It is a journalistic ethic and a worldwide practice to grant individuals the right of reply by newspapers to anyone who has a strong view that they may have been misrepresented, to allow them to set the records straight.
However, it seems of late a number of local publications have notoriously violated this principle with impunity when it comes to Botswana Congress Party (BCP) officials wanting to exercise this right, even on the same platforms where someone may have pulled the wool over its views and character.
This unfortunate conduct by some media houses has a potential to stain and defile the integrity and reputation of the fourth state as an important source of unbiased and balanced reporting, which is critical in a democracy such as ours. It is therefore my hope that this time around, a temptation to muffle opinion will be avoided and I will be allowed to respond to some deliberate misinformation and misconceptions about my party, the BCP, that have littered the papers since the last elections.
Denying me that right to set the records straight will be practically the same as violating an ethical standard of true journalism.â€¨â€¨Since what some commentators have called a “dismal” performance by the BCP in the last elections, there has emerged from the woods impressionists, yes, parrots, bo bokolela di tlhabane, who behave like the proverbial lunatic who has stumbled upon a whistle.
We all know how irritating a whistle in the hands of a lunatic can be. They have assumed the role of sangomas and fortune tellers who even have the bravery to prescribe what is good for the BCP ahead of its members and the more than 140 000 people who cast their vote for the party. One ingenious singer has put up a line that best describes such characters in one of her songs when she said, “go lela fela le tse di senang marole.
”â€¨â€¨One such character is a self-appointed counterfeit analyst by the name Bernard Tibone Busani who behaves like a puppy barking without purpose with his uncoordinated rumblings. He is one of the excited zealots who think that the recent performance by the Umbrella For Democratic Change (UDC) in the elections have given them some driving force to venture into political commentary. We want to respond to Busani’s consignment of balderdash.
We ignored him when he first emerged from the trench, but like the proverbial lunatic who has picked a whistle and is making himself a centre of attraction, his irritation can no longer be put up with lest it pollute the minds of the unsuspecting readers with its discordant noise.
His articles are littered with lies, inconsistencies obviously springing from the lack of knowledge of the truth. Makgoa ba re little knowledge is dangerous and that is how sneering crude characters like Busani can be if left unchecked. â€¨â€¨Busani writes, “what has been said and is the truth is that the BCP walked away from the umbrella talks because of disagreement on five if not two constituencies.
The BCP did not finish the umbrella talks, which talks they initiated and embraced”. From the above, it is either Busani is imperceptive or he is downright obtuse. He is not even sure about what was the reason why the talks collapsed yet he thinks he is qualified to charge the BCP with treason. It is Busani’s own testimony that he is not sure if there was disagreement with five or two constituencies.
He also admits that this is not what he knows but what was said. Said by who? Strangely, based on what he is not sure of, he has the bravery to incriminate the BCP. How implausible! This is indeed a gross act of academic dishonesty.â€¨â€¨The truth that Busani and his likeminded need to told is that the BCP never walked away from the talks.
The talks collapsed and a communiqué declaring the collapsed was signed by the presidents of the four negotiating parties being the BCP, Botswana National Front (BNF), Botswana Peoples Party (BPP) and Botswana Movement for Democracy (BMD), and was pronounced by the president of the BNF in full view of the public and the media.
This is not what was said, but rather what happened. It is not the hearsay that Busani and other lost souls are peddling as the gospel truth. Where does Busani pick the walking out he alleges was committed by the BCP here, if this is not a figment of his fertile imagination?â€¨â€¨
The other truth that Busani his bunch of tittle-tattlers need to know and not the things that he has heard in the dark streets is that a few hours before the umbrella one talks were pronounced as collapsed, both the BNF and the BCP, who during the talks never had any disagreements, made a joint offer to the BMD, who were in fact the problem party throughout the talks.
It is on record that the BMD rejected such an offer which had given them all but one constituency were they were incumbent, plus six other constituencies. For starters, the only constituency that BMD were incumbent then and was not included in the joint offer was Ramotswa, but in its place, the BCP had traded off Mogoditshane, a more winnable constituency than the former. â€¨â€¨
There was a reason why the BCP which Busani has already admitted is a champion of opposition cooperation and initiated the talks, wanted to hold on to Ramotswa. It will be remembered, (and Busani should listen very carefully because it will benefit him to better his engagement on issues of opposition cooperation in Botswana), after the BNF and its partner in crime, the BPP, walked out the opposition cooperation talks in 2007, BCP and the former Botswana Alliance Movement (BAM), remained at the table and agreed on a PACT arrangement going into the 2009 general election. The two parties produced a joint manifesto which was titled “The Nation at Crossroads”.
They also had one presidential candidate who at that time was Cde Gilson Saleshando. It is common knowledge the BCP-BAM pact produced impressive results, winning five seats in parliament, one seat behind the BNF who went into the election with nine seats after losing three through irrational expulsions from the twelve it had after 2004 general election, and about seventy six council seats, surpassing the BNF in this regard.â€¨â€¨Immediately after 2009 elections, the BCP and BAM agreed to merge to form a single party, the current BCP which has a cow symbol.
The merger set out preliminary conditions which were to run until the merger has fully matured. One of the conditions was that the BAM president who was then Rre Lepetu Setshwaelo shall assume the vice presidency of the new BCP. Another condition was that Ramotswa, a constituency that Rre Setshwaelo contested under the BCP ticket in 2009 and lost narrowly to the Odirile Motlhale, be reserved for him.
This was in 2010, the same year that other political developments happened such as the formation of a Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) breakaway party, the BMD after the expulsion of the late Gomolemo Motswaledi. â€¨â€¨During the talks the BMD adopted a rigid position that they wanted to be given all the constituencies that they were incumbent.
They even developed a slogan, “incumbency or nothing”, which was quite an irrational position in any negotiation where parties should be prepared for a give and take principle. Both the BNF and the BCP were able to bend to accommodate the BMD which had not contested the elections in 2009. In the case of Ramotswa the BMD was made aware of other concessions that have taken place between BCP and BAM before the talks started such as reserving Ramotswa for Rre Setshwaelo.
The BCP which had performed exceptionally well in Mogoditshane in 2009, winning three council seats and losing the constituency with a margin of less than a thousand to the BDP, was ready to trade off that constituency in place of Ramotswa. But the BMD would not take any of it and they insisted on their incumbency or nothing stance. During the impasse, at some point the labour movements through their umbrella body, were roped in to mediate, but BMD couldn’t budge.
This is what happened and not what has been said which Busani and other zealots should take and avoid peddling falsehood.â€¨â€¨It is absurd for Busani to say the BCP did not finish the umbrella talks. He fails to state at what stage did the BCP abandon the talks. Of course this is an obvious lie that has been peddled by people who seem to master the dishonourable act of lying.
It has already been demonstrated above that the talks collapsed, and the reasons were stated by the conveners, the pronouncement of the collapse was made, publicly by the BNF president, who also doubles as the UDC president and leader of opposition in parliament. Where then does Busani get the walkout by the BCP when all the evidence is there that points to the fact the talks collapsed? â€¨â€¨
We know that the UDC used the above lie as their potency enhancer and fuel in their hatred against the BCP driven “moono” slogan. Like we have said before, moono was a call to hate the BCP because the UDC believed that in order for them to gain some semblance of relevancy to Botswana politics, they should at most be second to BDP and out class the BCP at all costs, even if that comes at the expense of the credibility of some in their leadership.
The case is point is the lies they peddled around to instil fear in the hearts of unsuspecting public in the run up to election. Bed time stories such as the existence of a hit list (which they no longer talk about), allegations that Gomolemo Motswaledi was assassinated (a report which was promised, but seems to be a forgotten thing); that the BCP President was doing business with BDP members, something they failed to bring forth evidence, were all splodges that the perpetrators are ashamed to face the nation at this point to say it was just a polluted, grubby campaign strategy which it is no longer necessary to pursue since it has achieved its intended objective. But the truth is, the integrity of most of them, including at a broader sense, the organisations they represent, have been soiled beyond redemption.
They are now viewed as untrustworthy.â€¨â€¨Busani is clearly wallowing in darkness, he needs urgent help. He claims that the BCP’s grand plan was to kill the BNF when they came up with the umbrella model as a model of cooperation. Tota gatwe motho yo o tswa kae? The umbrella model was the brain child of the BMD.
The BCP had proposed the pact model which it had used in the previous election with BAM and paid off. It is a fact that after the collapse of the umbrella talks that the BCP participated in, the party wrote a letter to the BNF requesting for a formal meeting to see if the two cannot forge a working relationship since they didn’t have any differences during the negotiations.
Most BNF central committee members believed so too. But the BNF president who appeared to have other interests snubbed this gesture by the BCP. He started to play hide and seek with his own central committee. We later heard that he had been promised the presidency of the umbrella party if he can support the BMD on their incumbency stance (maybe that explains why he was never subjected to a vote to become the UDC president). There was even fallout with members of the executive committee of the BNF.
Many would remember that the BNF vice president Rre Isaac Mabiletsa, the Secretary General Cde Akanyang Magama, the Deputy Secretary General Dr Nono Kgafela Mokoka, the secretary of International Affairs, Mephato Reatile, member of parliament for Kanye North Cde Kentse Rammidi and many others, later left the BNF to join the BCP and some the BDP. If at all the BCP had any intention to kill the BNF as alleged by Busani, would the BCP have courted the BNF for further talks after the initial collapse?
The BNF president Duma Boko is on record after the collapse of the initial talks saying that he does not want to work with the BCP because the later hurt the former in 1998 and that he only wants to work with the BMD and BPP under the umbrella model (Reference: The Botswana Guardian). â€¨â€¨Down his article Busani displays his political dwarfism in a dramatic fashion. He is mottled, bamboozled and enthralling.
He lacks composure. He is illogical, lucid and grossly irrational in all manner of imagination. He lists what he purports to be truth about the BCP. But the truth is that none of what his claims are truths about the BCP comes anyway near the measure of truth. He is indeed a prophet of doom,, a political fortuity who is not known in the political analysis market place.
He senselessly asks, “Where are the shadow ministers? What was the real purpose? How do you have a shadow minister outside parliament?” Uhu! Such imbecility is amazing for someone who wants to be taken seriously. â€¨â€¨Busani believes there were no differences in the UDC and BCP manifestos.
Ao bathong! Didn’t the BCP talk about a land audit which the UDC opposed with so much vigour and instead concurred with the BDP driven LAPCAS? Didn’t the BCP talk about bringing back our jobs which the UDC through its president also opposed and instead agreed with the BDP that Botswana is not yet ready for beneficiating its minerals and other raw materials to employ the many unemployed young people? I think Busani needs to have his head examined thoroughly.
He is not in a good way.â€¨â€¨The BCP remain focussed and believes that it remain the voice of the more than 140 000 Batswana who cast their votes in its favour. The BCP will not be derailed by incoherent characters the likes of Busani, but it continues to push its message through its representatives in parliament, local authorities and outside parliament.
We shall continue talking the message of land audit; we will not relent on calling the BDP government to account. Our voice will not deem on issues of youth un-employment, the use of the mother tongue. Lastly, the BCP will never be forced into any marriage of convenience that some see as a fast lane to power, even if it means replacing the BDP with another Domkrag with a different name. We will continue to push the agenda for true transformation of this country, economically, socially and politically. â€¨â€¨
“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
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.
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.