An open letter to SRC

Dear SRC Commissioners,

When you published the salary scales for the State Officers' jobs in a special issue of the Kenya Gazette Vol. CXV No. 33 of March 1, 2013, it was quite clear to me that you were off track on your mandate of setting compensation and benefits for the State Officers' jobs. To make matters worse, you had based your published document on a job evaluation exercise that never occurred, in real sense. After several suggestions, that went unacknowledged, I felt that the SRC's mandate was too pervasive to be ignored. And I felt the need to register my personal assessment of the situation by writing to a third party – Parliament.

On May 22, 2013, I wrote to Parliament expressing my reservations about the results of the job evaluation exercise that supposedly had been conducted for the State Officers' jobs, and expressed the view that the SRC ‘s actions, if ignored, were likely to adversely affect the entire public sector. In my letter, I noted:

1.)    The Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) claims that the published salaries are based on the result of a job evaluation exercise. My reservations about this claim arises from the fact that:

·        A job evaluation exercise must have the participation of all the stakeholders

·        A job evaluation exercise cannot be carried out across different entities. It follows then that a job evaluation exercise could not have been carried out across the legislature, the judiciary and the executive offices under one system

·     The factor comparison method, supposedly used by the SRC, is not meant for managerial and executive jobs. It is designed for factory and operatives' jobs

·        The salary curves generated from salaries announced in the special issue of Kenya Gazette Vol. CXV No. 33 of March 1, 2013, do not conform to results of a job evaluation. Pay progressions, for instance, reflect simple arithmetic progressions that are not even consistent.

·        A psychometric measurement, such as a job evaluation, should reflect a geometric progression pattern from one job grade to the next. 

·       County Offices are a new creation and, therefore, the salaries and remuneration packages for officers occupying the new roles in the counties should have been established first on the basis of the employer’s fiscal policies, including policies on compensation and benefits. Furthermore, at this level, the SRC’s role should have been advisory only. In any event, a job evaluation exercise could not have been conducted for non-existing jobs in the counties.

·        The internal inequities reflected in the salary structures, for instance, for the judiciary, could not be explained by a job evaluation exercise.

2.)    The assumption that the SRC can indeed, execute its wide mandate professionally, fairly, and equitably, should be subjected to scrutiny so as to confirm, modify, or reject this assumption.

3.)    Increasingly, organizations have become complex and workplaces difficult to compare or draw parallelisms between them. The complexity increases with the dissimilarities of the entities being considered, particularly where the entities may have little in common in terms of strategies and operational objectives. Yet, this is what the SRC proposes, or intends to do with the state institutions/corporations in Kenya for the purpose of salaries and remuneration structuring. This does not, and will not work.

4.)   State institutions/corporations in Kenya include those that are in business, education and research, services that have high economic and social impacts, environmental management, and agricultural fields, among many others. Classifying such an array of institutions under a single system for the purpose of making decisions on salaries and remuneration is untenable, inaccurate, and indefensible.

5.)    Failure to follow the rules of the game in setting up salaries and remuneration structures for the public sector could easily lead to disruptive practices in a demoralized public sector.  Clearly, despite the SRC’s public relations efforts, the hype in the media, and the public outcry over the MPs’ reaction to the SRC’s salaries and remuneration structures, it is only the Parliament that has the means, and the ability to scrutinize the way the independent commissions go about executing their respective mandates.

Obviously, Parliament has its own limitations. One, because of the independent nature of the constitutional commissions; two, because of the lack of technical know-how in this areas; and three, Parliament has been a big beneficiary of a flawed remuneration and benefits system, and it is unlikely that 'rocking the boat' - as the saying goes - would be in the institution's interest.

This notwithstanding, when I wrote to Parliament in 2013, I suggested that the National Assembly could consider sponsoring a small select group of Members for a one-day workshop on the key issues that are central to salaries and remuneration structuring. This would provide the opportunity for the delegates to review, analyze, and share information that would give the delegates a common understanding of the issues involved. This understanding would be essential for constructive engagement with the SRC on matters of salary and remuneration structuring, in the event that the intervention of Parliament was necessary. (Incidentally, we have started seeing the National Assembly getting involved in the public sector's remuneration issues.)  

But, when all is said and done, one thing that remains clear in my mind is that, the SRC is here to stay. It is also clear in my mind that the investment in time and resources, in addition to the human emotions injected to such a project as compensation structuring, can easily lead one to becoming a willing captive of the project, even when it is evident that the path taken may not be as smooth, and as clear as one had hoped. The ability to pause, read the signs and change course, can mean the difference between success and failure.

I would strongly urge the SRC to pause and read the signs. This will allow the Commission to take a decision on whether to let go off the 'tail of the wage bill beast', and hold the 'beast by its horns'! There are no two ways around this. And, by getting back on the right course, the SRC would be doing one great service to our Nation.

In which case, four things need to happen:

1)   Get back to the basics (as I have often urged you to) and establish the best platform on which to build internal capability in both remuneration structuring and job evaluation techniques for the public sector,

2)  Establish a collaborative method of setting and regulating compensation and benefits for the State Officers' jobs, as mandated by the Constitution.

3)  Establish a collaborative way of assisting the public sector in setting up a viable and a manageable remuneration structure

4)  Advise on ways of establishing credible and defensible methods of removing disparities in compensation structures.

Most of what is required in order to achieve the above four objectives, I have already shared with the SRC, the PSC, and other relevant Ministries.

It is necessary to note that, the above suggestions are similar to suggestions I have made in the past. In 2004/'05, for instance, when the first job evaluation exercise was conducted for the Civil Service, it was clear that wrong methods were adopted for the job.  The government had neither the requisite internal know-how to detect this, nor the capability to assess the acceptability of the method being used. It was clear to me then, that there was need to build capability in job evaluation and compensation structuring within the government. This would give the government the capacity to monitor and assess consultancy services being provided in this area.

In my letter of November 22, 2004 to Ambassador Francis Muthaura, (the then Permanent Secretary, Secretary to The Cabinet and Head of the Public Service) I suggested the following, among other things:

“It is unlikely, … that the current Point Rating system being used for the Civil Service job evaluation exercise will produce results that can be implemented.”

I proceeded to offer a free presentation on various systems of job evaluations and how to select, apply, and implement the most appropriate ones. Credit to Ambassador Muthaura’s office, I received a response on January 3, 2005, which read:

“Thank you for your letter regarding the above subject matter. Delay in replying is regretted.

Kindly note that your proposal has been forwarded to Directorate of Personnel Management for consideration. They have separately been advised to get in touch with you regarding the presentation.”  

This response came after it had become quite clear that the job evaluation exercise, that was still in progress, was not going as well as had been expected. Unfortunately, I could not follow up on this as the letter reached me just a few days before I was due to travel out of the country for an extended stay, to organize my research in preparation for my doctoral dissertation defense.  

Again, in August 2010 I wrote to Ambassador Muthaura, this time in reference to the Akilano Akiwumi tribunal’s work on compensation and benefits for Members of Parliament and the employees of the National Assembly. Following are the contents of that letter:

Remuneration structuring and compensation administration in public and constitutional institutions can be done professionally and competently if specific steps are taken to ensure that the necessary skills are developed within the relevant government ministry or department. DPM might be just the right place to launch such a developmental programme, thus bringing professionalism into the elusive area of job evaluation and compensation structuring.

It is fair to note, for instance, that the Akilano Akiwumi tribunal lacked the benefit of professional input when reviewing the remuneration packages for Members of Parliament and the employees of the National Assembly. While acknowledging the importance of the task that lay before such a tribunal, (or as may come before a commission such as the one proposed for the future), it is difficult to rule out the possibility that the outcome of such an important exercise as remuneration structuring, might amount to nothing more than a ‘bandaging' response to a festering wound requiring a ‘surgical’ approach.

My recommendation when I appeared before the tribunal on April 3, 2009, was for the tribunal to take a long-term view and advise the government on the need to develop professional capability with the capacity to address issues of salaries administration and compensation structuring within the public and constitutional institutions.

The potential to build a cadre of professionals in this area, I noted, was high. And the Directorate of Personnel Management was one place to look for possible candidates.

My suggestion was similar to a proposal I had made earlier, in 2004, when a job evaluation exercise was underway for the Civil Service. My proposal then was to assist DPM in acquiring skills that would enable the government to monitor and evaluate the on-going exercise, so that its successful implementation might be realized.

I still do believe that the requisite capability can be developed within DPM, so that professional input is always readily available whenever the need to review remuneration structures arises, either in the public sector in general, or in constitutional institutions. Furthermore, it would help maintain, monitor and manage the installed remuneration structures. 

In conclusion I should add that, without the existence of a logical framework within which the administration of remuneration can be carried out, it will always remain a challenge to remove, or even minimize inequalities in a remuneration system, be it in the public or in the private sector of our economy.

Indeed, without professional input, a commission such as the one to be constituted may not have the tools to enable it to fairly, and adequately, address compensation issues in what is bound to be an increasingly complex work place with ever changing needs for new skill-sets.

I strongly believe that there is an urgent need for the government, in this case, the employer, in collaboration with the SRC, to consider building the necessary know-how in compensation structuring and job evaluation practices, as a high priority. Without the requisite internal know-how for the public sector, we can expect huge sums of the taxpayers' money to be squandered on projects that cannot be implemented.