Updated: Eskom’s sacrificial offering?
(See update at the end of this post.)
Has this man been fired by Eskom? I asked a few days ago why not even a token underling had been dismissed over the power catastrophe in South Africa. According to a comment on that post, however, Eskom did fire one underling last week Sunday, in the form of the “head of generation”.
By “head of generation”, I’m guessing we’re talking about Ehud Matya, the managing director of Eskom’s Generation Division, who earned R2.8 million for his efforts. There has been no media release, and no newspaper has reported this. Attempts to confirm the veracity of this report with Eskom have so far met without any response (though in their defence, it is Saturday morning).
Here’s what I’ve been able to discover about Ehud Nyameko Matya. Born in 1962, he became one of the first black engineering graduates on an Eskom bursary in 1986, according to a lengthy case study on Eskom by New York-based Ann Graham, published in strategy+business magazine under the absurd title, “The Company that Anticipated History”. (Granted, Graham probably intended to refer to the non-racial future of South Africa, but with hindsight that title is rather unfortunate.)
Matya has a B.Sc. Mechanical Engineering and a Graduate Diploma in Industrial Engineering from the University of the Witwatersrand. He also earned a Diploma in Business Management from Henley College in the UK, and holds a Certificate of Production & Inventory Management, according to his Who’s Who of Southern Africa entry. He has held various jobs at Eskom, including managing Duvha Power Station, and working his way through the Generation Division since 1998 to become its managing director in 2002, where he manages R200 billion in assets and 11 000 staff. In 1998, Eskom colleagues nominated him as executive manager of the year.
Early last year, he promised “no cutting of corners on maintenance“, which was one of many causes Eskom has cited for the recent problems. He has presented on extending the life of Eskom assets, which was one of the many causes Eskom has cited for the recent problems. He has been involved with ensuring adequate coal supplies for Eskom, which was one of the many causes Eskom has cited for the recent problems.
He has been quoted on occasion in the media, assuring us that everything will be just fine. During Cape Town’s initial power crisis in late 2005, for example, he said: “We have thoroughly discussed the energy situation with the City and believe that the action plan that we have developed with Eskom’s long term investment strategy will secure the City’s energy requirements for the long term.”
So perhaps he does deserve to go. One can’t help thinking, however, that Matya was just doing what he was told. That if he could have averted this crisis, he would have had to countermand his CEO, his board, at least two cabinet ministers, and probably the president himself. And he’d have had to loot the treasury for funds. One can’t help thinking that if he really has been fired, it’s a clear case of scapegoating and evasion of responsibility by Eskom’s board and the politicians that oversee it.
If true, Eskom’s sacrificial offering is pitiful. It should enrage the gods of public opinion, instead of appeasing them. And as for Ehud Matya, if he has indeed taken the fall for his employers after more than 20 years of loyal service, this episode would strengthen his CV, not weaken it.
Update, 2 February 2008 @ 12:30: Andrew Etzinger, general manager for demand-side management at Eskom, tells me that Matya has neither resigned nor been fired, but that he has been involved in a “reshuffle” of the executive committee. Still “part of the team”, Matya will now be responsible for customer contracts. Brian Dames, the MD of the enterprises division, has taken over responsibility for the new build programme, power stations, and coal and other raw materials, a brief which includes Matya’s previous responsibilities. A spokesperson for Eskom says that no resignations or dismissals have recently taken place at executive committee level or higher.
So all the graphics work to put Matya’s head on the spike appears to have been for nothing. Still, it beats the mug shot in Who’s Who, doesn’t it?
Now we’re back to the original question. Why have we not seen even token dismissals?
Ivo,
I passed on an internal, but official albeit verbal, ESKOM communique. It appears spin is internal as well as external.
I applaud the thought and effort that you gave to the graphics that add to the perceived experience of the of firing of this man.
This effort pales in significance in comparison to the consideration that ESKOM afforded this act. Make no mistake, public perception of Matya’s removal from office has been well considered.
This is the scenario:
If ESKOM is a blameless victim, as they insist,
(See ERWIN’s recent - ‘management, not bad’ comments)
Then the act of ‘firing’, would be viewed externally as a corrective measure, essentially an admission of guilt on ESKOM behalf.
So, ESKOM had an a routine reshuffle, and Matya got a job by the window.
However, should the voice of public opinion not quieten down and insist on accountability, only then will Matya’s name will be put forward by the higher echelons in government and ESKOM.
These slimeballs will immediately side with the masses and point out that they in fact took immediate action, and effectively ‘fired’ the head of generation ‘pending’ an internal ’something-or-other’.
Has anyone else read the script?
That sounds like a plausible estimate of what may have happened.
To be fair to Eskom, only its ham-handed approach to this affair has made them equally guilty in my eyes. My first assessment was that it was largely the government’s foul-up.
If Eskom wasn’t authorised to build new plant, which appears to be the case, while The Bolt and his motley collection of communist and crony-capitalist buddies sit around waiting for some private sucker they can flog some second-hand run-down rust-bucket power stations to, why would Eskom be to blame?
Sadly, instead of exploiting this clear PR opening to appear blameless, serious, concerned and helpful, it spent a month concocting increasingly unlikely excuses and on occasion outright lies.
So it has nobody to blame but itself for the public perception of organisational incompetence that now stands alongside the government’s economic policy failure as the cause of this crisis.
mmmm - interesting devolpments!
I knew Ehud well when he was an up-and-coming star in Eskom, and he was always my ‘poster boy’ as example of what young black people can become if they realy put their minds to it! Very intelligent, very competent, and above all, willing to work hard for what he wanted to achieve. Note that he has been with Eskom for a very long time, and as a well qualified black engineer resisted many temptations to ‘job-hop’ (including one from myself) because he truely believed in building a carreer based on personal achievements.
He was particularly effective when he took over as power station manager of Duvha at a time when there was substantial racial tension. In a very short time he managed to woo the conservative white male management and pasify the radical black unions; and by all accounts ran the power station very well - which was the stepping stone to his elevation to higher things.
I’ve lost touch with him over the past few years, and quite frankly has been disaapointed that his career seems to have stagnated, and that he has not been able to do anything to circumvent the current crisis - he was certainly in a position to recognise the coming crunch, and should have done something about it. So maybe his head should role (although if it does, it should be in concert with quite a few others!)
By the sound of it, and what I’ve been able to dig up about him, he’s a convenient scapegoat. If true, and if he’s being shoved into a convenient closet at the back of the building, I hope they pay him his weight in gold for the sacrifice.
Useless Alec Erwin MUST GO
alec erwin should get the prick of the decade award