Entrepreneurship: Why Teaching it in Secondary Schools and Tertiary?

By Clive Mutame Siachiyako

Entrepreneurship has not only become a buzzword in political, social, economic or non-governmental spheres; but it is driven by a consensus that entrepreneurs are both inborn and taught or nurtured. There are people born from entrepreneurial families. They grew up seeing entrepreneurial ideas turned into something earning their families income. Others learn the art from friends, parents, or school. Coming from a less entrepreneurial historical background, Zambia is integrating entrepreneurship in the school system at varied levels. Some learners have however not seen the relevance of having entrepreneurship components in their programmes.

The decisive question is “in which subjects should entrepreneurship be introduced and taught in the high school curriculum?” As could be expected, there are several subjects and levels into which entrepreneurship can be integrated. While a full unit on entrepreneurship could be taught as a stand-alone [an independent course of study], this is not the only approach, or necessarily the most effective. Even if a free-standing course is provided in the curriculum, its effectiveness will be enhanced if entrepreneurial insights are provided throughout the entire curriculum. If entrepreneurship education is isolated in a single course, apart from the whole curriculum, it may be missed by many students who then would not profit from their potential development as enterprising individuals.

Entrepreneurship can be fused into different subjects to prepare learners to apply their entrepreneurial acumen within their professional practice. The following are some of the subjects it can be integrated. Reasons why there seem to be consensus why such combinations would better learners’ applicability of their entrepreneurial knowhow are explained below:

Business studies: Perhaps the most obvious place where entrepreneurship should be included is in the business studies curriculum. In addition to the creative and enterprising attributes, business studies will introduce the financial and human management skills that are necessary for the formation and survival of a new enterprise. Business studies should also allow learners to think of themselves as employers rather than employees in the market system. This view will enable the business studies learners to identify themselves with the important issues with which the entrepreneur must seize as part of the development of a business plan. These issues include new products, process innovation, employee training and management, financing the enterprise, and assessment of the marketplace. The desired outcomes of the business education course should include the students' ability to deal with the unknown in an enterprising way.

Economics: Financial literacy and economic concepts comprehension can be included into this course. Placing entrepreneurial concepts and the entrepreneurship savvy into the standard economics course not only makes the course more reflective of the real world, but it also can help to improve learners’ comprehension and enjoyment of the economics course. In economic , the links between the market and the entrepreneur need to be stressed.

"Placing entrepreneurial concepts and the entrepreneur into the standard economics course not only makes the course more reflective of the real world, but it also can help to improve students' comprehension and enjoyment of the economics course."

Governance: The action of government in creating and limiting the environment for entrepreneurship should be included in learning systems. Knowledge on how government regulations and taxes impact entrepreneurial environment are pertinent aspects to add to the curriculum. Regulation is a burden for all businesses, but more especially for small entrepreneurial ones that generally have less ability to bear the costs of compliance.

Comparative studies should be undertaken about the role of entrepreneurs under alternative political systems. Why has there been a movement toward the free market in command societies? To what extent is the existence of one kind of liberty essential for the presence of the other? Can government bureaucrats be entrepreneurial? These are just a few of the questions that might be posed in a government class with entrepreneurial content.

Psychology: Psychology is an excellent place for learners to understand the psychological characteristics of the entrepreneur and to assess their own characteristics and capacities to be entrepreneurial. A psychological subject that allows learners to develop their own concepts of self-worth and inner control would be a welcome addition to the process of entrepreneurship education.

Sociology: The study of the sociology of entrepreneurship is in its infancy, but there are several ideas that are consistent with the thrust of entrepreneurship education. Learners should realize that entrepreneurs shape and are shaped by the culture in which they live. One may ask: why do some ethnic groups seem to be more entrepreneurial than others? How does entrepreneurship permit minority groups to enter the economic and social mainstream? These are but two of the myriad questions that link entrepreneurship and sociology, and school programmes can now begin to explore them.

History: History subjects are a natural place within the curriculum to discuss how entrepreneurs have helped determine the course of human events. History lessons often focus on politicians, rulers, and military leaders. History teachers can do a great deal to expand the horizons of their learners by focusing on case studies of entrepreneurs who have contributed to the betterment of humankind. Case studies are particularly valuable if a variety of alternative stories are included that allow learners to relate to entrepreneurs of their same race and/or gender. Entrepreneurial history can help learners understand that most progress is made in small steps. While the "mega" innovations are important, progress really happens as ideas are adapted and refined. The cumulative process of improving and changing old ideas in an incremental way to better satisfy consumer or producer needs is the form most entrepreneurial activity takes and in so doing makes history.  

Science: Entrepreneurship can also be a thread woven into the fabric of science subjects. Since technological advance often begins with scientific insight and continues because of entrepreneurial persistence, learners should understand the relation between scientific discovery and entrepreneurship. Many of the great scientists were also entrepreneurs. They not only invented the product or technology but also brought it to the marketplace. Students should understand these relationships between the laboratory and the market.

Vocational/technical education: For many years, entrepreneurship has been an integral part of many vocational/technical programmes. The majority of western world learners [such as in American high schools] are enrolled in some vocational/ technical programmes. These offerings present an excellent opportunity for the spreading of entrepreneurship education over a significant number of students.

The focus of entrepreneurship education in the vocational/ technical curriculum has been narrow and limited to the teaching of skills needed to start and sustain a small business, but most vocational/technical programmes contain at least entrepreneurial elements. The curriculum should be broadened beyond skills training to include an understanding of how employees can be enterprising as well as units on the nurturing of entrepreneurial traits and characteristics.

Conclusion

Those who design secondary school curricula and beyond should make sure that entrepreneurship has its place in economics, business education, history, science, psychology, sociology, and vocational/technical education. Entrepreneurship is neither a separate nor an alien concept, but one that can enrich learners’ understanding of a variety of subjects in the regular curriculum. Perhaps more important, the study of entrepreneurship can demonstrate how enterprising behaviour can have a positive impact on society. Entrepreneurs are good models for learners to emulate. Courtesy: http://www.ncee.net/

Where are the Zambian engineers…did they shift to somewhere unknown?

By Clive Mutame Siachiyako

Whenever there’s a problem in society, experts brain storm possible ways of improving the situation. When Ebola broke out in some African countries, medical doctors and auxiliary pundits were falling on each other in finding the answers that would save lives. Similarly, at local level, whenever there’s a disease outbreak usefulness of the medics is sought to avert the situation. 

Paradoxically, a strange silence has taken over from the time power supply hiccups emerged in Zambia. Engineers don’t seem to exist. Government equally doesn't seem to seek for answers from apt experts –engineers. By now a power deficit emergency fund would have been in place and engineers would have made themselves useful in getting around the power shortfall problem. Don’t we have engineers in the country? Does government have confidence in them? Why do they exist anyway if they can’t make themselves exceptionally useful in such times?

To add absurdity to it, the Zambia Electricity Supply and Corporation (ZESCO) doesn't talk about other sources of energy outside hydro power. If it does, where are the strategies to get to those power-generation and supply ends? Suppose rains get worse next year, what will happen? Are we getting back to firewood and disconnect the houses from hydro power system? What is ZESCO thinking? Since the corporation is mute on its power diversification strategy, it can be assumed it’s not thinking nor doing anything.

Diversification is a premium during ‘rainy days.’ Putting all eggs in one basket is very risky…it’s a daft way of living. In a country where there’s sunshine for almost 6 hours per day, diversify in solar power generation becomes cooler. ZESCO can think of solar houses to generate enough energy to cough-out the current deficit the country is experiencing. Time to sit and watch natural resources is long gone. Engineers have to get dirty and help minimise this power messy. Their fellow engineers in other countries are making breath taking breakthroughs that address daily problems society face. What’s wrong with the Zambian engineers? Are they half trained or the country has not provided them with arenas to apply themselves fully?

What about wind power? Doesn't Zambia have suitable points where windmills can be placed to generate the much needed power? Can’t we make use of those mountains (Zambezi and Muchinga) to trap wind and push out energy from it? Can someone start talking engineering solutions here? Why is there this daft silence when the country has a horde of engineers with so many specialities? This is depressing. The power supply is getting into an intensive care unit (ICU) situation and no one seems to care and get things moving. 

The Engineer Institute of Zambia (EIZ) has to throw its muscles here and get things moving. It has a plethora of engineering experts who can help sort of the power shortfall messy and save the economy. If nothing gets done soonest, the economy will be grounded. It’s general knowledge that energy drives almost all economic activities. Where are the viable energy generation and diversification plans that the country needs to get over this darkening of the country by ZESCO? 

The ministry of energy and water development has to rise up and get counted here. Talking alone isn't enough. We have had television and radio talking programmes enough!! It’s time to get into action. Why can’t we have an emergency energy fund immediately and get working? Why should we keeping on depending on rains which we don’t know how they will fall each season? We have other sources of energy. Let people struggle with hunger due to poor rainfall not a combination of hunger and power blackouts. 

Engineers’ competences alone aren't enough. Money is needed. Research too is needed. Do we have Energy Research Knowledge Centre somewhere at the ministry of energy and water development to gather knowledge on averting these energy lapses and generate a quantum savvy and steps to get around energy hiccups? Getting comfortable with nature’s failure to provide enough rainfall is a sign of total laziness. Nature doesn't only provide one source of energy. It’s us to use our heads and utilise what’s available to generate power. Sitting akimbo waiting for next rainy season is very bad way of planning and facing life. When someone spoke about plan B and C they meant having a broader view of things and never to put all eggs on one basket. 

In such matters even getting a loan specifically to establish alternative energy plants was necessary. The current power supply situation is nauseating to the economy. Imagine barbershop owners, metal fabricators, salon owners and butchery businesses…how do they sustain their businesses and provide for their families? Those are the jobs the economy need, which are dying in large numbers due to power outages. Is someone not doing some economic analysis at higher level to advice the system? What’s going on?

I have heard news about private individuals committing their money in setting up solar plants here and there. That’s great! But private capital comes with fastest recoup time frame. It means higher cost of the power. Are the low income people going to manage to access the power under the private hands? No of course!! Why is ZESCO seeming allergic to power diversification? What’s wrong with this company? Is it lack of power-generation-vision or something is blinding them?

It’s simply baffling.

Communicating climate change policies: what can be done at different levels to save nature?

By Clive Mutame Siachiyako

Climate change effects are getting more lethal than imagined before. They are more aggressive. Desperate situations call for desperate approaches it is argued. Policies that aggressively seek to address these effects should thus be designed and implemented. I will first look at policies to regulate pollution. Pollution can be air or water and otherwise. Industrial emissions of varied gases into the air during production present serious environmental hazards.

I am using a house using a chimney to illustrate this point. A house using coal would emit smoke through the chimney in the process forming thick residues that corrode the metallic chimney. The chimney may end up breaking. The same corrosion happens to the ozone layer. The smoke industries emit forms a thicket in the atmosphere which distorts weather patterns, blocks sun rays from reaching the earth; distort earth’s normal warmth, among other effects. A ‘sick’ environment entails sick system that supports life in different forms. It means less ability of nature to provide humanity, animals and water habitats means to life and flourish. For instance, the land loses its ability to support wildlife when its ability to provide pastures for them is distorted by climatic factors. The animals would migrate to others areas in search for food. They end up invading humans, thus resulting into human-animal conflict. 

What then can be done at policy level? There’s need for policies that regulate gas emissions and real walk of the talk. Rules have to be toughened. There’s need for aggressiveness at monitoring compliance to those emission limits. We have many protocols around climate change. We have to do more than mere talk. We have to stand out and get tough to safeguard sustainable future for generations to come. We cannot be selfish and ruin the future of those to come after us. We have to use our moral and humanity sense of responsibility to prepare a place for them. 

Production of today should not be allowed to shut tomorrow. A lot of risks are created in the name of increasing production levels due to less care of the environment and policy monitoring slackness to get things done accordingly. Economic factors are always given much consideration than the environment. But when the environment revolts, how will the economy stand? For instance, if we go by Zambia Electricity Supplying Company’s (ZESCO) argument that power outages are rife in Zambia due to low water levels caused by low rainfall; how would our cherished industrial productivity rise when nature fails to supply water to provide power to run industries? Can economic reasons still hold substance? Can’t we rethink the appetite for economic progress in relation to the environment? I bet we have to save nature now before things really get into a chaotic condition. 

Waste recycling policies should be put in place immediately. Landfills are source of constant smoke into the air in many countries without recycling policies. Nature can be rid of its burden to sustain human life by recycling what’s thrown away from homes. The benefits of recycling go beyond the environment. It creates reliable input into industrial production systems. The increasing amounts of waste homes generate daily are straight forward source of production materials for industries in different sectors of the economy. Recycling preserves natural resources. Natural resources that could have been used to produce something can be done using ‘waste’ generated from homes. 

Fossil fuels [like gasoline, coal, diesel, etc] emitted from decomposing waste are sources of different harmful green gases. Buried waste also cause pollution of water tables. Living organisms in water bodies where polluted water from decomposed waste end-up dying from such pollutions. The result is unbalanced ecosystem. Unbalanced ecosystem brings several climatic factors that affect humans in different ways.

We thus need recycling centres/plants to reduce natural resource use, remove pollutants from waste, and create pro-environmental conscious and behaviour among citizens for the good of nature protection. Everyone can do something to protect the environment. Both developing and developed countries can do a lot. Recycling can also be a source of wealth and job creation. Recycling plants can employ a number of people to process, collect, repackage and others required to complete the recycling and production process of new products from the waste. 

Policies to ban importation of wrecked vehicles that emit excessive smoke should be put in place. If it means people walking because they can’t afford durable vehicles, it has to happen. Nature is over polluted by the endless smoke emitted daily from second hand vehicle wreckages imported massively.  The luxury of driving shouldn’t be done at the expense of the environment anymore. Public transport doesn’t kill. In developed countries, riding a bicycle is more promoted than using vehicles to save the environment. We can all do it. We can step out our cars and walk or ride bicycles or use public transport. Public transport should use more environmental friendly vehicles such as the use of buses that are biogas driven. From recycled waste, biogas can be generated to produce fuel for public transport vehicles. With recycling working, other benefits can come into the economy. 

Burning of bushes should be ‘criminalised’ if anything to avoid volumes of smoke being emitted into the atmosphere. Why should nature be levied for rats, rabbits and other small meat animals? Eating vegetables hasn’t killed anyone when balanced up. People can eat eggs, beans, and other greens without risking nature in the manner it happens now. 

No one should burn the bush and go unpunished. Those living in areas with a lot grass, forests, and other flammable natural resources need protective measures in place to save those areas from fires. When a fire happens, policies and strategies for replenishing the areas should be put in place. When a forest is gutted by fire, trees should be planted within a short time for ecosystem balance. Even though the replanting will not replace all the lost eco life, it would create a new habitat and support system of life. 

Agriculture policies that support conservation agriculture have to be put in place. Farmers have to shed off old ways of conducting agro-activities. From high to lowest levels of agricultural ladder conservation agriculture has to be adopted and other environmental friendly methods. The use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, and others have to be gotten rid of. We have to do whatever it takes to rebuild a world that can sustain today and tomorrow’s future. The use of genetically modified organisms has to be shunned, and embrace organic foods. Consumers have a big role in this sense. We can shun food stuffs produced in environmentally hazard

ous ways in favour of organic ones. We can make industry to comply. We can stand up and be counted in this fight.

Someone can argue that hunger makes people fall for anything. But effects of meeting hunger needs of today shouldn’t be done at the expense of tomorrow’s lives. Many generations will perish if nothing sensibly and practical is done now. Imagine using poison to catch fish because you need a lot of fish today (...) what will happen when you need the fish tomorrow? What will you fish? How will you survive if you carelessly kill the fish and its fingerling? I believe whatever we do, we have to think about tomorrow. 

At policy level, our communication about climate change should be about what policies can we have in place? We have to create a sense of ownership among people in getting around climatic change issues. People have to see platforms where they can dialogue and plan ways of doing something different to save the earth. We have to talk about what industrial policies can be pursued to minimise emission of dangerous pollutants into the environment. We have to speak simple, practical and precise always. Climate change is generally new, few people understand it well. We have to carry everybody along and work together in finding ways of improving things sustainably. 

Communicating Climate Change: Creating a Feeling of Responsibility or Hopelessness?

By Clive Mutame Siachiyako

Climate change sounds a hoax to many people. It sounds a far off problem of humanity. Some people think it is something for another world. It is like some mystery. Some individuals thus feel they have little to do to mitigate or improve its effects on their well-being and the economy. Expert communication on climate change worsens the feeling because experts tend to come out so sophisticated and technical that people get lost in the ballad of technicality of what’s being spoken about concerning climate change and its related aspects. 

Communication (written and orally) is pertinent in life. Biblical recordings indicate that out of communication, the world was made. If you cannot communicate aptly your knowledge is useless to others. It is of no use to them after all they do not understand what you are saying.  When we talk about rising temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, drought spells, drying water bodies, melting polar ice, etc., what are we communicating to people in terms of what they can do to improve those climatic factors? Can they do anything anyway or they just have to wait for the doomsday when the earth will revolt and shallow everything? Since, the change in the climate did not happen on its own. It has been affected by human activities at varied levels in many sectors of the economy. Therefore, humanity can do something to better things. Today, I will talk about non-policy activities people can do to improve the fast changing climate. I am talking about what a farmer can do, what a rural person can do, what households can do, etc.

Climate change is visible in many areas of life. Shortened rainfall cycle, frequent droughts, melting ice polar, increasing heat, climate induced diseases, etc., are signs of climate change. Wherever we are, whatever we do for a living; we can do a lot to mitigate climate change effects. Firstly, burning bushes or any other smoke generators contribute to the emission of carbon dioxide and other gases that corrode the ozone layer in the process creating a thicket blanket on the ozone. The thicket reduces the amount of sun rays that reach the earth which support various living organisms. Why can we keep the grass throughout the year and save nature? Burning bushes emit huge smoke and make whirlwinds lift dust when the land has no grass to hold on the soil. Most people especially in rural areas burn bushes for wild animals like rabbits, rats and mice. Small animals cost the environment hugely from air pollution to atmospheric damage of the ozone layer. They have long term impacts across vast areas. This is truer in the sense that climate change effects are trans-boundary. They are not limited to locality. A polluted river in the mining town can kill water habitats miles off the mining area.

Cutting of trees also contributes to the destabilization of the environment. Trees contribute oxygen to the environment. But cleared trees over large areas leave bare and land with no source of oxygen. Coupled with the thicket caused by smoke and dust, the effects become more lethal to the environment. Some people cut trees just for funny. Others do it for charcoal burning. Others do it for farming purposes such as chitemene (cut and burn) farming system. Some of the reasons sound genuine and a way of living. But doing so should not be done at the expense of nature and long term life of generations to come. We have to prepare a habitable world for them.

What then should farmers do? Should not they stop cutting trees for farming purposes? How are they going to sustain their livelihood then? Should they care for the future they will not be part of? Some answers lay in conservation agriculture. A number of conservation farming systems have been designed to minimise climatic change effects. Farmers can grow crops without cutting trees. They can maintain soil fertility without getting it from burnt trees or ashes. They can grow crops without tilling the land. They can make composite mature out of chaff and other residues to improve soil fertility. Composite mature has immense value towards the retention of soil fertility. Adopting such farming systems can save a couple of trees. Nature in the process can regain its ability to support life.

The waste [garbage] generated in homes and industry also contributes to environmental degradation in different ways. Some uncollected garbage for example end-up being burnt, buried or carelessly thrown into waterways blocking the flow of water during the rainy season thus causing floods. The burning of garbage sends volumes of smoke into the atmosphere, adding onto the destruction of the ozone layer. Ozone layer disturbance distorts rainfall formation and rainfall patterns. It also contributes to increasing temperatures as atmospheric environment loses its ability to support the earth’s ability to regulate itself: hotness or coldness. Heat thus goes to the extremes. Coldness equally worsens.

What about car drivers, what can they do? Gases emitted from vehicles contribute a great deal of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Carbon taxes can do little to reverse the impacts. Can the economy then do without driving? How will commerce and trade take place without mobility? Saving nature from climate change effects doesn’t mean throwing away economic aspects. It means trying to balance it with nature protection. The introduction of biogas, hybrid cars and removal of wrecked vehicles from the road is among some strategies being put in place to reduce gas emissions from vehicles. The effects of these gases are not immediately, thus humans tend to feel it’s a hoax telling them to take care of nature in any way possible. But changing rainfall patterns, warming up of the earth than before, reduction in rainfall spans, disease burdens, etc., are very visible signs that something is not well in the environment. People cannot bury their heads in the sand and pretend all is well. There is a lot each one can do to protect nature both at large and small scale.

What then should climate change communication do? Communication is meant to share information and build a quantum of knowledge useful for humanity’s well-being. Climate change messages should be made simple, practical, precise, understandable and make people see where they can apply themselves to save nature. Communicating in a manner that creates hopelessness worsens things. It makes people feel valueless to the situation. They feel they cannot do anything; they can only wait for nature to revolt and swallow humanity. The communication has to inspire people and give them a sense of ownership is changing things.

Experts have to break the jargon into simple and everyday activities people do. When we talk about ozone layer destruction, what can different actors do to protect it? Knowledge is power. But confused knowledge with technicality is of little value. It is like knowledge in a closed book; a book no one reads to benefit from it. Climate change experts have to rise about the trap of jargon and talking to themselves as well as creating fear among people.

Communication around climate change has to break the complexity and technical laden information. It has to show people relationships of what they do and its effects on the environment. Those connections should be used as entry points into pro-environmental behaviours. The communication should become a mirror to different actors to reflect their social, economic and other activities vis-a-vis climate change effects. Just disseminating information for the sake of doing is of little importance. It creates an impression that no one knows anything about climate change or what to do to address it in any way possible. “We can only communicate what we know.” When we fail to do it well, we are not giving hope to anyone. We have to create communicate with a difference. We have to make people appreciate our knowledge in terms of their daily lives.

In the next article, I will talk about policy issues that can be considered to save nature. 

WALKING the talk: Moving from theory to PR practice

Photo courtesy: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/

By Clive Mutame Siachiyako

Moving from theory to practice can be frustrating and depressing when your employer thinks as a graduate you are well 'baked' to zigzag all corners of your profession. When it comes to public relations (PR) it gets more subtle because communication is the most visible single activity we engage in, which requires extra delicacy. Anything incorrectly presented in the communication could have lasting and severe career damage as well as other injurious effects to the employer’s name and brand. 

Sometimes PR practitioners find themselves getting into some ‘gamble’ due to lack of an effective, distinct and appropriate communication strategy for the employer. This is truer in cases where an organisation operates without a communication strategy. Worse still, at times those organisations that have them tend to have old ones that have been overtaken by events. As a result, new technologies and other communication tools that need to be integrated to the PR communication kit may not be added to the basket of the strategy. Some institutions even make it as serious issue to have a Facebook page for the institution simply because it is not part of the communication basket. 

It gets nastier when you graduate without the required savvy to design a basic communication strategy. Unfortunately, most training institutions do not include this aspect. Learners are only trained to practice PR without having the right acuities to design a platform to practice PR. Having knowledge about communication strategies places the practitioner at the edge of effectively beating others at the art of PR. The ability to walk the theory of PR requires intellectual and practical acuity on shaping a communication platform. 

WHY communication strategy? The workplace necessitates frequent internal and external communication. Networking communication between colleagues, human resources and management staff within the organisation is simply vital ingredients to the PR. Institutions also communicate with outside entities. They network with suppliers, clients and the general public using varied platforms. Therefore, a corporate communication strategy plan lays out how to handle the various forms of communication dispersed by the institution. Understanding the benefits and purpose of the plan helps you develop your own communication strategy.

A communication strategy creates standardised ways to interact with colleagues, managers and other business contacts. Instead of leaving the method up to the employees, the plan spells out how they should communicate. It helps maintain an institutional brand. An external communication would fit within the standardised elements of the communication. Elements such as logos, format, language, colours, and others all have to be spelled out.  This creates consistency in workplace communication, helping to reduce confusion or missed information.

The strategy ensures that all significant information is dispersed to the correct people, both internally and externally. Having all people on the same page is essential to a highly efficient workplace. If some staff members are unaware of key information, they may be unable to complete their duties properly, or do work that they don't actually need to perform. Without standardised communication strategies to external business contacts, you may have clients or suppliers who are unaware of policy changes, upcoming events and other relevant company information.

An institutional communication strategy affects its image. If the institution has a standardised, professional method of communicating with the public and its external business contacts, it would present itself as a professional institution with strong organisational standing. If communication is sporadic and information comes from different people inconsistently, as a PR person, you present your institution as a disorganized unit. You also risk having conflicting information released if you do not have a specific communication plan in place. 

It is also a morale stimulator to staff. Lack of communication or inconsistent information dispersal leaves employees feeling frustrated. Staff members may feel left out, particularly if management fails to communicate key information. By sharing information consistently with employees, the company creates a sense of transparency that allows staff members to feel they know what is going on. As Demand Media emeritus Shelley Frost puts it, “if there is a lack of strategic communication, employees may be left wondering what is going on with the company and may start feeling that the management team is intentionally withholding information.”

South Africa is becoming too short sighted

By Clive Mutame Siachiyako

You call it xenophobia, I call it organised crime. That’s not “fear of foreigners” as the term xenophobia tends to mean. That’s pure criminality masked under fearing of foreigners. If it is real fear of foreigners, why is it only the fear of black foreigners? Are they more foreigners than others? Does it mean white foreigners are not getting jobs in SA? Of course they are also getting them.

That’s why I argue that this is organised crime taking advantage of weak government, weak policing system and a mix bag of short sightedness, lawlessness and absurdity. It’s very strange to see two police officers smiling, laughing, being tickled as a small boy gets burnt on the street. Adults enjoying the death, the burning of a boy by tire wrecks and to them it’s entertainment. Quite absurd!

The reasoning of South Africans attacking ‘foreigners’ is totally unacceptable under any standard; it’s not helpful to anyone. It won’t result into more jobs nor is it going to improve their livelihood. Those foreigners may leave the jobs, but they won’t give you the knowhow and competences they applied in getting things done in those jobs. The fight is aimed at wrong targets. It’s not the foreigners fuelling poverty and unemployment. It goes beyond it. Face the real cause and man-up.

What will happen after they have chased all those they are saying are nauseating them, causing intense fear in their socio, economic and financial lives?  Are those street gangs going to occupy those positions...are they going to become engineers, IT experts, legal brains, lecturers, metallurgists, or entrepreneurs running a maze of businesses run by those they are killing? Unfortunately, those who are gardeners will remain gardeners, carpenters will remain carpenters, street hawkers will remain hawkers, etc.

Trends of organised crime leave very long term blizzards on society. SA should know and mark these words, “what’s happening to foreigners may happen to you too...instigated by the same gangs, same style and same vehemence,” if you don’t get to the root of this chaos.Those criminal elements you have allowed to terrorise the streets will come for you. Once those things they are looting are finished, they will look for the next person to blame and thump out. It may be the working class, those they will consider to be failing them or denying them their good life.

It happened in India when the Bollywood, one of the most prolific and profitable film industries in the world; became the target of underground mob. The underground mob had initially helped Bollywood with financing when government refused to finance the industry. After a bloody decade in the 90s, the fabric of the underworld changed. The ruthless and brash gangsters who had replaced the old dons and their ‘work ethics', toned down their activities. Instead of contract killings and extortion, they got involved in the corporate sector, especially real estate.

The mob looked at the next target. They needed continuity. The system which thought was doing a favour to them by letting them do things their way to get around life’s hurdles had long term headache to bring sanity to that messy.

Similarly, Russia faced organised crime after switching to a free market economy. The Red Mafia took advantage of that economic freedom and took control of close to 40% of the Russian economy, doing all sorts of things to get what they wanted. Sadly, most of the things they did were crime laden. The Red Mafia earned themselves the name of the “the most fearsome, violent, creative, and well-educated criminal organisations in the world.” The Red Mafia has been difficult to locate and shut down [http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/]

The two examples show how allowing notorious criminal elements to reign pays back badly. It really backfires. SA leadership can now seem to be not seeing. Sit on the terraces and watch, smile and pat the gangs on their backs for systemically removing foreigners out of SA; but the day is coming when the same gangs will vent it on you. This is truer in the sense that chasing all foreigners won’t result into economic liberation or an avalanche of jobs to those hawkers on the streets. Whatever miracle one may wish to happen, it won’t turn out that way.

It’s better to learn from foreigners how they are making it while South Africans seem to be stuck. It’s valuable to adopt traits the foreigners are exhibiting that make them more employable and desired in the business sector. That could be the best fear for foreigners. It would be creative fear...well paying off use of phobia. It will then make them managers of their own economy and employers won’t have the reason to employ foreigners who could be paid at a higher premium.

Throwing insults at your neighbours, killing them and scorning them won’t add value to anyone’s livelihood. Collaborating and learning from them would be cooler than this heinous approach. If one may ask, from the time xenophobia started; how many South Africans got jobs after killing job holders? How many businesses were started and sustained after haunting out the owners? It would be nice to know.

SA needs good phobia. A phobia that drives them to learn from those they feel are taking their jobs and be part of the race. It’s not helpful to be sited sipping tea and expect to be part of the race. Winners get involved. They become part of the race. They get dirty. They apply themselves. They don’t wait for freebies to fall from somewhere. Manna only fell from above during biblical times.

What is happening in SA is not good for anyone. If some South Africans think they are helping create employment for their unemployed, they are using a wrong formula. You don’t thrive on bloodshed. You don’t empower citizens using violence. What’s happening is planting a seed of hate, violence and criminality with impunity.

Prepare those people to apply themselves in the economy. Prepare them to work and earn. Don’t prepare a generation of criminal minds. It will cost the country badly in the long run, if in the short term is seems working for you. The President has to get the grip of things. Traditional leaders should shake off Stone Age mindsets and try to fit into a competitive and modern society they have been ushered into. It’s time to sober up and end the rot!! 

Democracy v Psychology: Why People Keep Electing Clods

Clive Mutame Siachiyako  

A Turkish friend once said “good people; those who are more sober minded or with good leadership qualities never rule because they tend to be too moderate. Evil ones however, rule because they cunningly sweet-talk voters and make them fall for it.”   

I thought those words were too strong until I took interest in elections goings beyond mere campaign messages during and after; in different countries. I read political campaign rumblings from Africa and other continents. I listened also to what those candidates were saying during campaigns and few days after they were in power. It's surprising how voters’ patience and loyalty is taken for granted. Politicians simply puke in their faces in mockery for voting them into power through bizarre pronouncements, policy blunders and sheer uncaring attitude for the masses.

It is clear that doing or saying unintelligent things is no barrier to political success. Unfortunately, there are several psychological mechanisms that lead to apparent clods being elected into powerful positions.

POLITICIANS

Their reputation is very poor. In fairness, this is largely their own fault, but it would be foolish to assume every politician is like this. If they were, the whole infrastructure would collapse before you could say “can I claim this on expenses?” Still, everyone assumes they’re despicable, so always assume the worst.

Politician enacts a bad policy? They’re a terrible person. They change their mind and reverse it? They’re weak and not fit to lead. Politicians promise improvements (cut taxes, increase spending)? They’re obviously lying. Politicians promise to do something unpopular (raise taxes, cut spending)? A cast-iron guarantee it will happen. It’s a lose-lose situation, so why do they bother? Many politicians are clearly in it for themselves, but there surely are plenty who really do want the best and just put up with the negative opinions they get.

Suffice to mention that not all politicians are idiots (although your definition of idiot may vary). But plenty are. Mostly, people whose idiotic musings managed to sustain businesses have a nuclear arsenal at their command to win elections. This has worsened by “needs and rights illiteracy, daftness of voters, lack of proper education beyond graduate edification, rurality illiteracy, etc.”, which when coupled with manipulation, lies and misinformation from the politik creates a maze of chaos in the voting system. Voting has proved less paying off to voters. They merely do it and life goes on without seeing any change.

Some people are often quick to point out that X politician is actually very intelligent or dangerous...and are pretending to be a buffoon. But this underscores the point; an intelligent person has to feign stupidity to achieve political success. It’s the rule of the thumb. That’s how it goes. It seems “no daftness, no winning elections.” Politicians have to engage in several unwise and bizarre activities to fit into the election winning rhythm. 

What’s going on here? Logically, you would want an intelligent person who understands the best approach and methods for running a country in the best possible way. But no, people seem drawn to demonstrations of questionable intellectual abilities. There are a wide variety of ideological, cultural, social, historical, financial and other factors involved, because politics incorporates all of these things, but there are also some known psychological processes that may contribute to this phenomenon.

CONFIDENCE INSPIRES CONFIDENCE

Confident people are more convincing. This is has been demonstrated in many studies. Most studies focus on a courtroom setting, and suggest a confident witness is more convincing to a jury than a nervous, hesitant one (which obviously has worrying implications for justice), but it can be seen elsewhere. It’s a phenomenon used-car salesmen and estate agents have exploited for decades. And politicians are clearly aware of it, hence all the media training and PR management; any politician that doesn’t come across as assured and confident gets (metaphorically) destroyed. So confidence is important in politics.

However, the Dunning-Kruger effect reveals that less-intelligent people are usually incredibly confident. More intelligent people, by contrast, aren’t at all. Self-appraisal is a useful metacognitive skill, but one that requires intelligence; if you don’t have much of it, you don’t consider yourself flawed or ignorant, because technically you don’t have the ability to do so.

So if you want an intrinsically confident person to publically represent your political party, an intelligent person would be a bad choice in many ways. This can backfire though; studies have shown that when a confident person is shown to be wrong/lying, they are then considered far less reliable or trustworthy than an unconfident person. This may explain the negative image of politics, which is mostly a series of confident individuals making big promises and failing miserably to keep them. That sort of thing really puts people off.

POLITICS IS COMPLICATED

Effectively running a country of tens of millions, all of which have different requirements and demands, is an incredibly complicated job. There are just so many variables that need to be considered. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to condense all this into a convenient soundbite for use with the modern media, so personalities tend to come to the fore more often. And the less intelligent personalities are more confident, so are more persuasive, and so on.

People are often put off by intellectual and complex subjects and discussions in any case. They may have no experience with the issue, or may find it too daunting to want to engage with, because doing so successfully would require a lot of time and effort. But politics, particularly democracy, requires people to be involved.

Personality studies suggest that many people demonstrate goal orientation, a “disposition toward developing or demonstrating ability in achievement situations”. Feeling that you are actively influencing something (e.g. an Election) is a powerful motivator, but if some knowledgeable type starts spouting big words about interest rates or health trust deficit management, this is going to alienate those who don’t follow or grasp such things. So if a confident person says there’s a simple solution or promises to make the big complicated thing go away, they’re going to seem far more appealing.

This is also demonstrated by Parkinson’s law of triviality, where people will spend far more time and effort focussing on something trivial that they do understand than something complicated that they don’t. The former offers far more scope for contribution and influence. And people do love trivial things, ergo less-intelligent people condensing down the big issues into brief (but inaccurate) snippets is a potential vote-winner.

One of the often-cited qualities of George W Bush was that people felt they could “have a beer with him”. Ergo, they felt they could relate to him. By contrast, elitism is a negative quality. The idea that those running the country are outside the norms of society is alarming to many, hence constant efforts by politicians to “fit in”.

The majority of people are prone to numerous subconscious biases, prejudices, stereotyping and prefer their own “groups”. None of these things are particularly logical and invariably are not supported by actual evidence and reality, and people really don’t like being told things they don’t want to hear. People are also keenly aware of social status; we need to feel we are superior to others in some way to maintain our sense of self-worth. As a result, someone more intelligent saying complicated things that contain uncomfortable (but accurate) facts isn’t going to appeal to anyone, but someone demonstrably less-intelligent is not challenging to someone’s perceived social status, and if they’re going to say simple things that support inherent prejudices and deny uncomfortable facts, then so much the better.

It’s an unfortunate situation, but it just seems to be the way people’s minds work. There’s a lot more to it than what’s mentioned here of course, but including that would make the whole thing more complicated, and that’s no way to get people to like something, as should be obvious by now.

In conclusion, Dean Burnett (a doctor of neuroscience and a tutor and lecturer at Cardiff University) thinks democracy would be perfect if it weren’t for all the people involved. http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015 [April 3, 2015]