The reshuffle of Permanent Secretaries demonstrated that they are indeed not permanent.
It is also an indication of our end of thinking capacity (etc).
The formula used to calculate this exercise is, to some extent, expertise-blind and questionable.
Normally it is expected that high office-bearers be appointed on merit, i.e. be placed where they have competitive advantage in terms of skills, experience and qualification.
Where did we miss this notion amidst V- 2030 proceedings?
Some cited personal differences as a motive, then how can we assume that wherever these people are placed they would change their attitude.
I thought PS’s are civil servants who are not exempted from disciplinary measures, suspension or dismissals.
Some PS’s even got their positions through public service recruitment procedures but were never simply appointed.
Where is fairness?
You can reshuffle ceremonial office-bearers but not technical people except in cases of properly diagnosed incompetence.
Those PS’s who can not be touched for reasons only known to a few can be deployed elsewhere even on foreign missions and get the fresh blood in than recycling problems.
The Prime Minister stated that the PS’s would be subjected to the performance management appraisals, how is this possible for the PS’s who are deployed in the areas beyond their expertise?
Where is the logic?
Are we aware enough that most of our public service policies are counterproductive in the sense that they are literally promoting effectiveness and efficiency on paper while in practice they are indeed instigating incompetence or frustrations which eventually lead to insubordination and other work-relationship problems that in turn break communication and subsequently effectiveness.
Where are we heading?
P Muteyauli