Let’s agree on the definition – an acting appointment is where an employee is given a temporary assignment to perform the duties of a higher position, and this employee is expected to return to his or her substantive position once the acting appointment is over. The acting appointment might be because the substantive role-holder is away from the office for a period of time, or because the position is vacant. This article is focused on the case of acting in a vacant position.
Acting appointments can be wonderful opportunities for professional growth and grooming into senior roles, if only the process and experience is treated as such. However, acting appointments tend to be made in the view that they are mere caretaker roles, and they tend to be non-competitive, meaning there is no apparent selection process as the appointment seems to be based on someone being nominated by, for instance, the Department Head, or CEO, or Board Committee Chairperson for instance. Once nominated, the acting appointee may find him or herself called upon to act in the same position every time a substantive appointee leaves employment, often acting for unregulated periods of time, without clarity on the key performance indicators and eligibility criteria for appointment. As thrilling as it may be to feel recognized and trusted enough to act in a senior role, the risks of just being nominated and placed in an acting position are that the employee is taking a role without formal evaluation of suitability, and often without formal discussion of mutual expectations. There is also the ever present risk of resistance from peers who question the legitimacy of the appointment given that other qualifying candidates were not afforded the opportunity to compete. Sometimes there would have been selection interviews and the ‘successful candidate’ was the internal applicant, whose offer letter is delayed by unknown factors, and this candidate is then asked to act in the position while a decision is being made.
I couldn’t find any provision in the Employment Act but Clauses 14.9 and 14.10 of the General Orders guide that acting appointments for vacant posts shall be for a maximum of 12 months, and if that acting officer is qualified for appointment, s/he “shall be deemed to be substantively appointed, if his acting appointment has not been formally terminated.” Accordingly, progressive organizations base their policy on Acting Appointments on these guidelines, ensuring that employees being assigned acting roles know how long they are acting, and when the position is being recruited for, the acting employee is encouraged to apply, s/he is shortlisted, interviewed, and if not successful, given specific feedback of his/her development areas. If the no substantive appointment is made and the position calls for another acting arrangement, a different person is appointed so that growth opportunities are spread.
If your employment policy manual is ambiguous on appointments, you may find that the rest of your provisions are also unclear and probably inconsistently applied which leads to the inefficient use of your talent pool, among other challenges. We are experienced in the review and revision of employment policies to assure their efficacy and continued relevance in your environment, so why not engage us? In the meantime, I wish you and your teams a successful 2025.
Shameela Winston is Managing Partner and Lead Consultant at Winston Bakari & Associates, providing services in HR consultancy, psychometric assessments and executive coaching.
