VIEWPOINTS
The right man for the right place
To have the right man at the wrong place or to have the right place for the wrong man – this is certain and certified disaster in the sphere of management, this is empirical calamity in the world of organization. In other words, it is an elementary dictate of prudence, a basic mandate of logic that the right person should be elected to the right office, appointed to the right position or given the right task. In the event of any dissonant move or errant option patently contrary to the fundamental administrative or executive principle that the right person should have the right job – everybody concerned therein eventually becomes a loser.
Loser is the man unworthily elected to an office he is in reality unfit to have and to hold – a factual unfitness for whatever objective reason and/or personality liability. In the same way: Loser is the person for having been given an assignment the same is incapacitated from bringing to expected completion on account of any adverse causal factor. Loser is the individual assigned to a task for which the same does not have the required competence and/or lacks the demanded stability and/or wanting in character – normally exacted by given agenda. In this particular situation, sad to say but true, none of the following individuals could effectively hold any public Office on account of a given inborn or acquired deficiency: Neither popularity nor fame which are both external to the subject person concerned. Not grandiosity or verbosity which, sad to say, is but basically acting well and talking much, respectively.
What is truly worse in the above marked disparity between the agent and the agenda – in line with the vision of a square peg forced in a round whole – is that all possible administrative disasters and/or probable organizational fiascos have everybody else concerned as the eventual victims thereof. It is exactly this lamentable phenomenon that brings about the basically distorted and pursuant socio-political calamity in an otherwise sound nature and noble objective finality of a republican democracy as a form of government: More than integrity, competence and character, elected into public offices from the highest national authority down to the local public officials, are those who are but popular, who have but a glib tongue, who are reeking with campaign money from dubious sources – not to mention those who precisely do not subscribed to republican democracy as having infamous “private armies,” “guns and goons.”
Philippines, my Philippines: Why is it that you are ever poor and underdeveloped? Where are your good men and women to give you honest to goodness, good governance? Will you always have to prepare for the so called “People Power” when already disgusted and exasperated with a government? What?*
