By Dhammike Wimalaratne
–
February 13, 2026 2:02am
By Dhammike Wimalaratne
Let me start with a math equation, though fair warning: this particular equation is enough to make a typical CFO call security.
Here it is: How can doubling an employee’s salary triple company output?
It sounds like alchemy. Like trying to create energy out of nothing. Or one of those “too good to be true” pop-up ads. But this isn’t magic, and it’s not a get-rich-quick scheme. It’s a practical workforce structure I introduced publicly in 2022, while serving as Secretary of the CEB Engineers’ Union: the 1-2-3 Method.
And today, during this major reform transition that the CEB has ever experienced, it may be more relevant than ever.
Why this matters right now
Sri Lanka is at a pivotal moment in the power sector. The transition from CEB into successor companies is not merely an organisational chart exercise. Electricity is a 24/7 essential service. Reliability and safety do not come from logos and legal documents alone; they come from human capability: Engineering judgment, disciplined maintenance, quick decision-making, and strong accountability.
If we get the workforce strategy wrong, especially for Engineers, the reform risks becoming a structural change on paper that weakens performance in reality. And unlike a software crash, failure here can create operational instability and national-level consequences.
The 1-2-3 Method
The method is simple, and that simplicity is the point:
1 – Recruit one capable, qualified professional (quality over quantity). Not “three average hires because we don’t trust one person to execute.” The “1” means shifting to a high-competency model, problem solvers who can operate with confidence and ownership.
2 – Pay that person at 2× the standard rate (fair compensation to retain commitment). This is the part that triggers the CFO reaction: “We can’t afford that.” But the real question is: Can we afford the cycle of losing people? Recruiting delays, repeated training, institutional knowledge walking out the door, and higher operational risk are far more expensive than a salary line item. “2×” is not generosity. It is stability, retention, and focus.
3 – Enable 3× output through systems and tools (not longer hours). The “3” does not mean pushing one engineer into burnout. It means redesigning work so output increases because waste is removed: streamlined workflows, modern tools, targeted training, mentorship, and clear accountability.
Put together: Pay one Engineer at the level of two, then equip them to produce the value of three.
The ‘shadow 1-2-3’ is already happening – just unfairly
Here is a practical reality we should acknowledge: in many technical branches in CEB, 1 and 3 are already happening. During the transition period, one Engineer is often covering two or even three roles because experienced staff leave, vacancies remain unfilled, and the workload stays constant or increases.
This reality can include combinations like operations support and coordination; maintenance planning and troubleshooting; incident analysis and technical reporting; procurement documentation and contract follow-ups; and compliance and safety coordination.
This is not a complaint. It is an observation, and it also proves the professionalism of those who are “holding the line” and keeping the system running. But the current version is a broken equation: people are doing the work of three, often with outdated processes, while being paid like one. That is the worst of all worlds, and it is not sustainable or safe.
Brain drain is not just about salaries; it’s about fairness and recognition
Engineers rarely leave because they stop loving engineering or lose connection to Sri Lanka. Many leave because they want an environment where responsibility is matched by recognition, professional development, growth pathways, and fair compensation.
When experienced Engineers leave, we don’t just lose headcount, we lose analytical leadership and institutional memory: the practical knowledge of how a specific plant behaves, how substation ‘quirks’ are managed, and what risks are not captured in manuals but are known by those who have carried responsibility for years.
In a power sector context, those gaps translate directly into slower response times, weaker planning, higher outage durations, and avoidable failures – costs that can far exceed what it takes to retain key professionals. So yes, 2× pay can be a rational investment, not a luxury.
The ‘3× output’ comes from tools, workflows and strong core systems
What makes the 1-2-3 approach more achievable now is the rapid maturity of AI-supported workflows and modern digital tools. Used correctly with governance, templates, and review steps, these tools reduce time wasted on repetitive tasks, especially documentation and reporting.
Examples where efficiency can improve dramatically include: reports and summaries drafted quickly and refined; structured documents produced faster and more consistently; presentations created in minutes rather than days; repetitive administrative tasks reduced; and procedures and knowledge transfer documented efficiently.
This is not about replacing engineering judgment. It is about removing friction so Engineers can spend time on what matters: reliability, safety, risk, and sound decisions.
For example, A robust Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) is foundational to standardise workflows, improve traceability, and reduce avoidable delays, so professionals spend less time “searching” and more time “deciding.”
Targeted capability-building: train fewer, enable more
Instead of training everyone lightly, successor companies can identify key groups: coordinators, reviewers, planners, decision-support roles, operation and maintenance (O&M) roles—and train them deeply in modern workflows, templates and tool use.
Even if only one-third of key professionals become true ‘power users’, they become multipliers for speed and quality across departments. Over time, this is often more cost-effective than older training models.
Culture is the hidden engine of the 1-2-3 equation
If 2× pay grabs attention, culture builds trust. Successor companies have a rare chance to create a modern professional environment through clear job design and accountability, modern HR practices and career pathways, performance-based recognition, and leadership that welcomes modern practices and diverse experience.
This does not require criticism of the past. It is simply recognising that a new phase can—and should—be a better professional experience for teams expected to deliver more with fewer resources.
Belonging and shared outcomes: the retention advantage
Beyond salary, people stay where they feel respected, developed, and connected to outcomes. Successor companies can explore mechanisms such as transparent incentives tied to reliability and safety, recognition systems and leadership tracks, certification support and career development, and, where appropriate, profit-sharing or ownership-linked mechanisms.
When people feel, “This is our organisation”, accountability strengthens naturally—and retention improves without micromanagement.
A model beyond CEB
Although I write in the context of CEB reform, the 1-2-3 method, a practical model I first published in 2022, is not limited to one institution. It applies anywhere Sri Lanka must protect professional capability—utilities, infrastructure, manufacturing, engineering services, and other technical sectors.
The universal idea is simple: value capable people properly; equip them with modern tools; and design work so high performance is realistic, sustainable, and fair.
Closing thought: The question leaders must ask
Many organisations unintentionally run a “1 and 3” model: one person doing the work of three—without fair compensation and necessary tools.
The real question for every leader in a reforming utility is this: How long do you think you can run your best people on that broken equation before they decide to leave?
CEB’s successor companies have a rare opportunity to set a national standard for modern workforce reform—efficient, professional, future-ready, and fair. If we use this moment well, the benefits will go far beyond one organisation, strengthening Sri Lanka’s ability to retain technical talent while delivering reliable public services.
Note: This article is written in my personal/professional capacity. The views expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of CEB or any successor entity.
The Writer, Dhammike Wimalaratne, International Professional Engineer, Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka/National Level Advisory Committee Member, National Society of Professional Engineers – USA