Dear Editor,
So far, as the majority of the population is concerned, we have experienced at least two major climatic (perhaps traumatic) incidents regarding leadership albeit in conflicting ways, in the first months of 2022. The first was the passing of the late Yesu Persaud, who all acclaimed as an icon of leadership in business, religion, and most profoundly, in the development of organisations, and indeed the ‘human beings’ employed by them. However, one does not recall which of the tributors undertook to emulate him. The other incident was the contradictory trauma created by persons who posed as leaders – in the National Assembly, and whose behaviours debased the standard of morality which Dr. Persaud’s generation was known to observe. From the latter emerged many more exemplars that whole communities respected for their social, professional and moral standards of behaviours that children and young adults could energetically practise. So when last week this anxious father of inquisitive young adults related his own, and family’s disenchantment, with what was described as the charade acted out by those who pretended to be leaders in a theatre where the address ‘Honourable’ was used in the most derisive manner, outnumbered as he was by these young inquisitors, he could hardly contain his frustration at being unable to articulate an argument that could justify the behaviours of Guyana’s ‘national leaders’. He paused, then mumbled the question, or rather the hope, that the latter’s own families might be indulging in similar inquiries.
His pain mounted, as he reflected on what he euphemistically described as the ‘transparent’ behaviour of the new leader in a public organisation, where the environment was sterile, communication condescending, accountability relationships unstable; where indeed ‘transparency’ was translated to mean that (ICT) correspondence amongst senior executives was monitored – reinforcing the suspicion of the subversion of character – culminating in an environment that denies any contribution to much bandied ‘human development’. In a somewhat tearful manner emerged a confession of unhappiness at work, of an unnecessary invasion of mistrust amongst colleagues; of returning home at the end of the day, indisposed to proactively engaging with family; to listening and providing counsel younger ones may seek; too depressed to rise to the occasion of advising what careers to pursue where in turn they can speak out and stand up to be counted, alongside other ‘human beings’ as equals who deserve a hearing, as well as answers.
Finally came the outburst: “What the hell is going to be my children’s and their generation’s future”, he asked and stormed out of my presence. In a stupor I reflected: how many more are doomed to such a constrictive work environment? Is this the construct for the vaunted ‘Human Development’? Perhaps, in the absence of an articulate strategy, the leadership may ask the respective public agencies each to: (i) Investigate and compile their human resources deficiencies, (ii) Compose a training needs analysis, (iii) Draft succession plan, (iv) Identify the team/s capable of addressing the training needs, albeit with external support, (v) Reintroduce the Performance Appraisal system, and (vi) Install a library of relevant Human Resources Management publications for senior employees in particular to ingest. The returns must then be reviewed by a recognised team of competent performers who would be expected to produce a comprehensive report of recommendations for approval and implementation by the original ‘leaders for human development’. Be reminded scholarships are only the preparatory component of a much more fundamental ‘human development’ programme.
Sincerely,
Conscientious Observer
