Senior staff at the state-owned media development and diversity agency (MDDA) are up in arms. They claim that their boss, CEO Shoeshoe Qhu, was appointed unfairly ahead of a better qualified candidate.
Sunday World can reveal that Qhu was appointed to the position despite ranking second to Philemon Moilwa, who aced the interviews.
In a vague response to a direct question, the MDDA said Qhu was the preferred candidate. It said this followed a rigorous interview, psychometric and vetting process.
This newspaper has seen Qhu’s CV, interview report as well as her psychometric assessment report. Also those of her competition during the recruitment process.
The interview report states that Qhu came in at second place as it was Moilwa who scored the highest.
Tactical manoeuvre to give Qhu an “unfair” second chance
After Qhu came second in the interviews, the interview panel recommended a competency assessment for her and Moilwa. This in what angry staff say was a tactical manoeuvre to give Qhu an “unfair” second bite at the cherry.
The confidential internal report reads: “The outcome of the competency assessment was that one candidate was partially suited for the position while the other candidate was suited for the position (sic).
“Considering all the inputs of the recruitment and selection process, the panel deliberated and recommended to the Board that Ms Shoeshoe Qhu be appointed to the position of chief executive officer of the MDDA on a fixed five-year period.”
This is the same recruitment report that was singing praises for Moilwa for acing the interview. Pedestalising him for strategic, having operational efficiency and being dynamic.
The CVs and assessments of the two further reveal that Moilwa was far more qualified academically ahead of Qhu.
Academic qualifications
Moilwa’s highest academic qualifications included a Master of Business Leadership (MBL) as well as an LLB degree. Qhu’s highest qualification is a BA Honours Degree.
“Personality results suggest that Mr Moilwa is quite socially confident. And as such, he would be expected to be a relatively convincing speaker. Furthermore, it was evident that he is able to influence others,” reads Moilwa’s psychometric test report.
“Mr Moilwa is depicted as having a preference for negotiative leadership. This means he would be inclined to use acknowledgement and incentives to motivate his subordinates to work towards achieving their goals.”
Qhu’s psychometric assessment report, which we have also seen, stated that her personality is that of a person who “might be reticent about accepting new, innovative ideas, particularly if they are outside the realm of her own personal experience”.
“Furthermore, her personality Derailers profile further indicates that, under severe pressure, however, she might be very abstract-minded. [She might be] showing little concern for practical matters. Consequently, she may be more inclined to judge things in terms of whether they look or feel right, than to evaluate them in a factual way. The latter is unlikely to be of benefit in financial – and risk management.”
Never qualified for the position
Our informants at MDDA insist that Qhu never qualified for the positions. An advert of which stipulated that candidates must have “executive management”. Something which they insist she does not have.
“Let them tell us where is executive management experience? She has been a content producer, a station manager. [These] in our view, still fall under middle management,” said the whistleblowers. The latter asked to remain faceless for fear of retribution.
“The programme manager position she held was only from May 2022. By perusing the CV, you’ll realise that this CV is a no way close to CEO category. We even think she had one-year senior management experience and 0 years executive management experience.”
The aggrieved MDDA workers also charged that the staff morale at the organisation has been on an all-time low. This owing to iron fist leadership by Qhu and board chairman Prof Hlengani Mathebula.
MDDA board member Hoosain Karjieker dismissed all allegations against MDDA. These include the claim that Qhu was in fact the proxy for Prof Mathebula, hence the cutting of corners in her appointment.
