Mrs. D, dey send me home!” … this was the mournful cry of a young Communications Professional whose services had been unceremoniously terminated. Why should a change in political party translate into dismissals of career professionals?

Board appointments are generally given as rewards for supporting the party while career professionals are persons whose livelihoods depend on their employment. Indeed the government has a social responsibility to protect persons from discrimination. Political affiliation should not determine whether or not you retain a job. Maintenance of employment should only be based on performance and merit.

It is unfortunate that the long arms of politics now reach into the bowels of organizations and negatively impact well-intentioned career professionals. Don’t tell me “that’s what Governments do” because that is exactly what the population voted against. It is well understood that members of Boards will be terminated because these Boards are installed to carry out the policies of the government and when the government changes, there is a need to change the people who acted on behalf of the previous government. In our political system, there is an expectation however that Permanent Secretaries – career professionals that they are – will ensure that the legitimate, legal wishes of the new government are carried out.

For our society to grow and develop, there must be a paradigm shift in this way of thinking. Professionals who lead organizations must firstly be selected on the basis of merit. Once there is demonstrated competence then professionals must be protected from the vagaries of the politics. In other words every effort must be made to distinguish between policy formulation and policy implementation. If those lines become blurred, continuity will be affected and negatively impact the capacity of the organization to achieve its objectives.

Organizational theory suggests that turnaround or serious change requires 3-5 years and in some cases even 5-10 years. If we throw professionals out every time there is a change of government, we will in fact be sending an unfortunate message throughout our public sector organizations. It will institutionalize the unfortunate notion that “is we time now” and cement the view that public sector employees are expected to anticipate the politicians and act in a way they think the politicians intend. That kind of thinking can translate into the polarization of the public sector into political camps. In a small society like ours, we can’t afford to function on the basis of political affiliation. This implies that every five years, public sector workers will be looking for jobs.

This is a time for the demonstration of mature leadership and three messages are imperative – this is a government of the people … there is room at the table for everyone and … the government will provide the transformational leadership that is required to make this place successful. These messages are neither unique nor specifically tailored. They are messages of good common sense that are required to achieve positive results.

If we accept that the Government is a government of the people then it is expected that workers will be included in major decision-making. A generation ago, the workforce was compliant and prepared to simply obey instructions. Today, the question of WHY looms larger than life. Employees want to know why are we taking this action? Why are we doing this now? Why are we changing the procedure? Why have we reached this decision? Why have we decided that this alternative is preferable? These are not unreasonable questions as they lead to creativity and worker engagement.

In a recent Ernst & Young survey of 400 senior managers and employees in one thousand US companies, 60 percent of the respondents indicated that they would be more motivated if they were treated more as partners than as hired hands.

Consider that the average worker is engaged in serious decision making for his family, for himself and even for his community. Why can’t he be trusted to contribute to organizational decision-making?

The solutions to organizational problems lie with the workers and will not be found at some management retreat in a far away place.

The second message … there is room at the table for everyone is really a message to reassure people including career professionals that the system is unbiased and will protect them from any kind of discrimination.

The third message has to do with the transformational leadership that is required to positively impact the public sector. This is where the interface between the policy makers and the implementers becomes critical. This is where the agenda and direction for the organization is set. Once this is completed, then the Career Professionals take over to implement the goals and objectives.

The transformation of public sector organizations requires a de-linking from the politics. Political punishment must be a thing of the past. Utopian you say .. Essential – I say!

By Dennise Demming – Public Relations and Training Consultant




  1. Your article is well written. However, you missed a vital point, how does one protect the public’s interest from political or other bias. Therefore, how can there be a differential shift immediately to PMAS systems for the civil service and what remedies are available for persons who inherently have biases including racial prejudices. How do we also deal with cognitive bias, or religious zealots in the civil service, or persons who create their own subjective reality, or individuals suffering with perceptual distortion?? Political Bias is only one taint. One is assuming that upon appointment to the civil service an individual becomes genetically modified to be objective, just like when we appoint Independent Senators and they magically transform into blinded individuals. The public is the supreme entity here, not the civil service, an individual working in the public service is there to perform a function in the public interest and cater to their needs regardless of the person, the rules need to change, but unless we have continuous psychological evaluations, drug and integrity testing there will be no progress. I believe the discussion needs refinement. Just my suggestion.

    David Fraser

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.