Dear Editor,
According to Stabroek News of November 07, 2019, an earlier notification of the termination of their respective services caught two executives of GPL off-guard – the Deputy Chief Executive Officer and the Human Resources ‘Officer’.
The Stabroek News report stated that the men were peeved at the way the notices were issued to them, saying that it did not follow standard operating procedures.
On the other hand, one official was quoted as saying that ‘this decision was made by management and that as with all contracts, renewals were not automatic and are performance-based’.
Clearly then being performance-based would be amongst the standard operating procedures, which the complainants reportedly claim, were not observed.
So if in fact the relevant condition of performance appraisal enshrined in the contracts were appropriately fulfilled, why then was it necessary for the Chairman of the Board to ‘request a performance assessment of persons whose contracts had ended and those to come to an end soon’? (Incidentally, just when is ‘soon’?)
Not being aware of the actual lengths of the respective contracts, it is not unreasonable to presume that the periods would be more than one year – at the end of which an attentive Management will conduct the formal appraisal exercise and report thereon.
However, particularly when the exercise involves senior managers, sensitive, and indeed sensible, leadership would engage each of them in turn in a very comprehensive conversation about performance, at the end of which the message would be honestly communicated about the future prospects of the performer.
One therefore detects a substantive fault-line (or disconnection) in the GPL human resources management and development system, which resulted in:
executive performers being ‘caught off-guard’;
the Chairman of the Board having to request a report (on a number of performers in addition to the two identified).
With respect to ii) who then is responsible for the effective conduct of the requested assessments? Would it be an individual or team exercise?
Regardless of whether or not other critical levels of staff are contracted, they cannot help but recognize the palpable deficiency in the decision-making process and wonder how themselves could be affected. For some must know of organisations (public and private) who are careful to utilise the performance management system as a mechanism for human resources development, and consequently succession planning.
It would indeed be ironic if GPL’s Human Resources Management executive would not, long before, have advised and sought approval from his principals, to implement a comprehensive performance appraisal system as a staple component of GPL’s human resources management and development strategy.
On the other hand, if he did not, then those to whom he was operationally accountable should not be forgiven for their oversight in turn – a short circuit!
There is just the suggestion that a greater performance appraisal might be required – of the Board.
Yours faithfully,
E.B. John
