MOST politicians are no experts on societal management theory. They do, however, have a point of view of what societal management is, given the platforms their respective political parties adhere to, especially when issues come to the forefront in political debates that affect our work and business lives.
The issue, however, is that most people we meet these days all have political viewpoints and working politicians have some title or other means indicating their areas of responsibility. Meeting someone who identifies themselves as a Member of the National Assembly (MNA) immediately gives you the impression they have certain inherent skills and experience that have enabled them to gain this title. Unfortunately for most of our MNAs', this is more the exception rather than the rule.
It has long been a paradigm to promote someone to “leadership/managerial level” due to such factors such as performance, experience, loyalty and education. It is, therefore, not surprising to meet someone who is an MNA but has no working experience at the “leadership/managerial level” with respect to societal issues.
It is also quite common to find party subordinates who have many years of experience being promoted to these levels as a reward for either their loyalty or perceived experience on the job. Many a time promotions to MNA are a result of a demonstration of loyalty and a strong affinity towards the party's cultural norms, practices or towards the leadership.
Looking at the current crop of MNAs' gives out a subtle message, that it would take anyone at least five years to move up to the grade. The reality is that the difference in packages and benefits between various party grades is quite significant and is quite evident in their lifestyles, behaviours and preferences.
The fact of the matter is that most people are promoted into leadership/management, or up the management ladder, for all the wrong reasons. Some of them are promoted way above their existing competence and tend to find the experience somewhat surreal in nature, hence the term “Flower Pots”.
It is no wonder that most Seychellois, when asked what they think of their MNAs, more often indicate that their representatives tend to live in some kind of dream world of unrealistic expectations and demands, and tend to adapt a somewhat alien character about them.
Some say this behaviour may be attributed to the fact that some MNAs feel the need to differentiate themselves from the “lesser mortals” below them in order to assert their authority.
In others words, being an MNA do not necessarily give one the legitimate authority in showing the Saverage people how to progress and become a more superior cultural and social person.
It may definitely enhance their appreciation of the values of social leadership but not necessarily increase their capacity to execute.
The obvious analogy to this is that MNAs are not necessarily the best social leaders. As a matter of fact, they are sometimes labeled the worst. They usually fail when it comes to practicing what they preach.
The problems of all societies and their political parties are essentially the same. Yet, there is some justification for the man who insists that his party is different. Yes, it is different. Therefore, while the principles of social management are undoubtedly the same throughout the world, the applications differ of necessity, and it is in the application of principles which anyone can understand that leadership and management proves itself good or bad”.
Borrowing from gurus in management theory and wisdom, certain key descriptive words keep emerging from the hazy and complex world of management science to explain what it intrinsically involves. Such words include “thinking”, “execution”, “people skills”, “empathy”, “performance”, “character”, “principles”, and so on. Ideally, when you are thinking about your MNA or even workplace superior for that matter, you can use these descriptors to figure out whether they are cut out for the job. I will leave you to figure out that for yourself.
In conclusion, Peter Drucker, the guru of modern management, once said that so much of what we call management consists of making it difficult for people to work. Basically, management is the art of getting three employees to do three employees' work. Quality management is all-important and this applies to society, the cornerstone of public life. After all, what is a society, but people?
-- Contributed