The plantations industry of Sri Lanka is managed today by “three types of management” essentially being; plantations managed by the government, Regional Plantation Companies (RPCs) and private owners of different land extents.
Within these plantations, the crops that are nurtured in large scale are primarily tea, rubber, coconut, cinnamon, oil palm, cashew, sugarcane and export agricultural crops such as spices and fruits. Additionally, forestry is implemented on lands that are unsuitable for commercial crops, for purposes of fuel wood and timber.
The plantation agriculture in Sri Lanka is around 246 years old. The enactment of this was initially started by the Dutch in 1769 for the production of cinnamon. Tea plantations on the other hand, claiming a history of 148 years were originally planted by James Taylor in 1867 and managed during the period of colonization by the British. However, plantation companies undertaken by different agencies and private individuals (in excess of 50 acres) were captivated by the government during the period 1971 - 1975 under the administrating program of nationalization. There was no impediment in the case of profitability at the time but nationalization took place regardless. In fact the plantations industry was instrumental for the birth of pioneering businesses in Sri Lanka such as banking, transportation, post, press and hospitals.
However, all of them have superseded the growth of the plantations industry today. What could the contributory factors be for these businesses to prosper better than the plantations although the plantations are the oldest business among them? Could the causal factors be management and leadership?
Most of the nationalized plantations since 1975 were managed by two giant organizations; indicatively, the State Plantations Corporation (SLSPC), and the Janatha Estates Development Board (JEDB). A few other state mechanisms of a comparatively smaller scale were also responsible for the management of nationalized plantations in addition to SLSPC and JEDB.
However, in 1992 these state managed plantations were privatized due to meager monetary performances subsequently, demanding the government to pump Rs.400 million a month from treasury. It is right to say that privatization was required in 1992 merely to prevent an economic burden on the general public and to improve managerial efficiencies of the plantations.
That was, the financial performances of the first phase of the 17 years of “state management of plantations” out of 40 years in total as at date.
Some argue that both change initiatives in 1975 and in 1992 were not “planned and monitored” objectively. Lack of clearly identified director was much evident out of all reasons. Since 1992, it failed again in 2015 after a lapse of another 23 years under private sector management through RPCs. The common denomination here is that the same top managers (planters) who were responsible for a monthly loss of Rs. 400 million, managed the RPCs as well from 1992 to 2015. The core issue was that the same players were playing the same game under a different name. Accordingly, could anyone have expected better performances?
This is fundamentally substantiated by the careful analysis of the performances of plantations managed by the state and RPCs for the past 40 years which sadly indicate the absence of the flavor of “professional management”.
Since nationalization, the art of remaining in power has been exploited by a group of opportunists for their personal benefit amongst selfish reasoning. Conveniently, the “power” that had access to the “spoon” had the best of both worlds. However, the populations that disagreed and bore a different yet progressive view point were literally beheaded.
Unfortunately, this militaristic culture still exists in some form or the other in most RPCs. Thus, it paved way for the birth of a group of ineffectual and feeble men to come into power successively and to systematically eliminate the competent, educated, and committed. Uneducated are a curse wherever. When they feel any form of threat their henchmen come to the rescue.
Nevertheless, this may not be a factor confined to the plantations industry but could exist wherever there is a hierarchical system consisting of incompetent individuals. This probably would have been the reason why the British called them superintendents instead of managers.
The term “superintendent” seems to have historic existence and is frequently associated with the construction industry. It is a person who is authorized to supervise, direct and administer. In contrast, the expression “manager” refers to a person whose job is to manage resources, to the best possibility in order to achieve organizational goals. A manager is someone who is in charge of a business and is responsible for its growth and sustainability where his main concerns should lie within the 3Ps (People, Planet and Profit).
Furthermore, according to literature available, in the case of large construction projects, the superintendent's job is to run day-to-day operations on the construction site such as important quality control, regulation of subcontractor coordination responsibilities and to maintain the short-term schedule. The project manager, on the contrary, is commonly known to handle finance-related tasks (especially labor and material cost control) and long-term scheduling.
Thereby, the project manager and superintendent need to cooperate and share control effectively. Superintendents are almost universally stationed on the construction site, whereas project managers are usually based in the contractor's office with part-time on-site responsibilities.
So the behavior of an average plantation “manager” is quite close to the job role of a “superintendent” and far from what a manager's role upholds. It is safe to say that this is due to the lack of a structured course of education on management studies, systematic internship and competency to handle “change” that are part and parcel of modern management.
The inability to capture and manage change is clear and evidently stands taller amongst the rest. This may be the basis for the general perception that the plantations industry is not a dying one but being “killed” by a set of glorified technocrats that have a deficiency in strategic thinking that would aid the industry rather than tear it apart.
Nevertheless, a minority of plantation managers and executives in the corporate sector who have understood the importance of change have invested in higher education enabling them to acquire new skill sets to do their job better. Higher education, especially at a postgraduate level is costly and mostly available in or around major cities and is distant from the locations of plantations. Some level of recognition for the educated planters and external assistances such as paid leave, encouragement and finances are needed if meaningful actions need to be initiated in turnaround management of this ailing industry. Certain universities and institutions such as National Institute of Plantation Management (NIPM), Postgraduate Institute of Management (PIM), Kotalawela Defence University (KDU) and Institute of Personnel Management (IPM) have come forward to assist planters in a big way and this is a fact that needs to be appreciated and endorsed.
The industry needs “Agri Business Managers” with a global perspective rather than managers performing to the likes of a job description held by a superintendent.
The heads of both PIM and IPM are willing to assist the plantation industry in their turnaround process. Tailor made services such as development of a comprehensive corporate plan and improving the quality of plantation professionals are available with them in addition to coaching and mentoring services.
The quality and cost of an employee matter to any organization. This is the main reason as to why we are repeatedly asking the government to make it mandatory that only science and plantation management graduates be recognized as plantation management trainees from now onwards. The possibility of privatizing research institutes must also be looked at as means of turning around RPC managed plantations.
We are not short of fine and world class scientists in crop research institutes. However, they may be demotivated already as most planters do not understand the precise meaning of their advices because most of them don't understand science as good majority are from arts and commerce backgrounds during their college education.
As a nation we are famous for two prominent characteristics: jealousy and sensitivity. In most instances this nation has undergone severe suffering for having avoided factual nature and rational thinking. Instead, we have resorted to emotional distrusts leading to decisions taken from the depths of our hearts. With that in mind, looking at the overall achievement after 40 years since the initial nationalization it is very disheartening to observe that the plantations industry of Sri Lanka is in grave danger. Nonetheless if the sectors of the plantation industry make a progressive change very soon there is a definite possibility of saving the industry from its self-destruction. Recalling the time when the plantation industry was the backbone of the national economy, it is worth engaging in a systematic research into the individual and collective reasons for the gradual destruction of this national asset. One should be mindful not to get distracted by statements and numerical evidences for the hectares replanted whereas the study must focus on the definite healthy plants surviving in each of such hectares of land that are claimed to have been planted. That is the true story on land productivity.
The land cannot solitarily provide the crop without its essential nutrients. As an industry do we have sufficient evidences to prove collective action taken strategically to improve our soils? Is there a separate arm well equipped in the ministry of plantations industries to advice working Planters on how to safeguard environmental aspect and mitigate the risks involved especially in the wake of global warming and climate change? As mentioned before the level of competency of those who manage the plantations today is a mandatory factor worth considering. In the event if any of they fall below the required standard, a mechanism must be available to up skill them rather making them demotivated as such can have an extremely dangerous impact on levels of employees below. It will be a wonderful task to write a detail job description of a working Planter as the length of the list may be extended to many pages.
www.dailynews.lk
