pointedly identified by Mr Persaud, the conscientious and forward thinking state board, independent manager, and clean human resources personnel and policies can take the lead in making equal opportunity truly equal and a solid discernible reality here. And this is the thrust of my position: Is it really so in thinking and deed? Is the playing field level?
I hasten to add that this must not be for the sake of tolerance, or optics, or numbers. It must not even be for the self-satisfaction of good feelings, but enshrined in policies, procedures, visions, and practices that are principled and meet any stringent, even critical, scrutiny. It must be about what is right and appropriate, all circumstances considered. I submit that this has not been the case in too many instances.
Third, I must resist any stance or argument which tells me that the composition of public sector entity ‘X’ at 95% (or 99%) by a single ethnicity in this country can pass muster, if one were to probe clinically. I believe strongly that, whatever the determinants, including the premeditated and influential, such situations cannot stand serious examination. The same goes for the private sector.
Thus, I reject that now ancient, irrelevant, refrain that ‘guvment wuk doan pay.’ I further disagree that qualified and quality candidates, beyond the usual static colour lines, are lacking in interest, response, or availability. The reservoir of local CXC and UG graduates (migration notwithstanding) available for entry level positions and upwards is wide and deep.
As a former hiring manager, my thinking was simple: Can this person carry to another level? Can this person make the team better because of tangibles? Can this individual make me better due to perceived intangibles? Can this person deliver consistently?
Editor, it is why I have tremendous difficulty accepting the much bandied about cliché centred on ‘the best person for the job’ which somehow almost always inevitably ends up being someone who looks like me, or has the same affiliations and history like me. In the context of Guyana, that should not demand too much interpretative effort.
Along the same lines, it has been rightly said that if there is interest in mucking up something, put it in government hands. It is my contention that the public sector in this land stands as the unsatisfactory representation, in many instances, of mistakes made in scholarships, hiring, promoting, procurement, and construction contracts. There has been abject failure through the sheer weight of dissenting numbers in these areas that testify to what has injured. For too long, the local systems have been gamed and manipulated for prejudiced ends. All of this has led to continuing unease and disenchantment. Division is exacerbated. As stated before, the private sector, too, is not innocent of its own malpractices.
I want to be clear: meritocracy is the way, and quotas lead to problems and unintended consequences. On the other hand, there are pools in many regions that languish; they are rich, ripe, and hungry. Surely, some fruitful consideration and action can alter the existing dynamics, and give hope if serious commitment is manifest.
Editor, here is the bottom line: The picture and banner presented are often too homogenous. Both speak to either phobias, or the discriminatory, or the biased. The domestic canvas needs to be more pointillist in several of the most sensitive and visible spots. This is where and how I stand.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
