The sugar industry was regarded as a first choice employer, one reason being its investment in human resources

Recently there has been a revival of commentaries about the sugar industry and moreso its arguable productivity. This writer survives from a period when the sugar industry was regarded as an employer of first choice in British Guiana, one reason being its investment in human resources development – generated by Bookers Sugar Estates Ltd. in the form of CADETSHIPS in the 1950s. These winners of scholarships to universities overseas proved their worth in their respective professional fields, subject to rigid performance evaluation programmes that inspired promotion to the highest available levels. It was Bookers who established the Agricultural Scholarship Programme at the University of Guyana. It was the sugar industry that conceived of the Guyana School of Agriculture - the first for managerial candidates; the second intended to qualify adequate field supervisory competencies.

But then the first Trades Apprentices graduated in the 1950s, of whom an impressive percentage rose to higher technical levels. But from some perspectives, the current rambling concentrates essentially on aged performers, indeed of debatable performance records. As a consequence one scarcely hears of achievers who can be exemplars, for there is scarcely any word of ambitious youth for careers in the industry. What emerges at decisionmaking levels is a curious admixture of the failed, suspect and under informed past contributors – almost the total effect being that of the blind leading the blind, and the deaf not hearing the dumb. Those who know more about organisational communication must wonder about basic Staff/ Departmental meetings; basic reporting relationships on health, safety, leave, acting appointments, performance evaluation, promotion; training (apprentice) and development; industrial relations, worker participation; other (regional meetings) – including of Cane Farmers’ Committees, required by the Cane Farmers’ Committee Act.

Unfortunately, the records would reveal the substantive depletion in the quality of a Human Resources (Personnel) Management Department that earned the highest respect ever since it was instituted by Bookers Sugar Estates in the 1950s. The first Personnel Officers’ Conference of 1962 provided recommendations to the Board of Directors who approved them as Policies for full implementation in-house, with some even earning respect and replication in other organisations locally and abroad. It was this very corps of performers who earned applause from comparable professionals to establish a most viable National Personnel Officers’ Association which was forced soon after to convert into the Guyana Institute of Management at the demand of various professional managers who insisted on membership – of an organisation in which they could grow as human beings; be exemplars not only to their subordinates, but also substantively to their children.

Now in the sugar industry, the questions arise about the quality of leadership that can be provided in Human Resources development, about that Department’s authoritative capacity to elevate and report on strengths and weaknesses of comparator and moreso senior performers, whether as individuals or as teams, thus making the objectives of succession planning and career development somewhat elusive. The Department’s team is constrained not only by its own limitations but moreso by those who pose as their leaders. These pontificators boast about how much is being grown in the cultivations and produced in factories; but reflect too little on the selfrespect of the human beings they lead, of respect for their careers; less for their being heads of households, and critically as exemplars for their children – all deriving from their commitment to the future of one sugar industry. In the end Teamanship is KEY. I know – since 1958.

At this point in time there are published several critiques about strengths but not addressing perceived weaknesses. However, careful reflection will point to strengths that were relevant to successful past achievements, but subject to compromise by the limited information of new leaderships, as well as the resuscitation of identifiable mediocrity of past performers. Those who should know better must ask to be advised of a viable 5 year development plan at least to invite attention to the sugar industry as an environment of careers for future ambitious generations, who would also enjoy sports and other personal achievements as provided currently by new and recreative employees. The level of consciousness of an organisation cannot exceed that of its leadership.

Interestingly, one of the industry’s recent critics (apparently re-employed) happened to be the subject of

my own evaluation of his performance as Estate Manager during my last stint as Human Resources Director ending in 2017. Devendra Kumar functioned as Estate Manager both at Skeldon and Wales Estates. He had interacted quite negatively with four senior staff, resulting in them being terminated at one go – all when the current administration was last in control. It so happened that one of the senior staff affected, who was mentioned in his recent letter was able to retrieve his career, along with the others of that location. He is now still at work in GuySuCo. My active relationship with the last Estate

Manager, Wales however was sufficiently informed as to agree with the Board’s decision to release him (amongst others, of course) on its closure in 2016: that he should have been retrieved since so belatedly speaks to an employment process which appears to discard the commonsensical use of Personal Files always available within the Human Resources Department of an organisation certainly as historic as the sugar industry’s, assuming of course his was ever sought.

Sincerely,

E. B. John

Retired Human Resources Director GuySuCo