Measuring Change

Dec 12, 2020 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,

With each change of political administration during this century, there has been expressed hope of substantive improvement of the same game acted out on the same virtual playing field. After 20 years, the prospects of moving the goal posts or carrying the ball over the boundary line are now optimistically funded in oil and gas.
Recently effected organizational changes have essentially been related to long established public sector agencies, most of which constituted of appointments of new members of Boards, the replacement of CEOs, the dismissal of alleged ‘political appointees,’ none of which cumulate into substantive strategic change – not only to the public, but specifically not to anxious managers waiting to learn about any real ‘climate change’ in their organizations.
One hopes that, unlike previous experiences, there would be a formal performance monitoring process which would facilitate assessment of meaningful development and progress under new and different management dispensations. In fact the constitutionally established Economic Services Committee of Parliament should be the agency specially charged with such a mandate.
Given the challenges of these ‘virtual organizational’ times, it is hardly enough to ‘account for stewardships’ so to speak, only after five years. Certainly there is need for more timely ‘testing’ in order to confirm whether or what ‘vaccine’ may be required to ensure acceptable levels of productivity.
The above by no means reflects any personal perspective. In his book titled “Leading Change” John P. Kotter refers to the failure to create a sufficiently powerful guiding coalition “in terms of formal titles, information and expertise, reputation and relationships, and the capacity for leadership.” Kotter insists that “individuals alone, no matter how competent or charismatic, never have all the assets…”
Indeed, he advises that ‘without an appropriate vision, a transformation effort, can easily dissolve into a list of confusing, incompatible and time consuming projects that go in the wrong direction or nowhere at all.”
It is in the latter connection that effective communication becomes critical. Kotter has this more to say: “Communication comes in both words and deeds. The latter is generally the most powerful form. Nothing undermines change more than the behaviour of important individuals that is inconsistent with the verbal communication.”
Yet intricate throughout this dialogue of behaviour is the critical issue of ‘Trust.’ Amongst others, Steven Covey, in his acclaimed book, ‘The Speed of Trust’ brings the following to attention: “Whether it is high or low, TRUST is the ‘hidden morale’ in the formula for organizational success. You could have good strategy and good execution but still get derailed by low trust. Or high trust could serve as a performance multiplier, creating synergy, where the whole is more than the sum.”
None of the above advice, however, takes into consideration the political orientation that tends to inform multicultural relationships in our public sector organizations. Should not shareholding be considered as insurance of TRUST?

Sincerely
E.B. John

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News