Maravi

Reshuffles and changes

Reshuffles and changes
By The Post
Thu 22 Nov. 2012, 13:10 CAT

There has been some criticism of the changes in government personnel Michael Sata has been making. There is a feeling that he is changing or reshuffling people too often. And that this is creating some instability in government that negatively impacts on the efficiency and effectiveness of public officers.

Dr Fred Mtesa, president of opposition Zambians for Empowerment and Development, says these constant changes of personnel in government are making it difficult for them to retain institutional memory which was vital for sustaining government programmes.

He says this high rate of turnover of staff is worrisome because it affects efficiency and effectiveness, more so in government whose success depends on officers building good inter-personal relationships. And that if officers are not allowed to settle down, the nation should be concerned because governance and development will be negatively affected.

Surely, a stable cadre of public officers is desirable. People need to stay a bit longer in their jobs to settle down. But it doesn't seem that Michael was given enough time to settle down in his job for him to perform it effectively and efficiently.

The same people who are today criticising him for continually changing or reshuffling personnel are the same ones who have been criticising him for not delivering certain things within 90 days. The truth is Michael is in a hurry to deliver. And no one is giving him time to settle down the same way they want other public officers to settle down.

It is a fact that Michael does not personally know every person who has been appointed to an important or senior government position. Some people were recommended to him by others within the ruling party, government and civil society. There are some people who were even recommended to him by some of our chiefs. It may seem like Michael made all these appointment single-handedly.

We don't think so; there are many other people who have participated in these appointments. Some of them have not worked well; those appointed have not matched up well to their responsibilities and changes had to be quickly made without disappointing anyone, carrying everyone with him.
If things don't turn out well, it will be Michael to take the responsibility and not those who advise him to appoint certain people.

Therefore, if changes are necessary, they should be made. And Michael shouldn't be worried about how many times they are made. What is important is the effect of those changes on the general performance of government. If the changes lead to poor performance of government then there is a problem. But if they lead to better performance, there is no need to worry about how many and how often changes are made.

There are areas where the appointments have been very effective and Michael has not made any changes in those areas so far. We still have the same Vice-President, Minister of Finance, Minister of Health, Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry, and so on and so forth. If something is working well, Michael has kept it that way. That which is not working well, Michael has changed it. What is wrong with that?

There is no need to wait until there is a crisis in an area for reshuffles to be made. And moreover, all these changes have taken place in the first twelve months of government. We all know that things don't always work to plan, people don't always perform to expected levels. And this makes change necessary. There is no need to be saddled with a deficiency forever simply because one made a mistake.

Of course there are lessons to be learnt from all this. One is that those in high leadership positions should know how to judge cadres available for appointments. And they must not confine their judgement to a short period or a single incident in a cadre's life, but should consider his life and work as a whole. This, in our view, should be the principal method of judging cadres. They must know how to use cadres well.

In the final analysis, leadership involves two main responsibilities: to work out ideas and to use cadres well. Such things as drawing up plans, making decisions and giving orders and directives are all in the category of working out ideas. To put the ideas into practice, we must weld the cadres together and encourage them to go into action; this comes into the category of using cadres well.

It is not hard for one to do a bit of good and be given a high public office appointment. What is hard is to do good at all times, all one's life and never to do anything bad, to act consistently in the interests of the broad masses and to engage in arduous work for decades on end. That is the hardest thing of all. And this is what often leads to or necessitates reshuffles.

Sometimes people seek jobs they are not competent to perform; sometimes those who seek high public offices the most are inclined the least.

But the appointing authorities may not be able to know this or notice it until they have given them the jobs. This, again, leads to or necessitates reshuffles.

If someone is going down the wrong road, he doesn't need to be given more time to keep on going the wrong way. Change or reshuffle may be necessary. If you don't like where you are, change it! You are not a mountain that is fixed to one place - even mountains can be moved sometimes, so they say.

The future belongs to the competent. It belongs to those who are very, very good at what they do. It doesn't belong to the well meaning. Change is part of the learning process. And people create their own success by changing things around that don't work until they get it right. Great achievements are not possible without the necessary changes.

Let us not be afraid of changing that which needs to be changed. And as Dr Kenneth Kaunda once observed, "Let us be bold and not be afraid of creating precedents, for more often than not, today's precedent may well show itself as tomorrow's stroke of genius." In saying all this, we are not in any way implying that the institutional stability created by people staying in their positions a little longer is not necessary.

We do realise that that type of stability is important and must be encouraged as far as possible but not at the expense of progress. There is a danger if we put too great an emphasis on that type of stability at the expense of the need for change. Let us profit from stability without becoming prisoners of that type of stability.

Of course, changes in personnel can be reduced if more attention is paid to the appointments that are being made. Those who recommend people for appointments should do a good and honest job. There is need to protect the appointing authorities from unnecessary pressure caused by ill-suited job seekers.

Yes, everyone needs a job but not every job is for everyone. And those who make appointments should do more work before making such appointments.

Labels: CABINET, FRED MTESA, MICHAEL SATA, PF

posted by MrK @ 5:39 PM