Reflections on the New GES Scheme of Service: Ensuring True Succession Planning and Career Dignity

The introduction of the new Scheme of Service for staff of the Ghana Education Service (GES) is a welcome development. The intention to strengthen succession planning within the Service is commendable and deserves support. However, it is useful to reflect further on its interpretation to ensure it achieves its intended purpose.

Understanding Succession Planning in Context

Ordinarily, succession planning is not simply about taking over from one’s leader, superior or supervisor before their retirement or exit.

A more constructive understanding is that succession planning involves grooming, coaching, mentoring and exposing subordinates to leadership roles. This includes learning through delegated authority, acting in the absence of the substantive officeholder, and taking on responsibilities that prepare the next generation to lead when the incumbent naturally exits on retirement.

It is therefore respectfully suggested that a succession arrangement that results in a subordinate taking over leadership from a superior who is still in active service may require reconsideration, as it could create role conflict and undermine workplace harmony.

The Four-Year Tenure: Matters Arising

The scheme proposes a four-year tenure for some positions, subject to renewal. It is humbly observed that where serving officers perceive uncertainty about renewal, their attention may shift toward personal future security, prompting the question: “What do I go home with after office?”

This could affect focus on the core mandate. Additionally, such provisions, if not carefully managed, may be susceptible to political interpretations, where non-renewal is perceived as politically motivated rather than performance-based. This risks politicizing renewals and may compel directors to compromise their objectivity to secure a second term, thereby affecting neutrality and stability in education management.

Other related concerns include:
i. Reduced Employee Engagement: Directors nearing the end of their tenure may experience demotivation, affecting productivity. ii. Loss of Institutional Memory and Strategic Continuity: Educational reforms and infrastructure projects often span several years. Frequent changes at the directorship level risk disrupting long-term initiatives.

A Humble Proposal: Expansion of the Rank Structure

To reduce the uneasiness associated with an officer returning to a lower position after serving as an administrative leader such as Director of Education, it is respectfully proposed that consideration be given to expanding the rank progression.

A possible structure could be: Principal Superintendent II → Principal Superintendent I → Assistant Director II → Assistant Director I → Deputy Director II → Deputy Director I → Director II → Director I

If the Principal Superintendent and Deputy Director ranks are expanded to II and I, officers would spend more years on those grades before attaining Directorship. This may ensure that officers reach Directorship closer to retirement, enabling them to retire honourably at that level rather than returning to serve under a subordinate.

Additional Benefits: Regular Progression and Improved Remuneration

With additional ranks, officers will progress more frequently, with corresponding improvements in remuneration. Progression every four years will reduce anxiety and acrimony associated with stagnation on a single rank. It will also enhance motivation, as each progression comes with financial improvement, sustaining interest and commitment throughout one’s career.

This approach would also help mitigate administrative challenges such as salary and benefit disputes arising from stepping down in responsibility, including issues related to salary scales, allowances, pension recalculations and the costs associated with onboarding and training new leaders every four years.

Practical Challenges of Reverting to Lower Positions

The proposal for former Directors to revert to lower positions may present practical difficulties:

1. Hierarchical Friction and Command-Chain Conflicts: Supervising a former superior may introduce interpersonal awkwardness and power struggles.
2. Re-orientation to Classroom Work: Officers who have been away from the classroom for long periods may require significant re-training.
3. Brain Drain and Underutilization: Experienced administrators may feel underutilized in lower roles, prompting early retirement or exit to the private sector.
4. Perceived Demotion: Returning to a subordinate role may create a perception of demotion and public embarrassment, affecting professional pride. Writing aptitude tests and attending interviews alongside younger officers after serving as a Director may also be psychologically demanding.

Conclusion

It is respectfully suggested that GES Management, the GES Council, Teacher Unions and the Public Services Commission take a further look at the scheme. If succession is anchored on mentoring and preparation, and the rank structure is expanded to allow officers to retire with dignity at their highest attained position—while ensuring regular progression every four years—the scheme will better motivate staff and preserve institutional experience.

These reflections, offered in good faith, are intended to contribute to enriching the new Scheme of Service for the benefit of all.

By George Sarfo Kantanka & Mohammed Mumuni Adams