Translating ‘Human Development’ into a reality

Feb 16, 2022 Letters

Dear Editor,
The Budget presentations of 2022 tended to concentrate on programmes relating substantially to ‘Infrastructure’; and while there was also reference to ‘human development’, e.g., scholarships, technical and vocational training, at the same time, they carefully ignored the need for institutionalising a cadre of qualified Human Resources Managers whose portfolios would translate the concept of ‘human development’ into a reality. This would include authorisation to prepare and coordinate, in the first instance, succession plans informed by a series of training needs analyses – precedent to the formulation of any human resources development plan.
The question, however, is to identify the capacity within the Public Service that can rise to the challenge of creating an environment that inspires growth, more so as teams; that can correct such chronic deficits as in conducting needed job evaluation exercises which apply immediately to the selection and recruitment of vaunted talents as ‘Contracted Employees’ – a category misguidedly entrenched in the Guyana’s constitutionally established Public Service.
Of relevance is the insistence in budgets over time, of the job descriptor ‘Personnel Officer’, unfamiliar anywhere in the Caribbean Region, as well as internationally; and which must provide bemusement for our new citizen organisations. However, the following agencies have described some ‘personnel’ more appropriately: Public Service – Human Resources Officer; Education – Human Resources Manager; Labour – Senior Recruitment and Manpower Officer.
At the other end of the spectrum, the agencies listed here have no assigned ‘personnel’ capability whatever: Housing and Water – 29 staff; Office of the Prime Minister – 107 staff; Natural Resources – 116 staff.
It should be mentioned that within the fourteen (14) -grade Public Service, Personnel Officers are ranked as follows: GS12 – Chief Personnel Officer; GS11 – Principal Personnel Officer; GS 9 – Senior Personnel Officer; GS 6 – Personnel Officer II; GS 5 – Personnel Officer I.
At this juncture, those unfamiliar with the job structure should find the following samples of comparabilities with the respective grade of ‘Personnel Officers’ informative; starting with the lower grades:
GS5 – Personnel Officer I
Confidential Security
Senior Photographer
Carpenter Foreman
Electrician II Administrator,
Master Fisherman
GS6 – Personnel Officer II
Administrative Clerk
Locksmith
Overseer
Amerindian Residence
Senior Livestock Assistant
Hopefully, the above comparabilities would indicate the analytical capacity expected of colleague Personnel Officers II and I. The latter can hardly be considered promotable to the next Grade – GS9 (Senior Personnel Officer) which compares with the following competing positions:
– Legal Officer
– Expenditure Planning and Management Analyst
– Chief Accountant
– Assistant Secretary (G/F)
– Foreign Service Officer III
– Auditor
– Architect
In the process, it is quite arguable that the above incumbents and those in comparable positions are involved in more analytical exercises than their ‘Personnel’ counterparts and are therefore deserving of being better valued, and remunerated accordingly.
All this brings us around full circle to identifying the foundation of the relevant competencies on which (political) decision-making is based if indeed it is considered that advice is needed. Once more all parties should recognise the indication of the urgent need for a highly professional job evaluation exercise as a critical component of the reconstruction of the Public Service.
E.B. John
Organisational Development and
Human Resources Management Advisor

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News