The Royal Civil Service Commission’s (RCSC) press release earlier this week came down like a thunderbolt striking at the heart of civil servants and others amidst the pandemic. And the intensity of what struck all of us was augmented by the fact that 50 percent of those assessed could not meet the expectations of the Commission. In layman terms, 50 percent of the 62 failed.
As expressed by many, it is a concern. However, people, especially civil servants differ on the reasons making it a concern. There are some who attribute the alarm to the fact that 50 percent could not reach the bench mark and others who are worried about who could take the posts if the 32 are “managed out,” in the severest form.
Adding on to it are different theories floated, such as the competency of the panelists who assessed the top bureaucrats and an absurd one that the exercise is a move to “manage out” the old leaders who have served for decades.
In an assessment, age and seniority should not matter. You are being assessed for your competency and it does not mean that your juniors or younger lot would not be in a position to assess you. In all fairness, the RCSC would not just pick up anyone for a task of this magnitude. This is a bold and necessary exercise to ensure that we have civil servants who can render service at the highest professional standards. We are looking forward to have an effective professional civil service, comprising of people and especially leaders who have all skills of a leader. We need leaders who can contribute to both the shaping and implementation of policy. And if we have leaders who are crying foul because the panelists are junior or young, we do not see a leader in them.
On the second theory that the old are being “managed out,” the 62 executives assessed are not old ones. There are several young ones, within the group. The RCSC does not need to “manage out” any old civil servant, as they will have to move out once retirement age is reached.
Additionally, if the ones who do not reach the threshold are managed out in the strictest way too, there should not be any reason to be apprehensive. The theory of indispensability does not bode well. There will be others who can fill in the chairs.
Management talks about resistance to change. The above theories circulating are indications of this resistance. RCSC needs to go on with this bold move, boldly.
As expressed by many, it is a concern. However, people, especially civil servants differ on the reasons making it a concern. There are some who attribute the alarm to the fact that 50 percent could not reach the bench mark and others who are worried about who could take the posts if the 32 are “managed out,” in the severest form.
Adding on to it are different theories floated, such as the competency of the panelists who assessed the top bureaucrats and an absurd one that the exercise is a move to “manage out” the old leaders who have served for decades.
In an assessment, age and seniority should not matter. You are being assessed for your competency and it does not mean that your juniors or younger lot would not be in a position to assess you. In all fairness, the RCSC would not just pick up anyone for a task of this magnitude. This is a bold and necessary exercise to ensure that we have civil servants who can render service at the highest professional standards. We are looking forward to have an effective professional civil service, comprising of people and especially leaders who have all skills of a leader. We need leaders who can contribute to both the shaping and implementation of policy. And if we have leaders who are crying foul because the panelists are junior or young, we do not see a leader in them.
On the second theory that the old are being “managed out,” the 62 executives assessed are not old ones. There are several young ones, within the group. The RCSC does not need to “manage out” any old civil servant, as they will have to move out once retirement age is reached.
Additionally, if the ones who do not reach the threshold are managed out in the strictest way too, there should not be any reason to be apprehensive. The theory of indispensability does not bode well. There will be others who can fill in the chairs.
Management talks about resistance to change. The above theories circulating are indications of this resistance. RCSC needs to go on with this bold move, boldly.
