WHAT’S IN A ‘QUALIFICATION’?
SA has a narrow idea of what a qualification is — and it doesn’t necessarily include competence
here have been three public conversations over the past few weeks around “qualifications” that have left me feeling uneasy.
The first relates to something public service & administration minister Senzo Mchunu said in parliament in response to a question. Mchunu said that “of the 9,477 senior managers [in the civil service], 3,301 do not have the required qualifications. Of these, 1,987 officials are employed in national departments.”
TThe second conversation relates to the decision by Lindiwe Sisulu’s department of human settlements, water & sanitation to bring engineers from Cuba to lend “experience and expertise” to South Africans.
Finally, the third (and most divisive) conversation related to the qualifications of leaders of the DA.
There were common threads in all of them that need to be explored.
For a start, what exactly do we mean by “qualifications”? And what defines “competence”? Does this mean only people with degrees related to their fields? What assurance of competence does a degree offer?
I was particularly interested in this question as it related to Mchunu’s department, and what it considers “required qualifications”.
We know, for example, that there are many people in both the private and public sectors — some of them senior managers — who have developed experience and problem-solving over the years, yet don’t have formal qualifications.
We also know that a qualification is less clear-cut than you’d imagine.
For example, the department of agriculture, land reform & rural development, which Mchunu flagged as one of the biggest offenders, has a vacancy for the position of director-general.
The advert says the requirements include a bachelor’s degree or advanced diploma and a postgraduate qualification in agriculture, land administration and rural development. A postgraduate qualification in business administration, project management or public administration will be “an added advantage”.
Does this mean that if you have a degree in economics, you can’t apply? What about someone who has worked in a leadership position for one of the agriculture associations for the past 20 years but never got a formal qualification?
I chatted to a recruitment agent about this question the other day, and she raised something I hadn’t thought about. She said she often speaks to senior managers who want to leave their job and are scouting around for opportunities.
But while they may have extensive experience and are considered invaluable by their boss, they often can’t apply because they don’t meet the rigid list of qualifications listed by prospective employers.
Still, she said, some employers are more flexible, and are willing to hire people purely on the strength of their experience, without a certificate.
In the Cuban engineers debate, the point has been made that Cuba has had major difficulties in delivering water. Some said this means the engineers aren’t “qualified” to work in SA. But their experience of working in a world where they have to deliver more with scant resources would surely be invaluable in SA’s rural areas, where they could teach these skills to young graduates. In many small SA businesses, staff often have to perform miracles with no resources — and that also shouldn’t disqualify them from leading larger teams.
Lastly, many of us have watched developed democracies like the US, where members of congress, often qualified as lawyers or engineers, end up in spirited debates which inform policy. Occasionally the discussion can become obtuse or ridiculous, but at other times their questions are highly impressive. Does this imply that it would be better to have a law degree to be a lawmaker?
These are important conversations to have, since the answers are critical to how we seek to improve our society. But the tone and level at which these discussions happen in SA is disappointing — especially in a world altered by Covid that needs to be more adaptable to new technology.
We are told that the DA will ask parliament’s standing committee on public accounts to investigate why so many civil servants aren’t “qualified”. But how deep will the committee go? Will it look only at formal qualifications, or will it consider a qualification to be something which confirms your competence for a job? Will it dig deeper still to examine whether someone is “competent” to deliver?
I wouldn’t hold my breath. Even getting to a point where it holds an inquiry will be no small feat — given the “qualifications” of the DA’s leaders and their peers in parliament.
Many people have developed experience and problemsolving, without holding formal qualifications