Call for best practices in selection to high posts

Business leaders select nominees for senior management positions, following a diligent process that assures the selection of the most capable (in terms of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values) candidates to fit the business, its vision/mission and culture.
They are identified to have the potential, on a sustainable basis, to add value to the business, have the capacity to take on future challenges of business and fit into new positions on future succession. These candidates undergo familiarization, on the job training, shadowing role models/superiors, guidance and mentoring by superiors. They are subject to regular management and technical training to assure continuing capability and value to the business.

Their successes are recognized and failures reviewed for correction. Often a carrot and stick approach is adopted, with regular performance evaluations and even 360 degree assessments by colleagues, subordinates and superiors. With diligently applied effective human resource management processes, these candidates grow up as valuable resources, able to continuously WOW (win in our world).

It is unfortunate, that similar human resource development and management best practices are not extended to cover persons filling high posts in government including secretaries, heads of key functions like ambassadors, key personnel in the Armed Forces, Police and Judiciary, Directors of key Departments and Chairpersons of public institutions and regulatory authorities.

The former Civil Service (CCS) and its successor, the Sri Lanka Administrative Services (SLAS) played a key role in supporting human resource management and development needs of nominees for high Government posts. Institutions like SLIDA, NIBM, Diplomatic Training Institute, Sandhurst, etc provided the structure for training and development (T&D). Candidates who joined the CCS and SLAS had many options for T&D, shadowing, on the job training, guidance and mentoring by superiors. The process of succession assured that only experienced, capable and good values endowed candidates were upgraded to fill high posts.
In addition, there was an effective selection process by the Public Services Commission and a review process by a Parliamentary Select Committee.

A free media, with competent and courageous journalists, assured the public of information to judge the capability and character of the persons filling high posts. Accepted behaviours, public relations, adherence to expected codes of ethics and conduct and living within embedded social norms were a pleasing aspect of old timers in high posts, some of whom are yet held in high esteem, despite retirement from active service. What has happened to these best practices, healthy traditions and succession of “good men and women” universally accepted by stakeholders as “fit and proper persons to hold high office”?

How come the business sector and civil society are today blindly accepting the present process of appointments, and also not questioning the capability and most importantly behaviours of these high post nominees, especially those unfamiliar faces who fly in from unknown jungles, with little or no information on capability, character and experience and perch on high seats of power and behave like uncivilised egoistic demi-gods, at times adopting tactics/rules and practices of the jungle in dealing with stakeholders of society.

The recent independently unverified media ‘exposes’ and common knowledge information of behaviours of high post candidates, including the following examples;

•The one who is always offensive (not ever defensive) and threatens all and sundry with dire armed consequences, whenever ‘exposes’ come closer home
•A legal luminary who regularly shots his mouth off at everything and everybody without ever looking in the mirror about his own character and intellectual integrity
•The finance big shot who invites professional cluster nominees to advisory meetings and tells them not to teach him economics and tells donors to place money on the table without conditions or reform commitments
•The foreign office big shot that condemns the entire troop and classifies them as ‘mutts’
•The academic new entrant to foreign service who behaves before international audiences like a pocket Chavez
•Army mouth piece that tries to copy the political spokesman.

The silent business and civil society leaders must demand that persons in governance in high posts should be competent, be of good character and behaviour and be subject to an effective process of nomination, a 360 degree performance evaluation, including a review by public stakeholders and independent media and be selected and developed within the best practices guidelines commonly practiced in the private sector.

Business leaders must also insist that effective and transparent carrot and stick performances and management processes are in place with regular visits by nominees to training institutes, and compulsory supervised continuous professional development. Further, these nominees must be subject to public review annually before Parliament and required to file certificates of compliance with accepted codes of ethics and conduct.
Email-wo_owl@yahoo.co.uk