The decision

Once Transparency, Accountability and Professionalism sat together to grade the three individuals. They were going through the profile of a teacher, an engineer and an administrator.

They opened the first file and found the teacher’s profile. They discussed and decided that the teacher was not fit to be promoted to the next grade. The following reasons were cited:

·         The teacher was found incompetent because he had been taking many responsibilities. Too many responsibilities divert the focus from his primary responsibilities. He was trained to teach and he had to teach and do nothing else. Taking other responsibilities had made him unprofessional and therefore he was found not fit to be promoted to the next grade. (remarks by professionalism)

·        The teacher had been shouldering many responsibilities and he had maintained record of all the activities that he had carried out besides his teaching. There wasn’t any record of money involved in his responsibilities whereby it is decided that he doesn’t have any idea about account keeping and unfit for promotion. (accountability)

·        The teacher has made his plans and carried out the activities as per the profile. He had shown his plans to the head of department but the principal, his real manager is unaware of what he teaches (for some reason unknown). Therefore he is recommended to improve on his transparency in his work and work plan should he apply for promotion in the coming years. (Transparency)

The next profile that was taken into account was that of an engineer. He got a clean sheet for promotion.

·         He was found active during his service. His service book showed constant moment abroad attending seminars and study tour. And while in his station, he was constantly moving towards rural communities for farm road development, development of structures and many other developmental works. So he had done his share of job. (Professionalism)

·         He had kept record of all his travel and tours. The account has been submitted to the finance section of his department. He does know how to keep accounts. (Accountability)

·         He had designed many farm roads and bridges which need constant maintenance and public are frustrated by the outcome of such poor quality work since the government budget was limited, he couldn’t do much about the quality of his work. But he had done his job. (transparency)

The last profile to be evaluated was that of the administrator. He was rated for meticulous promotion.

·         He had been very strict and vigilant administrator. He had kept a very close watch over every resource (both human and materials) which was evident from some of them being found at his resident. (professionalism)

·         His account skills were found superb since no flaws could be detected from the report sent by him. He had kept track of all his staff and resources alike that no error about him was identified although there wasn’t clear work plan about his responsibility. (accountability)

·         He had excellent concept on the transparency since he made sure that he could see what the others are doing from his office through the long glass windows. (transparency)