Dear Editor,
Published just over a decade ago was the very educative text of Frederick Laloux resulting from a wide range of research of international companies each of whom managed some thousands of employees. The survey revealed that the CEOs had developed quite independently, a management philosophy which resulted in the decision to step down from the high organisational perch to what was called the ‘shop-floor’ of their operations, where substantive decision-making would in future be effected. In the transformation process, the descriptor, ‘employee’, was elevated to that of ‘Human Being’. Such an elevation of its ‘servants’ has never been known to be embraced by any public administration in this country – colonial or independent. In fact, the very posturings of ‘independence’ have tended to overlook several constitutional rights of citizens, whether as individuals or as members of recognized agencies, including of course Trade Unions. Ignored, if not diminished, are: Commissions, Committees, Councils, as well as representative community and other non-Governmental organisations.
But at the opposite end of the spectrum too little would have been seen or heard about the worker participation model developed in our sugar industry around 1977 – the result of intensive debate between workers and managers of the various departments across the ten operating estates, actively unionized as they were at the time. A copy of the actual constitutional and communication structure that was approved by the Board and successfully implemented is still available. However, the model has since been abandoned as the esprit de corps between more recent management teams and new young employees in the industry has somewhat diminished. Meanwhile, it would be interesting to learn whether such a human resources development style ever obtained in comparator organisations, evidence of which might have been reflected in published (annual) reports that concentrate on finance and the produce/service delivered.
Meanwhile in our Public Service, elder and young, are hardly guided or advised by those who should normally be described as ‘Human Resources Managers’ – a descriptor that continues to be alienated from the pre-dated Personnel Officer as recorded in our annual budget – certainly in the only Public Service in the Caribbean, and probably in the rest of the world! Not quite irrelevant was one visitor’s pun in questioning how so many ‘Ministers’ do not appear to know that their ‘preaching’ is done to ‘human beings’ with souls. But then there is the
carping observation that, as reputedly one of the richest economies in the world, in turn, entices a widening range of foreign organisation management cultures that are prone to mimic this one nation’s style of character diminution – to a point of illegality in some instances. They themselves take advantage of local discriminatory behaviours that are publicised to reinforce their initial immigrant aptitude for superiority over a porous society.
Sincerely,
E. B. John