Efio-Ita Nyok|30 September 2015|5:30am
The Executive Governor of Cross River State, Sen. Prof. Benedict Ayade has proposed to assess anticipated executive appointees of the state for the position of commissioners via an aptitude test method. He thought it wise to so do but this executive disposition has not gone down well with a section of the Cross River public/political class. How wise is this decision of His Excellency?
It has become apposite to lend a voice on the subject in a candid attempt to offer constructive criticism and demonstrate a sense of patriotism especially when we consider the fact that His Excellency may be honest. Besides, the governor's Personal Assistant(PA) on Media, to wit, Inok Solomon, has failed to convince his audience of the goodly intentions of his principal especially when he submitted recently that all professionals are wont to be gluttons thereby inferring that he, in not being a professional, is working selflessly as a political appointee. In fact, and conversely, Inok Solomon in effect succeeded in unwittingly confessing to CrossRiverians that his unprofessional mode of executing his media work, on behalf of his principal, is as a result of the fact that he is not paid for his job! But this is by the sidelines.
Firstly, a cross section of the Cross River political class sees the aptitude test proposal as an insult on their personalities, and they may not be wrong. However, proponents of the government are perceived to be saying that, the said test is an attempt in the right direction seeing that His Excellency is searching for non-corrupt-cum-efficient government officials. This progovernment stance may also carry an element of truth.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary observes that an 'aptitude test' is 'a standardised test designed to predict an individual's ability to learn certain skills'. This phrase came into use since 1919. Albeit, the word 'aptitude' is also defined by the same reference material as 'a natural ability to do something or to learn something'. It also refers to general suitability, aptness or fitness. Aptitude test in this later context could be said to refer to an organised assessment aimed at determining the degree of ability to do something; the level of suitability or fitness for an individual. From the lexical connotations, one can decipher that the concept aptitude test is ambiguous. On the one hand, it aims at predicting the ability to learn. On the other hand, it attempts to determine the dimension of ability to do something, a skill, aside from learning. The former orientation is quite more popular than the later. Besides, I am not aware that Ayade has come out plain on what he means by 'aptitude test'. This may be the reason underlying the recent rancour.
Accordingly, the question begging for clarification is why is Ayade testing? And, What is he testing? Is Ayade testing the ability to learn or is he assessing the degree of skill to do the job on the part of his anticipated executive appointees namely commissioners?
CrossRiverians are confused! They need answers. Methinks Ayade is attempting to test the quality of skill to execute a job of his would-be commissioners. If this perception is true, then Ayade and the Ayadeans should understand the reason for the pooh pooh. If you agree with the author, Ayade is supposed to appoint technocrats into this positions. If this is anything to go by then these technocrats are seasoned professionals in their various fields. Why then should Ayade test technocrats? Is he doubting their abilities?
I think it is not proper for the government to address an aptitude test to political appointees. Because there are other formal ways to ascertain the veracity of the certificates, abilities, experience, etc of would-be commissioners: by resorting to the alma mater for the release of transcripts, etc. Assessment of they through aptitude text is demeaning. It suggest that Ayade do not trust the judgement of the educational institutions that churned out these lots.
My humble suggestion is Gov. Ben Ayade should select his would-be executive appointees , summit their names to the Cross River State House of Assembly (CRSHA), sequel to their successful endorsement by the legislature His Excellency may then bring in management consultants who would train these successful lots on the specific orientation and policy trust of the present administration. Give them a period of probation to see their level of compliance with the spirit of the government. Depending on the perception of His Excellency and satisfaction, they may be sacked or allow to continue in their jobs. To insist on administering the aptitude test is to run the risk of being perceived to be not serious. It is to add to the many woes that have already befallen the present administration within this stint.
Administering the said test doesn't synchronises with contemporary trends. Are the would-be commissioners applying for the job? Are the would-be appointees not technocrats? Can't they be fired if perceived to be inefficient? His Excellency should give a rethink. Things should be done executively.
