Has careful thought and analysis been put into the GuySuCo restructuring?

Jan 20, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I refer to the several letters within recent days that commented on the restructuring of the senior management positions in GuySuCo. As changes occur outside of every organisation, it resolutely pursues changes within itself, to battle with those external changes so as to remain viable.
One of those internal changes is restructuring of the management positions and re-engineering of management and business processes. Michael Hammer and James Champy, in their remarkable bestseller, “Reengineering the Corporation – A Manifesto for Business Revolution”, defines reengineering as “a fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service and speed.” It would be interesting for GuySuCo to say what level and kind of reengineering intervention it pursued or initiated within recent times. Restructuring is basically a reorganising of the available human resources to the best advantage.
It’s obvious that the sugar company is faced with many challenges associated with climate change (heavier rainfall than normal), major cuts on the price of sugar sold to the EU market (loss of revenue of G$8 billion after the cuts this year), and massive exodus of critical and experienced personnel. In these circumstances, there is no doubt that a restructuring of the organisation is critical and imminent. However, in any restructuring process, careful thought and analysis have to be made of cost implications, availability of resources, competencies, logistics, flexibility, adaptability and applicability to the circumstances and environment. I do not think any of these factors were taken into consideration when the current restructuring was conceived; unless GuySuCo could prove me wrong.
I was privileged to have an electronic copy of the “Management Announcement” that publicly announced, on the estates, the changes in the organisation and the narration that supports the changes, and it is obvious that the whole restructuring was not only ill-conceived and more costly than the previous structure, but it affords more lucrative jobs to some managers who should have faced disciplinary hearings for gross mismanagement of the estates that were assigned to them; in this I am referring to the East Demerara and East Berbice Estates. At the former estate, the Government-appointed commission of enquiry publicly disclosed from its findings that the deterioration of this estate was caused by mismanagement and lack of management’s presence in the cultivation. What is GuySuCo’s position on the findings of this report? Is it, like many such reports, filed away for posterity? The gentleman who was the head of the estate has been offered a comfortable job. The East Berbice Estate has performed miserably for the past three years, and the head of this estate, as the result of this restructuring, has been appointed Manager, Special Projects. It’s still a mystery what would be the duties of this job, and how sustainable it is. It must be noted that these two gentlemen in their new jobs have retained their previous terms and conditions, as stated in the company’s missive.
The “Management Announcement” stated that “this is not just a ‘cost saving’ exercise, but it is also about shaping the organisation into the most effective structure to enable management and employees to deliver the best possible results for the Corporation in the future.” This is an interesting  statement. The new structure brings to bear an estate manager for each estate, except Skeldon, to replace the general managers who were there. As such, the head count remains the same, but the general managers who were replaced were each offered lucrative alternative jobs. Where, then, is the ‘cost saving’?
Gleaning from the revised structure, it is obvious that the job of the Human Resource Director no longer exists, and this position is now bifurcated to two new positions vis-à-vis Head of IR and Head of HR. It’s inconceivable that an organisation that is the single largest employer in the Caribbean could be without an HR Director, bearing in mind also that it operates in a highly volatile unionized environment and has a very unstable and fragile senior staff establishment, as lamented by the company ever so often. The “Management Announcement” further states that “the Finance and HR Managers will report to their respective Head Office function”. An estate HR Manager is responsible for both industrial relations and personnel management. To whom, therefore, does the HR Manager on the estate report? Is it the Head of IR or Head of HR, or is it both? Who does the company refer to as “their respective Head Office function?” It’s inevitable that there would be a mass of confusion in this type of reportage, because in any organisation the clearer the role, the more effective is the structure. What is the structural authority of the Head of IR and Head of HR in the decision-making process, since they are no longer directors in their respective functions?
Appended to the “Management Announcement” is an organisation chart showing nine subordinate officers at executive level reporting to the Deputy CEO. The functions of these nine officers range from agriculture research, health and safety, factory and agriculture operations, project management, administration and estate management. The focus of the job holder is too wide and varied. There would certainly be a diminution of effectiveness, if any.
The “Management Announcement” further states that ‘all incumbents in positions will be acting for a period of 12 months.’ What happens after 12 months? What are the factors that would be evaluated in the 12 months? The incumbents acting for 12 months without knowing the consequences of the outcomes at the elapse of the 12 months is like having the “Sword of Damocles” hanging over their heads over the entire period.
Ramesh Persaud

---

---