Connect with us
Advertisement

Do you really have a choice – Part II

Last week, we saw that the circumstances that unfolded at the arrest of Jesus led to the disciples abandoning their stated free wills. The fear inside of them caused and made (and yes, FORCED, if you will) them to change their will.

And Jesus Himself told them that they would change their wills, so how pray tell could it have been otherwise? Yet I suppose that some are so spiritually stubborn that they will still insist that the apostles did not need to change their wills, that their wills were yet free to stay loyal in the face of these fearful circumstances.


When we argue with God like this, we demean Him. God has a plan, and God brings about His plan. God is not stupid. God knows exactly how to cause man (all mankind) to do exactly as He plans for them to do. Few students of the Scriptures have learned the truth regarding God’s stated WILL and His PLANS or INTENTIONS. They are clearly not one and the same.


They operate completely differently for different purposes. First, we should understand that God’s will is used both as a noun and a verb. As a noun, God’s will is virtually synonymous with His GOAL. It is usually not too hard to tell in Scripture whether the word "will" is used as a noun or a verb. In the Scripture we used from the Epistle of James, it demonstrates that things only happen "if God will." Here, it is used as a verb. And whenever God uses His will as a verb, then it absolutely will be fulfilled and carried out at the time and place that He wills it.


 If, however, God is speaking of His will as a noun, meaning His ultimate goal, then it does not immediately come about in totality at the place and time that He states it. A perfect example of God’s will as a noun and it not coming to total fruition at the place and time stated, is in what is popularly called "The Lord’s Prayer." "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come.


Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:9-10). I don’t think too many would argue that God’s kingdom and His will have not totally come to this earth as it is in heaven. This is a goal—it will happen. It just hasn't fully happened. And so man’s will is almost always at variance with God’s stated will as His ultimate goal for the human race. But God’s day-to-day willing of events to carrying out His plan is never ever contradicted or thwarted by puny man.


Paul understood this principle perfectly. Here, let us look at a classic Biblical example of the assumed free will of man versus the will of God. Did Pharaoh have a free will? We will now look at some of the most profound and yet most misunderstood and not believed Scriptures in the entire Bible.

"For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (Romans 9:15). Just who is in control in this statement – man or God? Man’s will is not free to contradict what God says He WILL DO. "So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but OF GOD that shows mercy" (Ver. 16).


What man "wills" has absolutely nothing to do with what God WILL DO. "For the Scripture says unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show My powers in you, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Therefore has He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens" (Vers. 17-18). Pharaoh did not harden his own heart—God said that He hardened it. It's there in your Bible in black and white. Paul stated it. And, quite tellingly, the subject is so deep that Paul did not even attempt to expound on it. When he should have done so, he opted to appeal to the sovereignty of God! Instead of addressing and unpacking the subject fully, he simply chose to say that God can do whatever He wants to do and nobody can call Him out on it. Case closed.


Remember I said that God has a stated will as a goal and an active will in the plan or process of obtaining His stated will. Right here we can see this principle in action: God states His will: "Then the Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh, and tell him, Thus says the Lord God of the Hebrews, Let my people go…" (Ex. 9:1). "And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh and he hearkened not unto them, as the Lord had spoken unto Moses" (Ver. 12).


There is God’s stated will—He wants Pharaoh to "Let my people go…" But does God expect or even want His "will be done on earth" at the time that He declares it? Obviously not. In fact, it is God Himself, Who prevents Pharaoh from doing God’s stated will of letting His people go. Most Christians just plainly refuse to believe these very simple Scriptures. Yet the ramifications of these Scriptural truths are enormous.


Notice what God did with Pharaoh. First, God tells Moses to tell Pharaoh to "to let My people go." And Pharaoh would have let the Hebrews go. Sure he would, had not God Himself intervened. Why would Pharaoh let them go? Because Pharaoh’s heart was both soft and weak. A soft and weak heart was no match for God. Pharaoh would have caved in and let His people go. But God did not want Pharaoh to let His people go. He asked Pharaoh to let His people go, but He didn’t want Pharaoh to let them go that easily.


Next God has to do something in order to prevent Pharaoh from letting His people go. God actually wants Pharaoh to go against His stated will. God’s stated will is "let My people go," but God doesn’t want Pharaoh to do God’s stated will at this time. He wants Pharaoh to resist God.

God has not changed, God still wants mankind to resist Him. What? Take a sip of water. Ready to proceed? Good. Pharaoh (just like the rest of humanity) is too weak and soft to resist God.

So what does God do? Two things: "And I will harden [Heb: qashah—to make hard] Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay My hand upon Egypt, and bring forth Mine armies, and My people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.


And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch forth Mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them." "For Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They are entangled in the land, the wilderness has shut them in. And I will harden [Heb: chazaq—to make strong and courageous] Pharaoh’s heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord. And they did so" (Exodus 14:3-4).


Pharaoh was naturally too soft of heart to resist letting the Hebrews go, and so God hardened his soft heart so that he would resist and would not let the people go until God first made a great display of His strength to the Egyptians. And after Pharaoh did let the people go, God wanted Pharaoh to try and follow after them and kill them. But this time we find that Pharaoh’s heart was too weak. And so again, God strengthens and gives courage to Pharaoh’s weak heart, and Pharaoh charges after Israel only to be totally defeated by God in the Red Sea. Well, there it is.


How hard is that to understand? But who will believe it? From Pharaoh’s birth until his death, God had a purpose for Pharaoh’s life, and God controlled every aspect of it. Pharaoh had no "free will" in any of these events. God changes not; He operates the same way in everyone’s life.

You will either be a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor, and it is ALL UP TO GOD! In our previous example with the disciples, not only did they change their emphatically stated wills, but, they did so against their stated wills. Even when they willed to change their will, they did so against their original desired will.


 Peter did not want to deny Christ. But he was made to deny Christ by the mere fact that the alternative (fear) was greater than his desire to remain loyal. And so, how was he "free" to remain loyal? He wasn’t! Peter was no more "free" to not deny Jesus any more than he was "free" to be loyal in his original choice. Both choices were caused, and once something is caused to happen, it could never have been otherwise. Once the cause is set in motion, the effect must follow. This is true Science and this is the truth of Scripture.


Clearly God brought about circumstances that caused, made, and indeed forced Peter to do what he didn’t want to do. How then, can such a forced will, be free? Peter did not will to deny Jesus, but he was clearly caused to do so. This is an example of how God causes men to change their will even when it is against their initial will to do so.

How much easier and unrecognizable are the millions of choices we make in which we very willingly make the decisions we do, because they often appear to be pleasant, profitable, and desirable choices? Does foreknowledge contradict free will?


This example of the disciples forsaking Jesus is so important to this study that we are going to stay with it a little longer. Can we believe that Jesus could have told His disciples the following: "And Jesus said unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night, but then again, maybe not all of you will be offended, seeing that all of you have a free will to will against My pronouncement…."

Or maybe this to Peter: "And Jesus said unto him [Peter] Verily I say unto you, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shall deny me thrice, but then again, maybe you won’t deny Me three times, seeing that you have a free will that does not need to deny Me even once. It doesn’t depend on what I say, or circumstances brought about by My Father, or what God declares, but rather on your own free will."

Sounds a little silly when we look at it logically doesn’t it? I can't help it but chuckle! Yet this IS the contention of those who believe in "free will." Maybe Peter will, but then again maybe Peter won’t. Almost sounds like blasphemy, doesn’t it?


 To argue that when God prophesies, states, and intends that someone will do a particular thing, that the person is still at liberty because of his supposed free will, to NOT do what God has said, is absurdity on the highest level. Yet this IS what the theory of free will demands. The fact that God has a foreknowledge of everything proves that free will is an impossibility, as true free will could alter the future and therefore God could not have an absolute and true knowledge of the future.


It is idiocy to state that man has a free will that is not made or caused to do as it does, and yet state that God knows in advance the only possible choice that a person must make. How can one believe that if God states that a person will make choice A, that he is nonetheless still at liberty to make choice B? Let me restate that: Can God say that you WILL make choice A, but you can make choice B? Can God say that such and such WILL happen but that it doesn’t need to happen?

The disciples WILL forsake and deny Christ, but they have a free choice NOT to forsake and deny Him? God knows in advance that something WILL be a certain way, and yet it doesn’t have to be that way?

Am I going too fast for anyone? Not only does the theory of free will demand that man be able to think uncaused thoughts and performed uncaused tasks, but that he can in fact, do these uncaused things contrary to and in opposition to God’s preordained stated plan and purpose. He must be blind indeed, who cannot or will not see that such a haughty presumption lifts such an one’s ego to that of a veritable "god’ in his own heart and mind.

The inhabitants of the whole world believe that they possess a wonderful gift from God called variously: "free will," "free choice," and "free moral agency." Even atheists believe that this marvel is a real and actual power evolved from primordial soup in some ancient sea slime. It is believed and taught that it is this agency of "free will" that enables a person to choose good over evil and even choose his own eternal destiny, independent of any one, any cause, or even God Himself.


For if anything – anything at all – should ever cause, hinder, persuade or restrict one’s supposed free will in any way, it would cease at that moment to be "free." And so it is repeatedly stated that under no circumstances would God ever interfere with, cause, or force anyone to think or do anything against his sacred and God-given, free will.

Of course we just saw a marvelous example in Scripture where men do change their wills against their wills, thus proving that neither their initial nor subsequent will was "free" at all. I will show that free will is indeed an "idol of the heart" which needs to be repented of. And of all man’s sacred cows, free will is the most sacred of all.


It is undoubtedly the most difficult doctrine in man’s walk with God to acknowledge and give up. And though neither science nor Holy Scripture know anything of a power called "free will," most will continue to defend it even in the light of a mountain of Scriptural proof that contradicts it at every turn.

To even question the existence of such a universally accepted sacred cow that has been lauded by theologians and philosophers since Eden, is to open oneself to criticism of being either a moron or an heretic. It is rather this theory of free will itself that is moronic and heretical. Yea, it is rather idiotic and evil. God Himself calls the notion of independent free choice, evil.


There is a plethora of simple-to-understand teachings in the Scriptures that utterly contradicts the fantasy of man’s supposed "free will." That man does indeed possess a "will" there is no doubt in either Science or the Scriptures. That such a will is "free," and brings about its own existence, however, is neither demonstrable by Science or Scripture. Contrariwise, both Science and Scripture teach against such an untenable phenomenon.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Can we cure ourselves from the cancer of corruption?

28th October 2020
DCEC DIRECTOR: Tymon Katholo

Bokani Lisa Motsu

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” Carl Sagan

Corruption is a heavy price to pay. The clean ones pay and suffer at the mercy of people who cannot have enough. They always want to eat and eat so selfishly like a bunch of ugly masked shrews. I hope God forgives me for ridiculing his creatures, but that mammal is so greedy. But corruption is not the new kid on the block, because it has always been everywhere.

This of course begs the question, why that is so? The common answer was and still is – abuse and misuse of power by those in power and weak institutions, disempowered to control the leaders. In 1996, the then President of The World Bank, James D. Wolfensohn named the ‘C-Word’ for the first time during an annual meeting of the Bretton Woods Institutions. A global fight against corruption started. Transparency International began its work. Internal and external audits mushroomed; commissions of inquiry followed and ever convoluted public tender procedures have become a bureaucratic nightmare to the private sector, trying to fight red tape.

The result is sobering corruption today is worse than it was 25 years ago. There is no denying that strong institutions help, but how does it come that in the annual Transparency International Ranking the same group of countries tend to be on the top while another group of countries, many African among them, tend to be on the bottom? Before one jumps to simple and seductive conclusions let us step back a moment.

Wolfensohn called corruption a cancer that destroys economies like a cancer destroys a body. A cancer is, simplified, good cells in a body gone bad, taking control of more and more good cells until the entire body is contaminated and eventually dies. So, let us look at the good cells of society first: they are family ties, clan and tribe affiliation, group cohesion, loyalty, empathy, reciprocity.

Most ordinary people like the reader of these lines or myself would claim to share such values. Once we ordinary people must make decisions, these good cells kick in: why should I hire a Mrs. Unknown, if I can hire my niece whose strengths and weaknesses I know? If I hire the niece, she will owe me and support my objectives.

Why should I purchase office furniture from that unknown company if I know that my friend’s business has good quality stuff? If I buy from him, he will make an extra effort to deliver his best and provide quality after sales service? So, why go through a convoluted tender process with uncertain outcome? In the unlikely case my friend does not perform as expected, I have many informal means to make him deliver, rather than going through a lengthy legal proceeding?

This sounds like common sense and natural and our private lives do work mostly that way and mostly quite well.

The problem is scale. Scale of power, scale of potential gains, scale of temptations, scale of risk. And who among us could throw the first stone were we in positions of power and claim not to succumb to the temptations of scale? Like in a body, cancer cells start growing out of proportion.

So, before we call out for new leaders – experience shows they are rarely better than the old ones – we need to look at ourselves first. But how easy is that? If I were the niece who gets the job through nepotism, why should I be overly critical? If I got a big furniture contract from a friend, why should I spill the beans? What right do I have to assume that, if I were a president or a minister or a corporate chief procurement officer I would not be tempted?

This is where we need to learn. What is useful, quick, efficient, and effective within a family or within a clan or a small community can become counterproductive and costly and destructive at larger corporate or national scale. Our empathy with small scale reciprocity easily permeates into complacency and complicity with large scale corruption and into an acquiescence with weak institutions to control it.

Our institutions can only be as strong as we wish them to be.

I was probably around ten years old and have always been that keen enthusiastic child that also liked to sing the favourite line of, ‘the world will become a better place.’  I would literally stand in front of a mirror and use my mom’s torch as a mic and sing along Michael Jackson’s hit song, ‘We are the world.’

Despite my horrible voice, I still believed in the message.  Few years later, my annoyance towards the world’s corrupt system wonders whether I was just too naïve. Few years later and I am still in doubt so as to whether I should go on blabbing that same old boring line. ‘The world is going to be a better place.’ The question is, when?

The answer is – as always: now.

This is pessimistic if not fatalistic – I challenge Sagan’s outlook with a paraphrased adage of unknown origin: Some people can be bamboozled all of the time, all people can be bamboozled some of the time, but never will all people be bamboozled all of the time.

We, the people are the only ones who can heal society from the cancer of corruption. We need to understand the temptation of scale and address it. We need to stop seeing ourselves just a victim of a disease that sleeps in all of us. We need to give power to the institutions that we have put in place to control corruption: parliaments, separation of power, the press, the ballot box. And sometimes we need to say as a niece – no, I do not want that job as a favour, I want it because I have proven to be better than other contenders.

It is going to be a struggle, because it will mean sacrifices, but sacrifices that we have chosen, not those imposed on us.

Let us start today.

*Bokani Lisa Motsu is a student at University of Botswana

Continue Reading

Opinions

Accounting Officers are out of touch with reality

19th October 2020

Parliament, the second arm of State through its parliamentary committees are one of Botswana’s most powerful mechanisms to ensure that government is held accountable at all times. The Accounting Officers are mostly Permanent Secretaries across government Ministries and Chief Executive Officers, Director Generals, Managing Directors of parastatals, state owned enterprises and Civil Society.

So parliament plays its oversight authority via the legislators sitting on a parliamentary committee and Accounting Officers sitting in the hot chair.  When left with no proper checks and balances, the Executive is prone to abuse the arrangement and so systematic oversight of the executive is usually carried out by parliamentary committees.  They track the work of various government departments and ministries, and conduct scrutiny into important aspects of their policy, direction and administration.

It is not rocket science that effective oversight requires that committees be totally independent and able to set their own agendas and have the power to summon ministers and top civil servants to appear and answer questions. Naturally, Accounting Officers are the highest ranking officials in the government hierarchy apart from cabinet Ministers and as such wield much power and influence in the performance of government.  To illustrate further, government performance is largely owed to the strategic and policy direction of top technocrats in various Ministries.

It is disheartening to point out that the recent parliament committees — as has been the case all over the years — has laid bare the incompetency, inadequacy and ineptitude of people bestowed with great responsibilities in public offices. To say that they are ineffective and inefficient sounds as an understatement. Some appear useless and hopeless when it comes to running the government despite the huge responsibility they possess.

If we were uncertain about the degree at which the Accounting Officers are incompetent, the ongoing parliament committees provide a glaring answer.  It is not an exaggeration to say that ordinary people on the streets have been held ransom by these technocrats who enjoy their air conditioned offices and relish being chauffeured around in luxurious BX SUV’s while the rest of the citizenry continue to suffer. Because of such high life the Accounting Officers seem to have, with time, they have gotten out of touch with the people they are supposed to serve.

An example; when appearing before the recent Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Office of the President Permanent Secretary, Thuso Ramodimoosi, looked reluctant to admit misuse of public funds. Although it is clear funds were misused, he looked unbothered when committee members grilled him over the P80 million Orapa House building that has since morphed into a white elephant for close to 10 successive years. To him, it seems it did not matter much and PAC members were worried for nothing.

On a separate day, another Accounting officer, Director of Public Service Management (DPSM), Naledi Mosalakatane, was not shy to reveal to PAC upon cross-examination that there exist more than 6 000 vacancies in government. Whatever reasons she gave as an excuse, they were not convincing and the committee looked sceptical too. She was faltering and seemed not to have a sense of urgency over the matter no matter how critical it is to the populace.

Botswana’s unemployment rate hoovers around 18 percent in a country where majority of the population is the youth, and the most affected by unemployment. It is still unclear why DPSM could underplay such a critical matter that may threaten the peace and stability of the country.
Accounting Officers clearly appear out of touch with the reality out there – if the PAC examinations are anything to go by.

Ideally the DPSM Director could be dropping the vacancy post digits while sourcing funds and setting timelines for the spaces to be filled as a matter of urgency so that the citizens get employed to feed their families and get out of unemployment and poverty ravaging the country.
The country should thank parliamentary committees such as PAC to expose these abnormalities and the behaviour of our leaders when in public office. How can a full Accounting Officer downplay the magnitude of the landless problem in Botswana and fail to come with direct solutions tailor made to provide Batswana with the land they desperately need?

Land is a life and death matter for some citizens, as we would know.

When Bonolo Khumotaka, the Accounting Officer in the Ministry of Land Management, Water and Sanitation Services, whom as a top official probably with a lucrative pay too appears to be lacking sense of urgency as she is failing on her key mandate of working around the clock to award the citizens with land especially those who need it most like the marginalised.  If government purports they need P94 billion to service land to address the land crisis what is plan B for government? Are we going to accept it the way it is?

Government should wake up from its slumber and intervene to avoid the 30 years unnecessary waiting period in State land and 13 years in Tribal land.  Accounting Officers are custodians of government policy, they should ensure it is effective and serve its purpose. What we have been doing over the years, has proved that it is not effective, and clearly there is a need for change of direction.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Is it possible to make people part of your business resilience planning after the State of Public Emergency?

12th October 2020

THABO MAJOLA

His Excellency Dr Mokgweetsi EK Masisi, the President of the Republic of Botswana found it appropriate to invoke Section 17 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana, using the powers vested in him to declare a State of Public Emergency starting from the 2nd April 2020 at midnight.

The constitutional provision under Section 17 (2b) only provided that such a declaration could be up to a maximum of 21 days. His Excellency further invoked Section 93 (1) to convene an extra- ordinary meeting of Parliament to have the opportunity to consult members of parliament on measures that have been put in place to address the spread and transmission of the virus. At this meeting Members of Parliament passed a resolution on the legal instruments and regulations governing the period of the state of emergency, and extended its duration by six (6) months.

The passing of the State of Emergency is considered as a very crucial step in fighting the near apocalyptic potential of the Novel COVID-19 virus. One of the interesting initiatives that was developed and extended to the business community was a 3-month wage subsidy that came with a condition that no businesses would retrench for the duration of the State of Public Emergency. This has potentially saved many people’s jobs as most companies would have been extremely quick to reduce expenses by downsizing. Self-preservation as some would call it.

Most organisations would have tried to reduce costs by letting go of people, retreated and tried their best to live long enough to fight another day. In my view there is silver lining that we need to look at and consider. The fact that organisations are not allowed to retrench has forced certain companies to look at the people with a long-term view.

Most leaders have probably had to wonder how they are going to ensure that their people are resilient. Do they have team members who innovate and add value to the organisation during these testing times? Do they even have resilient people or are they just waiting for the inevitable end? Can they really train people and make them resilient? How can your team members be part of your recovery plan? What can they do to avoid losing the capabilities they need to operate meaningfully for the duration of the State of Public Emergency and beyond?

The above questions have forced companies to reimagine the future of work. The truth is that no organisation can operate to its full potential without resilient people. In the normal business cycle, new teams come on board; new business streams open, operations or production sites launch or close; new markets develop, and technology is introduced. All of this provides fresh opportunities – and risks.

The best analogy I have seen of people-focused resilience planning reframes employees as your organisation’s immune system, ready and prepared to anticipate risks and ensure they can tackle challenges, fend off illness and bounce back more quickly.  So, how do you supercharge your organizational immune system to become resilient?

COVID-19 has helped many organisations realize they were not as prepared as they believed themselves to be. Now is the time to take stock and reset for the future. All the strategies and plans prior to COVID-19 arriving in Botswana need to be thrown out of the window and you need to develop a new plan today. There is no room for tweaking or reframing. Botswana has been disrupted and we need to accept and embrace the change. What we initially anticipated as a disease that would take a short term is turning out to be something we are going to have to live with for a much longer time. It is going to be a marathon and therefore businesses need to have a plan to complete this marathon.

Start planning. Planning for change can help reduce employee stress, anxiety, and overall fear, boosting the confidence of staff and stakeholders. Think about conducting and then regularly refreshing a strategic business impact analysis, look at your employee engagement scores, dig into your customer metrics and explore the way people work alongside your behaviours and culture. This research will help to identify what you really want to protect, the risks that you need to plan for and what you need to survive during disruption. Don’t forget to ask your team members for their input. In many cases they are closest to critical business areas and already have ideas to make processes and systems more robust.

Revisit your organisational purpose. Purpose, values and principles are powerful tools. By putting your organisation’s purpose and values front and center, you provide clear decision-making guidelines for yourself and your organisation. There are very tough and interesting decisions to make which have to be made fast; so having guiding principles on which the business believes in will help and assist all decision makers with sanity checking the choices that are in front of them. One noticeable characteristic of companies that adapt well during change is that they have a strong sense of identity. Leaders and employees have a shared sense of purpose and a common performance culture; they know what the company stands for beyond shareholder value and how to get things done right.

Revisit your purpose and values. Understand if they have been internalised and are proving useful. If so, find ways to increase their use. If not, adapt them as necessities, to help inspire and guide people while immunizing yourself against future disruption. Design your employee experience. The most resilient, adaptive and high performing companies are made up of people who know each other, like each other, and support each other.

Adaptability requires us to teach other, speak up and discuss problems, and have a collective sense of belonging. Listening to your team members is a powerful and disruptive thing to do. It has the potential to transform the way you manage your organisation. Enlisting employees to help shape employee experience, motivates better performance, increases employee retention and helps you spot issues and risks sooner. More importantly, it gives employees a voice so you can get active and constructive suggestions to make your business more robust by adopting an inclusive approach.

Leaders need to show they care. If you want to build resilience, you must build on a basis of trust. And this means leaders should listen, care, and respond. It’s time to build the entire business model around trust and empathy. Many of the employees will be working under extreme pressure due to the looming question around what will happen when companies have to retrench. As a leader of a company transparency and open communication are the most critical aspects that need to be illustrated.

Take your team member into confidence because if you do have to go through the dreaded excise of retrenchment you have to remember that those people the company retains will judge you based on the process you follow. If you illustrate that the business or organization has no regard for loyalty and commitment, they will never commit to the long-term plans of the organisation which will leave you worse off in the end. Its an absolutely delicate balance but it must all be done in good faith. Hopefully, your organization will avoid this!

This is the best time to revisit your identify and train your people to encourage qualities that build strong, empathetic leadership; self-awareness and control, communication, kindness and psychological safety.  Resilience is the glue that binds functional silos and integrates partners, improves communications, helps you prepare, listen and understand. Most importantly, people-focused resilience helps individuals and teams to think collectively and with empathy – helping you respond and recover faster.

Article written by Thabo Majola, a brand communications expert with a wealth of experience in the field and is Managing Director of Incepta Communications.

Continue Reading
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!