A nostalgia for the ‘looking into it’ era
Some years ago, the popular ‘Osofo Dadzie’ drama series satirized the lackadaisical approach to work of some officials and departments through an episode titled, if I remember right, ‘Looking into it’. It captured perfectly that attitude which frustrates people and also portrays the organisation concerned in a negative light.
Advertisement
The humorous title of the episode was taken from the standard and repeated response of such institutions to correspondence: ‘Your letter concerning XYZ has been received and we’re looking into it’. That response, though diplomatic and reassuring usually meant that little or no action was being taken about the issue at stake.
Mostly through humour and satire, the Ghana Television series sought to put the spotlight on some of the ills plaguing the society. The weekly episodes by the accomplished OD Group was a mirror for the society to look at itself critically with the objective of correcting bad behaviour and counter-productive systems.
A ‘must-viewing’ series in its heyday, OD was not only noted for making people laugh, it also added memorable expressions to the Ghanaian word stock, such as ‘Looking into it’ (LII), also a reference to red tape or excessive bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure that the plays’ lessons had a lasting effect. Evidently, the bad practices the series addressed persist. And LII is alive and well in this country, as the numerous strikes and industrial actions show. Although broken promises by the Government or employers is often the main cause, lack of communication is also cited in many instance as the last straw.
Whatever happened to the practice of acknowledging receipt of communication as a first step to, or maintaining, dialogue?
In offices there used to be the standard three trays: ‘In Tray’, ‘Out Tray’ and ‘Pending Tray’. The ‘In’ was for fresh correspondence, whether from outside or internal, including documents minuted by other departments for attention; the ‘Out’ was for letters/drafts to be dealt with or typed for signature and dispatch; the ‘Pending’ was for matters still under consideration.
That system meant that the desk officer, head of department or the staff could instantly tell the progress of files being dealt with. But, that was then, in the days of ‘snail mail’.
In this ICT age, probably even the term correspondence ‘tray’ has been replaced by high-tech names, such as ‘desktop paper organizer’ or ‘stackable paper tray’ although essentially they do the same work.
Ghana used to be praised for the efficiency of its civil service and best practice. We were even a role model for other African countries. But what is the situation now?
As indicated, in recent times, a constant complaint of almost all the groups and institutions that have gone on strike or announced an industrial action has been: “we wrote to (the minister/management/employer) and we got no reply/response”; or, “we have written numerous letters stating our case/grievances but there has been no response/action. Nobody seems to care, hence our decision to withdraw our services.”
A case in point was the earlier, April, industrial action by the Judicial Service Workers Association of Ghana (JUSAG), prior to the current one which started a week ago over the same issue. The association’s president, Alex Nartey, was reported in the media then as saying that they had issued an ultimatum on March 2 demanding the full implementation of their new consolidated salaries.
They said they had been waiting for the implementation of the new package since its approval and presentation to the government by the Judicial Council in June last year.
According to a Ghana News Agency report of March 31, Mr Nartey explained that “JUSAG had not received any official correspondence from the government. The National Labour Commission wrote to the Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations requesting a response within seven days of our letter. If there has been any correspondence, we are yet to know.”
Isn’t it a demonstration of goodwill to acknowledge receipt of a communication, even if the demands can’t be met immediately? Isn’t there a responsibility to let the other party to a dispute know at least that the letter has been received? Why generate or stoke ill will unnecessarily?
Going by current experiences, maybe some people now have cause to think of ‘looking into it’ with fond memories, with nostalgia. At least it indicated that one’s letter had reached a desk or a destination, somebody had taken note of the issue or problem.
Strange that with all the available facilities these days establishments don’t bother much about correspondence. Or are the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) advances to blame?
Have the benefits of ICT, such as email, made correspondence trays on desks obsolete? Does it mean that paper records are no longer kept or that officials should not reply to correspondence?
There can be no excuse when somebody makes the effort to write a letter to an office or department and what they get for their troubles is dead silence. And when the correspondence is to do with labour issues, or a conditions of service dispute, why risk making matters worse by delaying or refusing to respond to communication?
Perhaps some of the myriad strikes and demonstrations we are witnessing would not take place if people in authority would appreciate the importance of communication. Especially when a promise can’t be honoured, the other party needs to know why.
Incidentally, the April JUSSAG was called off almost immediately, reportedly, following the Government’s assurances that their concerns were being addressed.
If implementation of an agreement has to be postponed, one assumes that it would be for a good reason. So why can’t that reason be communicated to the other party in good time to avert suspicion of deception and the resort to a strike action – which invariably has serious consequences, notably for the vulnerable?
Otherwise, if there’s no good reason for reneging on a promise, then it has to be honoured.
The writer is a columnist from The Mirror